Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 11 March 2008 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the session

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

  President. − I declare the 2008-2009 session of the European Parliament open.

2. Opening of the sitting

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

3. Statement by the President

  President. − Today we are commemorating the fourth European Day of the Victims of Terrorism. It is a day that we must keep in our memory in order to remember all those who have been the innocent victims of terrorism.

The terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004 –four years ago today – and in London on 7 July 2005 claimed many victims and left many families torn apart by the barbarities of terrorism.

Just last Friday, the terrorist organisation ETA assassinated again. Isaías Carrasco, a former Socialist councillor, was shot when he left his home in Mondragón. I wish to express our deepest condolences to all his family.
As President of the European Parliament and on my own behalf, I should like to reassure you that the victims of terrorism – wherever they are in the world – will never be erased from our memories. Today, we shall commemorate Isaías Carrasco and all the victims of terrorism, in order to assure the victims of the madness of terrorist attacks of our respect and our sympathy. They are and will always remain present in our hearts and in our work. Sympathy for and solidarity with all the families of the victims is a duty for all of us.

The European Parliament is actively involved in the fight against terrorism and in supporting the victims of terrorist attacks. I cannot repeat often enough that there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. We must therefore take a united approach in this fight on the basis of the rule of law and with all the force of the law.

Ladies and gentlemen, please rise from your seats for a minute’s silence in memory of the victims of terrorism.

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

4. Action taken on Parliament’s resolutions: see Minutes

5. Documents received: see Minutes

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

7. Annual policy strategy 2009 (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Commission statement on the annual policy strategy for 2009.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I am very pleased to present the Commission’s annual policy strategy for 2009, which sets out the main policy priorities envisaged by the Commission for next year.

As you know, the objective of the annual policy strategy is to spark a dialogue with the other institutions, in particular the European Parliament, on where the priorities should lie next year. This dialogue is essential to ensuring proper preparation of the Commission work programme for 2009.

2009 will be a special year, a transition year of great importance marked, I am confident, by the likely entry into force of the new European Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon. 2009 will also be symbolically very important because we will have a chance to celebrate 20 years of the march of freedom since the fall of the Berlin Wall, so it is a very important opportunity to commemorate freedom and the reunification of Europe.

It will also be the year of the election of a new European Parliament and a new Commission, so what we do in the first six months of 2009 will set the mood for the European elections. The smooth implementation of the Lisbon Treaty will ensure a European Union fit to tackle the challenges of the future. I hope and expect that we will see the finishing touches to the most ambitious system in the world to tackle climate change and promote energy security. And it is particularly important that we do it in the first half of 2009 at the latest, so that the European Union can be ready to make a decisive contribution to the global negotiations at the Copenhagen Conference at the end of that year.

But first a word on 2008. Given the institutional changes to come and, in particular, the end of the legislative term, the Commission has made every attempt to ensure that the new legislative proposals included in the 2008 work programme are scheduled for adoption by the College before the end of 2008. Thirty-five legislative initiatives are foreseen in the work programme. We will work hard to try to minimise those likely to come in the closing months of the year, such as the framework directive on consumer contractual rights, the review of the Energy Taxation Directive, and the directives on the conditions of entry and residence of seasonal workers and trainees. We will also make every effort to ensure that these proposals are presented according to the envisaged timetable to make this possible.

I very much hope that Parliament will be in a position to deliver its first-reading opinion on all the proposals flowing from the Commission work programme before the end of this parliamentary term.

I would like to underline that, as far as the Commission is concerned, we are fully on track to deliver all the strategic initiatives we have announced and, hence, to repeat our record performance of an implementation rate of 96%, which we achieved in 2007. It is the highest implementation rate ever in the work of the Commission.

As regards 2009, the Commission will stick to its ambition of delivering a Europe of results, bringing concrete benefits to citizens. We will focus on completing what has been started since the beginning of our mandate and make every effort to achieve the strategic objectives defined in 2005 and to address the challenges ahead. This will, of course, require close cooperation between Parliament and the Commission.

The entry into force of the Reform Treaty will also require the Commission to present a number of proposals to give force to its provisions, and I will highlight here those proposals that will promote greater democracy for, and greater participation by, Europe’s citizens, such as the citizens’ initiative. We look forward to discussing with Parliament in the coming weeks and months how we can best progress with these proposals in the first few months of next year.

The main policy priorities which the Commission envisages for next year are structured around five pillars. First, promoting sustainable growth and jobs will remain at the heart of our agenda and of the renewed Lisbon Strategy. We will also pursue the implementation of the innovation strategy, the deepening of the European Research Area and the follow-up to the single market review. In this context, I am looking forward to the second-reading adoption of the European Institute of Technology – one of our flagship actions – later today, and I would like to congratulate this House on the excellent job it has done on bringing this to fruition.

Major effort will be put into promoting the transition to a low-emissions and resource-efficient economy. The Copenhagen meeting will be a major rendezvous to reach a global climate change agreement for the period beyond 2012. Europe must prepare its ground well and maintain its role as the pioneer on climate change. Work on how to assist with adaptation to the impact of climate change will need to be pursued.

In an era of globalisation, we should strive to make a reality of the common immigration policy. Work in this area will draw on the communication on immigration to be presented in June 2008. We will also focus our attention on delivering policies of direct interest to citizens through a common area of justice, fashioning a European response to chemical, biological and radiological threats, the European Union health strategy and through enforcing food and product safety rules more vigorously.

The revised and modernised social agenda will also guide our actions in a comprehensive approach to enable Europeans to realise their potential and benefit from globalisation, and will cover mobility, integration, education and non-discrimination. The key concepts for this social agenda will be access, opportunities and solidarity.

Finally, we will pursue our objective of consolidating the role of Europe as a global partner. Enlargement negotiations will continue and the Western Balkans association and stabilisation process will be further developed. We will implement the neighbourhood policy and launch operational partnerships with African countries under the joint European Union-Africa strategy.

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will significantly raise the Union’s external profile. To translate this new framework into action, a major task for the Commission will be to help establish the European External Action Service – all this for 2009, if all the timetables, as we hope, are respected.

The year 2009 will also be an important year in terms of preparing the ground for the future financing of the Union’s policies. The results of the consultation now under way on the budget review will help us to prepare the ground for the next multiannual financial framework, to be proposed by the next Commission.

As in previous years, the APS proposes communication priorities for 2009. In the run-up to the European elections, the Commission will seek to maximise its work in partnership with the other institutions and to help spark a lively debate on European policies. The annual policy strategy is only the beginning of the process, leading to the adoption of the Commission’s legislative and work programme in October.

The Commission looks forward to regular dialogue with Parliament on the priorities to be taken forward in 2009. I understand that Parliament intends to adopt a plenary resolution on the Commission’s legislative and work programme in September, a couple of weeks before we adopt the work programme for 2009. This plenary resolution will follow on from the summary report reflecting the results of our regular dialogue. It should provide us with a fully-grounded, politically-backed indication of where Parliament thinks the Commission should focus its commitment and its policies in 2009, in good time for the drawing-up of the work programme, focusing on European added value and in full respect of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Therefore, my message to you today is that I am very much looking forward to this possibility of working with you on this very important programme for 2009. Let us work together to keep up the pace of action in 2009, so that Europe continues to deliver concrete results for the benefit of our citizens.

(Applause)

  Hartmut Nassauer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is producing its 2009 legislative programme from its strategic priorities of prosperity, solidarity, freedom, security and a stronger Europe in the world in a totally appropriate manner with our support, hence its priorities for 2009 of sustainable growth, jobs in an age of globalisation and a resource-efficient economic area with low CO2 emissions. These are the common denominators for legislative work in 2009 and, Commission President, I wish to assure you of the express support of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.

If I were now to make any additional comments of a critical nature, these would be misunderstood in translation. I wish to encourage you above all. What for? Firstly, next year is the year of the new Treaty. Secondly, it is election year, when the citizens will be talking to us. In your introduction you say what the new Treaty is about: were the national ratification processes to be concluded, the Treaty of Lisbon could also enter into force in 2009.

Commission President, why so aloof? Why does it not say: the Commission will be advocating this new Treaty with all its power and all its might, of which it is already as good a guardian as it is of the existing treaties? Nail your colours to the mast, Commission President! Lead the way!

Second point: next year citizens are being called upon and not every detail of the legislation is of interest to them, but only the overall achievement, the line taken. Here the trimming down of bureaucracy is in fact something by which you could secure the approval of citizens. Therefore, show a new culture of subsidiarity! Do not comb through the acquis until the end of 2009, but send out a signal before the election next year. Here, too, you have our support.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Nassauer, our Commission President is not so weak; he has already withstood many a criticism. However, I do believe, Commission President, that our common aim – when I listen to your speeches and read your interviews – is that in 2009 we shall also continue to expand a social and ecological Europe in a globalised world.

You know that the social aspects lie especially close to our hearts and you also know that we were particularly concerned, for example, about the conclusion of the European Court of Justice in connection with the Laval case. We hope that we – Parliament and you in the Commission – can work on this together so that citizens do not feel that the social successes we have achieved with some difficulty are being undone again by bogus quantitative competition. We stand by qualitative competition within Europe, competition that Europe, of course, has to drive, taking account of environmental concerns. The social element, however, is central for us as Social Democrats.

On the subject of the environment, I thank the Commission for its proposals, which are very forward-looking. Like you, we declare our faith in the sustainable development of this continent; sustainability for us also applies to Europe as an industrial base – one which has to adapt and take on ecological targets and for which there have to be obligations and incentives. Together we must work to ensure that industry and the economy have a major role in future in terms of production on this continent – in the interest of jobs – because the ecological targets are perfectly compatible with Europe as an industrial base. This is also a task that we must perform together.

We can perform this task only if we also persuade the other partners – the United States, China and India – to take on the same ecological targets. Moreover, we can perform it only if we also reach our neighbours, if we create a common policy with our neighbours. You know that we are not entirely happy with many of the strategies that have been developed.

With regard to the Balkans, for example, we recently proposed that, alongside the Lisbon process, there should also be what is referred to as the Ljubljana process with the Slovenian Presidency, to promote the economic and social development of this region, because the hatred and existing conflicts there can be resolved only if there is also sound economic and social development in the Balkans.

With regard to the Mediterranean Union – now on everybody’s lips, even on those of the Foreign Ministers – we want a clear position on this from the Commission. You have already hinted at this, Commission President, but you must constantly make it clear that we will not consider any union that does not embrace the entire European Union. It must be a community that does not cut straight through the European Union, but includes the European Union with the Mediterranean countries.

Similarly the debate should also surely be about the Black Sea region, and here we are also waiting for the Commission’s initiatives because it is not only about our Southern neighbours, of course; it is also about our Eastern neighbours. We cannot offer new memberships here either in the short term; that is not possible. However, we can offer to develop stronger cooperation, together with these countries, and we expect more Commission initiatives on this than have so far been included in the existing papers.

Commission President, you have commented that it is also an election year. It is an election year and hopefully the year in which the Reform Treaty will enter into force. We do not expect the Commission to interfere in the political debates of this election year, but we do expect a clear vision from the Commission of how this Europe is to function in future as an ecological and social Europe. We expect the Commission to make it clear that it has a strong voice – including in dialogue with our partners. Only when we speak to the United States, China, etc. with a strong voice will we be able to assert the interests of our citizens.

In an election year, we want a strong Commission with visions for the Europe of tomorrow!

  Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I think I should present the compliments of my group on the policy strategy that President Barroso has put forward for what, as he has said himself, will be an important and challenging year. The Commission has produced a strategy which is good in its political, financial and management content, and it has avoided what we sometimes call in my country ‘end-of-term-itis’.

Of course, we need to concentrate to some extent on the weaknesses but, having heard Mr Nassauer, I would perhaps call them differences in points of emphasis rather than weaknesses, if I may put it that way. Certainly, there is an issue about bridging the mandate gap. If I look at the internal market area, issues like the European patent, patient mobility and the European private company law project are all issues which will read across. President Barroso has perhaps mentioned one or two of them, but we need to make sure that they flow through in the next mandate, because they are all essential parts of the internal market. In that respect I would have perhaps expected to see more of a theme emerging with regard to the need for what I would call financial security for our citizens in a world where we know there is financial turbulence at the moment and where people feel uncertain about the future – perhaps more of a theme in that respect.

It is, of course, also the year of implementation of the Treaty and, whilst we can welcome, and I do welcome, the concentration in the document on the implementation theme – and I think that the idea of working with the Member States in future to ensure implementation of law across the board in a much more coordinated fashion is excellent – I would have preferred to see something in the document about that piece of legislation that will be so central to our citizens, the citizens’ initiative, but President Barroso stole my thunder by mentioning it this morning, so that is good. But it is central, and we need to make sure that the Commission brings forward the legislation to deal with that. Also, perhaps, some thought should be given to the relationship with national parliaments.

Then, briefly with regard to external relations, can we have some read across with regard to external relations, energy and climate change – all of those issues? We know the Commission is discussing them. They have a high priority, not only somewhere like the Arctic, but in other areas of the globe as well.

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (GA) Mr President and Vice-President of the Commission, I fully support the European Commission’s policy work programme for the coming year. This programme seeks to develop Europe's economic and political affairs. This policy work programme promotes Europe and prioritizes the interests of the people of Europe. I very much support the first policy of the programme; the promotion of employment and development in the European Union.

As we move into the year of the ratification of the Treaty, we who support the ratification of this Treaty by referendum in Ireland are hammering home the point of view that Europe must become more efficient, that it is essential that we recognise that the Treaties that were there for six, ten or fifteen countries no longer apply to a European Union of twenty-seven countries. In particular, we want to emphasise the necessity for greater innovation, research and technology towards creating the dynamic new economy for Europe in the 21st century.

In particular, I am delighted that the President of the Commission and the other Commissioners did not throw everything into the annual policy strategy 2009. It would be so easy to say that we are going to do so many things, but instead it has focused on key essential areas such as climate change, as has already been mentioned, and the issue of Europe as a world partner and as a world player – in particular when we look at the risks and dangers around the world that we face today, not just in the Middle East, not just in the Western Balkans, not just in Africa, but even in South America, where in the last week we have seen how tension can arise so quickly. What is really required is a stabilising force, which the European Union can provide on that world stage.

Finally, the European Union must fully uphold the action required with regard to combating illegal drug importation, people trafficking and in particular the diminution of respect for individual human lives. Please be assured that we, and my party Fianna Fáil in Ireland, will be campaigning strongly to guarantee the ratification of the Treaty to allow for the future development of Europe.

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commission President, ladies and gentlemen, with an annual strategy we have the choice of two paths. The first would be maximum clarity and consistency between statements and financial action. This would be particularly appropriate in an election year, because we are indeed promising that we will be – I quote –‘Putting the Citizen First’. Citizens are entitled to clarity.

The Commission, however, has unfortunately chosen the second path instead, namely to remain as general as possible in order to cover up opposition. First of all the context itself is interesting. We have to expect that the Treaty of Lisbon will be implemented. We are in an election year and we are in a year in which Europe has also very extensively committed itself internationally to climate protection. Unfortunately, words have so far been followed by far too few actions and this has not been made sufficiently clear in strategy either.

If we remain as hesitant about practical measures as we are about car emissions, for instance, then Europe’s credibility is at stake and we cannot afford this in the long run at international level in debates with our partners on the subject of climate protection. This is a negative example of our yielding to major lobbies, as with the implementation of the emissions trading system in air traffic, where we have also acted too hesitantly and not energetically enough and have therefore not managed to introduce the necessary measures for reducing climate damage caused by air traffic with the required efficiency.

There is also a conflict between the ambitious targets and the actual funding of research. When we talk on the one hand about new sources of energy, but on the other hand about still assigning the lion’s share of research funds to nuclear power, to the nuclear economy, this conflict cannot be resolved, nor should we then expect any sustainable solution, because there are no opportunities here whatsoever for investing in a truly concerted manner.

What I think this strategy lacks is a clear commitment to implementing Community law in the Member States. There are far too few mechanisms here; there is far too little regard for the law. In fact, the opposite is true: we are developing new plans before the old ones have been implemented. Here I would simply refer you back to the energy action plan.

If citizens are so important to us, as you rightly stress, then their grievances, among other things, as well as the new opportunity for a referendum, must be the focus of our attention in this House.

  Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, President of the Commission, we still have a practical work programme for 2009, on which we could comment. However, it is apparent that no major strategic changes can be expected to the Commission’s policy strategy in the coming year.

It reads: the Commission wants to improve its communications task, get the idea of Europe across and raise citizens’ awareness of the Treaty of Lisbon. Would a referendum on the Reform Treaty not be the right way to involve citizens in this process? Do you really believe the voter turnout will increase when you continue merely to state how marvellously current policy is working and that we must therefore simply continue to pursue the existing concepts?

What many people experience in real terms is less social security, stagnating wage levels, serious curtailment of employment rights, rising prices for basic services in local public transport, health provision, energy and water supplies, education and child care – all of this when the profits of large enterprises are rising at the same time as these enterprises are threatening to relocate. The Commission talks about the importance of lifelong learning for employability, the importance of flexicurity – so that I am frequently left wondering where security is hiding, when the Commission puts forward legislative proposals.

The Commission writes about the need to strengthen competitiveness and talks here again specifically of those who are already strong anyway, who are to be freed from taxes – in other words, social responsibility. You refer to it as administrative burdens. However, if we want to have social, ecological and consumer protection standards, these must also be agreed and implemented! Nowhere do I find in your strategy the idea that perhaps the overall concept of the Lisbon Strategy, the concept of liberalisation and privatisation, simply does not work in the interest of the majority of people in many instances, and quite specifically not in the public services sector.

The foreign policy and foreign trade sector emphasises Europe’s important role in the world in terms of peace, security and stability and talks about the priority of multilateralism and partnership. Your paper states that the Doha Development Round remains a top priority. However, it contains nothing that shows how the EU wishes to contribute to the success of the development round. Instead, emphasis is placed on the familiar regional and bilateral free trade agreements, which for this reason make hardly any headway because they just do not meet the requirements of developing and emergent countries.

Moreover, the Global Europe foreign trade strategy is purely a strategy for promoting foreign trade for European conglomerates, which care little about regional and sustainable economic, social and ecological developments in partner countries. It contains nothing about small and medium-sized enterprises, yet you wonder why states like China are fighting back with dumping measures. Indeed you even wanted to continue cancelling the largely inadequate anti-dumping instruments!

The Commission talks about improving operational and conflict management capability in third countries. After what has just been said, I would ask you: does it not make much more sense to fight the social, but definitely the economic, causes of crises and conflicts as well?

Change your strategy so that we can win citizens’ support for a European Union!

  Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I love coming here to the regulation factory. It is so amusing. I have just looked through the headings under the Commission’s annual policy strategy and it starts with ‘growth and jobs’. To be honest, this place would be very much better served to talk about growth and jobs if at least more than 1% of this Chamber had had any experience at all of commerce.

I am a businessman and I can understand growth and I can understand jobs. Sadly, the more you regulate, the more you legislate, the less likely you are to produce growth and jobs, which is why GDP growth in Europe is positively dire and it is taking off in the rest of the world – China, India, the subcontinent. We are even beaten by North America. So, I would suggest that if we want growth and jobs, we get out of people’s faces and let them get on with it, without interference from this place.

Sustainable Europe? Well, fascinating, is it not? We talk about the global footprint, we talk about all this sort of nonsense, despite the fact that the globe has not actually warmed for 10 years – the science is thrown out of the window. If anybody wants to take any serious look at global science and global warming and climate change, they will see that, actually, most informed, not politically-biased, scientists regard it as fact that we will actually have a colder planet by 2050, not a warmer one. But that does not suit our book, does it? Because we like to tax and we like to regulate.

Then we look at managed migration. Well, dear, oh dear. As an Englishman, I can tell you: managed migration? We have had a million people come into our tiny little overcrowded island in the last year. Please, please, please, will this place, just for once, get real!

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) In my opinion, things go badly wrong even at the very beginning of the introduction of the Commission’s annual policy strategy for 2009. I am talking about one of the main ideas put forward there, and I quote: ‘Putting the Citizen First’. This is adding insult to injury, as they say. After all, nowhere does the European Commission put European citizens first, nowhere does it show respect for them.

What is the European Commission? When all is said and done, it is little more than a body of politically appointed officials with extremely limited democratic legitimacy, belonging to the small circle of European mandarins who think they know better than citizens and believe it would be best if, supposedly in the public interest, they decided everything themselves, even over the heads of the citizens they purport to respect.

This is the democratic deficit about which everyone talks but no one does anything. If citizens really came first, the Commission would insist on consulting these citizens, particularly in the case of the most important issues currently on the table. When are citizens going to be allowed to give their opinion on the new, disguised European Constitution? The citizens of the Netherlands and France gave their opinion on it not long ago, but it is clear that the European Commission does not put those citizens first.

When are European citizens going to be allowed to give their opinion on the disastrous immigration policy being shoved down their throats by the European mandarins? When will these citizens be allowed to take their own decisions and enjoy respect for their opinions on vitally important matters such as the potential accession to our European Union of Turkey, an Islamic and in many respects, indeed all respects, non-European country? The only time the European Union puts citizens first is when it comes to their paying taxes for the European mandarins and the policies that these privileged persons force on them over their heads. That being the case, at least have the courage to say that Europe will never be a democratic entity.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, external action in 2009 should be marked by two fundamental facts: firstly the entry into force of the new Treaty which, on the one hand, establishes a new institutional framework in which, President of the Commission, Parliament will want to play its rightful role and, on the other hand, the External Action Service, which should, in our opinion, take up residence in the Commission and not be gobbled up by the Council.

Beyond this, the priorities presented by the Commission are correct: enlargement, relations with Russia on the basis of respect for human rights, and security of energy supply; the stabilisation and association policy in the Balkans and the case of Kosovo; the neighbourhood policy, with the Barcelona Process and the Mediterranean Union that will be presented by the French Presidency of the Union.

There is also the situation in Central Asia, with the conflicts in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr President, we will see the development of relations with China, India and the Asian countries, which are correctly set out in the Commission’s proposal; the situation in the Middle East, in which the European Parliament unconditionally supported the Commission’s proposal at the Paris Conference.

In addition, there is the strategic partnership with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific and, last but not least, relations with Latin America, regarding which we hope that conclusions will be reached at the Lima Summit in time for Association Agreements to be made with Mercosur, the Andean Community and Central America.

President of the Commission, we need serious, effective and viable external action by the European Union, which needs to speak with one voice in international organisations. We cannot allow ourselves to be an International Red Cross destined to carry the cost of major contemporary crises. The European Union needs to carry weight on the international stage as a global player, in line with its economic, commercial, financial and industrial weight. President of the Commission, you have our support for this programme.

  Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, here we are at last at the launch of the political priorities procedure for 2009. It is an important step because there will be many changes – a new parliamentary term, the establishment of the Treaty – and it also marks a new way of responding in Parliament to the Commission’s annual policy strategy, since we have decided that the political groups will speak rather than the Committee on Budgets.

The political choices of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are clear, and they have already been stated: they are for a social Europe. They want a Europe that is in favour of making the fight against climate change a priority; they also want a Europe that favours common external action. When I see that the Commission wants the EU’s contribution to security and stability on the international scene to be increased, I wonder: Where are we going to find the money? How are we going to make this pious wish a reality? If we continue along the same path, the Council will put us in an untenable position, as it does every year: that of choosing which area of the world to sacrifice.

A fourth priority for us is our citizens. What the Commission tells us is that citizens should be put first in 2009. It is high time, because our political project cannot go on being so remote from the people. We therefore need to improve all our exchanges, information and communication, but where are the funds for this? One thing is clear: budgetary resources are lacking! The margins available have already been spoken for and we in the Committee on Budgets do not know now how these priorities are going to be financed. We do not want to sacrifice the old priorities in order to implement new ones. What are you going to do? There is great urgency to lift Europe out of its budgetary and administrative muddle. The political world is changing very quickly and we in Europe are coming up with ideas, but we have never been able to adopt the resources needed to implement them pragmatically as regards the political expectations of Parliament, certainly, but also of our citizens.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Mr President, by the end of this year we will have two reports from the Commission on free movement: one on the free movement of workers – and I suppose the Commission will probably advise the Member States to lift the transitional arrangements applied to workers coming from the new Member States – and the other on the implementation of the Directive on free movement of citizens, and we may see a number of Member States being sent to the European Court of Justice in this regard.

All the fears that governed the transitional arrangements put in place with the 2004 enlargement are now starting to dissipate. No economic security or demographic reason remains for keeping the work restrictions for another five years. On the contrary, a free European labour market is what is needed to present Europe as a model, as a partner and as a world leader. We are regulating access to our labour market for third-country citizens. That is fair enough, and much appreciated. But, first, let us sort things out in our own back yard. Let us have a coherent and a common policy on the free movement of workers inside the Union.

If we are to be true to the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Treaties and if we are serious about making the Lisbon Strategy a reality, the time has come to put an end to verbal action and start real action.

Finally, I would add that, from the outset, this Commission was given a green light to address the fundamental rights of citizens, and I was looking forward to seeing something very specific on those issues in the plan for next year.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, 2009 represents a year of enlarged prospects for Europe, prospects that will be offered by the Lisbon Treaty. It is also a year of hope for deeper unity in Europe because of the new elections to the European Parliament.

As Mr Barroso mentioned, we shall celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. May I take this opportunity to remind you that it fell in Warsaw. This will also be the 5th anniversary of the accession of former communist states to the European Union. This accession has not always been entirely equable: Polish farmers are still competing on unequal terms with farmers in the old Union.

In spite of this it is my belief that 2009 will erase the differences between our countries, at least on a psychological level, and will increase the sense of unity and influence of the European Union.

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I will use my speech to propose a reform of the way we deal with the annual programmes. Until now the elected members of national parliaments and the European Parliament had no say. The annual programme is initiated and adopted by the non-elected in the Commission. Member States coordinate their priorities through the working programmes of the shifting presidencies. We discuss both; we amend nothing. We do not represent our voters in the very important agenda-setting function.

Instead, we should insist on one joint working programme for all institutions in the next year. The Commission could draft a detailed proposal with annexes of all proposals for laws they intend to propose, including their legal base. Then the national parliaments should deal with it in their sectoral committees for a first reading, then in their European committees and finally in their plenaries.

National parliaments should meet in COSAC and formally adopt the working programme. Parliament should have its own readings, and then the European Union would be governed bottom-up instead of top-down. It would be directed by elected representatives of our peoples instead of being governed by civil servants and lobbyists behind closed doors.

When the programme is adopted, the national parliaments could then start the reading of the concrete proposals for ‘subsidiarity and proportionality’ and decide the legal base. Then the European institutions could take over, and all laws could be passed – both in the Council, with the support of 75% of the Member States, and in the European Parliament, with the normal majority. Then Europe would be a democracy, instead of the mixture of the ideas of Machiavelli and Mussolini we build on today.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principal actions planned for 2009 can mainly be supported, as regards the growth and jobs provided for by the Lisbon Strategy. Certainly, there are points under the single market and competition of which I am in favour. There are also valuable points under the sustainable Europe heading.

Regrettably, the common visa policy should be completely rejected because, in my opinion, apart from being anti-national, it is completely outside the mandate of this Parliament and what our intentions should be. I am also entirely opposed to the enlargement to include Croatia and Turkey, as well as to the part that talks about Kosovo, regarding which I have already had occasion to criticise the flouting of international law that occurred when its independence from a sovereign state was recognised. For this reason, I will be voting against the policy strategy.

  László Surján (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, President of the Commission, we welcomed the Commission’s policy strategy in the hope that it would also be put into effect. There is one possible obstacle to this: fiscal constraint. This may make it difficult to undertake new things. Member States’ willingness to contribute has fallen to less than 1%, with the result that funds for new ideas will have to come almost exclusively from redistribution of existing resources. Let us not do this, however, without looking closely at the programmes currently running. Let us examine where we get more value for money, and where we get less. Let us not allow lobby groups to decide on our behalf.

As part of the reform of Parliament, a new type of cooperation is evolving between the specialist committees and the Committee on Budgets. One feature of this is that the rationale and usefulness of expenditures on individual programmes can be laid bare in more detail than before. Although it may be a painful decision, it is smarter to bring some programmes to an end, or not to begin them at all, rather than under-finance them. Scanty investment is a pointless waste of money. The Commission, the Council and Parliament need to act in concert to ensure that only programmes that can be adequately resourced and produce genuine results are allowed to run. Parliament looks towards this year’s policy strategy in readiness for concerted action of this sort. Thank you for your kind attention.

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, much has been said about foreign affairs in the Commission Communication, yet it leaves me feeling hungry for more. Heading 4 is of course underfunded. Unfortunately, we are indeed going to have to pay more for Palestine and Kosovo. However, that is an observation, not a strategy.

I would have liked to know, for example, what political conditions are necessary for aid to be effective; not just visible but effective. How could we use the financial instruments to make Europe a soft power that cannot be ignored, one that provides a democratic model and is not just a cash till? How are we going to use conditionality?

None of these questions, however key, is addressed. One example, and it is not the only one, is that never before have we paid so much money to Palestine, yet the people of Gaza have never been so poor since 1967, and violence continues to escalate in the Middle East, where we just keep rebuilding what has been destroyed.

What lesson can we learn from this? Until there is perfect coherence between European foreign policy and its financial instruments, with the latter at the service of the former and not the other way round, Europe will never be the global player it wants to be, and in this regard I find the Commission’s Communication singularly lacking in ambition.

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I assume that today we are holding a debate on policy strategy for the last time in this form because we are to have a new model in the Treaty of Lisbon. A plan is therefore already in place, at least here in this House, and I am already looking forward to this new model because it means that we can include the powers of the Council in this very important debate.

Please allow me, therefore, also to make a few comments for the last time from the point of view of budgetary control and to offer a few additional suggestions in keeping with the tone set by Mr Nassauer. We are currently holding extensive discussions with the Commission on the protection of the Community’s financial interests and the Commission has announced significant efforts in this regard. We would like to have seen whether these significant efforts – for which we are grateful and which we also need – would also find their way into the annual programme. The work you have promised to do would also have merited this.

We need new methods of retrieving the funds paid out illegally and we also need stronger cooperation between the Commission and the Member States. All this is an impressive programme from Mr Barroso’s Commission. Our advice would therefore have been to include this, too, in the Commission’s annual programme. It would have merited this and it would also reassure us that you think it is as important as you are now saying.

  Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, President of the Commission, Commissioner, as regards the European Union in the world, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament shares the Commission’s desire to continue the work begun in 2006 to improve the effectiveness of the way in which it cooperates. I recall in this regard that there are still very many areas being looked at, whether it is a question of the definition of development itself, coherence between different EU policies, coordination between donors or complementarity of actions.

As regards the economic partnership agreements, I would like to remind you that we European Socialists believe it is essential to consider them chiefly from the point of view of development, or in other words, from the point of view of their ability to improve the lives of people in the ACP countries significantly. It is essential that the Commission’s 2009 strategy is perfectly clear about this. This does not seem to be entirely the case at the moment.

We all know, moreover, that additional funds will be necessary to finance the accompanying measures aimed at compensating for the announced negative impact of the economic partnership agreements on what are – I should not have to remind you – the world’s poorest countries. We would hope that the Commission would say where these funds will come from.

We also regret that the Commission document does not contain any specific proposals for the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals prior to 2015. Is this through lack of ambition in this area or because 2009 will mark a radical shift in the paradigm of European development policy?

In the annex, the Commission’s note also refers to implementation of the first Action Plan of the Joint Africa/EU Strategy. We are delighted about this and are particularly keen that the Commission should really do everything it can so that the first actions to be taken as part of the new strategy meet the legitimate expectations of the millions of African men and women directly affected by the success of this strategy.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) As the coordinator of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats for regional policy, I have high hopes for 2009. Why is that? It is because implementation of these new programmes in all the regions, in all the Member States, has now been under way since 2007. What has transpired? Firstly, we can speak of new cohesion, and the funds are being spent to a greater degree than before on regions and cities, on the Lisbon Strategy, on growth and jobs. It has also transpired that we are performing better in the field of innovation, whilst investment in research and innovation has more than doubled.

Indeed, in Ljubljana last week Commissioners Hübner and Potočnik announced very good figures in this regard. Thus we can talk of a quiet revolution in the use of these funds – something that must be publicised. This presents an opportunity to greatly improve communication – to improve communication with citizens in 2009, which is also election year. This is made possible by the thousands of projects being implemented in the various fields of the economy and ecology. Failure to choose this very regional policy, this new cohesion policy, as the spearhead of communication with citizens would be a missed opportunity for the Union.

  Göran Färm (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, as a Swedish Member with a background in the trade union movement, I would like to begin by endorsing what Hannes Swoboda said: if we are to avoid criticism of the Laval judgment turning against the Treaty, the Commission must make it clear that a free market in services is not a threat to the right of the trade union movement to take action against social dumping. I just wanted to point that out, since it is relevant in this connection.

When it comes to the policy strategy for 2009, it is clear that we must seriously begin to discuss the mid-term review of the long-term budget. In some areas, however, I do not think we can wait; we must make a start on changing priorities right now, in the budget for 2009.

I am thinking in particular of two areas. The first one is climate. As rapporteur for the budget in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I do not think it is enough to recognise that climate is a political priority. That recognition must also have effects on budget priorities. We must show that we are actually prepared to make concrete European contributions, even if they cost money. That may mean addressing concrete situations when it comes to modern energy and environmental technology. It may mean changing the use of the structural funds or the Seventh Framework Programme, but there is much that needs to be done.

The second area I want to mention is the Western Balkans, especially Kosovo. Against the background of the new situation, we must quite simply develop a long-term strategy for our work in the Western Balkans. It is unreasonable to have such a rigid budget model that the tightest budget margins are in precisely those areas where the needs are greatest.

  Lutz Goepel (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the Commission is planning the successful introduction of the health check in the agricultural sector for 2009. As rapporteur on the own-initiative report, I am assuming that with tomorrow’s vote, the Commission will have a much better idea of Parliament’s position on this matter and I expect that this position will be taken into account in the legislative proposal we are expecting in May.

I welcome the fact that the Commission is making a special effort to promote the concept of quality in agricultural production, particularly with its confirmation of what is referred to as the 2009 Green Paper. We are of the opinion that the value added through high-quality standards will become an increasingly important starting point for our farmers, even with regard to increasing competition from imports.

I have also noted that the Commission will be putting forward new proposals on the subjects of food safety, animal welfare and health, together with better supervision and better rules. I appeal to the Commission to be reasonable. Our farmers cannot be confronted with more regulations if, at the same time, imports from third countries are not subject to these regulations.

Mr President, the Commission intends to put forward a raft of proposals in 2009 for reducing the administrative burden that will change nothing in the level of demand for existing regulations or the political specifications. I very much hope that this will apply to our farmers, particularly with regard to the cross-compliance rules.

I believe an important subject is missing in the annual policy strategy, and this is the issue of food supply. The Commission has often used the term but our citizens must have a secure undertaking as to how they can organise continued supply.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, as coordinator of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the Committee on Fisheries I would like to make the following comments on the Common Fisheries Policy.

Firstly, with regard to the Key Actions envisaged for 2009, and those under item 2 of the Annex on sustainable development, we can see that fisheries policy is incorporated into the integrated maritime policy, something that our Group does not agree with. While it is true that some aspects of the CFP are part of the maritime policy, so are some aspects of the transport policy, for example, but this does not mean that it is subsumed or hijacked under this heading.

Secondly, with regard to the changes in the allocation of financial resources and, in particular, with regard to heading 2, ‘Preservation and management of natural resources’, we do not agree that the EUR 6 million required to fund the preparatory action for the maritime policy should have to come from the already small budget for the CFP, especially given that at this point in the budgetary year there is no way of knowing what volume of outstanding appropriations could be made available for other uses.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, let me offer the Commission two promises, for a change, from Parliament. One is that we will work with it on the package on climate change to get an effective and workable package in place as quickly as we can. The second is that we will work to put in place, as quickly as possible, the new Commissioner for Health and, in so saying, let me ask the Vice-President to send our good wishes to Mr Kyprianou and thank him for what he achieved during his time with us.

Thirdly, let me say that the reference to health in this is remarkably thin. It is true it talks about medical devices and other measures. However, I want to see the other measures, including that cross-border health promise, because if we do not have that in place quickly, then the courts will go on making policy for us in this area, and that is our job as politicians. So, please make sure that comes through as quickly as the very welcome proposal that is coming, I know, on mental health.

  Maria Martens (PPE-DE). – (NL) I am speaking now as coordinator of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats for the Committee on Development. I should like to compliment the Commission on its intention to put the broad strategic objectives, such as prosperity, solidarity and security, at the centre of its activities in the long term. I find it regrettable, however, that little attention is paid to development cooperation and poverty reduction. After all, these are also very important aspects of a strong, prosperous Europe.

In 2007 we established a Joint EU/Africa Strategy for the first time in history – a milestone. The implementation of the eight thematic partnerships has yet to get off the ground, however. We look forward to seeing tangible progress on this score.

Finally, I have to get one more thing off my chest. European Commissioners are involving themselves increasingly often in national political campaigns. This started with the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid. I am concerned about the leadership vacuum arising as a result in crucial European policy areas. My question to the Commission is whether it is prepared to draw up rules to ensure that, after the elections, the office of European Commissioner will be exercised without interruptions for national election campaigns.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the annual policy strategy paper is dramatically silent on one of the most vital issues for Europe’s future: external energy security policy. Our House, by an overwhelming majority, adopted the report recognising the need for an urgent energy supply security policy. Since then, the situation has worsened, and we are looking at an increase in dependency, coupled with lack of progress in reducing it. For example, the Nabucco Project – the diversification flagship of the EU, identified in 2007 by the European Council as one of the most critical projects of European interest – is, according to some, seriously threatened, if not dead.

Europe needs its common energy security policy now. This should be reflected in the 2009 policy strategy of the Commission. It is not, I deeply regret. The whole strategy must not be short-sighted.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, priorities for 2009: priorities are credible if we are able to point out how we have dealt with past priorities in a serious and efficient manner that citizens can understand. I should therefore also like to ask you, even in the election year of 2009, to take stock of which of the priorities of recent years were practical and implemented, and to involve citizens in developing a communications strategy on this.

Secondly, reducing bureaucracy is a permanent priority, generating confidence among citizens, as well as among small and medium-sized enterprises. I miss the Small Business Act. Please build up confidence so that we can also increase voter participation in the EP elections in 2009. This, too, must be a political priority!

(Applause)

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I welcome this statement. But I want to draw attention in particular – and I would like some answers – in relation to page 18 and one of the key actions in relation to ‘the wider world’: ‘If appropriate, implementation of the Doha Development Agreement’.

Well, my concern is that there is a rush to do a deal, but that the only pain will be on the agriculture side of the agreement and that there will be no gain for Europe in terms of non-agricultural market access or services. I would like some information because I believe that we are being kept in the dark about this. Citizens in my constituency were at my door all weekend expressing their concern about 70% tariff cuts on beef and dairy which will decimate agriculture and dump the common agricultural policy which we hold dear in this House.

This issue is part of the debate on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. I wish it was not but I would like some firm comments from the Vice-President of the Commission to reassure my constituents that they will not be sold out.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, all the signs indicate that 2009 will be a year of opportunities. One of the most positive results of finding a way out of the institutional impasse is the chance to direct our energies towards other subjects, which will enable us to concentrate more on policies.

For several years we have been discussing globalisation, climate change, insufficient security at our borders and instability in neighbouring countries. For decades we have been thinking about the challenge of the emergence of new economies and about Africa’s new role in the world. It is important to theorise about major challenges and appropriate responses, but Europe cannot be a mere spectator, albeit an interactive one, as the changes take place. Europe must play an active role, be a factor for reform, a catalyst for development.

The various political priorities indicated by the European Commission, Madam Vice-President, include communication. There is no better communication policy than to confirm the results achieved. Europe’s importance and relevance for its citizens must be perceived, felt and recognised. That is the way to win their confidence, the citizens’ confidence, and to bring to our citizens what is required of us.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, I would like to draw attention to two matters. The first relates to strengthening the new forms of cooperation; on the one hand we need to strengthen cooperation between the Member States and the European Union, and on the other reinforce cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and in connection with this we need to produce positive examples representing real results.

The other important issue in this context is always a key issue as far as the European Socialists are concerned, namely the issue of social Europe, in other words ensuring welfare, solidarity and security, which we tend to refer to simply as ‘social Europe’, and achieving the Lisbon objectives as soon as possible. In this regard I would like to highlight the fact that very little attention has been given in this programme to the situation of women, although in the majority of Member States it is women whose social security is limited, and the spread of precarious forms of employment is on the increase. I would therefore like special attention to be given to these two areas in 2009. Thank you very much.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I would like to contribute to the discussion by pointing out that in the context of all policies there should be a more clearly defined space for small and medium enterprises, which represent the backbone of Europe’s employment stability. Much still needs to be done, especially in new Member States’ parliaments, where the concept of flexicurity − a flexible labour market − is still to be put into practice so that companies can react better to new challenges and be able to offer a greater number of new positions.

Moreover, our motto should be to give priority to the small, but when it comes to individual directives and regulations, the Commission’s analysis of their impact on small enterprises is lacking. We do usually have, on the other hand, impact studies prepared by supranational companies. I welcome the proposed Small Businesses Act and I trust that we will move beyond the stage of ideas so that in the European elections we will be able to say to the European citizens that we have fulfilled our objective of achieving a more effective and secure economic area.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) In 2009 the make-up of both Parliament and the Commission will change; nevertheless, the continuity of work will be maintained. I would like to emphasise the importance of the common energy policy. Since 2006, we have been discussing the issue of EU common energy policy, and Parliament has outlined the dimension of the external energy policy.

This policy is currently of great importance in view of our efforts to procure gas from various sources, and since it is the key topic of various discussions, such as those on new energy sources, the Arctic, etc., it will continue to be relevant in the future. The European Union should not be the last to discover and make use of new energy sources, as is usually the case.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I want to thank all of the Members for their contributions to the debate. I think that, together with the resolution that you will adopt and the dialogue with committees and respective Commissioners, this will provide a very good political input into the work programme for next year. This is what I have always argued for: a more political approach to the APS.

I would like to comment on a few issues that have been raised here, which I think are very important.

First, concerning the Lisbon Treaty: as you know, the Commission is fully committed to this new Lisbon Treaty; we are fully committed to its implementation, and we are preparing – not anticipating, but preparing – to be ready for implementation as from early next year. We are focusing, for example, on the citizens’ initiative, mentioned by several speakers; the implementation of the new provisions for working with national parliaments; the accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, and also the external action service, just to mention a few of the things that need good preparation without anticipating. This is the balance we will have to strike. I hope there are no doubts about our commitment to the Lisbon Treaty.

We also engage – and this is very important – in the communication and information activities concerning this new Treaty because, regardless of the method of ratification, we have a democratic obligation to engage with citizens by informing them, by listening, and also by explaining what we are doing and the content of this new Treaty.

Regarding the political agenda and the balance between the social and economic agendas, also mentioned by several speakers, I think that this is a very important debate, and these are precisely the questions we will have to take through the dialogue with the committees. Clearly, there are different emphases and priorities here on the different sides of this House. I think this has to be dealt with in the resolution, which we look forward to; the results will be in the legislative and work programme in the autumn. This is where I think we have to focus much of our attention on this political debate.

I would also like to comment on a question raised by Mr Bonde. I am afraid I do not understand what he is saying, because for some time we have been sending our documents and proposals to the national parliaments. This has been a very good exercise and has been very much appreciated by the national parliaments. We have learned a lot from it, and it has increased the understanding of what goes on at European level in the European institutions at national level. This is also good practice for what will come in the new Treaty; not only that, we have also engaged in a dialogue with national parliaments on the annual policy strategy and on our work programme, and we have been asked to go there to explain and answer questions that the national parliamentarians have had concerning our plans and work programme. I think this has helped us a lot: we have learned from it, and national parliaments have an opportunity to anchor better and explain better what happens at European level. Therefore, I really hope that this will be a good experience for us. To engage the national parliaments in this is not lobbying; rather, it is shaping the European agenda. This means more democracy, I would say.

Finally, concerning the financing: you will be having this discussion separately, because this is part of the problem – we already have a financial framework until 2013, and we are all facing the limits of the financial frameworks. After 2009 we will have no additional human resources, so we will be careful to tell you not to ask us to do a lot of new things, because we will not have the manpower to deal with it. We have to realise that we are conducting this debate on the financial framework separately.

I also want to say to Ms Gräßle that, in the area of structural funds, the Commission has recently adopted a very ambitious action plan to ensure the integrity of the money spent in this domain. Together with the Member States, which, as you know, spend the money on the ground, the Commission intends to undertake all the necessary controls to ensure that every euro spent is well spent. We will regularly report on this to the Committee on Budgetary Control; this is our definite objective with the control of the money that we spend.

Finally, let me say that we can together focus on the communication priorities, because 2009 will also be a very important year in making sure we have a lively debate before the elections in 2009. As you know, the communication priorities for 2009 focus on the Lisbon Treaty. In the first chapter of this annual policy strategy, the Small Business Act is mentioned. This is part of the Lisbon Strategy and our review of the Lisbon Strategy: to focus also on exactly the things that you have mentioned. I think they are indeed very important.

We will deliver results from the Lisbon Treaty. We will be reforming the budget, we will focus on growth and jobs, and we will have energy and climate change. This will guide many of our communication priorities, and we hope for a lively debate on this European policy.

Finally, let me also draw your attention to the proposal to have an interinstitutional agreement on communication. We hope this will provide a much better framework for our work together in this field, so thank you again for the debate. We will have a follow-up on all of this and also the details that you have mentioned, which I think belong more to the dialogue between committees and Commissioners.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place during a later sitting.

Written declarations (Article 142)

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) I read the Commission’s annual policy strategy for 2009 with great care. In view of the fact that problems concerning small and medium-sized enterprises and the economic context of integration are of particular interest to me, I shall take the liberty of referring to several important points that are contained in the strategy.

We need to look at the European SME sector from a different angle. We must give it back its priority significance and open up the development potential due to it. In the document in question I was very pleased to read that the Commission is continuing to prioritise the removal of unnecessary barriers that hold back the development of SMEs. It also considers it important to undertake to continue work on the European Charter for Small Enterprises, through which I hope we shall learn to think first and foremost along the lines of what would benefit these smallest units before we seek to fit them into the global context.

It is very important to promote and support an innovation strategy, and to show due appreciation for the need for cooperation between scientific centres and businesses. The section in which the document talks of the priority role of the Union’s citizens, treated as consumers, is of equal importance. There is a clear need for improvement in the way we inform and communicate with the public. When I talk to voters I notice a general lack of knowledge among them about how the Union functions and about the benefits that all citizens derive from it. It is important to send out a clear message to citizens on the matters they hold dear; the European Union must become an entity that our citizens feel is close to them, friendly and easy to understand, be they consumers, business people or both.

8. European Institute of Innovation and Technology (debate)

  President. − The next item is the recommendation for second reading by Reino Paasilinna, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (15647/1/2007 - C6-0035/2008 – 2006/0197(COD) (A6-0041/2008).

  Reino Paasilinna, rapporteur. − (FI) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you all for your excellent levels of cooperation. In our work that is always vital in order to achieve a good result.

There has been talk about setting up an Institute of Innovation and Technology for almost three years now, and time has passed because the Commission’s original proposal has needed a good number of improvements made to it. Parliament’s committees, especially the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, have given the proposal a new look. Parliament and the Council have been guaranteed greater powers without, however, endangering the EIT’s autonomy. The election of its governing board is more closely reminiscent of the election system employed with the European Research Council, which the scientific world has commended. As someone just said, it has also been confirmed that small and medium-sized enterprises will be able to participate in the work of the EIT and enjoy its benefits. These are where the impact on employment will be greatest and it is precisely these which have the flexibility and efficiency needed for the swift implementation of innovations.

Above all, it is the Institute’s priorities that have changed. The European Institute of Innovation and Technology, as its name suggests, is to focus on innovation. The two other elements in the knowledge triangle, education and research, are important, but innovation clearly represents the triangle’s apex; it is its point of focus and its main objective. We will need to invest in quality education and basic research in the future but, as we all know, innovation is Europe’s Achilles heel.

The Americans file over a third more patent applications with the European Patent Office than the Europeans themselves. We need more knowledge-intensive products and services.

In 10 years China has increased its share of GNP spent on research and development from around zero to a current level of one and a half per cent. In as many as 17 EU Member States the share is lower than in China. The share of the EU’s GNP accounted for by investment in research and development is still significantly lower than that of the other world economic powers.

More alarming still is the fact that here we have seen our share of investment decline, not rise, in recent years. More or less as bad is the state of venture capital. The Lisbon Strategy calls for a dynamic approach. Why do we not have faith in our own schemes? High levels of education and research produce far too few commercial and functional applications, or at least they are put into effect less often than in competitor countries. Our patent system is also complicated. Should the brain drain not be a serious matter for a Union aiming to be the world’s leading knowledge-based economy?

The EIT will not eliminate these problems, but it may ease them through the example it sets. It will provide the business sector with a new kind of link to cooperation in education and research. It will create opportunities for the commercial exploitation of research, and it will establish closer bilateral ties. The EIT will not become a super university which keeps the best researchers for itself; Parliament’s amendments guarantee that. After the initial problems which emerged with funding, the situation is now clear. One of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities I have proposed will concentrate on information and communications technology. We are already receiving significant amounts of money from the business world for it. Funding is therefore not a problem. Investigations and trials alone are not enough: we need cooperation, and for that purpose the EIT has been established.

The excellent compromise reached with the Council is such a favourable one that we can state we are in favour of it, and I would therefore ask everyone to show their support for it in the vote which is to start soon. I thank you all.

(Applause)

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am really happy – and that is not just a diplomatic phrase – to be here today to speak on the occasion of this opportunity to boost Europe’s innovations. I think that Parliament’s vote will be very important.

As Mr Paasilinna mentioned, we have come a long way since the beginning, but I would just like to remind the House that there was a lot of scepticism, reluctance and hesitation about the proposal to boost innovation by such an establishment and I am glad that we have been able to shift these original positions into a consensual and supportive position on the part of Member States, Parliament, the Institutions and partners. I recall the efforts of the Finnish, then the German, Portuguese and now the Slovenian Presidencies. In particular I would like to express gratitude here to Parliament’s rapporteur, Mr Paasilinna, because he was very instrumental and supportive, and also to the chairwoman of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Ms Niebler, as well as Mr Böge, the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, and the rapporteur of the Committee on Culture and Education, Ms Hennicot-Schoepges. Without these efforts and contributions we would not have been able to arrive at this moment.

I think this is an opportunity to show that Europe has the capacity and also a strong commitment to improving its innovation capacity in the globalised world. Technological innovation is the key to growth, jobs and competitiveness, and this is the basis for the social wellbeing of our citizens. We are proposing to fully integrate the three sides of the knowledge triangle – education, research and innovation – by the cooperation of partners from business, research and academia. These will work together in so-called knowledge and innovation communities.

I think that now is the time to set the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) into motion after all the preparations. We have already taken some steps, as you know, and I have informed the committee that we have launched a procedure for the identification of the governing board. There is a special high-calibre, independent identification committee which is now preparing criteria. We will then try to set up a group of 18 persons to start as the governing board. The identification committee works totally independently and autonomously. I think this is essential for the success of the EIT and the legitimacy of the governing board.

Parliament and the Council will be kept fully informed of the selection procedure and the outcome. The Commission will draw up an interim report after completion of the first step of the selection procedure and a final report once the procedure is finished. Parliament and the Council will then have one month to take note of the proposed members of the EIT governing board. Their excellence, their undisputed reputation, total independence and ability to represent their interests from the sectors they represent – universities, research and business – will, I think, be an essential ingredient for the credibility of the Institute in the short and the long term.

Allow me to underline an element of the utmost importance. I would like to formally state that the European Commission is fully committed to respecting the principles of the autonomy and independence of the board, which are enshrined in the regulation, and it will not have any role in the EIT’s strategic decision-making. On this basis the Commission will provide administrative and financial support to the board at its request and to the extent that is necessary in the kick-off stage. There must be some assistance at the beginning.

Such support is intended to enable the board to select the first Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) within the 18-month deadline and will in no way pre-empt its strategic decision-making. It is in our common interest to see the EIT operational within the timeframe foreseen in the regulation. I am really looking forward to the successful establishment of the EIT and once again I would like to express my deep gratitude for Parliament’s commitment and contribution.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  Romana Jordan Cizelj, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SL) Three years have already passed since the idea of establishing a European Institute of Innovation and Technology was first aired. However, awareness of the fact that the key to greater competitiveness and innovation is appropriate care for the quality of human resources goes back much further. The EIT offers a solution to this problem at European level.

The foundations are already in place. Now is the time for speedy and effective implementation of the agreed measures. I would like to thank the MEPs, the rapporteur and especially the members of my parliamentary group for enabling us to reach agreements and, in cooperation with the Commission and the Council, to prepare a good proposal containing most of our principal ideas.

Innovation is at the heart of the EIT. Furthermore, our initiative has enabled the Institute to become a symbol of excellence and a recognisable mark of European quality. One great achievement is the network structure of independent Knowledge and Innovation Communities, mentioned in the current proposal. We have also been successful in finding a solution to the complex and complicated issue of the operational organisation of the Institute.

The current proposal offers a solution in the form of a strategic innovation programme that optimises the balance between responsibility for policy and independence of the specialists, and clearly defines the competences for long-term strategic planning.

We can do a lot with the financial resources mentioned earlier. The starting points are good, but effective implementation depends as usual on us and our will and persistence.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to apologise at the outset that I have to leave after my speech because I have to be at a meeting with President Pöttering. I should like to thank my colleague Mr Paasilinna most sincerely for his commitment to this matter, and also the Commissioner, who has always strongly supported this.

I actually do believe that this EIT is an important European instrument. Mr Paasilinna has already stated this: we spend too little in Europe on research and development and we spend too little on excellence in research. In Europe as a whole, as in most countries – at least in most of the Member States – it could, should and must be more. The EIT is not exactly a competitive institution, but it should be driving this research, it should be creating new initiatives. I am thinking, for example, of how important it is in the energy sector alone that we make greater efforts in research to develop new energy technologies.

Because it is so important, I would ask the Commissioner to insist that the necessary decisions are made quickly. One decision, of course, relates to the headquarters of the administrative office. As someone who hails from Vienna, and as an Austrian, I would naturally want the headquarters to be in Vienna. Whatever decision is made, however, it should be made quickly so that the EIT can start work soon.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, first of all my sincere congratulations to Reino Paasilinna, our rapporteur, as well as to Commissioner Figeľ. That we carried this off here in such a short time was truly a crowning achievement! The rapporteur has been diligent and circumspect and has very much included us all.

I should also like, however, to offer very particular congratulations here to the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso. We must indeed be very clear that this project was his own initiative in January 2005. We have got it up and running in three years. That is awesome. We are fast in Europe and this, it must be said at least once at this point, is a crowning achievement by us. It took only three years, although it was indeed a critical subject. We have to get involved through education. Education lies at the heart of cultural and educational sovereignty in the Länder of Germany, the country I know best and of course, the Member States are keeping a close eye on it.

We have nevertheless managed to wangle a compromise. I refer to the finances. We wrestled for a long time over the question of where the money should actually come from. In addition, we managed to set the EU budget at the first attempt from beginning to end. In the past it was just: subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. You are familiar with the debates. Now, though, for the first time, it is: innovation instead of subsidy! That is awesome! I should like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development very specifically, because they had to agree to and then make compromises here.

We have also been able to resolve disputes very quickly, such as the issues of how independent the EIT should be, how long the pilot phases should last, what the EIT’s relationship should be to the Seventh Research Framework Programme, cannibalisation and even what is referred to as the ‘EIT label’, i.e. the issue of whether everything should be shown on this label when a project is launched under an EIT flag. We have resolved all of this.

Now to implementation. At present – as Commissioner Figel’ has said – the Governing Board is being prepared, and the European Parliament (thank you for including us) will be considering who will be sitting on the Board, because we regard this as very, very important.

The subjects will also have to be selected, however. Mr Swoboda has just been addressing the subject of energy. In fact we should be focussing on Europe’s overall response to climate change as well as managing the EIT and therefore, for example, the issue of energy efficiency etc. However, we must also talk about the location. I still regard Strasbourg as a choice location. This has never been raised so clearly before, but we do have to address it once and for all. This building is a choice location for an EIT and for a European Research Council. Strasbourg could become ‘Scienceburg’, and we should all be taking up this cause.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, it is fortunate that today we are completing the legislative work involved in setting up the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. The sitting of the Governing Board and the Knowledge and Innovation Communities will be the next step towards a common market in knowledge in the European Union.

During his recent visit to Poland, Commissioner Verheugen repeated that the inclusion of the new Member States in the structures of the common market had strengthened its potential and had been a success for all parties. I would strongly appeal for this positive experience to serve as a pointer for us in this matter too.

Locating the Institute’s Board in Wrocław will be a step that brings benefits in terms of cohesion in Europe. It will make it easier to gain support from the new countries for an increase in funding for research and development in the forthcoming Union budget. Ultimately it will release innovation potential throughout Europe.

Support for Wrocław’s candidature is not just a matter of parochial self-centredness; it is a natural consequence of reasoning aimed at serving the interests of the whole of the European Union.

  Miloslav Ransdorf, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) I would like to say that since Kondratiev’s long wave theory it has been known that creating innovation and implementing innovation in society is an objective process, a process with its own specific and objective patterns. As people who are active in the political arena we can promote innovation. I personally believe that as far as institutions go, the EIT is more important for the future of Europe than, for example, the European Commission. I believe that there are three fundamental things that can help raise awareness in society of the importance of science and make it more popular.

Firstly, scientists should be seen as role models in society. It is vital that scientists such as Mr Holý, an outstanding Czech chemist with dozens of patents to his name, be presented as a model of values for young people rather than sportsmen or singers. Therefore, we should strive to achieve – to use a sort of slogan – a new ‘value pattern’.

Secondly, we should aim to achieve a renewed ‘value leadership’. Europe has given the world more outstanding scholars than all the other continents combined. The value of scientific endeavour has always been fundamental for Europeans. We should make every effort to ensure that Europe regains its leading position in this respect.

Thirdly, we also need what I would like to call a ‘pioneering spirit’, which would show Europe the way forward.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, World Intellectual Property Organisation figures clearly show that Europe’s problem is not a lack of new ideas; what is missing is their transformation into business opportunities.

It will not be the European Institute of Innovation and Technology that will ensure success in a global economy. Innovative competitiveness will be helped only through a greater availability of funds, including risk capital, and by a creative environment and a true academic and entrepreneurial freedom along with an appropriate reward system for outstanding scientific results.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am fundamentally against the establishment of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. It will not guarantee the EU a competitive advantage. It will be only be a superfluous structure, duplicating structures that already exist for the promotion of science, development and education. It will be yet another place that will gobble up the taxpayers’ money without any value added.

Moreover, it threatens to follow the failure of the Galileo system. The private sector, whose money the Commission and the Council are relying upon, does not see why it should finance a senseless dream of politicians and officials.

  Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, please forgive me that I was not able to be here at the start of the debate. The previous speaker has just been speaking about Galileo. I had to lead the negotiations on the Galileo trialogue and was therefore late.

My thanks go first of all, of course, to our rapporteur, Mr Paasilinna, who has carried out outstanding work together with his shadow rapporteur. My thanks, however, also go to Commissioner Figel’, who has been heavily involved in the consultations so that today we are now able to vote on a report that will also find broad acceptance amongst us in Parliament.

Three years ago we began our debate with the question: do we need a European Institute for Innovation and Technology? I say very firmly: yes, we do need this Institute. We have backlog demand in the transfer of technology. We have excellent scientists and researchers in all 27 countries. What we do not have, however, is the conversion of the excellent results from research into marketable products and services. The Institute of Technology – the Institute of Innovation – should be making its contribution to this.

The Commission’s proposal currently goes some way towards building a new Institute in isolation. We in Parliament have said no, we do not want that! We want to build a network structure that integrates businesses, universities and research institutes in Europe. We have created this with our report. I hope for broad agreement. We are on the right path here.

It was also good that during our debates we did not discuss the location. Otherwise, Mr Chatzimarkakis, we would not be ready today, nor would we be able to complete this project, and in five years’ time we would probably still be debating whether we needed an Institute of Technology.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – Mr President, science and technology are our real chances to get with the global competition. For many centuries, our continent has been the centre of scientific and technological development, and European science has always been international. There has been an intensive exchange of ideas and visits by scientists, even in the times of the Iron Curtain, and the scientific community is almost borderless these days.

Setting up the European Institute of Innovation and Technology is an important step to keep on with this ancient tradition of our continent. I highly welcome it and, of course, I welcome the excellent report by my colleague Mr Paasilinna.

On behalf of my Government, nation and scientists, I offer Budapest as a seat for the EIT headquarters. Our achievements in life sciences, in the combat against climate change and in environmental studies are the best arguments. But my home city, Budapest, could provide a pleasant and exciting atmosphere as well.

  Lena Ek (ALDE). – Mr President, we want a Europe that is competitive, environmentally friendly and socially responsible. However, there is tough competition in the world market, and to be able to participate in this competition we need European projects and we need to pool our resources, like the US did when it decided to put a man on the moon. I think that the European Institute of Innovation and Technology can be our platform for a ‘putting-a-man-on-the-moon’ project, meaning the connection between excellent researchers and the pooling of our resources.

The areas defined so far, like climate change and telecom, are areas that have importance for Europe and for European competitiveness and how we can have this future for Europe that we so much need for the European citizens. I think that the change where we guarantee academic training is extremely important.

Finally, I would like to support Mr Chatzimarkakis in his wish to use the premises we already have.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, in just three months’ time the decision will be taken on which European city will become the headquarters of the Governing Board of the European Institute of Technology.

This decision will be both political and based on fact. In order to try to even the odds between the old and the new Union, a conglomerate of countries that have recently joined the European Union will appear. Based on the facts, yet not forgetting the political criterion I mentioned, I feel that the perfect, ideal centre would appear to be the Polish city of Wrocław, whose history has been created over the centuries, in part by the Czechs, Austrians, Jews and Germans, as well as the Poles.

The arguments in favour of Wrocław are: its considerable intellectual potential; the fact that it is already a strong academic centre; the large concentration of capital and major companies, including foreign companies, in the Lower Silesian region, which could become partners for the EIT; and finally the close proximity of two other EU Member States: Germany and the Czech Republic. A number of Nobel Prize laureates in various disciplines have originated from Wrocław. The city is currently engaged in very well-developed scientific cooperation with many educational institutions and scientific centres throughout Europe and beyond.

I believe that a decision to settle on Wrocław as the headquarters for the Governing Board of the European Institute of Technology would be optimal as regards harmonious scientific and technical development in the EU, which must do away with the divisions between the old and the new Europe.

  Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, there are naturally certain consequences of having one’s speaking time restricted to just one minute. I must, for example, leave out the subject of funding. The cement for the programme discussions, for which much credit is due to the rapporteur, was the idea of innovation, which is to become a reality through the knowledge communities. My country, which is not concealing its direct interest in the idea of setting up the Institute, sees an opportunity for the communities to function through a shrewdly conceived bond with the Institute, though with no limitation on their wide-reaching independence.

Government organisations understandably place emphasis on the practical virtues of the communities, treating them as a kind of uplifting force for the triangles of knowledge: education, research and industry. At the same time they confirm the willingness of European research centres to set up communities that begin by concentrating on three sectors: renewable energy, climate change and information technology. It is my duty as an MEP, though I derive a certain satisfaction from performing it, to affirm that the city of Wrocław, well known as a centre of science in Poland, has a claim to being somewhere special in this regard.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Paasilinna on arriving at a good agreement on an issue that was not at all easy from the start. Financing was the major outstanding issue at first reading, and we welcome the fact that a common position has been reached.

It should not be denied that the initial idea of the Institute was inspired by other models of excellence already in existence, but it should also be made clear that a great deal of effort has been made to make it viable, with the necessary adaptation to the complexity and diversity of Europe. The result has been a new instrument with the capacity to integrate the three axes of knowledge – education, research and innovation – which should serve as a catalyst for the culture of multidisciplinary innovation that is so essential for improving competitiveness.

We are therefore convinced about establishing communities of innovation and knowledge as strategic integrated networks of universities, research centres and businesses, in which students, researchers and knowledge could circulate freely and where work could be carried out on areas of maximum scientific and strategic interest, such as renewable energy or information and communication technologies.

We hope that the EIT will, in the not too distant future, bear the fruit that we are all hoping for.

  Grażyna Staniszewska (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like once again to express my pleasure at the importance that the Community attaches to the need for innovation in Europe. This is of particular importance for the new Member States, for whom innovative technologies are a great opportunity to make a leap forward in civilisation and accelerate their own development. We therefore warmly support the excellently drafted project put forward by the city of Wrocław, which is competing to host the offices of the Institute’s Governing Board in the city.

What, besides Strasbourg, would save us having to make expensive excursions once a month? Well, it would be Wrocław – Wrocław, which lies on the boundary between the old and the new Europe; not a capital, but a thriving city with excellent universities and almost 150 000 students. The Polish national authorities, Wrocław’s local authorities and the Polish academic world are fully prepared for this assignment. Siting the headquarters of the Institute of Innovation and Technology in Wrocław would be a symbolic gesture and would not in any way be at odds with the criterion of excellence.

The network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities that forms part of the European Institute must also be dispersed evenly throughout the European Union. The Institute should be an instrument that mobilises the entire territory of the Community and must lend itself to an increase in competitiveness, innovation and technological progress, as the precursor to economic development for the whole of the European Union. It is my belief that through such initiatives as the EIT we can meet the challenges of a knowledge-based global economy in realising the ambitious aims of the Lisbon Strategy.

  Pierre Pribetich (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, we are reaching the final phase in the establishment of the EIT. I applaud the negotiations that have taken place between the various institutions in order to reach a balanced solution to make this Institute a symbol of innovation in line with our greatest ambitions. The stress is therefore placed on innovation, a fundamental value within Europe. The first Knowledge and Innovation Communities will focus on key areas such as climate change and renewable energy sources, not forgetting nanotechnologies, which need proper support.

The European Union will have a definite focus on innovation. A Europe of innovation, the innovation of Europe – the EIT is the missing link between these two concepts: a missing link that, if it is adopted in tomorrow’s vote, will enable the European Union to progress. It is by believing in roses that you make them bloom, as Anatole France reminded us. The EIT is like a rose in the garden of Europe. For the EIT to bloom, all the climatic conditions have to be right.

At first reading, I expressed my regret at the meagre financial resources allocated to the EIT, at the inadequacy of this support: EUR 308 million is not a sufficient response to fulfil our ambitions. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we therefore need to change the financial climate and provide the resources necessary for our very real ambitions to take shape.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) I am pleased to be given this opportunity. In fact, it is great to start with this gem, which starts small but has great power, particularly from the bottom up, if that is recognised in future as a special designation for quality.

My second point is as follows: together with Mr Paasilinna, I have been making efforts towards this bridge with industry, towards this nomenclature concerning innovation, and in this regard I am very happy with the name ‘Institute of Innovation and Technology’. It strikes me on reading the documents that we still have some difficulty with this. Sometimes Commission documents use that name but Parliament documents do not, and so it is important that, as from now, the institute be called by its proper, correct designation.

My third and final point concerns the seat. I should like to join with the non-native speakers, the non-French speakers, such as Mrs Ek and Mr Chatzimarkakis, who have today called for us to support Strasbourg – ‘Scienceburg’, as Mr Chatzimarkakis called it. It is a city with an administrative character, and this is an administrative establishment; it is not the big institute. That would also solve a lot of political problems.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the idea of setting up a European Institute of Technology was greeted with considerable scepticism when it was first conceived three years ago, so we should view the current compromise text of the regulation as a major success. The Institute may begin functioning as early as this summer following the Council’s decision in June regarding its headquarters, and the proposed structure of the network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities bids fair to become an excellent stimulator of innovation throughout the EU.

As rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs, providing a proper legal basis and thus enabling the Institute to be continuously funded was one of my priorities. I am pleased that the Council has accepted these proposals. The review of financial prospects for 2007-2013 has already enabled the Institute to receive funding of approximately EUR 309 million, and this is a good start. I hope that the mid-term review will enable the EUR 2 billion that is still required for the project as a whole to be found.

The appearance of an elite is of particular importance for the scientific sphere in the new Member States, which possess a considerable and hitherto untapped potential. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal to site one of the EIT’s structures in Wrocław – a city of more than 140 000 students – will be an excellent European investment for the future. Finally, may I warmly congratulate and thank Mr Paasilinna for his splendid cooperation.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, my Hungarian colleague, an MEP from Budapest, has said that even during the years of the Iron Curtain there was cooperation between scientific institutions in Europe, but the truth needs to be told: the Iron Curtain also divided science into two camps in Europe – the Western camp, which developed in the free world and had financial support, and the Eastern camp. It would be good if the European Institute of Technology, which we will establish either today or tomorrow, were not only to provide an opportunity for the European Union to take part in global innovative competition, in the global battle for knowledge, but also to serve to unite these two camps that have been divided by history.

I would join with my Polish colleagues who have recommended the city of Wrocław as a location either for the headquarters or for one of the Institute’s departments, and I would like to see the authorities in that city be prepared to invest the money that is so essential for the success of this project.

  Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Paasilinna, and the Commissioner, and I would like to mention something that was not said during the debate, namely that without the academic world and its support, we would not be here today. If the universities had blocked the establishment of this new Institute, which is introducing cooperation between industry, the private sector, research fields and academic institutions for the first time, this Institute would not have seen the light of day.

Given that our President launched the establishment of this Institute at rather short notice without providing a suitable budget, and the Commissioner for Science and Research did not want the Institute at all, all the credit for its establishment goes to you, Mr Figel’, because, as Commissioner for Education, you have worked to pacify those circles that were worried about the awarding of degrees and diplomas and about their own competencies.

I hope that this Institute will be a great success and that you just have to find the rare bird you are looking for, since for the Governing Board you are seeking people with experience in several domains – academic and industrial – who are not actually involved in any of them, and also who are young. I wish you a lot of luck in finding them!

  Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE). – (BG) Mr. Commissioner, The document that the European Parliament is going to adopt is very important indeed. I commend you, I commend the rapporteur and all colleagues who have contributed to the submission and adoption of the existing proposals.

It is very important that a key policy is in the making. The development of the European economy needs exactly technological innovation. This is what makes the world develop. It is particiularly significant that the knowledge-based societies working on the basis of the project principle will be able to take into consideration the priorities of the common European development policy, on the one hand, and the capabilities of individual Member States, on the other.

It is necessary to incorporate and develop the best achievements of individual research structures and universities to ensure the link to the priorities in the energy sector, the climate change, the new progressive materials that are indispensable to the development of the world.

This institute should turn into a genuine symbol of unity, as well as into the best mobility centre for the best research practices. And perhaps it would be a good European policy to locate it in a new EU Member State.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, we are all agreed here today that we should do everything we can to promote an open, knowledge-based society in order to catch up with the world standard, to keep pace with the developing world economy; we should inject as much funding as we can, and as much discussion, in order to keep Europe in the running.

I would also like to make the point that the siting of the future Institute is no trivial matter. It should be in an innovative region, a region of young and open minds, a region of great potential, a region – and this is very important – with a pioneering spirit, a region that will be suspended between Eastern and Western Europe. All these requirements are met by the Polish city of Wrocław, which I would like to commend to you.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and everyone who has taken part in this inspiring debate.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) The main objective of the Lisbon Strategy is to promote competitiveness within Europe and in doing so to keep up with other global economies such as the US and the new emerging Asian centres (China, India).

Part of this strategy is the establishment of the European Institute of Technology, which has gained strong support within the PPE-DE Group. I have been following with growing interest the beginnings of this Institute, which will require significant financial support to enable it to accomplish its goals. These goals are vital for maintaining the EU industrial, competitive and innovative base. I therefore call for an increase in the budget which has already been approved.

I would stress that this is a project that must succeed, and in this context it is particularly important, in my view, to promote innovation, which brings with it progress and competitiveness. In this respect, I feel that it is appropriate to include the term ‘innovation’ in the Institute’s name, originally supposed to be the European Institute of Technology and Innovation. This initiative needs to have an important mandate in the field of the knowledge-based economy and in promoting research and innovation within the EU.

I would like to express my admiration for the energy and determination of Commissioner Figeľ in his implementation of this project.

  Nina Škottová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to congratulate Commissioner Figeľ and the rapporteur, Mr Paasilinna, for all their work on this project.

Both positive and negative views on the EIT were heard and there will undoubtedly be more discussions before the EIT comes to life. In this forum I would like to highlight one idea in favour of the EIT: that is that all funds allocated from the EU budget to science, development and education are funds that are well allocated, not gobbled up. This holds true particularly if the best European brains are likely to be taking part in the EIT project.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the creation of a coherent economic area, a single European market, was the underlying reason for the appearance of the Communities, and later the European Union. The next stage is to give the European economy a modern and competitive dimension.

This will be possible only when we stake our money on education, research, new technologies and, in its broadest sense, innovation. We shall not meet these challenges if industry fails to support scientific developments and new technologies, and if local authorities fail to invest in education.

Governments should become involved in education at tertiary level and in supporting basic scientific research. The European Union, meanwhile, should concentrate on supporting and guiding innovation. We can see that these tasks rest with both the Member States and the EU institutions.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I should like to thank the House for a very interesting and supportive debate. Although there was some criticism of lack of money or that we again want to establish something.

I think the most important innovation starts with openness and promotion of creativity. The result of the consultation and legislative process is really an example of openness, contribution, commitment and even a creative innovative approach. We have shown innovation in coming to this consensus and also in the context and content of this result. This is the most important thing.

The mission of the EIT is, first of all, innovation. It is one of the moments or follow-ups of the Lahti Summit of October 2006 and actually we only proposed the draft text one day before the summit. We never supported green-field investment to establish something new; rather, we wished to come up with a new approach on how to promote, organise, motivate and mobilise resources and partners in order to make innovation in Europe more successful.

I would like to recall that the Commission never had the option to build new buildings for the EIT, but to come up with the new approach. It took one and a half years: we started it as a part of the Lisbon Strategy in February 2005 and since then we have had many coffees and many talks that were very inspirational and very interesting – also in this building – showing that there are a lot of options or opinions on how to promote innovation. I am happy now that we have come to this strong joint commitment.

Many people spoke of the location. This is an issue for the Council. I think the Slovenian Presidency will try to manage the process leading towards a decision. Names have been mentioned already – some at Member State level. Some cities at regional level are also aspiring to this. It is a good signal that there are many ambitious candidates for the seat of the EIT. There are also many universities and businesses and research and technology organisations which are keen not only on the consultation process, but in participation in the selection of the governing board and then in the work of the EIT. As Ms Hennicot-Schoepges said, we are not going to lose identity; we offer to share the identity between universities or existing centres and the EIT which is going to be established.

That is more or less all I wanted to add as a response to your points and support. Once again I want to underline the importance of convergent, horizontal work. As you did in this Parliament in your committees, we did the same in the Commission. I was not isolated. I am not alone. It was achieved with the support of the President, the industry Commissioner, the research Commissioner, the budget Commissioner and many others. I think this is a very important message for the future: Let us work together, be open-minded and promote creativity.

This month I want to propose that we declare 2009 the European Year of Creativity and Innovation. It will link strongly with the proposals, ideas and policies we need to nurture and establish in Europe.

Once again, thank you very much. It is not a fait accompli; it is, rather, the beginning of the phase which means establishment, and then the real work may start – and I hope it will start successfully.

  Reino Paasilinna, rapporteur. − (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we should remember that when we started, a large majority were against this whole project. Now we have developed it in collaboration with the Commission and the Council. Now we have produced something so dynamic that it has progressed to the voting stage, and I hope that a large majority will vote in favour of the project. This is the way we can work together.

As to location, I have no view except to say that this will be a modern networked system in which researchers and communities will be working independently. They will not be concentrated in the capital city which is chosen as the Institute’s headquarters. Furthermore, its administrative staff will be relatively small, less than a hundred people, so there will be no need for large premises.

One thing is, however, important. There need to be good transport links, preferably direct flights, as we know very well indeed how awkward it is to work somewhere where there are no direct flights, with meetings even having to be held at an airport.

Next we need to consider funding. It is important, although for one proposed theme, communications technology, the funding has already been found. In other words, if the theme can be made to look attractive, the money will surely be found. We certainly do not lack the capital.

Many here have said that this is a new kind of collaboration. The Institute will not be in competition with others, therefore, but will establish cooperation, as Mrs Ek remarked. Mr Ransdorf and certain others stated that the European model, the high point of European science for centuries gone by, should become the high point of world science. This is one way to give expression to the sort of quality standards we need. I wish to thank you all very much for your cooperation. This project has to succeed, because Europe needs it. Thank you.

(Applause)

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Edit Herczog (PSE), in writing. – (HU) The information and technology revolution, the socio-economic transformation of post-industrial society, has shaken the government, the economy and politicians in most countries of the world from their Sleeping Beauty slumbers, and increasing attention is being given to understanding the reasons behind the success of particular communities, larger regions, or countries.

The things that secure success are creativity, creative energy, new ideas that can form the basis for all new development. Creativity becomes innovation if it is transformed into reality. Let us hope that the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) will be just such an innovative brainchild of the European Parliament. The primary objective of the EIT will be to develop the innovative capacity of the European Union by linking higher education, the research community and representatives of industry. The EIT can play an enormous role in ensuring that European innovation is once again renowned throughout the world and that European industry and researchers are a force to be reckoned with. Hungary’s capital city has also thrown its hat into the ring to provide a home for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. I am certain that my country would be a good host for the Institute because of the government’s commitment to research and innovation/development, because of the country’s research infrastructure, because of Hungary’s early role in the advancement of science, and not least because of Hungary’s hospitality. Citing the words of Hungarian scholar and Nobel laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi, I call upon you to support our bid to host the EIT: ‘Hungary is a small country in terms of its population, but a great power in terms of grey matter.’

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, second reading in the European Parliament is another step that bring us closer to establishing a European Institute of Innovation and Technology. Much time has passed since José Barroso submitted the proposal to set up such an institution back in February 2005. The idea was that this would be an institution that would support the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, which at that time was at the halfway stage and was not bringing the intended benefits.

I am aware that one of the cities that is hoping to host the headquarters of the EIT is the Polish city of Wrocław. I am also aware that in Poland and in the other cities that would be pleased to welcome the Institute (Vienna, Munich, Sant Cugat-Barcelona, Paris, Oxford, Brussels, Budapest, Nuremberg, Aachen) exaggerated expectations persist because of the anticipated sum of EUR 2.4 billion that will be required to fund this Institute. This is the total outlay on the Institute and the network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) that are expected to absorb most of the funds. I am, moreover, convinced that the establishment of the Institute will not be able to assist in bringing about the structural reforms that are of crucial significance for innovation and competitiveness in the European Union.

Nevertheless, knowing Wrocław’s ambitions and the quality of administration in that city, I am convinced that this is the right place for the EIT and I am satisfied with the progress that has been made towards establishing this institution.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE), in writing. – Education, research and innovation are windows to the future. They are the building blocks of what is called the ‘knowledge triangle’. We need to be competitive. The knowledge triangle is one of the keys.

I support the text, since the Commission proposal to create a European Institute of Technology (EIT) aims to tackle one of Europe’s main weaknesses: the lack of innovation. I see the EIT as an investment for the future.

Before there was some scepticism as to the added value EIT could offer. The proposed network structure is a good solution. The expertise lies in the participating universities and higher education institutions.

Remembering my academic years, I also support the idea of the EIT’s ‘Knowledge and Innovation Communities’ (KICs) being autonomous. Selection of such centres will be based on a criterion of excellence. I support this, because this way the EIT KICs will give the best kicks to European innovation.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.15 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

9. Verification of credentials

  President. − The next item is the verification of credentials of new Members of the European Parliament. Mr Gargani will be presenting an oral report on the matter, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs.

  Giuseppe Gargani, Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, according to the Rules of Procedure the European Parliament must verify the credentials and rule on the validity of the mandate of its newly elected Members. During its meeting of 25 February, the committee verified the credentials of 35 Romanian MEPs designated by the competent authorities. To these names should be added three more designated by their respective national authorities.

In view of the large number of verifications to be carried out and the constraints on time, it was considered appropriate for the Committee on Legal Affairs, and therefore its Chairman, to present an oral report to Parliament. Since the Committee has recorded that everything is in order, Parliament may ratify all the mandates.

  President. − The mandates are hereby ratified.

10. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

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

10.1. Management of the assets of the ECSC and the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (A6-0062/2008, Reimer Böge) (vote)

10.2. EC-United Arab Emirates Agreement on certain aspects of air services (A6-0043/2008, Paolo Costa) (vote)

10.3. Common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products (A6-0044/2008, Neil Parish) (vote)

10.4. Common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products (A6-0045/2008, Neil Parish) (vote)

10.5. Statistical classification of economic activities in the EC (A6-0055/2008, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg) (vote)

10.6. Identification and registration of pigs (A6-0057/2008, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg) (vote)

10.7. Marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed (A6-0056/2008, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg) (vote)

10.8. Common rules in the field of civil aviation security (A6-0049/2008, Paolo Costa) (vote)

10.9. European Institute of Innovation and Technology (A6-0041/2008, Reino Paasilinna) (vote)

10.10. Mobilisation of the European Union's Solidarity Fund (A6-0065/2008, Reimer Böge) (vote)

10.11. Amending budget No 1/2008 (A6-0058/2008, Kyösti Virrankoski) (vote)

10.12. EC-Guinea-Bissau Fisheries Partnership Agreement (A6-0053/2008, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos) (vote)

10.13. EC-Côte d’Ivoire Fisheries Partnership Agreement (A6-0054/2008, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna) (vote)

10.14. Sustainable European transport policy (A6-0014/2008, Gabriele Albertini) (vote)

(The sitting was suspended at 11.50 pending the formal sitting.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

11. Formal sitting - Estonia

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, this is a wonderful day for the European Parliament, and that is because we are welcoming one of our former fellow Members here – one who is now President of the Republic of Estonia, our former fellow Member Mr Hendrik Ilves! We would like to bid you a warm welcome to the European Parliament!

(Loud and sustained applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, when we experience an hour such as this, it is good not only to look to the present, but also to remember what a long, broad path it has been for us to acquire a fellow Member together with other fellow Members from Estonia – and from Latvia and Lithuania, if we are just confining it to the Baltic States in the first instance – who were elected Members of parliament and whose countries, free countries that were ruled for decades by totalitarian communism, have been represented here since freedom was gained in Estonia.

This fellow Member was elected by a democratic decision of the people to be President of his country. He is a figure from Estonia who, more than most, is bound up with Europe’s future and, of course, with her present. Initially as his country’s Foreign Minister, he led the negotiations on membership of the European Union and was subsequently an observer at the European Parliament for a year from 2003 until direct elections in 2004 and finally a Member of the European Parliament until his election as President of the Republic of Estonia in September 2006. President Hendrik Ilves took office as President of Estonia on 9 October 2006.

President Ilves, it is a great joy to be able to welcome you here to the European Parliament, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary tomorrow. Your visit is, as it were, the start of the celebrations and I should like to ask you now to address the European Parliament. Once again, we bid you a very warm welcome!

(Applause)

  Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of the Republic of Estonia. − (ET) My friends, let me start by wishing you a happy birthday. My dear friends and colleagues, colleagues in the most exact sense of the word, friends whom I have missed for the past year and a half. As I look up and see you all here – from down here there seem to be so many more of you than looking from seat 131 where I used to sit.

You cannot imagine how formidable you are as the Parliament of Europe. I know, I had to leave here before I realised it. But allow me to continue now in my current role as President of my country.

Today, as Estonia is about to enter its fifth year as a member of the European Union, we are no longer ‘new members’, learning the ropes. Indeed, I believe it is time now to put aside the term ‘new Member State’ as an anachronism devoid of meaning.

(Applause)

There are no new or old members today. There are only members. The term ‘new Member State’ does not even mean ‘poorer Member State’ these days, as several of us have caught up with the ‘old members’.

Today, within the Union we have coalitions of interests, of party positions, and these form on any number of dimensions – small or large members, industrial or trading nations, and so on. But the basis is not the time or length of membership.

Here, today, I want to look ahead ten years into the future when all of us are old or older members. To a time 100 years after the first horrible European civil war of the 20th century. We talk about our Union as a response to the second European civil war, a way of organising our continent so that there will be no repeat of the horrors of the Second World War.

But we must not lose sight of the fact either that a third, and arguably even more, of the members of today’s European Union came into their own as independent political entities out of the ruins of the First World War. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (after 140 years of non-existence), the former Czechoslovakia, along with the Hungary and Austria we know today, all emerged in the 20th century with the collapse of empires, those international superpowers, and new states based on self-determination emerged.

I raise this point because my country, like so many of our members today, started out by throwing off the yoke of forced membership of large, despotic or undemocratic supranational entities – otherwise known as empires.

Estonia, like many others, even managed to emerge no less than twice. Yet today we all have come together to build our own new supranational entity – and a new identity, our European Union.

We have done so not because we have been conquered or occupied, but rather because we are free to do so. And because we believe it is the right thing to do. This too is exercising our right of self-determination.

I raise this point because in ten years Estonia will for the first time have the privilege and responsibility of holding the Presidency and I hope very much that, when that time comes, we will no longer be grappling with the issues we are wrestling with today. It is precisely for this reason that today I want to speak of things that will be important at least ten years hence.

Finally, I am raising these points because our election cycles and the cycle of challenges we face are out of sync: we deal well with the problems that fit into four- or five-year cycles.

But the challenges and pressures facing the European Union today, from energy to the environment, from competitiveness to enlargement, from Common Foreign Policy to migration, are all strategic issues requiring courage and boldness of action over a far longer time-span than two or three sets of elections.

Ladies and gentlemen, while we cannot predict the future, certain trends and dangers can generally be discerned. There has been no lack of discussion of two of them, twin threats that we face: global warming and declining reserves of fossil fuels. Yet these two issues are global concerns and their resolution, while certainly impossible without the European Union, must be addressed by the entire globe.

And yet at the same time the Union faces different kinds of serious challenges. Unless we can meet them, then perhaps in ten years, but certainly in a quarter of a century, we might lose some of the relative wealth and success we enjoy today. These challenges and pressures are all bound up with the competitiveness of the European Union.

Where are our competitors? Are they within the European Union or out in the wider world? Clearly the answer is ‘both’: we compete on the market both within the European Union as well as worldwide.

But if we look at long-term trends in globalisation we need to be grateful to Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors for creating the internal market at a time when globalisation was not yet a discernible phenomenon.

For it is the internal market that allows individual European nations to maintain their competitiveness in the global arena. Openness within Europe, opening up to competitive pressures within Europe has been the driver of our competitiveness worldwide.

Current thinking in the European Union does not always provide a reason to be optimistic, and for two reasons: firstly, the lack-lustre implementation of the Lisbon Agenda, our own well-intentioned programme for developing innovation and competitiveness.

(Applause)

And secondly, the European Union’s growing protectionism, not only towards the outside world but within our own borders as well.

Allow me to address these two issues in turn. During the period when my own country had just emerged from 50 years of Soviet-imposed backwardness, I despaired over how long it would take to build the infrastructure needed throughout Estonia.

Yet in some areas, such as information technology, Estonia could start on a level playing field. Investment by both the public and private sectors in IT allowed the country to reach a level above the European Union average, and by the late 1990s the situation in electronic government services, and services in some sectors such as banking, had attained a level enjoyed only by a few countries in Europe.

The emphasis my country placed on developing IT paid off, allowing us to be more competitive. But on its own this is not enough. More generally, Estonia, like the rest of Europe, is leaving innovation in science and development to others.

Innovations come first and foremost, let’s be frank, from the United States, which itself depends on draining brains, the brightest and best, from Europe as well as from India and China, to maintain its high level of competitiveness. We need at long last to begin to tackle this issue seriously.

We are averse to immigration, our children increasingly choose not to study mathematics, science and engineering, and we are choosing to close ourselves off from competition within the European Union in one of the most competitive sectors of the world economy: services.

Competition or the lack of it within the European Union has security implications as well. Given the importance of energy, it is understandable that many countries in the European Union want to shield their companies from competition and are opposed to the liberalisation of the energy market.

This is an understandable reaction. But today, Europe’s single largest source of energy is a country that has proclaimed itself an ‘energy superpower’, and states on its Foreign Ministry home page that energy is a tool of foreign policy.

Clearly in the future, if we are to avoid subjecting Europe’s members to policies of divide and rule, or the jockeying for better gas deals we already see within the European Union, then we cannot avoid the need for a Common Energy Policy.

(Applause)

With an Energy Commissioner with the negotiating clout of the Trade Commissioner.

But for us to develop a common energy policy as we have a common trade regime, the sine qua non of external policy is also required, namely a liberalised internal market.

So, where are we as we look ahead to the future? Koreans and Japanese enjoy rates of internet penetration far greater than most Europeans do, with far cheaper charges for broadband streaming; Asia and the US produce (or in the case of the US, also educate and hire from elsewhere) far more engineers and scientists.

This does not augur well. It will lead to a gradual decline of Europe and European competitiveness in a globalised economy. Unless, of course, we do something about it.

The first step, for Estonia, is the Reform Treaty and I would like to thank the Portuguese Presidency for its superb work in resolving this issue. Without expanding Qualified Majority Voting we will founder in paralysis, without a President and a Foreign Minister we will simply punch far below our weight.

An example of Europe punching way below its weight can be seen in our Neighbourhood Policy. A paper by the European Council on Foreign Relations concludes that, and I quote: ‘Contrary to what many in Europe think, Russia’s neighbourhood policy is better developed, better coordinated and better implemented than the European Union’s. Russia devotes more political, economic and even military resources to influencing its neighbourhood than the European Union does.’ Unquote.

This does not speak well of our vaunted ‘soft power’. Yet, our neighbourhood policy is tied to a fundamental long-term question: what will we be in ten years’ time? There are two aspects to that question: how large will we be in ten years and what will our surrounding environment be like?

How large will the European Union be in 2018? We do not know, but it is up to us to decide. Clearly, we will not be as large as some of us would like, but we will certainly be larger than we are today. To our East and our South lie countries that certainly will never join.

It seems to me that one of our fundamental concerns should be that differences between the European Union and its neighbours in terms of economic well-being and political freedom must not be so great that we will be faced with a great wave of illegal immigration or political refugees.

It would therefore appear that we have not learned even from our own excellent experience, that is from past enlargement. We plan to increase assistance to the outside without conditionality on reforms. Through our development banks we support the development of countries that exhibit thoroughly antagonistic trade policies toward the European Union.

What we also need to realise is that ours is not the only model today. Francis Fukuyama himself now concedes that the Hegelian dream of the inexorable march of history toward liberal democracy does not hold water. What good are anti-corruption requirements in World Bank loans to developing countries when sovereign wealth funds offer better deals with no strings attached?

We were wrong when we thought we lived in a de-ideologised world. Instead, the rise of authoritarian capitalism as an alternative to democratic market economies is probably the latest ideological, intellectual and moral battle that we face.

(Applause)

Clearly we need to rethink our policies, but that will not be enough. We need more courage; we need a vision and an understanding of where we and the world will be in 20 or 25 years, at a time when even the economic powerhouse that is Germany today will be dwarfed by India and China.

In order to prepare ourselves for a quarter of a century hence, we need to start planning today. I hope very much that, in the forthcoming European Parliament elections, parties will compete not on the basis of maintaining today’s status quo but on their visions for the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, democracy exists for its citizens, based on the will of its citizens and subject to their approval. To that end we have created institutions, institutions which the new treaty should develop further when it comes into force.

But we should not delegate our responsibility to institutions; creating a foreign service or expanding the purview of qualified majority voting will do little if we do not develop a more fundamental understanding of European interests.

Having common consular officials is a streamlining bureaucratic reform. Making it more difficult to use a veto is in itself a welcome step for Europe, but will remain a small step if Member States come to believe their interests are not being taken into account.

We need to return to the most fundamental understanding that has made the European Union successful. Namely that national interests are best served when we all give up a little so that the Union as a whole is successful. I do not mean handing over money, or handing out sweeteners to recalcitrant members reluctant to go along with a policy. I mean our place in the world separately, as nation states, and together, as the European Union.

When we talk of a strong Europe, we need to realise the same truth familiar to all of us from politics in our home countries: our country is strong in the world arena, or indeed in Europe, when we are strong at home. Governments that enjoy strong support can afford to be decisive in the international arena.

I am sure this is a problem throughout the European Union. In order to create a stronger sense of European-ness among our voters, we need to transcend even the Commission proposals which envisage university students spending one year in a university in another Member State. We need to actively encourage this in our home countries, so that our citizens, not just our officials, can get to know one another.

This means of course that we need to upgrade the level of knowledge of languages. In ten years’ time we should be able to look upon a Union where every university student knows another Member State language, and by this I do not mean English because English has such global dominance in science and commerce, entertainment and the internet that it no longer counts as a foreign language. I mean for example, Polish-speaking Portuguese, Spanish-speaking Estonians and Slovenian-speaking Swedes.

We also need to think more in terms of regions. Here Parliament has shown that it can play a larger role than was ever imagined. I am proud that an initiative I was associated with, the Baltic Sea Strategy, is one of the first European Union policies that was actually born here, right here in the European Parliament, not in the Council or the Commission, and today that initiative is becoming a European Union programme.

(Applause)

Parliament is the very link between the European Union’s institutions and its citizens that makes the Union work. For it is only here that you, my dear colleagues, can find the delicate balance between the interests of your electors and the interests of the Union. That is something that no other institution can do, and none can do it as well as you.

Honourable Members of the European Parliament, no less important for the citizens of Europe, for a Europe of European citizens, is to know who we are, where we came from and how we got here.

It was within these chambers that a colleague once turned to me during a fellow MEP’s speech about the mass deportations in that MEP’s country and asked, ‘Why can’t you people forget about the past and think of the future?’.

We all think we know the history of Europe and so it is perhaps uncomfortable to hear that the Europe we know is actually only one part of Europe, as Norman Davies – that great historian of Europe – has so effectively shown.

Yet today’s European Union embraces the history of all of Europe, with all its glory and woes. We are today the inheritors of Bismarck’s social reforms as well as of the Salazar regime. Of the world’s first constitutional democracy as well as repression by brutal internal security services. That is our Europe.

But the fact that the first constitutional democracy was in Poland and that the repression by security police took place literally just over the wall from the Wirtschaftswunder are things we know far less about than we should.

Our task, ladies and gentlemen, is to know our Europe. One of the greatest Europeans of the 20th century, Salvador de Madariaga, living in exile from the Franco regime, put it this way: ‘This Europe must be born. And she will be born when Spaniards say “our Chartres”, when Englishmen say “our Cracow”, when Italians speak of “our Copenhagen” and Germans talk of “our Bruges”…. Then Europe shall live. For then it shall be that the spirit which leads Europe shall have uttered the words of creation: “Fiat Europa”’. So said Salazar de Madariaga.

But to get to Madariaga’s future we must learn to know each other, each other’s pasts, because only then can we build a future together. This too is our task for the next ten years.

Ladies and gentlemen, today I have tried to outline some of the challenges we face in the future. Europe is far from complete, we still have so much to do. In my homeland, Estonia, when we have a great task to fulfil, a major undertaking to carry out, we say: may we have the strength to do it.

May we all have the strength!

Thank you.

(Standing ovation)

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, by having risen from your seats, by having applauded so enthusiastically, you have thanked the President of Estonia for his highly congenial and, for us as a Parliament, friendly, but above all forward-looking speech.

President Ilves, you have been talking about something that lies at the heart of Europe, and that is an understanding of one another and that we know how we think. When we know how we think, we know how we can also act together in the end.

When you spoke of the exchange of young people, I remembered – and I believe, ladies and gentlemen, we can be proud of this – that when the Financial Perspective was to be agreed and they wanted to slash the funds for the exchanges of young people, the Erasmus Programme and life-long learning, we raised our voices and said: the Financial Perspective will produce results only if we increase rather than reduce the funds for young people to meet in order to create understanding and a sense of community in the European Union.

(Applause)

Let me say in conclusion – and I do so with some stirring deep down: if the President of Estonia reminds us of history, we have to say that the history of Europe, of our continent, has been good at many points in time, but many periods have also been shaped by tragedy. What we are doing here today, here in the European Parliament, too, is a response to the experience of history.

The fact that you are conveying this to us is turning today into a great day for the European Parliament. We can follow the path into the future only if we look back on history, learn from its consequences and then act together on the basis of mutual understanding and community spirit, as you have said, President Ilves, for the sake of a shared Europe.

Many thanks, President Ilves!

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

12. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0049/2008)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I did not understand you at first. I voted for this report because this new regulation creates a good balance between sensible anti-terrorism measures on the one hand and passenger rights on the other hand.

I should, however, like to focus on a point that has still not been satisfactorily resolved, and that is the rules on the carrying of liquids. We know that the controls should be used for the prevention of terrorism, but these controls are causing a lot of anger among passengers owing to the individual airports’ widely differing interpretations. Whether or not this is an effective instrument is still unresolved. I doubt it very much, because terrorists have long been developing other strategies and finding other ways.

I expect that the following assessment will be made: either the control procedures are standardised and improved, or else these measures are stopped, with the aim of not burdening passengers with measures that are in any case not at all effective.

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Costa report. Almost six years have elapsed since Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 was passed. Two and a half years have elapsed since it entered into force. Concern for passenger security at airports and on board aircraft continues to be very much a live issue. Protection of civil aviation is causing a dramatic rise in the cost of flying and a decrease in travel comfort. The cost of protection is another matter; these costs must be as transparent as possible, and consumers need to know what the money they pay for an air ticket is being spent on and how. Payments collected for the purposes of protection should be utilised solely and exclusively to cover protection costs. Money obtained for this purpose must not be used for any other purpose.

  Jan Březina (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, I abstained from voting on the proposal for a regulation on common rules because I think it contains some weak points. The most serious is the method for assessing the reliability of flight crews, which is not regulated in the regulation itself, but will be regulated separately afterwards. It follows from the approved wording that once in force the implementing regulation will be a classified EU document and the information contained therein will not be publicly accessible. It could therefore happen that even the people whose duties are covered by the document will not be able to access it. This would violate the principle of legal certainty. The same applies to the activity of the Advisory Group, which will be set up by the Commission alongside the Committee. The Advisory Group will be composed of European organisations directly involved in aviation protection. It is inappropriate for the Committee to merely inform those concerned without allowing them access to the classified information. I therefore call for a solution that would respect the principles of openness and transparency.

- Report: Reino Paasilinna (A6-0041/2008)

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) The new institute to be set up here seems to me absolutely justified and reasonable as far as its goals are concerned and I therefore support the report and the establishment of this institute.

The European Union – and therefore we – must work very hard to be able to hold our own successfully in technological competition with the other economic areas, but – and I now come to the crucial point – I should like to ask the Commission once again to check the 32 agencies, and this again is one of them, as to their purpose and efficiency, to carry out a sort of health check for agencies and also to shut down agencies that are no longer expedient and not working efficiently in the taxpayers’ interest.

I hope – and this is a request to the Commission, which is present this afternoon and has this subject on the agenda – that the Commission will today finally bring itself to have this health check carried out for agencies.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I welcome the fact that after three years we are launching the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. I am glad that the institute will not be a ‘super-university’, but will create innovation networks with a view to more extensive application of research in industry and healthcare. Such connections should also substantially increase investment in science from the business sector. We will know that we have succeeded once the number of European patents begins to grow and we start to catch up with the US and Japan. The Institute should be located in a new Member State. The Czech Republic is the best prepared candidate: it already has a sought-after conference centre for scientists and businessmen. Charles University is, moreover, a symbol of the common educational roots of the old Europe and the new.

  Tomáš Zatloukal (PPE-DE). – (CS) I voted for the establishment of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. I firmly believe that it will help to improve the Member States’ competitive basis by involving partner organisations in integrated activities in the area of innovation, development and research at the highest international level. I expect that the EIT will become a point of reference for innovation management in that it will promote new forms of collaboration among partner organisations involved in the knowledge triangle of research, universities and the private sector. I imagine that the EIT will build a worldwide reputation and will offer an attractive environment for the most gifted people from all over the world.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, firstly I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Paasilinna, who has done a splendid job.

I voted in favour of this proposal. Just as when this proposal was made the subject of debate and I had a few opportunities to discuss it with the President of the Commission, I still think it is important that the basic priority is to strengthen the position of existing universities and their opportunities for networking. Institutes should not be established for their own sake. It is fundamentally important to ensure that the Institute is a coordinating body and that the appropriations for research are not conducted away from existing universities and research institutes, which have done excellent work.

The new Institute could coordinate European innovation and technology and thereby generate new added value. The Institute is needed, but as I said, its content must be the core issue, and not how it is organised. I believe that suitable premises are available in Poland and elsewhere, but the content should not be forgotten.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I represent London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world. In my city, we have a number of innovative universities, so you might think that I would be in favour of this report, but actually I voted against it. I would just like to explain why.

Thomas Dolby, the lyricist, once sang, ‘She blinded me with science’. The band 2 Unlimited once said, ‘Digital revolution, technical solution; for some it only brings more and more confusion’. Now, whatever the merits of the lyrics, I think that this applies to the thinking behind the EIT. The Commission is right that Europe is successful in research but lacks innovation. But how do you get innovation?

You do not arrive at innovation through more structures, more bricks and mortar. You do not arrive at innovation by duplicating existing effort. What we see here is the EIT seeking to emulate the success of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States without learning the successful business model behind the MIT. That is why I voted against.

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, firstly I would just like to put the EIT in a historical context. The first time I heard of the EIT, we were talking about what we could do with this particular building, as Parliament has two sites and if we were to vacate this site, what would this building in Strasbourg be used for? The idea was to endow Strasbourg with a world-class university.

Unfortunately, Strasbourg already has a pretty good university, and they did not like that particular idea. Strasbourg did not like losing this institution. We have had many debates on this here, even though realistically Parliament should decide on its own seat.

But this idea was born, and we have gone into this massive budget of hundreds of millions of euros which we are now going to spend, duplicating work that already goes on; you do wonder what the point is. Is Europe grasping for something that it does not need because it already has it? Does it need this European brand over this expertise? Are we just going to spend lots of money on bricks and mortar in a place where we could be doing much more coordinated stuff using the fantastic examples of Oxford, Cambridge and the other good universities across the European continent?

- Report: Reimer Böge (A6-0065/2008)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Thank you, Mr President. Though I do not represent the UK, I supported the release of assistance totalling EUR 162 million following the flooding in the UK, where the damage amounted to EUR 4.6 billion.

I have, however, two reservations. Firstly, we are making this decision after only nine months. Secondly, in accordance with the relevant rules there are other European countries that are reaching out for help, such as Greece. I think that two funds should be set up: one for the needs of the EU and one for other countries in order to avoid a situation where there are no funds left for assistance to poor countries. Secondly, the rules for drawing on the funds give preference to large-scale disasters. However, we should also be able to assist the smaller regions. Solidarity does not differentiate when it comes to size. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to see a revision of the rules.

  Glyn Ford (PSE). – Mr President, I am delighted that Parliament is going to release EUR 162 million from the European solidarity fund for aid following the flooding disasters last summer in my own region and elsewhere.

Clearly, as we know, this money is for infrastructure projects, for repairing roads, bridges, railways, hospitals and other institutions, but at the same time it will enable the Government in the United Kingdom to release money it would have had to spend on this in other ways. There are still thousands of people who are living in temporary accommodation and many shops and factories are closed.

So I am delighted that money from the European Union’s solidarity fund has been released and hopefully that the people of Gloucestershire and elsewhere will benefit from this.

  President. − I intend to make an explanation of vote in writing, on behalf of the people of Yorkshire and the Humber, in the same vein as Mr Ford has just spoken.

- Report: Kyösti Virrankoski (A6-0058/2008)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I supported the creation of the budget item for the Galileo Programme – expenditure on administrative management, as provided for in the Commission's revised proposal. I also supported the amendment which in the context of the Galileo budget reshuffles an amount of EUR 2 million from an operational line to a line of administrative nature.

This is to finance actions such as the definition and follow-up of risk management scheme, the definition of Intellectual Property Rights policy, but also innovative navigation markets. I strongly support this. What concerns me, however, is that on 29 January the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy adopted with a large majority eight amendments suppressing the Galileo Supervisory Authority from the legal basis of the amended proposal on the Galileo and EGNOS programmes. I would like a serious debate to be held on this topic in plenary.

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I shall be very brief with regard to this report. I voted in favour of it because, regardless of its size, every state is powerless in the face of vis maior. Funding of extraordinary expenditure at a time when an extraordinary situation is announced helps a state to repair the damage brought about by atmospheric conditions or a natural disaster. That is obvious.

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, in this report we do have reference to the mobilisation of the EU solidarity fund, which we talked about slightly earlier. And part of my region did benefit, or will benefit, from that money, especially in North Lincolnshire, where we suffered huge flooding.

But I do wonder whether the people of Lincolnshire would view this as a good use of money. We now pay so much money to the European Union and we then have to beg for money back when we have a need ourselves. For every GBP 2 we get back, we have put GBP 5 into this pot in the first place. I do wonder whether we could spend that money better.

I also have some major concerns, as I have stated before in explanations of vote, about how we do these draft amending budgets. Huge sums of money are transferred between different budget lines and very, very few people have oversight over this.

Today, we are just transferring a couple of million euros here for Galileo and a couple of million euros there, but in the past it has been hundreds of millions of euros. I do wonder whether that is the right parliamentary process to give us oversight over European taxpayers’ money.

- Reports: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (A6-0053/2008) and Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (A6-0054/2008)

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I constantly and always vote against fisheries agreements made by this House and the Commission for, I believe, a good reason. I will quote a little from the reports.

The Commission’s assessment for Guinea-Bissau found that it helped the viability of the Community’s trawler and tuna industries in the Atlantic Ocean, and offered Community vessels and industries that depend upon them a stable legal environment and medium-term visibility, but actually just had, it says, ‘a major impact’ on Guinea-Bissau’s budgetary and political stability. It does not matter where we are conducting these fisheries agreements, we are, essentially, stealing fish from those who could catch them locally, sell them locally, make money locally and therefore raise themselves from poverty. We create a solution where we actually pay for European fishermen to go and fish these waters mechanically, lift tons of fish and therefore ruin the fishing economies of these coastal countries.

The Ivory Coast document talks about the amount of money that we are spending on doing this. We are talking about nearly EUR 600 000 which we give to EU vessels to catch more than 7 000 t of tuna. If you speak to your average Spaniard and ask them how many people are entering their country from the Ivory Coast – because the fishing boats that used to land fish in Spain now actually transport hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal immigrants to the Canary Islands and elsewhere – you will see that we are actually making a bigger problem for ourselves and not creating a market-based solution, which we could do if we allowed those countries who have fishing rights to fish themselves and boost their own economies.

- Report: Gabriele Albertini (A6-0014/2008)

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, nothing would bring me more joy than to speak on sustainable European transport.

The reason I abstained on this report is that, whilst it contains a decent amount of reasonable European policy, I do wonder if it is not best left to market solutions within individual Member States as to how we can sort out traffic problems in London. I find it hard to believe that Europe-wide cooperation and a coordination strategy will solve the problems of parking in Nottingham or in Leicester. Yes, swapping best practice might, but we are talking about putting lots of money into a pot where we are now going to have committees that meet at Commission and Council level to try and think of policy.

I think all these policies are best determined locally. Therefore I abstained on the whole report.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report because I believe firstly that it is a good one and secondly that it points in the right direction. The transport sector must acknowledge its overall responsibility, particularly with regard to environmental targets, but also with regard to reaching the Lisbon target.

I am particularly pleased that Amendment 5, which demands that the European Union finally ratify, and not merely sign, the Alpine Convention, has gone through. It is also pleasing that Amendment 1 was rejected and the original text retained, i.e. that we should begin internalising the external costs for road traffic. It is, however, a shame that Amendment 7 was rejected. This would have meant that the Seventh Research Programme would have had to be better integrated and geared towards transport.

Finally, I should also like to advise my fellow Members from the United Kingdom who rail so much against the Union to read the texts, therefore, with a little more care, because a great deal therein is worded in the subjunctive. These are discretionary clauses and whether or not such a large country as the United Kingdom introduces these measures is within that nation’s discretion.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) The debate last night did not reassure me that the European Commission and the Member States are prepared in the foreseeable future to allocate funds to improving the quality of transport infrastructure in the new Member States.

The Commissioner was quite right to refer to this need for modal changes at the end of yesterday’s debate. I would like to ask the Commission to present realistic plans for the development of the motorway and railway infrastructure in the new Member States. Without that, we cannot realistically discuss the sustainable transport strategy, at least not from an environmentally-friendly perspective. I also supported the ‘Eurovignette’ amendment; its review must not detract from the sustainable transport strategy.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Reimer Böge (A6-0062/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the consultation procedure report by my German colleague Mr Böge, which supports the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2003/77/EC laying down multiannual financial guidelines for managing the assets of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in liquidation since 2002 and, on completion of the liquidation, the Assets of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel. It was right to take account of changing markets and financial products when bringing the possibility of managing this capital up to date, while maintaining a high degree of security and long-term stability.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) It may indeed be quite sensible to look for new technologies supported at Community level and financially, by which CO2 emissions from steel production can be reduced. As a result of rising demand in emergent countries and several natural disasters that have made reduction impossible, there have been constant shortages of this raw material, reflected in record prices for coal and steel. It is now high time we finally started looking for alternatives to coal resources, which are beginning to run out.

It is also highly debatable how former consortiums such as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and Euratom, which were fully absorbed into the EU a long time ago, can still have their own funds, programmes, etc., particularly in the context of Member States opposed to nuclear power, for instance, still constantly having to finance their research etc. We should finally get around to giving this some thought.

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0043/2008)

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I agree with the proposal to replace certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with Community agreements.

Where fares and rates for air services are concerned, the rapporteur, Paolo Costa, is right to introduce a clause which prohibits third country carriers from being price leaders on air services for carriage wholly within the Community.

- Report: Neil Parish (A6-0044/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my British colleague Mr Parish on the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, which had been adopted on the basis of the situation at 31 December 2006. Having brought the 21 regulations applicable to the common organisation of agricultural markets together in a single all-encompassing regulation in order to rationalise and simplify the legal framework of market policies such as intervention, private storage, import tariff quotas, export refunds, safeguard measures, state aid and competition rules, and the communication and reporting of data, it became necessary to update this text to take account of decisions taken since 2006 in the sugar, fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, seeds, beef and milk and milk products sectors.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) We are opposed to the current common agricultural policy and object to changes of little fundamental significance to the existing system. We demand a comprehensive review and reappraisal of the entire common agricultural policy.

These two reports maintain the existing structures of the common agricultural policy. Hence we cannot support them. The entire common agricultural policy is an absurd contrivance and must be abolished.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Mr. Parish’s report establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. The proposals to provide a set of harmonised rules in various areas of the industry, such as private storage, import tariff quotas and safeguard measures are a positive move to clarify European agricultural policy. The increase in transparency and simplification of regulation within this sector is much needed and will directly benefit Scottish farmers. I therefore voted in the favour of the report.

- Report: Neil Parish (A6-0045/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my British colleague Mr Parish on the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for the flax and hemp sector. The European Commission, which is to submit a report currently being written on prolonging aid for the production of short flax fibre and hemp fibre, set to end from the marketing year 2008/2009, is proposing to prolong this aid while awaiting the policy reviews to be undertaken in 2008 under the health check of the common agricultural policy. I support this proposal, which is very sensible.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − The proposal to prolong the subsidy of flax and hemp is a procedural necessity to allow for adequate reflection and potential reform under the CAP Health Check. It is for this reason that I support the report’s recommendations and voted accordingly.

- Report: Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (A6-0055/2008)

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I am voting in favour of the report by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community.

I was particularly interested to read my colleague’s report. I am in favour of accepting of the report because I think that Community law should be clearer and more comprehensible, and thus more transparent and accessible to each citizen.

The aim of the application is to codify Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 of 9 October 1990 on the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community.

As a lawyer I wish, in the explanation of my vote, to stress the value of codification, which is a very important process of singularly combining a large set of legal regulations in a single, systematised collection from which fundamental legal norms may be interpreted. I attach considerable significance to the simplification and ordering of Community law.

- Report: Paolo Costa (A6-0049/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my fellow Member Mr Costa on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002, adopted the day after the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the United States of America, which had to be reviewed in the light of its application. Fortunately a compromise has been found on the financing of the security measures, which will be shared between the Member States and airport authorities, airlines and passengers.

I am pleased that the European Parliament succeeded in convincing the Council and the Commission to use the regulatory procedure with scrutiny for a whole series of measures when defining the common basic standards for aviation security, such as the screening of passengers, and articles that may be prohibited, such as liquids.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This regulation provides for ‘a greater degree of harmonisation’ of common rules in the field of civil aviation security at EU level – such as, for example, on the screening of passengers and cabin baggage, access control and aircraft security checks – repealing the 2002 regulation adopted as a result of the events of 11 September 2001 in the USA.

Among the aspects we criticised was that there was no guarantee – quite the reverse – that the costs of providing security measures would not be passed on to the users of these services, which are clearly public services. Nor is there even any guarantee that users will not be faced with a surcharge to cover those measures. Moreover, there is no clarification about the removal of a whole set of security measures which have already been widely criticised, in particular as to whether they are actually effective.

It is also striking that, in relation to workers, limiting access to ‘airside’ for security reasons has been used to restrict workers’ freedom to form a trade union. The current text offers no guarantee that such abuse would be prevented or such rights protected. Finally, the regulation clearly opens the door to the presence of armed personnel on flights, a measure which we consider to be mistaken, even for reasons of security.

  Stanisław Jałowiecki (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) In spite of everything, I voted in favour of this report. I would like to give a few words of explanation. As they say, a makeshift solution lasts the longest. We have had a year now to become convinced of the truth of this utterance. When the ban on taking drinks and other liquid items on board aircraft was introduced, we were assured that it was only a transitory requirement. There was shortly to be a review of procedures, and in fact special equipment was to be installed, in the form of detectors that would be able to discover hazardous substances.

None of this followed. What of passengers, meanwhile? Passengers just got used to these inconveniences... they treat them as if they have always existed and are essential. Note that this is exactly how our freedoms and rights are gradually and almost imperceptibly restricted – in other areas, too; not only in civil aviation.

Praise is, however, due to Parliament, and especially to Parliament’s representatives on the Conciliation Committee, who tenaciously defended these principles. Admittedly, their success was not unalloyed, but it is worth emphasising what was achieved.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I am voting in favour of the new air safety regulation, which creates greater safety in air traffic.

I am strongly advocating a joint vote on the standards and regulations at European level, since only efficient, rapid adaptation of the new directives will protect the safety of air passengers as well as their rights. I very much welcome the possible use of accompanying safety officials, the ‘sky-marshals’, particularly based on the current threat from international terrorism on potentially vulnerable flight paths. Furthermore, I support the safety regulations that allow weapons to be carried only in the hold and only in exceptional cases with consent issued by the state at the time.

With regard to the contentious issue of funding, I support the compromise that every Member State should make its own decision on this, in which the costs of the security measures are to be borne by the airport facilities, airlines and the users themselves. It has been clarified, however, that costs should apply directly to the provision of security and only the actual costs should be covered. The Commission is also being urged to submit a report by the end of the year on the financing of costs, together with a legislative proposal, if appropriate.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Speaking as a representative of a country that was a recent victim of terrorism, Mr Costa’s report on common rules in the field of civil aviation security is one that I welcome. Civil aviation security is something that concerns all Member States and therefore requires common basic standards across the EU. Regarding the funding of improvements to security measures, I feel an adequate compromise has been reached that allows sufficient scope for Member States and users to share the cost. Flexible financing rules will not only take account of the need to implement basic measures across Europe, but will allow those airports deemed to be at greatest risk from terrorist activity to take further steps to counter the threat. I further welcome the proposal to reduce the frequency of re-screening for passengers arriving from third countries with equivalent safety standards to the EU. I voted in favour of the report.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I refused to vote in favour of the final conciliation between the European Parliament and the Council, because I oppose the measure of in-flight armed guards, given the high-level additional checks to which passengers are subjected on the ground before boarding. I consider this measure excessive: it sacrifices passenger rights in the name of flight safety; it does not serve the principle of proportionality, and will ultimately place a financial burden on citizens – in other words, passengers. We call upon the governments of the Member States, and especially the Greek Government, not to proceed with this measure, and to make use of the scope already available to them.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) Civil aviation security has faced real, deadly and unprecedented challenges in recent years. Every effort has been made to provide an appropriate response to the threats made against the lives of passengers and flight crews and yet we find that the rules established still cannot keep pace with the creativity of criminals. We cannot therefore delay further or spend any more time on debates based on taking a false sense of security for granted.

The legislation we are voting on today is merely part of the legislative action that the Union has been developing in order to ensure that its citizens have greater and more evident security. In the field of aviation security it is therefore essential that we equip ourselves with flexible instruments that make it possible to create an atmosphere of maximum protection for citizens, and that can be easily and adequately evaluated. I shall therefore vote in favour of the agreement which this Parliament reached in conciliation, which will guarantee protection for citizens, security in civil aviation and constant surveillance against those who threaten our security, democratic institutions and the rule of law.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Costa on the text on common rules in the field of civil aviation security, repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002.

In fact, I believe it is of prime importance to create a simpler and more flexible legislative framework that enhances freedom and decision-making power in the implementation phase of laws, compared with previous measures that were too detailed.

However, I believe it is right to make a few fine distinctions, in particular on linking airport charges to the cost of the services offered. In this context, I would make a point of asking the Commission to take an initiative as soon as possible on the financing of security measures at European airports, and the transparency of security costs, in order to address possible distortion of competition in this field.

  Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I will be voting in favour of the compromise agreement reached in conciliation despite having reservations, not only about the financing of this legislation, but also at the attitude of the Council of Ministers during this whole procedure.

Firstly, the point has to be made that governments believe that they can introduce enhanced security measures in civil aviation and expect the industry and subsequently the passengers to pay for it. My view, and indeed it was the view of Parliament, is that if Member States insist on enhanced security measures, they should at least contribute towards the costs.

Secondly, my understanding of conciliation is where two parties compromise their views in order to reach an agreement. On this dossier the Council not only failed to even consider compromise or indeed conciliation, but arrogantly set about accusing Parliament of putting passenger security at risk. This is frankly unacceptable and leaves a bitter legacy for us all to remember for future conciliations. In the end I feel I am being blackmailed by the Council in voting for this agreement so we can at least have enhanced security measures in place to protect the public. But my vote comes reluctantly and with anger.

- Report: Reino Paasilinna (A6-0041/2008)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased about the adoption at second reading and on the basis of the report by my Finnish fellow Member Mr Paasilinna on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, the idea for which was launched by the President of the European Commission, José-Manuel Barroso, in February 2005, and which has aroused a certain amount of scepticism as regards the added value such a facility can provide.

As much as I share the points of view and concerns over financing a project of this kind, I do consider it essential to develop a facility like this to put knowledge at the heart of the European ideal, because it is through the development of knowledge and not the culture of ignorance that our humanistic European civilisation will progress. I should mention, in passing, the increasing inappropriateness of our budgetary structure within the European Union, particularly for financing large projects such as this (or Galileo, for example). Finally, I cannot understand why the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance tabled an amendment, which my political group and I voted against, to reject and therefore delay the implementation of the common position.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome and support the report by my colleague Mr Paasilinna, which aims to contribute to the EU’s economic growth and competitiveness by developing new forms of innovation through the creation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).

The objective of the EIT is to support the key element of competitive capability: ‘Knowledge’. Knowledge cannot, by definition, be a static concept, so it can only exist through a dynamic, structured process of research and new discoveries. The real progress is made only through innovation.

Today, in a global market of old and new ‘knowledge economies’, competitors such as the United States, India and Japan are at work, countries that have always made innovation the cornerstone of their economic development, and have consequently enjoyed a strong competitive advantage over the EU.

The EIT will serve to strengthen the exchange of knowledge, to bring together, exchange and circulate ideas, and to collect together research from all over Europe in macro-areas that are essential for developing the future competitiveness of the EU.

The potential benefits for the competitive system of our market are almost unlimited. It will be up to us to ensure the EUR 2.4 billion of funds committed are used properly and that the European Union can address future challenges arising from the global market more vigorously.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As we already mentioned at first reading, we are very critical about establishing the European Institute of Technology especially because of the view taken by various research organisations.

In line with the positions held by scientific organisations that criticised this proposal on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, we voted in favour of the proposal rejecting the Council common position, but unfortunately that proposal was rejected. In the first place there is not sufficient funding. One of the options for funding is the Community budget, including appropriations intended for research, which may end up being just another way of supporting the more developed countries, thus exacerbating inequalities.

Following pressure from various countries that wanted to host the Institute, this became virtual, a type of gateway for consulting scientific communities in different areas. The European Parliament adopted several amendments to the Commission proposal, but in our opinion these are insufficient to straighten out something that was born crooked.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I entirely support the report by my colleague Mr Paasilinna. I am convinced that this institution is very much needed by the European Union and its Member States. It is attracting interest not only from European researchers and groups of scientists in individual states, but also from practical people – chiefly business people. I feel that the Institute should fulfil a mobilising function for the whole of the EU, and consequently its component parts should not leave out any Member State.

It has a particular role to play in levelling out opportunities and uniting EU economies in the new Member States. Only by combining the research potential and efforts of scientists from the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Europe will we find ourselves in a position to even out existing disproportions and move ahead while implementing the aims of the Lisbon Strategy. With this in mind, I would like to appeal most earnestly for the headquarters of the Institute (the Governing Board) to be located in my country, Poland – in Wrocław.

This is a city located where the cultures of the old and the new Europe meet, lying in close proximity to three other Member States: Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic; it has a fine scientific and research support platform, numerous higher education institutions and an enormous, nearly 200 000-strong, population of students. I have no doubt that Wrocław is the best place to site the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Mr Paasilinna’s report ‘Establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology’ is an important contribution to achieving the goals set out by the Lisbon Strategy. The concept of bringing together expertise from the private sector, research organisations and higher education institutions is a good one and an interesting pilot project. We must also ensure that the Governing board of the EIT is selected transparently to preserve the integrity of its work. Parliament and the Council should play a role in ensuring that transparency is upheld as well as assuring that the EIT is accountable and that the autonomy of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities involved is respected. I support this report.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the agreement reached between the Council and Parliament, to which the European Commission raised no objections, I think that the adoption today at second reading of the recommendation for adopting a regulation establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology marks a particularly important moment, since it effectively symbolises the birth of this important project.

It is some years since the European Union identified Innovation and Knowledge as central aspects for meeting the challenges of globalisation and the emergence of new major economic actors. In that context, specific support for research and development as an economic weapon is an initiative which deserves the greatest possible backing – and this lies at the core of the project.

As to whether it would be better to have a real campus or the adopted solution of Communities, only time will tell which should have prevailed. In any event it is important – essential even – to have flexibility and the permanent ability to adapt the model to the best solutions. Otherwise the mentor of innovation would not have the capacity to innovate, which would be an unforgivable mistake when the intention is to build models of efficiency.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) I initially wanted to support the proposal for a European Institute of Technology, as it fills the existing gap between higher education, research and innovation, which is important as regards the economy and the internal market. The EIT would seem a splendid project, therefore – if it were not for the inadequate financial arrangements.

Consequently, I cannot support the current proposal or the Council common position, mainly because the budget is inadequate. The Commission had proposed a reasonable sum capable of providing for the needs of the KICs (Knowledge and Innovation Communities) for six years. The Council has reduced the budget to such an extent that this is no longer possible. Yet an EIT impact assessment showed that sound basic financing was an essential factor for achieving success.

As the proposal stands, KICs are forced to seek external financing from other Community programmes, which are moreover not intended for this purpose. Therefore, Member States will have to take responsibility for providing the financing themselves, as if we can simply rely on private sponsoring. This proposal would mean that the project was doomed to failure.

Finally, the fact that climate change as the focus of the first KICs has been explicitly removed from the proposal means that I no longer wish to support the report.

- Report: Reimer Böge (A6-0065/2008)

  Derek Roland Clark, Nigel Farage and John Whittaker (IND/DEM), in writing. − We are obviously in favour of Britain receiving money from the European Union as a contribution to the cost of floods last year. We therefore support this motion.

However, we take this opportunity to place on record that we do not favour this arrangement under which Britain must apply to the European Union for assistance.

The UK is a large net contributor to the EU budget. Rather than having to plead for a small amount to be returned to us, we should prefer to retain our funds and decide for ourselves how they are spent.

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. − I am delighted that the European Parliament has approved the award of EUR 170m of flood aid from the EU Solidarity Fund to help towards the clean-up operations after the floods in my country, and especially in my region, last summer. The floods affected hundreds of homes and businesses and caused misery to thousands of people. The fact that this is the second largest payment ever from the EU Solidarity Fund is indicative of the huge financial and personal cost paid by the victims. This money will hopefully go some way towards covering those costs.

As MEP for one of the regions most affected, I can say that every contribution is welcome. This gesture of solidarity from the rest of Europe will be most welcome in my constituency.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The text adopted today approves the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund in favour of the United Kingdom following the flooding there in the summer of 2007.

Since the damage declared was above the threshold for activating this mechanism with regard to the United Kingdom, approximately EUR 4 612 000 000, the consequences of the floods were classified as a ‘major disaster’ and the Commission proposed mobilising the Solidarity Fund for an amount of EUR 162 387 985.

The opinion of the EP’s Committee on Regional Development presses the Council to reach agreement on the Commission’s proposed revision of the regulation establishing this Fund, which it has failed to do since the EP adopted its position at first reading on 18 May 2006, with a critical vote from us, moreover.

In our opinion, among other things, the EP’s position does not safeguard the eligibility of regional disasters nor does it even allow for recognition of the specific nature of Mediterranean natural disasters or the adaptation of this Fund – as regards time limits and eligible actions – to the specific nature of natural disasters, such as drought and fire. These are aspects which should be safeguarded.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, the Solidarity Fund is the quintessence of the principle of solidarity, which is one of the cornerstones of the European Community. The criteria for its deployment have been refined through many years of practice, and this has done away with the discretionary nature of its management, which was apparent at least in the first attempts to get the Anti-Globalisation Fund up and running, this being a new European Union budget institution established under the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective. One major drawback, strongly emphasised in the case of the Solidarity Fund, was the long waiting time for this instrument to be brought into play, highlighted by applicant countries affected by a natural disaster. Paradoxically, the EU was able to respond more quickly to third countries’ requests for aid than to those lodged by its own Member States.

The proposal to mobilise the Fund to help Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which were afflicted by flooding in June and July 2007, meets all the formal requirements. It is worth recognising the reaction of the Committee on Regional Development, which sped up Parliament’s procedures. Meanwhile, it is difficult to interpret the delay on the part of the European Commission. Its conclusion of 18 January 2008 appeared six months after the natural disaster and the United Kingdom’s prompt application. This chimes with the bad tradition of delayed administration of the Solidarity Fund and demands an upgrade of the executive provisions, which Parliament has been calling for since 18 May 2006.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Following the devastating floods experienced in Britain last year, I would like to salute Mr Böge’s work on the Mobilisation of the European Union’s Solidarity Fund report. The money proposed will benefit all those affected, including businesses. I therefore welcomed the report’s recommendations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) In the wake of natural disasters and the like, temporary accommodation must be provided quickly and makeshift repairs made to essential infrastructure such as, for example, power supply lines, roads, bridges and so on, so that hospitals can start running again, and the Solidarity Fund can be a great help here. What cannot be paid for, however, are the thousands of hours of unpaid work carried out by the relief units. Nor can the suffering of those affected be compensated.

A sensible balance must be preserved in the Solidarity Fund between disbursing funds rapidly and unbureaucratically and ensuring that these are not used for purposes other than those intended. Prevention and better intergovernmental cooperation are particularly important for preparing for future natural disasters. Under no circumstances, therefore, should these events be used to construct an EU civil defence agency or an EU rapid reaction force for disasters, since the latter would not be in a position to provide effective protection against natural disasters, but would simply inflate costs and increase bureaucracy.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) I am voting against this report since it involves an increase in the EU budget. Payments to Britain for the floods in 2007 should be found within the existing budget since there is scope for re-prioritisation, for example by not increasing the budget for Galileo.

- Report: Kyösti Virrankoski (A6-0058/2008)

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Past experience shows that the EU does not manage disaster assistance well. Junilistan thinks that disbursement from the fund can often reduce incentives to Member States to remedy the problems which lie behind the need for aid.

As regards the introduction of a budget item for expenditure in exceptional circumstances, Junilistan considers that this paper contrivance reinforces the impression that the EU is seeking to become a superpower with influence over everything that happens in the world. Junilistan objects to this.

Frontex takes a step too far when it comes to coordinating the border controls and immigration policies of the Member States. Junilistan is opposed to any expansion in its activity at all.

As I cannot support the draft amending budget for the above reasons, I have decided to vote against the report in its entirety.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The first amendment to the Community Budget for 2008 includes mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for an amount of approximately EUR 162.4 million in favour of the United Kingdom – having regard to the floods there in 2007 – as well as the introduction of new budget lines and transfers between budget lines, not affecting the total amounts of the overall budget.

The establishment plan of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) is increased by 25 posts, from 69 to 94, having regard to the budgetary increase already made for that Agency – approximately EUR 30 million – approved during the debate on the 2008 Community budget. That Agency’s action is gradually being consolidated and it is being given competences that lie at the heart of State sovereignty. It is an Agency which, amongst other examples, lends support to ‘Fortress Europe’ and immigration policy with the accent on security promoted by the EU.

The creation of a new heading ‘Exceptional crisis expenditure’ also needs to be highlighted, although it is not clear what should be understood by ‘crisis’.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, the first amending budget during implementation of the budget plan for 2008 covers the items grouped under the common heading of adjustments for ‘unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances’.

Point 1, to wit mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund for the benefit of Great Britain, which was affected by major storm and flood damage in the summer of last year, most definitely falls under this category. The only comment to be made is that delays in mobilising funds arising from a belated application by the European Commission are becoming a dishonourable tradition. Point 5, proposing the creation of the budget article 27 01 11: Exceptional crisis expenditure, to enable the financing of exceptional expenditure linked to a declared crisis, is of a similar nature. The three remaining items, however, which have been dumped in the common bag of the amending budget, are of a different nature.

I share the rapporteur’s doubts concerning the financing of the Research Executive Agency and the ERCEA, and also the not wholly coherent conclusion on the creation of budget item 06 01 04 12: Galileo Programme. The Frontex modified establishment plan deserves to be accepted.

Analysis of the whole conclusion and relating to it in a suitable way are rendered problematic by the heterogeneous nature of the budget items contained in AM 1/2008.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Past experience shows that the EU does not manage disaster assistance well. Junilistan thinks that grants from the fund can often reduce incentives to Member States to remedy the problems which lie behind the need for aid.

As regards the introduction of a budget item for expenditure in exceptional circumstances, Junilistan considers that this paper contrivance increases the impression that the EU is seeking to become a superpower with influence over everything that happens in the world. Junilistan objects to this.

Frontex takes a step too far when it comes to coordinating the border controls and immigration policies of the Member States. Junilistan is opposed to any expansion in its activity at all.

However, the report also states that resources should not for the present be moved from the operational to the administrative line of the Galileo allocation. Added to this, the report supports the creation of a budgetary structure for the Research Executive Agency and the European Research Council Executive Agency.

I think that these questions are of considerable importance and have therefore voted for the report in its entirety, despite objections in principle to the other amendments proposed by the report.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − In Kyösti Virrankoski’s report ‘Amending budget No1/2008’ regarding the Solidarity Fund, we can see that the EU is prepared to put fresh money into the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund in the UK. I hope this is something that we will look to do for other Member States that are victims of natural disasters, such as Greece. I voted in favour of this report.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE-DE), in writing. − (RO) As a deputy elected in Romania, I praise the approval of the European Parliament’s draft resolution on the European Union Draft Amending Budget no. 1/2008. This budget amendment is relevant with respect to the amendment of the personnel chart of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX). Romania represents the eastern outpost of the European Union and is the state in charge of the management of one of the widest external land borders of the Union.

In this capacity Romania must always support the enhancement of cooperation for better management of the borders and providing FRONTEX with sufficient means to carry out its activity, under the best conditions, be it financial means, personnel or equipment. The drafting of the article “exceptional expenses in case of crisis” is also much appreciated: we can never be too prepared for such undesired events.

- Report: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (A6-0053/2008)

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We have chosen to vote for the agreement because, unfortunately, the country is now so economically dependent on the fisheries agreement with the EU. If the EU partnership agreement were to be terminated with immediate effect, that would have serious consequences for the country’s economy. We take scientific reports showing that the seas are being fished out very seriously indeed. Hence we do not see EU fisheries agreements as a viable means, in the long term, of combating poverty and supporting development.

We want to change the EU’s fisheries policy so that it leads to a recovery in fish stocks. We also want to support sustainable development in those countries for which current fisheries agreements with the EU are a major source of income by making changes to the EU’s trade and aid policy and through various forms of partnership.

The vessel owners should be accountable for the costs arising under the agreements from which they themselves draw benefit, and we want to see continued change in that direction. Hence we voted in favour of Amendment 8, although that change should take place in a wider context.

Guinea-Bissau is one of Africa’s poorest countries. We want to stress how important it is that the EU find other, longer-term and more sustainable ways of supporting Guinea-Bissau, since the fisheries agreement with the EU currently accounts for 30% of the country’s GNP.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Capoulas Santos on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau as I think it is a balanced agreement ensuring the sustainability of fisheries and also the protection of the interests of both parties: the European Union and Guinea-Bissau.

I regard the amendments tabled by the rapporteur as an important contribution to the strengthening of the EU’s fisheries policy, insofar as they highlight the importance of enhancing Parliament’s role and the information supplied to it.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau for the period from June 2007 to June 2011, provides for the granting of 37 fishing licences, four of them for Portugal.

A total of 35% of the EC financial contribution is allocated to the support of initiatives taken in the context of the sectoral fisheries policy drawn up by Guinea-Bissau. The emphasis is placed upon improving the health and hygiene conditions of fishery products and the monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activities. That is a particularly important area for action, bearing in mind that, according to international bodies, fishery resources in that country have been noticeably affected due, amongst other things, to illegal, unregulated fishing.

The agreement also provides for the compulsory employment of local seamen, that is from Guinea-Bissau, in accordance with the vessel’s gross tonnage. As in other agreements, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Declaration will apply to those seamen.

Article 10 of the agreement also provides for the setting up of joint ventures between Community operators and Guinea-Bissau operators with a view to the joint exploitation of the resources. That possibility is advantageous for Community vessels insofar as they will thus be exempt from the payment of licence fees.

- Report: Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (A6-0054/2008)

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) If the EU partnership agreement were to be terminated with immediate effect, that would have serious consequences for several developing countries and for the many people affected. We cannot therefore simply say ‘no’ to the agreements which the EU has with other countries on fishing. However, we take scientific reports showing that the seas are being fished out very seriously indeed. We therefore want to change the EU’s fisheries policy so that it will lead to a recovery in fishing stocks. This must form part of a major review.

We do not see EU fisheries agreements as a viable means, in the long term, of combating poverty and supporting development.

We therefore want to support sustainable development in those countries for which current fisheries agreements with the EU are a major source of income by making changes to the EU’s trade and aid policy and through various forms of partnership.

The vessel owners should be accountable for the costs arising under the agreements from which they themselves draw benefit, and we want to see continued change in that direction. We therefore voted for Amendment 8, although that change should take place in a wider context.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) The main objective of the new partnership agreement between the EC and Côte d’Ivoire is to strengthen cooperation between the two parties so as to create a partnership framework within which to develop a sustainable fisheries policy and the sound exploitation of living marine resources in Côte d’Ivoire, special attention being given to supporting the fisheries policy of that state.

The two parties will agree on the priorities to be decided upon for such support and will identify the objectives, the annual and multiannual programming and the criteria to assess the results to be obtained, with a view to ensuring sustainable and responsible management of the sector. The agreement respects the fundamental principles of the common fisheries policy and guarantees Portugal a fishing licence for five surface longliners.

Members of the Portuguese PSD (Social Democratic Party) therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This agreement provides for a total of 40 fishing licences to be allocated to EU Member State vessels – five of them to Portugal – for a period of six years from July 2007. Compared to the previous agreement, it represents a considerable reduction in fishing opportunities, but the agreement does provide for the possibility of increasing the catch. The parties agreed that the EC financial contribution will be allocated in full to the support of initiatives taken in the context of the sectoral fisheries policy drawn up by Côte d’Ivoire.

Shipowners benefiting from the agreement must employ at least 20% ACP nationals among the seamen signed on. The agreement provides for those seamen to be covered by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. That declaration provides for mandatory freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. The wages of the seamen will be fixed by mutual agreement between the shipowners and the seamen or their representatives, but may not be lower than the standards applied in their countries of origin, which might lead to a breach of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

- Reports: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (A6-0053/2008) and Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (A6-0054/2008)

  Lena Ek, Olle Schmidt and Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We have chosen to vote against the two partnership agreements on fishing between the EU and Guinea-Bissau and Côte d’Ivoire, respectively. The reason is that experience of this type of agreement is highly dubious. Low-income countries are offered a lump sum payment and, in return, they open up their waters to commercial fishing by EU Member States, mainly in Southern Europe. The resources transferred are ridiculously small in relation to the catches taken; in addition, there is a clear risk of unsustainable fishing. A further argument is that local inshore fishing is usually adversely affected. We hope that it will be possible, within the context of the EU’s sustainable development strategy (SDS), to assess these fishing agreements without delay and to replace them with schemes which are sustainable.

- Report: Gabriele Albertini (A6-0014/2008)

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We think that the proposal for a common speed limit on EU motorways may have a positive environmental effect in the sense that speed can be reduced in those Member States which do not have mandatory speed limits on their motorways. However, it is important that no Member State be compelled to disregard subsidiarity by raising the speed limit on its roads. It must always be possible for Member States to impose lower speed limits than the European standard.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my excellent Italian colleague Mr Albertini, which makes a number of recommendations to the players in this sector to improve a situation that is deteriorating because of growing demand for oil and diminishing oil reserves, increasingly congested towns and cities, and a negative impact on human health and climate change.

I support the three chosen areas for combining public policy: encouraging technological developments (cars with emissions of 125 g CO2/km maximum), developing market-based instruments (Emissions Trading Scheme, tax incentives, charges/fares based on environmental impact, etc.) and using flanking measures to enable means of transport and infrastructure to be used as efficiently as possible.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transport undoubtedly has an impact on society’s socio-economic condition and, at the same time, it has direct implications for the environment. Urban transport, in fact, generates 40% of CO2 emissions and keeps Europe dependent on and ‘hostage’ to the market in fossil fuels such as oil, which accounts for approximately 70% of total demand.

These alarming data are enough to explain the urgency and necessity of shaping a new comprehensive strategy for transport in Europe that could actually be developed from this report.

Pollution caused by transport must be considerably reduced very quickly by placing restrictions on emissions of pollutants, altering the composition of fuel mixtures, and continuing to provide incentives for the purchase and use of environmentally-friendly and non-polluting forms of transport.

The EU will therefore have responsibility for implementing an integrated plan to achieve this important objective, by committing itself to providing incentives for rail transport which, where appropriate improvements are made, can guarantee a high level of efficiency with a low environmental impact. The trans-European networks should be completed as soon as possible, and require greater financial support from the EU. On the other hand, Member States must guarantee and watch over the completion of this construction work, except in cases where damage to the environment or to health is proven.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI), in writing. − (PL) Amendment 1 to the report (A6-0014/2008) on sustainable European transport policy tabled by the PPE-DE Group was a cause for justified concern – both for me and for the entire transport sphere. This amendment is aimed at delaying a review of the Eurovignette Directive. To accept this amendment would be to send a negative signal from the European Parliament and would contradict the report by the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of 28 January 2008. This is why I voted against the amendment and against the entire content of the report.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on sustainable transport policy. It takes account of European energy and environment policies. In the EU 70% of demand for oil is attributable to the transport sector.

We need to put an end to our almost total dependence on fossil fuels by combining the various policies that encompass all modes of transport. This approach should create the conditions essential for realism, such as technological innovation to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and the development of biofuels, the reform of the taxation system to take account of environmental impact, and accompanying measures to make better use of infrastructure and encourage citizens to change their habits.

Every citizen can be a player in sustainable transport by using public transport in preference to passenger cars, where this alternative is possible.

To make passenger and freight transport easier using low-emission modes of transport such as rail, river, sea and public transport, a range of new services, more competitive organisation of the sector and different ways of using certain infrastructure are needed simultaneously.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Since it is impossible to comment in this explanation of vote on all the important issues raised by this EP own initiative report, given its complexity and breadth, it is notable that the document does not address or incorrectly addresses aspects that researchers regard as essential in addressing issues of transport and energy and their impact on the environment. For example:

- there is no mention of high oil prices or to the consequences thereof;

- there is no mention of the use of methane in road transport (in the form of CNG, LNG or biomethane);

- there is a lack of clarity on the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel for road transport;

- the uncritical bias towards the use of biofuels, with their serious consequences that have already been widely demonstrated;

- there is no reference to documents such as the ‘Target 2020’ programme advocating the replacement by 2020 of approximately 20% of the petrol and diesel consumed within the European transport sector.

Finally, I must point out that, in addition to listing problems already clearly identified, we need policies to respond effectively to those problems, such as challenging the current capitalist globalisation and the role of transport within that framework, in particular the increasing geographical distance between the point of production and the point of consumption, and the consequent rise in transport needs. There is much more to be said on all of this...

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE), in writing. − I and my Fine Gael colleagues in the PPE-DE Group would like to confirm that we abstained in relation to Amendments 3 and 11, and indeed the overall report, due to concerns over the issue of taxation and road charging. We continue to feel that both of these issues are up to individual Member States to decide and therefore should not be included in a Parliament report.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservative MEPs voted in favour of Mr Albertini’s own-initiative report on Sustainable European Transport on the basis that it provides a clear policy framework that will increase efficiency and tackle transport’s burgeoning impact on climate change. However, Conservatives remain concerned that the report’s call for further Commission proposals on internalising external costs should not begin until the impact assessment is fully completed, and the Parliament has properly debated the issue. We are also keen to see that this policy option, if it is introduced, should be applied uniformly across all transport modes, so that no market distortion takes place.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I am voting in favour of the harmonisation of transport, environmental and energy policy within the European Union, because only coordinated efforts in these three sectors can bring about a lasting improvement in each one individually.

With my vote I should like to support in particular the development of a generally applicable, transparent and sustainable model for evaluating the external costs of all modes of transport. I am therefore voting against Amendment 1 which, in my opinion, is aimed at delaying the internalisation of internal costs for road traffic. Acceptance of the amendment would hinder the EU’s efforts to achieve a sustainable transport policy and would furthermore create conditions for unfair competition between modes of transport.

Owing to the constantly increasing volume of traffic and the resulting ecological impact, intensive Europe-wide cooperation in the field of new technologies and alternative fuels should be strongly encouraged in order to stem greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the quality of life even in congested areas. In this regard I am also calling for the average emissions for new vehicles to be reduced to 125g CO2/km through technological improvements in the transport sector and the use of biofuels.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome the recommendations contained within Gabriele Albertini’s report on sustainable European transport policy. Safe and affordable means of mobility should be a right afforded to all EU citizens. Indeed, the sustainability of such transport is also a very pressing issue. In encouraging technological innovation and market-based instruments, such as the Emissions Trading Scheme or tax incentives, particularly in large cities and environmentally sensitive areas, there is an opportunity to ensure that means of transport and infrastructure are used efficiently. I support the call for increased investment in infrastructure and intelligent transport systems to tackle issues such as congestion. I voted for the report’s recommendations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) In order to detract from the fact that we are marking time despite innumerable action plans, car drivers are now to be driven to their bikes by congestion charges, vehicle tolls and the like, or politely asked to walk or make greater use of public transport.

We must, however, get something straight here: this is the result of badly coordinated, local public transport that has been economised to death, the boom in shopping centres on the edges of towns whilst local shops are in decline, the falling quality of living conditions in the inner city, the rising crime rate, neighbourhoods that are home to large numbers of foreigners turning into ghettoes and, last but not least, longer journey times to work owing to urban sprawl and greater flexibility in working hours and employment relationships and the associated role of the car as a prerequisite for gainful employment.

In these terms and in view of the fact that cars in themselves cause only around 10% of particulate emissions, the EU is wanting, ‘just’ wanting, here, to grab more competences for itself and set up futile monitoring systems. It should instead be taking the bull by the horns itself and fighting causes instead of symptoms, by revising its policy on subsidies, for instance, so as not to abet the exploding volume of heavy goods vehicles any further, for which the proportion of emissions produced is much greater. Piggy-back transport systems should finally become economically advantageous and the euphoria of privatisation should not be allowed to reduce public transport to an unattractive patchwork rug.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) Over the past decades the transport sector has successfully made substantial investments to enhance energy efficiency, and has brought onto the markets intelligent technology with environmental and security benefits. Nevertheless, these efforts do not appear to be sufficient, since the parallel constantly increasing demand in this sector almost cancels them out.

We therefore need to take a fresh look at this difficult equation so as to enable us to respond to the challenge. The transport sector is a dynamic economic sector; it is technologically advanced and ever more competitive. Industry has made extensive investments in research and development in close consultation with institutional and private partners. Greater coordination is, however, necessary for us to draw all the added value from our efforts. Specific action in terms of informing citizens and raising their awareness, including as far as their behaviour is concerned, is essential. Moreover, we should be pursuing collaboration and coordination regarding progress in the field of fuel efficiency, investment regulation, stimulating a dynamic market for safer and less polluting vehicles and supporting technological innovation.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the excellent report by my fellow Member Mr Albertini on sustainable European transport policy, taking into account European energy and environment policies. I believe it is of fundamental importance for the EU to coordinate its policies to develop urban public transport and alternative transport systems while protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As regards infrastructure, I note that the emphasis is continuing to be placed on road transport projects at the expense of rail projects. Completion of the trans-European networks still seems a remote prospect, and the EU’s contribution is minimal compared to the burden to be shouldered by Member States individually. In order to reduce gas emissions and improve the efficiency of freight and passenger transport, I would also stress the need for the EU to provide financial support for the implementation of priority projects in the framework of the trans-European networks.

  Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. − (DE) The Albertini report states that better internalisation of external costs can help to eliminate market disturbances and an increase in emissions.

I therefore voted against Amendment 1 because its aim is to delay the internalisation of external costs for road traffic. This is the wrong signal, since road traffic is primarily responsible for emissions from the transport sector. I hope that the review of the Infrastructure Charging Directive announced by the Commission will bring rapid progress in this sector.

13. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.55 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

14. Agenda: see Minutes

15. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

16. Common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products as regards the national quotas for milk (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Elisabeth Jeggle, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) as regards the national quotas for milk (COM(2007)0802 - C6-0015/2008 - 2007/0281(CNS)) (A6-0046/2008).

  Iztok Jarc, President-in-Office. − (SL) Let me first say that the Presidency welcomes the report by Mrs Jeggle on the proposal to increase the milk quota and is of the opinion that it is a constructive and balanced contribution to the debate that has been running for more than a few weeks now.

Based on the favourable market conditions, the European Commission has proposed in its report, or analysis, a 2% increase in national milk quotas starting with the next quota year, that is to say on 1 April 2008.

Milk quotas are not simply a matter of percentages; they are a wider issue linked to the review of the common agricultural policy. That is why the Council did not restrict itself to this issue but entered into a wider, simultaneous debate on the overall package of the common agricultural policy health check.

I must say that there were some very similar thoughts or doubts about this proposal in the Council and Parliament. For example, there were calls for more anticipation and stability in the milk sector. There was concern about areas with less favourable farming potential where there are few alternatives to traditional dairy production. On the other hand, there were resolute calls to enable European farmers to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the developing international and European markets.

Despite the complexity of this problem, we are convinced that we can find balanced answers and solutions to it within the framework of the common agricultural policy health check. I would like to add here that the Council supports Parliament in the suggestion that the Commission prepare a general, long-term strategy, that is to say a proposal for a strategy, for the European dairy sector. We think that the essential part of that strategy should be a so-called soft transition to the elimination of milk quotas, which would secure an unhindered transition to a more market-orientated dairy policy and predictability in this sector.

To this end the Council intends to call on the Commission to study all the appropriate means of achieving this. However, we think that the Commission's proposal for a 2% increase in the quota for the next quota year should be treated as part of a package and that the other parts should be appropriately debated within the common agricultural policy health check.

I would also like to add that the proposal will be on the agenda for the session of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council that is to take place next week. I hope it will be adopted. So, if the conditions are satisfied, implementation will begin in the present quota year, that is to say 2008.

Finally, allow me to thank everyone who contributed to the debate on this report, above all the rapporteur. In our opinion it is a balanced and well-founded observation. Thank you for your efforts.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think it is a very good signal from the Presidency that the Minister for Agriculture is present here today to participate in this very important discussion.

I shall start my speech in the traditional way, by thanking the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and especially the rapporteur for the very constructive report on the proposal to increase the milk quota system by 2%, as was stated by the Minister, for the coming milk year starting on 1 April 2008.

Many people have pushed the Commission to alleviate the very tight dairy situation. In the Council, a large majority of Member States invited the Commission to put a proposal on the table on increasing quotas. A resolution here in the European Parliament, adopted in October 2007, on rising food prices also called on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to propose a temporary increase in milk quotas. In December 2007 the Commission presented a market outlook report that showed that there clearly is, and will be in the future, a growing demand for dairy products.

Your report also confirms that we should increase the possibilities for producing more milk. I think everybody would agree that the Commission’s proposal is fairly prudent and clear, with a predictable and equal outcome for all the Member States. May I respectfully suggest that your amendments seem not to pay full attention to the need for predictability and equal treatment for farmers?

The amendment to make the increase of 2% voluntary for Member States, if applied, would be likely to create some difficulties. Firstly, I think we would all agree that we are looking for more market orientation and higher productivity. Therefore, I personally feel that the producer should be given the choice of whether or not to produce more milk. I think we would also agree that dairy farmers need predictability – certainty about their production possibilities within the quota system – and I do not think that a voluntary system would contribute to this.

As a solution, Member States have the opportunity to decide not to distribute the quota but to keep it in the national reserve. This is a possibility, although I would push the Member States and I would be happy to see the quota distributed, because I think it is the most proper way.

The amendment to use balancing-out of the quota at the end of the quota year is not a new idea. In fact, it is something that the Commission has been looking closely into, since such a theory could facilitate the use in some Member States of the unused quota in other Member States. But I think we would also agree that theory is one thing and practice is another.

Firstly, I think it clearly introduces uncertainty for milk producers. They would then have to make their best guess of how the situation would look at the end of the production year and, on that basis, try to make a choice for their production, and only the following year would they know whether that production was levy free or not. I think, with all respect, this is not to the advantage of the decision taken on the dairy farm. It is obvious that milk production implies heavy investment, and we owe it to our farmers to have a predictable system until the quotas disappear in 2015.

Secondly, who would benefit from this? I do not have to point out that it would largely benefit only a small group of Member States. This already makes it politically difficult. The most important thing is that it will benefit those producers who have already exceeded their quotas – those who have produced too much – and not those who have tried to keep within the limits of the quota system. So there is no certainty that this would lead to more milk being available on the market.

Thirdly, in my view, this also goes against the idea of simplifying the common agricultural policy. I fear that implementing rules in this area would be extremely complex, and I am not in favour of making our system more complicated in a situation where there are only seven years left of the lifetime of this quota system.

All in all, I note with pleasure that we all agree on the necessity for increasing the possibilities for the dairy sector in Europe to increase its production. It is an extremely important political signal to me and to all the Member States that the Agriculture Committee unanimously chose this line after the very divided opinions at the beginning of this discussion. I therefore send my biggest congratulations to the rapporteur for that achievement. I hope I will have the same rate of success in the Council.

  Elisabeth Jeggle, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, as already stated, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has unanimously rejected the Commission’s proposal to increase the quotas for the coming milk year by 2%. This would amount to 2.8 million tonnes. We consider this proposal to be too rigid, too inflexible, and it is the wrong signal in the current situation, particularly for the markets. Based on the rulings of 2003, there will be a 0.5% increase in quotas for 11 Member States anyway on 1 April this year – the equivalent of 700 000 tonnes more milk in the European Union.

The intensive debates with my colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture have shown that there will be no panacea, nor any comfortable way to conduct further debates. There are widely differing opinions and all positions, from the general and fundamental rejection of any increase in quotas up to and including a 5% increase, were represented. We nevertheless managed to find a compromise that took account of the positions of all the groups, and this was unanimously accepted with no dissenting votes or abstentions. My heartfelt thanks go to all my fellow Members for their constructive cooperation.

The agreed compromise has two focal points. Commissioner, you have said as much. I have a different opinion on this.

Firstly, the establishment of a European balancing mechanism, by which under- or over-shooting of the existing national quotas can be compensated at EU level. This would not be very bureaucratic and would result in producers who exceed their quotas being penalised only after balancing.

Secondly, as from 1 April, the Member States can decide to raise national quotas voluntarily for the 2008/2009 quota year. We want flexibility, not rigidity! This compromise means that the quotas that already exist will be used more efficiently. For Member States with greater potential, there is also the opportunity to use this European quota framework along the lines of a common European internal market system.

Commissioner, you always stress that the existing milk quota will expire in this system in 2015. A linear increase in quotas alone will not, however, create the soft landing you promise. Just think back, if you will, to the old milk lakes! The Committee on Agriculture has therefore unequivocally been arguing, as it has done already in the mini milk package, in favour of setting up a milk fund in order to achieve savings in costs resulting from the reforms explicitly for the milk sector. In our view such forward-looking promotion and preservation of the entire sector can be made possible only in this way. In particular this instrument should be used for dairy farmers in disadvantaged areas and in areas completely given over to grazing land and pasture. I would therefore ask you, Commissioner, to include this request by the European Parliament in tangible terms in your legislative health check proposal.

In our view the application of Article 69 is insufficient because it is not clearly defined in terms of practical measures, particularly for the sector already mentioned. It is also pure cynicism when a high-ranking Commission official announces to a gathering of farmers that they should not be complaining about producer prices already effectively falling again, since they had already been making do with 27 cents per litre of milk. This is contempt for the legitimate interests of an entire profession, which I, as a Member of a Parliament, having taken up the cause of democracy at the highest level, do not accept!

  Czesław Adam Siekierski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, I am sure that an increase in milk quotas in the 2008/2009 quota year will not threaten the stability of the EU milk market, and there will not be a significant fall in milk prices. We would have expected a greater increase, but on hearing the arguments put forward by Mrs Jeggle and other MEPs we supported the package of compromise amendments that talks of a voluntary increase of just 2%.

It transpires from information in the press that the Commissioner supports proposals for an annual increase in quotas of only 1% from 2010 as part of what is called the soft landing. This is rather a conservative approach, although the Commissioner is reportedly a liberal – but let us get down to business. On the one hand low quotas limit the development of the EU milk industry by lowering its competitiveness and export potential. On the other hand this is a guarantee of stable income for our farmers.

We shall continue to discuss the choice of the best solution in the future.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, the truth is that the extremely low prices that were paid to European milk producers for years caused major damage to the sector. They caused large-scale abandonment of the sector, especially in some regions such as my own, Galicia, and another of their consequences was that there were huge reductions in the strategic reserves of milk, which is a basic necessity.

I would like to say that, since 2007, the market has been developing positively, and in fact this is giving producers some respite, and even enabling them to invest in their farms, which was unthinkable until now. There are two pieces of good news in this respect, according to the Commission’s own report: positive prospects for the future mean that additional amounts of milk are required from the market, therefore a 2% increase is proposed for this year. I have been in agreement with this proposal from the start, Commissioner.

I have been in agreement with this proposal and I have tried to work alongside the rapporteur, Mrs Jeggle, precisely because it is clear that there was some reticence and that there were some members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development who did not think that this proposal from the Commission should be supported.

However, from my perspective and as I understand it, Parliament should not, as you said, be curbing those producers who decided to respond positively to the demands of the market. It was therefore I who proposed, in agreement with Mrs Jeggle, to make this measure voluntary.

As Mrs Jeggle has already said, the report was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Although it is true, as the rapporteur said, that there is underusage of the quota at EU level, this underusage is by no means equally distributed between all the Member States, nor is the production deficit as against theoretical consumption.

Just consider that in my country, Spain, the production allocated to us is 6.1 million tonnes and our theoretical consumption is 9 million tonnes. Spain therefore has, it has to be said, almost the largest deficit per inhabitant per year in the whole of the European Union.

Therefore, in Mr Goepel’s report, we have asked for this adjustment of the quota to be done in future, not by means of a linear increase, as in the proposal that you are putting forward now, but rather based on the gap that exists between the current structure and the structure that the sector should have, as you say, in order to be competitive and face up to the market alone. In this respect, Commissioner, I would like to ask you whether you are considering the possibility, in relation to the adjustment mechanisms or soft landing, of designing individual models for each Member State.

I would like to make it very clear that I think that milk production should be preserved right across Europe. With regard to quotas, before saying that we are now going to abandon them and that they are going to disappear, we need to think about their socio-economic role of protecting many fragile economies. In many areas milk production is, as you know, the only agricultural option, therefore this system has helped...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Niels Busk, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, the rapporteur, Mrs Jeggle, has again produced an excellent piece of work, for which I should like to thank her. European milk producers are currently facing great challenges on account of the soaring demand for dairy products from the Far East, in particular. This is a very positive problem. At the same time, the production economy is being undermined by soaring feed prices, as the EU is preventing the import of feed, which our competitor countries need. In order to survive we need to give permission for quota increases now. Otherwise, if we wait until 2015, when quotas are hopefully to be abolished, we shall miss a unique opportunity for the European dairy industry.

My group wants to see the liberalisation of milk production in Europe by means of market economy and free competition, and the quota system is at odds with this. Increasing production by at least 2% and reassessing at a later stage whether further quota increases are needed will support and maintain strong, forward-looking milk production in Europe and create a smooth transition to the abolition of the quota system, which was introduced in 1983 – incidentally as a transitional arrangement – owing to the development of whole milk powder and butter mountains. Fortunately, these no longer exist – now the market wants more milk products. Let us give European milk producers the opportunity to provide these.

  Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I shall be no exception in congratulating our rapporteur on a solid piece of work, which I think is best viewed as part of a wider picture of how we ensure long-term stability for Europe’s farmers and growers.

I have two points to make. We accept and we welcome the proposals from the Commission for quotas to be done away with by 2015. We would, however, like to see a system of production controls, and we disagree with the point in the report that there should be a voluntary opt-in mechanism for the Member States. We in the UK in particular have seen voluntary modulation which, of course, is not voluntary at all for the farmers who are stuck with it, and we disagree with that principle. We do not believe that asymmetric deregulation makes sense.

In the longer term as well, I would stress to our Commission colleagues that one of the major points, as we see a much more liberal and much freer market in milk products, will be the impact of competition law on how farmers, in particular, have to deal with long-term private contracts and the abuse of certain producers and purchasers, in particular, within the milk market. But, on the whole, this is a solid piece of work and we are happy to broadly support it.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) The condition of dairy production in Bulgaria is an example that there is something wrong in the economic system of the European Union.

The increase of the quotas is of little relevance since 30 % of the cows in Bulgaria have died of starvation for the first year of the EU membership alone. This is due to the huge inflation rates brought about by the EU, as well as the new regulations, quotas, and higher prices of feeds and fuels.

How much more time will have to pass? Perhaps it will be some two years before the country that is the homeland of the yoghurt, the homeland of Lactobacillus bulgaricum, remains without a single living cow thanks to the EU.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, first of all I welcome the recommendation that the rapporteur has put before us here today of 2% for the 12 months as a voluntary measure. I think it is a measured position to take.

I am opposed to opening the floodgates on production as this, I believe, would solve nothing. Let us see how the market develops over the next 12 months. Then we can come back next year, re-visit the situation and take a much broader view. Everyone talks about a ‘soft landing’ for quotas but no one can tell me what that soft landing will be. It is a word that we use – the President-in-Office has used it and the Commissioner has used it – but what are we really talking about here when we hit 2013? I know that it is a long way away, but there are many dairy farmers out there at the moment who are really wondering what the situation is going to be as we lead into that time?

So, while the returns for the dairy sector have changed dramatically during 2007, we cannot guarantee that this will continue forever. Let us be very honest about it. It was not what the Commission did. It was not what we, the politicians, did. It was not what any national government did or even the dairy sector did. It was market forces in the world that drove market price up and that is exactly what happened. Cereal prices have been driving the price up. But we have also got to understand that, coming into the next 12 months, the cost of cereals, the cost of fertiliser, the high cost of energy, the forage cost this summer, is going to mean that lots of the extra money that has gone to the dairy sector will in actual fact be absorbed in these extra costs.

So let us not get carried away in believing that everything is so rosy and everything is wonderful in the dairy sector – because it is not. The extra 2% will produce a substantial amount. But I do agree with the Commissioner – let us not make the situation more complicated. Let us make it easier for the producer. The milk and dairy farming sector, regardless of where you are in Europe, is the backbone of the small family farm structure, and we must support it.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner Fischer Boel, the 2% milk quota increase proposed in the report affects numerous Member States. Hungary is not affected by this, since it uses only 70% of its milk quota allocation, but we are nevertheless in solidarity with Member States such as Poland and others which need to increase their milk quota. In addition to the quota increase, we must prepare for the abolition of the milk quota regime altogether in 2015, as the Commissioner proposes, and so we need to devise support mechanisms that will provide real help in promoting quality milk production. A particular problem in some countries is the lag in technical and technological development. It would therefore be good if Community resources could be used to foster technological development in countries such as Hungary or other new Member States that have not been able to use their entire quota allocation. When increasing the quota, it is also important to develop innovation in the agricultural sector. The increase in fodder crop prices is a problem, and there is a particular problem that neither Commissioner Fischer Boel nor anyone else can do anything about, namely that in Hungary the dairy processing industry is unfortunately not owned by the milk producers, and this puts them at an enormous competitive disadvantage. Thank you for your attention.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Mr President, as the Commissioner knows, the general debate in Denmark is very unfavourable towards agricultural subsidies. We are very much aware that, if it is attractive to produce milk in Europe, this can be attributed in great part to artificially high prices and the restriction of competition from third countries. The conditions resulted in overproduction, which we have endeavoured to ration via quotas. I shall not go into all of the misfortune this has entailed, but merely point out that, if the Commission wants to increase quotas to take into account the growing demand, this is of course insufficient. Quotas must be abolished completely, and the distortions in the market must be eliminated. Therefore, there must be a thorough reform of the common agricultural policy, with payment by surface area being phased out much more quickly than is the case at present. The market must be liberalised properly, and this should be the main objective of the reform. In addition, we can examine the possibilities for continuing support to selected small areas where there are good arguments for milk production despite the economic conditions. Liberalisation must form part of the EU’s agricultural policy: a policy that incorporates environmental sustainability into the general market conditions and ensures free access to EU markets under fair conditions for developing countries. There is still a long way to go before we can take pride in the EU’s agricultural policy.

  Albert Deß (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, I should also like to thank Elisabeth Jeggle for having worked so ably on the report. The present quota system has been agreed up to 2015. It will therefore remain in force for a further seven years and a few days, to be exact. I think it is wrong, Commissioner, to raise the milk quota now by 2%.

I would have understood completely if the quota had been raised by 2% for the new Member States because consumption of milk products there is way below the EU average. Commissioner, however much I may respect you, I think the Commission’s proposals are wrong. Over the last few months our dairy farmers have been obtaining a fair milk price for the first time in many years. Our dairy farmers, who milk their cows morning and evening, 365 days a year – 366 days this year – deserve to earn a better income than has been the case in recent years.

Increasing the quota now therefore means that milk prices will be put under enormous pressure and they are already under pressure without any increase. We talk here of a soft landing, which for me means pulling the wool over the milk producers’ eyes. There will be no soft landing; there will be a rough landing when it is realised what the Commission has in mind as regards quotas. I believe the Hoelgaards and Rasmussens in the Commission, who would like to see a sudden fall in milk prices, must be stopped. You should not let them get away with this.

Even without any increase we have problems and we must try to counteract this here. The Bavarian CSU Members will be voting against the report tomorrow because they are against the increase. This is not directed against Elisabeth Jeggle, but against the increase in quotas.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking my fellow Member Mrs Jeggle for the enormous amount of work she has spent on drawing up this report. What we are discussing today I presented three years ago when I first started my work in the European Parliament. For three years we have been saying how necessary it is to increase milk quotas in the new Member States and in the European Union, to even out the unfair and disproportionate split in these quotas between the individual countries, to increase production, and primarily export, and above all to cease penalising those farmers who want to increase production and who want to produce good European milk.

The essential arguments confirming my stance of three years ago are also to be found in the Report from the Commission to the Council ‘Market Outlook for the Dairy Sector’, which announces the continuation of positive trends in the world milk market. Milk quotas allocated to individual countries are not being fully taken up. On the other hand a 2% increase in quotas does not necessarily imply the same increase in milk production in all regions. More and more farms in the EU are moving away from milk production, considering it to be too labour-intensive. Consequently in all those countries that wish to produce it we should increase the quota by 5% rather than 2%, particularly in view of the fact that there will be an increase in the number of customers worldwide and, especially in Asia, an increase in demand for excellent European dairy products.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, opinions are divided on milk quotas. We have also seen this within our Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which has nevertheless accepted a unanimously agreed compromise. If the European Parliament therefore wants to send out a signal to the Commission and the Council of Ministers, it should also be aware, however, that the farmers and their representatives are still divided.

Some are fully able to accept an increase in quotas of 2% or more and therefore a soft landing prior to the total abolition of quotas. They want growth opportunities through better use of their production potential, because the market opportunities in the EU and on the world market as a result of constantly rising demand are very attractive. Others fear a slump in production prices, which have only recently become fairer, if greater quantities of milk are produced.

Opinions are also divided on the European balancing out proposed by the Committee on Agriculture. Does this not now mean abandoning the national milk quota system when there is an undersupply of 3 million tonnes across Europe? Would the target not be reached too by reducing the superlevy and increasing the dairy quotas? Which dairy farmer has the courage to play poker in the countries where – as in Luxembourg – the superlevy for 2006-2007 will once again be falling due by overshooting the quotas? Because a voluntary 2% increase in milk quotas for the 2008-2009 milk year is part of the compromise, I am able to support it.

I am particularly pleased with our report’s request to set up a milk fund restructuring programme. I think it is extremely important that an analysis of the economic, social and ecological effects of increasing the milk quotas and a report on consumer behaviour will shortly be demanded that expressly calls for consideration of the particular factors of milk production in disadvantaged regions such as Luxembourg, with difficult production conditions.

The money planned for the milk sector must continue. It must also be clarified that producer prices, which are fairer in the long run, are only marginally to blame for higher prices for food. Distributors and the dominant food chains are continually counting their blessings here.

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating Mrs Jeggle and all the coordinators who have really tried to achieve a balance in the particularly sensitive area of milk quotas - a policy that European stock breeders and farmers expect to bring far-reaching, radical changes.

Commissioner, it is particularly encouraging that, when faced with a change in dairy product supply and demand, the Commission responded by amending one of the key regulations and increased the national quotas by 2% for the period 2007-2008. I should like to point out that it is acceptable for the Commission to show this kind of flexibility in matters of developing the market for agricultural produce, particularly foods, especially during a period when the stock-breeding sector is facing viability issues owing to the crisis on the international market.

However, it is also a matter of principle that such a crisis cannot be resolved by the same measures and policies for all types and sizes of stock-breeding operation. For this reason, I stress that within the scope of their discussions the Commission and the Council must re-examine the question of fat content, in order to prevent distortion of competition at the expense of countries for which a low fat content has been stipulated.

  Maria Petre (PPE-DE). – (RO) First, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for her work and efforts made in finding a compromise in this extremely delicate matter.

In my capacity as a European deputy from a new Member State I consider beneficial the increase of 2%, even though we wanted a significantly higher percentage, especially for the Member States with both low milk quotas and unused production potential. The increase in national milk quotas is not a threat to the stability of the milk market.

I would like to point out the fact that an increase of the quotas by 2% represents -in fact- an actual increase in milk production at community level by only 0.8%. I also believe that we need to maintain the current quota system to stimulate the consolidation of the existing farms and to stimulate new ones. The term used in relation to the quotas from the perspective of common agricultural policy reform is “smooth landing”, meaning a gradual elimination of quotas.

The new Member States, mainly Romania and Bulgaria, which joined the Union on 1 January 2007 and which, if I am to use the same language, “took off” abruptly, will be facing difficulties in adapting the “takeoff” procedures to those of a smooth “landing”. If this proposal had not been accepted, the quota assigned to Romania would have run out, like in 2007, in mid-year, which in fact does not stimulate but rather completely discourages the development projects of our farmers. I hope that the vote in plenary session for this report be as firm as the vote in the Committee on Agriculture.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs Jeggle on her excellent report and all the hard work that went into it. There is no doubt that the European Union needs to respond appropriately to the growing global demand that is prompting a significant increase in the milk quota. The proposed 2% quota increase, scheduled to take effect in every Member State at the beginning of April 2008, will perhaps help this sector within the European Union to take advantage of the opportunity offered by global demand. Nevertheless, we need to resolve the issue of milk quotas without creating another problem in the process.

I would like to emphasise that as well as meeting genuine market demand and expanding the range of products on offer, we must help to improve the already difficult situation of producers. This is why we must ensure that appropriate weight is given to the social and environmental impact of the quota increase, and its impact on production, especially as regards supporting producers in less favoured regions. Ensuring that the price is appropriate for producers and consumers alike is indispensible for internal market mechanisms. In view of the fact that the quota system will be abolished after 2015, we must start to think now about how to help producers make their businesses efficient and profitable. Thank you for your attention.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you. Increasing the milk quotas in the current market climate is rash and risky for two reasons. On the one hand, the market outlook is nowhere near as favourable as the European Commission supposes. Recent developments demonstrate clearly the risks involved in raising the quota. Consumers in Europe and beyond have responded sensitively to the increase in prices of dairy products. In a number of countries consumption has decreased by 10-30%, and imports of milk powder from China have decreased. As a result, the purchase price of milk in Hungary, for example, has fallen by 10-20% in the past few weeks. The prime reason for all this may be that, while prices of other foods have risen, meat prices have not so far followed suit, with the result that consumers are meeting their protein requirements by consuming meat rather than increasingly expensive dairy products.

At the same time, in many Member States a significant proportion of the milk quota is unutilised. Increasing the quota would impede producers in these Member States from using the opportunities available to them; indeed, for these countries a quota increase could actually result in a drop in production because producers in Member States that are using their quota will buy up the livestock they need to increase milk production from these countries.

For the time being, therefore, there is no need to increase the quota. Let us wait and see what happens. If the price rise and increase in demand persist in the long term, then we should revisit this issue.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) The figures for the 2006/07 quota year show an under-usage of 1.9 million tonnes of milk at EU level, with 18 out of 27 Member States producing below their national quotas.

The European Commission is expecting for the 2007/08 quota year an under-usage of 3 million tonnes of milk. The issue of an additional 2% quota increase is, on the other hand, debatable. I agree with the view that all the options should be considered based on their applicability, with emphasis on their economic, social, regional and budget impact.

In my opinion, the new Member States should receive bigger subsidies, set at 2% as proposed, in order not to be discriminated against because of their past, as we are all aware of the higher demand as well as the higher prices.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, my fellow Member Mrs Jeggle has put forward a good proposal for increasing milk quotas. The case for increasing them and for creating a system of balancing out at EU level is also supported both by the situation on the milk market and by dairy farmers.

In view of this situation, questions must be asked. Why has the European Commission been so slow to react to the need to increase milk quotas? Is it planning to secure the interests and existence of EU producers by setting a minimum price for milk at a level that guarantees a profit for all EU producers and puts an end to purchases below the cost of production? Does the Commission envisage an evening out of the imbalance in milk production between the old and the new Member States?

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, two weeks ago, four and a half thousand dairy farmers descended on Brussels from all corners of Europe. They joined forces to form a European Milk Board and are now demanding fair prices.

This has already had a considerable impact in Germany. We have producer prices that were around 40% and are now coming under some pressure again. Dairy farmers are therefore demanding a volume-based market policy. If this development were to grow, if it were to influence agricultural policy, can you imagine that a Commission in the year 2015 would be able politically to resist the demands of this movement to increase or again apply the dairy quota system in a flexible manner?

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, I share the concern of many in this House about a definitive increase in milk quotas. I think the point we have arrived at requires the asking of fundamental questions, which includes the fact that, if we have a prevailing underproduction and sub-quota situation in Europe, then what really is the underlying justification for increasing quotas? This year, we expect three million tonnes’ under-usage, so what is the great rush in this regard?

Secondly, in terms of the much talked-of soft landing, we need to have particular regard for those regions which have built their structure and their strategy supplying other regions which are currently limited in their production – regions such as my own constituency, which supplies across the border to the Republic of Ireland. In terms of a soft landing, we need to find a long-term strategy and alternative outlets for regions such as this.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am wondering what producers who might be listening to this debate would think – it is so complex. I congratulate Ms Jeggle for miraculous work in getting consensus. However, those of you who have flown into the storms this week know that a soft landing depends on which way the wind is blowing and none of us know which way the wind will be blowing in a few years’ time.

I would think that giving a 2% increase in quota – and the voluntary bit in my view does not rest with the Member States, it is the producers who decide whether to take it or not – will allow us to test the market, and we need to do that. 2% is not a massive increase for individual producers.

As for the concerns – and perhaps the Commissioner has thought too deeply about the balancing mechanism – you are heavily taxing producers who can produce while at the same time Member States do not want to produce. We have had this argument already from other colleagues, so we need to do something about it.

Lastly, the WTO deal might make ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to thank Ms Jeggle very much for getting a difficult report together. Can I just quickly say that ‘faint heart never won fair maiden’, and I think we need to be much bolder here. Milk quotas are like a pressure cooker: you cannot keep the pressure on right to the end and then take it off, because it just bursts. I am quite clear what a soft landing means, and that is to increase quotas significantly before we get to 2015, so I very much welcome this 2%.

I would say to the Commission and to the Council that we should be much bolder when we get to 2010. Let us not look just to 1%, let us look to 2% and make sure that we do have a genuine soft landing for milk quotas. Young farmers and new entrants have all been restricted over the years. Now is our opportunity to give them this production. At last milk trade is increasing in the world...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, milk is a highly sensitive product and I should like to thank Mrs Jeggle most sincerely for an effective compromise. I particularly welcome the voluntary increase in milk quotas in the Member States. I should like to point out the following, however. Anyone who continually cites the price of food as justification for an increase in quotas or overproduction completely overlooks the fact that dairy farmers do not receive even 30% of the sale price in the shops. I believe we ought to be discussing this.

It is also essential that milk production can continue in mountainous regions and disadvantaged areas because it is often the only form of production taking place there. We need a special programme here.

  Esther de Lange (PPE-DE). – (NL) I shall skip the words of thanks and move on to saying that I welcome the proposal to increase the quota by 2%. Personally, I would have preferred 3%, as the European Commission itself admits that 2% amounts to a mere 1% in practice, as not all countries make full use of their quotas, but I shall in any case support Mrs Jeggle’s compromise of 2%.

To the European Commission I would say that this is not before time, as we were overtaken on the world market by New Zealand back in 2006. Demand increased, so there was scope for exploiting opportunities, but we could not exploit them as we were constrained by the quota system. This system had a role to play when there was overproduction but, now that demand has increased, we should develop another system that enables us to exploit those market opportunities. In this context, I also think it a shame that the Health Check is evidently now looking at four 1% increases. In my opinion, a real soft landing requires more of an increase than 1%. Let us have the courage to do that.

  Iztok Jarc, President-in-Office. − (SL) I would first like to thank all those present at the debate. As always in Parliament, it was very complex and rich and highlighted all the problems and differences that exist among the Member States.

I would like to stress that the Presidency, and of course the European Parliament, undoubtedly gave this proposal enough time to be looked at from all sides. If the conditions for adoption of this proposal are satisfied, taking into account the opinion of the European Parliament, this 2% increase will be used as from the next quota year, that is to say from 1 April 2008.

However, I would like to emphasise that this will not end the debate on the future of the dairy sector in the European Union. Without doubt, it will continue in great depth within the framework of the so-called common agricultural policy health check.

I can guarantee here that the Presidency is firm in its decision to lead this debate and to reach our common goal, that is to say – and this has my assurance – a balanced long-term strategy for the European dairy sector.

Thank you again for taking part in this debate and my special thanks to the rapporteur.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think that, after the discussion here today, we can all agree that dairy production is still a very important part of our common agricultural policy. It seems to me that today you could pick and choose between different opinions, covering the whole range from zero up to more than we have suggested in our proposal. I think it has also shown the diversity that can be seen in different Member States, and that is perhaps a reason, in response to Mr Parish’s remarks, for not being bold enough. But at the end of the day we need to find a compromise between the various opinions.

I would just like to make a few comments on some of the issues that have been raised. On this increase in quota, it is voluntary for Member States either to distribute it to the producers or to keep it in the national reserve. My clear preference will be to distribute it. Member States can give special preference to young farmers and those who are suffering as a result of the prices that they have to pay for the quotas.

I think that, if we want to introduce an increase as from 1 April, we need to do so with a fixed percentage in all Member States. If we now start to discuss special figures or increased percentages for different Member States, there will be a battle that will go on for months. So let us agree that what we are discussing now is a 2% across-the-board increase. I actually do not think that we are so fundamentally divided in our opinions on where to go. I think we can define our goal, but there may be some differences of opinion between the Commission and Parliament on how to get there.

I think we can all agree that we should not put the sector at risk. This is exactly why I have proposed this soft landing. A ‘soft landing’ actually means that we increase the quotas over the years and maintain a situation where, at the end of the quota system, in 2015, we do not see a very steep drop in prices overnight, which would be the result if we did nothing. I therefore think we have chosen a proper and acceptable approach. I do not underestimate that there may be regions in Europe – mountainous regions, vulnerable regions – where a total abolition of the quota system could put the continuation of milk production at risk. Therefore, we will be prepared to look, during the health check, at solutions to help those regions. I think the most proper tool is Article 69, a possibility for Member States to top-slice the direct payment to the farmers and use it for specific areas.

I do not consider the idea of setting up a milk fund for restructuring to be a solution. Where do we get the money from? How much money do we get? How do we distribute the money between the different Member States? I think there are so many unanswered questions concerning this fund, and we have limited money. We would have to take it from our own budget, and then other producers within the agricultural sector would have to pay for this restructuring fund. So I do not think it would work.

In my opinion, the main reason for increasing milk production is the fact that we have emerging markets in Asia. Why should we not take our share of those growing markets? We know how difficult it is when others already have a foot in the door and we come afterwards and try to get our share. We should be there from the very beginning with our high quality products. Those dairy producers – dairies, industries that are doing well – are those that are producing high-quality products; here, in particular, it is cheese. We have an extraordinary brand in Europe on high-quality cheeses, so why do we not use it and take our share? As the Minister said, we will look again at this issue in the health check. I am sure that will be as animated a debate as we have had today, because I think dairy production will never be boring.

  Elisabeth Jeggle, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard a wide range of opinions. We were also able to detect that, for everyone here today, this is a serious issue not to be trifled with, that everyone has many concerns and that we are all, of course, accountable at home – to consumers on the one hand and to milk producers on the other.

To come back to the markets once again: whether I ought to believe in the Chinese market, I do not know. We see a great deal in this European Union and on this market today. However, we have an internal market here and this internal market helps us to be strong, even in the face of globalisation and general liberalisation. Let us therefore make a European internal market out of this milk quota. We used to be able to do this. The agricultural markets can face up to the challenges and particularly the routine fluctuations of the world market only from a strong, stable and organised internal market.

For sustainable management, the economy, ecology and social aspects must be in harmony. All three components must be equally to the fore of any action we take. The European agricultural model represents sustainability and consumer safety – and that still applies! Farmers do both very well. They look after the landscape and therefore form the basis of tourism, contribute to energy security, produce top-quality food and maintain the economic basis for rural areas by providing employment.

The social benefits are offset less and less for farmers by what are referred to as compensatory payments. Foodstuffs must increasingly have their fair price! Our overall political responsibility is greater than merely treading the path of liberalisation with open markets!

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Constantin Dumitriu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The report drafted by Mrs Jeggle is extremely important not only in terms of the proposals concerning the increase in milk quotas, but also in terms of defining certain principles that we must take into account when discussing agricultural policy as a whole.

Following the discussions of the Commission on agriculture and rural development we agreed that an increase in milk quotas is necessary for the Member States starting as soon as 1 April 2008. In the EP, I represent Romania, a new Member State which was confronted even from the first year of accession with a crisis in the milk quota, which quota was insufficient to satisfy market demand and inconsistent with current realities. The milk sector in Romania recorded major progress from the negotiation of the milk quota in 2004 to accession, through investments in modern technology, extension of production capacities and employment of new personnel. Maintaining a milk quota at the level now provided would mean bankruptcy for investors, unemployment in rural areas specialised in the production and processing of milk and an increase in imports and the price paid by consumers.

The report represents a turning point as the European Union shows flexibility in solving a problem that several Member States are faced with. After all, the beneficiaries of this report are European citizens.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) The health check is an important process for reforming agricultural policy, particularly agricultural policy in mountainous regions. The increase in the application of the milk quota is essential in these areas. Special regulations must be decided here that are responsive to the particular circumstances of farming in the mountains. The work of farmers is being made more difficult owing to reduced accessibility and steep transport routes and these must be included in the discussions.

For Austrian farmers, the milk quota regulation is essential. EU-wide balancing out or trade in quotas should be considered. Were it actually to come to an abolition of the dairy quota system in 2015, appropriate financial compensatory measures would be needed with additional budget funds in order to maintain milk production and processing in mountainous regions and on grazing and pasture land.

When checking the efficiency of market support instruments and their reorganisation and adaptation to the current situation, the particular situation of farming in mountainous regions should not be disregarded in any instance. Milk production and processing is a very important component of agriculture in these regions and has a very high value. Particular attention must be paid to the economic, social and ecological consequences of an increase or abolition of quotas, particularly in mountainous regions. The complete abolition of the EU dairy quota system is the wrong path for Europe’s common agricultural policy.

17. CAP ‘Health Check’ (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Lutz Goepel, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the CAP ‘Health Check’ (2007/2195(INI)) (A6-0047/2008).

  Lutz Goepel, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the first round of parliamentary discussions on what is referred to as the health check of the common agricultural policy will conclude tomorrow. This health check is not a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. It should further update the existing policy where appropriate, based on the experience gained since 2003, and adapt it to changed circumstances.

The Commission should take very serious note of our position. It is a good basis for the upcoming negotiations on the legislative package, as well as for the budget review after 2013.

We in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development have supported the continuation of the reform towards greater personal responsibility and market orientation while at the same time emphasising the aspects of food safety and of social and environmental responsibility – particularly with regard to current market development and the new challenges of climate policy – more strongly than we have done in the past. We also want greater flexibility for the Member States when changing the system – in other words, more opportunities to introduce further decoupling and the loosening of historical reference levels.

The debates in our committee have also revealed, however, that this is not sensible in all sectors, at least not before 2013. For livestock premiums or for states with full decoupling, but which have a strong livestock sector, a sudden change of system would result in negative structural interruptions in view of the current market situation. The same appears to be true with some of the smaller market regulations in the plant sector, such as, for example, the market regulations for potato starch, dry green fodder or rice, on which a regionally significant processing industry depends and has invested a great deal in recent years and has to service this with high interest rates.

The committee voted in favour of the introduction of a new, flexible instrument to promote dedicated environmental and region-specific production or particular sectors – in other words, Article 69 – and we have at the same time demanded that new measures be devised to protect the land against environmental crises and crises that are increasingly to be expected in view of the changing climate and increasing cross-linkage of agricultural markets. A new form of public-private risk management should also be tested with this instrument, which is urgently needed in view of other instruments being returned and the new imponderables.

A few brief words on degression and modulation: our farmers expect planning to be reliable and it is simply inappropriate to once again curtail and redeploy between 8 and 53% of direct income aid with a compulsory 5% modulation only four years after implementation of the last reform.

By any understanding of the financing of the development of rural areas, confidence is being destroyed here and structural interruptions provoked. These proposals specifically concern full-time farms and those that have improved their competitiveness in recent years through mergers into legal entities. We have put forward proposals, however, for how the general policy targets and the economic requirements can be aligned with each other.

We have to break new ground in the interest of sustainability and competitiveness. Above all we are grateful to all those who have cooperated on this own-initiative report and I would like to thank my colleagues and fellow Members across all the Groups in the Committee on Agriculture.

  Iztok Jarc, President-in-Office. − (SL) The Presidency of the Council welcomes the report by the rapporteur, Mr Goepel, as a very measured and resounding contribution to the debate. The Council also worked hard to prepare the response to the Commission’s report. As you know, the ministers debated it at three sessions of the Council, namely in November, January and February.

Next week we, the ministers, will attempt to reach some conclusions regarding the report on the common agricultural policy health check. We will start from some general principles. For example, when the reform of the common agricultural policy was adopted in 2003, the Council clearly expressed its intention to evaluate the efficacy of the adopted reforms in the future and particularly to assess their effect on the set targets, as well as to analyse their effects on the agricultural markets.

It is also important to know that, when deciding on the common agricultural policy health check, we will take into account the conclusions of the European Council on the financial perspective for 2007-2013 and the European Council’s appeal to the Commission to carry out a comprehensive EU budget and expenditure review for 2008-2009. The Presidency agrees with the Commission that the common agricultural policy health check is an important part of the planned activities within the budget review for 2008-2009 and that it does not define its conclusions in advance.

We have established that the 2003-2004 reforms have largely achieved the set targets in terms of response to market conditions and in terms of making the common agricultural policy more accessible to the citizens. Ministers are also convinced that, in its report, the Commission correctly assessed the main developments that followed the reforms adopted in 2003-2004.

The Council will pay special attention to three key questions: the single payment scheme, the role of marketing tools in assisting the market and, of course, the response to the present and future challenges of climate change risk management. We will work to find the right balance between adapting the policy to new challenges and changed conditions and preserving a clear and stable framework.

On the subject of simplification, I would like to say that the European Union considers this question to be of key importance and we also expect the Commission to define concrete measures to reach this target.

As I have already said, the Council will try next week to adopt conclusions on these and many other issues, such as risk management, milk quotas, transition to the elimination of milk quotas, and questions regarding the second pillar. Undoubtedly, your report will be a valuable contribution to a future debate on this matter.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, once again I want to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and Mr Goepel in particular for their hard work, resulting in an excellent report.

We are at the stage in the first round where we have consulted many stakeholders and different organisations and individuals to have their opinions and to collect different ideas. The opinion of the European Parliament is crucial, together with the expected conclusions of the Council next week, as we work to finalise the legislative proposals scheduled to be adopted by the Commission on 20 May. Immediately thereafter, on the same day here in Strasbourg, I will be presenting to the European Parliament the legal texts. But, basically, I am quite happy to see that all the three institutions – the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission – although we have different ‘shopping lists’, are all in the same shop.

I will not go into detail on the different issues, but will give my view on the three most important ones. Firstly, on direct payments: these are inevitably linked to the long-term security that we want to give to our farmers. I therefore agree with the statement in your report that direct payments remain necessary as a basic income guarantee. The single payment scheme gives a real lift to the competitiveness of our farmers, but we must make the system more effective, more efficient and simpler. Therefore, I advocate further decoupling. Our experiences with the 2003 reform show that the decoupling has been working quite well and, therefore, I think we should move further and extend the benefits of decoupling, except where coupled payments have a very solid justification.

I have also noticed that you support the idea of a more flexible Article 69 as a valuable tool. However, we should not expect Article 69 to solve all the different problems, and I will fight any attempt to re-introduce coupled support through the backdoor using Article 69.

I will not go into detail about the dairy sector again, as we have already had this discussion. However, I will just mention some of the market instruments: intervention and private storage. Like you, I recognise that some of our market instruments still have a place, but we must keep them relevant to the European Union as it is now. I am glad that we agree that they should play their role in the future as genuine safety nets.

Risks related to bad weather and outbreaks of animal diseases, as you highlight, are certainly a focus point in our discussion. However, we are not starting from zero: the Council discussed this issue in 2005 and concluded that new measures at EU level should not interfere with what is already available in the different Member States. We have to be sure that new measures do not interfere with farmers’ ability to react to market signals, and they have to be compatible with the WTO system, where there has to be a loss of more than 30%.

Concerning modulation, I have made it clear on many occasions that we need to have for the future a very ambitious rural development policy. I was very disappointed with the fact that, during the discussions on the financial perspective at the end of 2005, the Heads of State and Government agreed to take a significant part off the rural development funding.

However, I must say that your report is rather cool about my ideas in this area. But I think that we can justify the fact that our rural development policy is financially overstretched. If we have high expectations for our rural development policy, including the need, as the President-in-Office rightly said, to use it to meet new challenges, like water management and bio-diversity, then it does not work to load more tasks on to it without putting in more money. I think modulation is the best way to provide more funding.

I have read with interest what you are proposing and I am sure we will come back to this issue.

If your report is cool on modulation, I would describe it as extremely chilly on reductions of payments to large farms – you call that ‘degressivity’. This is not an issue that can be simply ignored. We know that with our transparency initiative, there will be a strong focus from all sides on the large sums of money going to single farmers and single landowners. On the other hand, I take everyone’s concerns on this issue very seriously. And I have looked with interest at your report’s concept of ‘progressive modulation’. I think there are some good ideas there that we would consider carefully on the legal proposals.

If I have been a little too long, it is only to show clearly my dedication and my huge interest in having the opportunity to discuss here in Parliament the future of the European agricultural policy.

  Bart Staes, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. − (NL) I am speaking on behalf of Mrs Buitenweg, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, who is ill and has sent her apologies. The Committee on the Environment drew up 17 recommendations, of which I shall highlight four.

1. The Committee on the Environment welcomes the fact that, in its Communication, the European Commission intends to respond to the challenge of climate change and to support less intensive farming practices.

2. The Committee on the Environment stresses the need to develop in the direction of sustainable, multifunctional agriculture, and in so doing takes a stand for conservation farming and organic farming.

3. The European Commission is urged not to weaken the existing measures on cross-compliance – that is, measures on the environment and animal welfare and the compatibility of these – through so-called simplification. On the contrary, in our view, cross-compliance should even be strengthened in certain areas, such as water use and management and water quality.

4. The Committee warns the Commission to show a little more restraint regarding the concept of ‘biofuels’. Their benefit is questionable, and they are certainly not unequivocally good in either environmental or social respects.

  Neil Parish, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Goepel for his report. I believe he has brought together the whole committee and Parliament in a very good report. I would suggest that the reform of agriculture is evolution, not revolution, and we are carrying on very much with the Fischler reforms. I welcome much of what the Commission has put forward, along with Mr Goepel’s report.

I think that one of the keys to the reform was to reduce bureaucracy to farmers and we still have some ground to cover. Commissioner, yes, we are in the same shop but I think some of us believe we could spend the money on different things and that is probably what the arguments are now about.

Food security has come back on the agenda again very strongly, especially with the Far East in particular now buying more and more food. Cereals have gone up almost two or two and a half times in price, so I believe we can start to re-evaluate as we move forward with reform how we spend the money.

We have to look again at modulation. In my opinion we have to get rid of set-aside once and for all, because this common agricultural policy is a policy that is not supposed to be linked to production. You cannot possibly carry on with set-aside which is exactly that.

We have to look at milk quotas and abolishing them by 2015.

Decoupled payments: that is the whole crux of the reform, and you are quite right to push that forward. Again, I think that now is the time when agriculture can start to look towards a market-oriented price. Yes, the common agricultural policy is necessary, but also the market is there and we should take much more advantage of it.

IN THE CHAIR: MR SIWIEC
Vice-President

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, I should like also to welcome the President of the Council and the Commissioner. The common agricultural policy always gives rise to heated debates and it is always difficult to reach consensus, but I note that we are all unanimous on the need to maintain a common agricultural policy whose objectives have just been confirmed in the Lisbon Treaty.

The PSE Group made great efforts in this debate, within the parliamentary group, in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and with farmers’ organisations, and we tabled more than half of the 600-plus amendments to the report by Mr Goepel and signed 15 of the 17 compromises encompassing dozens of amendments. We worked hard and made significant concessions in order to achieve as broad a consensus as possible within Parliament and I would therefore like to congratulate Mr Goepel on his willingness for dialogue and on the real spirit of compromise he showed; I would also like to congratulate Mr Parish on the way in which he led our work in committee.

This is therefore the best compromise but it is not a socialist report. This is not the report we would have drawn up; we find it quite backward looking and conservative in the face of the expectations of society and of farmers. However, the overall trend of the report does not close the door to a more in-depth debate on the legislative proposal. I hope we can retain the same spirit of compromise but be more ambitious in setting a new direction for European agriculture.

I am referring to the most sensitive issues, such as the direction and pace of the decoupling of aid, a mechanism for a fairer redistribution of support, the responsible approach for the future of the dairy sector, the new challenges, in particular the role of agriculture in combating climate change and the production of agrofuels, etc. We will be voting on this debate tomorrow with our eyes fixed on the future. I call for a vote by a large majority in favour of this report as well as the improvements that the socialists will be introducing to make it a still more comprehensive report.

  Niels Busk, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen, in his characteristically competent way, the rapporteur, Mr Goepel, has prepared a report that contains the instruments necessary for clarifying and simplifying agricultural policy. The case for maintaining a common agricultural policy after 2013 also comes across strongly – for which I am obliged to the rapporteur. We support his positions on continued decoupling, so that the 2003 reform is implemented in all Member States. We support the rapporteur’s positions on market instruments and risk management in terms of crises, epidemics, animal welfare and the environment, modulation and degressivity. We also support the further development of rural policy and increased focus on biofuels. Substantial efforts should be made regarding cross-compliance and simplification, as the current situation is taking farmers out of their fields and stalls and into their studies to draw up diagrams and respond to monitoring. Milk quotas should be abolished in 2015, so there is cause to increase milk quotas now by at least 2% and cushion the landing in 2009. The growing demand for milk products will create the basis for European milk production, so that we shall be delivering what the market wants.

The report contains plenty on liberalisation and market economy that the Commission should use as a basis for its proposals in May, when the CAP health check will be on the table.

  Sergio Berlato, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are among those who believe in and defend the continuation of the CAP even after 2012.

We feel that this report is a step in the right direction, but we cannot accept that the full decoupling of aid should not allow for the possibility of maintaining a partial coupling of aid for some specific sectors, to prevent the complete abandonment of production. There are, in fact, whole sectors, such as the tobacco sector, that would disappear with the application of full decoupling, creating unemployment and various economic and environmental problems in particularly disadvantaged areas.

We consider the progressive modulation of aid rather an excessive and probably counterproductive measure if the objective is still to safeguard European agricultural production. We recognise the importance of rural development, but we feel this cannot be achieved at the expense of the first pillar of the CAP.

Furthermore, it is necessary to continue to implement policies to support individual common organisations of the markets where this is necessary. Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union needs a common agricultural policy that manages to…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, you have attempted in a strategy paper to carry out a health check of agricultural policy, not so much in terms of agriculture, because that is going relatively well as the moment, even if not in all sectors. The question was: is the agricultural policy up to date? I have to say here: feverish displays on their own are not sufficient; we also have to develop appropriate treatment if deficiencies are diagnosed. In fact you have diagnosed deficiencies; you have said as much yourself in your speech. I do not want to go into details now, as that wastes too much time.

It now therefore depends on measures being taken that will also be socially acceptable. What is essential is that agriculture has to contribute, of course, to the stabilisation of the climate. It is doing so, but there are areas of agricultural production where it is becoming difficult to put forward proposals without restrictive intervention.

It is particularly important, however, that we ensure that public funds are distributed in such a way that the measures we consider necessary can be financed. It is a disadvantage that what is referred to as the second pillar – rural development – has been curtailed in medium-term financial planning and has had to come to terms with cutbacks of more than EUR 20 billion according to the Commission’s proposal and that of Parliament.

Consequently, we urgently need to reassign funds. We also need to do this because we need social acceptance in 2013.

You have now put forward some proposals and here it must be to the credit of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and specifically the European Parliament’s rapporteur, Mr Goepel, that he has bestowed practical relevance on the proposals you have put forward, which will subsequently lead to equal treatment among businesses that compete with one another.

You have proposed the introduction of degressivity of up to 45%. On the suggestion of the rapporteur, the Committee on Agriculture has adopted this, but with the amendment that businesses with a large number of employees now also have an opportunity to evaluate their wage costs. We were together in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania; we saw these businesses and you know that distortion of competition can be eliminated and justice created only if we introduce these measures.

I hope that you will also abide by this rule in your legislative proposal. If not, we would still have the opportunity as Parliament to save ourselves in 2009. Commissioner, we are in a codecision process and we therefore have a quite different and, for us, very comfortable position!

  Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, this is an important moment to evaluate the consequences of successive reforms of the common agricultural policy, whether in terms of agricultural production or consumer supply, taking as the basis the protection of Member States’ self-sufficiency in food, securing adequate supplies of healthy and safe food at low prices, respect for the environment and biodiversity, and maintaining rural areas and their populations, who need adequate incomes and access to public services that guarantee them decent living conditions.

Unfortunately the European Commission did not follow that path. It does not acknowledge that the common agricultural policy has led to a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, food prices are continuing to rise, and on the other hand family holdings are still being destroyed and more and more small and medium-sized holdings are abandoning production because they are not guaranteed decent incomes whereas speculation continues, driving up the prices of increasingly scarce food products.

It is therefore a mistake to insist on decoupling aid from production and employment and it is unacceptable to continue to pursue a policy of support for large-scale landowners and multinational food corporations whilst failing to value the farmers who maintain agricultural and livestock production on the basis of protecting biodiversity, food safety and product quality.

The 2003 reform exacerbated the situation. The subsequent reforms of the common organisations of the markets in sugar, fruit and vegetables, tobacco and wine maintained the unfairness of the CAP in all areas. We therefore call for fundamental changes that respect the specific characteristics of each country’s agriculture and support the maximum linking of aid to production, and for there to be a fairer distribution of direct aid accompanied by a ceiling and modulation. Incentives should be set for small and medium-sized holdings as instruments of economic and social cohesion and with a view to curbing the intensive approach and supporting associations of such farmers, including agricultural cooperatives and wine cooperatives.

We are also in favour of setting up a public farmers’ insurance fund financed by the Community which would enable farmers to be paid a minimum income in the event of natural disasters such as drought, storms, hail, fire, epizootic diseases, etc. We also stress the need for the European Commission to take account, in the context of the World Trade Organization negotiations, of the specific characteristics of agricultural production as a food production sector, and a structuring element for territorial balance, preservation of the environment and the safeguarding of adequate quantitative and qualitative levels of food safety.

Finally, we call on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent speculative activity, capturing of the market in food products and the formation of cartels by food companies exploiting the lack of legislation or controls, producers’ and consumers’ lack of organisation, and the lack of suitable infrastructures, with the sole aim of boosting profits, reducing producer prices and imposing high prices on consumers, as happens now, particularly in Portugal, for basic products such as cereals, potatoes for human consumption, and milk.

  Witold Tomczak, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, for many years now, despite its underlying principles, the common agricultural policy has been giving more support to rich farmers to the detriment of poor farmers. The freezing of the agricultural budget in 2002 and the subsequent reforms of the CAP did not improve that situation. On the contrary – the huge differentiation in the funding provided to farmers became yet greater. For example, the total subsidies per hectare varied in 2005 between EUR 68 in Latvia and EUR 756 in Belgium, in other words a tenfold increase. Unjustified differences in agricultural funding are also borne out by the proportion of direct payments, which is now some 70% of all subsidies provided for agriculture.

In its Communication, the European Commission proposed a partial reduction in payments to beneficiaries receiving more than EUR 100 000 a year. These amount to just 0.34% in the EU, but include megabusinesses, food concerns and golf course owners. Paradoxically, this timid proposal, which infringes on the interests of such a narrow group of people, was thrown out by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Many motions have been accepted, but they have not done away with the errors in agricultural policy. The only amendment that offers an opportunity for a fairer split in subsidies is Amendment 19 tabled by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, which is in line with the European Commission’s proposal. I do not suppose, however, that it will find many adherents. Naturally the amendments that I and my colleague Mr Wojciechowski submitted, which are aimed at a radical alteration of the CAP, were also rejected by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

The vote on Mr Goepel’s report will be an expression of your responsibility for the shape of agricultural policy for the next few years. If you are in favour of the sustainable development of EU agriculture and protection of the interests of family farms rather than protection of the interests of a narrow group of business people, you should reject this report, otherwise you will be supporting the further depopulation of rural areas, high unemployment, loss of EU food supply security, discrimination against the new Member States and processes that constitute a threat to the natural environment. By accepting this report you are violating the main aims of the European Union which are so often forgotten, namely: economic cohesion, social cohesion and solidarity between Member States.

(The President cut off the speaker).

  Peter Baco (NI). – (SK) I very much appreciate the work of the rapporteur, Mr Goepel. The drafting of the report was particularly difficult in part due to the absence in the background documents analysing possible solutions, relevant case studies and vital data.

The Commission proposes reductions in direct payments to large agricultural holdings, stating that such companies do not require similar assistance. Figures, however, show otherwise. In the Slovak Republic, my home country, most agricultural firms fall into the category of large enterprises. More than 75% of their machinery is over 20 years old: hence the urgent need to provide these companies with financial assistance. The example of Eastern Germany shows that where these companies received adequate investment, they joined the ranks of the some of the best operating companies in the world. In the post-socialist countries, on the other hand, these companies were at an administrative disadvantage, resulting in the large-scale destruction not only of agricultural sectors, but also rural areas and entire regions.

The Commission meanwhile has not responded adequately to a highly dangerous increase in the volatility of the global agrifood market. We must be aware that a repetition of last year could have real adverse effects on food security within the EU. Doing away with the natural instability of the agricultural market is surely the most important task of any agricultural policy and as such it should also be reflected in this report.

I cannot therefore agree with the existing situation characterised by chaotic measures implemented every year, such as the change in energy crop premiums, elimination of set-aside, production quotas changes, etc.

Speaking of examining the common agricultural...

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his outstanding work. It also appears that the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development came to 82%, even with the 17 major compromises it has created.

The reforms in 2003/2004 were important stages in the CAP reform process. An exhaustive check of the CAP, which does not involve any fundamental reform of the existing policy, however, is another important step towards securing a modern, multifunctional and competitive common European agricultural policy.

It has been scientifically documented that good agricultural practice is the basis of this, regardless of whether large or small enterprises are involved. The first priority is still food production, the second priority animal feed production and the third priority the supply of energy. As regards the environmental relevance of biomass energy, it can be said that Austrian agriculture, for example, has reduced CO2 output by 14% since 1990 and has therefore actually reached the Kyoto target.

I also welcome the abolition of degressivity. The model of progressive modulation is the right path and I also support the figures here.

I would like to thank the Commissioner for her statements on milk. I should therefore like to say on this that we need not only a soft landing and a gentle transition towards 2015, but also sustainable solutions after 2015. For mountainous regions and disadvantaged and peripheral regions, we have to ensure that a form of agriculture involving dry-feed livestock units is able to exist beyond 2015. I therefore eagerly await the Commission’s legislative proposal on 20 May, Commissioner, and I hope that we rediscover a great deal therein that the Goepel report now delivers, so that we do not have a repeat of this long discussion…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to thank Mr Goepel for his work, because it is important for the European Parliament to express its opinion on the general guidelines arising from the CAP ‘Health Check’.

Personally, I have serious reservations about full decoupling, which carries high risks of the abandonment of production for stockbreeding and even for certain crops. I do not share the optimism of some people who believe that the current situation on world markets guarantees a steady and secure future for European agriculture and that we should continue heading for complete liberalisation. Furthermore, not all agricultural sectors are benefiting equally from price rises, as the particularly serious crisis currently being experienced by European livestock farmers shows.

The total abandonment of any market regulation mechanism would seem to me to be hazardous for our food security and that of the world. I think we need to make sure that we maintain intervention stocks so that we can react in the event of food shortages and speculation, maintain common market organisations …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Willem Schuth (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to congratulate Mr Goepel most sincerely on his balanced report. We should not be penalising emergent, competitive structures in agriculture. We in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development have therefore rejected the Commission’s proposal on degressivity in this form. We should not be discriminating according to the size of the business in the case of direct payments, otherwise jobs would be jeopardised on a large scale.

Furthermore, I would argue that a final phasing-out of the milk quota system in 2015 is still right. In view of rising milk prices on the world’s booming agricultural markets and the associated export opportunities, this system no longer appears up to date.

A sensible review of the 2003 reform in this regard must not only offer European farmers dependability and reliability in planning, but also be a further step towards the market-based continuing development of our agricultural system.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, what is agriculture in the European Union? For some it is a thing of great value that needs to be protected, but for others, and sadly there are many in this group, it is ballast that they would like to be rid of. We read in Mr Goepel’s report that agriculture is one of the biggest industries in the EU. That is good, but it is not enough.

Agriculture is not an industry and it is not just one of many sectors of the economy. Agriculture is a pillar of food security. We spend vast sums on the army and the police to guarantee physical security in our states and in our homes. We pay large sums for energy security – we are seeking energy supplies that are more expensive but secure. We must also spend large sums on protecting our agriculture, which offers us food security, and it is a shame that not everyone in the EU understands that.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I also congratulate our rapporteur on an excellent compromise package before us today. I would like to draw attention, in particular, to three measures which were our successful amendments, which are to be particularly welcomed.

In paragraph 21 of the report, we recognise that decoupling direct payments has largely been successful, and we are firmly of the view that should be rolled out. Yes, it has to be done properly and sensitively, but it should be pushed forward.

In paragraphs 37 and 38 we explicitly recognise that set-aside is an anachronism and should be fully swept away, and where there are spin-off environmental benefits, they be properly dealt with under Pillar 2.

In paragraphs 86 to 91 we recognise the importance of niche products for Europe’s agriculture internationally. I could certainly produce a shopping list of quality Scottish products for our Commissioner, so I would be grateful for a few words from her on how she plans to take that forward, with the promotion of a European mark for international quality.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL). – (NL) With this Health Check, the Commission has taken a good – if very modest – step towards a slightly less unfair agricultural policy. I would urge my fellow Members not to support Mr Goepel’s report, as it dilutes the Commission proposals on a number of very important points, and in my view the most important point is the imposition, at long last, of cautious limits on the size of the subsidies it is possible to receive.

It is difficult to explain to the European public why, for example, the Prince of Monaco or large multinationals such as Heineken and Nestlé receive hundreds of thousands of euros in income support in the form of agricultural subsidies merely because they own some land, whilst real farmers often struggle to make ends meet. Income support in agriculture is intended to give farmers a decent existence and not to line the pockets of multinationals and large landowners.

  Vladimír Železný (IND/DEM). – (CS) The reform of the CAP was aimed at making it less cumbersome and more market-oriented. Taking into account the average size of Czech farms the system proposed in the report is unacceptable.

The outcome for the Czech Republic would be that by the year 2013 it would become one of the states with the largest share (part of the speech could not be heard) transferred within the framework of modulation from the first to the second pillar. Nearly 40% of direct payments in the Czech Republic would then be subject to degressivity compared with 6.5% for France and a mere 2.5% for Austria.

Czech holdings would, according to the existing proposal, be forced to split up senselessly and actually become less efficient. Neither this nor a compromise proposal are acceptable to the Czech Republic because they leave us open to discrimination, reducing unjustifiably the competitiveness of Czech farmers.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Goepel, in Berlin – nearly 10 years ago now – Chancellor Schmidt and the French President Jacques Chirac decided to grant a reprieve to farmers until 2013. With the end of milk quotas, the end of a proper agricultural budget as part of the 2014-2019 financial framework, and the retirement of the majority of producers, not to be replaced, the end of the great CAP was planned for 2013 – it was as simple as that.

Today you are questioning this agreement, and in the name of the ‘CAP Health Check’ you are accelerating the march towards the elimination of agriculture within the first pillar. This is nothing new! By dint of quotas, MGQs, Herod premiums, set-aside, decoupling and grubbing up, MacSharry, Steichen, Fischler had practised this strategy of leaving the monopoly on food production to the southern hemisphere and the Pacific countries for 30 years.

Today, in the gripping technical debates on full decoupling, modulation – whether degressive or progressive – eco-conditionality, rural development, and reference values – whether historical or non-historical – simply hide the only real issue, as China and India are about to launch a call for bids to feed the planet, as the morning comes for farmers when there is a rise in prices and demand. Does Europe still want to be one of the world’s great farms, together with Brazil? Yes or no?

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am glad to see such a big audience here for this debate, because it is an important one. If we were to go on the clapometer in relation to large payments to royalty or individual farmers, they would be quaking in their boots in royal houses across Europe. But it is a more complex debate, as we have heard from our eastern European colleagues.

As regards the health check, can I say very briefly that in relation to decoupling and modulation in Ireland, we have fully decoupled, and I think the Commissioner acknowledges that. We want to stick with our historic payments system and we do not like increased modulation. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, dressed up as something else. We do not really know where the rural development money will end up and we need to look at that very carefully.

It is not Article 69 that troubles Irish farmers at the moment, but the WTO. I have in front of me here, and will share with colleagues, the assessment of the latest paper from the WTO. It is in full colour and it is not pretty. If Mr Mandelson has his way, then I am afraid that the beef and dairy, lamb and pigmeat sectors in Europe will be wiped out, and so will the common agricultural policy. The cuts in tariffs range up to 70%.

Now, perhaps people do not understand the impact of that, but it means that our producers will not and cannot compete with imported food products and products that are produced to very, very different standards.

The lamb sector, which Parliament is actually trying to help, will be decimated by the WTO. Can I ask you, Commissioner, to perhaps take this analysis that the Irish Farmers’ Association has completed – and I will raise it again, because it is in full colour – and come back to me and tell me, I hope, that they have got it wrong, although I fear that they have got it right.

There is a complete lack of information for this House on the impact of the latest text from the WTO, and I think we need and deserve to have that information. I would just like to say that Irish farmers support the European Union, but over the weekend I had many come to my door who are questioning their decisions in relation to voting on various treaties. And that is serious, as the Commissioner knows.

  María Isabel Salinas García (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, European farmers, and Spanish farmers in particular, need, and I would say that they are demanding, a minimum degree of stability. Therefore, the first thing that I would like to ask the Commission is that this mid-term review of the common agricultural policy should not become a major, radical review.

One aspect that concerns me is the partial decoupling of aid; the haste to move forward in decoupling aid may endanger many crops. A total or partial level of decoupling in certain sectors is vital for maintaining production, for example in the cotton sector.

Consequently, I think that the decoupling levels should be maintained as agreed in 2003 and in any event, if that is not possible, I think that Member States should be given some room for manoeuvre, as a voluntary model for each sector, on a case-by-case basis, could create the best circumstances for agricultural production. I think that we should send a message of calm and stability to the agricultural sector at this time.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) My compliments to Mr Goepel on his work. In my opinion, two things are important in this debate.

Firstly, in my view, the most important aspect of agricultural policy is the common market for 500 million consumers. Has the Commission or the Goepel report disrupted this market? I think not – and that is a good thing.

Secondly, I believe that authorities must be trustworthy. We must stand by what was promised in the 2007 budget, and indeed I think the Commission is doing so.

I have mixed feelings about modulation. I do not yet know the results of the rural policy. The reports from the Court of Auditors have been extremely critical, but I have problems with imposing an extra financial burden on farmers, 60% of which they would not see again. In the Netherlands this is used to buy nature areas.

I should like to say a few words about non-trade concerns. How can I explain to European farmers that they are not allowed to produce certain products when other countries are, and when we are allowed to import such products without restrictions? This leads to unfair competition.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, in recent years many changes have been made to the common agricultural policy. Not all of them were dictated by a need to improve the situation in rural areas or by the needs of EU consumers. At present food prices are constantly rising but, even so, the situation for small and medium-sized enterprises is not significantly improving. The European Commission does more to support international corporations, including those that produce genetically modified foods, than it does for local farms. The European Community is moving ever closer to a loss of sovereignty in the area of food production. Now, under the proposed reforms of the common agricultural policy, there is a further move to do away with another group of farmers, the tobacco growers, which is leading to economic disaster for almost 100 000 such individuals and to the loss of 400 000 jobs. It is high time for the European Commission to begin caring more for the interests of European farmers than for those in third countries.

  Marie-Hélène Aubert (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the context of agriculture has changed a great deal since 2003, and the analyses we have today are already out of date and not really up to the crucial challenges of the future. Demand for food products is exploding, prices are rising fast and becoming unaffordable for those most hard up, and at the same time agricultural land is disappearing. Biofuels, which are subsidised, are vastly destabilising agriculture. Let us also underline the impact of climate change, and above all, the fact that our citizens are questioning the intensive, ultra-liberal industrial model, which means that foods travel thousands of kilometres around the world, all of which is accompanied by social and environmental dumping.

An in-depth reform of the common agricultural policy is therefore what we should now be carrying out, and not just a technical adaptation of the current instruments, which is what you are proposing today. What we also really need now is a bearing, a clear strategic direction, which is what we lack most at the moment.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). − (GA) Mr President, this Report comes before us at a very important time for farmers in the EU. As my colleague, Ms McGuinness has already said – we saw at the World Trade Organisation talks how the Commissioner is willing to sacrifice the interests of our farmers and our rural community not for the good of the third world, but for part of an international bargaining game.

In terms of the health check, I agree that there must be a balance between simplifying matters and making them more effective and giving farmers some sort of stability as they produce food for us and maintain the countryside.

If it is implemented fairly, we should welcome a limit to large payments to large-scale farmers or to large companies as a step forward from the Common Agricultural Policy which only helps big landowners. It is also important that only active farmers are included in payment entitlements.

The Common Agricultural Policy should …

(The President interrupted the Speaker)

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Mr President, any health check needs measurement and assessment. For the CAP, I suggest that the measure is funding and that the assessors are the auditors.

Does the Court of Auditors find the CAP to be healthy, when 28.9% of single farm payments are erroneous? Does it find it healthy for the CAP to fund farmers not to grow food? Does it find it healthy to turn farmland over to biofuels, just when there is a world shortage of cereals? Does it find the CAP healthy when genuine farmers – in the UK at least – are struggling to make a living? Does it know that farmers in New Zealand are not now subsidised but are doing very well and that only 3% of them went under when subsidies were withdrawn?

Since it sounds to me that the CAP is very unhealthy, is it not time to turn off the life-support machine and let European farmers make their own way?

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, there is much in this report that I agree with. There are four quick points I would like to make.

Firstly, the theory of decoupling is very good but its practice has been disappointing for some in failing to command the higher market returns for producers that were promised.

Secondly, we must sustain sufficient instruments to safeguard against market and supply crises. Imbalances in the supply chain endanger the CAP’s aim of secure food supply. Food security is impossible without guaranteed economic sustainability for producers.

Thirdly, we can do more on CAP simplification to reduce the bureaucratic burden and, yes, to decriminalise farmers who make honest mistakes through minor breaches.

Fourthly, unused agri-budget allocations on market management measures should be available for Article 69 aid to strengthen EU agriculture, particularly where production is marginal and to deal with situations, as in my constituency, where there are high numbers of farmers over 55 years of age with no prospect of alternative employment.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Goepel report offers a good compromise between the Commission’s daring proposals and the concerns expressed by our farmers. Well done, Mr Goepel, for providing us with this report; it was not easy, we know. Some good proposals have come out of it.

This is the case firstly with the system of direct aid that needs to be modified, bearing in mind that the Member States must have greater flexibility to implement this change.

If it has to go ahead, decoupling should take account of the difficulties certain sectors are currently experiencing, particularly the livestock sector and some areas of crop production that are very important for many regions, such as flax and hemp fodder, which should benefit from a suitable transition period.

The way it is proposed, modulation seems too great and makes the first pillar unbalanced. The measures associated with set-aside must be able to be reformed, but the Commission should first clearly define instruments that enable the benefits it brings to be protected, particularly as regards biodiversity. The revision and strengthening of Article 69 would also be a way of providing effective financial support for weakened areas, such as mountainous regions, for restructuring sectors in difficulty, such as stockbreeding and milk, or for managing risks.

Finally, Commissioner, we should really ask ourselves about biofuels, which are strongly disputed from an environmental point of view. Perhaps the health check is the perfect opportunity to do this.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) The report we are debating is one of the most important reports on the agricultural sector in the past four years, since it is much more than just an appraisal of the current state of affairs, or a ‘health check’. Mrs Fischer Boel is a liberal-radical, Mr Goepel a Christian democrat-liberal, while I am a socialist-liberal, and we have the job of reforming the common agricultural policy fundamentally from 2014. This ‘health check’ puts into words a number of ideas that will come into effect from 2014. One example is the move to an area-based flat-rate for direct payments, another is redeployment of financing to the second pillar and the type of modulation envisaged for this; yet another is the need to develop a risk management system. I agree with Mrs Fischer Boel and Mr Goepel that the ceilings are also very important. I would be happy to see the British queen getting less; in Hungary too there are a great many large-scale holdings at present. We must, however, devise a system that prevents circumvention of the ceiling limit; in other words, we will have to resolve this issue in the future. Thank you very much.

  Anne Laperrouze (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to point out four dimensions in which the CAP should evolve.

The maintenance of direct aid, which is an essential element: it has been proven that no economy in the world lets its farmers make a decent living without financial support. The environment, which shapes agriculture as much as agriculture shapes the environment. It is therefore important to maintain the conditionality criteria for obtaining aid. Any agreement in the WTO should deal with the issue of protected geographical indications, animal wellbeing and the state of health of imported products, for reasons of fair competition and because health problems do not stop at borders. Finally, it is necessary to define agriculture’s contribution to climate change and sustainable development. I invite the European Commission to examine more closely the question of how much arable land in the European Union can be turned over to biofuels and green chemicals.

I welcome this resolution, which is a good reflection of the future challenges for agriculture, both in terms of producing food and in terms of protecting our environment.

  Liam Aylward (UEN). – Mr President, I welcome the proposal to simplify the regulatory burden for farmers in the context of the CAP health check and I would urge the Commissioner to give farmers advance notice of cross-compliance inspections when she is examining how to simplify regulations and make them more flexible.

I am totally opposed to the increasing of compulsory modulation to 13% over the next few years. This would reduce the direct payment to farmers who have already budgeted for this money.

There is danger that sheep farming’s vital role in preserving sensitive environmental and ecological areas will be eroded through land abandonment and that husbandry skills would be lost, and this must be addressed and supported in the CAP health check.

It is now clear from the last debate that milk quotas will be abolished from April 2015 and I welcome the Commissioner’s contribution to this debate. It is important that there is a soft landing and I would support an annual increase in milk quotas up to 2015.

Finally, proposals on the table in Geneva regarding the future of EU agriculture in the context of the WTO are totally unacceptable, particularly from an Irish viewpoint. I welcome the fact that many other EU Member States are also opposed to these proposals and that the Commissioner responsible will take account of these concerns.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to start by first of all congratulating Mr Goepel on his work and saying that I am going to concentrate on talking about the future of the dairy sector. I would like to make the following comments.

First of all I would like to say that there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding what the impact could be of eliminating the quota system in the various producing regions. Many people fear that the trend of abandoning production will accelerate and that it will be an irreversible blow to some areas with a very low level of profitability and few alternatives for agriculture.

It is clear, however, that the current system of quotas is not having the desired result, which is achieving a balance between production and consumption. We have gone from having milk lakes to having a deficit of more than 3 million tonnes, which is strong evidence of the ups and downs of this COM, the uneven distribution of production quotas, poor and meagre evaluation of the latest reforms and of some of the specific measures applied, such as decoupling aid, the impact of which on the future of the sector we do not know.

In addition to all of this there are the disparities that exist in the application of the quota system between some countries and others; and, Commissioner, I have to say that in some countries, such as mine, there are obstacles to the liberalisation of the sector, and that for example the individual transfer of quotas, a fundamental element for restructuring, has been banned since 2005.

Finally, Commissioner, I would simply like to say that I think it would be positive to combine the idea of increasing quotas by 2% on a voluntary basis for 2008-2009, as proposed by the Jeggle and Goepel reports, with a non-linear increase for subsequent years, as requested in paragraph 84 of the Goepel report, in order to distribute the production quotas in a more balanced way, giving priority to Member States that have traditionally been in deficit in relation to their internal consumption.

  Lily Jacobs (PSE). – (NL) I should like to draw attention to an aspect of our agricultural policy that is often neglected: the interests of developing countries. We must move away from protectionism and the market-distorting measures that are built into the current system. The very poorest countries have the right to fair access to our market and the stopping of unfair competition on their markets.

I have tabled amendments calling attention to this, and I should like to ask my fellow Members to support them. The Commissioner will agree with me that, in addition, our policy should focus first and foremost on the consumer. Therefore, it is vital that we support farmers in the production of sufficient safe food of the very highest quality. Hence we must ensure sustainable agriculture, in which the maximum investment is made in protecting and improving rural areas and the environment, so that not only we, but also our children, can take pleasure in them.

We must ensure sufficient food for all, and one way of doing so is to increasingly develop our knowledge and to share our knowledge and modern technologies with the rest of the world.

  Kyösti Virrankoski (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on a health check for agriculture is a realistic one. The biggest problem is decoupling. The Commission is calling for increased decoupling of aid from production.

The Committee is being very wary, and not without reason. Decoupling in many ways is like farmers’ early retirement aid. It favours farms which decrease or abandon production but does not motivate young farmers who are expanding their production. In the same way it favours extensive production to the detriment of labour-intensive production.

In particular, the areas which are worse off in terms of their natural conditions seem to be losing out. For example, in the United States aid is still mainly tied to production. It is most annoying that the social justification for aid is losing ground. If a farmer who produces food part-time receives the same payment as another who works seven days a week, the taxpayer might well protest. The job of farming will continue to be to produce food.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, despite having been reformed several times, the common agricultural policy is still not living up to expectations. The European Union’s loss of food security, the numerous crisis situations and the lack of common settlements that satisfy both sides are egregious examples of this. The crisis situation is being enhanced by the lack of cohesion and the discrimination against farmers in the new Member States. The fact that there are better and worse situations, depending on geographical location and the date of accession to the European Union, really demonstrates that there is no common agricultural policy and that there will not be one for some considerable time to come.

Despite the enormous amount of work that the rapporteur, Mr Goepel, has put in, the aim has not been achieved and it is not even easy to say whether we are nearer to or further away from sensible solutions. In view of this situation, the opinion of the minority, according to which the Commission is continuing to operate a policy of support for international food industry corporations and big landowners, and that the common agricultural policy fails to meet the needs of consumers or of small and medium-sized family farms that are being forced to cease production, seems to be correct. Therefore, we need a new, fair agricultural policy drawn up by objective experts rather than interest groups.

  Petya Stavreva (PPE-DE). – (BG) Mr. Chairman, Mme Commissioner, Dear colleagues, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Lutz Goepel for the successful work on this report.

In my capacity of a MEP from Bulgaria, I find it particularly important that the report pays special attention to the new Member States of the European Union. They can, if they are willing to do so, apply a simplified single payment per unit of area until 2013 and they will be supported by the European Union in the application of the cross-compliance rules.

The preservation of the Member States’ right to decide on their own whether and how to change their direct aid systems will provide our countries with greater flexibility and help them adjust to the specific needs of each region and each sector.

I believe that the report on the health check of the Common Agricultural Policy is of special importance today, when the European Parliament has to show to the citizens its commitment and responsible political attitude to the development of the agricultural sector in the Community.

I think that the report of Lutz Goepel protects the interests of the European farmers and I urge you to support it. Thank you.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating my fellow Member Mr Goepel on a fine report and by thanking him for the enormous amount of work he has invested in it. The report fully reflects Parliament’s particular interest in the issue of agricultural policy. Even though expenditure in the current budget perspective amounts to only 33%, compared to 80% in the 1970s, agricultural policy continues to be, and should be, one of the most important European policies.

Since my time is limited, I shall mention just a few matters that are of importance to the new Member States. The introduction of modulation in the new Member States should not be accepted until full payments have been obtained and should be done gradually, as it was in other countries of the Fifteen. I cannot agree with removal of the subsidies and energy supplements that we have only just been awarded. Quite the contrary, the EU should particularly support the new direction of biomass production.

As regards the future of milk quotas, I am holding to my belief that the decision to be taken on this requires a broader debate and much more profound analysis.

  Magor Imre Csibi (ALDE). – (RO) In my capacity as vice-president of ENVI, I would like to make several remarks concerning the impact of climate change on agriculture.

The practice of intensive agriculture over the last years has made the farmers contribute, to a large extent, to global warming, and now they are facing its devastating effects. Statistics estimate that agriculture is responsible for 17% to 32% of greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities. Agriculture is still polluting as a consequence of irrational use of fertilisers, inadequate storage of animal manure, and irrational use of land, and I am referring especially to deforestation and overgrazing.

Global warming is irreversible and the frequent occurrence of droughts or flooding in the future should no longer surprise us. That is why I support the idea presented in the report concerning the creation of a security network at European level to help EU farmers in case of ecological, climatic or epidemiological calamities.

Consequently, I ask the European Commission to analyse the possibility of urgent establishment of an insurance fund or mechanism for multiple risks concerning EU farmers, financed from the EU budget as well as from the budgets of the Member States.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, there are just two issues in this debate to which I should like to draw attention. Firstly, the percentage of the total budget expenditure spent on agriculture is steadily falling and will be only 32% in the last year of this budget perspective. These funds constitute around 30% of EU farmers’ income on average. This level of support needs to be maintained in the future in order to sustain interest in agricultural activities, and above all to ensure Europe’s food security. We should bear in mind that many of the world’s developed countries deploy a variety of instruments to support farming income at a level of over 50%. These countries include Japan, South Korea, Norway and Switzerland.

Secondly, a much more rapid evening out of support for farmers in old and new Member States is needed. Experts calculate that the average level of support per hectare of farmland in 2007-2013 in the new Member States will be barely 62-64% of that received by farmers in the old Member States. Unless these two basic postulates are met, it will be difficult to conceive of development in European farming.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the aim of this review of EU agricultural policy is to improve it, in the light of experience gained in the period that has elapsed since the last reform in 2003 and the situation that has arisen in the world market. It should be remembered, however, that the changes being made must not undermine, firstly, the community nature of this policy – we are against its nationalisation – and secondly, the European agricultural model. There are no grounds for basing direct subsidies on historic production levels and having them differentiated in this way.

The future model for subsidies after 2013 should be based on simple principles similar to the SAPS. However, market intervention in extreme cases should also be allowed, or even production subsidies, as in the case of tobacco or milk production in mountain areas.

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Goepel on his report. Since time is very limited, let me emphasise certain principles that must guide any reform of the common agricultural policy, with the aid of either a communication or a legislative instrument.

Firstly, the redefinition of the European agricultural model cannot neglect family-based small and medium-sized enterprises. Secondly, the issue of funding, which will need to be settled later, must not be based on the principle of co-financing, which in effect renationalises the common agricultural policy. Thirdly, the question of regionalisation, which cannot by itself resolve the issues of the market and food products, will need to be re-examined and seen in its true dimensions. Fourthly, unfairness arising from certain reforms, such as that of tobacco, will have to be eliminated. These products must be reinstated and treated in the same way as others.

  Francesco Ferrari (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this very important report in view of the complexity and vast scope of the subject being dealt with.

I would like to underline two points that I think are particularly important. The first is that I consider the CAP an important instrument that should be maintained even after 2013, because it supports enterprise. However, for this reason it should be directed at entrepreneurs, so they can create jobs, maintain the environment and guarantee high quality products.

The second concerns the delicate issue of milk quotas. I do in fact agree with the rapporteur on the need to protect those regions of Europe where there is no alternative to livestock farming and milk production, but we should not forget those farmers who have invested heavily in order to acquire milk quotas and who, from 2015, could find themselves in great financial difficulties.

I hope that, with the help of the Commissioner, we can find a solution that suits everyone, partly because in 1984, when the quota system was set up, Italy was against it and today still has a production deficit of about 40% of the milk it consumes.

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Mr Goepel’s excellent report will lay the foundations for a sound agricultural policy for the future, but there is growing evidence that food security is going to rise to the top of our political agenda, as Mr Parish said.

Such is the panic caused by climate change that politicians and planners are in danger of creating a bigger global problem than they set out to resolve. The rush to biofuels is taking so much land out of agricultural production that some experts are now predicting imminent global famine. Likewise, vast tracts of the Amazonian and Indonesian rainforests are being torn up to make way for biofuel crops like palm oil and for food crops like soya, releasing millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and threatening to destroy our global air conditioning system. Deforestation now accounts for around 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions and highlights the insanity of current policies.

Greed, instead of care for the environment, has become the defining feature of our strategy for tackling climate change, and the race to biofuels is potentially threatening the lives of millions of people, as the global population soars from its present six billion to an estimated nine billion by 2050. An extra six million people are born every month. By 2030, the world population will have expanded by such an extent that we will require a 50% increase in food production to meet anticipated demand. By 2080, global food production would need to double!

But the reality is that an area the size of Ukraine is being taken out of agricultural food production every year due to drought and as a direct consequence of climate change. Global food production is in decline rather than expanding. That is why food security is now top of the agenda.

  Constantin Dumitriu (PPE-DE). – (RO) The common agricultural policy is one of the pillars of European development and the debates on the methods of improvement of this policy should be a constant, not only for the European institutions, but also within the Member States in the communities that elected us.

I am glad that by means of the Commission Communication and the report drafted by my colleague Goepel we have identified several solutions to enhance the common agricultural policy and to make the people in rural areas believe that this policy is for their own good and not only a set of bureaucratic provisions drafted by some offices in Brussels. However, we must be sure that the proposals made by the Commission, the Council and us are flexible and realistic enough to be efficient when implemented.

Romania, the country that I represent in the European Parliament, accounts for 25% of the work force in agriculture and 40% of its population lives in the rural areas. These are figures which demonstrate the importance of agriculture and rural areas for Romania and our economy. The solutions that we find for the CAP reform must take account of such cases as Romania, with a large agricultural sector in a full process of modernisation.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like, first of all, to welcome the report by Mr Goepel and thank him for his hard work and that of all the people involved in this.

This is only the beginning of the process as we look to the future of the common agricultural policy during this year. This is a very important step in this process and we now look forward to the Commission proposals in the near future. The position of the second pillar of rural development and what level of modulation is set will certainly be central, I believe, to the long-term success or otherwise of the future of the common agricultural policy.

But I have to say that never has it been more important to ensure a level playing field throughout the Member States, and we cannot allow different levels of percentages among the Member States. Decoupling has, to a large extent, been successful. I do not think we can go back on that. Cross-compliance has been unhelpful and bureaucratic and can be improved. And food security must be at the top of the list.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, solutions to increasingly serious problems are being demanded of the common agricultural policy and the structural policy that supports it. The fundamental shape of the common agricultural policy for the years 2007-2013 that was adopted by the ministers of agriculture of the EU countries on 26 June 2003 in Luxembourg includes some solutions that benefit Poland. Others, however, do more to protect the interests of the old Member States.

I share the rapporteur’s view that the Commission should draw up a detailed report relating to such problems as the additional costs borne by farmers in respect of observance of Community norms in the sphere of environmental protection, animal welfare and food security.

In taking a position on the report that has been presented to us, I agree that it is necessary to continue the process of reforms and further development of rural areas. The common agricultural policy must change if it is to find answers to new challenges such as climate change, increasing energy demands, world population increases and the increasing degree of openness to world markets.

  Markus Pieper (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I welcome the Goepel report because the time is finally ripe for abolishing or thoroughly reforming instruments such as quota control, livestock premiums, export refunds and intervention prices.

Looking at the global increase in demand for foodstuffs, a greater market economy in agricultural policy also offers more opportunities in European agriculture. I am anxious about the wording of some of the compromises. The talk here is of headage premiums being decoupled for now, sector-related systems of protection are being demanded and a whole series of derogations – on milk, for instance – are to be funded via the first pillar.

This all runs the risk of us hanging on to the old market regulations via the back door. We must really limit exceptions to structurally weak regions and define them for very tightly limited production quantities.

If we are too generous here it will lead to distortions of competition that we are not able to calculate in political terms. I therefore encourage the Commission to give the market a proper chance in the upcoming legislative proposals.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, there are a number of references in this report to the WTO. However, I have real concerns that, while we debate this report on the CAP in Parliament this afternoon, the future of European agriculture is being threatened and seriously undermined by the negotiations being undertaken in our name by Commissioner Mandelson at the WTO talks.

The report calls for the concept of qualified market access to be pursued in WTO negotiations. Is Commissioner Fischer Boel satisfied that we are pursuing that line? Indeed, is Commissioner Fischer Boel confident that the line being taken by Commissioner Mandelson will not undermine the beef, dairy and other sectors and, in some ways at least, render our debate here this afternoon irrelevant?

The report calls for European non-trade concerns to be central in WTO talks. Is the Commissioner satisfied we are pursuing that line, or are we just having a very polite debate in Parliament this afternoon, while Mr Mandelson is attacking the very foundations of the CAP?

  Iztok Jarc, President-in-Office. − (SL) I would like to thank you all for a very interesting debate. In my opinion the report was also of very high quality and full of good ideas.

I would like to say that in many issues in this debate Parliament and the Council expressed very similar opinions, which are too numerous to list here. I am convinced that this similarity will give these opinions additional weight and that it offers a good basis for future cooperation between the two institutions. I am also sure that it will be reflected in the conclusions that ministers are to debate and adopt next week.

I am convinced that both institutions will closely study the legislative proposals which the Commission is to present at the informal session in Slovenia in May, and that we will have an interesting debate at that session.

Finally, I would like to say that the Slovenian Presidency will strive for a speedy start to the debate on these proposals in order to finish most of the work during the Slovenian Presidency.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I completely agree with Mr Nicholson that this is the first step in a discussion that is going to continue for almost the rest of this year and, therefore, I shall not go into detail on all the various questions that have been raised here today. I shall just pinpoint a few of the more important ones.

First of all, a huge majority is in favour of the idea of more decoupling, and I am very appreciative of this idea. The idea of giving a Member State the possibility to introduce a regional model is a chance for them to go further towards a flat rate and I have explained on various occasions why I think this is important.

In order not to raise any expectations, I will be very direct and very frank on tobacco decoupling. It was decided in the reform of 2004 to decouple tobacco payments. As we are now trying to go even further in decoupling, the idea that some of you raised of extending the coupled payment for tobacco would be a step in totally the wrong direction. Therefore, do not have any expectations that the Commission will move in that direction.

Ms McGuinness said that modulation was like robbing farmers. I do not agree with this approach. I think the rural development policy will need more money in order to meet the new challenges – climate change and the reduction of CO2 emissions will be the most important ones.

We have to take into account, firstly, that the decoupled money will stay in the Member States and, secondly, that modulated money is co-financed by Member States and therefore you actually steer the money. You get twice as much as you deduct from the direct payment. This is an important message and we will come back to this in the legislative proposals.

Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf mentioned progressive modulation and the necessity, from his point of view, to include labour intensity in these discussions. I understand his point of view, but I can only say that this will be extremely bureaucratic and very, very difficult to manage, so I am very reluctant to enter into this discussion.

I might be wrong, but, personally, I do not consider the introduction of codecision on agriculture a threat, as I heard suggested. I consider this a huge and natural step in a situation where the agricultural sector is so important, both from an economic point of view and because this is important for quite a lot of people. Therefore, I welcome this change, but, on the other hand, it is important that we finalise this health check before the end of the year, otherwise it will be a Health Check for 2010 and then we are too close to 2013. That is the reason why, but, believe me, I am very happy with the changes that have been mentioned.

Concerning developing countries, the European Union is the most open market for developing countries: we import more agricultural products than Canada, the United States, Australia and Japan put together. This has to be taken into account when we talk about the agricultural sector.

I should like to say to Ms Harkin that I have been informed that she has tabled an oral question. This will be answered in writing and, therefore, I am quite sure she will get all the information she has been asking for.

  Lutz Goepel, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, with this discussion the sport of figure skating comes to mind. When judging figure skating, we discard the highest and lowest marks and then award the score. If I therefore remove the far right and far left views in this House, we shall then have a result with which we are all very satisfied and with which we can all live very happily.

Thank you very much for your support and cooperation. I would emphasise this once again beyond the limits of the groups. I am looking forward to what will be exciting cooperation on the legislative package.

  President. − I would only add, Mr Goepel, that the same principle of trimming off the highest and lowest marks also applies in ski-jumping and boxing. If this enlarges our debate, then all well and good.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 12 March 2008.

Written declarations (Rule 142)

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – Of course it is of the utmost importance to clearly stress in the framework of this report the necessity to maintain direct payments not only in the case of climate-related crisis or market failures but also to balance fairly the high European standards in terms of environmental, animal and consumer protection. Nevertheless, it is our duty to consider seriously the situation of the least-developed agricultural producing countries while reviewing the criteria under which direct payments will be made in the future under our common agricultural policy. Moreover, we have to acknowledge the difficult situation faced by most of the new Member States’ agricultural sectors requiring specific attention and further investments mainly in restructuring and modernisation of the sector. Finally, I would like to point out that it is essential while addressing the CAP health check that the emphasis should – following the recent crises – be on guaranteeing food safety and supply for our citizens by ensuring sufficient food-stocks.

18. Follow-up after the review of the "Lamfalussy Process" (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on

- an oral question by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Council: Follow-up after the review of the Lamfalussy process (O-0015/2008 - B6-0011/2008)

- an oral question by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to the Commission: Follow-up after the review of the Lamfalussy process (O-0016/2008 - B6-0012/2008)

  Pervenche Berès, author. − (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, thank you very much, Commissioner, for being here. However, we were expecting Commissioner McCreevy – as I am sure you know or suspect. You can tell him that Parliament does not really understand why he is not here today at this debate. I have heard that he thought it was bad form to debate these issues with the European Parliament before discussing them in the European Council, or before the European Council had discussed them. Yet this subject was on the Ecofin Council agenda and, all over Brussels, and perhaps in other European capitals, the draft conclusions are circulating.

Here in plenary, we will be having a debate tomorrow to prepare for this European Council, so why, when it comes to financial markets, can we not prepare these questions with the European Parliament too? This is something we do not understand, unless the Commissioner is currently campaigning in Ireland for the Treaty of Lisbon, but if he is, he could at least tell us. If he is preparing his future, we are interested in that too. In any case, if Commissioner McCreevy wants to advocate transparency in financial markets, I think he ought to start by being transparent about his own diary!

Financial innovation is an important issue. I also think that, in this Parliament, it is time we acted on the need for regulation. We are often told: if you regulate the financial markets, capital will leave the European market. Today, as my American colleague says, I think the only thing we are seeing is not the disappearance of capital, but the disappearance of the consequences of subprimes.

When we approach this debate, we want to do so with three things in mind: obviously functioning financial markets, but also a genuine capacity to finance the economy and an ability to anticipate the needs of financial markets for stability and protection against the systemic risks. It is in this spirit that we are tackling preparations today for the European Council, with the idea that European monetary policy probably reacted well at the start of the crisis, but that today, in a way, the European supervisor has been found out – and that is what bothers us.

When we look at the issues that will be discussed in the next European Council, we wonder: how capable are we really, at European level, of anticipating a crisis? People talk about an early warning system, but what we see is that, in the markets, the people who really have the ability to raise the alarm are called Goldman Sachs. Are we therefore going to learn any lessons from this for the way Europe operates?

I hear a lot of talk everywhere about transparency. We are all in favour of transparency, but what of that call for transparency when, for the last eight months, all the large investment banks have been called upon to give their figures, to give their assessment of their exposure to risk? They cannot do it, because behind it lies a challenge in terms of reputation, and undoubtedly in terms of valuation, a challenge that is extremely difficult to deal with.

Therefore, when I hear people talking about an alternative, the early warning system – I have already said something about this … As one IMF councillor said to me the other day, the early warning system is a bit like when it says: ‘Smoking kills’ on a packet of cigarettes. How much does it change your behaviour? Not a great deal.

Of course, the IMF and the Financial Stability Forum have a role to play in this. Who does not know this? However, it should be an alternative to our ability to watch how our systems are working. I should say, on this point, that the surprises for this Parliament are just getting bigger. When we adopted the Ehler report on deposit-guarantee schemes on 13 December, we were told that it was much too complex a business and, anyway, it would not provide any guarantees for how the systems would function.

It seems today from the main conclusions of the Ecofin Council to be a way of escaping the crisis, or in any case, a matter that should be reopened as a matter of urgency. If you do reopen it, Commissioner, or rather if your colleague Commissioner McCreevy reopens it, we will be next in line to examine it. At some point, you perhaps need to listen more carefully to what Parliament says about issues like this one.

Similarly, as regards the credit-rating agencies, we can only refer you – or refer Commissioner McCreevy – back to what we said before. We know that the Commission wants to present proposals for the amendment of the Capital Requirements Directive, or CRD. We will be examining these proposals carefully, but we do not think that this will be enough to give the European Union the system of supervision it needs, unless we take account of all the proposals that have been on the table for some months now.

This also concerns the situation of the supervisory committees – the three ‘Level 3’ committees, as we usually call them. For these three Level 3 committees, we need a proposal for legislation that gives them a solid legal basis to act and to strengthen their capability, including in dialogue with the other supervisory authorities, because the idea that we are going to bring in the other supervisory authorities without having our own solid system of supervision does not seem very satisfactory to us.

We would like the Council and the Commission together to look at the proposals on the table, not forgetting, of course, the proposals that the Italian Finance Minister, Mr Padoa-Schioppa, made at the Ecofin Council in December. In the same spirit, here too, we would also like to think more proactively about improving our regulation system, out of respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

We do not believe the idea of a lead supervisor would satisfy all the Member States. What Parliament should be asking for is a solution that includes all the Member States and that enables each one to feel comfortable with the supervision system.

On all these matters, I would be grateful if you, President-in-Office, and you, Commissioner, would make your comments, bearing in mind that I am obviously merely expressing questions that are being asked in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, since we have not yet deliberated on a proper report.

  Janez Lenarčič, President-in-Office. − (SL) I would like to emphasise the Council’s opinion, which is that the key response to the current situation in the financial market is consistent implementation of the three working programmes already adopted by the Council during the Portuguese Presidency.

As you may recall, last October the ECOFIN Council adopted a report and a set of decisions, as mentioned in the oral question by Mrs Berès. A schedule is attached to those decisions.

I would like to make a brief remark regarding the principles that guide our efforts. The first guideline concerns the procedures and principles for improving cooperation and conduct in international financial crises. One of the key aims in this area is to finalise and sign the new memorandum of understanding which will define common principles and guidelines for strengthening cooperation in the field of crisis management. The Presidency expects the memorandum to be finalised during the informal session of the ECOFIN Council that is to take place in Slovenia next month.

The other main guideline for the work in strengthening measures for financial stability concerns the tools for preventing, managing and resolving crises. The October schedule deals with all the recognised deficiencies, especially the regulations on state aid, the system of guaranteed deposits, the rules on winding-up procedures, and the limitations concerning the transfer of funds, all on an international scale.

I would like briefly to touch on the decisions reached following the review of the Lamfalussy process, adopted at the December session of the ECOFIN Council, and the attached schedule. Although in some respects this matter relates to the efforts to achieve financial stability, the long-term issues associated with the supervision of international financial groups do not have much to do with the current market situation. They mainly concern the national supervisors, who are required to adjust to the conditions of continuously developing financial markets.

I wish to stress the Council’s opinion that we need to increase the convergence of supervision in order to ensure equal competition. Here we are mainly concerned with the convergence of supervisory practice and not necessarily with the convergence of supervisory institutions. As regards the response of the economic policy players to the current situation in the financial markets, let me express the Council’s conviction that the primary responsibility for correction rests with the individual sector. We should resort to legislative initiatives only if the sector proves incapable of adopting efficient measures.

The ECOFIN Council debated the question of financial stability at its last session on 4 March. At the end of this week the European Council will address this problem and, I hope, will agree with the progress achieved. The ECOFIN Council will continue to follow the situation closely. I have already mentioned the April session of the ECOFIN Council to be held informally in Slovenia. We will of course be pleased to hear proposals from the European Parliament as well.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the oral question tabled by Ms Berès on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs gives me, on behalf of Mr McCreevy and on behalf of the whole Commission, the opportunity to inform you of the ongoing work on the review of the Lamfalussy process.

Throughout last year, the European supervisory model in the field of financial services was examined at the highest political level. These discussions showed that there is a strong political will to strengthen the current supervisory architecture based on the Lamfalussy committee structure. Last year we saw the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission each submit their assessment of the functioning of the current process. It is now time to move forward and to present concrete proposals.

This stems from the Ecofin Council’s conclusions and the accompanying road map which were adopted last December. This road map sets out what needs to be done to improve the Lamfalussy process and in particular to improve the committees of national supervisory authorities, the so-called ‘level three’ committees.

The Commission’s work is centred on three main areas following this agreement of the road map adopted last December. First, the Commission was requested to consider how to clarify and strengthen the role of the level three committees and to set out concrete options for the informal Ecofin Council next April in Ljubljana.

The main objective here is to bring forth the contribution that the level three committee should make to supervisory cooperation, supervisory convergence and possibly to crisis prevention and management. The informal Ecofin, by the way, will also discuss the work of a taskforce focusing on crisis management on cross border institutions.

Second, work is ongoing by a working group of the Commission to review supervisory powers, voluntary delegation of tasks, supervisory cooperation and exchange of information. We are working together with the three level three committees on these tasks to deliver the requested results before the end of the year. Considering the enormous scope of these reviews, it is, however, still too early to indicate today what the outcome of this work will be.

Third, the Commission is looking into the possibility of financially contributing to the activities of the level three committees. This is an urgent problem as these committees in general, and in particular the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), have reached their budgetary limits. The Commission will be looking for a stable legislative solution which would ensure continuity in EU financing. In our view, this could best be achieved by agreeing the modalities of EU funding in a decision adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.

I have no time to give the Parliament details of the road map adopted last December by Ecofin, but allow me in half a minute just to read some of the commitments that were sent to the Commission. We are working on all of these things. By April 2008 the Commission should prepare an assessment of how to clarify the role of the committees and to consider all the different options towards strengthening the working of these committees.

By mid-2008, the level three committees should for the first time transmit to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council draft work programmes, and thereafter start reporting annually on progress. This committee should also explore the possibility of strengthening the national application of guidelines, recommendations and standards; they should introduce in their charters the possibility of applying qualified majority voting coupled with a comply or explain procedure; they should study the possibilities of introducing a common set of operational guidelines for the operation of colleges of supervisors and monitor the coherence of the practices of the different colleges of supervisors. The level three committees and the Commission should suggest – also by mid-2008 – a timetable for the introduction of EU-wide reporting format for single data requirements and reporting dates.

By the end of 2008, the Commission has also committed itself to conduct a cross-sectoral stock-taking exercise of the coherence, equivalence and actual use of sanctioning powers among Member States. The Commission should consider – also by the end of 2008 – financial support under the EU budget. And, as I said before, it should study the possibilities for EU funding under the EU budget of the development of tools to help build a common supervisory culture by the level three committees. The Commission and the committees should review financial services directives to include provisions to enable the use of voluntary delegation of tasks, analyse the options for voluntary delegation of competences and so on and so forth. So we are working a lot and we should work a lot in the coming weeks, months and before the end of this year.

But we are working at the same time on the financial turmoil by following the road map that was adopted in October 2007 by Ecofin. A report on how we are working on this road map to tackle the financial turmoil consequences has been sent to the European Council for discussions in a few days in Brussels. We contributed to this report with a communication. The Economic and Financial Committee the other day also presented its own report to Ecofin. We discussed both reports at Ecofin level and these reports are on the table for the discussions of the Heads of State and Government next Thursday and Friday.

These reports convey the simple message: in order to respond to the concerns of our citizens and investors we must act swiftly and in a consistent way. We need to restore confidence and stability as soon as possible, having carefully considered all the options and in line with the better regulation principles.

I think everybody acknowledges that this road map, adopted a few months ago by Ecofin, provides the right answer to the problems identified. Work on these road map commitments is on track. In the months to come it will be crucial to stick to the timetable and show that the EU is responding effectively to the crisis.

Our regulatory and supervisory framework must remain robust and keep pace with market developments. Although the Basle II rules have only been fully implemented as of 1 January 2008 further improvements have already been planned in the capital requirements directive. This work has taken on increased importance in the light of the recent turmoil and maybe there will be other aspects of Basle II that we will need to address in the time ahead. We intend to adopt a new proposal for this directive in October so that discussion in Parliament and the Council can take place before the adoption of a new directive in April 2009.

We appreciate very much the involvement of Parliament in all these discussions. We need Parliament’s contribution and we appreciate this involvement and this contribution. On 1 April – a few days before the next informal Ecofin – Mr McCreevy will go to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. And, as you know, from a macro-financial stability point of view, I, as the Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, am always ready to contribute to the discussions in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and in this Parliament.

Finally, on macro-financial issues, it is true that we need to improve the supervisory and regulatory framework – it is absolutely true at European level and at a global level – but we will not put an end to these bubbles, this excess of liquidity, this risk to financial stability unless we seriously tackle global imbalances. This is the real origin of these imbalances. We cannot solve the current or previous problems, or perhaps the next challenges to the functioning of the global economy, without tackling the global imbalances that are still there.

  Alexander Radwan, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, in 1999 we initiated the European single financial market project and have since been pressing ahead with it. We are on the path to success.

We now have to see that market developments do not overtake political developments. The Lamfalussy Process was a step in this direction. Level 3 could be a way of bringing supervisors in Europe a step closer together. However, I hold on to what Commissioner Almunia has said, and that is: act quickly and effectively.

We are going through a sub-prime crisis or sub-prime turbulence. The Americans – whether they are the SEC, the White House, politicians or the offices of the District Attorney in New York or Washington – have long been drawing up the relevant summaries and thinking about what measures are required, while finance ministers in Europe are still reflecting on which direction they could be taking.

The finance ministers are refusing to push a European supervisory structure, so I shall not be talking about a European supervisor here. What the finance ministers already have to answer for, however – and here I appeal specifically to the Council – is the fact that Europe is not present at the international discussion on how to deal with this problem. Once again we shall ultimately find ourselves merely adopting the rules of other nations, such as the United States, for example.

I would just remind you of the Katiforis report. After Parmalat and Enron, we asked the Commission and Council in 2003-2006 to speak out on rating agencies. The Commission does indeed analyse everything in Europe, but when crises arise, no analysis takes place. On the subject of hedge funds, for instance, no analysis is taking place in the European Union. Hence my urgent appeal: throw off your lethargy, leave your national egotisms behind and keep working on turning the European financial market into a success story not only in Europe, so that what has stood the test here also becomes the rule throughout the world.

  Ieke van den Burg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Madam President, let me first make two preliminary remarks. One is that I would have liked to discuss with Mr Almunia these global imbalances and monetary intervention etc., but we will do that with Mr Trichet in another configuration.

But what I want to stress here is that if we had not had this ECB structure, this system of European banks that intervened in the present turmoil, we would be much worse off. I think that this balance exists in monetary policy – we have had this type of European-level execution of activity, but we do not have it in the supervisory aspects. This is necessary for ex ante prevention instead of only intervention measures.

My second preliminary remark is about the absence of Charlie McCreevy. I think it is unacceptable that he does not want to discuss this with us. Maybe he is dealing with his personal future, but I would say for the 2009 Commission that it would be worthwhile considering having a special Commissioner for the financial markets who will concentrate only on this, because I think this is a really major subject for Europe and for the European Commission.

Then, on the issue of the supervision – the road map you have described – I do not think we disagree on the measures, but I would have expected – and I said this very clearly in the level three committee at the annual joint meeting held in November – that these measures should also have been the elements of a clear proposal for legislative measures from the Commission. The Commission has the right of initiative, they can put proposals on the table, and we would have been able to act swiftly and consistently if we had had a concrete proposal. Because now, a lot of these measures are only voluntary: they are requests to committees which really do not have the powers, the mandates, the competences and the tools to do what we would like them to do, because they are nationally organised and do not have this European mandate. This could have been the subject of a European Commission proposal in this regard.

Why is the Commission so slow in acting? I think one of the reasons is that they want these level three committees to be merely advisory and not the central tool for European supervision. I think this is something we also have to acknowledge: that they play this important role and that we need to have, like the European Central Bank, a real, independent supervisory structure which can deal with these subjects. It should not be only the Commission – as DG Competition – dealing with it, because the Commission is too weak in this respect.

Concerning the Council, I would really hope that you see the sense of urgency and discuss further measures on the architecture of supervision.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, a dynamic and healthy financial sector is crucial for the stability of the European economy and for global competitiveness. This is vitally important for consumers and companies.

With this in mind, we all agree on the need for financial institutions to be well managed and supervised. That is why in 2001 we launched what is known as the Lamfalussy Process, with the aim of putting in place an efficient mechanism for convergence between the various Member States and partners in terms of supervisory practice and financial regulation. Now the Commission is asking us to approve a series of new initiatives relating to the adoption of legislation, the convergence of supervision and the strengthening of cooperation between the supervisory bodies in the various Member States.

We agree with all of this because we need a strong and healthy financial sector that is capable of supporting our economy in the face of the turbulence on the international markets, but we want even more. We want the Savings Directive, which has been in force since 2005, to be examined in order to put an end to scandals such as Liechtenstein, which appears to be hiding tax evaders.

There should not be Member States, linked territories or countries associated with the European Economic Area that, under the protection of banking secrecy, do not exchange information on interest paid to residents of other members of that same common economic space.

Free competition prohibits State aid as a way of promoting the private economy; and taxation of savings should not be a gateway for distorting equal competition. The rules of the game should be the same for everyone and we should therefore eradicate tax havens, as they are anti-competitive and also anti-social.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Madam President, two minutes is not long enough to allow me to take on board all the points. I would just like to be very brief. I am in agreement with many of the things mentioned by my colleagues, especially what Ms van den Burg said about Commission reluctance to give a greater role to level three committees.

I think that it is natural that level three committees have two different roles. They have succeeded well in giving advice on new directives. The advisory role is very well accomplished, but we have not yet found a way to achieve true convergence in Europe. There is a real asymmetry between European convergence and national accountability. Although we wholeheartedly support the Ecofin proposals, the road map and everything that has been produced, we have doubts that they will solve the problems we have in Europe. Is it really possible to achieve fully integrated management with the current supervisory system? I do not think this is the case. We also think that consolidating the supervisory model of the CRD needs much bigger improvements than the ones presented in the road map. It is not enough to have good delegational powers, good information requirements and to solve home host issues. We need to give level three committees more decisive powers. They need to be more independent of the Commission and to be the seed of the new European supervisory network-based system.

Finally, I would like to raise the issue, which was also dealt with by my colleague, Mr Radwan, of US convergence and global consequences. I think we are losing time in Europe. If we do not get our act together, we cannot really be taken seriously by our international colleagues. Even though the financial services dialogue has developed well, we need to further improve our route to convergence in order to show the Americans that we have an equivalent system and can rely on mutual recognition and even substituted compliance. So this global aspect is very important to take on board.

  Elisa Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, the recent turbulence in the financial markets showed that the trend which gave rise to increased efficiency might also entail greater risks, affecting the soundness of the financial system and the health of the real economy. The review planned for 2007 thus became more urgent and acquired greater political relevance. Today Europe is being asked to produce careful and effective responses to suit the growing complexity of the markets.

It is also known that progress is possible without altering the central architecture of the Lamfalussy method but, as many of my fellow Members have said, one of the most obvious and urgent tools for obtaining improvements involves stronger and more effective coordination between national regulators and supervisors through greater efficiency at Level 3, increasing powers and competence, strengthening the mechanisms for managing turbulent situations and crises and ensuring consistency of principles and practices.

Such coordination is complex and does not arise spontaneously: it requires specific, competent initiatives on the part of the Commission, in response to the recommendations, rightly mentioned here today, made by Parliament on various occasions, and by the Ecofin Council, and set out in the roadmap which has been extensively quoted here.

With the next European Council approaching, the apparent lack of transparency of the initiatives planned by the Commission is surprising. The absence of Commissioner McCreevy is even more surprising when Parliament has expressly asked him for information on the progress of the work.

Finally, I should like to thank Commissioner Almunia once again for his availability, although I still think we need to have a clarifying debate with the Commissioner responsible in accordance with the specific and technical nature of the subject, and the Commission’s obligation to propose a specific initiative.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, the Lamfalussy Process was created so that Community legislation on financial matters could respond quickly and flexibly to developments in the market and in order to encourage convergence of supervisory practices. Its activities, on all four levels, have enabled the actions of the institutions and the supervisory authorities in the European Union to be better coordinated.

We need to go further.

In order to increase its legitimacy, quality and coherence we need to continue to reinforce the principles of better regulation and democratic scrutiny, improving the integration of its levels and promoting greater inter-sectoral convergence in order to avoid arbitrage. A European perspective and new steps are essential for responding to these needs and especially for adequately tackling the supervision of cross-border groups and moving forward with the prevention and management of international crises.

  Harald Ettl (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, financial stability through crisis management must now be the standard when developing regulatory convergence. It is about drawing lessons from the financial crises and developments in the finance industry that get out of hand and are no longer compatible with an adequate macroeconomy. This means that a sustainable basis for the Lamfalussy Process still needs to be created in 2008. The requirements of the market operators call for a flexible regulatory procedure. The requirement here has to be that supervisory action is provided for by parliamentary control and Parliament’s rights are protected. There is no transparent control without parliamentarianism.

Our path leads straight into a system of European supervisory authorities via the lead supervisor. Only in a European system of supervisory authorities can a balance be found between European financial centres that takes account of all the political and economic interests. The Commission must be a player, not just a moderator, in the intermediate stages here.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the Lamfalussy Process has commendably seen us through over the years to this specific focal point of the financial mechanisms. On the other hand we have continually been trying to keep democratic law-making going there, too, as part of the normal discussion of the Constitution, where we have law-making delegated from the European institutions. We always have the same problem in both cases, namely ensuring that we are able on the one hand to guarantee a modicum of transparency and on the other hand that Parliament is sufficiently involved in controlling this.

Are practical efforts being made to bring the general discussions closer together in the context of comitology and the Lamfalussy Process in particular, so that we do not continue to have this array of processes and another component of transparency is thereby taken from us?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. − (ES) Madam President, I will try to be very brief, but I wanted to make a few brief comments on some of the speeches that have been made.

First of all, it is clear that there is asymmetry between the national structure of supervisors, the financial supervision structures, and the growing importance of the supranational institutions, and the global, rather than just the European dimension, of the financial markets and financial activity. This asymmetry causes tension and demands a response from the European institutions, from the Commission and from the Council and Parliament. We are not going to discuss this, as I think that we are all in agreement on it.

Secondly, I am not so much in agreement with some speeches that may have suggested that the structures for supervision and for reacting to events in the financial system in the United States are superior to those that we have in Europe. I sincerely believe that the facts do not show this, but rather that there is an argument in favour of the European regulation and supervision structures and the way that the financial markets function in Europe in a whole series of areas compared with what happens in the United States.

Thirdly, the Lamfalussy Level 3 Committees are extraordinarily important. Two of the three Level 3 Committees, the Banking Committee and the Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee, were only created in 2005, even though the Lamfalussy Process began in 1999. We need to make up for lost time, but a great deal of time was wasted before this Commission came in.

Fourthly, how do we move forward? It appears from some of the speeches that some of you think that it is the Commission’s responsibility to make the decision to move forward at the right pace. I am not going to hide the Commission’s responsibilities, which it does have, as do Parliament and the Council, and of course the Member States.

My experience of taking part in many recent discussions in Ecofin, and also in the Eurogroup, on developments in supervision and regulation and on how to deal with the turbulence in the financial markets and respond to the uncertainty, lack of confidence and failings that we are seeing in the system, my experience, which I can share with you and you can choose to believe it or not, is that the greatest obstacles to moving forward are the positions of some Member States. This is not, however, in Member States that are not suffering the consequences of the financial turbulence.

There is a lot of work being done. I understand why Parliament wants the work to go more quickly, but I think that Parliament has the same information as the Commission and the Council, and therefore knows that a great deal of work is being done in many directions at once. We are in a situation in which improvisation tends to lead to mistakes, and in which trying to do things before we know what needs to be done tends to be counterproductive. There are experiences in Europe and the United States relating to previous supervision problems and previous regulation problems, previous financial problems, that show that it is better to wait for a few months and get it right than speed up the possible response and make the problems that we want to tackle even worse.

One last consideration: the Commission has the right of legislative initiative in the European Union. The Commission is never going to give up its right of initiative, it is never going to hand over this right of initiative to the Lamfalussy Committees. It takes them into account, but it is never going to consider that the Commission’s right of initiative should be handed over to the Lamfalussy Committees, and I do not think Parliament or the Council think so either. What is true, as I have said, is that all of us, starting with the Commission, think that the coordination between the Level 3 Lamfalussy Committees, the capacity to adopt criteria and decisions with a system of majority voting, the capacity to react with almost binding decisions, is something that is increasingly evident and increasingly necessary, in view of the extraordinary importance of the task that these committees have to carry out. However, this should not lead us to confuse them with the holders of the right of legislative initiative in Europe.

  President. − The debate is closed.

19. Commission Question Time

  President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0013/2008).

I am sorry for those colleagues who have been waiting for this to start and, clearly, we will have to look at why we are so late in starting today.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, on a point of order, according to the parliamentary website Oral Questions, my question was No 3 on the list. The question was designed to be answered by Commissioner Mandelson, as its title clearly stated ‘WTO talks’ and Mr Mandelson is conducting those talks on our behalf. However, I now see that my question has been put into section 3, which means that it will not be verbally answered by Commissioner Mandelson. I am asking whether he is refusing to be accountable to the House for the WTO negotiations.

What is the point in tabling a question to a Commissioner who is present on the day if the Commissioner refuses to answer that question?

  President. − It is the Commission that decides who answers which questions.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, that is the problem, because the question, on WTO talks, was clearly for Commissioner Mandelson. He is the Commissioner who was conducting those talks, he is here today and he is refusing to answer the question.

  President. − Ms Harkin, your point is noted and we will do what we can.

The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Part one

  President. − Question No 32 by Stavros Arnaoutakis (H-0075/08)

Subject: Negative impact on business of the international credit crisis

The current international credit crisis, which is leading the US economy into recession, is slowing down the rate of growth at world level. The effects on the European economy and business are substantial. Greek and other European companies are already coming under considerable pressure from the increase in imports from non-EU countries whose cheaper products are constantly gaining ground on the market. At the same time, a fall in European exports is forecast for the current year.

What measures will the Commission take to provide European companies with effective support to survive this crisis and become more commercially competitive at international level? Which sectors of commerce and which European products does it consider to be most vulnerable? Which should be protected as a matter of priority and how can that be achieved?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. − (ES) Madam President, in response to Mr Arnaoutakis’s question, I must say firstly that the global economy is in the process of slowing down; it is cooling down, to use climate terminology.

The financial turbulence is continuing; the US economy is in a process of marked slowdown – some think that it is on the brink of recession. Prices of raw materials, not only oil but also other raw materials, are increasing, and all this is having a negative impact on growth, although the growth of the global economy is still substantial.

The European economy is dealing relatively well with these difficulties. In our recent forecasts, presented on 21 February, we talked about 2% growth for the European Union this year, and 1.8% for the euro area. There is therefore an impact on the European economy, but the extent of it should not be exaggerated.

With regard to external trade, the most recent figures published by Eurostat show that, for 2007, the initial estimate talks about a trade deficit in the European Union of 27 of EUR 185 000 million, which is a substantial trade deficit, but in any event lower than many of the other areas of industrialised countries, and the euro area has a trade surplus of EUR 28 300 million.

Therefore, in a global economy characterised by major imbalances, our external sector is balanced in general, and not only our external sector, but our public accounts are also basically balanced.

Third point: the best way of dealing with the crisis in the global economy is to maintain the structural reforms and macroeconomic policies that have enabled us to get our public accounts back on track, improve the stability of our economies, improve our capacity for growth and be in a better position than before to face up to financial turbulence.

Fourthly, there are specific problems to deal with as a result of this turbulence. We discussed these in the previous debate, so I am not going to repeat them. I will, however, remind the Member and the House that there are roadmaps adopted by the Ecofin Council in October that establish how to react to this financial turbulence.

Fifthly, I would also like to remind the Member and Parliament that in October 2006 we adopted a strategy for the EU’s external economic action, the Global Europe programme, which establishes a new European trade policy to improve our external competitiveness, with strategies relating to market access, protecting intellectual property rights, open public procurement abroad, trade defence instruments, a policy of not just multilateral agreements in the context of the World Trade Organization, but also a new generation of bilateral trade agreements that complement the efforts to move forward in the multilateral negotiations in the Doha Round.

To conclude this answer, I would like to say that the facts show, in particular for European economies, that market integration, globalisation and liberalisation of trade are beneficial to our economies and bring many more benefits than disadvantages or problems. Globalisation and, in the European context, the single market, are essential tools for improving our competitiveness and, as Europeans know very well, probably better than anyone else in the world, protectionism is not the solution.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to ask you whether there has been any assessment by the Commission of how this international credit crisis will affect sectors such as tourism and shipping, which in the case of my country, Greece, represent 21% of the GDP. What measures does the Commission intend to take?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. − (ES) No, I cannot give you such specific and detailed calculations as you are asking for. It is very possible that the Greek authorities have made these estimates. We estimated the impact of the financial turbulence and the more economically challenging international climate on the European economies in our updated forecasts in February, and we estimated that there is going to be less growth, five tenths less growth in the European Union, and four tenths less growth in the euro area compared with the forecasts that we presented in November 2007. Also half a point more inflation, basically as a result of the ‘shock’ of the increase in oil prices, raw materials, and in particular, food raw materials.

Thus far, the impact on exports is very small, not to say that it has not been felt until now, but as we have said on many occasions, especially recently when the exchange markets have been extremely volatile, we feel that the changes in and volatility of exchange rates as they affect us as Europeans are reaching limits that are causing us great concern, and we need to remind all the other players in the global economy that excessive volatility in the exchange markets is undesirable, because it has negative consequences in terms of growth and economic activity, for everyone.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Businesses are influenced not only by international crises, but also, as has just been mentioned, by currency exchange rates. A country with a strong currency can struggle in the competition stakes in international markets. At present the euro is so strong that businesses have started to complain that exporting is no longer profitable.

Could any measures be taken to alleviate this problem? Sometimes countries try to devalue their currency in order to make a profit from sales abroad.

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. − (ES) As the honourable Member knows, the exchange markets, in the vast majority of countries, and in particular in more advanced industrialised economies, are governed by flexible exchange rates. It is the law of supply and demand that sets exchange rates at any given time.

What is desirable is for all the players, all those that are part of the global economy, and in particular, the exchange markets, to keep to the guidelines that we agreed in the G7, in the International Monetary Fund, in the multilateral consultations, that took place a year ago now, in order to try to deal with the global imbalances in the economy. One of the conclusions of those multilateral consultations had to do with the need to give the exchange markets the freedom to reflect the fundamentals of each economy, and this is the best way for exchange rates not to be collectively detrimental to the players, the participants in the international markets.

Thus far, for the euro area, if we look at the figures published by Eurostat for 2007, the first Eurostat figures for 2007, published on 15 February, over last year exports from countries in the euro area, which is thirteen countries, grew by 8%, while imports grew by 6%. However, at the same time it is true that the changes in interest rates concern us; and in particular we are concerned by the changes in recent weeks.

This was said as a result of the last meeting of the Eurogroup last week, by the Chairman of the Eurogroup, the Chairman of the European Central Bank and by me as Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs.

We are taking note of the will of the US authorities, which are still repeating publicly that they want to maintain a strong currency. We are taking note of the announcements and declarations of intention from the authorities in countries such as China and other emerging Asian economies, which are saying that they are aware of the need to gradually introduce more flexibility in the management of exchange rates.

  President. − While we change to Commissioner Figeľ for the next question, may I take the opportunity to return to Ms Harkin’s earlier point of order. I have caused some enquiries to be made and my first point would be that we are dealing with Question Time to the Commission, not to a particular Commissioner.

The Commission has looked at the point you raised and has consulted DG Trade and DG AGRI and in their estimation, I am afraid, your question falls within the competence of Commissioner Fischer Boel. I cannot enter into debate, but I pass on that information to you so that you know the reasoning.

  President. − Question No 33 by Manolis Mavrommatis (H-0086/08)

Subject: Legal downloads of songs from the Internet

On 28 January 2008, an agreement was signed between the three biggest record companies (EMI, Universal Music and Warner Music) to make 25 million songs available on the Qtrax website for free downloading by users. While downloading is in progress, however, users have to watch the advertising on the site. This website is available to residents of Europe and the USA and it is estimated that the site’s creators will soon recoup their investment.

Given that there is no EU legal framework covering online music services - as, following the recent recommendation, the Commission does not intend to propose a legally binding framework - and that this agreement was made largely to safeguard the rights and profits of the record companies affected by illegal downloading, in what way are the rights of the artists protected within this framework?

In view of the fact that this website is also aimed at European citizens, does the Commission consider that competition in music services will be undermined since this agreement involves only three record companies which will make their songs available on the Internet free of charge and will enjoy the profits from advertising on the same website?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − I am sure that Mr Mavrommatis recalls that Qtrax recently announced a new agreement with several major labels to offer the first free and legal advertisement-supported peer-to-peer service with major music labels on their website. It happened at the MIDEM Conference in Cannes in January.

However, it seems that no deal is currently in place that would allow free downloads of their music catalogues. Indeed, in reaction to the Qtrax announcement, the four major companies have publicly stated that no deal has yet been finalised, although negotiations are ongoing. At this stage, there are still uncertainties as to how many agreements Qtrax will eventually sign with the major music labels and as to the content and the scope of these agreements.

It is therefore too early to make any preliminary assessment of the impact on competition in the online music industry. However, it is clear that such a service would not only have to be licensed by the record labels, but the authors who wrote and composed the music would also, of course, have to be part of the agreement.

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, as I have said in my question, there are three companies making a profit. I ask again, Commissioner: will other unprotected companies have to close down, leaving the rights of thousands of artists unprotected, at the very time when online music services are steadily gaining strength? Or am I to believe Mr McCreevy, who has told us that such a directive will be put before the European Parliament in 2010?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Firstly, I would like to assure you once again that the competition policy of the Union and this Commission is an ongoing process. We check and test and, if needed, we act or react.

Secondly, the adaptation of important rules or frameworks for online content or cross-border rules for the provision of services, including now for copyrights or even terms of protection, are part of the gradual adaptation. Some of them will probably be adapted this year. Some proposals have been on the table since autumn last year. So I think it is an important process, where we are working together, where a cultural context or impact is duly taken into account and cultural diversity protected and promoted.

We are not advising what individual companies should do in terms of the behaviour of others, but it is important that transparency and favourable conditions for creativity and for the dissemination of culture are preserved and promoted. I think this is our common cause and our common concern. I am sure that this is the case in the Committee on Culture and Education, of which you are vice-chairman, Mr Mavrommatis.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – (ES) Commissioner, I assume that you know that in some States there is a method for paying authors’ rights that involves establishing a charge that must be paid by all those who buy equipment to record or reproduce material, or buy CDs or DVDs. I wanted to ask you whether you think that this method is acceptable, when there are many people who buy such equipment or DVDs and do not use them either to download music or to reproduce anything that affects authors’ rights. I think that this method is punishing honest citizens. I would like to know your opinion on this.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − It is true that in some countries these copyright levies are really very high or the differences are striking.

This is one of topics which we are dealing with. We did it last year, and I am sure that the Commission will come back to these issues. My colleague, Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, is responsible for this file, and I see it in connection with other areas where either copyrights, terms of protection or authors’ rights are concerned or touched upon.

So I know about the issues, but thank you for the message, which is repeated by some countries and some industries. I am sure that this will be part of reviews in the near future.

  President. − Question No 34 by Avril Doyle (H-0090/08)

Subject: Carbon tariffs on imports?

On 23 January 2008 the European Commission put forward a far-reaching package of proposals COM(2008)0016 that will deliver on the European Union's ambitious commitments to fight climate change and promote renewable energy up to 2020 and beyond.

Central to the strategy is a strengthening and expansion of the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the EU's key tool for cutting emissions cost-effectively. Emissions from the sectors covered by the system will be cut by 21% by 2020 compared with levels in 2005. A single EU-wide cap on ETS emissions will be set, and free allocation of emission allowances will be progressively replaced by auctioning of allowances by 2020.

Under any international agreement, which would ensure that competitors in other parts of the world bear a comparable cost, the risk of carbon leakage could well be negligible. However, such an agreement is not yet in place.

In light of the above, can the Commission comment as to why carbon tariffs on imports into the EU were excluded from the EU ETS?

Secondly, can the Commission further indicate the degree of support in the College of Commissioners on the issue of carbon tariffs on products from countries that have no CO2 reduction legislation in place?

Has the WTO a view on this?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Madam President, it is a top priority for the Commission to conclude a far-reaching international agreement on climate change, covering the period after 2012. The Bali Conference was a significant step in the effort to confront climate change at world level. All the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the United States, China and India, agreed to begin formal negotiations.

What we need now – as it is a key priority for the EU and the Commission – is an agreement by the end of 2009 on a future international legal framework on climate. This framework must be generally applicable; it must ensure that all parties are committed participants, and it must be effective. To achieve the desired result, which is, as we have said, an international agreement, the EU really must continue to play a leading role, as it certainly did up to and of course during the Bali Conference.

This is precisely the significance of the package of proposals on climate and renewable sources of energy, which the Commission submitted on 23 January. The EU must retain its leading role and clearly show determination to proceed.

The EU emission allowance trading system is our basic means of channelling investments towards cleaner technologies. This system ensures that the greenhouse gas targets set by the EU can be achieved at the lowest possible cost.

The EU proposal for a revised directive on the trading system envisages auctioning as the main method of distributing allowances. Auctioning not only provides incentives for investments in low carbon emission technologies; it also prevents the undesirable consequences of unfair allocation and unjustifiable profits. For this reason, the Commission proposes that, from the start of the third trading period, allowances should no longer be allocated free of charge to power-generating companies, and in the industrial sector, free allocation will be progressively curtailed with a target of complete abolition in 2020.

Some energy-intensive sectors or industries operate in a fiercely competitive international market. As a result, they cannot pass on the cost to the consumer without the risk of losing a large part of the market. If there is no international agreement, they risk relocating outside Europe, with the result that worldwide greenhouse gas emissions (carbon leakage) will increase. The sectors where this risk of carbon leakage plays a part must be specified objectively. The Commission therefore proposes that this question should be examined thoroughly and that a list of vulnerable sectors or industries be drawn up by 2010.

By June 2011 the Commission will assess the situation in these energy-intensive industries. It will base its assessment on the outcome of negotiations for the international agreement on climate change or on any individual sector agreements that may have been concluded. On the basis of this assessment, the Commission will submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council in 2011 and, if deemed necessary, will propose additional measures. These measures will include free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances to energy-intensive sectors, up to 100%. The Commission’s proposal includes, as a further measure, the establishment of an effective carbon equalising or offsetting mechanism. The aim is that the Community industrial installations that run a significant risk of carbon leakage should be placed on a comparable, equal footing with those in third countries. Under such an equalising system, provision could also be made for imposing terms on importers, comparable with the terms applying to installations within the EU, for example, the obligation to return CO2 emission allowances.

Whatever method is agreed and whatever action is undertaken, it must be in full conformity with the principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is especially true of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities in the special case of less developed countries. It must also be in conformity with the Community’s international obligations, including Word Trade Organisation rules.

To conclude, the proposal on climate and energy has been collectively approved by the European Commission as a whole, and is therefore supported by all its members.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for a very substantial reply to my question, which, incidentally, I tabled long before I realised I would have responsibility as rapporteur for the review of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme situation.

My question was quite specifically about where we stand, ‘we’ really being the College of Commissioners at this stage, in relation to a possible introduction of carbon adjustment tariffs, or carbon allowances, in the event that we do not get international agreement. I agree with you very much that we need a level playing field for EU industry and third-country production in this area.

I just want to tease out whether this option – and I am not being protectionist, and I really support the globalised world we live in today – of a potential carbon adjustment tariff is still out there on the table. I feel it should be, so I am asking you whether that is the position of the College of Commissioners on this issue, to mark the seriousness with which we treat the whole need to reduce CO2 emissions and the whole climate change debate. We do not need to be aggressive about it, but we need to be determined about it.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − I fully agree with you, and this is a very responsible position. I am very glad that you are going to be the rapporteur for this very important piece of legislation.

Of course, we discussed everything. I remember that in Nairobi we had a specific discussion on this issue. We discussed it in my services, with other services and with other Commissioners, and what we concluded as being a wise, balanced position is to include in the proposal a provision which will take care of the problems that energy-intensive sectors could face in the event that we do not have an international agreement, or that an international agreement does not impose carbon constraints in other countries as ambitious as the European Union’s. What we have decided is that, by 2010, we shall identify with objective criteria which are these sectors, and by June 2011 we shall assess the situation of whether we have an international agreement or even international sectoral agreements. Accordingly, I hope, and I sincerely believe, that we will have an agreement by the end of 2009, one which will tackle climate change problems effectively.

However, if we do not have an agreement, or if it is not ambitious enough, then there are provisions in our proposal that permit us to assess the situation and, accordingly, either provide emissions allowances for up to 100% of the allocations of these energy-intensive industries or permit the inclusion of importers into our emissions trading system and, of course, the obligation to pay for similar amounts of allowances as local producers will do, so equalising the situation – or even a combination of these measures.

Therefore, we are giving the necessary assurance to our industries that we will be looking at the problems. At the same time, we are giving a warning to other countries: they had better agree on an international agreement. Therefore, by having this very balanced position, we are achieving all the objectives, and I hope that Parliament and the Council will vote on and adopt the legislation as soon as possible, by the end of the year or early next spring.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) I am delighted with the position of the Commission, of the Commissioner, and the well-balanced approach. Nevertheless, I have one more very important concern, and that is that we are still exporting old technology to developing countries that is inefficient and also generates emissions. I would ask the Commissioner whether we can perhaps conduct a complementary policy in this regard that is along the same lines. Can we expect any such initiatives in the short term?

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – In a debate this afternoon on the CAP, we discussed imports into the EU and we called on the Commission as a matter of urgency to develop a plan to push through European non-trade concerns in the WTO talks.

Surely the issue of climate change must feature high on our list of priorities and carbon tariffs on imports into the EU is certainly important in this regard.

So I would just like to ask the Commissioner, as Mrs Doyle did in her original question, does the WTO have a view on this, and what is it?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − I fully agree that we should not export technologies which are going to pollute abroad. Actually, our first concern will be that we shall not permit the relocation of sectors or industries outside the European Union, not only because we are going to lose jobs and we are going to create employment problems but also because we do not want to carry on emitting and polluting in countries that do not have carbon restraints as we have.

So we should be very careful and we should apply our utmost attention to not permitting this phenomenon to occur. Of course, when we are preaching that the main way for developing countries to fight climate change is by improving energy efficiency, we have to be very careful what we are exporting to them.

Regarding the World Trade Organisation position on carbon tariffs, we do not know their position, because the question has not arisen, but, after examination within the European Union, we think that there is no problem, because what we have tried to do with the inclusion in the emissions trading system, which is a bit different from border tax, is to equalise the situation. We do not favour our industries; we put them in the same position as similar industries and sectors which are producing in countries with no carbon constraints.

By the way, in the United States they are having the same discussion, because in the Liebermann-Warner bill for the introduction of an emissions trading system in the United States they have a similar provision. This discussion also took place in the United States and they also think that this is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.

Part two

  President. − Question No 35 by Colm Burke (H-0092/08)

Subject: Intercultural dialogue in EU

In this Year of Intercultural Dialogue in the EU the Commission has planned many events. An emphasis should be placed on involving young people in the events of this year so that they may benefit from the rich cultural diversity in the EU.

What specific measures does the Commission envisage in order to involve young people in the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − (SK) Thank you, Madam President and thanks also to Mr Burke for his question.

I would like to say that the ambition for this year, which is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, is to promote dialogue among cultures as a process through which everyone living in the European Union can improve their ability to engage more extensively and more openly in their daily lives with the complex cultural environment. It focuses above all on raising awareness, especially among young people, and on training them in active European citizenship that is open to the world, respects cultural diversity and is based on shared values. In this context youth and education are two key areas for dialogue, along with areas such as migration, minorities, multilingualism, employment, as well as media, religion, art and culture.

The EU cofinances seven flagship projects on a pan-European level, aimed mainly at young people and promoting cultural dialogue among them through collaborative artistic projects, story telling, media projects, media campaigns, urban culture, exchanges between disadvantaged areas or communities and developing dialogue on art, immigrants, immigration and similar topics.

This year the EU is also cofinancing one project for or in each Member State. The main emphasis is again on youth and education. We are also in continuous contact with the group directing the Civil Society Platform for Intercultural Dialogue, which includes representatives of the European Youth Forum and EFIL, the European Federation for Intercultural Learning, for example.

To conclude, the awareness campaign on the importance of this year and cultural dialogue encompasses in itself a vast range of activities aimed at young people, based on proposals by civil associations and EU initiatives. All the relevant information is, of course, available on the Internet, at http://www.interculturaldialog2008EU"

. The whole process is very much based on communication promoting partnerships, and helping to highlight high-quality projects and experiences. I am convinced that it will strengthen the process: cultural dialogue as a process, rather than as a one-off event.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your very detailed reply, and I welcome the developments which you referred to. I know you, as Commissioner, and the Commission are working very hard on this programme.

In relation to the 27 individual governments, what programme have you asked them to get involved in with regard to supporting what the Commission is doing? In other words, while it is fine that we are putting up seven flagship projects, is each individual government also going to put forward a flagship project within each of their own individual countries?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − I said that this is a common cause, a common endeavour, and there are many good ideas and ongoing initiatives at European and national level, plus many at regional and municipal level. I am happy that there is this kind of strong interest, even internationally, to see opportunities and to seek the opportunity to promote an intercultural approach instead of ‘multi-culti’ comments and laments. I think we need this.

I do not intend to read out the projects themselves; they are quite inspirational – especially at EU level – because these were selected from many at EU level, and they are very different to those as the level of the Member States. In fact we have 28, because in Belgium there are two main communities and support.

We think that the Member States which involve the young generation, which are really open to the future, are probably the best examples of addressing the challenges of living in diversity, and also promoting unity. Projects like Diversidad, which is run by the European music office. Here we see a combination of very popular activities: music, music interpretation, listening to music, learning via music, and dialogue with urban culture. The International Yehudi Menuhin Foundation; Ton monde est le mien, something which reflects that we need others to understand ourselves; A Unique Brussels, which is a network of EU institutes of culture; Alter Ego, a contribution to intercultural dialogue, cross-cultural understanding, and European citizenship by young people through collaborative art projects, which can make them reach beyond their normal social circles.

One project is by the European Cultural Foundation – Stranger. This is about young people expressing themselves and creating a platform where they can link their experience to the wider European context.

Last but not least, I think it is very important that Parliament is involved as much as possible, individually or collectively. There are many occasions – events in Brussels, for example – on different topics connected to intercultural dialogue. We as a Commission will invite the Committee on Culture as a body (this also means Members) to all the events we are participating in or co-organising. We will have, for example, a European Youth Week in November, and I think they should come. Some of the events should be organised in the premises of Parliament in Brussels, with the participation of parliamentarians and, of course, young people from all countries including non-EU members.

There are many occasions where you can have a say and, especially, set an example and show your commitment. I believe this should not be just a one-year story. It must be a long-term objective and a process where we learn, participate and mature in order to ensure a better century than the 20th century, which was one of many divisions, conflicts and ideologies opposing human dignity. So I think there is strong momentum for your involvement.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – I am just wondering, in the whole area of intercultural dialogue and the involving of young people, whether the Commission has looked at the excellent work that is being done in the north of Ireland in this particular area: in the north, between the two different communities that have been at loggerheads for so long, and on a cross-border basis. I think there is something specific there that could be drawn on, and I would ask the Commission whether it has looked at it and, if not, could they do so.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – I shall be very brief. I just want to ask the Commissioner whether there are any measures proposed in the area of volunteering.

This is surely an ideal opportunity for people from different backgrounds to work together by choice, particularly, let us say, in the area of youth volunteering, with programmes that would set out to ensure that people who do not normally volunteer would get involved – because sometimes volunteering tends to be a white, middle-class activity – and in the area of intergenerational volunteering. Are there any measures in those areas to promote intercultural dialogue?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, on Northern Ireland, I would firstly like express my congratulations in relation to the new atmosphere and what I would describe as very positive expectations of gradual and sincere reconciliation and commitment to the shared values. I even plan to go there, which may be the best answer. I think that greater involvement of Northern Ireland’s students, teachers and professors in EU exchanges and cooperation in the ERASMUS programme would also help to bring the larger European community and populations closer. So I plan to visit this part of the European Union.

Secondly, as regards volunteering, it is a very important topic because volunteering is an expression of solidarity, humanity and togetherness. On the other hand it is also a non-formal education or learning process. We need it for employment, new skills, new knowledge and social skills and also for the promotion of citizenship and for values which unite us. We do more than we used to. For example in the new programme, Youth in Action, there is a much bigger volume of money and importance in the European voluntary service. It is now more open to international engagement. We have larger numbers and I think this is one of the answers.

This year we would like to come up with an initiative on volunteering where more recognition and better conditions for volunteering could be developed. Of course we need Member States to participate and I am happy that France in particular is willing to deal with volunteering as a topic – volunteering and young people. This morning I met the minister responsible for health, youth and sport policy and we agreed on certain priorities. This is one of three priorities for the youth area under the French Presidency, so we will take some steps forward.

  President. − The next question on the paper was by Mr Higgins. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the question, because he is not in the Chamber. I know that you would like to work in cooperation. Unfortunately, the exchange was not notified to us previously and, therefore, according to our Rules, I cannot take it. I am very sorry I cannot take it and I must give priority to those Members who are present in the Chamber.

  President. − Question No 37 by Bernd Posselt (H-0100/08)

Subject: German-Czech-Austrian cultural cooperation

What trilateral or bilateral cross-border cultural cooperation projects has the Commission supported between the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria during the past year, and does it see any possibilities for assisting such projects on a significant scale in 2008?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − (SK) Madam President, allow me to thank Mr Bernd Posselt for his question. I would like to point out that culture and its financing at national level are the responsibility of the Member States. That is the principle of subsidiarity, which we respect and value highly. The European Union’s task is to support and complement the activities carried out in the Member States, not to take responsibility for them.

Secondly, it is important to remember that the Culture Programme (2007 to 2013) promotes intercultural dialogue, transnational mobility of cultural players and works, and cultural and artistic products. These projects must involve at least three cultural operators in three different countries: this partly answers Mr Bernd Posselt’s question. Cooperation between operators from the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany can therefore be supported if these partners have been chosen on the basis of the quality of projects submitted as a response to the invitation by the European Commission.

As regards the specific projects of these three Member States financed last year, I would like to point out that the Culture Programme (2007 to 2013) has only been up and running for a little over a year. We will have to wait some time to find out about the type of projects financed during this short space of time. In short, the results relating to last year’s projects are not yet available. However, if we look at the period 2000 to 2006, support was provided for 116 cooperation projects and 39 cofinanced projects over a number of years that involved either bilateral or trilateral cooperation between Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic. Of these projects, 28 were financed from the 2006 budget: this in fact paved the way for the activities of last year (2007).

The complete list of all approved and financed projects is published on the European Commission’s website. I think that that is a comprehensive response to this matter.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Many thanks, Commissioner, for your reply. A little while ago you spoke at length about events in Brussels. However, events in the regions are also very important and I therefore have two short supplementary questions.

Firstly, you have just been talking about bilateral programmes. Does this allow for German-Czech programmes only, or should three countries be included here? Along with Austria, this could also be Slovakia or Poland, for instance.

Second supplementary question: does this also cover the Euroregions?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − (SK) As I said before, under the new Culture Programme there must be three partners from three countries involved in short, one-year programmes; more partners are needed for programmes running for several years. The scope or quantity of these activities are thus in a way adapted to the enlarged European Union.

We cannot supplement or substitute, from a small budget, what really needs much greater support from the national governments or regional authorities in large federal states. As regards what I said about bilateral relations, of the three countries mentioned in Mr Bernd Posselt’s question two were in certain cases paired with another country but the issue of participation was thus partially answered.

I want to reassure not only Mr Posselt but also potential partners that cooperation between, for example, regions or Euroregions, between cities as well as cultural operators in the general sense, is today possible and supported not only by the Culture Programme (2007 to 2013) but also by the Europe for Citizens Programme 2007 – 2013. This programme promotes the involvement of civil society, and its legal basis, inter alia, is Article 151 of the EC Treaty, promoting citizenship defined in cultural terms or with a cultural dimension. Today there are thousands of examples of well-established partnerships between cooperating local authorities, non-governmental organisations or various associations based on the people-to-people dialogue in civil society.

Thirdly, I would like to add that the Structural Funds are an even greater source of support for the general promotion of cultural aspects and cultural heritage and for cooperation between countries to safeguard and enhance their cultural heritage. I would like to appeal to the ministers or partners to remember when debating culture that Europe is more characterised by culture than by business or geography. That is why investment in culture helps to increase our potential, strengthens European identity and makes Europeans more attractive. This should happen at local level, where people live. It is not just about Brussels and other capital cities: it is about our regions, towns and villages.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) I have a question, Commissioner. As you have said, only the Member States themselves would implement the cultural policy. Brussels is in no position to do anything about it. However, in the new accession countries in particular, artists and people involved in cultural activities have been feeling neglected for the last 10 to 15 years.

What is the Commission doing, or what is it prepared to do, to share the good experience of how artists are being supported in the new accession countries, as well as new ideas and projects relating to this? Could you please give any examples?

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) There are also numerous historical pressures in the relationships between the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria. Are there any specific programmes or rather is the Commission planning to concentrate its main efforts here in order to include the associations of displaces people in these European programmes of work, for example, which would be very important in this regard for a more general understanding?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − (SK) Thank you for the additional questions. They demonstrate that culture, identity and memories are important, as is looking forward and developing culture. We support these aspects. I must reiterate that subsidiarity is about responsibility and not about creating an alibi for us so that we can say that we are not cooperating because the matter is a Member State competence. The Commission genuinely makes every effort to create the best possible environment for cultural dialogue, exchange and cooperation, and I believe that the fruit of those efforts are fairly obvious.

I mentioned the Culture Programme (2007 to 2013) earlier. Let us compare the numbers: seven years in the past, seven years now. However, one very important example is the fact that the European agenda for culture in a globalising world was pushed through and approved for the first time last year, not just to the satisfaction of the Commission but to the satisfaction of the EU as a whole. The proposals were presented in May and approved by the Member States in November. Secondly, we have succeeded in agreeing that when it comes to culture, to an agenda for culture, we will be using a new method of cooperation, an open method of coordination. Prior to that, the majority would have said that this would have been unlikely because we would have been unable to reach an agreement due to the differences of opinion.

However, the substance is the key issue: it is important to ensure that this cooperation focuses on practical cultural needs in the broader sense, on the needs of the cultural and artistic sectors, on simply expanding culture. The Lisbon Council achieved something important in spring last year: cultural sectors or the so-called cultural industry have for the first time been mentioned in the Lisbon Strategy, which is credited with making an important contribution to economic growth and employment. This helps to overcome the classic dichotomy that culture costs money while business brings in money. Culture goes hand in hand with values, with the expanding dimensions of sustainable economic development. A lack of culture results in business problems, as well as political and other problems. By this I mean that culture should be perceived as an important player and promoted in different ways so that it prospers. I am therefore glad that even in the Commission we are achieving more success with this more horizontal approach, thanks, too, to last year’s decision.

I do not want my answer to be too long. The new Member States make contributions through their culture, their extensive heritage, their fresh memories of a divided Europe or of a past that was much more dramatic in the second half of the 20th century. However, in many ways they can learn from the older Member States, which, for example, have much more dynamic methods of financing culture, developing cultural education and dealing with many issues that have to be promoted in the new Member States too. Policies and governments cannot treat culture as a residual issue: ‘if there is money left of course we will give something to the cultural sector, but it is neither a priority nor a key topic’.

Secondly, I would like to respond to what Mr Reinhard Rack said about the burden of the past. A little bit earlier I touched briefly on the issue of memory: it plays an important role in matters of identity; it teaches us not to repeat the tragedies of the past. In my response to Mr Bernd Posselt, I referred to the Europe for Citizens Programme 2007-2013. This programme allows the European Union over the course of these seven years to cofinance projects aimed at keeping alive the memories of the periods of dictatorship, as well as the victims of Nazism and Stalinism. I think that this is a very important challenge because it helps us to remember that all that we have – freedom, democracy, a united Europe – has not just happened by chance or by default and that there is always a certain temptation, be it smaller or greater, to move towards totality and a form of simplification. Remember that we need to develop values in each generation: technology and buildings are easy to pass on but values must be implanted in every person’s mind and heart from childhood.

I would therefore encourage you to use these instruments for cultural or civil cooperation, to use them to preserve our memories, for the benefit of our hearts and our minds. In my opinion, that is precisely the task of those who have survived such times, who remember the events, who come from countries that used to be in a sort of grey zone or behind the Iron Curtain. In any event, today’s Union should provide a space for remembering and for developing the Community.

  President. − In view of our time constraints we will now move to the questions to Commissioner Mandelson. Questions 38 to 40 will therefore be answered in writing.

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – The debate on the Lamfalussy Process was allowed to run 30 minutes into Question Time. As a result, I could not be here. I understood questions were starting at 18.00, that there would be 30 minutes for the first Commissioner, and then I would be the second questioner for the next Commissioner.

The procedures of this House are absolutely crazy. This is supposed to be a model of organisation. The kind of organisation and the kind of procedures that we have here would not be tolerated in the most disorganised village or town council within the European Union. It is absolutely crazy.

Question Time should be sacrosanct and there should be absolutely no overrun. It discriminates against those Members who put down questions well in advance and there is absolutely no excuse for it.

  President. − I made the point at the beginning of Question Time that we were running late, and that this was extremely unfortunate. I will try to find out what the reasons were that we seemed to have so many debates before that had caused that late running. I take that very seriously, having responsibility for Question Time.

Now, as far as your own question is concerned, I had noted that there are other Members in this Chamber who have waited patiently throughout for their questions to be answered and did not leave for other engagements. I know that we all have difficult calendars and agendas, but I have had, therefore, to follow the Rules strictly and give priority to those Members who have stayed in the Chamber. I am sorry, but the Rules are quite clear.

  President. − Question No 41 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0076/08)

Subject: Settlement of dispute between the EU and the USA concerning GMOs in the World Trade Organisation

On 11 January 2008, the reasonable period of time (RPT) expired for EU compliance with the ruling of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning measures for the authorisation and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). According to statements by the US Government, the USA agreed with the EU temporarily to suspend the procedure to apply trade sanctions 'in order to provide the EU an opportunity to demonstrate meaningful progress on the approval of biotech products.' The US also expressed its displeasure at the French Government's intention to activate the safeguard clause to prohibit the cultivation of a variety of GM maize, as other EU Member States have already done.

What is the Commission's scope for negotiation to achieve an 'amicable' settlement of this matter and avoid reprisals against the EU while, nevertheless, enabling the EU to maintain a strict regulatory framework in relation to GMOs?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Settlement of the dispute referred to by the honourable Member would be facilitated if the European Union showed to the complainant that its regulatory procedure was working satisfactorily and led to approvals without undue delay, whenever risks to health or the environment were not identified or were manageable.

Furthermore, a solution would have to be found regarding the national safeguard measures subject to the WTO proceedings, which are found not to be scientifically based and thus not to be compatible with WTO rules.

In both cases, the Commission needs to count on cooperation by Member States. The obligations on us, therefore, are clear and we cannot evade our responsibilities.

Meanwhile, the United States has agreed not to move to immediate retaliation. However, respective proceedings could resume following a determination by a compliance panel that the European Union has failed to implement the WTO panel rulings. The effective functioning of the European Union regulatory system on genetically modified organisms is not only of interest to the WTO complainants but also to the European Union itself.

Most of our current sources of animal feed are countries developing biotechnology products. Therefore, our timely authorisation of safe GMO products for feed use is necessary to ensure the competitiveness of the livestock industry in the EU. For example, the EU pork industry is facing increasing difficulties in obtaining feed at reasonable prices, while prices for porkmeat are falling. In other words, the longer the delay for our authorisations, the greater the risk to farming needs in Europe.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, in the event of a trade war between the EU and the United States over genetically modified organisms, what amount of potential sanctions is being considered, and how will they be applied?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − The amount of retaliation would be determined by the WTO implementation panel. But potential retaliation could be very significant. Indeed, it could run to hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of trade. It could be applied to EU products coming from different Member States, not only those that have adopted national safeguard measures against GMOs.

So those Member States responsible would not only be putting their own producers and exporters at direct risk of retaliation. They would, through their actions, be putting in jeopardy the exporters of many Member States besides their own.

I hope that they will consider these implications and these consequences when they come to review the action they are taking.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – I should like to thank the Commissioner for his clarity, because this is a huge issue for the animal feed industry. But does he see – as I see – an increasing unwillingness among consumers to take on board the reality of the EU feed market? He mentions very effectively the issue of the impact on our poultrymeat and pigmeat sector on competitiveness. Perhaps at a later stage we can discuss the wider issue of WTO rules in relation to non-trade and the negotiations currently under way on the competitiveness of agriculture in general.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − I think that what we are seeing is a great deal of misinformation, misrepresentation and scaremongering, which is influencing some sections of public opinion. I think that if there were a more representative range of information sources and more objective information given to our public, and some of the ramifications and consequences of some of these actions taken into account, then they would quite possibly come to other conclusions.

Of course consumers should know what they are consuming. Consumers should also have a choice between GMO and non-GMO. At the moment they are being denied that choice by prejudice against GMOs.

  President. − Question No 42 by Bart Staes (H-0079/08)

Subject: In-depth evaluation of Economic Partnership Agreements

ACP governments which have agreed to liberalise trade in goods have insufficient negotiating power on matters of real concern to them. While they have to make major concessions in the EPAs, Europe is not entering into any binding commitments on important issues such as improving the rules of origin, the allocation of subsidies or the extension of development aid.

Does the Commission agree that these countries should be given more time to arrive at properly negotiated EPAs, that they should have better support in boosting their negotiating capacity, and that an in-depth evaluation and review on the existing agreements – which are still far from being the ‘development instruments’ they should be – is therefore necessary!

Question No 43 by Thijs Berman (H-0080/08)

Subject: Economic Partnership Agreements

The expiry of the 1 January 2008 deadline regarding Economic Partnership Agreements with ACP countries has given rise to considerable uncertainty in these countries. Agreements concluded on exemption clauses for exports, safeguard clauses, improved rules of origin, the allocation of subsidies or the extension of development aid are often inadequate and therefore enjoy little support in the countries concerned. Is the Commission prepared to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the existing agreements? What specific measures will it undertake to that end, and within what time-framework?

Question No 44 by Claude Moraes (H-0085/08)

Subject: Impact measurement of Economic Partnership Agreements

The Commission has recently agreed a full Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the Caribbean, as well as a series of interim deals meant to eventually lead to full EPAs with other countries or regions. The progress made so far was presented very clearly to the European Parliament Development Committee this January, and we acknowledge the hard work which has been put in from the Commissioner´s side.

You also pointed out the tasks ahead, however. Among others, you mentioned that it will be vital to find ways to monitor the implementation and impact of new agreements.

Does the Commission have any rough estimates at this point of the positive impact of the latest agreements on the income of African farmers, as well as on the final prices for European consumers? How does the Commission plan to go about the development of techniques to monitor and measure implementation and impact?

Question No 45 by David Martin (H-0122/08)

Subject: EPAs

Can the Commission provide the latest information on EPAs?

Question No 46 by Sarah Ludford (H-0124/08)

Subject: Economic Partnership Agreements

Why have you not managed to convince critics that EPAs are fair to developing countries?

Question No 47 by Hélène Goudin (H-0153/08)

Subject: Partnership agreements with developing countries

Most ACP countries have signed economic partnership agreement (EPAs) with the EU. A whole series of voluntary organisations do not consider that the agreements will attain the stated objectives, i.e. promoting economic development in the contracting countries. The Commission's spokesperson has stated that EPAs could in future be put up for debate and thus be renegotiated. On the other hand, the Trade Commissioner has distanced himself from the possibility of renegotiating the existing agreements.

Can the Commission clarify the situation in this regard? Will developing countries which have signed partnership agreements with the EU be able to renegotiate them?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Things have moved on since the Commission’s update to the Committee on Development in January of this year. The legal texts have been jointly checked for the Caribbean economic partnership agreement, and we are beginning the process leading to signature and ratification. In other regions, we have been preparing the interim agreements for signature and have been reflecting on how to replace these with full EPAs.

I have just returned from a visit to southern and eastern Africa taking in Lesotho, South Africa, Botswana and Zambia. I held ministerial meetings with the SADC and ESA regions, and I had extensive discussions with President Mbeki on both EPAs and the DDA, incidentally. I was struck in all meetings with ESA and SADC by the commitment of the regions to move forward with the negotiations, not to look back and not to unravel what has been achieved, with all the disastrous implications for trade security that that unravelling would have. This was reflected in joint declarations in which we made clear our shared commitment to agree full EPAs by the end of this year.

We have also held senior official meetings with central Africa and west Africa in recent days. Central Africa wants a full EPA by July, and west Africa intends to reach a full EPA in mid-2009. Finally, the Pacific region is consulting internally, but the agreed objective remains to finalise a full EPA in 2008.

My clear sense is that most of the regions are now coming out of a period of stock-taking and reflection after the developments of last December and are clearly restating their commitment to move towards full EPAs. This is an important sign that their commitment to integrating trade and development strategies in a progressive, forward-looking way. It is a commitment I welcome.

Our objectives for full EPAs for whole regions and covering the full range of trade, trade-related and development issues remain unchanged. In the mean time non-LDCs like Kenya, Côte d’Ivoire and others say they have protected thousands of agricultural jobs through the interim agreements, and LDCs like Tanzania and Lesotho praise improvements in rules of origin. Sensitive agricultural sectors are protected, and the ACP now have time and space to work out how to reach full regional agreements.

EPAs need to be closely monitored in both aid and trade aspects. This is why the Caribbean EPA establishes compressive monitoring arrangements, including parliamentary and other consultative subcommittees. The interim agreements will be replaced with full EPAs that include similar provisions before any substantive liberalisation commitments apply on the ACP side.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Commissioner, I take note of your answer. We shall look into that further. You cannot deny, however, that most ACP countries have a very inadequate negotiating capacity and are sometimes left with no choice, presented with a fait accompli. Just last week – and this has nothing to do with the ACP countries – I met a trade union leader from Guatemala, Mr Pinzon, who told me about his difficult situation as a union leader when it came to negotiations between the European Union and Central America. This situation is common in countries where certain communities and positions are extremely weak.

My question is as follows: can the Commissioner ensure that certain rights, for example trade union rights and international labour rights, are made binding in that kind of trade agreement, both Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and agreements with other global blocs, such as Central America, so that those rights are respected? I am no specialist in the subject, but I have the impression that the agreements contain significant gaps in this regard.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Guatemala, when I last looked at the list of ACP countries, is not included in their number. We do not have any in Central America.

So, I would advise the honourable Member to find different sources for his information, from those who actually live and work in ACP countries.

  Glenis Willmott (PSE). – Economic partnership agreements (EPAs) were originally conceptualised as trade and development agreements going beyond pure market access.

Could the Commissioner comment on growing concerns that the interim partnership agreements are creating growing trade enmity amongst African nations, the example of Kenya being one? Kenyan support for these agreements has been viewed by its neighbours as undermining the continent’s zeal for a more radical position on EPAs.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − I am very sorry, I do not know what neighbours of Kenya have taken this position. As far as I know, unless the honourable Member can advise me which particular country she is talking about, they seem to have subscribed to the interim agreements in the same way as Kenya.

All I would say is that the interim agreements concern goods market access. They are interim agreements that were made before the WTO’s deadline at the end of December so that countries like Kenya, which are not LDCs and are therefore not covered by ‘everything but arms’, would have their trade preferences and access to the European market secured, so that there was no trade disruption after 1 January. It is for that reason that our counterparts in Kenya and other similarly placed countries have recorded their satisfaction with the lengths we went to and the flexibility we showed to make sure that they came over the line by the end of the year.

  David Martin (PSE). – Would you accept that, apart from making the ACP-EU relationship WTO-compatible, one of the key aims of the economic partnership agreements is to ensure that South-South trade increases?

In that context, would you examine the possibility of increasing and better targeting our aid for trade to make sure that the benefits of South-South trade are realised through these EPAs?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − I strongly support that point and I would use this opportunity to appeal to our Member States to fulfil what I regard as their side of the bargain by fulfilling the commitments they have made to provide aid for trade, to match the commitment that has been made by the Commission.

It is a very important commitment that we have made, which Member States have previously said they would match. I hope they do so in practice now and live up to the expectations of our colleagues in ACP countries.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – As a non-specialist in this area – unlike, probably, many of the other questioners – I am just interested to know how, and rather puzzled as to why, the opponents of EPAs made so much of the running in the press. Why was it not possible to get across better the advantages of EPAs? Is it simply that those opposing them did not accept the benefits of trade liberalisation, which I do, and just wanted to keep protectionism?

Why is it that the Commission and others were not, perhaps, able to get their voices heard sufficiently in the press?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Where our voice was heard was where it matters – amongst policy-makers, ministers and decision-takers. I cannot account for the press; the days when I could account for what was written in the press have long since passed behind me.

In the case of many of our negotiating partners amongst the ACP, they took the arguments very well indeed. Having put in place interim agreements, in most cases now they are very keen not only to sign them fully, but to proceed to negotiate a full economic partnership agreement, to move on from goods to services, investment and other trade-related rules, because they know that is where the further bulk of the development value of these agreements lies.

Obviously, there has been a sort of cacophony put up about EPAs – in the main, though not entirely, by people who are suspicious of trade, are anti-globalisation (whatever that means), and who believe that ACP countries would be better off, in a sense, more isolated from the international economy, but, I would say, trapped in the past. I do not think that has anything to recommend it, but it has the attractiveness of providing simplistic slogans which are easy to absorb and easy to write about, whereas the actual policy substance and content of what this is about is more complex. But those who take the trouble to grasp it see the value and see the potential benefits. That is why many in the ACP are trying to grasp them.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Commissioner, I would be interested to know whether strategies are being conceived for partnership agreements with the developing countries in the field of renewable energies, because it is, of course, important for us that costs are reduced to a minimum wherever production takes place in an exemplary way, while the consumption of dangerous goods is also taxed accordingly. Could you envisage incorporating this into such an agreement?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − There is a sustainability dimension to all the trade agreements that we are pursuing by negotiation and the economic partnership agreements are no exception.

However, we have to be guided by the interests of the ACP countries and their negotiators and by their perception of their interests. So, whilst we will not be shy in putting such issues on the table, I cannot vouch for the reception they will receive from those with whom we are engaged in these negotiations.

  President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

  President. − That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 19.55 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

20. The situation of women in rural areas of the EU (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Christa Klaß, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, on the situation of women in rural areas of the EU (2007/2117(INI)) (A6-0031/2008).

  Christa Klaß, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ‘Women in rural areas of the EU’ – under this title we in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality have together been compiling facts and proposals for solutions. I would like to thank my fellow Members for their cooperation and the Secretariat for its support.

We have a term in Germany: country girl. In the past more so than today everyone had their own idea of what this was. Some say these are creative, dependable women, highly principled and deeply religious. Others say they are women who are behind the times, know little or nothing and are therefore ignorant, perhaps even naïve as well.

Neither of these descriptions gets to the heart of the matter. Rural areas provide precisely the best conditions for a fulfilled life, for families involved in village communities, integrated into nature and the environment. Today we are very well aware that women’s life models vary enormously. They also have to be adaptable, however, not tied down or restricted by their living conditions. Women today want to be active in the workforce and they also want families. Today they want and can have both. Politics and society must create the framework conditions for this.

Life in the countryside offers opportunities and, of course, generates risks. It is a personal decision that prompts women, after considering the facts, to move into urban areas or stay in the villages. The statistical data prove that well-educated women are the first to leave the villages. They leave behind empty nurseries and schools and ultimately ageing and empty villages. Women’s decisions therefore also have a demographic dimension.

According to the Commission’s estimates, the rural regions generate 45% of the gross value added and 53% of those with jobs live here. Rural areas therefore also have an economic dimension.

The entire development potential must therefore be used and upgraded. It is no longer sufficient to discuss the future of women in the countryside only within the framework of the common agricultural policy. Women still work as farmers, but they are also employees and salaried staff and are very often active as assisting spouses in small- and medium-sized enterprises or even as independent entrepreneurs themselves. Large gaps still need to be filled here. The position of women and assisting spouses in small- and medium-sized enterprises needs to be stabilised in the social sector in order to provide for sickness and old age.

Women are particularly affected by the lack of infrastructure in rural areas. Women combine family and work, which means driving their children between school and leisure activities, caring for the older generation and not quite losing sight of their own interests. The fact that rural areas have a deficient infrastructure – a shortage of roads, post offices, medical services, fire services and emergency doctors – has been well known for a long time. The fact that additional problems are now emerging, however, for example in broadband supply, is not acceptable. Women, too, need fast access via DSL to be able to participate in their many areas of activity.

Women’s participation in public life – on local councils, in initiatives and associations – can bring about changes. In rural areas, too, special efforts are needed to achieve equal participation by women. I would therefore like to conclude with one further request: include women in the decision-making bodies! They know best what needs to be changed because they are always there on the spot and they are up against both work and family, whereas men do either one or the other.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Klaß, and the members of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality for their own-initiative report. We all know that keeping the issue of gender equality high on the agenda requires a continuous effort. I have always considered the European Parliament as a leading institution in this respect, and I want to pay tribute to the work done to help celebrate International Women’s Day 2008, including last week’s conference.

I fully agree that women in the countryside should have real opportunities and should be encouraged to use all those opportunities. Overall, I therefore agree that women in rural areas need particular political attention, and I am glad that this principle is implemented via the Community strategic guidelines for rural development under the third axis, where the encouragement of women’s entry into the labour market is stressed as a key action.

The rural economy needs women, not only in order to keep up with economic growth in the rest of society, but also to ensure sustainable rural development, where families and companies see a real future in staying in the countryside.

Before answering some of the specific issues highlighted in this report, I would like to stress that the principle of promoting equality between men and women is central for the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. In practice we apply it in two main ways. The first is a creation of an economic opportunity for women through, for example, the promotion of women’s entrepreneurship.

Importantly, in the context of the rural development programmes for the period 2007-2013, some Member States have designed specific measures for women; other Member States will give priority to applications from women under certain measures.

The second aspect of the improvement of the quality of life in the countryside: the objective should be a women-friendly countryside, facilitating women’s lives in rural areas and allowing women to make better use of their potential. For example, rural development supports the funding of day-care centres for children in the countryside so that women have the possibility to stay out there but still to take upon themselves the possibilities of a job. I think these are examples of agricultural common policy actions that contribute to the improvement of the situation for women in rural areas.

I would also like to highlight the LEADER programme in this context, which contributes to improving the involvement of women in the decision-making process in the local action groups. In fact, the number of projects managed by women is, for LEADER, higher than the projects that are managed by men: for the period 2003-2005, two out of three beneficiaries were women.

Concerning the specific requests included in the report, I agree that there is a necessity to monitor and to evaluate the integration of the gender perspective into the rural development programmes. Indicators, which will show the results and impact of certain measures in the period – again – from 2007-2013, are broken down by gender, and they should give us the necessary information.

Finally, I would like to mention one point that is not really related to rural areas. The Commission has initiated an impact assessment as part of the review of Directive 86/613/EEC, which deals with the principle of equal treatment between self-employed men and women, including those in agriculture.

An important point is the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood. A review of this Directive is set down in the legislative working programme of the Commission for this year, 2008, and this will give us another opportunity to support and improve the position of women in rural areas.

Once again, I thank the rapporteurs and all those who have contributed to a very important issue.

  Edit Bauer, on behalf of the PPE-DE group. – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a great deal was said about the situation of women last week in relation to 8 March. Alongside the platitudes, some spoke of the problems that lie behind the averages and become visible if one takes a structured approach. Women do not live in identical circumstances; their natural aptitudes vary, and so do the opportunities they have and the problems they face. Women living in rural areas are equally heterogeneous; they have some difficulties in common, but there are others that only occur in particular social strata or groups.

The report by Mrs Klaß differs from reports that are framed in more general terms in that it clearly and specifically addresses the difficulties facing rural women and policy deficits in this regard. There is little point in setting out goals to be achieved in terms of female employment if the flexible background services that are necessary for this, for example transport facilities, are not in place. The situation of women living in rural areas is generally more difficult; they tend much more often to undertake hidden, unpaid work with no insurance or protection, for example on family farms. In practice this renders the legal position of these women unclear as regards maternity, sickness and old-age-related benefits.

These issues still await resolution, but meanwhile the exodus from rural to urban areas that can provide better living conditions is virtually unstoppable. I agree with the rapporteur that greater account needs to be taken of the situation of rural women when distributing and deploying European financial resources. Failure to do so has far-reaching consequences. Thank you.

  Iratxe García Pérez, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, this report sets out the reality of the situation of women in rural areas of the EU, in order to respond to the significant challenges of the additional difficulties that women have in living in this environment.

We are talking about half the population in these areas, therefore mainstreaming gender into the rural sector is a priority, both for the promotion of equality between men and women and for enabling economic and social growth in the countryside.

While women encounter genuine difficulties in integrating into the labour market or reconciling work and family life, these difficulties are heightened when we are talking about a rural environment. It is therefore necessary to promote initiatives and policies that tackle these challenges so that there might be effective equal opportunities.

Despite our differences, we can agree that women in rural areas need special, joint political attention, promoting rural development initiatives that encourage them to participate in economic and social life and curb the migration of women from the countryside to the city, which is an increasingly concerning reality.

We are indebted to the women of our villages, who have contributed incalculably and almost invisibly to the development of the countryside. Recognising them should go hand in hand with policies driven by the Member States and regional and local authorities that foster improvements in living conditions and remove the barriers that currently exist.

Therefore, expansion of public services, improving training, access to new technologies and support for innovative business projects are fundamental for achieving these objectives.

We also call on the Member States to develop the legal construct of shared ownership, in order to ensure that women’s rights in the agricultural sector are fully recognised. This is the only way that we will be able to ensure that equal opportunities become a reality for European women in the countryside.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on raising such an important issue as improving the situation of women in rural areas of the EU. Recently we were discussing the matter of Europe’s demographic future. We enumerated many reasons for its bleak appearance. This problem is even more acute in rural areas.

We need to do all we can to provide country dwellers, and especially women, with the right conditions for life and economic and personal development. Social exclusion and poverty probably relate to women from rural areas in particular; I say probably, because there is a need for better statistics on this.

The key to improving the situation in this regard may be for the spouses of those who are self-employed, including rural women, to have a right to their own independent social and pension rights.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, mainstreaming gender in the rural sector is necessary not only to promote equality between women and men, but also to help economic growth to be based on sustainable rural development. Our Group therefore strongly supports the Klaß report, essentially because of three elements.

Three of the aspects that it highlights are the most important in our view: 1) it asks for statistics on the rural world to also be disaggregated by gender so that women in rural areas cease to be an invisible group and that the work that they do is explicitly valued; 2) for the relevant local, regional and State authorities to encourage the participation of women in local action groups and the development of local partnerships under the Leader axis; and 3) the request to focus in particular on improving transport infrastructure in rural areas, and establishing positive measures to promote access to transport in order to curb social exclusion, which particularly affects women.

However, I would also like to propose and support the amendment tabled by my colleague Iratxe García, asking for the text to include an explicit reference to the need for Member States to develop the legal construct of shared ownership, in order to ensure that women’s rights in the agricultural sector are fully recognised, with the corresponding protection in the field of social security and recognition of their work.

  Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) The situation of women in rural areas is very much affected by the situation of agriculture, suffering the consequences of the common agricultural policy’s unjust measures, which have caused increasing numbers of small- and medium-sized farmers and family farmers to abandon production. In many cases this leads the men and young people to emigrate, leaving the women with the children and the elderly, condemning them to poverty; that situation is made worse in the rural areas of some countries such as Portugal with the closure of schools, health and maternity centres, post offices and other public services.

That is why this policy needs to be abandoned. We are therefore also tabling some amendments in order to stress that the common agricultural policy needs to be reviewed, taking account of this problem and strengthening aid to maintain family farms and develop the rural world, whilst attaching maximum value to the work of women, including migrant women, who also work in agriculture.

We therefore hope that our proposals will be accepted.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, since I have been given the opportunity to speak in the debate on the situation of women in rural areas of the EU, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the situation of women in villages and suburban areas in the new Member States in particular is difficult and sometimes dramatic, partly because of the introduction of EU policies that impose various kinds of limits and restrictions, causing poverty and social exclusion through job losses and unprofitable production.

In typically agricultural regions, and not only those in eastern Poland, thousands of families are threatened with the loss of their means of subsistence because their farm is unprofitable, the sugar factory has gone bankrupt or closed down, limits have been placed on fish catches, only certain types of soft fruit are subsidised and there are penalties for the overproduction of milk. These are the reasons behind the lack of development of infrastructure and communications as well as the provision of education, health care and various other services that will not come into being while there is a lack of economic development. This kind of development-disrupting policy is also prompting young people, including women, to leave for the city and to emigrate abroad.

The LEADER programmes are capable of helping women from only a few regions (those that are attractive to tourists or known for their unique regional products) and will go nowhere towards compensating for the losses suffered by the rural populace who are still waiting for the lofty phrases, the sustainable development, equal opportunities and complete non-discrimination that are to be found in the documents to be realised in practice.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to congratulate Mrs Klaß on her initiative in preparing this report and all her work on such an important issue, which concerns not only the protection of women’s rights, but also economic, social and regional cohesion in Europe. This is the second time that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality has prepared such a report, and indeed I had the honour of being the rapporteur for the previous report on the status of women in rural areas in light of the reform of the common agricultural policy.

The important issue of recognising the work of assisting spouses and the self-employed, which we brought to the Commission’s attention at the time, has unfortunately not yet been effectively dealt with, and we have been obliged to return to it in this report. We therefore once again request a radical revision of Directive 86/613/EEC: the European Commission itself recognises that its enforcement is ineffective, and minimal progress has been noted in recognising the work of spouses working on farms. I am glad the competent Commissioner is here tonight and will be able to give us an answer on this matter. There are also other parts of the European Parliament resolution dealing precisely with the issues of Member States’ obligations on separate insurance and treatment of working women farmers. These obligations have not been adequately addressed.

In my opinion, there are two important issues that we have not managed to include in the report: There is a difference between women who live in rural areas and suffer from a lack of infrastructure, and women working on farms. I have therefore argued that the statistics should shed some light on these distinct categories.

I also believe that since the regulations on the Structural Funds allow us to do so, we should make use of the potential participation of women in rural areas in decision-making and planning for the development of their areas. We shall help to galvanise and unify these women.

Overall, Mrs Klaß’s report highlights priorities and issues and sets targets for all of us. It is a useful and important tool, both for the European Parliament and for the European Commission.

  Christa Prets (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, nothing that we are hearing today and are tabling in terms of demands is new. We repeat that it is nothing new, whether in the reports on ‘Women and industry’, ‘Women and health’ or ‘Women in rural areas’. We have not yet achieved equal pay for equal work, nor do we have more women in positions of leadership and more flexible child care.

All these problems are multiplied in rural areas. The distance from home to work and poor transport links are a major problem here. The shortage of local continuing and vocational training is also a problem. As already mentioned, broadband access is a must today, but it is scarce in rural areas.

This means we need measures but primarily we need to raise awareness of what it is like for women in rural areas. This also means, however, that we have to take greater account of the gender aspect in all EU support programmes – whether for the development of rural areas, the Social Fund and the like – and make the programmes contingent upon how they continue to be used.

Austria, incidentally, leads the way in this and will have a law in place as from 2009 – gender budgeting – in which all gender aspects are included. I think this would be worth emulating.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, much has been said and there have been many discussions in recent years about the role of women, their rights, their position in society and their occupational situation.

Today we are debating the situation in which rural women find themselves, and it is right that we should do so, for it is rural women, especially those in regions of retarded development, who work hardest and benefit least from the rights they are due.

A woman in the city will have a flat with all mod cons, easy access to equipment, education and culture, a right to maternity and parental leave, and the opportunity to work and enjoy the benefits of civilisation.

A woman in the country will often have a home with no plumbing and numerous duties in the family and on the farm. She cannot count on placing her child in a crèche or kindergarten and her contact with culture and the world will often amount to limited radio and television broadcasts. A woman from a small village out in the sticks, living on a family farm, is virtually deprived of any opportunity for occupational, social, political or cultural advancement.

Please note that funds for culture are mainly directed towards centres located in cities. In the cities we have just about everything. In the country there are only amateur activities, and those activities are often organised in private houses and at the expense of the people involved. Much is said in the European Union about lifelong learning, and this should indeed be the case. Let us have some thought, though, for women in such programmes. In my opinion it is high time for a sensible programme for women that is financed from the EU’s budget.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, vigorous and sustainable development demands that the situation of women be taken into account. The participation of women is necessary for positive development. Women who live and work in the countryside, like women in other environments, live in an unequal society. Hence work to achieve equality is just as important for all women, in all the different environments and situations of life.

In this report I would especially draw colleagues’ attention to the importance of supporting the GUE/NGL amendments tabled by Ilda Figueiredo, in particular Amendment 9, from which it is clear that the equality problem must also be taken fully into account in a much needed review of the common agricultural policy. Without the active participation of women we shall not succeed in achieving the aims of sustainable economic growth. That applies, as I have said, in all environments of life. We need equality for the survival of the countryside, we need it for women and we need it for the future.

  Roumyana Jeleva (PPE-DE). – (BG) Mr. Chairman, Mme Commissioner, Colleagues, First of all I would like to congratulate Ms Klaß for her excellent report. Being a member of the Committee for Regional Development from Bulgaria, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that rural areas have different development potential. However, there is something that will certainly contribute to better quality of life in the rural areas, and especially the situation of women there. This is the provision of transport and social infrastructure, accessible social services in the villages, such as raising of children, care for aged and sick persons, communication services, and establishment of cultural and sports centres. In this respect, the adequate support for the rural areas through financing from the EU funds is of paramount importance. Therefore I would like to recommend better alignment of the urban and rural issues. The development of rural areas should be coordinated with the activities performed within the framework of the regional policy. I believe that an integrated approach to the convergence and development of rural areas, taking into account the role of small and medium-sized towns in them, rather than a separate approach like the one we have had so far, would increase the efficiency of the EU assistance and contribute to the improvement of living conditions, especially those of women.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the situation of women in rural areas compares distinctly unfavourably with that of women in the cities. Access to health care and education is not the end of it.

If I may, I would like to draw your attention to points 4 and 10 in the report, which stress the need to even out social and economic rights for women who are self-employed or who work on family farms. This means in particular the right to paid maternity leave and to an earnings-based pension. In some countries there are actually legal prohibitions on formal employment and social insurance for partners working on family farms and in family businesses. The effects of these regulations chiefly impinge on women, and they should be changed as soon as possible. I congratulate the rapporteur.

  Esther Herranz García (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate Mrs Klaß on her report; not only is it useful, but also Mrs Klaß has worked very hard, so I would like to thank her very much.

I would like to point out that not all women in rural areas live in the same way. The rural world is not homogenous. On the contrary, frequently their worlds are very different. However, above all, we need to attract women to the rural world and prevent the exodus that is occurring increasingly, because the position of women in our society progresses slowly, but at least it is progressing in the urban world. Nevertheless, in the rural world, not only do they carry the work inside and outside the home, but at the same time they also care for dependents and, on top of this, these women do this under much worse conditions than in the urban world.

Therefore, attracting women to the rural world should be done not only by improving their personal welfare, but also the economy of rural areas, an economy that is above all agricultural, as you well know, Commissioner. However, in order for this economy to be strong, the common agricultural policy needs to be supported and strengthened, while at the same time, of course, it has to be taken into account that the technical and social situation needs to change, and soon.

  Corina Creţu (PSE). – (RO) I am glad to be given the floor concerning a reality that is much ignored, namely the position of women in rural areas.

Although the system of legislation and norms valid at Union level, as well as at the level of each and every Member State, precludes any kind of discrimination, it is obvious that there is a significant discrepancy between the life of women in urban areas and women in rural areas.

Romania, like other new Member States of the European Union, is in a much worse situation than the general one described in the report. Given the background of deindustrialisation in the 1990s, there was a phenomenon that the West European countries have not encountered: migration from town to village as a solution for economic survival. In our region, poverty in rural areas has affected and still affects women above all, and they have become the most vulnerable victims of trafficking in human beings.

Unfortunately, industrial agriculture, which could have attracted part of the female work force in the villages, itself underwent destructuring. Public health, education, transport, water and sewerage services underwent an accelerated worsening, such services being practically absent in many villages in the less developed countries of the European Union.

Women in rural areas, especially young or middle-aged ones, could develop independent economic activities if they had access to bank loans and I believe we should discuss the opportunity of establishing a bank that would grant micro-loans in rural areas.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, in rural areas women are a social group that is particularly prone to discrimination. Because of the traditional division of roles and the weak infrastructure in many areas, such as child care, for example, many women never feature in the official labour market, but at the same time they are not registered as unemployed. Women carry out work that is comparable to an occupational activity but is not recognised as such and is neither protected nor paid.

Member States, together with the European Commission, should find a solution as quickly as possible to the problem of the substantial group of women assisting with farming and in small and medium-sized enterprises who, in many Member States, suffer from a lack of legal status. This leads to financial and legal problems for these women in relation to the right to maternity and sick leave, the acquisition of pension rights and access to social security.

For the sake of harmonious development, Member States should ensure the creation of high-quality jobs in rural areas through such measures as promoting enterprise among women, increasing their qualifications and providing easy access in all rural areas to standard 21st century infrastructure and services.

Finally, I would like to congratulate Mrs Klaß on a very well-compiled report.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. It would be better if we were talking about the situation of people in rural areas rather than women, and indeed many of the problems for women also affect men in rural areas, but women have particular issues and I acknowledge that in this report.

That said, the quality of life for people who live in the countryside can be better in many cases, where they have sufficient resources, than in the city. I think the problem has always been that women’s work has not been measured, has not been paid for and therefore is not recognised. In some countries, some progress has been made on this, but I think Member States differ in how they treat women.

I would like to mention a particular role that women play, and perhaps it has not been addressed yet. Women are still, in my view, the primary motivators and educators of children and they are generally the ones who decide whether a child will farm or not, and often decide the future of rural areas. We need to pay particular attention to that so that they have a positive view of agriculture, and not a negative one.

Lastly, few women own land and few are in farm organisations. That needs to be addressed.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) In 2006, in the European Union, the ratio between the income earned by that 20% of the population with the highest wages and the income earned by that 20% of the population with the lowest wages was 4.8. Unfortunately, in Portugal, Lithuania and Latvia, this ratio exceeded 6.

It is obvious that the population in rural areas has lower wages than in urban areas, and this situation is even more obvious in the case of women. In order to improve the situation of women in rural areas, we need to efficiently use the structural funds. The development of transport infrastructure, education, health services, communication infrastructure and information technology and of the service sector in rural areas will result in the economic development thereof and, implicitly, in the improvement of women’s status in rural areas.

I close my statement by saying that rural areas can transform, by means of investments, the available lands into industrial parks to offer jobs. An effective transport infrastructure could result in the distance being measured in time and not in kilometres, so that the people that work in urban areas could live in rural areas thus contributing to their economic development.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Today’s discussion is extremely important, as it covers the subject of the situation of women in rural areas, which continues to be rather worrying.

One of the key issues remains that of low employment levels among females in rural areas, especially in the new accession countries, resulting in women from rural areas finding themselves in social isolation more often than city females.

First of all, in order to increase employment levels among women from rural areas, they should be encouraged to start their own businesses. To achieve this, governments must supply relevant information on how to start a business, as well as improve women’s ability to use modern information technologies, thus building their self-confidence.

Moreover, statistics show that women in rural areas have much lower education and professional skills levels compared with city women. This often means that they find it more difficult to adapt to the challenges presented by the market, to find new methods and forms of agricultural work and alternative agricultural activities. I would like to urge the Member States to present a framework of action to encourage women in rural areas to seek knowledge and education.

The LEADER project should deliver more efficient aid in order to overcome the problem.

Thank you.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, in acknowledging the hard work that our rapporteur, Ms Klaß, has put into this report entitled ‘The situation of women in rural areas of the EU’, I would have to ask: compared to men in rural areas or women in urban areas? What is the context in which we are talking here? There is no such homogeneous group as ‘women in rural areas of the EU’. I am a woman from a rural area of the EU, but the lady who lives down the road from me with six or seven children and a husband who is unemployed, and who cannot afford her rent or mortgage, is a different type of woman in a rural area. It is not a homogeneous group, and we must be very careful in this issue.

Many women in rural areas have an urban lifestyle; others have a lot of poverty and hardship in their life. You have an urban lifestyle in the middle of the countryside if there are two cars outside the door, all mod cons, ICT and perhaps a foreign holiday a year. So let us give it some context.

The real issue here is the restoration of choices to all women: the choice to marry or not; the choice to have children or not, to have a career, to have further education or not, to stay at home, to go out into the workplace, to start a business or to have access to property.

A few years ago when I went to buy an apartment in Brussels, the Brussels bank manager would not sign off my mortgage unless I got my husband to sign it. This was only a few years ago in Brussels. I got my mortgage and my husband did not sign it. Might I say that I objected strongly! So the access to money, property and business – there are lots of different types of women in rural areas.

  President. − Mrs Doyle, I can assure you I would never have turned you down for this mortgage.

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – (RO) The success of the Lisbon Strategy involves sustained economic growth both in the urban areas and in the rural areas of the European Union and women play a crucial part in the development of these areas.

I praise the drafting of this report which, apart from analysing the condition of women in rural areas, also proposes concrete recommendations in order to improve their condition in the context of globalisation and achievement of the Lisbon goals. From the multitude of incentives and conditions to be observed for this purpose, I would like to underline the importance of a major factor, namely education.

The statistical data that are available to us show that a small number of women in rural areas have access to higher education due to financial difficulties, but also due to the precarious quality of educational activities in such areas.

The women in rural areas should benefit from enhanced access to education and lifelong learning, as well as to opportunities to reconcile family life with professional life. It is a key element that should be consolidated along with the active role of women in politics and the socio-economic development of rural areas.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Thank you, Mr President. I would like to congratulate Mrs Klaß on her excellent report.

I come from a new Member State with a relatively strong rural population. Over the last 45 years it has remained stable, with only a small fall-off of 14%. Due to economic policies, rural regions are more prone to changes today. There is a well-known process in operation involving firms relocating from rural to urban areas. Public policies, however, should be such that this so-called modernisation does not take place at the expense of women in rural areas.

I would like to invite the Committee of the Regions to study this area and begin a broad consultation in the rural regions to learn more about life there with all its advantages and disadvantages. I would also like to invite the Commission and the Council to direct their programmes, especially those involving micro-loans, towards women in rural areas, too.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – (RO) Dear colleagues, as we are discussing a matter related not only to the issue of equal opportunities, but also to the development of rural areas in general, I will refer to the measures that are applicable at Community level in this field.

The programmes and the funds of the 2nd pillar of rural development have, in terms of percentages, more significant resources than the special programmes of the European Union for equal opportunities. If we succeeded in facilitating the access of women to programmes such as LEADER, dedicated to rural development, we would have much more to gain than if we used only the resources within the EQUAL, PROGRESS or DAPHNE programmes.

In the European Union budget, the funds for rural development are as high as 11%, whilst the entire sector of citizenship, which includes the programmes for equal opportunities, does not even reach 1%.

This is the great challenge for the European Union in this case: succeeding in communicating, mobilising and facilitating the link between European funds and the various projects which could be initiated in rural areas by women.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I thank the House for a very encouraging debate with some fairly dedicated speeches – I really enjoy that. The discussion we have had tonight makes it clear again that the situation for women in rural areas really needs specific attention.

Although I feel that some of you are a little pessimistic about the progress that has been made, I want to approach this from a more positive side. I think that quite a lot has been achieved, especially through the rural development tools, and I am confident that we are heading in the right direction when it comes to improving the position of women in rural areas.

Many of you have mentioned that mainstreaming the gender issue into our policy and broadening its scope to the wider rural economy will enhance its effect. I fully subscribe to this approach. We should not limit our focus to the farm sector only. Embedding our policies in the needs and opportunities of rural society as a whole will create a multiplier effect that will also benefit the whole agricultural sector. The Commission will closely monitor this aspect with the implementation of the rural development programmes.

Several of you mentioned the importance of broadband networks in rural areas. Here I have to say that there is a possibility within the third axis – the diversification axis – of the rural development policy to go into areas that, from an economic point of view, are not economically viable for investors. Those are remote areas where Member States can use the rural development policy to secure a broadband connection. I can only encourage all Member States to take this into consideration when they plan their investments or the use of their rural development policy.

Some of you also mentioned the ‘hidden work’ that is being done by women on farms. I acknowledge that our statistics do not always reflect this fact. We should, using all the different tools, try to encourage women to seize the opportunities to gain their economic independence by giving them the associated social rights. For me, better possibilities for taking up part-time work for women in agriculture would be a huge step forward in strengthening rural incomes and also to help sustaining life in rural communities.

I must say that I travel quite a lot in rural areas and I am always very encouraged when I meet women who cross the borderlines and take part in the work of the different farmers’ organisations. I know it is a big step for the first women to enter into these organisations but sometimes it spreads and it is not so difficult for the next one, although it requires some change of approach on the men’s side to accept that women can contribute on an equal footing in this area.

I think there is quite a lot more to be said on this subject, which should not be pushed into the background. Let me assure you that I will wholeheartedly back all initiatives that can improve the position of women in rural areas, because I really think that we need this special approach from the female side to the diversification of rural areas.

  Christa Klaß, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your contributions to the discussion. We had a really good discussion here in this round. Commissioner, thank you, too, for your statement that the review of Directive 86/613/EEC on the principle of equal treatment is still taking place this year, in 2008. We have sent a reminder on this and we think it is time to review it.

We are unable this evening to adopt any European regulation for improving the situation of women in rural areas. Mrs Doyle, I know that the situation of women is not the same everywhere. It would also be dull and we do not want that at all. However, women in rural regions do, of course, have the same conditions and they have to struggle with the same disadvantages as women living in towns and cities. We have pointed this out here.

We are initiating the discussion process and we are asking the Commission and the Member States to ultimately bring about changes as well. The report should raise awareness of this.

There are good examples in Europe and according to the principle of best practice we also want to highlight these examples for emulation. We can also introduce a lot that is good here. We want to broaden the view. Women in rural areas are not only farmers; women in rural areas are also on their way to becoming employed, and they have to combine family and work.

In the end, being personally affected is the best testimony. We need the contribution of women in our organisations. Mrs McGuinness has just been speaking about contented mothers who are also able to bestow contentment on their children. We shall also have contented women when we do something towards their equal treatment, towards their fair participation. Our concern here is that young people will also then stay in the villages again.

It would be exciting, Commissioner, to have a list of all the many opportunities that ultimately present themselves for women in the European Union. We are constantly asserting that these are concealed in many cases under the cover of other programmes. Perhaps we could manage to say just once that women are involved in one programme or another, in this way or that. This constantly creates problems, even when it should be sorted out locally. Perhaps we should schedule this as a start in order to be able eventually to say to those responsible in the regions: we can achieve improvements for women here.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 12 March 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Zita Gurmai (PSE), in writing. – (HU) In terms of employment, a comparison of urban and rural areas reveals that a widening abyss is developing. Women living in rural areas are particularly disadvantaged. Their chances of social integration, of obtaining employment, and of access to child-related, educational, health and social institutions, are less. They constitute one of the most vulnerable groups in society, as they are much more exposed to the risk of poverty and marginalisation. Where they do manage to obtain employment, their wages lag considerably behind those of their urban counterparts.

Cumulative social disadvantage engenders social tensions, as the social welfare system is at its most inadequate in the most disadvantaged communities, while the worst infrastructural deficiencies are also to be found here. In the absence of other options, agriculture, with its short-term advantages and lower standard of living, has the effect of conserving the tension-rife rural employment situation.

The solution lies in concerted action; local authorities, governments and the European Community all have a role and a responsibility in this regard.

Multi-faceted adjustment programmes need to be put in place. Opportunities for adjustment must be provided for the rural population by creating alternative employment opportunities, developing infrastructure, initiating training and further education programmes facilitating adaptation to market conditions, supporting business start-ups, and establishing projects in border areas and across national borders.

Adjustment programmes will inevitably have to be tailored to the particular characteristics of individual rural areas. This will ensure the ongoing reduction of regional differences.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) I would like to congratulate my colleague Christa Klaß on her report, which highlights the difficulties that women living in rural areas have to face in the labour market and in other aspects of their lives. Any discussion of the most disadvantaged people living in the worst circumstances must make special mention of Roma women, a significant proportion of whom live in villages and small settlements. Numerous studies have shown that Roma women constitute the European Union’s most vulnerable group, with a life expectancy that is shockingly low compared to the majority of society and an unemployment rate that is several times the average. In line with the report’s recommendations, therefore, Member States need to draft and implement the kind of policies that will improve the general living conditions of women living in less developed regions and help disadvantaged women and women facing social exclusion to obtain work or engage in self-employment by fostering new businesses. Roma women in particular could benefit from support from Member States and the European Commission for socially aware business models that involve the poor and disadvantaged groups in society. I welcome the fact that the report places great emphasis on gathering reliable statistical data, because the gathering and processing of data disaggregated according to gender and ethnic origin are vital, on the one hand, for eliminating indirect and multiple discrimination and, on the other hand, for measuring progress achieved in terms of education, housing, health and employment. Thank you.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) The enterprising report by the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, seeks a new approach to eliminating the obvious inequalities between urban and rural areas. Women play a crucial role in the socio-political, economic and environmental development of rural areas. Women’s lives in rural areas present a great deal of opportunities as well as considerable difficulties.

Making rural areas more attractive will help to curb the exodus of mainly young and well-trained people. I am thus calling for the promotion of sustainable integrated growth and the generation of new employment opportunities, particularly for women, as well as the provision of high-quality health care, social services and other general services throughout the EU.

Only educated women will be able to be fully involved in revitalising local communities. They will be able to set up new companies, which in turn will contribute to the diversification of the rural economy and improvements in the quality of life in rural areas. We must remove all obstacles to accessing information and communication technologies and ensure that broadband is available to women in rural areas. Continuous education and language learning as well as opportunities for re-training must be available to all interested women.

Moreover, the successful LEADER programme should continue. It has successfully allowed many women to set up companies in rural communities in areas such as tourism, crafts and the provision of regional products. I believe that by identifying best practices and using the new tools for exchanges of experience, a significant contribution can be made to improving the quality of life in rural areas.

  Rovana Plumb (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The EU is confronted by important social changes which have been brought about by problems related to migration, social security and poverty.

The programmes developed at EU level have made an important contribution to the improvement of the condition of women in rural areas. Nevertheless, women are not involved in decision making in the communities to which they belong.

A concrete and worrying example, is that most women in the rural areas in Romania have an income below 5 EURO/day, and a third do not use any media.

I would cite as as a priority three action fields in order to obtain equal opportunities and to improve the condition of the women in the rural area:

- improvement of social status by supporting the access of women to new income and goods acquisition opportunities;

- full involvement of women in the decision-making process and enhanced capacity to change/influence the decisions that affect them directly;

- access of the women in rural areas to essential services (health, education) and infrastructure.

The Member States should prepare public policies to encourage the participation of women in the labour market, in the decision-making process, and should control any forms of discrimination.

21. Sustainable agriculture and biogas: review of EU legislation (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on sustainable agriculture and biogas: a need for review of EU legislation (2007/2107(INI)) (A6-0034/2008).

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, rapporteur. − (HU) Mr President, Commissioner Fischer Boel, ladies and gentlemen, in a world of climate change, increasing energy demand and rising prices, it is an absolute priority and a matter of vital interest to the European Union to reduce energy dependence and energy consumption and to diversify energy sources. The increasing use of renewable energies is an integral part of this. We must diversify, and this includes diversification within the area of renewable energies.

In the field of renewable energy sources, different countries have different natural endowments, and we must exploit these to the maximum. Biogas holds enormous potential as a renewable energy source and is destined for a great future for a whole number of reasons that are set out in the report tabled for debate today.

The first and most important of these reasons, ladies and gentlemen, is that the primary raw material for producing biogas is animal manure, and the fact that we can combine energy production with the treatment of manure for environmental protection purposes. This is one of the most significant advantages of biogas production, although biogas may of course be produced from other materials such as municipal sludge, slaughterhouse waste and energy crops.

Biogas is a multifunctional energy source: it can be used for electricity generation, for heating, cooling, or drying. Pressurised biogas is suitable for running cars and public transport vehicles and, once it has been purified, biogas can be fed into the natural gas network. Biogas production thus represents a serious opportunity for European energy production. Among other things, if we consider that biogas can be produced from animal manure, we could produce 14 times more than we do at present. The potential this represents is considerable, since we know from an environmental point of view that animal manure has to be treated before it can be used on the soil; otherwise it can seriously harm the environment.

There was some discussion in our committee on the question of whether biogas production using plant-based material would compete with food production. The European Commission has shown that such a situation has not yet arisen in Europe, and we hope that it will not arise in future either, since we now have the second generation of energy crops. It may be that this is a problem in the global context, in Brazil and the United States, but in Europe it is not an issue at present, and we hope that it will not become one.

The other issue discussed in this context was how the biogas sector should be regulated. Current regulation both at national and European Union level is exceptionally complicated and bureaucratic, and this is why in my report I have suggested adopting an EU biogas directive. At the same time, however, European Commission representatives have convinced me in the course of consultations with the European People’s Party that there is no need for a separate biogas directive, as a directive on renewable energy sources is in preparation and the issue of biogas could be addressed in this context. In this regard I ask the Commission to devote special attention to biogas in the directive on renewable energy sources and to adopt the suggestions set out in my report.

Ladies and gentlemen, in my response later I would like to thank the Danish institute that helped with this report and everyone who contributed to it. Thank you for your attention.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, before going into the context I would like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the rapporteur, Mr Tabajdi, for this very interesting and important report.

Parliament’s report clearly underlines the benefits of biogas production to the agricultural sector, but also to society. I fully agree with the emphasis placed on the development of biogas production. It has environmental benefits by reducing the emission of powerful climate-altering gases, such as methane and nitrous oxides. For this reason, biogas production further enhances the environmental sustainability of agriculture – there has already been a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emission since 1990 – and it also has obvious economic advantages as a useful alternative to natural gas in a situation where we now see that oil prices have exceeded USD 100 per barrel.

The production of biogas from agricultural feedstocks has more than doubled in the period from 2004 to 2006. Overall biogas production is increasing but I think that we can clearly do more. There is a large untapped potential in biogas production within the European Union. On the Commission side we are fully aware of this and we have put in place a number of important instruments to promote the production of biogas. Our current Green Electricity Directive with implementing legislation in some Member States is an example of an important driving force.

Rural development policy also favours the development of biogas production. Member States have the possibility to support investments, technical assistance and cooperatives and other activities enhancing biogas production and biogas use.

Implementation of the rural development programmes from the period 2007 to 2013 has only just started but I find that Member States’ first programming is very promising and I am confident that biogas-related measures will be among those with the highest uptake in the area when we talk about bio-energy.

Measures included in the Commission’s recent energy and climate package will give a further boost to biogas production in the coming years. Particularly important is the 20% target for renewable energy. It is expected that biogas will contribute significantly to reaching those targets. Biogas will also play an important role in delivering the 20% reduction targets for greenhouse gas emission from sectors that are not participating in the emission trading system. Therefore we are in a very positive situation where we can kill two birds with one stone. I am convinced that biogas production will be a key element in the European Union strategy to combat climate change and to make it possible for us to meet the Kyoto targets.

I agree with you that a coherent biogas policy is important. The EU initiatives are in my view coherent and they go in the same direction. Nevertheless, I believe that this policy could be most effectively fleshed out and implemented at regional or at national level on the basis of local resources, needs and economic realities.

In this respect, I welcome the recommendations concerning the simplification of the current legislative framework. They are in line with our ongoing discussions on simplification and better regulation, which represent a Commission strategy very high on the agenda.

Finally I have to say that I have doubts on specific targets for biogas, and I heard a remark by the rapporteur. I think that the 20% target for renewable energy already encompasses biogas. Biogas can also contribute to the achievement of the 10% biofuel target. If we introduce a special biogas target we would run the risk of not being focused enough. Setting a specific target for biogas would introduce further administrative burdens for private operators and public authorities. In my view it would also lead to excessive political pressure for a particular type of renewable energy, which could be unfortunate if economic circumstances are later not too favourable for biogas production.

The report on biogas that you request from the Commission is certainly useful. However, it seems to me that the deadline of 2008 that you are setting is a bit too early when we look at all the other initiatives that are taking place. However, the Commission will report on the implementation of the EU Biomass Action Plan by the end of 2008, so I am quite sure that we will find common ground on this issue. It is a very important and also very interesting report. I am quite sure this will provide a very good basis for further discussions.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Jens Holm, draftsman of an opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. − (SV) Madam President, biogas can play an important role in combating climate change, not just biogas to produce heat and electricity but also to drive vehicles. Biogas can be produced, for example, from manure and household waste. There is currently great potential for a substantial increase in the production of biogas. In the Committee on the Environment we want to respond positively to this possibility and in the future see much more biogas. Increased biogas production must not be an end in itself, however. When it comes to waste, the main priority must still be to reduce the total quantity of waste. If we are to reduce waste, we must – saying this is like swearing in church – reduce our consumption.

I should like to take the opportunity to put a couple of questions to Commissioner Fischer Boel, who is with us this evening: does the Commission have a strategy for reducing the ever growing waste mountain in the EU? Perhaps the Commission also has a strategy to help us reduce the consumption of so many goods that we do not really need?

In the Environment Committee we also want to see certification for sustainable biogas. Such a certification system must cover the entire chain, i.e. from field to vehicle. The certification system must be founded on social and environmental considerations. I welcome the Commission’s proposal for a new directive on renewable fuels, but more needs to be done to enhance the role of biogas. One more question for Mrs Fischer Boel: what is your view of such a certification system?

This and other environment-related questions underscore the importance of public responsibility. Most of us here agree that we should boost the role of biogas. More cars and lorries should be able to run on biogas. Biogas reduces emissions of greenhouse gases from cars by as much as 90%. In addition, particulate emissions are also reduced and cars run more quietly on gas. However, if we are really serious about our environmental commitments, the responsibility cannot be left to the market.

For example, to enable more cars to run on biogas, there must be filling stations where they can fill up with gas. The State must ensure that filling stations face up to their responsibility through legislation and temporary funding. In my homeland, Sweden, the last filling station on a drive to the north is in Uppsala, which is in the middle of the country. In other words, motorists who like to keep their tanks topped up have to drive for more than 1000 km without any chance of filling up with biogas. That is of course unacceptable. Hence we all have a responsibility for promoting biogas: the EU by drawing up guidelines, the Member States by stimulating national production, and not least the local authorities, which should build more biogas installations.

  Werner Langen, draftsman of the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. − (DE) Madam President, I am reporting the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which bears responsibility for energy policy. I have no personal opinion on this, but the committee has accepted my draft opinion by 45 votes to 0, with 0 abstentions. The Committee on Industry is aware of the positive contribution of biogas not just from manure – as the rapporteur thinks – but from all organic waste.

We have pointed out that competition in foodstuffs is becoming increasingly problematic, that there must be discussion on the fact that the feeding of biogas into the gas network must be free of discrimination and that new processes for second-generation technical biogas should be proposed. We have discussed the role of green gene technology in connection with biogas and we are of the opinion that the young, innovative biogas sector admittedly needs start-up financing, but not a permanent subsidy.

In addition, we want uniform support instruments across the EU and this is expressly stated in our 13 points: we want a simplified planning permission procedure for biogas installations. The Committee on Industry has not demanded that four new directives should be put forward, as my fellow Member has done in his draft report. I share the Commissioner’s opinion that we do not need any new directives, but that we should give biogas a fair role in the existing directives on renewable energies.

In this respect the Committee on Industry has formed a somewhat different opinion from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which is responsible for the report.

  Albert Deß, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I am able largely to endorse this report. The rapporteur has produced some good work.

I am able to agree with what has already been said: biogas can make a substantial contribution towards achieving our goals for renewable energy sources, using fewer fossil energies and thereby also reducing CO2 emissions. The prerequisite, of course, is that biogas potentials are used. In Germany there are many biogas plants, in which only electricity is produced. Only about 38% of the available energy is being used here; over 60% of energy is unused as lost heat and pumped into the environment. This cannot be the purpose of biogas production! I therefore believe it is right for this report to demand that biogas also be fed into the gas network. We must follow both these directions: either use the heat lost when producing electricity or feed biogas directly into the network. We can then achieve a high degree of efficiency with both these processes.

I am also of the opinion that even better plants can be cultivated with modern plant production. I am definitely not of the opinion, however, that genetic engineering is required to do this. Plant growers tell me that yields for biogas plants can be doubled on good acreage with traditional plant cultivation. We are able to harvest the equivalent of approximately 5 000 litres of fuel oil per hectare for biogas. With good plants, which in future will be created by plant cultivation, we shall be able to harvest up to 10 000 litres per hectare. This is a good way for biogas to contribute towards countering climate change.

  Bogdan Golik, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Madam President, I was very interested to read the proposals prepared by my colleague Mr Tabajdi. I would like to congratulate him on a fine report.

In the current world situation, where the price of oil and other energy sources – gas, for example – is rising steeply but is subject to unpredictable swings that make it difficult to plan sensibly and estimate investment costs and when the energy demands of European countries are also rising, a report on the subject of biogas would appear to be an unusually timely document. This report in fact shows us how much we can still do to develop this sphere of energy generation. Energy generation from these sources can be increased many times without any accompanying degradation of the natural environment.

A positive offshoot to this development would be to support beneficiaries with funds intended for regional development and the development of rural areas. The Commission and the governments of individual countries also need to lavish particular care on generators of this type of energy and support this development through the mechanisms of specific financial incentives. I am therefore entirely at one with the rapporteur’s view that the European Commission should intensify its efforts to develop energy from sources of this type and incorporate it into Europe’s energy strategy.

It is of particular importance for us Europeans that the European Union should make itself independent of exports in the energy sphere in the shortest possible time by increasing diversification.

  Willem Schuth, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mr Tabajdi on his balanced report. I think he has succeeded in pointing out the significance of biogas for a sustainable energy future mix.

As an MEP representing Northern Germany, I am aware of the potential of biogas as an important and versatile form of biomass energy produced by agriculture. Germany – and particularly Lower Saxony, where I come from – is a leader as far as biogas plants are concerned. We should not miss the opportunity to develop strict, clear criteria for biogas technology when introducing an EU certification system for biomass fuels. This should apply specifically to imports as well.

There should be no extra administrative burdens for our producers, however. Only in this way can concerns about the use of cereals and foodstuffs for biogas production be effectively dispelled, because food production must continue to remain agriculture’s overriding responsibility. Only in this way can and will biogas technology make a meaningful contribution to a secure energy supply, to reducing our dependence on foreign imports, to climate protection and to rural development. European research and development programmes will also then be able to generate greater efficiency.

  Wiesław Stefan Kuc, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, implementation of the ideas listed in my fellow Member Mr Tabajdi’s report would certainly enable us to take a giant step forward in increasing biogas production. At the same time it would be a step towards the realisation of sustainable agriculture through significantly reducing the amount of vegetable and animal waste, manure and sewage sludge and the acquisition of renewable energy.

There are, however, drawbacks to biogas production. At current production and sale prices it would not cover costs, and there would still be waste at the end of the day, only more concentrated. We need to assess the pros and cons in the cold light of day. My political group has done this, and we believe that even with the technologies currently available we should support Mr Tabajdi’s report. Perhaps other technologies will enable the production process to be upgraded, while rising energy prices will increase its economic effectiveness. There is, however, no doubting the achievements in environmental protection and this is the most important thing.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the rapporteur has submitted a good report and he has submitted it for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which is good. We have just heard from Mr Langen that the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy is apparently competing with us here. This is always how it is: whenever something becomes successful, the Committee on Industry tries to walk off with it. That is not necessarily a good thing.

I recall that the pioneers of biogas production were farmers, who were laughed at 10, 15, 20 years ago when they wanted to produce energy from manure. The idea here, to put it in graphic terms for once, is to turn shit into gold. This actually entails producing energy from manure – and not entering into competition with human food. What is left over from the manure will be an even better fertiliser that is more versatile than aggressive fertilisers.

This means that biogas is counted among the renewable energies alongside wind, water, sun and wood and is in fact a renewable energy if we confine ourselves to producing it from organic waste. In a situation like the one that arose last year and the year before in the milk sector, where 23.5 cents was being paid for milk, the comparative excellence was much higher when maize was fed directly into the biogas facility, than when it was merely sent through the cow and milk was produced.

This means that food prices and energy prices always correspond and this has something to do with the fact that we do have an Electricity Feed Act – in Germany in any case, but also in some other countries – by which better recycling of plant products can be achieved in the energy sector than in the food sector. We have to watch out here that we do not get into a competitive situation. There is competition between tank and table if we get it wrong. However, if we strike a balance on the issue of biomass fuel, this balance turns out to be negative, whereas we had a positive balance with biogas – even with biogas for cars.

It therefore depends on us clearly favouring smaller plants in policy on subsidies and in remuneration policy, in order to prevent migration into industrial production.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, let us be clear: this biomass thing is driven by the alleged global warming effect of man-derived carbon dioxide emissions.

Forget carbon footprints. CO2 is a natural constituent of the atmosphere; it is not some kind of devil potion, as is misleadingly made out in portraying the situation as an ‘Inconvenient Truth’. This hyperactive film is not proof at all; it is not even truth. It is a theory and a very long way from proof. You see, as a chemistry teacher – and I bet there are few of those in this Assembly – I know what it takes to go from hypothesis to theory to chemical law. I do not go by the theatrical or didactic rantings of a US politician on the make.

Fortunately, we now have the Manhattan Declaration, released by 500 scientists last week, which says there is no convincing evidence that CO2 from modern industry is causing climate change. It reminds us that the global climate has always changed and always will. Does no one here appreciate that the Earth we know is not in a final state but in continuous dynamic development?

To tax us all to achieve the unobtainable and unneeded is political greed. To turn over farmland to produce biofuels when populations are increasing and there is a world shortage of cereals is madness. To grow biofuels by cutting down whole areas of rainforest, burning the timber where it falls to get a few years’ worth of nitrates and then moving on, gang-raping the precious forests, is criminal.

So what is causing the current minimal degree of global warming? To paraphrase former President Clinton: it’s the sun, stupid!

  Jim Allister, on behalf of the NI Group. – Madam President, I welcome the recognition of the potential for a considerable increase in biogas production. It ticks the boxes of helping livestock farmers tap into an alternative income stream and, at the same time, makes a worthwhile contribution to the environment by solving problems allied to the disposal of agricultural waste.

A third distinct advantage for biogas is that, unlike biofuels, it need not hinder food security but, rather, help it. Therein is a key advantage for biogas: using waste rather than crops, it does not discourage essential feedstuff production or food production itself.

The fledgling biogas sector needs meaningful start-up support with a uniform support instrument across the EU rather than the sporadic patchwork of support which we have at the moment. Extra research support to exploit second-generation biogas as a biofuel is a forward-looking necessity. So there is much that can and should be done to promote biogas and, at the same time, make agriculture more sustainable.

I believe in the EU we grossly miscalculated in over-indulging biofuels. Let us not compound that error by undervaluing biogas.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I also welcome this report: it puts us into the picture of what the potential for biogas is, and I know there are different experiences in different Member States. One would wonder why there is such a gap in biogas production and use in some countries and not in others. As the Commissioner said, there is huge untapped potential there and we need to do something about it, but not, I say, another directive, as we have plenty of them and it would just confuse rather than assist progress in this area.

Let me draw your attention to paragraph 37 of the report, which calls for a simplified planning permission procedure. It is perhaps the only mention of a most relevant fact in all of the deliberations about using waste and recycling. In my country and in my experience every time there is a planning process for a green recycling facility or the use of meat and bone meal for energy production, there are objections, because people are suspicious of these developments and are fearful for their health. We need to draw together the research and be very firm about what the truth is on this because the public has concerns. Therefore, we need to educate the public of the need to recycle waste from agriculture and from sludge, but also be aware that there are downsides to this technology and that producing energy leaves a residue that has to be handled and dealt with very carefully.

I would welcome some comments about this side of the debate, because in this House we tend to look at renewables as being wonderful, but we also know that the public objects to wind turbines in their back gardens. Therefore, we need to bring the public along with us, but also to acknowledge that there are concerns about health that need to be addressed.

Finally, let me say that I fully support Amendment 1 by Mr Mulder, a most sensible and very important amendment, and I suggest that I read it, because it re-emphasises the need to reclassify animal manure so that it is used properly on farms and the Nitrates Directive needs to be looked at in this context.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen, the globalised world of today presents us with a number of challenges. These include, for example, climate change, increasing poverty, the problems of energy efficiency and energy security, and the issue of using renewable energy sources. In the interests of agricultural sustainability, we must therefore not only respond to the challenges affecting the European Union but also institute coordinated policy measures on the basis of a common strategy to try to address the difficulties facing the 27 Member States.

In this light I particularly welcome the initiative of my colleague, Mr Tabajdi, on biogas and sustainable agriculture and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his excellent report. I think it is important to adopt a European Union directive on renewable energy sources in order to coordinate EU regulation and national policy, to coordinate regulation at EU and Member State level.

Biogas produced in integrated agricultural plants is one of the most important sources of bio-energy. Setting up biogas plants is costly, however. To enable us to exploit the potential of biogas it would make sense to coordinate cohesion policy, opportunities provided by agricultural, rural development and framework programmes, and to promote investment in and sustenance of biogas plants. The allocation of financial support needs to be based first and foremost on efficiency; if efficiency is the primary criterion, then electricity generation is virtually the only thing worth supporting.

There are many other potential uses for biogas, however, and we should therefore concentrate efforts on research and development and innovation in order to expand the range of efficient ways of using this resource. In addition to European Union funding, we need to create favourable conditions in the Member States to facilitate the construction and operation of biogas plants. In this context it would be useful for Member States to provide price subsidies or other measures to promote the use of this novel energy source.

Another advantage of biogas as an energy source is its significant capacity for adding value, both on agricultural holdings and in the rural regions, helping those regions to increase their economic viability. It is therefore also important to ensure that disadvantaged regions are also able to exploit these opportunities. Thank you.

  Anne Laperrouze (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome this report by Mr Tabajdi. Energy sources are different but they do not all have the same potential, or the same impact on the environment. Regarding the fight against climate change and the wasting of natural resources, it is very important that we do not miss any out. Biogas is one form of energy that should be encouraged.

It is important not to create competition between the production of biogas and the production of foodstuffs. To do this, the production of biogas from manure, sludge and municipal, organic and animal waste should be encouraged as a priority. As regards the production of biogas from waste, I would like to stress that this would in fact be to benefit from waste, or pollution, in other words. Make no mistake, however. Above all we need to reduce the volume of waste.

Furthermore, I believe it is important that biogas is used not only to produce electricity, but as a priority is used locally, under guaranteed health conditions, to supply natural gas networks. Consequently any technical constraints should be addressed to allow access to the grid. Research and development should also be increased in all aspects of the sector: sources, facilities, distribution and use. A review of the legislation is therefore necessary to take account of the reality and benefits of biogas.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Mr Tabajdi’s report raises an issue that is of great importance to farmers, the economy and the environment. Biogas limits the cost of importing natural gas, reduces the amount of methane that is released into the atmosphere and is a fuel that can be used directly in agricultural production and for public utility purposes. Recycling manure, waste and sewage sludge to produce biogas is beneficial to the cause of environmental protection. The level of biogas production in EU states, however, varies very widely.

In this area the EU institutions should take such actions as upgrading the functioning of legal and economic regulations to promote the development of biofuel production; speeding up research programmes linked to upgrading biofuel production technology, including fuels produced from biomass, organic waste, sewage sludge and manure; and introducing programmes to publicise information and advertise good experience as achieved by German, Belgian and Danish farmers.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Madam President, the United Nations Panel on Climate Change says that man is emitting greenhouse gases to a degree which is changing the world’s climate. The EU has accepted that mankind should therefore reduce these emissions dramatically over the coming decades and has said that the EU should take a lead in this global effort. How are we to go about this? I am horrified to see how political meddling and the ambition to shift political power to the EU institutions are now threatening to run out of control.

We European parliamentarians should not be demanding subsidies for the commitment to biogas. We have no idea how tax incentives should be applied to favour biogas over other alternatives. We must allow emission targets to be set in each EU country, which we have done, and then leave it to the countries themselves to devise effective means of attaining their targets. The classic European solution is institutional competition – not central control.

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I thank Mr Tabajdi very much for his report. I, like many other speakers, welcome this report on biogas because it has a very important role to play. In agriculture in particular a lot of waste is produced that could be made very effectively into biogas. Waste food and waste vegetables could also be mixed with it to create electricity. Therefore, it is likely to be very efficient. In fact, use of biogas is considered to be one of the most efficient ways of making electricity by ‘bio-’ means.

One thing I would say to Mr Tabajdi is that we do not need a directive specifically for bio-energy: it can be encompassed in a renewable energy directive. I would urge him not to pursue that.

I would also say that, as far as farmers are concerned, one of the things they are now greatly involved with is the Nitrates Directive. They also need a lot of storage on their farms for waste. Slurry could be contained on the farm and could be changed into biogas, and the waste from that could then be spread on the land. As the Commissioner said, it kills two birds with one stone.

Ms McGuinness said that one of the things we need to tackle – probably not at European but at Member State level – is that biogas plants are always wonderful things as long as they are somewhere else and not next door to you. This is something that we suffer from greatly in Europe: it always happens somewhere else.

Finally, I should like to reply to Mr Clark – though I think he has left – who asked whether or not there is global warming. I was talking to an eminent Israeli scientist who said that there could be global warming or there need not be, but can we wait for 20 years to know whether we were right or not?

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE). – (RO) Given the current price of oil, biogas is an energy resource that should be taken into account, especially in the context in which the reliance of the European Union on hydrocarbon imports is increasing.

We all are aware of the goal of achieving 20% of renewable energy in the total energy consumption at European level by 2020. However, in these circumstances, it is obvious that the use of biogas as an energy resource should also be stimulated, especially by using financial tools.

Biogas and other biofuels, along with solar and wind energy, can significantly reduce the reliance on conventional energy sources. Furthermore, in comparison to other renewable energy types, biogas has the advantage that it can be used in the production of electricity, thermal power, as well as in transportation.

Maybe a new directive on biogas alone is too much to ask, but I welcome the request addressed to the Commission to present a special report on biogas in the European Union, which should also include recommendations concerning the European and the national legislation in this field.

  Samuli Pohjamo (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Tabajdi, for his excellent report. He has done a very thorough job. Biogas is an important renewable energy resource which contributes to sustainable agricultural development and improves the state of the environment. Biogas can also be used to help make farms and areas more self-sufficient in energy, and just a small part of this resource has actually been tapped.

We still need much in the way of product development, however. We need innovations, an exchange of good experiences and additional funding. The important raw materials of biogas, manure and the by-products of food, should not be classified as waste, but as raw materials that can be used to make biogas and fertiliser. At the same time we have to lay down a common set of rules to promote the use of biogas throughout the European Union and remove the national barriers and restrictions that relate to it.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) The EU is reliant on countries outside the Union for its energy supply. In addition, Europe is not far from an energy crisis.

It is, therefore, essential for us to intervene and support the use of renewable energy. In my view, biogas represents a convenient option from both an economic and an environmental viewpoint. It contributes to sustainable economic and agricultural development, to the development of rural areas and to the protection of the environment. When produced from animal manure, sludge, communal and animal organic waste it offers new income opportunities to the farming community.

It is, however, also essential to pay close attention to safety measures. Some active components and bacteria contained in agricultural and communal waste, if spread, could jeopardise both public health and the natural environment. I would also like to object strongly to the use of corn, cereals and other primary agricultural food products for energy production. Their combustion leads to overpricing of feedingstuffs and foodstuffs in general.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, the generation of renewable energy from biogas is a positive development from an energy-supply perspective. However, the contribution of biogas from manure to the abatement of greenhouse gases requires further research.

The draft report does not actually address the issue of unintended or fugitive emissions, i.e. those emissions of gases which escape during the production process. Some research suggests that methane losses during production, and emissions of nitrous oxide when digestate is applied to the land, can negate any potential for greenhouse gas abatement. More research is urgently required.

Any review of legislation to support biogas production should be based on a rigorous life-cycle analysis to definitively assess the process in the context of renewable energy production and as an abatement strategy for greenhouse gases.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I wish to begin by adding my congratulations to the rapporteur on a timely report.

Energy security, rising energy costs and climate change are perhaps the greatest challenges facing Europe in the 21st century. One thing is clear: Europe must become more self-reliant in its energy needs and ensure the security of its energy supply. To do this will mean more diversification into alternative energy sources and a heavier reliance on new technologies and renewables. In my own constituency it is estimated that we import a staggering 96% of our energy.

Many of you will agree with me that the emerging market for biomass and biofuels presents many new opportunities for the farmer. It is an increasingly competitive marketplace: farmers in my constituency of Northern Ireland could find many benefits from looking to alternative uses of their land to create new business opportunities in the production of biofuels.

While I am under no illusions that biofuels and biomass energy are the only answer to Europe’s growing energy concerns, I am sure that they have an important role to play in easing them.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the role of gas is an important one, firstly in the diversification of gas supplies, secondly in countering climate change, and thirdly in improving the state of the environment, in other words protecting it. Let us also bear in mind that biogas is produced from domestic waste, organic waste, slurry and manure.

Biogas is a very important source of renewable energy. It can be used to produce energy, it is a good source of heat, and it can also be used to power vehicles. A greater number of vehicles could benefit from biogas, but it needs to be made available and cost-effective to use. We must, however, apply new second-generation technologies to produce biogas. What we need to set up, then, are stable conditions for biogas development and suitable financial support instruments.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, as the rapporteur for the Renewables Directive on which we are about to vote in this Parliament, I really welcome Mr Tabajdi’s report. I also broadly agree that biogas is one of the best ways of processing biomass in Europe. In my report I will try to highlight the potential of biogas. It is a storable form of energy, so is complementary to other intermittent sources of renewables. I will also push to reduce red tape. I think we have a real problem in Europe concerning authorisation, especially for energy production which is not dangerous, and biogas is not dangerous.

I would just like to mention one other issue. At the moment we are also discussing the internal market Gas Directive. We also need to make it easier for biogas to have access to the gas network. Any of you who are interested in this should look at the amendments which I have tabled on the Gas Directive.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, my thanks to all those who have contributed to this discussion. As always happens, it is very difficult to concentrate only on biogas – we then start a discussion on all renewable energies.

This whole discussion is based on the energy report published by the Commission last January, because we could suddenly see that we were depending heavily on imports of energy, especially from our eastern neighbours, and secondly: how could we contribute to the reduction of CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions? Suddenly all the different ideas were put on the table.

When we talk about the transport sector, 10% needs to come from renewable energies by 2020, and here the agricultural sector was the first supplier – and is at this stage the only supplier. We all know – and we have heard it today as well – about the competition between food, feed and fuel. This will be a discussion as long as we are in the first generation of those different biofuels. I therefore completely agree with those who have underlined the necessity of investing heavily in research and development so that we can pass through the first generation and enter into the second generation.

It is crucial for it to be economically viable in the future, which it is not today with the different types of renewable energies. We need to be able to find the ‘golden solution’, so that it becomes economically sustainable.

Another issue is sustainability – environmental sustainability. Here we have a very clear approach. We will not accept renewable energies that are not produced in a sustainable way, and this is related both to production within the European Union and to renewable energies that will be imported from overseas. We will need imports. Do not try to convince anyone that we can rely exclusively on European production. That is simply not possible; we will need imports.

I think it is a splendid idea to continue working hard on biogas. Here we use waste – slurry – and all the residue from slaughterhouses, which is a very good component in this production process. From an agricultural-environmental point of view this can solve some of the problems that some Member States, some regions, are facing with the Nitrates Directive, as mentioned here tonight. It can help solve these problems as well.

I think there are lots of possibilities in the renewable energy sector, but we need to push for further investments to be able to make it a viable solution for the future. Once again my thanks to the rapporteur. It has been a very good report.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, rapporteur. − (HU) Commissioner, Madam President, thank you for this debate. It is clear, as today’s debate has also demonstrated, that neither biogas, nor bio-energy, nor renewable energy sources are panaceas in themselves, but all are vitally important in terms of energy diversification.

Second: biogas remains expensive, as my fellow Member, Mr Kuc, and many others have said. Technological development is therefore needed. Initially, as Commissioner Fischer Boel has mentioned, this will require government support from the rural development fund.

The third point is particularly important. Evidently I did not make myself clear – I am addressing this to Mr Parish: tomorrow I will present an oral amendment withdrawing my proposal for a directive on biogas and bio-waste and recommending its inclusion in the unified directive on renewable energies. This was the agreement reached between myself, Mrs Fischer Boel and her colleagues and the European People’s Party.

The fourth issue is that of the deadline: of course we will be flexible in this regard. I would like to say to Mrs McGuinness that the procedure at present is exceedingly bureaucratic; in Denmark, the country that has been most ambitious in this regard – and not because the Commissioner is Danish – it takes five years from inception of the idea to handing over of the plant, and there are countries where it takes ten years.

Lastly, I would like to address the point raised by Avril Doyle. Here in my hands I have the excellent Danish study – which again has nothing to do with the fact that the Commissioner is Danish – produced by the National Centre of the Danish Agricultural Advisory Service. Writing this report was easy. I shall send Mrs Doyle the section that contains very precise calculations relating to ‘Potential Environmental Problems’, in other words on issues like fugitive gases; I certainly found them reassuring, although I am not an environmental expert.

To conclude, I would like to express my gratitude – and I apologise to the Commissioner in advance for my poor pronunciation of Danish – to Thorkild Birkmose, Henning Lyngsø Foged and Jørgen Hinge of the Danish Agricultural Advisory Service, who produced this excellent study. I would also like to thank Nicolas Nevez, who worked alongside the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and my colleagues Dávid Korányi and Tamás Bíró; I also thank the two draftsmen Werner Langen and Jens Holm for the opinion of the two associated committees, and I thank you all for your constructive criticism. Let us move forward with biogas, even if it is not a cure-all. Thank you for your attention.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

22. Energy statistics (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0487/2007) by Mr Turmes, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy statistics (COM(2006)0850 – C6-0035/2007 – 2007/0002(COD)).

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. − (ES) Madam President, last year was a year of crucial decisions on climate change and energy policy. The European Union is determined, and committed to tackling climate change and taking up the challenge of guaranteeing secure, sustainable and competitive energy.

The European Council of March 2007, a year ago, established precise and binding objectives, with an ambitious plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and increase the use of renewable energy in our energy consumption.

The Commission, as you know, has put forward specific proposals in these areas. All of these aspirations require high-quality, constant and detailed monitoring of the progress of our energy situation, as energy consumption is responsible for more than 80% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Member States also need to monitor their energy dependency closely, in particular with regard to natural gas and oil. The proposal for a regulation on energy statistics is part of the energy package adopted by the Commission last year.

Traditionally, gathering statistics on energy has been based on voluntary agreements with the Member States, and it has been done in this way for years. Nevertheless, both the Commission and Parliament agree that, now and in the future, this gathering of statistics is too important to depend solely on voluntary agreements. Moreover, the liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets has brought with it an increase in the number of interested parties, with the logical consequence that gathering data in this field is now much more complex, which means that a legal basis is needed for this very important work.

This proposal for a regulation is the result of a request from the European Parliament to the Commission to make a legal commitment to provide European citizens with data on energy at European level periodically and at appropriate times. In addition, energy statistics are a very dynamic field and the proposal for a regulation picks up the European Parliament’s desire for statistics on energy efficiency and renewable energy to continue to evolve.

This is all a reflection of the constructive atmosphere that has dominated the debates between our institutions to arrive at the final version of the proposal for a regulation that we are beginning to debate today in Parliament.

Therefore, allow me to conclude this presentation by thanking the protagonists in this process and especially the European Parliament rapporteur for their support in drawing up this legal basis, which will enable us to have transparent data on energy in the European Union in the future.

  Claude Turmes, rapporteur. − (FR) Madam President, energy is back on the political agenda. Commissioner, when you took up your post in Brussels, the price of a barrel of oil was USD 25. Today it is USD 105, so, in order to cope with the energy challenge – whether in respect of climate change, the oil shortage, our geopolitical dependence at the root of the situation, our economic vulnerability faced with the volatility of oil prices, or gas prices – I believe there is greater urgency than ever to introduce a European energy policy.

However, to draw up a good European energy policy, you need a good database. I think that what we will be voting on this evening is in fact the creation of a good database, because statistics will be compulsory – that is a very important point – but also because Parliament has really achieved success, I believe, because the statistics, which up to now have been mainly very detailed fossil energy statistics on coal, oil and gas, are going to be adapted to the 21st century, and energy in the 21st century will be oriented towards renewable energy sources.

From 2020, at 20%, renewable energies will be the leading energy source in Europe. Therefore, these statistics need to be adapted, and we are going to adapt them in line with demand for energy. It is rather staggering to note how poor the national statistics – and, consequently, the European statistics – are, particularly as regards buildings and consumption by household and office appliances, and also as regards transport.

I believe we have also gained something important, namely transparency regarding the nuclear chain. The new regulation will force Europe to be much more specific, including with regard to the front end of the nuclear chain, bringing an end to a rather Kafkaesque situation. We were in a position where we were importing. Europe imports 98% of its uranium, and in the statistics, in Europe’s statistical yearbook, nuclear was shown as a native energy source because the statistics had not been adapted. Therefore, there has been progress on this point.

Another success lies in the fact that the statistics are going to be published five months earlier. It was a fierce battle that we won here, particularly against the Council. There will also be a collateral gain, namely that the Member States – and particularly Germany, which was in practice the most difficult to convince – will be forced to invest more in the statistics. From this platform, I would therefore like to offer my thanks to all the statisticians in Europe who, over the last 10 years, with very limited resources, have had to produce the statistics – and are continuing to produce them. Today we are going to put them in a better position, because the Finance Ministers will now be obliged to take statistics on energy much more seriously.

This victory for Parliament is a collective victory. I would like to thank Mrs Trautmann, Mrs Hall and Mrs Korhola for the work carried out. I would also like to thank the Parliament staff, Mrs Cordero of the Portuguese Presidency, who is really the person who helped us reach an agreement, and finally the Eurostat officials who had to put up with me, sometimes afternoon after afternoon, with my questions and the provision of answers, so thank you to them, too.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FI) Madam President, energy statistics at Community level always used to be based on a gentlemen’s agreement. It was clear beforehand what the statistics were being compiled on, how accurate they had to be, and when they had to be ready for submission.

It has not been that way for a little while now, however. EU enlargement, certain statistics practices which came along with it, and other reforms, such as the liberalisation of the energy markets and alternative forms of energy, have together created the need speedily to draft a Community-wide legal framework for compiling statistics.

The compromise package now before us is the result of intensive talks in which gentlemanly behaviour had to be sought to some extent, though in the end it was found, to the benefit of one and all. The energy statistics process was supposed only to be a mere footnote to Parliament’s statistics on labour, but the rapporteur, Mr Turmes, has succeeded in playing an official political game of dry and technical statistics to stir up deep passions. The calls for detailed statistics on the nuclear fuel cycle, energy end-use and extended statistics on renewable energy, as well as ambitious demands to bring forward the annual Eurostat reports, were all examples of politically oriented moves.

To be fit for purpose, however, statistics need to be a neutral tool, no more. As the shadow rapporteur for my group, I was given the role of arbiter. With regard to that, the views held by Eurostat and the Council were a long way off from the aims of our rapporteur.

I would now like to thank all the parties concerned for their prudent desire for a compromise, meaning that the regulation we have been waiting for can now swiftly enter into force. The reforms pushed for by Mr Turmes will also be taken into account in the regulation, though in a realistic way. We also found consensus on what the regulation is to cover and what should be left to other areas of legislation. A splendid example of this is peat: we are not now adopting a position on its classification as a fossil or a renewable fuel, in that it renews itself every year, in this context. Let us leave that little battle to the forthcoming debate on the directive on future renewable forms of energy, when our paths will surely cross once again.

  Catherine Trautmann, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Europe gradually equips itself with instruments to limit climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions, as European citizens experience the full force of the energy price rises, it is of course important finally to establish a legal basis for the collection and dissemination of energy statistics. However, we feel it is just as important to make them consistent with the challenges we are facing: saving energy and redefining our energy mix, with fewer fossil energies and far more renewable energies. The new elements of this regulation are therefore more a coherent redefinition of the scope of the statistics than a series of sporadic additions.

My approach as shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament will have been to ensure that these statistics can be even more useful to European citizens, but also to those who govern them. They become more reliable for analyses and more useful as an aid to decision-making.

For citizens, we have fought for and obtained more transparent statistics that provide information about what affects them most: housing and transport, but also the nuclear industry. For governments, the most up-to-date statistics possible will be available for the usual Energy Councils held each spring. We will see how far these objectives are met. In the meantime, the result of these changes is, in my view, quite restrained, that is they do not unduly increase the workload of the Member States or the various partners involved.

It is on this point that I would like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Turmes, for his sense of compromise, along with his whole team.

Finally, I would again like to applaud the very valuable and efficient support given throughout by Eurostat to help produce a result that is now recognised as robust.

  Fiona Hall, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Turmes for his excellent work as rapporteur and for his close cooperation with colleagues.

Energy statistics are like the steel rods holding up a building: you cannot see them from the outside but without them the whole building collapses.

At the moment we are constructing brand new ways of doing energy. The EU has agreed new targets on energy efficiency and renewables and CO2 emissions. But, as we know from past EU efforts in these areas, it is easier to set targets than it is to implement them, and the only way we can tell whether or not we are doing what we set out to do is by measuring actions statistically.

We now need statistics focused on energy demand as much as on energy supply. We need detailed statistics on renewables as well as on fossil fuels. We need improved statistics on nuclear energy, collected and collated at European level, and we need these statistics to be processed much more quickly so that we have early feedback. It is particularly important to make sure that statistics are available well in advance of March energy summits.

Finally, I welcome the fact that peat remains firmly in the fossil fuel category. In the UK, peat land is regarded as precious habitat to be protected. Peat regenerates so slowly that it would be quite inappropriate to regard it as a renewable resource.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, climate change, security of supply, price increases, incidents such as blackouts in parts of Europe, and the Ukraine Gazprom wake-up call have all increased the awareness of the European citizen and policymakers to the complexity of our energy situation, which urgently requires the availability of accurate, timely and complete statistical data. In this respect, I welcome the Commission proposal and the work done by our rapporteur, Mr Turmes. Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate him warmly on his appointment as rapporteur on the Renewables Directive.

Energy use is responsible for 80% of the total EU emissions of greenhouse gases. The availability of timely and reliable baseline data on the energy situation in the EU is imperative in order for us to meet our objectives not only under the Kyoto Protocol but also in a post-2012 scenario. How can we reliably agree to transparent targets on fossil fuel energy reduction on the international stage and the increased use of renewables without such baseline data? We cannot. Currently the compilation of energy statistics is slow, inefficient and often incomplete, and even inaccurate. As the rapporteur rightly points out, there is a substantial delay in the publication of Eurostat’s energy data. Can the Commissioner confirm that this regulation will result in more timely availability of vital energy statistics and that the statistical model we use here in the EU is comparable to that used by, for example, the USA and other global players, so that we can compare like with like?

Finally, I agree with the rapporteur when he says that the new regulation should provide protection from data manipulation. Accurate, verifiable and unbiased Eurostat statistics are crucial to the whole range of current and future climate and energy policies, such as the EU emissions trading scheme, effort-sharing and renewable energy proposals.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if as the European Union we want to construct a coherent energy policy and speak with once voice on the international energy stage, it is essential that we have complete and reliable statistics that enable us to make comparisons easily. It is also essential that there is good coordination with and between Member States. We therefore think that it is important for the Commission’s text to state that their participation is compulsory.

It is also important, as Mrs Trautmann said, for the new proposal not to burden businesses or the other parties involved with more work. We therefore welcome the fact that the proposal does not seek to modify the statistical tasks that are carried out, but rather establishes a common legal framework that guarantees methodological uniformity and thus facilitates data comparison.

In addition, understanding the complexity of our energy situation and conducting detailed quantitative monitoring of the progress made towards our goals also requires accurate, timely and complete statistics.

We therefore agree with the rapporteur that, in areas such as energy efficiency it is necessary to improve the statistics that we have. Efficiency is now a priority for our energy and climate change policy. The current statistics do not provide the necessary data for calculating coefficients that are not, in this field, absolutely necessary.

The development of the nuclear sector and renewable energy also raises considerable difficulties that need to be resolved. These are only some examples of the limitations of our current system which, along with interesting proposals for solving them, are very well covered in the report by Mr Turmes, and I would like to congratulate him on his excellent work.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a fine report. I would also like to congratulate the Commissioner on the initiative raised by the Commission.

I support this report, mainly because it talks about a common energy policy, and in particular about a common foreign energy policy. There is a further reason, however, and for me this one is actually more important: we are leaving Member States a choice where primary energies are concerned (the energy mix), while at the same time we are limiting CO2 emissions and creating a common energy market.

If we want to compare costs, and to find out in the future which zero-emission solutions are best and which solutions are the most economic, we must have a basis for comparison. A common market and competition in it, and above all effective investment, require good, comparable statistical data. Such data are needed by investors, particularly private investors, if we are to operate an efficient policy in the energy market. We shall also be able to compare data from individual Member States concerning specific prices and costs, which is something we are unable to do with the statistical data we have at present, particularly because of a lack of data on renewable energy sources.

There is one final question: who will be able to benefit from these data and how? All is not clear on this point, and it will be practice that decides. It is very important for us to give attention to the extent to which such data will be accessible in future, and how we are going to protect that part of the data that should not be published.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on his work.

Energy and climate change are priorities of the European Union. That is why energy statistics enabling the Union to assess this sector and to take the necessary actions are extremely important.

On 26 February 2008, Eurostat published a set of statistical indicators for energy, transport and the environment. In the case of energy we find indicators for energy reliance, energy intensity, energy sources, final energy consumption, renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy prices. As regards climate change, we find information about greenhouse gas emissions.

The Member States will have the obligation to provide the necessary data to obtain the indicators requested by the proposed Regulation. Important funds will be needed for data collection and processing.

Amendment 14 also refers to time savings due to the use of information technology in data collection and processing. Amendment 5 outlines the necessity of security in the supply of the most important fuels and the availability of exact data at European level, supplied in due time, in order to anticipate and coordinate the solutions at European Union level in case of possible supply shortages. This is in line with the solidarity clause for cases of energy shortages under the Treaty of Lisbon. European citizens need such correct and exact statistics.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this report is very important for us all because the details naturally form the basis for political decisions. It is therefore also important to differentiate in future between financial and product transactions. We all know how energy prices are influenced by the different sectors. However, the difference between production, trade and consumption also plays a major role. We should begin here specifically with intelligent metering, not only with the consumer, but also with the various measuring points available.

The choice of method used to get a grip on the various costs for the statistics is also important to us. We very much want to eliminate bureaucracy as well as to achieve greater efficiency in the statistics. The choice of method here will therefore be important in terms of future use – random sampling, fully automated analysis, just-in-time, non-decrypting, comparable across the EU, but also globally. The proportionality is also important for the different agencies. We need to ensure that security of supply is transparently available as a universal criterion, that there is differentiation between costs and prices and that the entire system is sustainable.

  Claude Turmes, rapporteur. − Madam President, I have just a few remarks to make. With regard to peat – and unfortunately Ms Korhola has already left – it is very clear from our definition that peat is classified under fossil energy. We have taken up the IPCC definition of peat, which makes it very clear that peat is not a renewable. So in that respect some Finnish politicians and Finnish lobbyists should stop dreaming, read the Directive and stick to the actual text.

The idea of having weekly petrol stock measurements in Europe is one issue which I was sorry not to be able to carry through. Our oil price in Europe is defined by the US Department of Energy’s weekly bulletin. Because Europe has no independent statistics on oil, our prices are de facto defined by the scarcity in the US market and we are not able to show the market that the European market is often much less tight than the US market. Because we were not able to obtain it here, Mr Commissioner, perhaps the Commission could, in the ongoing discussions on this at the IEA, take an initiative at least in looking at what we could potentially gain in Europe by having weekly oil statistics in Europe. Some experts tell me that we could also reduce the oil price just with this measure.

We now have to get to work, as it is important that the Commission is coordinated. The Commission has set up an energy market observatory in DG TREN, so it is important that Eurostat and this new observatory work closely together. Finally, I would like to wish the Eurostat civil service and to civil servants in the Member States considerable energy and courage, as they will now have to meet often in comitology and to transform this into real statistics.

Thank you very much again, all of you, for your kind words. I may even be able to offer you a glass of champagne at the end of this long evening!

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

23. Statistics on plant protection products (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0004/2008) by Mr Staes, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning statistics on plant protection products (COM(2006)0778 – C6-0457/2006 – 2006/0258(COD)).

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. − (ES) Madam President, I would of course like to thank Mr Staes for his excellent work as rapporteur, as well as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for their contributions to the debate on this proposal for a regulation.

The proposal is part of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. The aim of this thematic strategy is to reduce the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. The proposal for a regulation that we are dealing with today contributes to this aim by ensuring that reliable and comparable data is collected in all the Member States, in order to enable harmonised risk indicators to be calculated. The Commission’s proposal is the fruit of years of work with the OECD and with research bodies on developing these risk indicators.

Our initial intention in the Commission was to cover all types of pesticides, including biocides. However, the preparatory phase of the legislation made it clear that the biocides sector is not very harmonised and neither the Commission nor the Member States have sufficient experience or knowledge to propose specific measures on biocides, therefore the decision was not to include this category of products in the initial proposal that has been presented for your consideration.

I know that in his report Mr Staes advocates the inclusion of biocides, but we had reasons for finally deciding not to include them. I would, however, like to assure the rapporteur and all of you that the Commission will take the opportunity offered by the review of the Directive on biocides planned for the end of this year to put forward a proposal that covers this sector comprehensively, including data collection.

The report by Mr Staes also advocates extending the scope of the regulation to non-agricultural use of plant protection products, thus including production and marketing statistics. In our proposal we decided to leave this data outside the scope of application of the regulation to avoid overlaps with other statistical regulations on production and marketing, which would increase the administrative cost of producing these statistics. We are, however, open to examining how best to use the existing statistics on production and marketing to benefit the objectives of the Thematic Strategy.

I would like to conclude, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, by reminding you of the high financial cost of implementing this regulation, which is between EUR 10 and 25 million per year in an initial estimate made for the Union of 25, which leads us to recommend that the Member States should be given sufficient flexibility in applying this regulation.

I trust that, based on sound cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, we can arrive at an agreement as quickly as possible because, as you know, the process of collecting this data is a long and complex one that takes around five years. It would be good for the regulation to be able to be applied as quickly as possible and, of course, once the framework directive on the Thematic Strategy is adopted.

Finally I would like once again to thank Mr Staes for his excellent work on a proposal that is very complex, but at the same time extremely important for the environment and for human health.

  Bart Staes, rapporteur. − (NL) I think that the Commissioner summarised his concerns on a number of points very well. The Commission proposal on the regulation concerning statistics and pesticides is indeed directly linked to the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

As the Commissioner also made very clear, the aim is Europe-wide harmonisation of national statistics on the use and placing on the market of pesticides, which must be achieved at the level where it is most feasible in functional terms. The aim, therefore – and it is an important one – is to use those data to reduce, in the medium term, the risks and impact on the environment and public health resulting from the use of pesticides.

When drawing up my report, I had four objectives:

1. to ensure sufficient comparability of data;

2. to avoid duplication of data collection;

3. to extend the scope to non-agricultural uses;

4. to make full use of the data thus obtained via a moral obligation to report.

I believe I have achieved these four objectives following the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, but I know that there are still difficulties. In particular, shadow rapporteur Mr Nassauer argued on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that data collection should be regulated in a proper and efficient manner, in terms not only of the confidential treatment of those data but also of public access and transparency. I think that Mr Nassauer and I have held very constructive discussions and that his concerns have been realised, including in the vote in the Committee on the Environment, which was almost unanimous.

We also succeeded in arriving at good wording with regard to the extension of the scope to the non-agricultural sector. We have now opted for data collection for not only agricultural and horticultural, but also professional non-agricultural use, such as maintenance work on roads, railways and communal green areas.

Thanks to the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the whole concept of biocides, which the Commissioner, too, discussed, has ultimately crept into the report. This has met with opposition, particularly from the PPE-DE Group, and so, together with the PSE Group, and on behalf of my group, I have attempted to overcome this problem by drawing up two amendments based on an earlier text further to a report by Mrs Klaß, which was adopted at first reading. I know that the PPE-DE Group, and Mr Nassauer, still have problems with this, but I hope that it will not be an insurmountable obstacle in the final vote; after all, we are attempting to bow to the majority view in the European Parliament on this.

Another sticking point with the PPE-DE Group, ladies and gentlemen, is the decision of the Committee on the Environment to extend the scope of the regulation from pesticide sales and use to pesticide production, import, export and distribution. The PPE-DE Group fears this will mean an extra burden on businesses. To be frank, Mr Nassauer, I would venture to doubt that, since these data are available in any case, and there is actually no need for any additional calculations in this regard.

Contrary to Mr Nassauer’s assertions, I am convinced that the inclusion of these data will ensure a better overview of undesirable and even illegal flows. I think that this knowledge will be of benefit in realising one of the objectives of the regulation, which the Commissioner, too, clearly stated, namely reducing risks and the impact on the environment and public health resulting from pesticides. I also think that these two particular arguments will ensure that any WTO cases from third countries can be countered.

I should like to thank my fellow Members for their most constructive cooperation. I hope that we succeed in obtaining a large majority in favour of my report, so that I am able to conduct productive negotiations with the Council at second reading. I would also like to thank the Commission for its excellent cooperation, and also the Eurostat officials, who always made themselves available and were genuinely most helpful in bringing this report into being. Many thanks, ladies and gentlemen.

  Hartmut Nassauer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is consensus on the fact that we wish to reduce the harmful effects on people and the environment emanating from the use of pesticides. In order to be able to calculate these effects, indicators need to be developed. In order to be able to develop them, we need data. To ascertain this data, we need this directive. I emphasise this in order to make it clear that this does not involve authorising pesticides, or using them, but merely ascertaining data suitable for developing appropriate indicators. There is agreement on this.

We have also gone to great lengths to reach common positions, as Mr Staes has rightly demonstrated, and this has also been amazingly successful. We have agreed that the scope of application has to be extended to the non-agricultural sector. We have also found a consistent position for protecting company and trade secrets.

Two items remain unresolved between us: the first is the inclusion of biocides. I fully share the position expressed by the Commissioner. There are no fundamental objections to it, but we do not have the necessary knowledge at present to take this step in a meaningful way. I have no reservations against it in principle, as I have said. This can take place at an appropriate time.

The second item carries more weight. We categorically object to the fact that not only the application, but also the production of pesticides is included in the scope of application, because the production process as such does not provide any information about the application. Products are exported to third countries; products are stored before they are used. Hence production, as has been said, does not yield anything as such for the purpose for which we are issuing this directive and we would therefore gladly eliminate it.

Nevertheless, I would say, Mr Staes, that if the Commission manages to abide by the compromises that we have worked out, your report will not come to grief in our final vote.

  Gyula Hegyi, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Madam President, I debated about whether to speak in Hungarian or English on this subject and then I realised that during the working process I used mainly English expressions on the given topic.

The PSE Group had an intensive debate on the report and reached a compromise standpoint. Some of us, including myself, had more radical amendments but the common position of the group is acceptable to us. I should like to welcome the report and congratulate the rapporteur.

Pesticides, on the one hand, are an important and essential support to modern European agriculture but, on the other hand, the non-sufficient pesticide use and the use of harmful substances are responsible for health problems, fatal accidents and environmental pollution. Decision-makers, authorities, local governments, farmers, NGOs and citizens need proper information regarding pesticide use in order to reduce and prevent the negative impacts of pesticide use. Therefore, this proposal for European statistics on pesticides is a positive step forward towards environmentally friendly agriculture. Based on European statistics, we can monitor and evaluate the positive changes provided for in new pesticide legislation, i.e. the Directive on pesticide use, the thematic strategy on sustainable pesticide use and the Regulation on pesticide authorisations.

From the beginning, I proposed and supported the inclusion of biocide products into this directive with the approval of the PSE Group. As in most cases, the active ingredient of the biocides is also used as a plant protection product. Biocides therefore have almost the same health and environmental impact. It does not make any difference after it has been released into the environment whether the substance was produced as biocide or as a plant production product. It is reasonable that, first, we collect the statistics on the biocide products only.

Business confidentiality is always a sensitive issue and, therefore, I am pleased we all accept that this directive takes into account the obligations under the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information. That is why I supported the amendment that obliges the producers to provide proper information for the public. I hope that after the compromise among the political parties represented in this Chamber, we will have a good first reading agreement from the Council and within a few years, perhaps, I will be able to quote here in this Chamber the useful data from the latest European pesticides statistics.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, many congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Staes, on an excellent report and for the great efforts he made to achieve compromise and consensus amongst the different political groups. An EU-wide harmonisation of national statistics on the sale and use of plant protection products and the proper use of such statistics would undoubtedly greatly enhance the preparation of accurate impact assessments on the use of such products in the environment and on human health, and thus enable the taking of corrective measures.

In order for this harmonisation to be effective, and thus as beneficial as possible, the rapporteur has rightly made a number of amendments, which entail a compromise agreement of most groups, which cover four main areas. Firstly, the generation of statistical data that is comparable and compatible in the Member States. Secondly, the avoidance of duplication of data collection in order to reduce costs and the burden on professional users. Thirdly, the necessity to include non-agricultural uses in the scope of the regulation, and fourthly the need to make the fullest possible use of the data collected.

We find the great majority of these amendments, as approved almost unanimously by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, useful and necessary and we will support it. We will vote negatively on only three amendments, namely Amendments 24, 27 and 29. Furthermore, we will fully support the five additional amendments submitted by the Greens and others.

In conclusion, I wish once again to make the general point that success in achieving the aims of this piece of legislation will depend very much on its proper implementation and to this end the constructive involvement and full commitment of Member States authorities is of paramount importance. Let us hope that this will be the case in all 27 Member States.

  Hiltrud Breyer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to offer the rapporteur my sincere congratulations. We, too, currently offer advice here in the EU pesticides package on how we can protect people, animals and the environment from damage caused by harmful pesticides – and this is our aim. Having sufficient data is the basic requirement for this aim.

I hope that this vote sends out a strong signal for the protection of the environment and health. Confidential operational information is not involved in the collection and publishing of the data, but the right of consumers to information and transparency is safeguarded. I am in favour of as much data as possible being made accessible on the Internet. This would also be totally in keeping with my report on the authorisation of pesticides. Experience from the authorisation process shows that we need reliable figures on the use of pesticides in Europe and harmonised data collection methods. Only when good data is available can we hope to have fewer misunderstandings and false information.

In conclusion, there is something else that is not contained in the statistics report, but is nevertheless close to my heart. At the last reading on pesticide authorisation, we also resolved upon a pesticide passport for the wholesale and retail trade. This also requires data on the application of pesticides. The wholesale and retail trades want this data and I hope the Member States will not stand in their way. This is also a good endorsement for the statistics on pesticide data.

I hope the aim unites us in achieving better protection of people, animals and the environment through more reliable figures and data.

  Jens Holm, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Madam President, I first want to thank Mr Staes for a good report, which of course we support in the GUE/NGL Group. One of the aims contained in this report is to reduce the use of pesticides by improving the statistics, which is an urgent task. The use of toxins and chemicals in agriculture is on the increase in Europe. Toxins persist in food which we and our children eat. It affects us all. This is something which should worry all who care about their health and our environment.

In my homeland, the long-term vision of the environmental movement is an agriculture free of chemicals. Unfortunately that goal is a remote one today. The use of chemicals is increasing in agriculture, not just in the EU as a whole but also in Sweden. I have a specific question for Commissioner Almunia: if a particular country wants to ban a chemical in agriculture, should it not be free to do so? Unfortunately there have been many instances of Member States wanting to ban the use of certain pesticides, yet your Commission has prevented them from doing so. Why? Should not the environment and public health carry more weight than the demand for total harmonisation?

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) The report concerning statistics on plant protection products is closely connected with the Report on the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

If the report is to conform to the strategy, it is essential that elements of the strategy that we have already agreed upon and approved be reflected in this proposal for a regulation. This applies primarily to the title of the regulation and the replacement of the term ‘plant protection products’ with ‘pesticides’. In addition, the inclusion of biocides in the scope of the regulation should be seen as an element that is already approved in both the Thematic Strategy and the Directive on pesticides. Biocides must be included in the scope even before the first report is submitted to the Commission. All the relevant characteristics of biocides are well known to us. There is therefore no reason not to include them or to await further information. This would unnecessarily defer interpretation of the term pesticides, which encompasses both plant protection products and biocides.

I therefore strongly oppose Amendment 33 whereas I will support Amendment 2, since Parliament has already reached agreement on this and this amendment alone conforms to the thematic strategy and the Directive on pesticides, as approved by Parliament in October 2007.

  Christa Klaß (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, plant protection products are being tested and the statistics are part of a package that also contains the Regulation on authorisation of pesticides and the Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. The aim of the entire package is to keep the effects of plant protection products on both human health and the environment to a minimum. The pressure of competition on the internal market and the cross-border environmental aspects require a common approach here.

The access to our markets by foodstuffs from across the world, however, also makes it clear that obligations have to be appropriate in order to be effective. It is of no help to anybody if our fruit, vegetables and meat come only from third countries, because obligations render production too difficult here. We in Europe have no influence on foodstuffs from third countries. The only possibility is to determine the maximum residual quantities and we are not yet properly set up to do this, let alone ready for a pesticide passport.

It is right to keep records and statistics on the sale of pesticides for monitoring the flows and developments of plant protection. The professed aim in doing so is to reduce the risk of pests. Data collection must guarantee comparability and obligations to submit a report must be kept to a minimum. The recording of substance flows clearly overshoots the mark here, since it is not yet certain whether a plant protection product, a biocide or perhaps even a drug is produced from a given substance. Biocides must be considered separately and here we await the Commission’s proposal on the authorisation and use of biocides. Only then will it be possible to consider the statistics that are still needed.

The illegal use of plant protection products must be more heavily scrutinised. To do this, we need increased monitoring of the existing law. In my opinion statistics do not help. Any party that violates the law, Mr Staes, is not recorded in the statistics either.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Madam President. There is no doubt that the substances developed to combat parasites and harmful organisms in plants radically transformed European agriculture. These chemicals, however, have a harmful effect on human health and the environment. Plant protection products that are particularly harmful must be taken out of circulation and the use of chemicals for this purpose must be significantly reduced. To do this, however, we need reliable statistical data that are comparable and harmonised at European Union level. In doing so we do not want to place an extra burden on the users of these products, agricultural holdings; this is not our aim.

On the other hand we do want to see all non-agricultural uses of plant protection products included in the scope of the statistics, and hence also within the scope of future legislation. Let me cite an example. In Europe, the stone rubble alongside railway tracks is sprayed, or rather washed, using a herbicide, isopropylamine salt. The total length of railway tracks in the European Union is around 213 000 km, and the amount of chemical we douse them with, according to the estimates, is around 900 000 litres. This enters surface and groundwater along with the rain, and ultimately ends up in our bodies. Up to now, we have not given adequate attention to this, and this situation needs to change.

The report we have before us is integrally linked to the legislative package we discussed last year, and should therefore be dealt with as such. These are the framework directive on the sustainable use of plant protection substances referred to by my colleague in the European People’s Party, Mrs Klaß, the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides drafted last year by Mrs Belohorská, and the regulation on the placing of new plant protection products on the market, in which Mrs Breyer, the person responsible for this topic in the European Parliament, sets out the future direction for the sustainable use of plant protection products. I congratulate the rapporteur and support this report. Thank you very much.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the second report today on statistics and I should like to remind the Commission that we have actually set ourselves the aim of reducing administrative expenses by 25%, since, in connection with statistics, there continues to be an outcry from those concerned not to allow excessive expenses and costs to accrue here. I am very much of the opinion that the sustainable use of plant protection products is very important for the future development of genetic engineering and biotechnology and I also believe that the risk indicators are of particular significance for human health and the environment.

We should not forget, however, the general aim of the Lisbon Agenda, namely employment and ultimately growth in these sectors, nor tighten the requirements with bureaucratic obligations such as the collection of statistics, which can in fact also be obtained very easily in many sectors.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the main information that Member States should be gathering is the quantity of products applied. This will enable Member States to make individual analyses – that is, analyses in line with the intention of national plans. Manufacturers should provide information on the application of pesticides that is of vital importance. National data should be aggregated in each Member State and sent to the Commission in the form of collective information. Such aggregate information is sufficient for further analysis at EU level. In regulating the duties of Member States, we should be wary of giving assistance to local institutions in the gathering of detailed information that contributes nothing but has a blurring effect and undermines the motivation of Member States to put the noble idea of the directive into practice.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, a few quick questions, if I may, through you to the Commissioner. Could the quantities of plant protection products used in non-agricultural situations such as golf courses, parks, airports, railway tracks, roadsides, and home and garden use be deduced having regard to the overall quantities, that is the total quantity minus agricultural usage products?

Secondly, biocides are used in a very wide range of situations and use patterns, including in domestic households, and, while data on the quantity of biocides placed on the market could be collected, it is very difficult to see how comprehensive data on the use of biocides could be collected. Or is the suggestion to include only the agricultural use of biocides? And, if it is the agricultural use of biocides only, why are we going into the non-agricultural use of plant protection products?

My third question is: could the explicit stipulation of statistics on production imports, exports and distribution of plant protection products lead to confusion and potential double-counting of quantities of plant protection products?

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Madam President, I just wanted to stress the importance of one point that applies to this report as well as to the previous report. This is the fact that statistical data is not important in itself. It is the interpretation of the statistical data, of course, and the drawing of the right conclusions and the implementation of measures guided by the statistical data which is important.

In this respect, the rapporteur has made a very important proposition relating to expert groups to evaluate the data collected. I would like to ask the Commissioner, in this respect, what his thoughts are about such expert groups to evaluate the data.

  President. – The Commissioner will not intervene at the end of this debate. He has informed us that he will answer Mrs Doyle’s questions in writing.

  Bart Staes, rapporteur. − (NL) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all your encouraging words. I believe that I have found a great deal of support in this House. As the Commissioner said in his introductory speech, the positions of the Commission, the Council and Parliament are growing together; something that it was not possible to achieve at first reading. In fact it was downright impossible, despite the fact that I held consultations with both the Slovenian and the Portuguese Presidencies on two occasions.

The fact that these positions are growing together is evidenced by the Commissioner’s words on biocides. He said that the Commission was considering revising that directive. I wish to remain non-committal, and I trust that the wording of the proposal for a regulation, based on a text already adopted in the Klaß report, is non-committal. Secondly, I most definitely take note of the Commission’s offer to make the best possible use of the statistics already available on the production of pesticides, which represents an important contribution to the debate, including with a view to the second reading. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you once again; I shall not keep you any longer. It is already late and I think we have all earned a little relaxation.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written statements (Article 142)

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The proposal for a Regulation aims at reducing the impact of the use of plant protection products on the environment and human health by creating a mechanism for the calculation of risk indicators and monitoring of the objectives established in the Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides. As virtual rapporteur, I considered that it was necessary to ensure consistency between the definitions in the Pesticide Package and I opted for the inclusion of biocides in the proposal for a Regulation , in order to provide enhanced protection of users. By means of this proposal, we want to improve the data collection system and to support the harmonisation of existing statistics between Member States, in order to be able to determine the progress accomplished in this field and to implement measures necessary for the achievement of the goal of reducing the risks generated by pesticides. In addition, the availability of official statistics all over Europe would enhance market transparency and improve the competitiveness of the pesticide industry. At the same time, a reduction in the use of pesticides will be beneficial for society, via an improvement of food quality, reduction of drinking water pollution, environmental protection and sustainable conservation of natural resources. The European Union must be sure that citizens’ health is not endangered by these hazardous substances and must stimulate new eco-effective agricultural practices.

24. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

25. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.55 p.m.)