Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 7 July 2008 - Strasbourg

1. Resumption of the session

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 5 p.m.)

  President. − I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Tuesday 24 June 2008.

2. Statement by the President

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, after many requests to do so, I should like to make a short statement about the release of Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages.

Ingrid Betancourt, Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, Marc Gonsalves, Juan Carlos Bermeo, Raimundo Malagón, José Ricardo Marulanda, William Pérez, Erasmo Romero, José Miguel Arteaga, Armando Florez, Julio Buitrago, Armando Castellanos, Vianey Rodríguez and John Jairo Duran were abducted and held hostage for many years by the Colombian terrorist organisation FARC. They were finally released on Wednesday, 2 July 2008, thanks to a successful military operation by the Colombian army.

The European Parliament is delighted for Mrs Betancourt and all the others who were released, and for their families. The release means the end of a very harrowing time and is a reminder that we must never give up hope.

I spoke to President Uribe last Thursday and congratulated his government and army and the Colombian people on this successful operation. Again I should like to emphasise that democracy must never give in to terrorism and that enforcing the law is a political and moral obligation.

We must continue to make every possible effort to secure the release of all the hostages. Mrs Betancourt was abducted on 23 February 2002. Since that time, the European Parliament has taken part in repeated initiatives with a view to her release. In 2006, together with the País Libre Foundation, she was one of the three finalists for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament believes that Ingrid Betancourt’s commitment has been and remains essential to lasting peace in Colombia. Now we have an ongoing obligation to keep before the public the dramatic situation of the hostages still being held in Colombia and to work towards their release.

Last week, I invited Mrs Betancourt to visit the European Parliament – at a time to suit her and after she has recovered. I should like, at this point, to urge FARC and all other terrorist organisations to lay down their arms and abandon irrational and meaningless violence. We shall never submit to terrorism! I call for all hostages to be released and for those involved to accept the Colombian Government’s offer of working together to find a peaceful settlement.

(Applause)

* * *

Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to welcome the French Minister of State for European Affairs and representative of the new Presidency, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, most warmly to this House. This is the first time that the representative of a government has been present right at the start of our work. I hope that we can continue our work, which has commenced exceptionally well, equally successfully.

(Applause)

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

4. Composition of Parliament : see Minutes

5. Composition of political groups : see Minutes

6. Verification of credentials : see Minutes

7. Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

8. Signature of acts adopted under codecision : see Minutes

9. Documents received: see Minutes

10. Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

11. Petitions: see Minutes

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

13. Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

14. Order of business

  President. − The final draft agenda for this part-session, as laid down by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday 3 June 2008 pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been requested to this draft.

Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday: No change.

Thursday: The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has requested that the first sub-item of the debate on human rights in the afternoon, ‘Allegation of mass graves in Indian-administered Kashmir’, be deleted from the agenda.

The Chair of the PSE Group, Mr Schulz, has the floor to explain the request.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I had already tried at the Conference of Presidents to convince the chairs of the groups that this agenda item is totally inappropriate at this particular time. It is based on mere supposition by Amnesty International. According to Amnesty International itself, there is a suspicion, but no tangible proof of the existence of these mass graves as yet.

The Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, Mrs Flautre, responded to this very intelligently. She invited representatives of Amnesty International to visit the committee on 16 July to substantiate and define the accusations. Therefore we believe that it makes a lot of sense to wait until this hearing has taken place before we decide what to do about this agenda item.

In addition, I should like to point out that this is not just any old region but a part of the world in which the European Parliament too, as an international political entity, must proceed with scrupulous care, and not make decisions based on assumptions that could perhaps trigger the opposite of what we intend, which is to achieve more stability in the region.

Therefore, we request that this item be removed from the agenda.

  Monica Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, in the debate that we are going to have – I hope – we will be asking for an independent inquiry into the mass graves, for those sites to be protected and for an end to the harassment of the people carrying out this inquiry. I think there is absolutely no contradiction between this request for an urgent debate on the issue and the hearing that Mrs Flautre is organising for 16 July.

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, how can a roll-call vote be requested on a motion I have tabled, when I have only just tabled the motion?

  President. − Mr Schulz, when you are planning something, word gets around fast, so I assume that everyone got to know about it quickly. However, I believe that, if the motion is before me, I must hold a vote on it.

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, based on the Rules of Procedure, I think that is impossible. My group decided, about 25 minutes ago, to assign me the task of tabling the motion. Therefore, I think it is utterly impossible for a request for a roll-call vote on the motion I have only just tabled to have been submitted in the meantime. If it has been submitted, then it was not submitted within the deadline, and it is within your discretion to reject it.

  President. − Mr Schulz, I have been informed that this motion was tabled an hour earlier, from which I conclude that it was done as a preventive measure. That is my hunch, anyway, Mr Schulz. Why is it such a problem? You have your conviction, others have theirs. Let us all have our own convictions. According to my information, an hour ago – on time, in other words – a proper request was made for a roll-call vote, should it come to a decision.

(Heckling)

You can each decide whether to bring your documents or not – it is up to the individual to choose.

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I request that the sitting be adjourned for two minutes until all the Members have obtained their voting cards.

  President. − We shall have a short break so that everyone can get a card.

(The sitting was adjourned for a few minutes)

(Parliament rejected the motion by roll-call vote)

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, you mentioned first that it is very pleasing that Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet is present – as indeed it is. Will you be calling on future presidencies to follow Mr Jouyet’s example and attend Parliament from the Monday?

  Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, a very brief comment about our programme for Thursday: the French President, Mr Sarkozy, is coming here to present the issue of Europe’s future, in view of a very serious crisis in Europe.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament, as far as I know, has only 18 minutes to speak. I imagine the President will be given only a very few minutes, and the other speakers even less.

The European Parliament is the place par excellence where MEPs should speak and national leaders should hear them. With the time allocation as it stands, I think we have lost a very important opportunity in this discussion.

  President. − Mr Lambrinidis, there is a proper procedure for distributing the Minutes. It is no different on a Thursday from any other day, and it is your group’s task to allocate the group’s speaking time as it sees fit. Everything else is done according to the d’Hondt system, and nothing out of the ordinary is planned for Thursday.

15. One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

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

  Margaritis Schinas (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, competition policy is exclusively the responsibility of the European Commission. One may well wonder, then, why the Commission does not exercise this exclusive responsibility, when the price of oil has risen by 50% since the beginning of the year.

There is all the more reason for concern when the Commission is failing to exercise this responsibility on two fronts: externally, where an oil cartel is obviously playing a part in setting prices that are such a burden to the more vulnerable sections of the European population, and also internally, where another oil cartel is likewise maintaining excessively high prices, since the oil companies’ profits remain over-inflated.

I therefore call on the Commissioner for Competition to exercise her responsibilities in those specific areas where citizens expect it of her: in matters that affect their everyday lives.

(Applause)

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Allergies are the epidemic of today, and have typically spread throughout Europe since the Second World War. Today, one third of children have an allergy and, if we do not do something about it, in time half the European population will suffer from this illness. Foods containing chemicals and the polluted environment are to blame for allergies. Allergic symptoms can, however, be triggered by natural and artificial food additives, spices, pollens and other natural substances.

In Hungary ragweed is the biggest problem. Unfortunately, the European Union does not currently have an allergy strategy, as the Commission has confirmed at my request. Civil society organisations for allergic illnesses and many millions of European citizens who are affected expect us to act against allergies at European level too, and for us to do something towards prevention, stopping the triggers and ensuring that such illnesses are symptom-free. Action against allergies would also prove that the European Union cares about the health and everyday concerns of its citizens. Thank you very much.

  Toomas Savi (ALDE). – Mr President, last week the EU-Russia Summit was held in Khanty-Mansiysk and gave an impulse to start talks on a new partnership and cooperation agreement.

Apart from this important development, President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and President Dmitri Medvedev held the first official meeting of Heads of State of the two countries in over 14 years.

The Border Treaty between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation was among several issues discussed. President Ilves stated that the preamble that the Estonian Parliament decided to add to the document, which the State Duma subsequently did not ratify, was unnecessary.

Commissioner Siim Kallas reminded us that the additional preamble referring to the Tartu Peace Treaty was simply a domestic political provocation during the actual events.

I see no reason why this preamble should not be removed from the Border Treaty as the Tartu Peace Treaty is still a valid international treaty and the new Border Treaty only acknowledges the control line between Estonia and Russia, their border, and the external border of the European Union.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, last week the German Freie Demokratische Partei MEP Mrs Koch-Mehrin suggested that if Poland decided not to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, it should be excluded from the Union.

This scandalous utterance was a comment on the statement made by the Polish President relating to not signing the Treaty after the Irish referendum fiasco, as this would be irrelevant. Under EU law, unanimity in this regard is essential.

This preposterous utterance by a fellow Member is part of a dishonourable tradition in this House of disregard for the will of European peoples, which constitutes a major threat to the foundations of democracy. Lack of respect for the result of the Irish referendum, along with the call for Poland to be excluded from the EU, are proof of this. Countries that base themselves on Community law are to be punished simply for observing that law. This is the true face of today’s EU. It is but one step away from totalitarianism.

I want to call on all my fellow Members to have more respect for those who have elected us. It is we who are supposed to be putting their will into action, not the other way around. We must not forget this!

  President. − Mr Rogalski, we were delighted to hear that your president has declared that Poland will ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. Indeed, that is what the parliaments agreed to do.

  László Tőkés (Verts/ALE). – (HU) Mr President, in May this year the leaders of the Romanian community in Ukraine sent an open letter to the President of Romania, and raised their voices in a separate statement against the Ukrainian education policy, which is discriminatory and aims to abolish teaching in Romanian completely and to assimilate the Romanian community by force.

Hungarians living in Ukrainian Subcarpathia are afflicted by the same anti-minority policy. Decree No 461/2008 of the Ministry of Education stipulates that the school education of national minorities be switched over to the official language of Ukraine and that education be completely Ukrainianised. The European Parliament and the Member States of the Union, including Romania and Hungary, condemn Ukraine’s systematic attempts to assimilate national minorities, and call upon it to comply in full with the international obligations it has assumed in the area of human and minority rights and the provisions of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which it has also signed. Thank you.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to express our solidarity with the workers of the Fapobol company, against whom disciplinary proceedings have been launched with the intention of dismissing them for having demanded payment of their outstanding wages.

Following disciplinary proceedings, the Fapobol management has unacceptably sent out dismissal notices to workers, some of whom have worked at the company for more than 35 years. The entire company structure is affected, including management and trade union representatives who had taken part in a demonstration calling for the payment of outstanding wages. Expressing our solidarity with all the workers and trade unionists who have fallen foul of this repressive action, as well as with the Union of Workers in the Chemical, Pharmaceutical, Petrol and Gas Industries in Northern Portugal, we believe that this company’s stance deserves to be condemned here in the strongest terms possible, as it seeks to intimidate workers and trade unionists through an attitude akin to a witch hunt that flies in the face of democracy and freedom.

  Slavi Binev (NI). – (BG) Respected colleagues, I would like to acquaint you with a case of violation of the rights of two Bulgarian children and their parents in the Netherlands. In June 2006 the social bureau took away the children of Bulgarian citizen Roumyana Ivanova, residing in the Netherlands. The children are aged four and fourteen. The only meeting with them that was permitted was terminated because the mother spoke in Bulgarian. After this date, the parents haven’t seen their children for a year, in spite of the numerous appeals. Contrary to the law, the children are separated from one another. The girl is at a juvenile detention facility for problem children and the authorities do not give information about the whereabouts of the boy. Even the ambassador is refused a meeting and is not given information.

The Bulgarian State Agency for Child Protection and other organizations are continuing to send requests for the children to be accepted for raising in Bulgaria pursuant to Article 5, 9 and 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in respect to contact with the parents, fostering and care for them in their homeland. The Dutch authorities have not expressed a position to date. I am convinced that the Bulgarian public, the European public, should not remain uninvolved in the violation of international conventions and should not allow a second Libya case, only this time in the heart of Europe.

I ask you, respected colleagues, to please express your categorical opinion on the matter before the Dutch authorities.

  Nickolay Mladenov (PPE-DE). – (BG) Mr. President, colleagues, the bridge is a symbol of unification, it is carried by every banknote from EUR 50 to 5. There is, however, a bridge in Europe which, although it is called Bridge of Friendship, still divides people. It is the only bridge between Bulgaria and Romania along the 350 km river border on the Danube. To cross it both ways costs nearly EUR 17. The fee is illegitimate and hinders both business and the free movement of people. It does not reflect the real costs for maintenance of the bridge. In 2007, EUR 12 million were collected on the Bulgarian side while only EUR 17,000 were invested in the maintenance of the bridge. I am convinced that if the European Court is notified it will rule against this fee. But why should the citizens of Rousse and Giurgiu wait for that?

I appeal to the Bulgarian and the Romanian authorities to respond to the expectations of the citizens by waiving the fee for crossing the bridge between Rousse and Giurgiu. I am also turning to the Commission to encourage the finding of a solution to this pressing public problem.

  Katrin Saks (PSE). – (ET) My fellow Member Toomas Savi has already mentioned Khanty-Mansiysk, a small town in Siberia where the European Union-Russia summit was held at the end of last month; it was also the venue for another very important event, namely the Fifth Finno-Ugric World Congress in which the Presidents of four countries participated – Russia, Hungary, Finland and Estonia. A five-member European Parliament delegation also attended the Congress and our main objective was to focus attention on the small Finno-Ugric peoples, 19 of which live in the Russian Federation, and to draw attention to the fact that their languages and cultures run the risk of destruction.

Hopefully the agreement for which the foundations were laid at the EU-Russia summit in Khanty-Mansiysk will also draw attention to the human rights situation, which is, in fact, deplorable.

  Milan Gaľa (PPE-DE). – (SK) I welcome the fact that the theme of the June EU Council of Health Ministers was an initiative entitled ‘European Antibiotic Awareness Day’.

The aim is to raise citizens’ awareness that antibiotics need to be used responsibly and only in indicated cases. Incorrect usage is becoming a serious threat to public health. Bacteria are becoming more and more resistant, with the result that antibiotics will be of very limited use in the future. The campaign is being run by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Union institutions and the World Health Organization. It should be supplemented by national strategies. A workshop on anti-microbiological resistance is to be held in Paris and the Czech Presidency is preparing a conference on this subject. A logo has also been produced for the campaign.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE). – (RO) Mr. President, dear colleagues, I welcome the initiative of the European Commission, which adopted the directive on cross-border healthcare services last week.

This proposal has the advantage of creating a clear legislative framework, which establishes the rules according to which the European citizens can resort to healthcare services in the European Union area, in another Member State than the one where they contribute to the health system, as well as the way of reimbursing expenses to the patients.

The proposal, which should have been submitted for adoption to the European Parliament and the Council a long time ago, is a long-waited and opportune proposal, especially in the context in which healthcare was excluded from the directive on liberalization of commercial services.

Until now, European citizens had to refer to the European Court of Justice, which acknowledged the citizens’ right to medical treatment in all cases and obliged Member States to reimburse their expenses.

I strongly believe that this initiative will have a positive effect on improving the health condition of the European citizens who, for various reasons, cannot request such services in their country of origin, as well as on increasing the quality of medical procedures in the European area.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, we Polish MEPs have become very disturbed by the situation in Belarus, a country that borders the European Union. Recently that country’s parliament passed a very restrictive act on freedom of speech, which may result in even further constriction of the already narrow margin of freedom of speech in Belarus. Its entry into force depends only on the signature of the dictator, Mr Lukashenko, and that is no more than a formality. The highly repressive nature of this act will above all impact on independent journalists and publishers. This is quite clearly a gag on the free media in Belarus, on independent public opinion and on a nascent civil society.

In view of this situation, the European Parliament must provide a reminder of the basic standards that apply in our continent, of which the Republic of Belarus is a part. The award by our Parliament of the Sakharov Prize to the Belarusian Association of Journalists three years ago is all the more reason why we should take this step.

  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the location for the EU-Russia Summit was not chosen at random. Khanty-Mansiysk is the centre of Russian oil extraction.

In the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, Russia puts the focus on the economy. From the point of view of the EU, there should be a closer focus on human rights. Under Dmitry Medvedev, Alexander Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky are still in prison. For the last week, both have been under the threat of new charges with a potential prison term of up to 20 years. The Russian authorities are playing for time until Mr Medvedev takes a clear position. Progress and binding commitments by Moscow are needed urgently on this matter, including in terms of solving political murders and clarifying the situation regarding restrictions on freedom of the press and of opinion.

In the future, the EU must present a united front and speak with one voice to Moscow so as to build up the political pressure. This is about nothing less than the credibility of the EU.

  Kristian Vigenin (PSE). – (BG) Mr. President, in recent weeks the press has begun to feature comments about the attitude of the European Commission to the various member-states as an example of double standard. Obviously, every subsequent expansion will encounter an increasingly strict application of the criteria. Bulgaria and Romania, for example, are subjected to an unprecedented mechanism of cooperation and verification in the field of justice and home affairs. There is no doubt there are serious problems and the two countries have to maintain a high rate of reform. But is the approach of the European Commission identical to all?

There are countries where organized crime has penetrated deeply and the consequences are visible: misuse of European funds, backwardness and street crime, xenophobia. I have not, however, encountered an official comment or motion for respective measures from the Commission. When speaking of corruption in the corridors of power, I can imagine what the reaction of the Commission would be if a Bulgarian prime minister introduces a law that would save him from prosecution. Such actions, however, are passed over with silence when it comes to the country of the former Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs. I could quote a number of other examples. I would like to be clear - I am not asking for compromises for Bulgaria or Romania, I am asking for fair and equal treatment of each member-state.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) In March 2003, when Castro’s regime unjustly convicted and imprisoned 75 Cuban dissidents, the European Union introduced sanctions against Cuba. More than 50 political prisoners, whose families we have long been supporting through a form of ‘adoption’, are also being held under inhumane conditions in Cuban prisons. We are concerned about their poor state of health.

Before removing the EU sanctions on Cuba, have those involved asked the 2005 Andrei Sakharov laureates, the ‘Ladies in White’, whether the situation in the sphere of human rights and civil liberties in Cuba has changed since the accession of Raul Castro?

Mr President, thank you for your personal involvement in the issue of the release of political prisoners in Cuba and may I ask you once again to urge the Cuban President, on behalf of the European Parliament, to immediately release all Cuban dissidents.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, one of the key common values of the European Union is its linguistic and cultural diversity. A whole raft of states have adopted the Minority Languages Charter alongside their own legislation in support of this diversity. Such states include the Federal Republic of Germany. I should like to point out that the obligations thereby accepted require financial support for minority cultural institutions. In the case of Załožby za serbski lud (Foundation for the Sorbian People), resources have been gradually cut back over the years. This is not a good example of meeting obligations under the Charter. We call upon the German Government to keep its promises. Let us not allow yet another nation to disappear from the map of Europe.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, last month a young Palestinian journalist from Gaza, Mohammed Omer, a man in favour of reconciliation and peace with the Israelis, was able, with the assistance of the Dutch Government, to travel to the European Union to be presented with an award for his journalism. On his return, he was detained, humiliated, beaten and tortured by the Israeli secret service. The Dutch Government has expressed its shock, I am told, but this behaviour by Israel is part of a pattern.

Why are we considering closer relations with Israel when agents of that government perform such acts of violence against the very people whose advocacy of peace and reconciliation will command the support of the vast majority of Members here? Why are we supporting such moves when we know that that government will do absolutely nothing to criticise or condemn their behaviour?

  Jaroslav Zvěřina (PPE-DE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the free movement of people within the Schengen Area is undoubtedly a positive European value. It means, however, free movement for many and varied enemies of society. Thanks to information systems and the efforts of Europol and Interpol, the hunt for criminals and escapees operates reasonably well, but we are repeatedly encountering problems in enforcing remedial measures imposed as punishment by the courts. I am thinking of measures like bans on pursuing certain occupations, compulsory psychiatric or sexological treatment and the whole area of supervision of people released from prison on parole. There is undoubtedly a need to speed up work on a European information system and above all to ensure that national institutions are obliged not only to contribute to such a system, but also to draw the appropriate data from it.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – (RO) Prior to Romania’s accession to the European Union, there were many voices in this Parliament claiming that the Roma people are discriminated against in Romania. For this reason, several NGOs have published various studies in this field.

Romania has continually stated that the Roma people are a major concern for the authorities, but one cannot say that there is discrimination. Romania has implemented programmes for the integration of Roma in the society, including measures mainly related to education and even positive discrimination actions.

After 2007, the Roma people, not only from Romania, but also from Eastern countries, spread to Europe for economic reasons, but especially for reasons related to the nomadic tradition of these people. This was an opportunity for those who gave advice to implement it.

Unfortunately, what has happened in Italy is not a European lesson. It is inadmissible to fingerprint European citizens and, especially, children, it is not normal to set fire to camps installed, with the tacit consent of the authorities.

I believe the situation of the Roma people are European Community subjects and I ask all those with responsibilities – European institutions, governments, NGOs – to contribute to drawing up a common, coherent policy for the integration of these people, but entirely based on European principles.

  Neena Gill (PSE). – Mr President, I want to demonstrate our solidarity with Fujitsu workers in Birmingham who are threatened with redundancy. There are plans to relocate part of the Fujitsu activities to the US, and this may mean up to 140 people losing their jobs. The union involved in this case is the Communication Workers Union, and it has been admirably flexible in its dealings with Fujitsu management. The single-shift system they proposed to Fujitsu would have saved 60 jobs, yet in the final board decision on 30 June, with no prior indication from the board that a decision would be reached so quickly, alternative proposals were rejected out of hand. I would ask Fujitsu to reconsider the relocation, or at the very least to ensure that the only jobs lost are on a voluntary basis and that those who want to continue to work should be able to do so.

EU legislation clearly states that a company must conduct a consultation procedure with its employees, yet again and again employers are doing too little, too late to abide by this legislation.

  Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to ask an administrative question concerning Parliament. For over two years, the post of head of the European Parliament Office in Luxembourg has been vacant. The post has been advertised once, six months ago. Candidates were selected but no decision was made after I put questions to the administration. Your office, Mr President, has not been able to give me an answer either. I would like to know whether there are specific reasons why this post has not been filled and why the chosen candidates have not been appointed.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) The Commission’s Work Programme for 2008 includes, among strategic initiatives, the adoption of a package regarding the development of ecological transport.

This autumn, the Commission shall present a legislative proposal for revision of the Eurovignette Directive 2006/38. The objective of this revision is to ensure more efficient use of the transport infrastructure, as well as the reduction of negative effects of transports on the environment, based on the principle of “polluter pays”.

In the context of ever more expensive fuels, the importance of this directive is increasing. The sustainable economic development of the Union also depends on the development of a more ecological and efficient transport from the energy point of view.

I request the European Commission that the internalization of external costs, generated by transport, take place in a larger context, namely to also review the low VAT rates applicable in the Union, as well as Directive 14 of 2001 on taxation and levying of charges for access to railway infrastructures and Directive 96/2003 on energy taxation.

  Jules Maaten (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, 10 days ago we launched our campaign against child sex tourism at www.sayno.eu. Every year, thousands of men from Europe, the United States, Australia and Korea travel to poor countries in South-East Asia, Africa and Latin America to take part in this sickening form of tourism, and this almost always goes unpunished. The message we want to convey with this citizens’ initiative is that this is no longer acceptable. The European Union, too, can no longer turn a bind eye to this, and we must strengthen the role of Europol, for example.

I am delighted to be able to tell you that, in this very short time, we have already collected 14 000 signatures. The campaign is of course continuing. I should also like to express my thanks for the broad support it has received, including from Members of this Parliament. Not only members of my own group, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, have signed; I have also seen the names of fellow Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and others on the list – which is of course most welcome.

I should like to take advantage of the presence of the French Presidency here to thank the French Government for the initiatives it has taken in this regard in the past, often in the face of opposition from other Member States. I hope, however, that you are not discouraged by this and will develop further initiatives in these six months, too.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, several months ago we held a debate in this Chamber on the situation at Gdańsk Shipyard. Representatives of all the groups drew attention to the need for effective competition between European shipyards and other shipyards in the world market, especially the Korean shipbuilding industry. They emphasised that closure of two of the three slipways at Gdańsk Shipyard would rule it out of this competition and take away its chance of survival.

We meet in Strasbourg, a city that symbolises European integration. Maintaining this symbol as the headquarters of the European Parliament costs hundreds of millions of euros each year, but we have respect for this symbol. Gdańsk Shipyard is a symbol of the fall of communism and integration between Western Europe and Central and Eastern Europe. It would be worthwhile allowing this symbol to remain a living economic entity, a place of work for thousands of employees. This was the appeal that shipyard workers who demonstrated recently in Brussels were making to the European Commission.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the events currently unfolding in Tunisia, in the Gafsa mining basin.

For several weeks, rallies have been organised against the poverty in this basin, which is rich because it contains many phosphates. It has to be said that the local population is not profiting from the profits, and we are now seeing extremely serious police and military repression, with harassment, imprisonments, arrests, and the sealing off of towns, particularly Redeyef.

I am asking the EU head of mission – through you, because I believe the European Parliament’s intervention is necessary – for this matter to be raised for discussion with the Tunisian authorities, for the Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders to be followed, since trade unionists are being imprisoned and we have several accounts of torture, and for the heads of mission to attend trials, meet families and ask for an explanation from the Tunisian authorities of the repression taking place there.

  Mihaela Popa (PPE-DE). – (RO) The freedom of expression is a basic principle in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Every country must guarantee the freedom of expression, including for ensuring the conditions for independent media.

Unfortunately, in the Republic of Moldova, the Union of Journalists complains about anti-media actions committed during 2001 – 2008 by the Chisinau Government. The actions invoked by the journalists and that the government uses in the attempt to politically control the public media are: information censorship, criminal investigation of journalists for dispersing opinions contrary to the state policy, forms of calumny, promotion of unfair competition in the press, maximum restriction of the space for debate in the public audio-visual media – which, in the end, affects the final political pluralism and, implicitly, the democracy.

Taking into consideration these actions, I consider that the European Union should monitor compliance with the freedom of expression in this country more carefully.

  Viktória Mohácsi (ALDE). – (HU) I would like to interpret the words of András Léderer, president of the Hungarian liberal party New Generation. On Saturday the Hungarian March for Dignity started in Budapest. As in previous years, this year attention was drawn to reducing prejudice against homosexuals, even if only for one day. Following the attacks with Molotov cocktails in recent weeks, several hundred citizens who sympathise with homosexuals participated in the procession.

The procession was accompanied by unprecedented violence. Many civilians, police officers and demonstrators were injured, including the administrative director of the Hungarian liberal party, Gábor Horn, and a Socialist Member of the European Parliament, Katalin Lévai. Since the formation of the Hungarian Guard, several extreme right-wing, neo-Nazi portals have continuously organised aggressive attacks, whether against a Jewish ticket office or against Roma settlements, and now against homosexuals, while the government is visibly impotent and the criminal investigation authorities are incapable of producing results. Thank you very much.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention and that of the French Presidency to the matter of the European Schools, which, while serving as benchmarks and models for European education, do not take any account of students’ learning difficulties (dyslexia, stammering), so that many children are held back in their school progress and subsequent careers as a result of such difficulties.

We have seen failures, then, and pupils dropping out of school, causing considerable difficulty for their parents, who are our fellow Members and EU officials; they are forced to move, so that their children can go to ordinary Member-State schools that have the sensitivity to meet the special needs of children with learning difficulties, as the law and human dignity demand, especially in view of the need to protect children.

Parliament will have further occasion to consider the problems faced by these children.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, what is happening in Zimbabwe is remarkably sad and overwhelmingly atrocious. Mr Mugabe, a former fighter for freedom from colonial slavery, has now turned into a ruthless dictator and a barbaric suppressor of justice and the human rights of millions of his countrymen.

The international community – the EU included – has exhausted itself with its rhetoric, statements of condemnation and largely ineffective sanctions.

The time has come for re-election. To this end, I believe that Mr Mugabe should be brought before an international criminal court, charged with crimes against humanity. I strongly believe that such a measure is fully justified and realistic and will, I am sure, bring about the desired and urgently needed effect, which is to help the people of Zimbabwe get rid of a totalitarian regime that is fast leading the country into self-destruction. I believe the EU needs to be a protagonist in the move to bring Mugabe to face international justice.

  Ioannis Gklavakis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, once again, here in the European Parliament, I would like to raise an issue that concerns the fishermen of my country, the fishermen of the Mediterranean and everyone who cares about the environment.

The Greeks, and European fishermen generally, are subject to stringent restrictions – and rightly so – regarding fishing methods and tools, fishing times, etc.

Third countries, however – Turkish fishermen being a typical example – fish as and when they want, using whatever equipment they choose, so that fish stocks are reduced, the seas are degraded, the environment is degraded.

I think we should take initiatives regarding Turkey, so that that country carries out correct fishing practices. The environment comes first; and of course, when I say Turkey, I mean all third countries that fish using non-standard methods.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I too am pleased to welcome the French Presidency, with the French minister Mr Jouyet among us. It is true that it is unusual for the Presidency to be here on a Monday, even during these questions.

I will indeed be talking about the deployment of the police, the riot police, in front of Parliament today. When I arrived earlier, I went through two riot police cordons. I wondered what could be posing such a threat to Parliament that such an armada of riot police should be deployed. Twice I had to state my identity; I was asked why I was in the area of the European Parliament. I was really very surprised, Mr Jouyet, because I do not feel threatened here and, on the contrary, I feel rather oppressed by all these barriers. I would like to remind you that surrounding the house of the European people with riot police is a strange way to begin the French Presidency and I am keen to point out that we want this house to remain a house of the people, open to citizens.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Since we shall not meet again until after 21 August, the 40th anniversary of the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops, I feel it my duty to draw attention to those dramatic events.

It was quite clearly shown at that time that the communist regime was a crime against humanity, just like every totalitarian regime. After August 1968 in my homeland we witnessed another 20 years of various forms of communist violence and terror from this organised machinery of evil. Our respect should go to those who did not give in and conducted themselves with honour. Allow me to paraphrase the words of the Slovak priest Anton Srholec, Chairman of the Confederation of Slovak Political Prisoners: ‘We must never cease bearing witness that there are hundreds of thousands of honourable people in Slovakia, who made contributions to the preservation of freedom and human rights. It is thanks to them that we are once again on the side of democracy, freedom and rights’.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS MORGANTINI
Vice-President

  Csaba Sógor (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you. The town of Khanty-Mansiysk in the Siberian province of Yugra is the site of the Russian summit and of Finno-Ugrian peoples, and in two days’ time it will be the site of the fifth World Congress of Finno-Ugric Peoples. The EU is also providing financial support to the Finno-Ugric peoples for the fight to maintain their identities. The speeches by the EU delegation present and the four heads of state, especially the Hungarian head of state, have emphasised how important it is that endangered peoples should have not only dance groups and choirs but also education in their mother tongue and self-determination.

This Congress has two messages for the EU. The first is that the Year of Intercultural Dialogue should not only be a year of dialogue between the cultures of the large peoples. The second is that we are facing incomprehensible phenomena when the parliament of a European country wants to vote to decide that its country should be monolingual when there are 75 regional languages in that country. If the EU and Russia consider it important to preserve the cultures and mother tongues of the peoples living in their territory, this should also be the example for the Member States of the EU to follow. Thank you.

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, a few weeks before the Olympic Games in Beijing, the only independent information station, New Tang Dynasty Television, ceased to broadcast to China.

Although the situation has now lasted several weeks, we do not know what caused the breakdown cited by the satellite operator, Eutel Communications, nor do we know when the breakdown will be put right. We do know, though, who stands to gain from this breakdown and who stands to lose. Millions of existing customers of independent, non-profit television broadcasting in Chinese and English are forced by the Chinese authorities to endure censorship of information from which they could have learned how effectively Chinese forces are dealing with Tibetan terrorists. They will not hear about the strikes, disturbances and problems that are happening during the organisation of the Games.

We citizens and representatives of the European Union treat China with the respect it indisputably deserves as a great nation that has made an enormous contribution to the whole of mankind’s heritage. It is a pity that in exchange for this respect we are treated extremely negligently by the authorities in Beijing. Observance of agreements and adherence to the same principles is something we must demand both of ourselves and of our Chinese partners.

  Emmanouil Angelakas (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, according to an article that appeared in The New York Times a few days ago, an agreement is pending between the US Government and the European Commission that will allow European governments, banks and companies based in the European Union to pass information on European citizens to US agencies, such as credit card transactions, details of journeys made, e-mails and visits to websites – all in an attempt to combat terrorism.

Negotiations are under way on the possibility of European citizens being allowed to take legal recourse against the US Government if they believe their personal rights are being infringed as a result of use of their personal data.

I call on the President and the Members of the European Parliament to investigate the matter, and I call on the European Commission to provide clarifications, so that this House is informed of the content and nature of these talks. The European Parliament has a duty to protect the personal rights and privacy of European citizens if these are infringed.

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Madam President, I wish to raise the issue of the increasing oil prices and particularly the oil futures market. There are many reasons given for the increase in oil markets. One is demand; the other is supply and the poor investment in infrastructure in oil for many years. Professionals in the oil industry and market are increasingly raising the issue of the ridiculously low margin requirement for crude oil futures. It lies between 5% and 7%. In other words, if you want to buy 10 million euros’ worth of futures in oil, all you have to do is put down half a million euros as an investment.

TrimTabs Investment Research, a leading US independent research service, has said that if their margin requirement was raised between 25% and 50%, which is the same as most people who invest in the stock market pay, it would have a significant impact on lowering oil prices. The low margin requirement in the market means that the market is open to manipulation. There is absolutely no question about that. I have no problem with people investing in futures and commodities, but this is a ridiculously low margin.

We must pursue this issue. The margin must be increased because the global economic effects are absolutely enormous and we must do everything we possibly can to reduce the price of oil globally.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, the Polish President has decided not to append his signature to the Act ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon, having recognised the Treaty as defunct in a situation where the Irish have rejected the document in a referendum. The Polish President thus recalled the fundamental operating principle of the European Union, to wit, that treaties enter into force only after they have been ratified by all EU Member States. Application of this principle has hitherto been evident, and it was applied following rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the French and the Dutch. When that happened – despite continuation of the ratification process for that Treaty in many countries – it was recognised that the Constitutional Treaty was nevertheless defunct. Unfortunately, after both the referendum decision in Ireland and the Polish President’s decision, voices were heard in the European Union, including those of some prominent politicians, demanding the ratification of this document by Poland, which is a denial of the essence of European democracy. I would like to protest strongly against these voices and the pressure and particular type of blackmail that they bring to bear.

  President. − That concludes the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

16. 2009 budget: First reflections on the 2009 PDB and mandate for the conciliation (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0262/2008) by Jutta Haug, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the 2009 budget: First reflections on the 2009 Preliminary Draft Budget and mandate for the conciliation – Section III – Commission (2008/2025).

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, what should the budget for the European Union for the year 2009 look like, and what could it look like? We have been talking about this since the beginning of the year, and now we are about to embark on the second step by the European Parliament in this year’s budgetary procedure, which is a little different from those of previous years. This is due to the fact that we want to start preparing ourselves in a small way for the amended procedure after the Reform Treaty.

After the resolution on the Budgetary Framework and Priorities for 2009 in April comes our resolution ‘First reflections on the 2009 Preliminary Draft Budget and mandate for the conciliation’. This resolution was adopted unopposed by the Committee on Budgets and I hope very much that the plenary session will also take a unanimous decision on it, especially as the comments and suggestions from the specialist committees have been included in it.

What are we concerned with here? The title tells all. We assess the preliminary draft budget with which the Commission has presented us and find much in it to criticise. We do not see that the draft reflects budgetary truthfulness and budgetary clarity, that it is sufficiently transparent. We already know that that the Commission, too, has to cut its coat to suit the limited cloth of the medium-term financial framework. However, that does not entitle it to use creative budgeting techniques to create available margins.

Nevertheless, such techniques have been used – for example, the backloading of multiannual programmes; the fact that known and easily discerned needs for financing are not taken into account; and the non-budgeting of the Guarantee Fund estimated at EUR 200 million a year. We do not see that the Commission has reflected in the figures the political priorities it formulated itself in its Annual Policy Strategy. These are priorities that Parliament has vigorously supported, to wit the fight against climate change and the promotion of competitiveness for growth and employment, closely linked with the promotion of a sustainable Europe and of course the realisation of a common immigration policy.

Most importantly, we expected greater commitment to the fight against climate change. The Commission claims to have earmarked almost EUR 14 billion in the budget for the environment, but closer inspection reveals that, of this EUR 13.842 billion, EUR 13 billion is already allocated to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. This amount will therefore have to be supplemented.

We also need to do more in the area of competitiveness, mainly for small and medium-sized enterprises, but particularly for small enterprises. The first step was the Small Business Act. The 2009 budget should provide a specific SME facility available to SMEs, who must first sue for their debts. It is all very well to have laws that dictate that the 30-day time frame must not be exceeded, but how are SMEs supposed to implement them? Bridging loans under this facility can, however, prevent bankruptcy and job losses, and that is also in our interest.

I do not wish to address now the insufficient budgeting to meet the requirements of food aid, food security, Kosovo, Palestine, Afghanistan; indeed, of the whole of heading 4. My fellow Members will do that in a minute.

I only wish to tell the Council, whose representative is no longer here, unfortunately – I cannot understand why he would be present for the one-minute speeches but not when we start talking about the budget – that Parliament is fiercely determined to enter into true political dialogue with it. We want to implement the European priorities, and a proper budget is required in order to do this. After all, our European budget is nothing other than politics in the form of figures.

(Applause)

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. – (LT) Today we have a unique opportunity to familiarise ourselves at this early stage with the European Parliament’s main priorities for the coming year and to learn what causes concern among MEPs with regard to the project tabled by the Commission. I would like to thank the initiator of this early discussion – the rapporteur, Mrs Haug.

May I assure you that the European Commission and I are devoting a great deal of attention to effective financial management and strict financial discipline. We appreciate your constant attention and interest in these matters, ladies and gentlemen.

Therefore, while fully appreciating your concerns, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the 2009 Preliminary Draft Budget was prepared by the Commission within the limits of the financial programming period 2007-2013 after thoroughly assessing the economic and social development forecasts and establishing a well-founded, adequate margin that provides for unforeseen challenges.

While preparing the budget for the coming year, we tried to make sure that the political priorities were given concrete financial expression and the objectives had a substantial, solid budgetary base. Therefore, the highest financial growth is to be expected from the programmes that encourage economic development and competitiveness, as well as those promoting freedom, security and justice, financed from the corresponding budget categories.

With the aim of having a budget for 2009 that would reflect the European Union’s foreign policy goals along with the full participation of the Union in international activities, the Commission will, in the very near future, table an amendment to the draft, providing accurate calculations for the financing of Palestine and Kosovo. Even before the preliminary discussions of the 2009 draft budget get under way in Parliament, the Commission will table proposals regarding the supplementary financing of short-term measures in developing countries that are struggling to cope with the impact of the rise in food prices; we are prepared to establish a ‘food fund’ for developing countries.

I have noted your concern about financial expenses, especially those not included under heading 5. You can rest assured that the 2009 Preliminary Draft Budget provides sufficiently detailed information from that aspect and we are prepared to provide all the information you require in your resolution.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, for her efforts, as a result of which, for the first time, we have a list of new pilot projects and preparatory actions at this early stage. It will encourage a timely assessment of the possibilities for their financing and facilitate the efficient implementation of projects approved by Parliament.

Already next week – this week, rather – we will be having a tripartite meeting and next week, the first conciliation meeting to prepare for first reading in the Council.

I am sure that this year there will be no change in the atmosphere of constructive cooperation we have enjoyed for several years now and we will be successful in reaching an agreement at the end of this year.

  Véronique De Keyser, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. − (FR) Madam President, generally speaking, I am far from satisfied with heading 4 of the draft budget.

Firstly, I note once again the scarcity of funds allocated to this heading. It is in total contradiction with the stated ambitions of the European Union to be a global player. No only is heading 4 only 1.8% up on the 2008 budget, but this increase is below the average budget increase of 3.1%. It can therefore be said that the portion reserved for external relations and development was cut in the preliminary draft budget.

Secondly, I reject the approach chosen by the Commission, which is already proposing to use the flexibility instrument and emergency aid for expenditure that is actually predictable and planned. Accordingly, the Middle East, Kosovo, food aid and macrofinancial assistance are patently underestimated.

Take the example of Palestine. The preliminary draft budget this year proposed EUR 171 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 100 million in payment appropriations. Yet in 2007 we spent half a billion on the occupied territories. Now, by July 2008, we have already spent EUR 365 million. What are we going to do next year? Dip into the flexibility instrument? Reduce a margin that is already small?

Thirdly, I am concerned about the food crisis that is taking shape and the effects of climate change. If there is one priority for the EU, that is it! In the 2009 preliminary draft budget, the appropriations allocated to food aid have risen by only EUR 6.8 million, the famous 3%, even though at the end of April 2008 the Commission asked for a payment of EUR 60 million extra and it has just asked us for an additional EUR 40 million; it is a joke. I welcome the launch of a Global Climate Change Alliance and a Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund, but we need to increase the finance for these initiatives in the 2009 budget in addition to the commitments provided for under development.

Finally, I am aware of the importance for the Council of the European Neighbourhood Policy and our cooperation with the Mediterranean countries, but I refuse, as the finance in heading 4 currently stands, to support any additional costs that the EU would incur for the Mediterranean. It is according to these long-term commitments, in areas where needs make themselves felt, that the European Union’s external and development policy is judged. Without sufficient resources, the budgetary DIY strategy chosen for heading 4 will give a very poor image of it.

  Maria Martens, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. − (NL) All of this is extremely important, of course, and it is good to know that things are in good hands with Mrs Haug. I can say that cooperation with her has been extremely pleasant. I am speaking as rapporteur for the budget for development cooperation, and I agree with those who say that an increase in the budget under heading 4 is urgently needed.

However, I should like to draw attention in this regard to two issues that are important from a development cooperation point of view. The first is the food crisis, and the second is a results-oriented evaluation.

As has already been said, the food crisis is a major problem, and so we must seek solutions via the budget, both for the short and medium term and for the long term. For the short term, there is food aid. I welcome the initiatives developed by the European Commission in this regard. For the long term, we have, in principle, the Food Security Thematic Programme under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI). Unfortunately, however, this is only just getting off the ground and is not quite working as yet. The problem is greatest in the medium term, therefore.

Too little attention is being paid, both in the countries themselves and in the EU, to food security and food production in developing countries. We do have rural development, but often this does not benefit areas such as food production, but rather those such as the building of roads.

I can understand the proposal by the European Commission to use underspends from agriculture for this purpose. This is very tricky not only in budgetary but also in other terms. Countries who meet their commitment to reserve 0.7% of GNP for development aid will say: let other countries do the same, let them also meet their commitments, then we may be able to do even better. They have a good argument, of which due account must be taken. In any case, it will have to be made clear that the money must truly be put towards food security, towards increasing production, towards helping poor farmers in poor countries.

My second point concerns results-oriented evaluation. Criticism is growing in Europe on the subject of development cooperation, even in countries that have always been generous and favourably disposed to development. Madam President, we must go beyond good intentions and carry out results-oriented evaluation. Better effects, better results. This is the way to convince people.

  Göran Färm, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. − (SV) Madam President, first a big thank you to Jutta Haug. She has taken a number of the views of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy into account. For example, she has highlighted something we consider important, namely that there is a certain discrepancy between the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy and what is actually being proposed in the budget, for example on climate and energy policy.

After all, last year the discussions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the budget were concerned primarily with two major areas, Galileo and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. We now note that implementation in these areas has started well, although of course we will continue to keep an eye on implementation. So this year we can instead concentrate on energy and climate policy.

There are many views on these matters in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. In particular, we are concerned at the inadequate margin, 82 million under heading 1A. It is far from sufficient for these important priorities. We understand that the Council, now ahead of the 2009 budget, is endeavouring to increase the margin, among other things by a number of administrative cuts. That is fine – provided it does not create difficulties for the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme – but it does not sound as though it will be enough.

Just to give an illustration of the orders of magnitude we are talking about: Mr Buzek, reporting on the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan, speaks of EUR 2 billion per year from and including 2009, just for the SET plan. I do not know whether that is realistic, but it makes the point that the energy and climate policy calls for a substantial amount of new funding.

In the Seventh Framework Programme and in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) a fair amount of money is set aside for the energy and climate policy, but remember that those levels were fixed back in 2005, i.e. long before we had any idea of how the 2008 climate and energy policy would look.

We are also in the process of starting several Joint Undertakings, among other things to develop fuel cells and hydrogen gas technology. The Commission now proposes 30 million as a first allocation for this. However, it is proposed that the money be taken from the cooperation programme of the Seventh Framework Programme and its energy section. This does not really represent new money; it is just a redistribution exercise.

We want to form a complete picture of all the funding for energy and climate policy, because it is almost impossible to do so at present. It must start to be given serious new resources, already in 2009. Besides, we are convinced that the energy and climate field constitutes the most powerful argument for a proper mid-term review of the long-term budget to begin next year.

  Eva Lichtenberger, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. − (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, essentially, I can only agree with the statements by the rapporteur, Mrs Haug. They also apply, in my opinion, to the budget available for transport. The proportion of the budget allocated to transport has certainly grown – but that, of course, is due primarily to increases in the Galileo programme. The reasons for these increases are a never-ending story, and have something to do with policies on industry in Europe.

The criticism I have to make of the Preliminary Draft Budget before us, however, is that we need more money for passenger rights, as this area concerns the rights of European citizens. Most importantly, however, we need more money for research and for new transport strategies, so that we can finally arrive at mobility that is not detrimental to the climate. Trans-European networks also need very strict monitoring, because large amounts of money are to be spent in this area.

  Kyösti Virrankoski, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. − (FI) Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mrs Haug for a good report.

Direct support and market measures are central to the agriculture budget and have their own ceiling in the funding framework. Expenditure remains at EUR 2 027 000 000 below the ceiling at EUR 42.8 billion. This is an increase of five percent.

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development expects that part of this margin could be used on a programme to distribute fruit to school pupils, thus promoting healthy eating habits. Obesity is an ever increasing problem among young people.

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development also expects measures to create a restructuring fund for the milk sector. The Committee is concerned about plans for this margin to be used to modernise agriculture in developing countries. Funds from heading four of external measures, and not from heading two, should be used for this.

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is also concerned about rural development measures. Last year EUR 2.8 billion remained unspent, so the Parliament will monitor the implementation of the rural development programmes closely.

  László Surján, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Thank you for the floor. Mrs Haug’s report, for which I would like to express my appreciation and thanks, summarises accurately what the Parliament thinks about the Preliminary Draft Budget. Listening to the Commissioner’s speech, I felt that the rapporteur and the Commissioner dovetail together, and this could fill us with a kind of enthusiasm. I have one tiny little problem: Mrs Haug’s sentences were worded with a critical edge, and the Commissioner expressed intentions of reassurance. I am delighted by the intentions, but I would also like to see the figures in a format that is consistent with the intentions.

I would now like to highlight two thoughts from this complex material. The French Presidency, like us, is interested in a strong Europe, but unfortunately right now it has gone away to build it. A suitable budget is needed for this. France understands Europe and has done a lot for it. We hope that there will finally be an end to the lawnmower-style trimming. The Presidency must be aware that every cent spent on underfunded programmes is a waste of money.

The People’s Party wants value to be generated from budgetary expenditure, so it is prepared to act in the interests of greater efficiency, in other words against poorly performing programmes, corruption or expenditure led by internal politics.

The surplus in the agriculture budget is changing due to the impact of global markets. Many ideas have emerged regarding what we should spend it on. I oppose all sudden, unjustified decisions, whether for the 2008 budget or for the 2009 budget. Furthermore, the Union has serious debts in this area. The twelve new Member States will have to wait ten years before they receive the same support as the old ones. So competition will be distorted in the single internal market for a decade. This unfair situation has come about due to a shortage of money. If it now emerges that there is still money in the agriculture budget, there is a moral obligation to redress this competitive disadvantage.

Directing agriculture money elsewhere is an idea that is also supported by some of the leaders of the new Member States, but nobody should be fooled by the pathological compulsion to comply among the post-Communist leaders; it is no longer from Moscow, but from Brussels that they expect the tap on the shoulder.

Among other things, we must face African problems too, since aid within the framework of the agriculture budget, in the form of seeds and fertilisers, has a serious reality. Financial assistance can hardly solve a shortfall of products.

My group will support the tripartite amendment on climate change, and will wait with interest to find out what lies behind the surprising fall in the level of payments. Thank you for your kind attention.

  Catherine Guy-Quint, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this week, Parliament is deciding on the political priorities of the budget under difficult circumstances, both internally and externally. We are having to cope with many challenges, while the framework of the financial perspective is very limited. I therefore particularly welcome the courageous political work done by our rapporteur, Mrs Haug. She has managed to anticipate the stages of the budgetary procedure to enable us to determine where our institution is heading. This new procedure provides greater clarity, and therefore greater democracy, for citizens. It has thus been possible to understand and discuss the priorities of the parliamentary committees and political groups.

Unfortunately, I must once again deplore the Council’s lack of ambition and the systematic nature of the cuts it made to the Commission’s preliminary draft budget. We note that its aim is to save money on administrative expenditure. This is not a matter of identifying a political priority but of making technical savings that often double the margin in some headings, as Mr Färm said regarding sub-heading 1a. Similarly, I cannot explain the linear cuts made in payments: EUR 1 billion less than the preliminary draft budget.

As regards heading 2, matters are clear. In 2008 we left an unused margin of more than EUR 3 billion. For the 2009 budget, the Commission is proposing a margin of more than EUR 2 billion, and the Council is going further by increasing this margin to EUR 2.4 billion. However, needs are plentiful in rural development, and also in energy, immigration, climate change and international solidarity.

At a time when the food sovereignty issue is becoming more pressing with every passing day, and when it looks like if we do nothing, eating will become a luxury in Europe, the Council has decided to reduce agricultural expenditure. Even if you have not touched the budget lines within our traditional priority, you have forgotten to increase all those for which you are making promises. Similarly, after the recent failure of the Irish referendum and the French and Dutch referendums two years ago, does it not seem that communicating with and informing citizens are important activities that require considerable investment? By denying this essential need to inform, communicate with and listen to citizens, we are reaping the results of this autism in each consultation and opinion poll.

Finally, I will never understand the Council’s behaviour when it comes to heading 4. The observation is clear, and is always the same. This heading is dramatically underfunded, so we should not allow promises to be made that will never be kept. How can we hope to solve the problems associated with developing multilateral relations, problems of hunger in the world or the consolidation of democracy, and not propose an increase? You are even suggesting cuts for the policies that are working.

There is only one thing we can do in the next few weeks: go over both the monitoring and the writing of each budget line again, but also explore all the possibilities for achieving a budgetary framework that gives the European Union a realistic, unifying budget for 2009.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to start by thanking Mrs Haug for her cooperation on this report, which my group can support. We can also support a few amendments by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. The EU budget is an important political instrument, of course, even if it is a modest budget in relation to the overall economy. The 2009 budget must naturally also reflect political priorities, so is that what we are seeing? The EU Heads of State or Government have adopted an ambitious energy-policy agenda; can these ambitions then be found in the budget? No, they cannot. There are no clear new priorities of this kind. For example, the Heads of State or Government have decided that 12 pilot projects should be devised for coal-fired power stations that capture and store CO2, but no one knows where the funding is supposed to come from. Should these pilot projects not be reflected in the EU budget? I am only asking.

The Heads of State or Government want to see an ambitious common refugee policy complete with the adoption of an immigration pact this autumn. What about the ambitions for the border agency Frontex, however, whose task is to help particularly vulnerable countries to manage the flow of refugees escaping poverty? From what we have heard, there is not sufficient money to meet ambitions in relation to this work.

Foreign policy is chronically underfunded. This can also be seen this year, when once again there is nothing like a realistic budget for aid to Palestine and Kosovo. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has proposed transferring underspends from the agriculture budget to the areas in which the budgetary framework is too tight. This is the solution we used for the financing of the Galileo satellite navigation system. The Commission, on the other hand, has proposed funding development aid from the agriculture budget. I do not think this is a good idea at all. It is a real mess.

My group cannot accept, a priori, that we are now discussing a revision of the financial perspective. In the first instance, it is the Member States’ Finance Ministers who must demonstrate how they intend to reconcile the political ambitions of the Heads of State or Government with the ceilings laid down in the budgetary framework.

  Gérard Onesta, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Mrs Haug is right to alert the Commission to possible improvements in its draft budget when she talks about the transparency of administrative expenditure, particularly for the agencies, better financial programming and better evaluation of human resources.

I am going to focus my comments on a paragraph in the Haug report that points out the lack of correlation between requirements for fighting climate change and the EU budget. Our budget is basically 1% of Europe’s GDP, which is derisory in comparison with the 20% of GDP committed by the United States at federal level.

The Commission tells us that it is taking 10% of this tiny percentage for climate change – that is to say, 0.1% of GDP – yet the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Stern report, the UNDP and the World Bank are telling us that if we really want to combat its effects, we should be mobilising between 0.6 and 1.6% of GDP. The Stern report even mentions 2% of GDP. The Commission is therefore between 500% and 2 000% below what all these international reports are telling us.

Here is another interesting figure: to help the developing countries, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – that again – tells us that around USD 100 billion a year would be needed to finance all these projects. The Commission tells us that this is interesting, that it is going to set up a Global Climate Change Alliance and that it is giving it EUR 20 million a year for three years. There is therefore a massive gap between needs and resources provided. When I say a gap, I mean such a gaping chasm that all the carbon in the atmosphere could be sequestered there.

I do know that the Commission has little room for manoeuvre: expenditure is fixed, the envelopes for each programme are fixed, the measures to be financed for each programme and the conditions are fixed and, furthermore, the Council does not want to budge, and worse still, is cutting into expenditure. Luckily the Commission has the right of initiative, if only it would use it! We are within the ceilings of the financial perspective, as Mrs Guy-Quint has said. We have a margin of at least EUR 2 billion. If we do not use this EUR 2 billion margin, it is not simply a charming error of budgetary technique, but a failure to assist a European project in peril, a failure to assist a planet in danger.

(Applause)

  Wiesław Stefan Kuc, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, at the start of our term of office we were all striving to increase funds for the implementation of EU tasks. Sadly, in accepting the budgetary framework for 2007-2013, the Council did not see any need to raise the level of the EU budget. We are now witnessing the fatal consequences of that decision.

Besides the implementation of tasks arising from the Lisbon Strategy, we have seen an increase in other joint actions in recent times. Let me name but a few: trans-European transport networks, the European Institute of Technology, the fight to combat climate change. We have already encountered problems in the funding of the Galileo programme, and now the next set of problems are beginning to appear, on a much larger scale. Why advance lofty aims when we already know that we shall not have the money to fund them? Reducing funds to implement the common agricultural policy and transferring them to finance other tasks will not take us far, and what will become of the programmes that have been launched?

My fellow Member Mrs Haug was faced with an immensely difficult task if she was to meet our expectations even in part. I therefore sincerely congratulate her on carrying out this tough assignment, and I hope that there will not be too many amendments.

  Esko Seppänen, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FI) Mr President, the Commission’s budget is very austere.

Mrs Haug’s report justifiably draws attention to limited margins in many sections. The least flexibility is in section four. It is obvious that the sums to be given to Palestine and Kosovo in 2009 will not fit into the budgetary framework. In principle, it is questionable whether the flexibility instrument can be used for these known needs which exceed the budget amounts for that section.

Our group supports the halting of climate change, and we would have wanted this objective to appear more clearly in the budget. Instead, the amounts for security and defence policy that serve the militarisation of the EU do not belong to the common budget, although the Council would propose this, especially now, during the French Presidency.

A new situation was created when Ireland democratically rejected the EU draft constitution, and this is having an unpredicted impact on the draft budget for 2009.

(Applause)

  Sergej Kozlík (NI). – (SK) For the third year in a row, a gap is gradually opening up between the long-term budget forecast and budget reality.

Member States’ governments are not drawing on budgetary resources sufficiently dynamically and they are consequently whisked away as frozen budgetary resources. The volumes are increasing year on year.

On the other hand, the tendency towards a mid-year increase in payments is reducing not only in relation to gross national product, but also in absolute mid-year terms. By accepting this approach, Parliament is creating a softer and less demanding environment for Member States’ governments. This will in future be reflected in a lesser degree of implementation of key European Union policies. This situation is worrying and rapporteur Jutta Haug correctly draws attention to this in several respects.

I should like to draw particular attention to the continuing relative and absolute fall in expenditure on competition and cohesion policy, which is intended to support economic growth and employment. Such a development does nothing for citizens’ confidence in European Union policies. This is not good news prior to the election year of 2009.

  Reimer Böge (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the Haug report presents our first reflections on the Preliminary Draft Budget at a very early stage, and we are combining these with a plenary mandate for the conciliation that will take place on 17 July.

Naturally, without the Reform Treaty, some important key points of future-oriented common policy are not yet in place but, even without the Treaty, there is much that contributes to the need to rework the Preliminary Draft Budget: compelling and conspicuous deficits, particularly in foreign and security policy, and the EU as a Global Player under heading 4; and the results expected from the G8 Summit and the conclusions of the European Council on 19-20 June also have to be taken into account.

In at least 13 paragraphs, the European Council has in fact presented an intensive programme for revising the multiannual financial programming: the further development of Frontex; Europol; strengthening Eurojust; measures to deal with natural disasters; pilot projects in second-generation biofuels and clean coal technology; funds for agriculture in developing countries, food security assistance and stabilisation; an increase in public development aid of 0.7% of GNP by 2015; trade assistance for developing countries; immigration policy; and new financial resources for dealing with climate change.

I am eager to see how the Ministers for Finance, with whom we now have to negotiate, will tackle this series of innovations put forward by the Heads of State or Government and what figures and proposals they will provide to back up the political conclusions of these Heads of State or Government.

I want to concentrate on two supplementary elements – I expressly support the overall lines that the rapporteur has produced here thanks to intensive cooperation, including with the specialist committees. If the Commission is now thinking about producing savings from agriculture for a new programme to benefit farmers in developing countries, then people are welcome to discuss where these will come from. However, sneaking a project like that in under heading 2 by creating a new legal basis is simply not on! If the intention is to finance it in that way, taking into consideration commitments we have made, this constitutes a revision of the financial perspective and belongs under heading 4.

Secondly, we need considerable further discussion about whether to proceed by simply giving these funds to the United Nations or the World Bank without having access to the internal audits and without certain guarantees with respect to correct political priorities. Given the experience we have had, it is not that simple!

Naturally, we know that, for example, we spent three times as much on Palestine in 2008 as is stated in the 2009 Preliminary Draft Budget. Given the new challenges, given the political decisions, the old trick of financing the common foreign and security policy and new priorities at the expense of the developing countries in heading 4 is no longer acceptable and we shall not put up with it.

  Costas Botopoulos (PSE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, the budget is a political instrument, not an accounting instrument, and this report has the great advantage, I believe, of going beyond technicalities and making some political points.

The two most important points are, firstly, that the EU budget is not equal to the EU’s needs and ambitions and, secondly, that this budget does not reflect the EU’s political priorities as specifically mapped out by its other agencies.

On the first point, what can we do? What does the report say? We are asking for an increase in the very low level of payment appropriations. In addition – and this is very important; it has been said, but I want to repeat it – we are asking for the best possible use of the margins. In other words, wherever we can avoid wasting money under certain policies to enable that money to be used for EU policies, it is very important that we should do so.

On the second point, we can see that the budget, as I said, does not reflect the political priorities. I shall focus on two examples. These have been mentioned by other Members, but I shall repeat them:

Over the past political year, what have we found to be the most pressing problem currently facing the EU? Energy policy, climate change, the food supply problem. The sums allocated from the budget to combat this whole raft of political problems are very low.

The second issue, as many have said, is external policy. Now that Europe is opening up and spreading its wings, we are once again reducing expenditure.

Thirdly, and let me insist on this: communications policy. You see what is happening, the problem the EU is facing in terms of the institutional crisis it is going through. We need political initiatives, and for those political initiatives we need communications and money.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) To begin with, I too wish to thank Mrs Haug and the Commissioner. I had also mentioned the French Presidency in my notes, but regrettably its representative has already disappeared.

One aspect of this budget that is attractive to Member States is the low percentage of payment appropriations. I believe that 0.9% is one of the lowest percentages we have seen in recent years. It is up to us to consider whether this is realistic or not. There is nothing against keeping the percentage low, but it must be realistic, and we have already heard that we may be faced with a large number of new priorities.

One of the things we shall have to tackle – as many have already said – is heading 4. If we look at this heading, one of the main organisations to which funds are allocated is the United Nations. I have just returned from a visit to Kosovo by the Committee on Budgetary Control. The things we heard there about the United Nations did not inspire great optimism. I think that the Commission needs to have another good look at the policy with regard to this organisation.

Another aspect is budget heading 5. I believe the margin currently stands at 121 or 123 million. How does this margin look in the light of rapidly rising inflation? Four to five per cent a year. What are the consequences of this for the Commission’s expenditure on human resources, buildings and so on, and what conclusions should we draw from this?

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, there are four issues in this debate to which I would like to draw attention. The amount of funds for commitments in the 2009 budget is 1.04% of GNI, and just 0.9% of GNI for payments, which means a fall of as much as 3.3% in comparison with payments in 2008. With such a small budget, it will be difficult to put into effect the priorities drafted by both the European Commission and Parliament, especially as these priorities are distinctly increasing with each year that goes by. Thirdly, the funds mentioned under heading 4, with its characteristic title ‘The EU as a Global Player’, deserve particular attention, as they are just 1.8% higher than in 2008, even though it has been apparent for years that this is a permanently under-financed area. Fourthly, such a modest rise in funds in heading 4 is all the more puzzling, since it is surely there that we find the funds for EU food aid for developing countries, and the prices of basic agricultural raw materials have risen by several dozen percent during the last 10-15 months.

To conclude, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, on a very thorough report that once more demonstrates how both the Commission and the Council sadly approach the process of budget drafting primarily from an accounting angle.

  Margaritis Schinas (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, we are in the process of setting a clear mandate for negotiations on the discussions we are to have with the Council next week.

I understand why many fellow Members who have spoken have pushed for special additional efforts on issues relating to the scope of their powers (external relations etc.), but I believe that this year in particular, this mandate should be set in relation to what citizens expect of the budget, rather than what many of us expect because of special interests or other concerns.

We must focus on the four issues that, in my opinion, are now the most pressing issues for citizens in Europe today. These four issues are: high prices, climate change, competitiveness and the environment.

These are the four cornerstones on which we should build the mandate: I think we are on the right path, but we must not lose sight of this outline.

I would like to say a few words about the idea that President Barroso pulled out of his sleeve yesterday and will be putting to the G8 summit today or tomorrow, if I am not mistaken, on food security. It is an idea that we should examine, but we should examine it from the standard perspective of the way in which we draw up the EU budget: in other words, we should discuss it with the Council as a budget principle and decide whether it should be tabled as an EU proposal in international forums.

To conclude, I would like to say a few words about immigration. I come from a Member State that is subject to enormous pressure on its external borders, which are EU borders, especially on its maritime borders. I think we should make a special effort this year as regards the issue of Frontex, especially its maritime dimension, with operations such as Operation Poseidon in the Aegean, which last year alone, in the summer months, was able to respond to an average of 700-800 cases of illegal immigration.

We need this effort, just as we need to make a mark, at last, on the budget – and I am in touch with other Members with the aim of achieving this – to ensure that for the first time there will be a mechanism for solidarity between the Member States in handling the administrative cost and the administrative burden of receiving immigrants.

This is something which we do not have yet, and which we need. This puts great pressure on some Member States and I think we have a special responsibility to make it work.

I shall end as I began. No budget can succeed unless it responds to the expectations of citizens rather than special interests and lobby groups.

  Vladimír Maňka (PSE). – (SK) My thanks go to Mrs Haug for her excellent report.

The draft budget for 2009 on the one hand allows for the consolidation of programmes approved for the financial period of 2007 to 2013 and, on the other hand, puts new emphasis on the need to resolve urgent issues and challenges. In regional policy, it is in our interests to improve the social and economic situation of the inhabitants of underdeveloped regions. Our objective is to reduce the inequality between European regions. In comparison with 2008, payments under expenditure sub-heading 1b have decreased by almost 14 %. We of course wish to be able to face up to the current and future challenges while respecting the principle of solidarity within the whole of the Community. We must therefore ensure that the resources we need for cohesion policy will continue to be guaranteed in the future.

In order to be able to convince our citizens that their financial resources are being used responsibly, we must ensure the effective implementation of operational programmes and large projects. The analyses and subsequent measures put forward by Member States will thus play a key role. It will be important to assess the results of cohesion policy for the period 2000 to 2006.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, first of all I would like to say that I have enormous respect for Mrs Haug, who was passionate in her presentation of a comprehensive, demanding and, at the same time, very brave budgetary report, which was voted through unanimously in the Committee on Budgets and which aims to clarify Parliament’s need for transparency and clarity in preparation for the 2009 budget.

Naturally, it pinpoints Parliament’s main requirements – policies linked to competitiveness, regional policy, R&D, development, agriculture and food safety, and to a lesser extent the requirements in terms of foreign policy and the European Neighbourhood Policy, as underlined earlier.

However, in the little time available to me, I would like to stress how important it is, now more than ever, that we avoid sacrificing the appropriations of sub-heading 3b. In the current climate, where there is a lack of public confidence in the EU and Europe is struggling to inspire its citizens, it seems essential that, through cultural, youth and health policies, we can forge genuine European citizenship. I join Mrs Haug in lamenting the fact that it is precisely those activities that help demonstrate what Europe does for its citizens that have been increased the least.

Finally, to conclude, I would like to ask the Council and its Presidency – and I too am sorry that the Council representative should be absent at this crucial point in the debate – to avoid making cuts in the Preliminary Draft Budget at first reading, as they have become accustomed to doing in previous years. To that end, our institutions need to work closely together and the European Parliament has to be fully consulted in its role, yes, as joint policy-maker for Europe, but more importantly as the citizens’ representative in the key political act that is the adoption of the budget.

  Valdis Dombrovskis (PPE-DE). – (LV) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in talking about the draft budget for 2009 prepared by the European Commission, we ought first of all to note that the total amount of commitment appropriations is increasing to EUR 134.4 billion, which is a 3.1% increase. At the same time, the amount of payment appropriations is decreasing by 3.3%, and the amount of payment appropriations for EU cohesion policy is decreasing most rapidly – by 14%. Of course, the reduction in payment appropriations for EU cohesion policy is connected with protracted programming problems hindering the Member States from commencing full uptake of EU funds. The European Commission should, however, have focused more on the successful commencement of resources uptake and reduction of the administrative burden, instead of on a mechanical reduction in payment appropriations. I believe that we will have to give serious consideration to this issue once again at the conciliation meeting. As regards heading 4 of the EU budget, relating to the EU as a Global Player, it is obvious that the amount of resources proposed by the European Commission is insufficient. It is necessary to reconsider the draft of heading 4 of the budget, taking into account the EU’s commitments in Kosovo, Palestine and elsewhere, and to arrive at realistic figures. In relation to the EU’s new priorities – the EU common energy policy and the fight against climate change – the current amount of EU budget resources for these objectives is obviously insufficient. Of course, significant changes to the structure of the EU budget may be made only in conjunction with the mid-term review on the EU financial perspective, but specific changes may be introduced earlier, such as allowing the new Member States to channel a greater part of EU funds towards energy efficiency goals and home heating programmes. Finally, on institutional issues, the 2009 budget procedure was begun on the assumption that the Lisbon Treaty would enter into force next year. The current situation with the Lisbon Treaty is not very clear and it is important to agree on exactly what procedural changes it will introduce into the work of the institutions on the EU budget. Thank you for your attention.

  Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – (RO) Supporting the single market is completely justified if we reach a high degree of consumer satisfaction, by safe goods and services, as well as efficient ways to solve the problems that may occur, everything under the conditions of ensuring a loyal competition.

The proposals submitted by the IMCO Committee for the 2009 budget follow this direction. We request additional funding for the SOLVIT network that, despite the justified expectation, has not reached the estimated efficiency in solving the legal problems citizens are dealing with on the internal market.

We also support the further funding of the projects regarding consumers, market research, including prices, as well as market supervision measures.

The data collected may explain the potential distortions and contribute to finding adequate measures for correcting negative situations. We notice that, in most chapters we debate on, the funding is adequate, but we insist with concern on a certain aspect: the current structure of budgetary expenses is completely non-transparent.

Thus, the democratic control over the destination of public money is undermined, a fact that the Parliament firmly rejects.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE). – (RO) The first report of the European Parliament regarding the preliminary draft budget for 2009 should indicate very clearly the political priorities of the European Union at present.

Thus, I consider that the report has largely emphasized the budgetary insufficiencies regarding the fight against global warming, but it has not insisted enough on the problem of the food crisis that European Union citizens are dealing with. The price crisis and the food insecurity we are dealing with for the first time in more than thirty years needs to be part of our budgetary priorities.

I think the only instrument by which we can respond efficiently to the situation is the common agricultural policy. This and only this can guarantee sufficient production of food products in Europe.

For this reason, I do not agree with the use of the margins available under title 2 of the European budget for other fields and not for agriculture. Secondly, we have seen, for several years, the redirecting by various means of money in the first pillar, from direct payment to farmers to the rural development projects in pillar 2.

I remind you that the rural development projects will not lead to a production increase in Europe and, implicitly, to solving the current food crisis.

Even if the tendency of applying these transfers by the instrument of modulation has lasted for several years, at present, we need the best measures for the current challenges and these measures are among the traditional instruments of the common agricultural policy.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  Szabolcs Fazakas (PSE). – (HU) Thank you for the floor, Madam President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, for the excellent work she has done so far, and for the comprehensive position before us now, as a result of which she is attempting to create a budget from the restricted framework available which can help us bring our priorities to fruition, and at the same time respond to the global challenges we face.

In view of the stagflation that is threatening the European Union, it is an important, positive step that the largest heading in the budget is now the section dealing with growth, employment, innovation and cohesion. The sources that serve the goals of climate change and secure, competitive energy supplies can also be found between the lines. It would be even better if there were separate headings for these challenges, namely reducing CO2 emissions, energy saving and renewable energy, thus promoting the development of a common, sustainable, European energy policy. Thank you.

  Brigitte Douay (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, following the Irish referendum, there is an even greater need for the EU to listen more to citizens and to keep them better informed about what concerns them on a daily basis, particularly now, less than a year away from the European elections, if we want to arouse the voters’ interest in European issues and ensure that a basic consensus is obtained on its aims and policies.

This is a difficult time for the 2009 budget, on which Mrs Haug produced an outstanding report with her new approach to the major issues and her wide-ranging consultation. I recall from her report the points made about citizenship and information, which must rise to the various challenges in 2009 and require considerable resources in a heading where, unfortunately, the margin is small.

Information is an essential democratic tool. Wherever they live, be it in an old or a new Member State, citizens need to be better informed about the realities of the EU and particularly its budget. To that end, they must be given clear, relevant and concerted messages by the principal institutions. In this respect, calls to introduce a sort of ‘European Union’ brand that would be identifiable all over Europe and would appeal to everyone seems an important factor in involving citizens in the European project.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, annual budgets are a kind of compromise between implementation of the strategic aims recorded in multiannual financial frameworks and the current political and economic situation, and particularly the need to act to deal with unforeseen situations that arise in the market.

This is the situation we are facing today: there is a steep rise in energy prices, including fuels, and there are clear symptoms of a global food crisis, while at the same time there is a rise in food commodity prices. What actions does the Commission foresee and what budgetary sum can we assign to countering this difficult ongoing situation, to prevent this crisis from worsening?

We have spent many years working on an energy and climate package, and this is very important. Is this goal visible in the financial priorities of the 2009 budget, though? Elections to the European Parliament will take place in 2009. We shall have to give account for the disbursement of taxpayers’ money and for the extent to which this disbursement is in line with the aims and needs of Europe and its citizens.

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your many kind words, for your appreciation of my work and, of course, for your support. However, you know as well as I do that the work can only be done, and done properly, when all Members pull together on this. Only then are we strong enough in relation to the Council to be able to push through the things that we believe are essential.

I particularly liked the way that Mr Surján described the Commissioner and me when he said that we were like two interlocking cogs. I find it a particularly good image because when two cogs mesh, they move something, and that is exactly what we want. We want to set something in motion; we want to avoid a static budget and, above all, we want to move the Council. As the President said, the Heads of State or Government can issue communiqués about all manner of wonderful things at their summit meetings but, in the end, the Commission and Parliament have to get the whole thing moving. Of course the Council is part of it too, as one arm of the budgetary authority, but mostly I get the impression that it is always up to us to drag the Council along with us in this movement because the Council itself does not take the initiative in providing impetus.

We have analysed the Preliminary Draft Budget yet again, exchanged views on it and clearly carved out what we want from the budget for the European Union in the next year at a very early stage – before the summer recess. This gives us a good basis on which to move into the preparations for our first reading after the summer recess.

I hope that all Members will support it as soundly then as they have done today.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 July 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Cătălin-Ioan Nechifor (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The Committee on Budgets requests real support for poor regions, asking for a larger budget as an expression of the principle of European solidarity. The Jutta Haug report has in view the 2009 budget detailing, emphasizing current priorities at the European Union level, including the fight against climate change and solidarity toward poorer regions.

This new approach should contain a better understanding of the difficulties and needs the poorer regions are dealing with and it is to ensure greater financing, which, by the relevant European institutions monitoring development progresses, shall lead to a decrease in disparities and to ensuring economic and social cohesion.

For Romania, this budget change could be good news as regards the financing of development regions, since 6 out of the 8 development regions in the country are part of the 15 poorest regions in the European Union and the North East development region remains the last in this ranking this year as well. Therefore, again we have an important chance in what should be our fight and permanent concern to reduce the significant differences separating us from the regions of the Western European countries, in economic, social, cultural and civilization terms.

17. Airbus/Boeing WTO disputes (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the Airbus/Boeing WTO disputes by Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade (O-0033/2008 – B6-0155/2008).

  Helmuth Markov, author. − (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the trade dispute between the European Union and the United States about large aircraft is no ordinary controversy like others that are taken to the WTO for resolution. This dispute has led to by far the largest and most complicated proceedings that have ever been instituted. It involves an enormous conflict of interest.

The United States has criticised the way in which the EU and the Member States involved in the EADS consortium have subsidised the introduction of new large aircraft over the last 20 years. For its part, the EU has accused the United States of granting hidden subsidies to Boeing as part of defence and aerospace projects in which it is involved. We do not yet know which way the WTO Dispute Settlement Body will decide. I assume that the decision will be that both parties have violated applicable WTO rules. Whatever the outcome of the case, it is still possible to make some recommendations.

Firstly, perhaps it is time both Boeing and Airbus relied much more on their own resources instead of being able to fall back on comprehensive state subsidies, then keeping the support and profit for themselves but avoiding risk by means of the company structure. Better functioning and greater transparency in the aviation sector would certainly benefit all aspects of the industry and also customers.

This does not mean that large aircraft manufacturers should no longer receive any financial support at all. I should simply like to emphasise that a balanced, appropriate system is needed that does not favour the interests of large companies but also takes into account important issues such as, for example, the creation of jobs and the protection of the environment, together with the improvement of passenger safety.

Secondly, in this regard it is significant that, in 2007, thousands of Airbus employees lost their jobs as a result of a restructuring that, in my opinion, was not necessary – after years of huge profits for this European consortium. This is not an appropriate way for management to deal with crises, especially as it was not the employees who were at fault but the managers, who had failed dismally.

Third, the existence of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body is a considerable step forward in the international trade regime, because it delivers reliable directions in the event that differences of opinion arise from different interpretations of the Uruguay Round agreements. We shall also be given its decision, but is that enough of a solution?

Fourth, it is regrettable that the 1992 EU-US Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft was not sufficient to achieve a negotiated solution instead of a court ruling.

Fifth, the aviation industry is currently being confronted with new challenges. The economic crisis and the rise in the price of oil are having more drastic effects on the air transport system than we have ever experienced before. A solution must be found quickly, and perhaps it is time to start thinking about cooperation instead of confrontation.

Sixth, as far as matters of public procurement are concerned, my personal opinion is that it would be more appropriate not to include this important sector of the economy fully in the WTO system. In almost all national economies, public procurement is an important catalyst for economic development. Politicians must also have a certain degree of influence in some areas key to shaping the way society develops.

Seventh: it is time the United States and the EU came to an understanding that it must remain possible to take measures for political management of developments in the national economy, including the awarding of public contracts and financial support. In addition, however, there is a need for transparency mechanisms and democratic control to ensure that everyone keeps to the existing rules.

Eighth: the Boeing case shows us that a government should avoid becoming entrenched behind the argument of alleged national defence interests in order to support its own national industry, or rather the interests of a few strong lobby groups with which it is closely associated.

Ninth: this controversy represents more than just a dispute between the EU and the United States. This is yet another case in which those who portray themselves as the champions of free trade give in to protectionist national temptations out of self-interest. We should distance ourselves from both, because that kind of behaviour does not lead to better conditions for our citizens but only to discrimination and unfair competition based on dumping.

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to reply and answer the oral question on behalf of Commissioner Mandelson, who was not able to attend today because he is in the process of deep bilateral negotiations on the Doha Round.

The US case against European support for Airbus and the European case against US subsidies to Boeing are currently at the WTO Panel stage and the European legal position has been defended. We are now expecting the interim reports in both cases in the fall or winter. The next steps will be determined by the outcome of the dispute and by the underlying interests which led to it.

On the question of how this affects the ability of the industry to compete, we would like to say that we see no reason why the pending EU and US litigation in the WTO over support to Airbus and Boeing should affect the ability of European industry to compete fairly and in public procurement competitions with the United States.

Government procurement is about providing the best equipment, at the best value for the taxpayers, in the tanker procurement. The US Air Force has determined that the plane offered by Northrop Grumman and the EADS is superior to the Boeing and is the best tanker to meet its needs. The question of support for Airbus is immaterial in this assessment. The WTO litigation and the procurement have nothing to do with each other.

On the United States Government Accountability Office reactions, we would like to say that the US Air Force’s selection of the Northrop Grumman KC-45 remains in force. There is a misperception that Northrop Grumman and the EADS North America have somehow lost or that the Boeing award has been reversed. Northrop Grumman and EADS North America remain under contract, albeit under a stop-work order, which places on hold the work under contract.

The US Government Accountability Office reviewed the Air Force’s evaluation process, not the capabilities of the aircraft. There is no requirement or direction from the Accountability Office to recompete the previous contract award. The Air Force and Department of Defense have indicated that the KC-45 best meets the USAF’s requirements. The Accountability Office has requested the Air Force to respond regarding the steps it will take within 60 days of the 18 June announcement.

In general, the government support for aerospace meets the need that certain developments in the large civil aircraft industry require very high levels of investment. It is the Commission’s view that any government support for aerospace on both sides of the Atlantic has to be balanced, in order to ensure that the conditions of competition are not distorted. If this is the case, such support can contribute to innovation, increase safety and improve environmental performance and efficiencies in air transportation. It is in the interests of airlines and consumers, as well as governments, to maintain a high level of healthy competition in the aircraft sector.

On the prospects of the bilateral agreements of 1992, we would like to inform you that, despite several good-faith attempts to solve the dispute amicably over the past years, the differences between the two sides – the US and the EU – have proven too big. The US has denied there are any subsidies to Boeing while at the same time demanding that the EU put an end to European support to Airbus. On this basis it has not been possible to establish a fair and balanced basis for a negotiated settlement yet.

On 18 October 2007 Boeing publicly rejected Airbus’s offer to explore an amicable solution. We should also be aware that, with the current pre-electoral atmosphere in the US, it may not be easy at the present time to find a balanced settlement. We therefore do not expect that this dispute can be resolved in the near future, before the WTO has ruled on both the Airbus and Boeing cases.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the honourable Member of the European Parliament for his interest in and support for this cause, as demonstrated in the oral question and resolution provided to us.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Madam President, Euro-Atlantic economic relations are exceptionally important to both sides. Any commercial disputes should be settled by seeking transparent, balanced solutions.

In this case, the desired objective is to secure a fair hearing for both sides, and a balanced approach to state aid for the aircraft industry. This financial aid is particularly important for promoting research, innovation and environmental management, and for improving the safety and efficiency of air transport.

The unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the bilateral agreement of 1992 is cause for concern, since European state aid is fully in accordance with the letter and spirit of that agreement.

The European side is justified in considering the financial resources invested in Airbus to be limited in extent, returnable and without competitive impact, in contrast with the prohibited and actionable non-returnable US subsidies.

As you know, the Union has made substantial efforts to achieve a bona fide settlement of the matter on the basis of negotiation. However, it has not yet met with a response. The European Commission is therefore called upon to maintain a robust negotiating stance for a long-term settlement of the matter, under terms of legitimate, balanced competition.

The US demand for an end to subsidies to Airbus, as a condition for holding negotiations, falls outside an acceptable framework for settling the dispute.

  Erika Mann, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is only one reason why we wish to have a debate this evening and that is that the attacks from the American side, by both Boeing and many members of Congress, on the awarding of the contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS are very bitter and even go as far as to target individual Member States. That is the reason why we are holding a debate here and why there will also be a resolution, for which I am very thankful, because we in the committee have been trying for a long time to bring this resolution about.

The frustration is directed against the fact that Northrop Grumman/EADS presented a better offer, to which the US Air Force gave preference over a Boeing model in a public tender. That is the most natural thing in the world. We are dealing here with NATO partners and not with countries who do not work together regularly. We have the Transatlantic Partnership, which is reaffirmed at every summit meeting. In the three stated areas, Europe purchases four times as much from the Americans, and so, to that extent, we already have a very intensive mutual ‘partnership’.

There is absolutely no reason for the Americans to be frustrated, and that is what we want to make clear here. We do not need to go into the details again – I am very grateful that the Commissioner and Mr Papastamkos have already done that. It is essentially a political protest that we want to voice today – and which, by the way, repeatedly influences the WTO discussion on the American side, because comments are constantly being made. The US Air Force cannot be permitted to award a contract to, among others, a European consortium, at the same time as a WTO case is being decided. This makes it plain that the two issues are interwoven politically, but the Commissioner is absolutely right when she points out that, in reality, they are not connected.

I should like personally to thank the Commission and the Member States for repeatedly setting great store by getting the facts right. I should also like to thank my fellow Members for the fact that we are finally having this discussion and can present the resolution. I hope this means that the Americans will give us a good hearing.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, for some years now the market for the manufacture of large aircraft has been virtually bipolar. Airbus and Boeing rule the roost. For the last two years, though, we have been witnessing an investigation by the World Trade Organisation into the EU-US dispute over subsidies to these two heavyweight concerns. What is at stake here is a lot of money, and also – perhaps more importantly – ambitions to be leader in the field of state-of-the-art technology.

The United States is accusing Airbus of enjoying the advantage of large subsidies and beneficial credits from EU Member State governments. Meanwhile, from the European side, we also hear serious reservations regarding the vast amount of state aid given to Boeing in the form of tax breaks provided by the states of Illinois, Kansas and Washington, as well as aid from the army and NASA within the framework of public procurement.

We fear a Pyrrhic victory in this dispute. Both companies benefit from state aid of a debatable legitimacy. Let us not forget, however, that they are the world’s only manufacturers of large passenger aircraft. They compete with each other, but they must also cooperate if they are to make use of the best solutions in their designs and technologies. All this has to be to the benefit of passengers.

It seems to me that what is needed here is more partnership and amicable negotiations, as there is room for both Airbus and Boeing in the world market. According to my calculations, over 15 years the world will require some 36 000 modern, safe civil aircraft. Perhaps 1 500 of these will be of the large type. It is hard to say for sure who will come out on top, Boeing or Airbus, but let us also bear in mind that Russia is starting to feature in this market, and Russia too practises government subvention.

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, the WTO dispute between Airbus and Boeing is nothing more than a bad joke. The Americans are trying to oppose the superiority of Airbus by any means possible, even resorting to the courts. However, while Airbus has received repayable financing, Boeing is collapsing under the weight of funding from different countries, and particularly under the enormous weight of military research. This is why the Dreamliner is the most subsidised aeroplane in the world.

What is really behind the unfair competition in this case is the weak dollar. Unfortunately, the US is complicit in this matter with the European Central Bank. The real question, therefore, is whether or not Airbus will continue to design and manufacture its aircraft in the euro area. To say yes would mean the European Central Bank being at the beck and call of industry, rather than refinancing investment banks without any guarantee of repayment. To say yes would mean creating a sovereign European public fund, which would replace the private shareholders of EADS, who have shown their inability to develop a relevant industrial strategy, instead preferring to protect their dividends.

Replacing the A320 with an aircraft offering a 20% fuel saving will only be possible with the kind of investment that the shareholders are unwilling to make. Europe needs a strong EADS group that is 100% public-owned if it wants an industrial policy that is able to provide it with its own energy-efficient air transport.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, any fair-minded person who has followed the two cases at the WTO would really come to the conclusion that to use an English phrase ‘it is a six of one and half a dozen of the other’. For example, Boeing receives US Federal and State Government support exceeding the 1992 EU-US agreement; Boeing receives subsidies from NASA and the Department of Defense programmes; Boeing benefits from non-competitive military contracts at inflated prices and Boeing benefits from the US foreign sales corporation tax breaks, infringing WTO law. Opposite to that, the US complains that Airbus receives launch aid relating to R&D; it receives grants for development and production sites; it receives loans on preferential terms; it receives debt forgiveness relating to large civil aircraft production and development financing; it receives R&D grants directly benefiting Airbus and it complains that it receives illegal export subsidies.

On a positive side, many EU airlines continue to order Boeing aircraft and the US Department of Defense did award the contract in the first place to the EADS Northrop Grumman tanker. Those are positive signs. While both sides have cause for complaint, I am afraid that what we find in this question is naked anti-Americanism and a petty, little European mentality.

Airbus is cast as the angelic saviour of European skies while Boeing is the evil American company seeking to unfairly dominate global aviation. I sincerely hope that my group, the EPP, does not see fit to support this resolution since it would really show my group at its very worst – anti-American, protectionist and anti-competitive. Maybe we are allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by the French presidency, but please let’s not allow the initials EPP to stand for the European Protectionist Party.

  Kader Arif (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution that we are going to vote on makes a number of recommendations to the Commission, reminding it that, on behalf of the EU, it defends the interests of the Member States and of the European large civil aircraft industry.

In view of the fact that the US Congress has already supported Boeing on numerous occasions, and bearing in mind that the infringement of the tanker agreement undermines the position of the European aircraft manufacturer, the unflagging support of the European Union as a whole – the Member States, the Commission and Parliament – is more crucial than ever. This much we know. EADS has been widely criticised and doubts have been raised as regards both its seriousness and its reliability.

The Commission must reaffirm two things today: on the one hand, that Boeing’s appeal, in the context of the tanker procurement process, must in no way affect the quality of the proposal for the EADS/Northrop Grumman partnership, because only the selection process has been challenged by Boeing. A reversal of the US Air Force’s decision would be unacceptable. The Commission must be clear in making this point.

The Commission must also remember that the attacks on Airbus before the WTO are unjustified. Not only is the system of repayable financing beyond reproach because, by definition, it is repaid, but the position of the United States is all the more surprising, since US aid is incompatible with WTO rules and with the binding agreements between Europe and the United States.

To avoid a sterile confrontation that would undermine the industrial interests of the parties concerned and EU/US relations, which we have to improve, the only possible solution for the future is a negotiated one. This must be preceded by a preliminary phase in which both parties demonstrate their goodwill.

One final question: does the new situation influence the decision that might be made during settlement of this dispute?

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, I should like first to apologise on behalf of my colleague, Mr Sturdy, who has been delayed and cannot be here for the plenary session.

I should like to say in advance that both the United States and Europe – at least most of the Member States – are NATO partners. This is a conflict between groups that are on friendly terms. I would also say in advance that the United States and the EU signed an agreement on large civil aircraft in 1992. It actually functioned very well until the United States departed from the terms of the agreement by calling upon the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in 2004.

We know that, to a certain extent, State aid is common practice, particularly in this market for large commercial and military aircraft. Nevertheless, it is important that very strict controls and conditions be imposed on this State aid. The European Union has so far held strictly to these, and EADS Airbus, too, has paid back most of the subsidies or even paid back more than it received from public funds. We have documented this in detail. In contrast, the United States has still not come up with such documentation and it is not exactly clear to what extent Boeing has complied with these obligations.

Overall, I should like to say that, whilst the European Union naturally advocates free trade, this resolution should not result in us calling for anti-American rhetoric. It is important that we seek fair treatment for both partners, and I assume that the WTO body will take its decision in this spirit.

Straight anti-Americanism would be too narrow an approach, but we must still call upon the United States to keep to the rules that we all agreed upon.

  Glyn Ford (PSE). – Madam President, I will be supporting this resolution and the majority of the amendments that have been tabled to it, including those on behalf of my colleague Erika Mann.

In my constituency thousands of jobs depend on Airbus directly, particularly in the Filton area of Bristol, and of course across the United Kingdom and in the European Union tens of thousands of jobs depend on the success of Airbus.

I would have criticised Mr Kamall to his face for his approach, which is widely Eurosceptical and anti-European, but as he buggered off within about two minutes of speaking I will not have the opportunity to direct my criticism to himself. I hope it will be reported by one of his colleagues, who will tell him that normally we try and stay to the end of the debates we participate in, rather than call in, speak and then rush off to do your press release.

In 1992 there was an agreement between Boeing and Airbus – or rather between the European Union and the United States – to mutually desist from complaining, even though it was to the advantage of Boeing, who get direct subsidies from the US Government through NASA and the Department of Defense, whereas Airbus merely gets launch loans which have to be repaid with interest. Already EUR 7 billion have been repaid.

In 2004 the United States broke that agreement by referring the whole matter to the WTO. The union Unite and the management in the United Kingdom are united in insisting that we put as much pressure as possible on the United States over this matter.

The criticism from Boeing and from Congress needs to be resisted – and resisted strongly. If we are to lose our competitivity with respect to Airbus, leaving Boeing alone in the world with a monopoly position, then we will see a loss of contracts and a loss of jobs. A negotiated settlement is clearly the best solution and the best way forward – maybe 1992 plus. But, in its absence, we have no alternative but to vigorously defend our position and the interests of Europe’s economy, competitivity and jobs.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

  President. − I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 9 July 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Following the debate that we had on this issue of the Boeing complaint against Airbus before the WTO, and in response to the US Senate resolution on the same subject, I am pleased to see that we are today defending a resolution that will ensure the European Parliament’s support for Airbus.

Boeing’s complaint against Airbus seems to have more to do with commercial interests than with actual compliance issues relating to competition rules.

It was only when Airbus won a series of aircraft orders that Boeing filed a complaint with the WTO. The US aircraft manufacturer is also in violation of the 1992 bilateral agreement, since it received subsidies that were prohibited under this agreement.

Yes, Airbus also received subsidies, but these consisted of repayable financing allowed under the rules. Not only was this financing fully repaid, but Airbus also paid back 40% on top of the amount lent to it by EU governments.

I support the resolution that we will be voting on tomorrow. The European Parliament must call for a fair and swift end to the dispute while making a public show of support for Airbus.

(1) See Minutes.

18. Creation of a Roma fingerprints database in Italy (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on:

– the oral question to the Commission by Monica Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, on the creation of a Roma fingerprints database in Italy (O-0076/2008 – B6-0170/2008);

– the oral question to the Commission by Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on the creation of a Roma fingerprints database in Italy (O-0077/2008 – B6-0451/2008);

– the oral question to the Commission by Jan Marinus Wiersma, Claudio Fava, Kristian Vigenin, Gianni Pittella, Adrian Severin and Katalin Lévai, on behalf of the PSE Group, on the creation of a Roma fingerprints database in Italy (O-0078/2008 – B6-0452/2008);

– the oral question to the Commission by Viktória Mohácsi, Marco Cappato, Alexander Alvaro, Sophia in 't Veld, Sarah Ludford, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Adina-Ioana Vălean, Renate Weber and Gérard Deprez, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on the creation of a Roma fingerprints database in Italy (O-0080/2008 – B6-0453/2008).

  Monica Frassoni, author. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Minister Maroni has described this debate as grotesque but the reality is that today he has stopped swaggering like a cowboy and is trying to convince his European colleagues that it is all the fault of the press and the left, and that his sole aim is to do the right thing for the poor gypsies, shut in terrible camps and that with ethnic profiling it will be possible to make all Roma children go to school and that it is not necessary – nor does he wish – to criminalise all travellers. So this debate is grotesque.

However, I do not agree. I believe that this debate, and the attention that we have managed to attract, along with so many NGOs, and so many fellow Members of different nationalities – because this is not just an Italian issue – and so many people who are simply concerned about the situation of rights, is important, and is important precisely because we are holding it here, in Europe, and because we are talking about an issue of rights and of citizens and hence today this is also meant to be a small contribution to what is seen today as a crisis of meaning in Europe.

Europe has purpose: it has the purpose of checking cowboy attitudes and policies that are cruel and above all ineffective; it has the purpose of combating racism and discrimination, using the law and existing agreements born out of a bloody history. This debate has the purpose of confirming that there is no room for ethnic profiling in Europe: so much so that the Government seems to be doing an about-turn on this issue and we welcome that if it is the case. The debate also has the purpose of publicly and legitimately calling into question the need, in an advanced country of 58 million inhabitants, where the mafia controls EUR 120 billion and a huge turnover and whole areas of the territory, where refuse is killing off one of the richest provinces in the history of Europe, to declare a state of emergency appropriate to a tsunami or an earthquake for 12 months on account of the presence of 160 000 ‘travellers’, half of whom are Italian citizens.

We believe that this debate is important because with the threat of ethnic profiling and the constant criminalisation of the Roma and Sinti we shall no longer be safe. The efforts of those who work with the Roma and Sinti communities, to bring them out of a marginalised situation, one of poverty and violence to women and children – which is objective, which exists, which neither I nor any of us wish to deny – is at an impasse, and there is simply no way out if the situation remains as it is today.

Today we are discussing these issues, Mr President, for the third time in a few months. I hope that positive, amicable and constructive pressure, also represented in this debate, will convince those of my compatriots, and other European citizens, that trying to throw everybody out and using a violent, simplistic and racist approach to solve what is really a problem of exclusion, as well as an economic problem and also a problem with the culture of our country and our continent, that they will be convinced that that is not the right path.

I therefore invite you, Commissioner, to give a high profile to the Commission’s work, the work we are doing in Parliament, and also to the money that is being given for positive policies of this type, which today are little known, as they are hidden and swept aside by prejudice that is ingrained not only in Italy but also in Europe.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma, author. – (NL) We, too, are dismayed by the latest measures announced by the Italian Government to solve the ‘Roma problem’ in Italy. I think it a great shame that we are having to hold such a debate here today. I myself was rapporteur for the accession of Slovakia for years and had a great deal to do with the Roma issue. I always used to say: discrimination is inadmissible, it is quite simply prohibited: so say the rules and agreements of the European Union. The registration of Roma smacks strongly of discrimination, and this did not happen in Slovakia’s case. It is a shame that I am now having to conduct this debate on account of the actions of the government of an existing Member State.

The most recent package issued by Italian Minister of the Interior Roberto Maroni to tackle the ‘Roma emergency’, as the government is now calling it, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The creation of a database of fingerprints of Roma children runs counter to the EU’s fundamental principles of non-discrimination, equality before the law and protection of minorities.

This measure was announced even though the European Commission has not yet completed its evaluation of an earlier package of Italian measures. In May of this year, the Prefects of large cities were granted extraordinary powers to take action against illegal migrants and Roma, powers that raised eyebrows in our ranks even then. Therefore, I should like to call on the Italian Government to exercise great restraint in order to avoid overstepping the boundaries of what is permissible in Europe. I would urge it to abandon that measure: it has no place in the European Union.

The European Commission finds itself in a situation here that, to my knowledge, has never occurred before, and so we would ask it to scrutinise the measure closely. The Commission must take an objective position, look at the letter of the Treaty, and not let itself be swayed by political considerations. This approach and Italy’s are skimming the edges of the EU Treaty, and the Commission must make it crystal clear where the boundaries lie.

It should be made clear that the issue here is not just Italy, however. This latest episode is a further illustration of the need for a much more active policy to break the social and economic isolation of the Roma and combat discrimination against them.

Last Wednesday the Commission presented an overview of what is now possible with European instruments, for which I should like to express my thanks. As the Commission says, there is scope for Member States to make more and better use of the existing instruments to promote the integration of the Roma. I also expect the Commission to present the specific plans that were still lacking last week, however. Parliament also calls for this in various resolutions, most recently dating from January of this year.

If one thing has become clear, it is that we can no longer delay in truly taking the Roma and their position in Europe seriously. The Roma are a very special minority, which cannot be counted as a traditional minority. The issue is one that concerns the whole of Europe, particularly since the most recent enlargement rounds, as a result of which a great many Roma became EU citizens. When all is said and done, a policy of repression will not solve the problems of the Roma, nor the problems and tensions to which they sometimes give rise in our society. An integrated approach is important and, as I see it, the Italian Government’s approach to the problem is unacceptable.

  Viktória Mohácsi, author. − (HU) Mr President, Commissioner Špidla, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of June our Chairman, Graham Watson, and I sent a joint letter to the Commission, asking them to investigate the grave situation in Italy, and to take appropriate measures to condemn it if it infringes the principles or pledges of the European Union.

In connection with the events in Italy, several of my fellow Members will remind us of the injustices that have occurred recently, including the collection of fingerprints. I would much rather press for alternatives that are solutions, as my fellow Member, Mr Wiersma, has also stated.

I am very pleased with the communication that the Commission issued recently, and I am even more pleased that it deems the Roma problem and European integration of the Roma as a minority to be serious, and even more so that it deems it to be urgent.

I am unable to express how delighted I am about the creation of the new Horizontal Directive. In my opinion, the Horizontal Directive must bring together the elements that can correct the current legislation.

I am unable to emphasise enough in my speeches how important it is to declare segregation in schools to be discrimination in legislation, as laid down in the Race Directive 2000/43. Even so, this directive only says that discrimination in schools against groups of children that belong to a different race or ethnic group is prohibited.

This directive does not say that segregation and educational segregation are discrimination. We have a lot of evidence of this: this has been confirmed not only by civil society organisations, not only by the European Commission and not only by different opinions of the European Parliament, but even the Hungarian legislature has confirmed that this is discrimination. It would be very important to weigh up this important aspect and the recommendations of the so-called ‘Decade of Roma Inclusion’ relating to five Member States when creating the new Horizontal Directive, as the development of a European Roma strategy, and it would be effective from the perspective of integrating European Roma. Thank you.

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to Mrs Mohácsi and Mrs Frassoni, Mr Wiersma, Mr Catania and all Members for their questions. For the fourth time in this House, we have the opportunity to talk about the situation of the Roma in Italy. I believe that everyone in this House, across the political spectrum, will agree that the situation of the Roma needs to be resolved through immediate and appropriate measures to overcome the social, economic and humanitarian crisis. The Commission was alarmed to read in the press that the Italian authorities were taking fingerprints from people living in ‘nomads’ camps’ with which to create a database.

Meanwhile, the Italian authorities have provided the Commission with information on the general legal context. It seems that, under the terms of the state of emergency declared on 23 May, an Order dated 30 May authorised the Mayors of Rome, Naples and Milan to implement certain measures. These measures include ‘identifying and counting the people, including minors, present in the nomads’ camps’. It also states that the measures implemented by the Mayors must be ‘in accordance with the general principles of Community law and directives’. The Italian authorities state that these measures have been adopted in the interests of the people living in these camps, in particular so that they can live in dignified conditions.

The Commission appreciates the Italian authorities’ willingness to cooperate. This information is helpful, but there is still a lack of clarity with respect to the nature and real impact of the measures implemented by the Mayors. Fingerprints can only be taken and stored in a database within a legal framework in strict observance of Community regulations and basic rights. In this context, the Commission has requested clarification of the purpose of these activities, pointing out that their implementation must adhere to the principles of legality and proportionality. In order to be able to assess whether these principles are being observed, a key factor will be how the Italian measures are actually being implemented.

In order for the Commission to be able to obtain a more accurate picture of the legal framework within which these measures are proceeding, it decided to write to the Italian authorities to ask for additional information on this subject. On 7 July, the Italian authorities sent the Commission further information which will be analysed in detail.

The Commission is aware of the existence of social tension in Italy. In May, we discussed the situation of the Roma in Italy and other countries in this House. The Commission emphasised at that time that it is impossible to ignore the real problems of poverty and social exclusion faced by the Roma in Italy and other countries. It also underlined that this situation results in human suffering and social tension.

In order to respond to this situation, we must combat criminality and find real solutions to the problems facing the Roma, especially Roma children who are the first victims of poverty and social exclusion. The Roma need to be helped, not stigmatised. This is why the Commission, in its report adopted last week, emphasised that the European Union, Member States and civil society must join forces to ensure effective coordination of their efforts.

To conclude, the Commission, in particular Vice-President Jacques Barrot, continues to be in regular contact with the Italian authorities who have undertaken to provide a full report on this subject by the end of July. The Commission will also continue to assess how Member States have transposed Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 into their national law and how they are applying it in practice.

I firmly believe that the Italian Government has the will to implement a policy aimed at social inclusion while fully observing basic rights and Community law.

  Edit Bauer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the European People’s Party Group and my colleague Mrs Járóka, who unfortunately was not able to be here, I would like to say the following. For decades civil society organisations and sociologists have tried to draw attention to the extremely difficult living conditions of Roma living in the European Union, whose numbers and ratios have grown since the enlargement of 2007.

In order to resolve the situation, it is not an immigration policy that is needed but rather programmes that promote social inclusion. It is important that we put the discrimination and social exclusion that afflict the Roma on the agenda, and indeed it is unacceptable that the oppression suffered by European Roma as a consequence of several centuries of exclusion, marginalisation and rejection by the political elite of all ages should again be a tool in the party political battle.

This conflicts with the interests of the Roma, it conflicts with the interests of non-Roma and of Europe, and it greatly undermines the authority of the European Parliament if it adopts its opinions on the basis of unverified rumours and assumptions.

For many months the situation in Italy has remained bad, and indeed instead of encouraging real action, the parties are creating hysteria and use the Roma issue for their own short-term, self-serving interests, and it is easy for them to do so since the Roma civil society organisations are too weak to protest against or oppose it. When the Interior Minister of the Prodi government, Giuliano Amato, expressly spoke about the Roma emergency, my esteemed Socialist and Liberal colleagues unfortunately did not protest.

I would like to state that what is currently happening in Italy is not an ethnic matter, and we must act against injustice, from whomever it comes. Thank you very much for your attention.

  President. − Before giving the floor to Mr Pittella, I must ask the Members who are displaying T-shirts – and I must stress, not wearing them but displaying T-shirts like flags or banners – to remove them, because our Rules of Procedure are quite clear: Annex 16 to Rule 146 explicitly states that they cannot be tolerated in this way. I ask them to remove them, otherwise I will be obliged to have the ushers remove them, or worse, suspend the sitting. I therefore ask Members please to remove immediately the T-shirts that are being displayed as if they were posters. That includes Mr Ferrari.

  Gianni Pittella, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a Minister of the Interior of a European country may not describe a debate in the European Parliament as grotesque. It is a statement that undermines the dignity of the European Parliament. We are not happy about a measure of the Italian Government having to be appraised in this house. For us, Europe is not the scapegoat for all national problems, nor is it the gendarme having to keep watch over the Prime Minister of Italy.

We believe, even when we are in opposition in our country, that it is right to uphold and defend in international circles the sound choices that Italy makes. The Italian Government and the Interior Minister should, however, have looked for other means, fully in line with European standards, and informed the European Commission beforehand rather than late in the day.

We have been endeavouring to tackle the Roma issue for years: exploitation of minors, begging, racketeering, robbery and other pathological phenomena. But the solution is not ethnic profiling, but rather a specific policy that brings together the three pillars of citizenship, decency and security. The identification of Roma children and not them alone is a guarantee for those involved and essential for combating racketeering and trafficking in minors, but it may not be done on an ethnic basis using invasive methods such as fingerprinting.

We are grateful to Commissioner Špidla for his commitment to give a European response to a major European issue and we ask him to speak clearly about the measures adopted by the Italian Government and to report to the European Parliament. It is surprising that the third millennium, which should have heralded the dawn of a new era for citizens’ rights, has in fact descended to the depths of cultural regression. Let the European institution itself stand up against rampant conformism, in defence of the values of decency that Europe represents in the world.

  Marco Cappato, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as you have said, the Italian Government will send full details of the measure by the end of the month. However, there is another point to consider before that, namely the state of emergency: the European institutions need to look at this point. Firstly, when a state of emergency is declared, in cases like this, the Council of Europe has to be informed first. This does not appear to have been done. We would ask you whether you have been informed and whether this was done.

A state of emergency is justified by natural disasters or catastrophes or events of that kind. However, it is possible to define – earlier our fellow Member said ‘measures previously proposed by Minister Amato’ – but this is certainly true, let us be clear: the mismanagement of the Roma question is not peculiar to the Berlusconi Government; it is the legacy of years, of decades of mismanagement of the issue. For that very reason it is unthinkable, intolerable, today to declare a state of emergency when it is no such thing. The state of emergency that we have today, if you will, is the absence of legality and democracy in a country such as Italy, which is the country most condemned before the European Court of Human Rights. That is the emergency: you cannot declare a ‘Roma emergency’ when no such emergency exists.

There is a need to manage a problem. It should be managed by acceptance, by integration, investing resources in it rather than wasting them as is being done by failing to use European funds properly, rather than relying on the illusion of biometric technology to conceal the Government’s inability to deal with a problem like this.

  Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, digital fingerprints are a modern version of Nazi methods to distinguish gypsies from other citizens. The digital fingerprints database is the most brutal revival of racism since 1940-1945 – for the fingerprints are a state-authorised first step to facilitate mass evictions of an ethnic group. Most of the Roma who are legally crossing the borders of an increasingly borderless Europe are poor and badly educated. What they basically need is a place to stay. Poverty should be solved on the spot, not by evictions, and let us keep in mind that Roma are the largest minority in Europe – not less than 19 Member States have a population smaller than the European Roma community.

During Communism, Roma had jobs and free access to health care and education; after Communism their living standards dropped. But the poverty was a fertile soil for fund-raising. The gypsy industry emerged; NGOs like Oxfam and CARE made big money as executors of projects. But Roma hardly benefited, and moved to the West as soon as they were allowed to. Pushed by the Council of Ministers to examine policies to improve Roma inclusion, the Commission admits the urgency of this in a document of 2 July. It refers to the European Parliament resolution for a European framework strategy and it recognises its role as a coordinator – finally! In the document, under the heading ‘Lessons learned’, I read ‘For effective Roma inclusion, the full involvement of civil society and in particular Roma NGOs is a factor for success.’ Roma have become partners! I hope we will soon see how this will be feasible within a structure of the Commission itself.

Meanwhile I strongly advise the Commission to study the OSCE action plan. Why reinvent the wheel? Finally, I call upon the Commission to make clear to the Italian Government that fascist rule is in contradiction with EU law, and that Roma victims who lost their property should be compensated. Once Italy exported fashion; nowadays it exports racism.

  Roberta Angelilli, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate gives me the opportunity to put some questions to the left, which has had the clever idea of using the European Parliament, for the umpteenth time, to pass judgment in a totally inappropriate, specious and premature manner on the application of an Italian act that is still at the preparatory stage.

First question, then: where was the left, which has governed in Italy for decades, when these illegal camps were set up and proliferated in conditions totally lacking in the most basic health and safety standards? I would also like to ask you if your silence over all these years does not bear you down, like a ball and chain, fashioned of indifference and hypocrisy, of looking the other way, when you obviously had no eyes – nor much political interest – to see that dozens of children were dying of cold or burns every year because of the lack of safety in these shanty towns.

Perhaps you are not even interested to know that in Rome, where nearly 7 000 minors live, millions of euros have been earmarked for schooling: wasted schooling, since last year only 25% of these children regularly attended school. Who knows whether you know or pretend not to know that this schooling was entrusted, almost as a monopoly, to a few associations that were motivated not so much by the best interests of minors as by the availability of public money.

I uphold the right of the Roma people to have a census, as happens regularly for all Italian citizens, because the census guarantees the right to health, social inclusion and integration into the school system. I also uphold the right of the Roma community to identity checks. Obviously there are no plans for any widespread measure: anyone whose papers are in order will not be checked. However, a child who is not registered at birth or who has no recognisable identity, becomes an invisible child, easy prey for any kind of exploitation: organ trafficking, illegal adoption, sexual exploitation and under-age working. This applies to all minors living in Italy: Italians, and EU and non-EU citizens alike.

Finally, a few words about the title of your oral questions. Not only does the act make no mention of ethnic groups, but there are no plans for a specific database, especially not a Roma fingerprints database. Better proposals are always welcome of course: we are open to constructive proposals. However, we will not be lectured by anyone who year after year has failed to lift a finger to resolve a serious social emergency.

  Vittorio Agnoletto, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was exactly seventy years ago, on 14 July 1938, that the fascist regime in Italy enacted the Decree on race, falling into line with the German race laws. We know our history: more than 500 000 Roma were killed in the death camps. Then too, it all began with a census.

In Italy we are witnessing a full-blown profiling of all Roma, including children, who are being fingerprinted, and including Community citizens and even Italian citizens, despite the fact that their details are already registered. The questionnaire used in Naples, Mr Angelilli, contains questions about religion and ethnic origin and is very similar to the one used by the Vichy Republic under the Nazi occupation. In Milan, they made a file on an old Roma, an Italian citizen, a survivor of deportation to the Nazi death camps. What use will be made of these data?

Now in the Italian Parliament, chairing the Committee for Children – in total indifference and silence – is Alessandra Mussolini, the Duce’s granddaughter, a coincidence that reinforces the symbolic link between the present and a past that we thought was definitively dead and buried in Italy and in Europe, yet is rearing its ugly head again today.

While history is not repeating itself, there is no doubt that the Italian Government has set in motion racist procedures that clearly run counter to Directives 2000/43/EC and 2004/38/EC. I call on Parliament to approve this resolution, condemning the Italian Government, and on the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against Italy as a matter of urgency.

  Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt: it is clear that the Italian far left now runs this Parliament in practice. Following a bad practice that is now established, the parliamentarians of the far left and the Greens keep using the Strasbourg Chamber as a vehicle to attack the Italian Government.

Swept aside from the national political scene by last April’s popular vote, the Socialist and Liberal parties find a stage for amplifying their national lies. Together they are attacking a legitimate government of a great and strongly pro-European Member State, chosen and supported by 60% of Italians. Then we are surprised at the results from Ireland!

All this business, Mr President, Commissioner Špidla, concerns matters falling within the national sphere, not the EU’s competence. Yet the Italian Government has at all times provided the Commission with any explanations it has received. I urge you, Commissioner, to pay a little less attention to the newspapers and more to the documents that the Italian Government officially forwards.

The acts do not relate to the Roma, nor to fingerprinting; they are about non-EU citizens and travellers, some of whom have for some time been featuring in the Italian crime reports. We need to be clear about people’s identity in order to allow them to have access to schools, social welfare, health care and housing. The acts make no reference to ethnic origin, they are not acts of indefinite duration, they do not concern the whole national territory but relate to three specific cases only.

The serious problem of the lack of identity documents was raised even by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe on 19-20 June. The aim is to carry out identification surveys authorised and required in many States and throughout Europe for travel documents and residence permits, and includes descriptive, photographic, fingerprinting and anthropometric systems. It has the support of the Italian judiciary, especially the part that concerns minors; it is being implemented in cooperation with the Italian Red Cross, and so on.

I could go on, but to my fellow Member I would like to say that I would never have dreamed of talking of racism in relation to her country. I would like to remind her that Italy has been exporting culture for the past 3 000 years and continues to do so, and that at the time an advanced civilisation was established in Italy, as we see today, people in many other countries were still living in primitive conditions.

  Adrian Severin (PSE). – Mr President, this is the fourth time in the last few months that we have spoken on the same issue. The results are modest, as modest as is the attendance in this Chamber tonight. This is, perhaps, a shocking thing per se and a matter of concern.

Roma people are a pan-European ethno-cultural community which does not have a nation state. Roma were already present in Europe when the European nation states were established. Those states kept them in misery, when not in slavery, or sent them to concentration camps.

The European Union enlargement was the last act of Roma liberation. Roma are today European citizens. Perhaps they are in absolute terms the truest European citizens because they are only Europeans. Their cultural, social and economic integration is a European challenge.

Therefore we must communitarise the Roma policy. A strategy which only makes recommendations to the states, leaving them the ultimate choice and the ultimate responsibilities, simply does not work.

On the other hand, what we are seeing today in Italy is the ugliest face of the dangerous phenomenon of the renationalisation of Europe. It is the national populist expression of this phenomenon. The Italians do indeed have the right not to be afraid, but for any Italian citizen the present racist policy of its government is most frightening.

Today fingerprints; tomorrow forced work; the day after tomorrow concentration camps – and then not just for Roma but for any other alliance.

We have asked the Commission to check the conformity of the Italian legislation with European Union standards. Nothing has been done. The checking was postponed in order to wait for the legislation to be adopted. Now the situation is worse. We must take action and use the instruments provided by the Treaties in order to stop these dangerous racial developments in Italy, thus discouraging similar approaches elsewhere.

We must not wait for another holocaust before we organise new referendums to support European integration.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Mr President, today we have yet another debate in Parliament on the way Italy deals with the Roma population. This time the flavour of the month, proposed by the Italian Government, is no less than calling a state of emergency, taking a census of the Roma population, and fingerprinting them before expelling them.

Today I again find myself calling on the Commission and the Council to react. Enough promises: now we want to see the Council and the Commission take concrete action to make Italy comply with EU laws and values. We need an evaluation of the implementation of the EU Anti-Discrimination Directive as we are doing for the Free Movement Directive. We must enforce the integrated approach and speed up the implementation of the EU Roma strategy.

We have all the instruments available but it seems that when it comes to defending civil liberties versus security there is a certain shyness in applying them.

It has been one year now since Italy started devising disproportionate and shocking security measures tainted with brown populism. Now brown seems to be turning to black.

Are they really going to hunt Roma down in Italian streets? Will Europe continue watching as a silent accomplice?

  Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a serious matter that for reasons to do purely with Italian politics we are unable to have a calm examination of the measures required. It has been said that no state of emergency has been declared. It seems to me in fact that the Prodi Government, by means of measures prepared by Minister Amato, had declared an emergency and the need to take measures relating to the Roma. The present Italian Government has not done this, as it is merely carrying out a census. This is what the letters say that have been submitted to and examined by the European Commission, which could do no more than acknowledge the truth of this, because political speculation is of one colour, while the truth has another. It is more substantial.

The measures concern everyone. Maybe someone here is pretending not to know, yet perhaps knowing the truth, that in the travellers’ camps there are minors who are phantoms: they have no identity – and is it not a human right to have an identity? They have no vaccinations, are unable to go to school, even if they wanted to, because they are prevented from doing so and instead are trafficked as we know only too well.

No database has been set up. There are very clear and specific rules stating that no database may be used unless it complies with the rules on privacy. This is not a record that anyone will have access to: the data are collected only in case of need. When the judges took down the data in the minors courts, it was considered standard practice.

In the end, the Government wisely decided to have the act implemented by the Italian Red Cross. It is not the SS who go into the camps, but the Italian Red Cross, known throughout the world for its competence and sensitivity in helping the marginalised and persecuted all over the world.

  Umberto Guidoni (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ethnic profiling of a population: that is basically what this proposal to fingerprint the Roma, including minors, is about.

This initiative of the Italian Government recalls dark times, and tragic policies that Europe has seen in the past and that we would have preferred to consign to the history books for ever. It is a hateful act that violates human rights and the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Interior Minister demonstrates that he does not even know the European directives when he claims that the act is in line with Regulation (EC) No 380/2008 in requiring all non-EU citizens to be fingerprinted. But the Roma who live in Italy, especially the minors, are almost all Italian or at least EU citizens.

So if the problem we wish to solve is the inhumane conditions in the camps, the children obliged to live with rats, as the Minister says, he should explain to us how fingerprinting can solve the problem, as even the Prefect of Rome has said that it is unnecessary. If it is really concerned about minors’ living conditions, the Italian Government should take action to ensure proper health conditions in the camps, to foster social inclusion and integration, and to promote schooling and entry into working life. Racial profiling of an ethnic minority, on the other hand, is liable to jeopardise the future of minors and compromise any prospect of integration and, paradoxically, to criminalise the victims.

The far left does not say what I am saying. I finish by quoting Famiglia Cristiana: ‘Today with digital fingerprints, the police state shows its harshest face to Roma children, who are Italian citizens after all. Why,’ wonders the paper, ‘is there not the same determination to fight real crime in vast areas of the country? Maybe because there is less political capital to be made from it?’

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – (RO) The situation of minority groups in Romania was one of the intensely debated subjects during the period of accession negotiations.

Regarding the Roma people, the Romanian authorities prepared an integration strategy approved and monitored by the European Commission. This strategy comprises a series of actions, especially in the field of education and access to the labour market, entirely complying with the European standards.

As of 2004, some of the Roma population has travelled to other European Union countries, according to the principle of free movement. I do not contest that some of them have infringed the laws of the countries to which they travelled. They must answer before the law for their actions.

Nevertheless, I believe that what has been requested from Romania should be requested from any other Member State from now on: coherent integration programmes based on the European principles. These programmes should completely avoid discriminatory actions, such as the recent fingerprinting decision adopted by the Italian Government or force actions that could affect honest citizens.

This type of attitudes may create – and I am afraid that this has already happened – a negative, undeserved, image of other European Community citizens who live and work in Italy and whom the communities in which they live appreciate.

I request the French presidency to take into consideration all these aspects and include on its half-year agenda a real European policy for the integration of Roma people. I request the Commission to present systematically information regarding the situation of the Roma, reflecting the concrete steps taken for integration, social inclusion, the ways in which the European funds have been used and the results achieved.

On this occasion, I also address the non-governmental organizations representing the Roma population and I request them to inform and encourage the citizens whose interests they defend, to use as efficiently as possible the instruments provided until present by the European Union and the Member States.

  Kristian Vigenin (PSE). – (BG) Mr. President, Commissioner, the united action of different political groups in defence of human rights and dignity are an example of the maturity of our parliament. I express regret that the EPP group did not join the common draft resolution, but it has the chance to support it by vote. We cannot simply observe how lines considered insurmountable after World War II are crossed.

The Italian government plan to establish a database with biometric data for Roma is yet another provocative measure after Berlusconi's return to power. I would just like to recall his statements that immigrants are an army of evil, as well as the decision to criminalize illegal immigration. It shows total failure to understand the problem and channelling efforts into an entirely erroneous direction. This plan treats Roma in a way which, instead of supporting integration, actually destroys the opportunities for that and practically seeks solution in isolation and segregation, creates anti-Roma attitudes, increases the fears of the public. And we all saw to what that leads. Remember the recent events in Rome and Naples. To try to put out a fire with gasoline means that one either intentionally wants a larger fire or that one is not aware of what one is doing.

Roma are the largest majority in Europe and probably the most discriminated one. In most of the cases, Roma do not have access to adequate health care, public services, schools, work. Dealing with these problems is an all-European challenge and to this day no country has succeeded alone. Italy will not succeed either. That is why the solution should be sought in cooperation between local and national authorities, with coordination and support at European level. That is why it is necessary for the European Commission to develop a clearer and financially supported policy towards Roma. This plan destroys fundamental principles of the European Union and stands in contradiction of Article 12 and Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. As a guardian of the Treaty, the European Commission should act uncompromisingly in the case of their violation by any member-state.

In conclusion I would like only to recall that the policy of Roma integration was one of the key issues by which the readiness of my country to become a member of the European Union was assessed. I ask, Commissioner, how would you have reacted if Bulgaria had applied the Italian plan in respect to its Roma? And if today you declare the Italian policy acceptable, what do you think the effect from your position regarding immigration policy will be in Bulgaria?

  Gianluca Susta (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I honestly would have preferred not to have witnessed this afternoon’s debate. The belated about-turn by Minister Maroni, who is fanning the flames of racism in Italy while trying to put them out in Europe, like an amateur fireman facing an irritated Commissioner Barrot, is the only really grotesque situation that we are seeing at the moment in Europe.

In Italy, the Roma emergency is mainly against the Roma, Mrs Angelilli, in Rome, Naples and also Milan. Of course, there is a widespread demand for security because the Government is faced with general delinquency, as in other European countries, and is not responding with adequate resources, manpower or policies for repressing and preventing social ills, from which so many Mafiosi and petty criminals draw their lifeblood.

We cannot tolerate that the post-electoral need to reassure the discontented fringes of the majority should compromise 60 years of constitutional freedom. Europe cannot and must not tolerate this.

(Protests)

  President. − I am sorry, Mr Susta. What is going on? In this House we do not allow any kind of intimidation of other Members. Please leave the Chamber.

  Gianluca Susta (ALDE). – (IT) Europe cannot and must not tolerate discrimination against people on account of their ethnicity. That is why we in Europe, we in this Parliament that has been termed grotesque, must be vigilant to ensure that equality between citizens is guaranteed, perhaps even using the same means for everyone in the census already planned for next year, and guaranteeing especially for minors and the poor, regardless of their ethnicity, the right to education, health, dignity, that they are entitled to as human beings, never mind citizens.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, human rights are indivisible. Membership of an ethnic group cannot be grounds for discrimination any more than skin colour, sex, religion, sexual preference or anything else. That is a fundamental achievement of our common system of European law. However, part of the self-image and identity of this common system of law is that we take equality before the law seriously, and that means that we have general legislation on matters of social support, schooling, the labour market and fighting crime, and that we apply them – without discrimination. Determining a person’s identity is a precondition for many of these policies. Commissioner Špidla rightly referred to this legal aspect of what is sometimes called the ‘Roma problem’. He also said that he does not want to do whatever the press calls for, but instead require the Italian Government to provide clarification. That is the correct way to proceed.

As well as the legal side to all this, there is the human suffering. Many Roma – and therefore many children – live in abject poverty, are not integrated and have little or no opportunity to get ahead in our society. Help is indicated here. In my home city, Graz, vigorous discussion about Roma begging, and a discussion with the Roma about how people can escape from this difficult situation or at least make the best of it, have been ongoing for years. One of the solutions is for the citizens of Graz to finance jobs in Slovakia, in the countries that these Roma come from: in this way at least many children are saved from begging and from the street. We have to do more – we shall do more!

There is one final problem concerning the Roma, and it relates to us. It is a problem of politics. This topic, these people and their suffering is potentially the stuff of politics, populist politics on the ground and – as our debate here also shows – sadly also of European populism.

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, the gypsies, who are one of the most ancient people groups in Europe, deserve the attention of the European Union, which they have not received up until now. What is being applied in Italy at the moment is of course intolerable and we strongly reject it, as it is legislation based on race that criminalises a particular ethnic group.

However, we must make it clear that it is not enough to stop this practice as if by stopping what we are now criticising, we would be solving the problem. No! The fact is, and this is something that we need to condemn, that behind it there are serious social problems, which have been neglected for too long by some governments and ignored by the European Commission itself, which had the power to react to them.

We need a European policy, along with commitments, resources, initiatives and measures that match up to what we are dealing with. The Commission needs to be proactive in terms of the social integration of the Roma people, of the gypsies. There are positive examples in the whole of Europe (in Spain, for example, in the field of education). They do exist, but we still have problems to resolve.

We have all spent many hours talking about European citizenship, and it is time to realise that that citizenship applies to all, irrespective of race.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is being used as if it were the third chamber of the Italian national parliament, for a discussion based on inaccurate newspaper reports. The Commission is still looking into the matter and will present a report on the Government’s initiative by the end of the month.

Meanwhile, the Italian Government has not infringed anyone’s rights, especially not those of minorities or children, and Minister Maroni has already stated and guaranteed several times that no database is being set up but rather that all the data will be processed in full compliance with personal data protection rules. Moreover, the measure will be a temporary one and hence will be used for a very limited period only. Minister Maroni has also confirmed that the census of travellers and minors living in the travellers’ camps is taking place in full compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and is aimed at carrying out schooling and integration programmes for children and adolescents, already provided for in the civil protection acts.

I very much regret that once again the various forces of the left should bring to the European Parliament a controversy that is entirely within the Italian sphere. I am convinced that many things should have been done sooner. The challenge is on. The emergency is real and has been acknowledged by many Members who have spoken, but it was not acknowledged by the governments that preceded the Berlusconi administration, or by many large municipalities. So, at the end of the month we will see the Commission’s report and we will then see how opportunistic the left’s position is. Friends of the left, you started too early and did not do a very good job with the little information at your disposal.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I am not Italian and I am not a lefty, so, when I am asked by Mr Zappalà and Mrs Angelilli to accept that the intentions of the Italian emergency decree are benign, just to make sure that the Roma community gets appropriate public services, I think I am entitled to beg to doubt this, given the populist and nasty political rhetoric that has surrounded this issue in recent weeks. The fingerprinting of Roma people only is discriminatory and surely illegal – have we forgotten the history of Nazi and fascist racial persecution?

I think Commissioner Špidla showed a reasonable degree of commitment to pursuing discriminatory treatment, and I hope he sees it through: he would redeem the Commission’s reputation from the example of Franco Frattini, who merely weeks ago was exhorting us to observe justice and equality and is now an apologist for prejudice. We need a European Roma strategy with funds attached to improve the status, education and integration of Roma people, rather than marginalising and stigmatising them. If we can have a common agricultural policy surely we can have a common policy for the Roma.

  Carlo Casini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the modern human rights culture places more emphasis on being human than being a citizen. It is a principle that requires foreigners, stateless persons and travellers to be treated as people equal to citizens as regards their basic human dignity, which requires a special solidarity towards the weakest, namely children in particular.

However, this sensitivity is not a valid excuse to turn the European Parliament into a stage to make the most absurd of accusations, namely racism, against a national government which declares – at least this is the context of the documents we are talking about – that it is taking charge not only of public order but also of the defence of children, with reference to some nomadic communities in situations of special emergency.

The answer to the questions submitted can be found simply by reading the acts adopted by the Italian Government, limited as has already been said to three regions out of twenty. You may be surprised to learn that the words ‘Roma’ and ‘fingerprints’ are not in these documents. It is not true, therefore, that there is express provision to register everyone of a particular race; neither is it true that a military census regime is to be introduced. The discretionary powers granted to the police commissioners must take account of the humanitarian and welfare profiles and be aimed – at least this is the declared intention – at human promotion, integration, especially of minors, with particular attention to schooling.

Of course there could also be reason to fear that the measures in question might be implemented with military or repressive means. It is therefore right to hope, but in a spirit of close cooperation, that priority will be given to positive action and action for support, reception, integration, especially in relation to minors, notwithstanding the duty of every public institution to enforce the law. It is unreasonable to expect more.

  Fabio Ciani (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry for what happened earlier but I certainly had no intention of intimidating my fellow Member, and I offer my apologies to her. However, since she claimed that we did not know what we were talking about, I wanted to give an example of a registration card which I will read out here.

This is a registration card, not rumour: ‘Police Commissioner for the emergency and settlements of travellers’ communities in the Campania Region: census, central office for milk, family, surname, forename, date of birth, religion, ethnic origin’. ‘Religion and ethnic origin’ means racism. It runs counter to everything in Regulation (EC) No 2034/2004, and when identification by fingerprinting is justified by reference to Regulation (EC) No 380/2008, I would point out that that Regulation relates only to third-country nationals. However, in the Italian Roma camps, three quarters of the Roma are Romanians and the others are Italian Roma and Sinti citizens.

We must safeguard the lives and futures of the Roma and their minors, especially those at risk of deviancy and abandonment, but not discredit or throw suspicion on a whole community, and avoid arousing anti-gypsy sentiment. There is a very high risk of that in Italy.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) I should like to make just a short statement on the situation of the Roma which has been discussed here.

I come from a country, Slovakia, where we recently made the Roma language a codified language, a normal minority language, and where there is full access to health care and full access to education. Whether Roma children attend school or take full advantage of all the opportunities is another matter.

Thanks to social security benefits, this minority is developing dynamically and it is one of the most dynamically developing minorities as regards numbers in Slovakia. There are multi-million programmes for integration and the resolution of housing issues. I believe that the Italian Government is in a similar situation and is seeking solidarity for the poor, children and adolescents and of course also wishes to maintain the public order needed to protect children and adolescents. Of course, the matter of fingerprinting is something which, I believe, goes beyond the pale.

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, much of what has been said is true, but much is also false. There are three things we must hold to. Firstly, randomly selecting groups of people in order to collect personal information about them is unlawful, both generally and under the Italian Constitution. Secondly, this means that protective measures taken for children, such as Roma children, must be taken within the framework of the legislation in force in the European Union and in Italy. Thirdly, Italy’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini phoned me an hour ago to tell me that he wants to indicate – at least to my group – that Minister for the Interior Roberto Maroni has met Commissioner Barrot in Cannes. I know that a meeting with Mr Deprez, the Chair of the competent committee, also took place there.

By means of Mr Frattini’s phone call and of statements by Mr Maroni, the Italian Government has signified that it does not want to take any legislative measures that contravene European legal standards in any way. Commissioner Špidla, I assume, therefore, that you will make contact with Commissioner Barrot when he returns from Cannes, and I would ask you please to report to Parliament immediately afterwards, because the Italian Government has apparently understood that the initiatives it has taken so far are not compatible with European law. If it is now drawing the correct conclusions from that, I find this a very welcome development.

(Applause)

  Gérard Deprez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as Chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, this morning I happened to be in Cannes, where an Informal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting was taking place. While I was there, I had the chance to discuss matters with Mr Marroni. It was obvious that we did not agree, but this is not why I asked to speak. I am speaking in response to statements made by some of my Italian fellow Members, who say that this is Italy’s business and no one else’s, and that we are making unfounded accusations against the Italian Government. This is not true.

From the conversation I had with Mr Marroni, it emerged very clearly that the people targeted by the new instrument include Community nationals who should have freedom of movement; this is my first point.

The second point is that the new instrument, while having the power to suspend the application of certain Italian laws, is not exempt from European law and European directives. It is expressly provided in Italian law, which is why I asked Mr Marroni, ‘Minister, would you be happy if a delegation from the European Parliament went to Italy to conduct a quiet appraisal of the situation, meet with all parties and report back to the European Parliament?’ He had no objections and he agreed.

This means that trying to give credence to the story that this is only an Italian affair … I am sorry, but that is a bit much. If all goes well, what are you afraid of?

(Applause)

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not need long, it was just about Commissioner Špidla’s answer to our question. I would like, if possible, because today I found him a little general, evasive and to a certain extent perhaps a little contradictory in his answer – I suppose he must have received some news that in part has been confirmed by the Members who spoke before me – I would like to ask you, Commissioner, if this is the case, to let us have that news and to allow us all to see it.

  Roberto Fiore (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you that public opinion in Italy is perfectly well aware of what is going on in the Roma camps. The Roma camps and the Roma communities are illegal and immoral. While among civilised Christian European peoples, women and children are regarded as people to be protected and defended, in the Roma communities they are often willingly subject to exploitation, and led into crime and prostitution.

The Italian Government therefore has the duty, even while awaiting these people’s expulsion, to take action to guarantee justice and protection for the women and children and, by means of the census, to prevent crime spreading to the whole community, and especially children being persecuted or being victims of paedophilia or led into crime.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). – Mr President, I think it is absolutely unacceptable to tolerate Nazi speeches in this House!

  Vladimír Špidla, Member of the Commission. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, as regards fingerprinting, concentrating on a single ethnic group, whether directly or indirectly, is quite clearly unacceptable in the eyes of European law. The Data Protection Directive lays down some very strict rules and I think that it has emerged from the debate, which has been very wide-ranging and very complicated, that the situation is developing very rapidly. I therefore of course accept the invitation of some Members of Parliament and, following discussion with my colleague Jacques Barrot, I shall recommend that he keeps Parliament directly informed of the latest developments in the situation.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday 10 July 2008.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Petru Filip (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) When discussing about the control over an ethnic minority group belonging to the EU area, we undertake a great but necessary responsibility at the EU level.

This issue of fingerprinting an ethnic group falls under the competence of the European Parliament and we should firmly decide that the EU countries be subordinated to the European legislation in this field.

Why should the fingerprinting of the Roma ethnic group not lead to a decision regarding the fingerprinting of all the European citizens as well? Thus, we come to see the need for the technical and practical development of a European citizenship, materialized by a unique electronic European identity.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The measure of fingerprinting the citizens of Roma origin does not comply either with the European legislation or with any other act guaranteeing human rights in Europe.

For supporting this measure, Directive 380 of 28 April 2008 was invoked, which provides for the possibility to fingerprint third country citizens. Nevertheless, I emphasize the fact that this act refers only to countries that are not part of the European Union area; therefore, the measure cannot be justified in this way.

Fundamentally, Directive 2004/38 guarantees the free movement of all EU Member States citizens, no matter their ethnic origin. Consequently, the infringement proceeding can be initiated against Italy and the European Commission should inform about the illegal nature of the measure provided under the Italian ordinance for civil protection.

There are already positions of certain international institutions against this measure. The Council of Europe has firmly condemned the fingerprinting initiative. I think it is time for the European Parliament to take a stand and firmly respond to this situation.

  Mihaela Popa (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) In the context of another debate in the European Parliament plenary on the situation of Roma in Italy, I would like to call attention to an aspect that I consider essential for the action of integrating the Roma communities.

I refer to education, a field that transcends borders, an essential aspect, if we take into consideration the nomadic nature of the Roma people.

The experience I have had in the educational field has proven the fact that education at an early age can change people’s mentalities, behaviour and attitudes.

In Italy, as well as in other European countries where Roma people live there need to be lifelong educational and learning programmes developed, which shall promote the specific habits, traditions and crafts of this ethnic group, in a manner that would make them proud of their membership in it.

From my point of view, the education of Roma people should represent a priority in the European Union, representing the democratic way to integrate this ethnic group and, primarily, the young people.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The population of Roma origin, wherever they are in the EU Member States, must be treated with the respect that all the European citizens deserve.

The cost of the absence of action at European and national level as regards the economic, social and cultural integration of the Roma population has become ever more obvious. It is time that the member States, the European Commission and Council adopt and implement concrete programmes for their insertion.

I firmly reject the action that the Italian Government has taken, namely to fingerprint people of Roma origin. I request the European Parliament, Council and the European Commission to adopt a clear action to reject this measure of a racial nature and request its annulment by the Italian Government.

19. Common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings - Food additives - Flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties - Food enzymes (debate)

  President. − The next item is the joint debate on the following recommendations for second reading on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety:

– (A6-0179/2008) on the common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (16673/2/2007 - C6-0138/2008 - 2006/0143(COD)) (Rapporteur: Mrs Westlund);

– (A6-0180/2008) on food additives (16675/2/2007 - C6-0141/2008 - 2006/0145(COD)) (Rapporteur: Mrs Westlund);

– (A6-0177/2008) on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1576/89 and (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 and Directive 2000/13/EC (16677/3/2007 - C6-0139/2008 - 2006/0147(COD)) – (Rapporteur: Mrs Drčar Murko);

– (A6-0176/2008) on food enzymes and amending Council Directive 83/417/EEC, Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, Directive 2000/13/EC, Council Directive 2001/112/EC and Regulation (EC) No 258/97, (16676/1/2007 - C6-0140/2008 - 2006/0144(COD)) (Rapporteur: Mrs Doyle).

  Åsa Westlund, rapporteur. − (SV) Mr President, I want to begin by thanking the Commission, Commissioner Vassiliou and her always helpful staff, the Slovenian Presidency, the Council of Ministers, my fellow rapporteurs, Avril Doyle and Mojca Drčar Murko, and of course the shadow rapporteurs from all the parties for excellent cooperation over the years we have worked on these matters.

I am glad that we have now settled on a compromise which brings simplification for the industry and at the same time strengthens consumer protection in a number of areas. Previously, for example, allergy sufferers were not even mentioned in the legislation. They will be if we approve the compromise tomorrow; it will then be easier in future to take account of how allergy sufferers are affected by additives.

I am also proud that we from Parliament have secured three crucial changes to the new rules. The first relates to so-called azo dyes. These are found, for example, in soft drinks and sweets, despite the fact that it has been shown scientifically that certain azo dyes can render children hyperactive. It was therefore important to me and to Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to get these substances banned. We did not succeed in this because the Member States are strongly opposed to both a ban and special labelling. Despite this opposition we did at least get a commitment that food containing these azo dye substances would be accompanied by a clear warning text.

The second change relates to the environmental effect of additives. An example of the potential of additives to affect the environment is the sweetener sucralose. Sucralose has been found to pass straight through the body and is not treated in our sewage systems. If the compromise is adopted, it will be clear that we have to take the environment into account when we make decisions on additives.

The third change relates to nanotechnology. Under the compromise, if an additive which has already been approved is altered by nanotechnology, it must be counted as a new additive and must be subjected to a new approval procedure.

As regards the regulation on the common authorisation procedure, firstly I welcome the fact that we are now to get such a common procedure. Secondly, it was important to ensure that EFSA is given sufficient time for its evaluations of various substances.

The Greens have tabled an amendment to ban azo dyes, which thus goes against the compromise with the Council on additives. By doing so they put at risk all the improvements mentioned, including a special warning text for azo dyes. I would like to have seen a ban, but it is not possible to get it accepted by the Council of Ministers. I am therefore minded to vote against a ban, since otherwise we risk not getting either a ban or a warning text, which would really not be in the interests of children.

Finally I urge all Members here in the Chamber to support the compromise tomorrow and vote against all other amendments.

  Mojca Drčar Murko, rapporteur. − Mr President, flavourings are defined as the addition of odour or taste to meals and are mostly a mixture of a large number of aromatic preparations.

The European Parliament insisted on amendments which it believed would be the basis for a balanced and enforceable regulation taking into account scientific and technological developments. It is known that the Council and Parliament took a different stance on the issue of herbs and spices. Parliament believed that it has not yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt that prepared food in which certain undesirable compounds are naturally present has the same toxicological potential as when they are tested in isolation. Herbs and spices have been used since time immemorial without known adverse effects.

As the rapporteur, I was not seeking complete exemptions for herbs and spices from the limits set out in Annex III. Appropriate exemptions were requested to be granted only where scientific evidence is not complete and, therefore, possibly the situation is not yet mature enough to be harmonised at European level.

The second-reading compromise consisted, therefore, of appropriate guarantees given for some herbs and spices that exempted them from limits set out in Annex III. This helps to maintain the limits as proposed by the Council: 4 out of 11 purified active principles and in respect of some 30 out of 40 food categories. This is the most that could have been achieved and I, therefore, ask the European Parliament to vote for it.

As an individual MEP, however, I still have some concerns that I hope the Commission will take care of during the implementation stage. The compromise in the footnote does not apply when herbs and spices appear together with flavourings in compound food. The unintended effect of this could be that the food industry would move away from herbs and spices because extracts and flavourings are much easier to standardise. Due to the varying levels of active principles in herbs and spices, food manufacturers would have to vary their recipes on a batch-by-batch basis, and this would be very costly. The herbs and spices industry could even be wiped off the European market.

This must not happen because European consumers do not want such a limitation on their right to choose as well as for reasons of public health. The consumer would in this case paradoxically consume higher levels of flavourings, which, according to the so-called purification hierarchy, are closer to the undesirable active principles than herbs and spices. I would appreciate it if the Commissioner could reassure me that possible negative developments will be properly monitored and stopped if necessary.

  Pilar Ayuso, deputising for the rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, I am going to speak on behalf of the rapporteur, Mrs Doyle. I apologise on her behalf that she is unable to be here, as she is currently on the way to Strasbourg. Mrs Doyle welcomes the compromise with the Council on this Food Improvement Agents package, which is so essential.

Enzymes are added to food to perform a wide range of technological functions in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packaging, transport or storage of such food. They are most commonly used in baking, beer making, cheese production and the production of alcohol and other beverages. They play an increasingly important role in food production and can be used as an alternative to chemicals in improving the texture, appearance, nutritional value and taste of food. They also help in certain production processes.

This proposal is, in fact, the first specific European Union legislation aimed at food enzymes. There are currently no harmonised rules at Community level controlling the use of enzymes, which not only creates obstacles to trade and a lack of legal certainty, but also different consumer protection standards in the 27 Member States. Only three Member States have their own risk assessment procedures: the United Kingdom, France and Denmark.

Under the new legislation, which we will vote on tomorrow, harmonised rules will be established in the European Union for assessing, approving and controlling the enzymes used in food.

The rapporteur thinks that all of this is very important, as food safety will be improved and consumer choice will be increased, and consumers will have more information on what is in the food they eat.

She particularly welcomes the fact that the Council has agreed that the two authorisation procedures for any substance produced from genetically modified organisms may be carried out simultaneously, thus avoiding double authorisation of these products.

She is also very pleased that the Council has agreed to Parliament’s wish to have a single legal basis, namely Article 95 of the EC Treaty, on the internal market, in accordance with the amendment tabled by her at first reading. It is also particularly helpful for the industry that the Council has provided a one-year transition period from the date of entry into force of the proposed Regulation, during which time food that is legally marketed or labelled that year may be sold up until a minimum storage life or the expiry date.

To conclude, the rapporteur would like to thank her colleagues for their support and cooperation, in particular Mrs Westlund and Mrs Drčar Murko and all the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the Slovenian Presidency, for their hard work. We have successfully coordinated four proposals for legislation and we will therefore improve the single market in this field, which promotes European innovation and competitiveness, at the same time ensuring a high level of food safety and environmental protection.

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would first like to thank Parliament, and especially the three rapporteurs – Mrs Drčar Murko, Mrs Doyle and Mrs Westlund – for the considerable efforts they have made and the time they devoted to this important legislative package. In particular, I appreciate the efforts to keep the proposals together as a package, therefore achieving a consistent approach on these similar cases.

This legislative package makes an important contribution to the Commission’s simplification programme. It provides for harmonisation within the respective fields and also promotes consistency between the three areas. The common authorisation procedure will establish a system for assessing and authorising additives, enzymes and flavourings in a consistent manner.

This is of major importance for consumer safety and the competitiveness of the food industry. The operators would, in particular, benefit fully from the advantage of a centralised, transparent and time-limited procedure.

In relation to the proposal on food additives, the regulation of such substances is important to ensure the safety of food and also to ensure that the consumer is not misled. These criteria, along with the evidence of technological need for the use of food additives, are important prerequisites for the use of food additives. Although these principles are established in the current legislation, I welcome the changes and additional clarifications that have been introduced to strengthen these important aspects. It is also a requirement that the legislation is kept up to date in the light of scientific and technological developments.

In this regard I can, in particular, support the amendments which have been introduced following EFSA’s evaluation of the results of the Southampton study. These will require labelling of the possible adverse effects on children’s behaviour which has been associated with certain food colours. This labelling will ensure that adequate information is provided to consumers who may wish to avoid these colours.

During the discussions on this proposal, there has also been some concern about the possible allergenic effects of some food colours which are commonly referred to as ‘azo colours’. Specific procedures and legislation apply to potentially allergenic foods and I can, therefore, state very clearly that the Commission will request the European Food Safety Authority to explicitly address the potential allergenic effects of azo colours during the re-evaluation of these food additives. If necessary as a result of this re-evaluation the Commission will consider taking appropriate action to amend Annex III, part A, to European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC to provide adequate information to consumers suffering from food allergies.

In relation to enzymes, enzymes have been used traditionally in the production of foods such as bread, cheese, beer and wine. Enzymes can improve the texture, the appearance and the nutritional value of food, and can be used as alternatives to chemical-based technology. Up until now, the legislation on food enzymes has not been fully harmonised in the EU and, as a consequence, this lack of harmonisation has created barriers to trade and hindered growth in this field.

The successful conclusion of this proposed regulation will bridge the current regulatory gap by creating harmonised rules for the scientific evaluation, authorisation and use of food enzymes in the Community.

I would like to welcome the changes that strengthen the precautionary principle and the criterion of not misleading the consumer, which are underlying principles of the proposed regulation. I also welcome the change that clarifies further the interplay between the regulation on enzymes and the GM food and feed legislation.

In relation to flavourings, the proposal offers high protection for the consumer while allowing the industry to continue to develop new flavourings and new applications, in order to respond to the increasing consumer demand for more convenient foods. The framework will enable the European industry to maintain and consolidate its leading position in the global market.

Flavourings are used to impart or modify odour and/or taste of foods for the benefit of the consumer. The use of flavourings should not mislead the consumer about the nature or quality of his or her food. The new rules for the labelling of flavourings will indeed better inform the consumer and help to avoid the consumer being mislead.

During the discussions, there were differences of view on the need to include spices and herbs in the scope of the regulation. The Commission welcomes the agreement that has been found which will improve consumer protection and at the same time takes into the account possible impact on traditional uses.

I have listened carefully to Mrs Drčar Murko and I wish to assure her and also confirm that from the entry into force of the regulation the Commission will carefully monitor, based on information provided by the Member States, the development in the respective use of spices and herbs and natural flavouring extracts. With this information, and taking into account the latest scientific developments with respect to toxicological concern and consumer exposure, it will, if appropriate, propose amendments to Annex III, part B.

  Pilar Ayuso, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I am now speaking on my own behalf, and I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Drčar Murko, on the hard work that she has done, and the other shadow rapporteurs as well as the Slovenian Presidency and the Commission, for being prepared to negotiate in order to reach an agreement at second reading on this report. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs for the other reports in the package, Mrs Westlund and Mrs Doyle, as well as the shadow rapporteurs, for their help and collaboration in seeking solutions to the horizontal problems raised by these proposals.

The most controversial subject that has been raised in this proposal on flavourings, from the start of the debate, has been the biologically active principles that are naturally present in herbs and spices, which posed a major problem for herb and spice producers, as they found that they were unable to comply with the requirements of the proposal, given the special nature of their products: different harvesting locations, times of the year in which they were harvested, eating habits in the various countries, etc.

Regarding this aspect, I would like to say that what the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has been aiming for since the start has been consumer protection. I therefore think that it is positive that an agreement has been reached with the Council and the Commission that the maximum levels shall not apply to certain substances where a compound food contains no added flavourings and the only food ingredients with flavouring properties which have been added are fresh, dried or frozen herbs and spices.

To conclude, I would like to welcome the fact that these proposals for legislation on the Food Improvement Agents package are going to be voted on tomorrow, because not only will they bring the legislation up to date but it will also be possible to assess the risks of marketing flavourings, which will provide a great deal of protection for European consumers.

  Edite Estrela, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, and on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her work, for trying to find a consensus with the shadow rapporteurs and for the efforts made to try to reach the desired agreement between the parties.

The proposal for a Regulation on flavourings aims to clarify and update the rules on the use of flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties taking into account technological and scientific progress in the area of flavouring, developments in food legislation in the European Union and, at the same time, human health protection requirements.

The Regulation lays down the general conditions for the use of flavourings or food ingredients with flavouring properties, it includes a clear definition of flavourings, general rules for their use, rules on labelling and maximum levels for substances that pose a risk to human health. The compromise reached in this second reading process is the result of cooperation between the Commission, the Council and Parliament. Several meetings have been held, the more controversial points have been negotiated and there have been concessions from all sides. The agreement nevertheless reflects the principles of various amendments put forward by Parliament, which take into account two key objectives: informing consumers and protecting their interests, as well as protecting public health.

Flavourings and flavouring substances must be safe and their use should not mislead consumers. In this context, the new legislation lays down maximum levels for certain substances in flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties that are potentially toxic and of risk to human health, taking the European Food Safety Authority’s scientific opinions into consideration. These maximum levels do not apply to three substances: estragole, safrole and methyleugenol, when present in compound foods to which no flavourings have been added and only food ingredients with flavouring properties in the form of herbs and/or spices have been added. Nevertheless, this exception shall be reviewed should scientific evidence come to light proving that their consumption carries health risks.

The notion of natural is still confusing for consumers but the new proposal for labelling natural flavourings does correspond more effectively to consumers’ expectations as use of the term natural is limited to flavourings obtained from natural flavouring substances where at least 95% of the flavouring component must be obtained from the natural source referred to.

  Mojca Drčar Murko, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, as regards the regulation on additives, my group welcomed the proposal to modernise and harmonise European legislation and supported the rapporteur Mrs Westlund in her efforts to secure sustainable protection of consumers and their health, in particular the vulnerable groups of the population.

It is a fact of life that food manufacturers respond to the growing demand by steady development of new products, and their diversification is achieved mostly by adding additives. The legislation on foods should be proportionate and balanced while serving public health and guaranteeing a level playing field for food producers.

This principle is simple, but obviously there are many interpretations of it. Where can we achieve a substantial gain in terms of public health but at the same time not hamper the technological development of European food production?

We agreed on sound amendments I think – aiming to safeguard the interests of consumers, in particular with exact labelling – but we wanted to contribute to raising consumer awareness too. I am convinced that informed, attentive consumers can influence very much the production of prepared food in the European Union. We supported the amendments aimed at strengthening the Commission’s proposal, particularly on three points: involvement in the authorisation procedure of additives, transparency of the authorisation procedure and specific conditions for authorisation.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, our voters want good, safe food they can trust. Will they get it with these regulations? Parliament has succeeded in getting some improvements accepted. What I am personally very pleased about is that nanotechnology, in particular, will finally be regulated and can no longer be slipped onto the market without proper vetting. The inclusion of the environment as one of the criteria for the approval of additives is an improvement. The fact that the presence of azo dyes must be shown on labels is an improvement. So there are things to be glad about. Moreover, on the point of flavourings, Parliament has succeeded in ensuring that naturally flavoured products will not be completely disadvantaged in favour of the products of the artificial flavourings industry.

Despite this, I am surprised that the Council goes against the wishes of its voters. How can our governments actively oppose a text which says that additives must not mislead consumers into thinking that a food contains ingredients other than those it actually does? How can they actively oppose that? The ministers actively oppose the notion that there must be a special reason for using dyes in otherwise colourless substances. The Council of Ministers actively opposed a ban on azo dyes. They actively opposed a requirement that product labels must show that pesticides used as preservatives are included, so that the consumers would be aware of the fact.

I think that if we approve the proposal for the Greens for a ban on azo dyes in products for children, we shall force the Council out into the open to defend its position in the public debate. After all, it is easy for the Council to stick to its position on such matters when it negotiates with us behind closed doors, but what government will stand up and approve additives which we know lead to hyperactivity in children and which we have good reason to believe gives rise to allergies in children? I wonder whether the Commission could not go straight for a ban. Dyes are after all hardly essential and irreplaceable additives. Besides, there are dyes other than azo dyes. If we insist on applying the precautionary principle, as soon as EFSA has shown that there are allergy risks and a heightened risk of allergy, then all we have to do is to ban it. After that, we no longer need to discuss azo dyes.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) I should like to start by expressing my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation on the devil of a job this has been. The end result may not be entirely as I should have liked, but I believe it represents the best that could be achieved in these political conditions.

As I see it, two things take precedence in all these dossiers: maximum consumer protection and complete transparency. As far as I am concerned, economic interests are entirely secondary to these two key concepts. Maximum consumer protection means systematic application of the precautionary principle. If it is not known with 100% certainty that something is safe, market authorisation should not be granted. Misleading the consumer at the time of purchase must also be prevented at all costs. Maximum transparency means that we do not yield to pressure from food multinationals to keep their formulae and production methods secret. Consumers have a right to know exactly what is in their food and the conditions under which it has been produced.

Assessing the four reports in the light of these two principles, I note that, even though they are not always perfect, they represent a clear improvement on the original proposals. They benefit consumer protection and transparency, and therefore I shall be supporting the compromises. It is a shame we were not able to also regulate GM labelling directly.

I should like to add one more thing by way of conclusion. I think it most extraordinary that, in new proposals such as novel foods, the Commission is launching the uniform procedure even before this has Parliament’s approval. This does not strike me as showing very great respect for European democracy, to put it mildly.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) I should first of all like to mention the work of Mrs Doyle and to thank her for her attempt to produce a balanced document, intended mainly to protect citizens’ health.

Food enzymes are contained in many products consumed every day at every level of society, such as rolls and bread. It is therefore very important to monitor their production. It is also very important to ensure that they are harmless to health and to harmonise such control throughout the European Union.

It is very important to gain the confidence of citizens of the European Union in the preparation of European directives, especially in a period when Europe is being shaken by the scandal of ‘rotting cheese recycling’. In order to prevent another such situation, we must concentrate not only on the preparation of a directive, but above all on monitoring its implementation in the various Member States. Since we know that up to 80% of food enzymes are manufactured by four companies, I think that quality control of production should not be a problem. Production methods, however, may become a problem and I therefore believe that Mrs Doyle’s report is right to draw attention to this key problem.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, at a time when yet another food scandal is erupting in some EU Member States, even if it is doubtless due to fraud on a massive scale, it is no wonder that the consumer is questioning and expressing doubts regarding anything that might seem ‘artificial’. The Europe that offers protection also guarantees consumer safety and public health.

Food additives, flavourings and enzymes play an important role in the manufacture of our food. This is why we need clear, harmonised rules regarding the safety, authorisation and sale of these substances in order to protect consumers and above all increase public confidence in the food produced using these substances. It is important, therefore, that the rules are based on reliable scientific opinion.

We also need to fill the legal void that has always existed at European level when it comes to enzymes, which are used in the manufacture of bread or dairy produce, for example. I am delighted to see that additional safeguards have therefore been introduced to ensure transparency through clear and more comprehensible labelling. This is particularly important where these products are also said to be ‘natural’.

A key aspect of the draft legislation lies in the introduction of a single common authorisation procedure for food additives, flavourings and enzymes, with a safety assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority for all of these, which are certainly being used increasingly in the food industry.

Of course, Parliament will be watching to see that these substances are monitored. Under no circumstances should food additives endanger the health of consumers or mislead them, because it is absolutely essential that we guarantee consumer protection and food safety while at the same time maintaining the innovativeness and competitiveness of the food industry.

  Linda McAvan (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to talk to the Commissioner about one of the reports on food additives, and in particularly about the food colourings known as azo dyes. I am extremely pleased that we have some very good news: from now on they will have to be labelled on all food products. I want to congratulate Åsa Westlund, who has worked very hard to get this. When she started out on this work, nobody was suggesting there could be such progress, and yet we have got progress. It is a real improvement on the status quo. But I do not think it goes far enough.

You will be aware I am sure of the study by Southampton University last Autumn which shows a link between the behaviour of children who are fed a cocktail of different sweets and soft drinks and azo dyes. It is a very serious study; it was published in The Lancet. It is peer-reviewed and it is so serious that the United Kingdom, through its Standards Agency, has now called for a ban on these colourings in food products. Many companies in Europe are voting with their feet and are actually phasing them out voluntarily.

The single market is failing on this issue already. It is quite well known that these products have no dietary value, and there are natural flavourings available. I saw something in one of our newspapers asking: ‘Do we need an end to Smarties?’ (these are very brightly coloured sweets), but there are perfectly good natural alternatives to those colourings available. We do not need to have these colourings.

We welcome what has happened today but hope you will keep working with the European Food Safety Authority to speed up its work on reviewing these substances. I do not think people in Europe want these artificial colourings, and I think we should be looking more at what people need to have in their food, not what companies want to add. I hope you will push the EFSA to work more quickly and to get a resolution to this problem.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, I wish to speak about the food enzymes proposal on which I was a shadow rapporteur. In that respect I would like to offer my congratulations to Mrs Doyle – and I hope she gets here safely from Ireland tonight – for an excellent report.

I also wish to express my thanks for the very good cooperation afforded to the shadow rapporteurs, a cooperation which was always conducted in a spirit of understanding, an effective exchange of political as well as adequate scientific wisdom.

This cooperation was good enough to produce a much-desired compromise which has widespread support across the political groups of this House, and which I believe contains many eminently sensible parameters which will strengthen the piece of legislation under consideration, and will make it much more effective and more easily applicable.

With this compromise package in mind, I think that the objective of the proposed regulation – which, as is well known, is to harmonise legislation controlling the use of enzymes in food processing in the EU, with the primary aim of protecting human health but also secondarily to promote fair trade and competition – will be very largely achieved.

We are particularly pleased that the precautionary principle, which is held in sacred regard not just by my group of MEPs but by the large majority of MEPs in Parliament in general, features prominently in this report, and this should make European consumers feel that much is being done to secure the protection of their health as regards enzymes in food.

Additionally, special emphasis is placed on guaranteeing that the information given to the consumer is precise and useful.

As expected, the issue of GMO involvement has been an area of some controversy. However, a sufficient compromise has been reached.

In concluding, I wish to say that this is a good report and my group will strongly support it.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, we talk a great deal here about protecting children. Evidence abounds to suggest that artificial flavourings and supplements are detrimental to the health of children on many counts. Firstly, we can consider the 435% increase we have seen in the rates of children with autism in the last 15 years and the rates of ADHD, which currently affects 3-5% of children. Then we can consider the symptoms attributed to flavourings, of which there are so many, but let us take as an example MSG, which is found in children’s sweets, drinks, snacks and dinners. There are 92 symptoms, but among them are hyperactivity and mood irregularities.

As a mother myself, my primary concern in food is safety and transparency. I feel that we are seriously compromising children and their ability to learn when we allow cocktails of colourings, preservatives and additives into their food. Children need good fresh food, grown as locally and naturally as possible. Therefore, let us really begin to protect children.

  Anja Weisgerber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks to all the rapporteurs, especially Mrs Drčar Murko and Mrs Ayuso, for their constructive cooperation and trust. The Food Improvement Agents package will lead to uniform, harmonised rules on the use of additives becoming applicable throughout Europe. In the future, too, when additives, enzymes and flavourings are used in food, there will be a high level of consumer health protection – which is the way it should be.

The package adapts the current legislation to the technical and scientific developments in the area of food additives. Where there is a scientific basis that indicates health risks, threshold values must be set so as to prevent all hazards.

However, we must not become hysterical or incite unwarranted panic. There are food additives such as konjac, a humectant, and beeswax, an anti-caking agent, which have been used in the preparation of food and drink for centuries. In addition, certain stone fruits such as cherries, peaches and apricots naturally contain small amounts of hydrocyanic acid, yet we have been eating these fruits for thousands of years without any problems. Similarly, some herbs and spices naturally contain substances which, in high concentrations, can cause health problems. Yet we have been using herbs and spices such as basil, tarragon and nutmeg in the preparation of our food since the year dot without any problems, but only in small, safe doses, of course.

I therefore welcome the compromise in the new Regulation on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods. Where there is no cause for concern, exceptions are made to the threshold values, although only when exclusively fresh or dried herbs are used for food preparation. This way, we promote the use of natural products and natural ingredients, so that recipes with thousands of years of history, such as Italian pesto, will be maintained into the future.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – (HU) I welcome the fact that, after the REACH regulation and the regulation of pesticides, we are turning to the regulation of the use of frequently condemned chemical substances and food additives.

The effect of the increasing number of scandals has been that European public opinion is thinking about these substances, which are suspicious for consumers, with ever greater concern. An average person consumes approximately 3 kg of the roughly 2 600 different additives with E numbers each year, without being clear about their harmful effects.

There have already been some well-founded accusations relating to a significant proportion of additives. Additives create a false impression in consumers and give foods vivid, bright colours that are not found in nature. In addition to this health risk, they also cause psychological damage to children, accustoming them to unnatural foods when it is precisely a return to natural foods that we must make more popular among young people and adults alike.

I would like to congratulate Mrs Westlund on her report; what she has managed to achieve is that, under the new legislation, additives that are harmful to human health and to the environment may no longer be used in future. It is important that hazardous substances like the azo food colourings that cause hyperactivity in childhood at least be marked on foods, although I also agree with my fellow Members that we should have adopted a ban.

I do, however, regret the fact that, despite the recommendation of the Parliament, additives containing GMOs need not be marked strictly. A large part of the European population does not want to consume foods containing GMOs, and according to the polls 90% of them expect to know whether or not a given food contains GMOs. We cannot neglect our citizens’ healthy concern and right to information to this extent.

By the way, a few of my colleagues and I are protesting in a statement that the Commission wants to introduce new GMOs to Europe by stealth. We must protect everyone’s right to natural, healthy foods.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we owe our thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Westlund. She worked with a great deal of commitment and very cooperatively. I welcome this, and it means we can also be happy with the result. I believe that the new Regulation on food additives has achieved a satisfactory result for both manufacturers and consumers.

The current legislation on food additives is almost 20 years old. With the transfer of new directives and two decisions into two regulations, the text has been simplified and updated in accordance with new technological and scientific developments. It is a very good achievement to have a positive list that clearly states which substances can be used. I believe this is a good thing, and I am also in agreement with the use of the comitology procedure when new substances have to be added. We should act quickly here.

I am satisfied with the rules on GM products. We need both authorisation procedures – there will be assessments – and so I do not see why we should not proceed accordingly here, as some Members have said. Granted, thinking about azo dyes – the results of the Southampton study are indeed available – we also have to take note of the fact that the European Food Safety Authority has developed a study that has published an initial verdict in which it clearly states that the Southampton University study is not infallible. It is not 100% reliable. We must not become hysterical and start striking out because a procedure has been instituted.

The licensing procedure via the Food Safety Authority is excellent, but what bothers me – and here I should like to ask the Commission to have a rethink – is that we are giving the Food Safety Authority nine months for authorisation or risk analysis. The Commission also needs nine months to take a risk management decision. A business must therefore wait 18 months before receiving permission to place the product on the market. This is a long way from bureaucracy reduction, so we really ought to put some thought into how it could be done more quickly.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the entry into force of new regulations concerning the principles for the use of artificial additives (enzymes, flavourings) in food products not only unifies legislation in this area, but also supports consumer health protection and facilitates food sales within the European Union. Harmonisation of enzyme use in the EU has the backing of the European food industry, which is concerned not only with the unification of principles, but also, above all, that consumers do not lose faith in their products.

As one such consumer, I would like to be sure that the food I buy is safe. The hundreds of artificial additives and the thousands of flavourings added to foods must not harm our health. Quality requirements must ensure that safety is fully maintained. It is important for foods to retain their natural character to the greatest possible extent.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, there are three issues in this debate to which I would like to draw attention.

Firstly, support must be given to the European Commission in its efforts to unify the procedures for issuing permits to use food additives – enzymes and flavourings – in the European Union, and particularly to increase the transparency of these procedures.

Secondly, the procedures for issuing permits must be directed towards maximum protection of consumer health. The consumer should be convinced that both European and national institutions are on the alert to provide him or her with maximum health protection and that, thanks to their functioning, he or she is getting healthy food that is as natural and safe as it can be.

Thirdly and finally, the principles of fully informing the consumer about the additives contained in food must be observed. Information on this subject must be clearly marked on the pack, and also drawn up in language that is clear and comprehensible to the consumer.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I should very much like you to support the proposals put forward by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, because we want a ban on azo dyes. European consumer policy is characterised by safety, but also by the application of the precautionary principle. Without a ban, the precautionary principle would be trampled underfoot. Furthermore, there is technically no need for azo dyes because alternatives exist. This therefore amounts to deceiving the consumer; it leads people to believe something that is not really the case.

I would urge you again to take this alarming study seriously and really apply the precautionary principle – which, after all, we have enshrined in European law. I would also urge you once more to also close the labelling gap for additives manufactured using genetic technology – we are currently trying to close the labelling gap for GM products of animal origin, and it would be downright ludicrous if we did not take this opportunity.

What we need is a well-rounded authorisation procedure that takes due account of the precautionary principle but has no labelling gaps, and in which consumers have the right to make a free choice about what they eat.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) I appreciate the efforts of the rapporteur to achieve greater transparency in the process of approving food additives, flavourings and enzymes and to strengthen consumer protection, especially for those who are allergic to certain substances.

Food additives should be constantly monitored and reassessed on the basis of changing conditions of use and new scientific information. Many of them are manufactured from chemicals and, in long-term use, may have a negative effect on health. It is therefore very important to mark the products in a way which is clear and obvious to consumers. This involves consumer products and there may be consequences associated with inadequate or no product marking.

I should also like to stress my view that, for example, genetically modified foodstuffs should be clearly and legibly marked, as in Canada for example where they consume canola or rape seed oil.

  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I welcome the successful conclusion of this package of proposals and hope that Parliament will support the compromise proposal tomorrow. More importantly, this package will strengthen consumer protection and food safety. I particularly note some of the difficult issues which have been discussed and appreciate the desire to find a compromise. In this respect I would like to express once again my thanks to the three rapporteurs for their hard work and for the very good cooperation that they had with the Commission in order to reach this compromise proposal.

In particular, I would like to thank Mrs Westlund for her efforts in relation to the colourings. She knows very well that the Commission supported her proposals. We have reached a compromise proposal, but I assure you we will not remain complacent. We have already asked the EFSA to re-evaluate all their authorised additives, and if the EFSA’s opinion indicates that direction we will not be hesitant in applying new rules regarding these additives.

I would like to say this in general as well because, as I said, the EFSA re-evaluates all the substances. If at any time for any substance the position of the EFSA indicates that there is any risk to human health, we will not hesitate in making use of our prerogative and push for an amendment.

There was a question regarding enzymes and the GM Food and Feed Regulation. If an enzyme is extracted from a genetically-modified organism which is covered by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, its GM origin will be indicated on the label. However, the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 excludes food, including enzymes produced by fermentation using genetically-modified micro-organisms. The purpose of this proposal is to catch these enzymes for the safety assessment authorisation, but not for specific GM labelling.

Mention was made regarding the period of nine months given to the Commission to make its risk management. The proposal provides for nine months for the Commission to present a proposal to the standing committee for an opinion. This is the maximum time proposed and of course in many cases proposals for updating the list will be presented in a shorter time. However, there are cases, notably for food additives, where nine months will be necessary for the Commission to consult Member States and all relevant stakeholders on various matters. This can only be achieved if adequate time is available for the stakeholders to respond, so I think that a maximum of nine months is not an exaggerated period.

I would like to end by thanking you once again for your cooperation and I look forward to the adoption of the proposal at tomorrow’s sitting.

  Åsa Westlund, rapporteur. − (SV) Mr President, let me once again thank Commissioner Vassiliou for her support on azo dyes. We really appreciate that this was one of the first matters you had to attend to when you took office. It showed that you are ready to take up your responsibility in the Commission, not just to follow EFSA’s recommendations, but also to make it your business to undertake an independent assessment of all aspects associated with the legislation. You have really shown that you are ready to take up that responsibility.

I think that the debate here this evening has made it clear that the European Parliament will of course also be closely following EFSA’s review of the allergenic effects of azo dyes and will be looking closely at the Commission’s position on that assessment. It goes without saying that we shall also examine other studies which will be presented on the effects of azo dyes on children’s behaviour, for example, in order possibly to return to this matter later.

Finally I would also like to say that it is one thing to draft legislation, but the legislation also has to be applied. I think that many consumers share my view that we are in fact often tricked in the shops today. I would like the Member States – and I think this is a justifiable demand – to tighten up their inspection systems and, together with the Commission, ensure that the legislation we have to vote on tomorrow is actually followed and complied with, so that consumers will not get home, for example, with a pot of fruit yoghurt believing it to contain a lot of fruit or berries, only to discover that it contains nothing but dyes when they read the package carefully.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Mr President, the food industry uses 300 food additives, 2 600 natural or artificial flavourings, plus traditional diastases or enzymes and also azo dyes. This is why our laws need to be harmonised. Since it concerns goose and duck liver, preserved truffles or snails, we can clearly understand why there are a dozen laws, plus the four regulations tabled for a common authorisation procedure with the list of products.

Yes, these additives increase the risk of sometimes serious allergies, but perhaps the precautionary principle has been taken too far here. In 2008, a year when the global food crisis is rampant, when, Mr President, Italy is selling us dioxin-contaminated mozzarella, a business worth EUR 10 million, I find it hard to believe that the 15 million unemployed in Europe should be particularly worried by enzymes and flavourings, although it is typical of the European Union to concern itself with the infinitely small in an infinitely large world.

  Mojca Drčar Murko (ALDE). – Mr President, in addition to what has already been said today, I wish to reiterate that flavourings have considerable market value. When harmonising national rules aiming at securing the microbiological safety of prepared food, European legislators must be aware of the sensibility of the area and try to avoid distortions of the market. I hope that this will be the case, and I thank Commissioner Vassiliou for the statement she made today.

We have come a long way with the Council and the Commission by clearing up contentious areas, excluding as many ambiguities as possible and reaching the second-reading agreement.

Apart from food safety and the strengthening of the internal market, other consumer interests also needed to be taken into account. Prominent among them was the desire for food to be as natural as possible. It is not necessarily the case that all flavourings are safe from a toxicological point of view and, at the same time, beneficial to consumers. Parliament wanted to highlight in particular the right of the consumer to choose.

In the procedure for approval of flavourings, ‘reasonable technological need’, for example, tackles other European strategies, such as the fight against obesity, since the addition of excessively potent flavourings can mask the poor quality of prepared food. I think that this has been made clear enough in the recitals.

Concluding, I wish to thank all who were involved in the work on the food improvement agents package and helped us to make practicable and enforceable regulations.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – I would like first of all to congratulate the rapporteurs on these reports on food additives, enzymes and flavouring. It is essential that our Parliament pays the utmost attention to these regulations as they have a huge impact on public health and we ought therefore to ensure that the amendments we supported on first reading are included in the final text.

Protecting consumers’ interests and ensuring food security must remain here our first priorities. We should – in line respect to the precautionary principle – avoid the use of certain compounds for which we lack reliable data and independent scientific assessment on their consequences on consumers’ health. We ought indeed to ensure quality and safe food for our citizens and should therefore develop efficient methodologies to list and monitor the effects on consumers’ health of potentially dangerous compounds.

Moreover, we have to increase transparency in the production, the labelling and the authorisation procedures as well as harmonising regulations on additives, enzymes and flavouring to set up a coherent regulatory package ensuring better consumer protection and public health. While ensuring consumer’s protection the real challenge is to actually regain consumers’ confidence and ensure a quality food production for their benefit.

20. Corrigendum (Rule 204a): see Minutes

21. Formation of political groups (amendment of Rule 29) (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0206/2008) by Mr Corbett, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on amendment of Rule 29 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure - Formation of political groups [2006/2201(REG)].

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Mr President, I rise to present to you a report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerning our Rules, where we have examined the question of the threshold – the minimum threshold necessary to constitute a political group in our Parliament.

All parliaments that have a system of political groups have, of course, a minimum threshold. Normally one does not allow a single Member or two Members to create a political group; it is necessary always to define what that threshold should be. And, as our Parliament continues to grow, it is logical that we pause to reflect and think what should be, in the next Parliament, the threshold for creating a political group.

We have looked at this in detail in the Constitutional Committee, and the committee’s opinions were fairly evenly divided. There was a majority of one vote against raising the threshold when we looked at it in committee, although, of course, this matter is now before us again in the House.

We also looked at groups that exist already but fall slightly below the threshold when one or two members leave and whether it is right that such groups should automatically and immediately cease to exist or whether in some circumstances we should allow such groups to continue to exist. Here the committee approved my proposal, which was based on a suggestion of Mr Bonde, the former co-leader of the IND/DEM Group, who pointed out to me what difficulties he, as a group leader, could face, leading a group that was just above the threshold, when one, two or three Members might threaten to leave the group unless they got their way on something or other, thereby effectively blackmailing the group.

On his suggestion, the committee wisely adopted my proposal that, once a group has existed for a certain period of time, we should help the smaller groups by allowing them in such circumstances to have the possibility – we will allow the President of Parliament to have some discretion on this – to continue to exist, even if they fall below the threshold, for a limited period of time until the next constitutive session of Parliament and provided, of course, they still have a reasonable minimum membership: we cannot allow a group to exist with two or three members.

The idea was to find a balance between a reasonable threshold and to give something to the smaller groups, to make sure they are not facing that dire prospect of virtual blackmail by a minority of Members within their group who could pull the plug at any moment.

As I said, the committee hesitated on raising the threshold – it was a majority of one. But that issue is now before us again. At the moment, if you look around the parliaments of the world, we have one of the lowest thresholds that exist for allowing the constitution of a political group. Just 2.5% of our membership can create a political group. When you remember that constituting a group gives those Members extra resources above what ordinary Members get as a Member – extra resources as a group in terms of finance from the taxpayer, in terms of staff and in terms of procedural privileges – it should give us cause to reflect.

Do we want to give such huge resources to what could frankly be a very small and unrepresentative number of Members – 2.55%? My own thought was that this was a very low threshold: it comprises the danger that we give such resources to very small, possibly unrepresentative and even extreme groups. Some people have pointed to the extreme right potentially being able to create a group with such a small threshold if ever they won enough seats.

That is something that it is legitimate to ask. What is the minimum threshold? My proposal had been to raise it to 4%, which is still rather low if you compare it to national parliaments across our Union, still below what is the norm in many national parliaments, but perhaps a reasonable balance. I understand now that some smaller groups that initially opposed this idea are on board for a compromise between the 30 Members that I proposed and the 20 Members of our current rule; they would be happy to go along with a compromise of 25.

Changing hats and speaking as the coordinator of my group instead of rapporteur, I can tell colleagues that my group is willing to go along with such a compromise – if indeed it is a compromise – and we can all unite around that. If it is not a compromise – if that is not acceptable – then my group will continue to support the proposal for 30 instead of for 25.

  József Szájer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Mr President, my party and I are among those who have supported the creation of a Parliament with stronger cohesion in the event that we raise the threshold that has been a condition for forming a group up to now and at present.

I say that it will lead to a stronger Parliament because I feel that it is in the interests of the European Parliament that there should be tighter cohesion between political parties and political groups and among political groups in the Parliament, and that the political parties will be even stronger at European level.

As Mr Corbett has said just now, we have faced the fact that this measure is currently very low, and it is low if we compare it with other parliaments. It is for this very reason that, on behalf of the European People’s Party, we have supported this recommendation, and we have supported the view that this limit should be flexible, although I would like to add that, with regard to flexibility, I would have authorised the creation of such groups for a shorter period.

Naturally, however, we have seen that not everyone has shared this opinion, and I am convinced that, in a European Parliament where there are very many different colours, very many kinds of political party and very many kinds of political persuasion, efforts must always be made to reach some sort of consensus on this matter. I was therefore pleased that there was an opportunity for a compromise within the framework of which we can set the limit for creating political parties higher than at present but lower than planned.

One last note: I am convinced that, with regard to both the number of countries and the minimum number of political groups, it would be better to apply not a specific number but a percentage ratio. In this case, these ratios would not need to be changed constantly, and particularly in view of the fact that, now that the Lisbon Treaty has become uncertain, we do not know for certain what the numbers will be for the next Parliament in 2009, and whether we will have to amend this rule again. Thank you for your attention; the People’s Party supports the recommendation.

  Jo Leinen, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I should especially like to thank Mr Corbett for preparing these reports. It was clear from the outset not only that agreement would be reached on this subject but also that the subject would be hotly debated. However, we must note that this Parliament has grown from 626 to 785 Members and, should the new Treaty come into force, the figure will very likely be 751. Obviously we shall have to adapt the rules by which we work.

We have a Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, which is addressing many areas in which Parliament must move forward, and cannot remain standing still as was the case many years ago. The status quo is always the easiest option. Defending the acquis communautaire means not having to modernise or change, but in this case it is obvious that the matter of the size of the political groups in Parliament must now be dealt with.

Mr Corbett has already said that we have one of the lowest thresholds compared to the national parliaments of the world. That could be an aim – why not? Alternatively, like Mr Szájer, one could say: ‘It seems to me that we need more coherence in this Parliament. We are no longer an advisory assembly; we are now a legislative body. We make laws for 500 million people, and a certain degree of coherence is needed to do that.’

Therefore, I would wish for truly political groups in this Parliament and not just technical groups – groups that get together only because of the money and do not really have anything in common politically. The proposal that was on the table of moving from 20 to 30 would still have been moderate and not at all excessive. Well, it did not make it past the committee stage, and one has to be willing to make compromises. Even though the latest suggestion is 25, that is still progress and the smallest acceptable next step.

We have 10 political families registered – from the far right to the far left. At the next European elections, citizens will have a broad selection of political families to choose from in order to say what kind of Europe they want. Therefore, I have no doubts about undertaking this reform. The diversity of this Parliament will be retained, but perhaps we shall contribute a little to improving its coherence, and that is the point of the exercise. Thank you, therefore, to Mr Corbett.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the committee, as we know, tries to be consensual, but tonight the consensus has broken apart, and I have a strong objection to Mr Corbett’s proposal on the grounds of both principle and practice.

I simply cannot accept that the existence of seven groups inside Parliament creates a particular problem of efficiency. Lessons drawn from national parliaments can only take us so far. Here we should reflect on the more complex and wider spread of public opinion from 27 countries. In fact, it is critical at this sensitive phase of integration that all sorts of minority opinions can organise themselves professionally to express themselves in an articulate fashion. Groups contribute to, and do not impede, the work of the assembly.

Mr Corbett’s proposal and also the compromise would have the effect of closing the UEN and the IND/DEM Groups. Now frequently, perhaps always, I disagree with the opinions of those groups, but they have a perfect right to express their opinions and they certainly represent a specific strand of public opinion.

Should we close them, their members will be forced to join a larger group, thereby complicating affairs and increasing the incoherence of those groups. Alternatively, they will swell the ranks of the non-inscrits.

So, to conclude, and in the interests of efficiency, pluralism, coherence, fairness and liberalism, please support the committee’s position and reject the amendments.

  Johannes Voggenhuber, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes – not often – it happens that the large groups in this House have something on their conscience. Sometimes you can tell, because a matter is dealt with late on a Monday night in Strasbourg.

That is the case today because, otherwise, the public might be interested in why a report that was rejected by the committee should come to this plenary session. The public might also be interested to know why a rapporteur, on behalf of the committee, is presenting a report that does not contain what he is presenting and that was not rejected by one vote – as Mr Corbett claimed – but by the majority of the committee, and for good reason.

The public might be interested to hear that you are tabling this motion in plenary in violation of the Rules of Procedure – that is, with a view not to voting on the motion but to doing something entirely different.

I have been a Member of Parliament since 1990. During this time I have become familiar with a consensus regarding parliamentary culture, and that is that the majority in a parliament does not use its voice, its weight, to create privileges and powerful positions for itself in the Rules of Procedure at the expense of other groups. That is what you have done here. You have violated this taboo. What is being said here is fraudulent.

The major groups simply want to prevent smaller groups from forming and to put pressure on Members from all countries in the Union to join their groups, to prevent the parts of their own groups that are breaking away from doing so. They want to adjust the Rules of Procedure according to their taste and to tailor-make their groups. In doing that, they are disregarding another taboo, which is that it is unacceptable to use formal tricks to get rid of existing groups, such as the Independence/Democracy Group. That is out of the question in a political democracy.

This is becoming a tradition, Mr Corbett. I have researched the last two years, and we shall discuss this before the elections: over the last two years, the larger groups in this Chamber have tabled a series of amendments to the Rules of Procedure, all of which have the same outcome: strengthening the power of the larger groups, diminishing diversity, reducing the rights of individual Members and curtailing the rights of the smaller groups.

If that is the way to make Parliament popular, to respond to the crisis of confidence amongst citizens and to prepare ourselves for the electoral campaigns next year, then you will find us to be vigorous opponents on this issue, and proponents of a democratic Parliament.

  Ryszard Czarnecki, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, pluralism and respect for differences are an important value for the European Parliament. This is because the European Union as such must reflect unity in diversity. For this reason, too, the European Parliament should not only respect but actually support the diversity of colours on the political map, the multiplicity of its strands.

While properly defending the rights of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, we must also bear political minorities in mind. Any manipulation of or politically motivated changes to the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament will overtly restrict Parliament’s role as the body representing peoples and communities from all over the European Union. We do not see any need to tamper with those points in the Rules of Procedure that concern the number of countries whose representatives constitute a political group. The current state of affairs is fine. The European Parliament as it is today is working effectively, and as the Chinese proverb goes, ‘leave well enough alone’. Six states are adequate in this context and should not be replaced by seven. All this will do is cause an increase in the number of non-attached Members, who often differ from one another completely and to an extreme. Such a change, like the raising of the threshold needed to form a political group to 30, could in fact impact on pluralism, freedom of opinion, the representativeness of European institutions and our credibility as European Parliament representatives.

Such changes will not create an image of authority for the European Parliament in an election year, which I think is particularly important in view of the turnout at these elections. These changes should not enter into force either in 2009 or at any time, and I am saying this as representative of a group that would manage perfectly well even if these changes were to be introduced.

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, let us face facts. The history of European integration, its dominant ideological currents, practices inherited from half a century of close cooperation within the Commission, the Council and Parliament – all this has resulted in a sort of Christian Democratic-Social Democratic condominium within the European institutions. I am not passing judgement here; I am simply stating a fact.

In this Parliament, the qualified majority necessary for the adoption of any legislative text at codecision means a constant search for consensus between the two main groups, which further marginalises the expression of differences and divergences. The question is therefore simple: do we want to exacerbate this tendency to avoid conflict by tightening the conditions imposed for the formation of political groups, on the eve of elections that will see the number of MEPs per country decrease, therefore further penalising minority groups, particularly in the least populated countries? How credible would these professions of faith in favour of pluralism be then? The quality of the democratic debate will not be improved by swelling the ranks of non-attached members.

This is why my group is unanimously in favour of maintaining the current rules on the formation of political groups, even though our opinions differ when it comes to the refusal of the two main groups to accommodate our request concerning the procedures to follow: acknowledge the disagreement or accept a compromise. The majority of my group – including me – has now spoken out in favour of the compromise in a sole bid to help perpetuate pluralist expression within this Parliament, yet with the utmost respect for those who think differently, because at the end of the day we share the same principles. These principles have a name, and that name is democracy.

  Hanne Dahl, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Mr President, the debate we are currently holding is surreal. Indeed, it is every bit as absurd as a Kafkaesque trial. I shall have to run through the course of events to explain why I permit myself this comparison, as I realise it is rather crude.

On 27 May a meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs considered a draft report that sought to make it more difficult to form political groups. Mr Corbett, the rapporteur for the report, wanted to raise the number of members from 20 to 30, and at the same time require that the group represent a quarter of the countries as against a fifth up to then. This draft report was rejected, which in any other context would mean the report being taken off the agenda. Instead, however, the committee chair, Mr Leinen, allowed the committee to continue voting on amendments to the original text of the report – and this despite there being no report to amend! This manoeuvre made it possible to keep alive a report that was in fact dead. All the rules and customary procedures may have been violated, but this does not seem to worry Mr Corbett, flanked by the committee chair. We need to ask why. After all, in 2004 the threshold was raised on the grounds that the European Parliament now consisted of 25 countries instead of 15. Two more countries have joined since then, but this does not justify amending the rules so drastically. They say that, in many cases, the threshold is higher in national parliaments, but what they forget to say is that the European Parliament has an additional restriction – a geographical restriction. To my knowledge, no such restriction exists in any national parliament. Why, then, this drastic amendment of the rules on the formation of political groups? It most closely resembles an unholy alliance between the two major groups in Parliament to create a two-party system. Indeed, if I were paranoid, I would say that it resembled an unholy alliance with a sinister ulterior motive, one consisting in making it very difficult to create political groups belonging to the opposition; groups such as the one to which I myself belong. Parliament has no right to judge political opinions. Only the voters have such a right. Members elected in the course of lawful democratic elections are legitimate participants in the political process. They have every right to play on this ground, and it is not for either the Socialist Group in the European Parliament or the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to make it difficult for them to exercise their mandate.

I would recommend that all Members vote against amendments to non-existent reports. This would be my recommendation both today and in the future. This is quite simply going too far if we ever want to be taken seriously as a legislative assembly.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). − (NL) The rapporteur has actually said himself what this report is about: it is about the European Parliament further intensifying its role as a kind of representative of eurocratic one-dimensional thinking, and doing away with the modicum of freedom enjoyed by the smaller political groups. Parliament’s role is to serve the European mandarins and no longer to represent the political diversity among our peoples. What an undemocratic farce your Europe is turning into!

The famous Amendment 6 on parliamentary questions is also yet another curtailment of our rights. In addition, we read that this rule is being introduced because the European Commission – and I quote – ‘has […] strongly complained about the number of such questions and the administrative workload answering them imposes on its services.’ However, I think it is more likely to be MEPs who feel the need to complain strongly about the dreadful way in which many European Commissioners barely answer our written questions, namely without getting to the point, incompletely and sometimes with a barely disguised refusal to provide us with the correct information.

We would do better to incorporate a disciplinary procedure for Commissioners instead of once again making it difficult for MEPs to do the job they are paid to do.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this debate is about the nuts and bolts of Parliament, and it is our duty to ask if the proposals about groups are practical. It was certainly with practicalities in mind, faced with the basic requirement of 30 Members, that I submitted my amendment – I think it was my amendment, Mr Corbett – which enabled the President of Parliament, with the agreement of the Conference of Presidents, to allow a group to continue its work for a limited period if it fell below that particular threshold.

In committee it was generally agreed this was a good idea to avoid a group being held hostage by a Member threatening to leave and thereby instantly disbanding such a group. That is why I am somewhat attracted by this new compromise which has been proposed for a limit of 25 Members. It does seem to me to be a sensible idea, which would alleviate one of the difficulties I was referring to when I prepared my amendment.

We must always remember, however, that we were elected to represent the views and interests of our electorate as a whole. It is a fact that our European electoral spectrum spans an ever-wider variety of opinion, which is good for democracy. It is not just the number of Members which increases in this Parliament; it is also the diversity of views which they bring with them. If we are successfully to fulfil our parliamentary mandate, we must have the opportunity to fully mirror the views of our national electorates. A small group in the European Parliament here may well represent a large body of opinion in Member States. We need to be able to work constructively as a Parliament and also, most importantly, in line with the wishes of the people that we represent, however that is formulated in the disposition and composition of our groups.

So, whilst I welcome this possible compromise, I welcome a sensible and pragmatic approach to this matter. I hope that we do not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of assuming that fewer groups necessarily means more democracy.

  Kristian Vigenin (PSE). – (BG) Mr. President, colleagues, I think that the motion in the report of Mr. Corbett deserves attention and, in my opinion, comes just on time, since actually with its adoption we do not threaten any of the currently existing groups in the European Parliament. I am in support of a more effectively functioning Parliament in the next mandate from 2009 to 2014. We have discussed the meaning of these changes repeatedly and limitation of the opportunities of Members elected to the European parliament to express their opinion has never been discussed. But since our Parliament is a large Parliament, maybe, as we say the largest democratically elected parliament in the world, its essence of European Parliament is held precisely by the parliamentary groups, by the political groups that represent not the nations of the elected Members who participate in them, but represent the political trends which unite the Members. This is also the meaning of the great power, opportunities which both the political groups and their leaders have in the activity of our Parliament.

That is why I think that now, too, should we blunder in the direction of blaming Socialists or Christian Democrats of being undemocratic, we will not be right. Quite the contrary, I think that in this way we shall provide the opportunity for a much clearer profile of the political groups which manage to form and actually operate in the next mandate of the European Parliament. Of course, I also think that it is easy to speak in the name of a political group which is not threatened with failure to come up with the necessary number of Members in the next parliament. I think that in any case the groups that exist today will be able to continue to exist over the next mandate. In addition, our presence here, in this Parliament, is largely due to the power of the political parties we represent. We should not consider the one in isolation from the other. That is why we should not think, either, that the political life of Europe unconditionally revolves here, in Parliament, and depends on the two political groups, nor should we forget the parties we represent. And in this sense I suggest that we really move toward the suggested compromise and support the motion of Mr. Corbett.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, this Parliament frequently talks about openness, transparency and democracy, but does not always display it.

In this instance, the rapporteur, Mr Corbett, has been very open and transparent about what he seeks to achieve: he wants to make it harder for small groups to form and function; he wants to deny them the resources and privileges they are currently entitled to, which enables them to represent the will of those who elected them. Mr Corbett wants to put political groups that he does not approve of out of business if he possibly can. This is totally undemocratic. Why should not the will of European electors be expressed in political groups, formed by those they elect, however small those groups may be. Why not? Because Mr Corbett does not think they should be allowed to!

These rules, if adopted, would, for example, put my own – the Independence and Democracy Group – out of business. The IND/DEM Group was, of course, formed to oppose the European Constitution, and we have been very successful, having spent money on the ‘no’ campaigns in the French, Dutch and, most recently, Irish, referendums. That is why Mr Corbett and other Europhiles want to try to put us, and any group like us elected after 2009, out of action if they can. His totally undemocratic credentials are transparent for all to see.

  Maria da Assunção Esteves (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Parliament needs to interpret Democracy in a democratic fashion. This means that the Rules of Procedure should not be taken in isolation; rather they must be interpreted in the light of the moral basis for suffrage and the principle of representation as signifying self-legislation and citizens’ autonomy. Drawing some points from this principle, I should like to say the following: from my point of view, the amendment Mr Corbett has proposed is correct in principle, but the reason why a group that falls below the minimum threshold necessary during a parliamentary term must continue to exist lies especially in the fact that voters’ democratic choices are also nearly always made taking account of the EP political group that candidates belong to.

Voters are not indifferent to whether a candidate is elected to sit on the benches of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament or of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. This being the case, I believe that this amendment, rather than containing a discretionary power for the President of Parliament, should contain a binding power, rather than a permission, a duty, and the period for continuation of the group can only, from a democratic point of view, be exactly the period of a parliamentary term. Otherwise we would be completely subverting the principles of freedom that make up what we are.

My second remark concerns the temptation to copy what the national parliaments do. National parliaments really do act as models for us, but in this case we need to copy them cum grano salis, with caution, as the proliferation of groups in European democracy can make up for the lack of representativity that hurls Europe from one crisis to another.

Proliferation here may make up for the persistent divorce between European citizens and those who represent them. Additionally, the more plurality there is, the more evident the struggle and intense politicking that normally lead to our consensuses will become, as systematic consensuses are not free from controversy here either.

Having many groups can help Parliament politicise bureaucratic Europe, because a Democracy is a Democracy and not an Order.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we should not direct any additional financial support towards Members and representatives who argue against democracy at the European level.

  Jim Allister (NI). − Mr President, it is very simple to recognise the agenda of those who are pressing for an increase in the qualifying size of political groups in this House. It is quite patently a blatant attempt to squeeze out the smaller groups, who are more often than not more likely to be less enthusiastic – indeed likely to be quite questioning of the precious European project. Mr Corbett is effectively looking for the steamroller approach in politics. That is why he is leading the charge tonight in defiance of the committee’s democratic decision.

It has been well said that you can judge a parliament, its worth and its integrity by how it treats it minorities. By the standards of this report, Mr Corbett would have this Parliament regress further into the undemocratic cabal of large groups, where decisions are not taken in this House but are taken in deals between the two main parties.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL). – (DA) Mr President, I should like to dispute a most fundamental premise, namely the premise that dividing ourselves into fewer groups gives us more political coherence. I could go and join the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, but that would not increase the group’s political coherence. Equally, I could join the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, but I can guarantee that it would not increase that group’s political coherence – by no means. This proposal is not about political coherence, therefore. It is about creating large numbers of independents who do not wish to belong to any of the groups that have a sufficient mandate to become established. This, in turn, will mean millions of Europeans not being represented by a political group in the European Parliament. I do not regard that as a good development. Above all, I do not regard it as a democratic development. Lastly, I should like to ask Mr Corbett – now we are on the subject of political coherence – whether the proposal he is presenting here has the unanimous support of the PSE Group, or whether there is in fact deep disagreement on the proposal within the group.

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, this debate tonight is interesting, because I have listened to the rapporteur saying his report was inspired by Mr Bonde who, like Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, El Cid Campeador, won battles after his death. Then along came Mrs Dahl, who has replaced Mr Bonde, and compared the rapporteur with Kafka, which is certainly a favourable comparison; that is to say, Mrs Dahl should not be so much in agreement with Mr Bonde. Then Mr Batten confessed to us that the parliamentary group’s money has been used to interfere in national referendums. I imagine that the Quaestors will have something to say about that, Mr Batten, because it is forbidden to use that money for such things.

What about Mr Voggenhuber? What can I say about Mr Voggenhuber, who is from the country that so marvellously organised Euro 2008, which we Spaniards are so pleased about? Mr Voggenhuber has accused us of manipulation and criticised the compromise amendment, and it turns out that he signed it.

In short, Mr President, in the interests of consistency, and being in agreement with what Mr Szájer, Mr Kirkhope, Mrs Esteves and Mr Rübig said, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is going to vote in favour.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ‘Let us risk a bold democracy’ was the title of a major article I wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung two weeks ago. It was people from social democratic circles who came to me and said ‘exactly!’ – and not only because the title echoed a famous statement by the great Willy Brandt. What are you doing here now, Mr Corbett and Mr Leinen? You are turning the thing on its head, and you know what you are doing.

I remember well what you said when the last increase in the access barrier for groups was discussed. I remember Mr Leinen from the days when he was still an upstanding democrat. He should pull back and think carefully about which cause he is serving. With what you are doing here, you are destroying democracy. You are looking after the Haiders and Straches, the extreme left, people cut from a cloth that makes even Mr Lafontaine look middle of the road. Shame on you! Stop and think, and withdraw this amendment for Europe’s sake. Do not be the ‘anti-Europeans’.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Mr President, there is a single market, there is a single currency, so it would make complete sense for there to be a single group, which in any case would be much more efficient. There would be a single speaker and things would be shared more easily. Mr Corbett is proposing to raise the threshold to 30. This seems highly dangerous, because the Irish, the French and the Dutch are able to send 31 and this would cause us real problems. Personally I think that we need a floating threshold. It would remain at 30, but the President would be able to use his or her discretion to increase it to 35 or 40 if MEPs who want to join are not fully enrolled.

During the Fourth Republic, a practice known as ‘unseating’ was used. At the start of the legislature, the majority would decide whether to renew the office of a particular Member of Parliament or to unseat him or her. This method is perfect. Mr Corbett could be in charge, for example, of unseating anyone who did not share his views. We could also adjust it: those who did not share Mr Corbett’s views would pay their salary to him or his group. Anyway, none of this matters; the Irish have proved that you can adopt whatever rules you want. It no longer works like that here, Mr Corbett.

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Mr President, I have enjoyed this debate. I have enjoyed the wild allegations that have been made about this change, that raising the threshold for creating a group in this Parliament from 20 to 25, or perhaps 30, would somehow be the end of democracy and the end of pluralism in Parliament. What utter nonsense! This is a modest proposal. Even 30 would be well below the threshold that exists in most national parliaments, which we all find perfectly democratic. So why not here?

The idea that this is an attack on existing groups is nonsense. I was glad the UEN Group spokesman recognised his group would not be affected. I was surprised that Mr Batten thought his group would be affected. I thought he was expecting to gain seats in the next European elections. I rather think they will lose seats and that they will be annihilated so that they would not even meet the existing thresholds. So they will not be affected one way or the other in any case.

As for the idea that this is targeting a particular viewpoint such as Eurosceptics, as was alleged, also what nonsense! Eurosceptics have always been represented in this Parliament, well represented, have almost always had a political group and I am sure that will continue to be the case. They represent a small but significant strand of public opinion and of course they should take part in our debates. That will not be changed by this proposal.

This proposal is not a radical one. It is a sensible, common-sense, practical proposal to examine what is a sensible level in an expanded Parliament to have a threshold for creating a political group.

It is not a radical proposal, it does not target anybody. I am glad that many groups are seeing the sense of compromising between the two views on this matter and finding a compromise around the modest proposal of 25.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 9 July 2008.

22. The work of the Plenary and initiative reports (amendment of the Rules of Procedure) (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0197/2008) by Mr Corbett, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on amendment of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in light of the proposals by the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform concerning the work of the Plenary and initiative reports (2007/2272(REG)).

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Mr President, I hope colleagues will bear with me yet again taking the floor on a question of changes to the Rules of Procedure, which always seem to be on a Monday night.

As colleagues will be aware, Parliament has had a working group very ably chaired by our colleague Dagmar Roth-Behrendt which has been looking into improving the workings of our Parliament.

We have shifted from being a talking shop to a co-legislature. Whatever happens to the Lisbon Treaty, that change has already essentially taken place. It is therefore rational and logical that we should look at how we organise our work.

One major aspect of that is inevitably and rightly a shift away from own-initiative reports from committees, with no legislative impact, to focussing more on legislation.

That is the first and perhaps most important part of the package of proposals that I tabled before you today. The working group’s proposals, of course, were wide-ranging: only a few of them require adjustment to our Rules, but this is one of them.

The idea here is that we should differentiate between the types and significance of own-initiative reports. Some, of course, will continue to merit full discussion and voting in plenary; but perhaps some really do not.

We should not turn this Chamber into a drafting committee that rewrites, paragraph by paragraph, a detailed own-initiative report on a specialist subject by a specialist committee.

I would have liked to have gone further and ask: Why do such reports, that type of own-initiative report, not stand in their own right as a report of the committee?

Reports of the House of Lords, that we all talk about, are reports of House of Lords’ committees: they are not voted on and rewritten by the chamber of the House of Lords, they stand on their own merits – often very good, deep, analytical reports. They do not use the Lords as a revising chamber, paragraph by paragraph. We should not do that either for this type of own-initiative report.

With this rule change, that will be possible; we will, of course – that is the compromise – still put the report to the chamber to give a yes or no to it. We will also allow groups that disagree with it to table an alternative motion for a resolution, but we will not start voting for hours on hours, paragraph by paragraph, to redraft a committee report of that sort. That, then, I think is a first, very important change.

Another change, of a completely different sort, is to liven up our debates and the way we conduct our speaking time. The role of the rapporteur will be enhanced: the rapporteur will present the committee’s report which is in response to the Commission’s legislative proposal, immediately stating what the Parliament thinks of the Commission proposal, and will wrap up the debate at the end, perhaps answering the points that different Members have made in the way that I attempted to do just now in our previous debate. That is something that should liven up our debates and is well worthwhile.

There is, however, one detail which seems to have attracted a lot of comments: this is the suggestion that we should have guidelines for written parliamentary questions in the same way that we already have guidelines for questions at Question Time to the other institutions.

I do not see why there is such a drama about this. It is not an attempt to create a power of censorship over questions. It is simply saying in the guidelines that written parliamentary questions, just like questions for Question Time, should be within the remit of the institution that is being asked to answer the question. That seems logical and rational, yet it is missing at the moment.

The fact that it is missing has allowed one Member of this House to table over a thousand parliamentary written questions on subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. That has clogged up the system, making all the rest of us wait longer for our answers, costing a fortune because all such questions have to be translated into every language, circulated around the Commissioners for a collective reply and collegiate reply, and is a waste of our time and resources. Simply laying down guidelines to say that questions have to be within the remit of the European Union and of the institutions seems to be sensible.

And who should judge this? Under my proposal, our President, the President of Parliament, should judge this. If we lay down guidelines, we will not leave it to the Commission to judge that and say: ‘No, we are not answering that question or this question’. No, we will decide – and that is something to protect Members and should be a guarantee for Members. I am surprised that some Members who are not here tonight have seen fit to attack that in an e-mail to all Members of Parliament.

These are modest, sensible proposals coming out of the working group of vice-presidents and Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, and I commend them to the House.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, a reformed Parliament that promotes a livelier political debate on the EU is in the interests of all our citizens and also all the institutions. We need a more dynamic discussion on European affairs and I belong to those deeply convinced that debate is the lifeblood of any functioning democracy.

On behalf of the Commission, I would like to congratulate Mr Corbett on his report concerning the work of the plenary and the presentation of written questions. Over the years there have been an increasing number of parliamentary questions. In 2007, over 6 700 questions were answered by the Commission. That represents an increase of 12% compared to 2006 and almost 35% compared to 2005, and the trend so far this year suggests a further increase.

The surge in questions has at the same time meant a real challenge: almost 25% of the total number of written questions have been put by no more than eight Members of Parliament. Furthermore, quite a large number of questions are not related to issues falling under Community competence. I can give you some examples if you like.

The Commission is absolutely committed to fulfilling its responsibility and providing high-quality responses to parliamentary questions. It is a duty that flows from the Treaties; it is also a central feature of our accountability to the Parliament. The Commission welcomes the introduction of some guidelines and admissibility criteria for written parliamentary questions as proposed in the report. A system of guidelines is currently in place for oral questions addressed to the Commission and to the Council and the Corbett report suggests a method which is already implemented by Parliament and well known by the Council and Commission. The effective implementation of these guidelines will strengthen the opportunity for individual Members to address questions to the Commission and receive timely responses, as has already been explained by the rapporteur. We will be able to focus on questions that address issues really related to the Commission competence or of general interest.

Let me comment on another issue addressed in the report, and that is the order of speeches in plenary debates. The Commission recognises the logic and the opportunity of opening legislative debates with a statement from the rapporteurs. When it comes to the order of speeches and speaking time I would, however, like to stress the need to keep the principle of equal treatment of Commission and Council.

As a last word, let me recall that we recently expressed our position on the second interim report adopted by the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform and we are looking forward to having the opportunity to discuss these issues with Parliament before your institution adopts the final position on the reform package. I am confident that the spirit of good interinstitutional cooperation that both institutions have demonstrated so far will continue throughout the whole reform process.

  József Szájer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (HU) Mr President, again we have been able to hear voices saying that this recommendation is about us restricting the activities of certain MEPs. I would like to draw the attention of the Eurosceptic MEPs to the fact that they should read the recommendation before saying this.

This report, and this change to the rules, should have happened a very long time ago, since the European Parliament has had major legislative powers for a long time. In the meantime, we should look at the fact that in total 17.4% of our time, the time we spend on debates in plenary sessions, is spent on legislation, and the rest on other activities.

In fact, this report makes it possible for Parliament to occupy itself with what the Treaties authorise it to do. In other words, we will actually be able to concentrate on legislation, and this does not mean that we would devalue the own-initiative reports, since these also contain very important points, but we must know between ourselves that their impact is significantly less than what we can achieve with legislation.

When we legislate, we create changes that will have a direct impact on the lives of 500 million people in the years to come, while for own-initiative reports this transfer takes much longer and is much smaller. Consequently, this Parliament has to occupy itself with legislation much more, and this report makes it possible.

We have also been able to reach agreement in connection with questions, since it is important that the questions really do receive real answers. Very often, we MEPs do not receive real answers from the Commission, although, as the Commissioner has said, every single MEP has the right to be given answers to his questions, but these must be questions that fall under the remit of the European Union and of the Commission.

I am also pleased that the Commission has finally rejected the restriction of only asking a total of two questions a month. This was a wise decision, but in any case we can achieve a better result and this new rule will help to make questions more effective, so I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Corbett. Thank you.

  Jo Leinen, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, own-initiative reports are certainly justified in this Parliament. We are a parliament of 27 countries and peoples, and there are many questions preying on people’s minds, both within the EU and in our relations with other parts of the world.

However, I also agree with those who have said that Parliament has increasingly developed from being an advisory assembly to a legislative body. The Treaty of Lisbon will take that a big step further. Therefore, we must set priorities. I hear that we spend only 17.4% of our time on legislative work: this is not enough. We are under stress, under time pressure. We want better lawmaking, so we need more time and priorities.

It is also a good thing that we are now saying that not every report has to be discussed again in plenary. It is possible to vote without first debating, and Members can make a written statement if they want to express their views on the report. It does not have to be done orally in a plenary session.

Madam Vice-President, I feel it is right that the rapporteur has both the first and the last word in Parliament because, as a kind of ‘chamber of the citizens’, we must express ourselves at the beginning and the end of a debate. That is a good innovation.

Last but not least the subject of the questions. This system is very good, until it is abused. We have heard the figures – that eight Members are putting 25% of the questions. That makes nearly 1 700 questions from eight members. We can observe that they are very hardworking, but it looks very much as if the EU system is being wantonly abused here, as in many other cases, by opponents of the EU. We must introduce a rule for this, and the guidelines are a benchmark, a framework that we can work by.

Congratulations to Mr Corbett for knuckling down time and again to further develop Parliament. Thank you very much.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is a pleasure that I can be more consensual in this speech than in my previous one. The Liberal Group strongly supports the thrust of the reforms that are encapsulated in this set of proposals, especially upon the parliamentary questions.

I think it is quite correct that we dropped the rapporteur’s first proposal to cap or to restrict the number of parliamentary questions that could be asked.

Frankly, I would propose two further minor improvements. The first is to broaden the procedure to stop bad quality committee reports – and sometimes, regrettably, there are some – from sliding through the plenary without improvement and here it would be appropriate to permit the committee itself and not simply the rapporteur or two political groups or 10% of the membership of Parliament to table amendments.

My second proposal is to add a catch-the-eye phase to the new sort of short presentation proposed by the rapporteur. I think that these two changes would slightly broaden the chance for parliamentary debate and exchange while not destroying the purpose of the working group which is, of course, to streamline and to vitalise the proceedings of the Assembly.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, I feel much the same way as Mr Duff. I should like to say at this point that we as a group can support the report overall, in contrast to the previous report, because it reflects the proposals of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform and implements them as amendments to the Rules of Procedure.

What we cannot support, which I should also like to mention briefly here, is the proposal to no longer allow amendments to own-initiative reports. In our group, we are of the opinion that amendments are very much part of the political culture and political debate and, particularly, of the rights of individual groups – and this right of the groups should not be curtailed.

To finish, I should like to add that I believe that Amendments 13 and 15 by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are worthy of support. Even if we do not need long, detailed debates on individual reports here in plenary, there should be some discussion, and it should be brief – either one speaker per group, as the Verts/ALE Group suggests, or via the catch-the-eye procedure. Not having any debate at all would be doing ourselves a disservice. If we do not allow debate then we are not taking ourselves seriously, and I do not think that is good either.

  Hanne Dahl, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Mr President, all legislative bodies must be subject to scrutiny at all times and must also be prepared, as we are, to carry out self-monitoring. I fear, though, that the self-monitoring in the present report goes too far; I would go so far as to call it self-censorship. If this report is adopted in its original form, it will mean Parliament itself proposing to restrict the right of its Members to put relevant questions to the Council and the Commission. This of course makes sense in itself, but the report also states that it is up to the President to decide whether the respective question may be put. Thus the President of Parliament is to decide which questions it is appropriate to put to the other EU institutions. We are thus introducing additional self-censorship and, on top of that, permitting the President of Parliament to exercise censorship too.

I should like to remind the House that we are the only directly elected body, and thus have a particular obligation. Our task is to exercise parliamentary control, and so we cannot on any account impose self-censorship, which is open to abuse. Of course, we all have a moral obligation not to waste any institution’s time with irrelevant questions, but we cannot accept the setting of ‘objective criteria’ for relevance. There are no such things as objective criteria in politics and, if we set them, we risk them being abused.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, in its original incarnation, this report was far more draconian and anti-democratic than its final version. Our Euro-fanatical rapporteur showed much of his true colours when he proposed diminishing the rights of elected Members in this House to dare to ask questions of the unelected Commission and of the Council; hence, his monstrous proposal to restrict Members to three questions per month.

Happily he had to beat a hasty retreat but his report still bears some of the repressive character that lay behind that proposal. In particular, the veto which he seeks to give the President over what can be posed in a question is unacceptable; not least since this present President does not enjoy the confidence of everyone in this House, given his inability to abide dissent, as was evidenced by his punitive action against those in this House who dared to demand the right of their electorate to have national referenda on the Lisbon Treaty.

The President showed his intolerance, and a President handed censorship powers which will enable him to protect the European elite against probing questions from Members – such a President will gladly exercise that censorship. Therefore it is foolish, it is wrong and it is undemocratic to bind and to gag Members in this House in the way that our rapporteur, not surprisingly, seeks to do.

  Costas Botopoulos (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, parliamentary procedure is not a mere formality in our work; it is the very essence of the work of any parliament, even a parliament like ours, which has 780 Members from so many different countries, is so far from the public eye and, as a result, is often far removed from matters of interest to the public; a parliament with known procedures when it comes to debate – and the debate here in plenary is simply a formal procedure in relation to the real work carried out in the committees.

Any effort, then, to improve the work of this Parliament’s plenary sessions, on the basis of certain principles, is always welcome: firstly, the principle of efficiency, so that we hold discussions in order to arrive at options and finally decisions; secondly, the principle of democracy, a level playing field for all, regardless of the power they wield, so that everyone gets a hearing; and thirdly, the principle of ‘vitality’, I would call it, so that what we say is of interest to the public.

How well are these principles served by the proposal in this particular report? Satisfactorily, I think, although there is room for some small improvements, which I shall suggest.

On the issue of the ‘short presentation’, I agree. There is one reason why it is a very good idea to have a short presentation: it means that there will never be a report that is not discussed at all. I shall give you an example: the very interesting report by Mr Duff, on which we shall vote tomorrow, concerning the way in which some kind of control is to be exercised over the Commission, will not be discussed at all, although it would be a very good opportunity to use this shortened procedure.

I therefore say ‘yes’ to this, but beyond that I would point out – we are seeing it today, we see it every time – how interesting the catch-the-eye procedure is, and how uninteresting a discussion is when only the rapporteur and the Commission take part, although it would be interesting if others could speak.

One final comment: with regard to questions, I think the course we are taking is quite correct. Lastly, on the own-initiative reports, I think amendments to these reports should be discussed.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, sometimes when writing these short speeches, it strikes me that it would really take the talent of a George Orwell to do justice to these reports.

This report from the unconscious satirist and humorist, Mr Corbett, is a case in point. What monumental undemocratic arrogance it is to suggest that Members of this Parliament should have their questions to the Council and Commission censored! We are told that this is to avert abuses by the right or stop use of offensive language.

Perhaps Mr Corbett is concerned that we might ask questions about some Commissioners’ criminal records or their past careers as apparatchiks of Eastern European Communist regimes, or perhaps about former EU Presidents’ alleged careers as KGB agents?

Recently the President of Parliament assumed arbitrary powers to control the right of MEPs to speak in this Chamber. Now Mr Corbett wants to censor what MEPs can say on behalf of their constituents to the Council and the Commission.

If I may respond to Mr Corbett’s comment about my speech in the last debate, I was of course referring to his proposed rules on the formation of political groups in relation to the Independence-Democracy Group as it is currently constituted. It is the Labour Party that is facing annihilation in Britain. One reason is its Europhile fanaticism, and I can assure him that in 2009 UK Independence Party MEPs will return here in even greater numbers.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the questions represent precisely the range of information that citizens want from the EU. Since Commissioner Wallström is here today, I call on her to allow these questions to be worked through, and perhaps to have a brochure made in which the results of the questions and answers are also made available to the citizens of Europe, including on the Internet, so that they can see how the questions put by their MEPs to the Commission and the Council are answered. It would be fantastic for journalists and the citizens of Europe if that could be done before the elections.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I have asked for the floor in response to Mr Leinen’s speech. Mr Leinen, if you would listen for a moment: I want to speak about your remarks on own-initiative reports. The quality of the own-initiative reports that are tabled and then adopted here is open to question but, if you stop allowing amendments, how can own-initiative reports be improved? I should like to remind you that Parliament does not have the right of initiative on legislation. We are dependent on the Commission for that. How can we tell the Commission what initiatives we should like to see if we trim the own-initiative reports down or do not take reports in a direction that improves things? If I understand rightly, according to the Treaty, or what used to be called the Constitution, we ourselves do not have the right of initiative in the area of legislation. All we have is the ability to make known what we want in own-initiative reports. I think it is unfortunate if you devalue that, because it robs us of an opportunity. I believe you should think again – both you, Mr Leinen, and the rapporteur.

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, the rapporteur does not need anyone to defend him; I have no doubt that he can defend himself, but I must say that I asked for the floor because I think that some of the speeches were excessive.

I think that in this House we need to have debates and set forth arguments. I have just listened to Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf’s speech, and we always disagree on this, but I think that some of the descriptions, insults and caricatures ultimately damage this institution, and especially those responsible for them, Mr President. Given that we are in France, I think it was a French writer who said that anything that is excessive lacks value. Today there have been some speeches that have lacked value.

We appreciate what Mr Corbett has done, which is simply to reflect what is done by a group of Vice-Presidents of this House, in which all the groups in Parliament are represented. This is reflected in the Regulation, we have debated with him and we greatly appreciate the work that he does.

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Mr President, after our previous debate I am glad to see that we are still friends and that we can reach a wider consensus on these issues.

Just let me clarify a couple of points that have given rise to controversy. On parliamentary questions: we are not proposing any limit to parliamentary questions, we are simply saying that the same guidelines that we as a Parliament have already adopted for Question Time questions should apply to written questions, namely that they should be within the remit of the European Union and of the institution called upon to answer them.

Questions about hospitals in the UK under the National Health Service and the moving of staff from one hospital to another, which have nothing to do with the European Union, should not be parliamentary questions costing a lot of money at European level. This seems to me to be common sense: only UKIP and their friends can describe it as some sort of conspiracy or some sort of censorship. Censorship? On criteria that we ourselves decide, that our President is called upon to rule on, not the Commission or the Council? If that is censorship, then my goodness…

The second question that gave rise to some controversy was speaking time. Perhaps I did not explain this fully earlier. We will keep the two options that we have now for organising debates, and add a third one. At the moment we can have a full debate, which can already be a short debate with one speaker per political group. We also now have the option of the simplified procedure where the rapporteur simply makes a two-minute statement at the time of the vote: we will keep that.

What we are proposing is to add a third option: the short presentation, where the report is consensual and own-initiative, etc. and does not merit a full debate, though the latter always remains an option. Under the short presentation procedure, the rapporteur presents the conclusions of the committee, the Commission responds and everybody else if they wish can make an extra contribution in writing. That increases the number of options available to Parliament; it does not restrict the rights of any Members. It multiplies the flexibility with which we can deal with these issues, and again I commend it to the House.

Finally a couple of short questions. In response to Mr Rübig, the questions and answers are already on line. They are visible to all Members; perhaps we should make more use of this, but they are there, that is a tool that is available. To Mr Baringdorf I would say yes, the report does distinguish between different types of own-initiative report. The type of legislative initiative to which he was referring would not come under this simplified procedure that we are proposing: that would go through the normal procedures, as that particular type of legislative initiative merits. So we have catered for that.

As for the very strange remarks by Mr Batten from UKIP and his reference to the next European elections, we shall see. Yes, his party won as many seats as the Liberal Democrats in the last European elections in the UK, having outspent them, I think, by a factor of 10 – Mr Duff is nodding, so I suppose that is right. We will see how many millionaires he gets to contribute to his campaign this time; but I hope that this time there will be greater awareness, having seen their performance in the European Parliament over these last five years, of what it actually means when you elect somebody from UKIP to this place. And if the electorate is aware of that then I am sure they will not do so well in the next European elections.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

23. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

24. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.15 p.m.)