Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

L-Erbgħa, 19 ta' Novembru 2008 - Strasburgu

14. Ħin tal-mistoqsijiet (mistoqsijiet lill-Kummissjoni)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca il tempo delle interrogazioni (B6-0484/2008). Saranno prese in esame le interrogazioni rivolte alla Commissione.

Prima parte

Interrogazione n. 33 dell'on. Stavros Arnaoutakis (H-0800/08)

Oggetto: Informazione dei cittadini in merito ai provvedimenti adottati dall'UE per proteggerli dalla crisi finanziaria internazionale

Durante la tornata del Parlamento europeo dello scorso marzo, la Commissione ha risposto all'interrogazione orale H-0075/08⁽¹⁾ sulle conseguenze della crisi creditizia internazionale che ci si attendeva una riduzione dello 0,5% del ritmo di crescita dell'UE, un aumento dell'inflazione e un disavanzo di 185.000 milioni di euro per l'UE a 27 quanto al commercio estero. La Commissione ha altresì informato che il modo migliore di far fronte a questa crisi internazionale era quello di proseguire nelle riforme strutturali e nelle politiche macroeconomiche sottolineando che il protezionismo non era la soluzione. Oggi ci si accorge che la crisi finanziario-creditizia assume dimensioni planetarie e incide anche sulle grandi imprese.

Può la Commissione indicare se i dati allora forniti sono cambiati, in che modo informerà i cittadini europei delle conseguenze della crisi e quali misure concrete prenderà per proteggerli?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − The Commission presented its autumn forecast on 3 November, which indicates that the economic outlook is bleak: economic growth is expected to come to a standstill in 2009, increasing by a meagre 0.2% in the European Union.

2010 should see a gradual recovery for most EU economies, with growth projected at 1.1% for the EU as a whole. As a result, unemployment is expected to increase to 7.8% in the EU in 2009, with further increase projected for 2010.

However, next year we expect inflation to fall back quickly to 2.4% in the EU and to decelerate further in 2010.

There is no question that the challenges we face are substantial. Hence the Commission is now developing a comprehensive strategy to manage the financial crisis and limit the economic downturn. The basis of this strategy is set down in the communication entitled ‘From financial crisis to recovery: A European framework for action’, which indicates how the EU should tackle the next stages of the crisis in a united, coordinated manner.

Action should be geared towards three objectives: first, building a new financial market architecture at EU level; second, dealing with the impact on the real economy and, third, coordinating a global response to the financial crisis.

On 26 November the Commission will propose a more detailed version of this EU recovery plan, under the umbrella of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. Our aim is to bring together a series of targeted short-term initiatives that will help counter adverse effects on the wider economy, while adapting the medium to long-term measures of the Lisbon Strategy to take account of the crisis.

  Σταύρος Αρναουτάκης (PSE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, ευχαριστώ για την απάντησή σας. Αυτό όμως που πρέπει να πούμε σήμερα στους ευρωπαίους πολίτες είναι πώς απαντούμε στη μεγάλη κρίση, πώς θα δώσουμε χρήματα στην πραγματική οικονομία. Και οι ευρωπαίοι πολίτες απαιτούν αυτή η κρίση να είναι μια ευκαιρία για την Ευρώπη, για την Ευρώπη των πολιτών.

Το ερώτημά μου είναι: θα δοθούν χρήματα υπέρ των δημοσίων επενδύσεων, υπέρ των δημοσίων έργων στα επόμενα χρόνια;

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). - Frau Vizepräsidentin! Zeitnahe Information setzt rasches Entscheiden voraus. Wir haben insgesamt das Problem, dass im Zuge der Arbeiten der Kommission die Institution des Kollegialorgans im Regelfall sehr lange braucht, um diesen Apparat in Bewegung zu setzen. Gibt es hier für Geschehnisse wie die, mit denen wir jetzt konfrontiert sind, besondere Regeln? Denn in anderen Fällen dauert es wirklich oft sehr lange, bis die Kommission als Kollegialorgan zu einem Ergebnis kommt.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). - Gerbiamas Pirmininke, gerbiama Komisijos nare, kaip rodo patirtis, valstybės narės pačios ieško išeities iš finansų krizės pasekmių, iš ekonomikos nuosmukio.

Kokia Jūsų nuomonė apie prieškrizines priemones? Ar mokesčių didinimas, apmokestinimo bazės plėtimas ir PVM didinimas yra gera priemonė išeiti iš krizės tokiu sunkiu laikotarpiu?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − The most important question right now is: what are the next steps for the Commission in the coming week to actually deal with the effects on the real economy?

We are going to present a package – which is being worked on at the moment – where we identify the different policy fields where we think we can mitigate the impact on the real economy in the short run, whilst sticking to the existing medium-term reform priorities of the Lisbon Strategy. That will be the framework within which we work. We hope that we can find actions which will help to bolster aggregate demand; on the demand side we want to reduce inflationary pressures and help the purchasing power of households.

We have to do more on the labour market and, as you say, front-load investments. We hope that this will also help the issues and the actions taken when it comes to the energy and climate change package, because we will need money for investments. We hope that will help to push in this difficult period. On the labour markets, for example, activation policies can be very helpful.

In reply to the last question I would say that we want Member States to coordinate action. We think the worst thing would be if everybody went in different directions doing whatever they thought was the right thing to do in their respective Member States. We want them rather to discuss, coordinate and cooperate as much as possible, because the effects will be felt on the whole economy in Europe. We prefer actions in a coordinated way.

What about the long lead time or the long time to prepare? You would be surprised. As I said yesterday in the debate on the financial crisis, the Commission, for the first time, has managed within 24 hours to get proposals on the table. We have to respond to this very serious crisis in such a way that we do not take too long to prepare the different proposals.

We have all been instructed or we have all wanted to see in our respective policy areas how we can help, how we can overcome the long period to prepare, how can we do it more quickly yet do it in a coordinated and respectful way. We are trying to get the proposals on the table as quickly as possible and we are stretching all our possibilities as much as possible. This is the starting point for the Commission at this moment.

  Presidente. − Interrogazione n. 34 dell'on. Boguslaw Sonik (H-0850/08)

Oggetto: Limiti diversi del tasso alcolico nel sangue dei conducenti nell'UE

In molti Stati membri dell'UE, ad esempio nel Regno Unito, in Italia, in Irlanda e in Lussemburgo, il tasso alcolico massimo nel sangue consentito per poter condurre un veicolo è stato fissato a 0,8 mg/l. In Slovacchia e in Ungheria, che vietano la guida dopo il consumo di una seppur minima quantità di alcol, condurre un veicolo sotto l'effetto di suddetto livello alcolico costituirebbe un grave reato. In Polonia, i principi che regolano la guida degli autoveicoli, definiti dalla legge del 20 giugno 1997 in materia di codice della strada (GU n. 108 del 2005, voce 908 con successive modifiche), stabiliscono che il tasso alcolico massimo nel sangue consentito per guidare è pari a 0,2 mg/l. Quando il tasso di alcol nel sangue supera gli 0,5 mg/l si tratta già di un reato che può essere punito con una pena di reclusione di un massimo di due anni.

Nel quadro della tendenza ad armonizzare le norme del codice stradale nell'Unione europea, intende la Commissione adottare iniziative miranti ad armonizzare il tasso alcolico consentito per guidare nel territorio degli Stati membri dell'UE?

  Antonio Tajani, Vicepresidente della Commissione. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli parlamentari, in effetti, nel 1988 la Commissione aveva proposto una direttiva relativa al tasso minimo di alcolemia autorizzato per i conducenti, ma in mancanza di un accordo tra gli Stati membri e la Commissione, la Commissione ha dovuto accontentarsi di adottare il 17 gennaio 2001 una raccomandazione perché fosse imposto un tasso massimo di 0,5 mg/ml in tutti gli Stati membri. Oggi nell'Unione europea soltanto tre Stati, Irlanda, Malta e Regno Unito impongono un tasso massimo di alcolemia superiore a tale valore.

La raccomandazione della Commissione prevedeva anche di abbassare il tasso di alcolemia a 0,2 mg/ml per certe categorie di conducenti, tra cui i principianti, che sono l'oggetto della prima domanda posta dall'onorevole parlamentare. Sono infatti proprio i conducenti principianti le principali vittime dell'insicurezza sulle strade e per questo è essenziale diminuire per quanto possibile i fattori di rischio che li riguardano, ad esempio autorizzando per questa categoria un tasso di alcolemia non superiore, come ho detto, allo 0,2 mg/ml. Questo si ricollega effettivamente alla misura chiamata tasso zero, prevista per questa categoria di conducenti nella comunicazione adottata dalla Commissione ad ottobre del 2006 e che definisce una strategia di sostegno agli Stati membri per ridurre i danni legati all'alcol.

Fatte queste premesse, onorevoli parlamentari, la Commissione purtroppo non ritiene esistano le condizioni politiche per fare approvare da parte degli Stati membri una normativa destinata ad armonizzare ulteriormente il tasso di alcolemia autorizzato nell'ambito della nostra Unione. Detto questo però la Commissione non intende restare inattiva di fronte a quella che resta una delle principali cause di decessi sulle strade europee.

Le azioni intraprese in questo senso da parte della Commissione sono diverse. Innanzitutto, per quanto riguarda i controlli stradali, nella raccomandazione del 6 aprile del 2004 la Commissione spinge ad intensificare i controlli casuali sull'alcolemia mediante un apparecchio efficace di rilevazione dell'alcol nel sangue attraverso l'analisi dell'aria espirata, da utilizzare nei luoghi e nelle fasce orarie in cui si registra regolarmente un consumo eccessivo di alcol da parte dei conducenti.

Devo inoltre sottolineare, onorevoli parlamentari, che la guida sotto l'effetto dell'alcol rientra tra le infrazioni oggetto della proposta di direttiva sull'applicazione transfrontaliera della normativa in materia di sicurezza stradale, adottata da parte della Commissione a marzo di quest'anno e che attualmente è oggetto di discussione al Consiglio e al Parlamento.

In occasione dello scorso Consiglio Trasporti ho avuto modo di sottolinearlo ai colleghi ministri: di fronte alla perdita di vite umane non possiamo bloccarci per cavilli giuridici e discutere se si tratta di una questione che riguarda il primo oppure il terzo pilastro, perché purtroppo le discussioni giuridiche servono a ben poco per affrontare e risolvere problemi così gravi come sono quelli degli incidenti stradali.

E colgo l'occasione di questo dibattito parlamentare per ricordare che le quattro sanzioni contemplate nella direttiva in discussione, oltre alla guida in stato di ebbrezza, incluso l'eccesso di velocità, il mancato uso delle cinture di sicurezza e la guida dopo aver assunto sostanze stupefacenti, bene, queste quattro infrazioni sono responsabili di ben tre incidenti stradali su quattro. Ciò significa che molto può e deve essere fatto dall'Unione europea e per questo invito ancora una volta il Parlamento ad andare avanti sulla linea già tracciata dal voto in commissione trasporti.

Inoltre - mi avvio a concludere signor Presidente - per poter formulare in un futuro prossimo proposte concrete in materia di guida sotto l'influsso di sostanze psicoattive, nell'ottobre di due anni fa la Commissione ha lanciato un progetto di ricerca della durata di quattro anni destinato a perfezionare le conoscenze in questo campo e a formulare soluzioni. Si tratta del progetto DRUID che voi ben conoscete.

Va infine sottolineato anche il sostegno finanziario fornito dalla Commissione a favore di campagne di sensibilizzazione realizzate in particolare da giovani che si rivolgono ad altri giovani per renderli consapevoli della pericolosità del consumo di alcol e di droga alla guida dell'automobile. Un esempio fra tutti è la campagna intitolata "Bob" che ha avuto un grande successo in tutta Europa e ancora bisogna ricordare l'impegno della Commissione che ha chiamato a Bruxelles ad essere testimone della campagna dell'Unione europea per la sicurezza stradale il campione del mondo uscente di Formula Uno, Kimi Raikkonen, e in più la giornata dedicata alla sicurezza stradale nelle gradi città che si è svolta a Parigi il 10 ottobre scorso, che è un altro segnale di grande impegno della Commissione europea per quanto riguarda la sicurezza stradale - ne ho fatta una delle mie priorità in occasione del dibattito sulla fiducia dopo la mia indicazione come Commissario europeo ai trasporti.

Purtroppo di più non si può fare, onorevoli parlamentari, e spero di essere stato esauriente nella risposta alla sua interrogazione orale.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Dziękuję Panu za odpowiedź i zachęcam do bardziej odważnych kroków. Należy przyjąć i wznowić dyrektywę o tym, aby wprowadzić całkowity zakaz prowadzenia samochodu po alkoholu. Nie należy ulegać lobby producentów alkoholu, którzy mają swoje wpływy, ani się ich bać. Mamy prawo do bezpieczeństwa na naszych drogach i powinniśmy zacząć od młodzieży. Trzeba być śmiałym w tych projektach.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). - Herr Vizepräsident! Ich möchte die kurze Gelegenheit für zwei Fragen nutzen. Ersten, Sie haben gesagt, das politische Umfeld für eine derartige Verordnung sei noch nicht ganz gegeben. Meine Frage ist: Wo sind die größten Widerstände? Sind sie bei einzelnen Staaten oder sind sie bei großen Lobbys? Was hindert die Kommission daran, hier etwas zu unternehmen?

Meine zweite Frage: Immer mehr Studien zeigen, dass das Rauchen im Auto sehr gefährlich ist. Einerseits ist es sehr ungesund und andererseits lenkt es ab und macht müde. Meine Frage ist, ob es auch in dieser Richtung Überlegungen der Kommission gibt, auf europäischer Ebene etwas zu unternehmen.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). - My question concerns Ireland, where a large number of young people have been involved in tragic accidents as the sole occupants of vehicles.

I should like to know whether any research has been done across Europe on this topic and if we could revitalise the programme about educating young people in driving. A lot more work needs to be done, and I would ask that we revitalise that education programme at the earliest possible date.

  Antonio Tajani, Vicepresidente della Commissione. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli parlamentari, grazie per le domande che sono state poste perché permettono anche poi di chiarificare la posizione dell'Unione europea.

On. Leichtfried, quando lei parlava, giustamente, dei problemi politici che abbiamo trovato, i problemi politici riguardano gli Stati membri, abbiamo visto che purtroppo la proposta della Commissione non è stata accettata nonostante un grande impegno. Noi, malgrado il mancato accordo con gli Stati membri sulla proposta di direttiva, abbiamo continuato ad insistere e continueremo ad insistere. Ripeto quello che ho detto in occasione dell'audizione con la quale mi è stata concessa la fiducia dalla Commissione e dal Parlamento: continuerò a fare della sicurezza stradale una mia priorità.

Intendo continuare a sostenere anche tutti i progetti, programmi - rispondo così anche all'onorevole - DRUID, per quanto riguarda la questione dell'informazione ai giovani, dell'educazione dei giovani, deve essere una priorità. Non sono i mezzi che provocano gli incidenti, certo è importante avere dei mezzi sicuri, è importante avere delle strade sicure e questo Parlamento ha deciso di adottare, in sintonia con la Commissione, alcune scelte per quanto riguarda anche la parte infrastrutturale, ma il problema principale è l'educazione di chi si mette al volante o di chi sale in sella a una motocicletta.

Noi abbiamo il dovere di cominciare a formare dei giovani, quindi sono assolutamente d'accordo con la sua posizione e farò di tutto perché vengano sempre finanziati programmi dell'Unione europea e della Commissione per formare i giovani nelle scuole. Non a caso ho scelto, onorevoli parlamentari, come testimone della Commissione, l'ex campione del mondo che è un giovane.

Noi dobbiamo cercare di comunicare ai giovani, attraverso giovani che non facciano la predica che può fare un buon padre di famiglia, ma che siano in grado di spiegare loro quali sono i rischi concreti, perché ogni giovane in realtà quando esce dalla discoteca si sente esente da qualsiasi rischio. Purtroppo così non è, dobbiamo lavorare con le scuole, dobbiamo lavorare con le famiglie, perché ad ogni giovane vengano illustrati i rischi che corre ogniqualvolta si mette al volante e soprattutto se fa uso di alcol o fa uso di sostanze stupefacenti.

Per quanto riguarda la questione del tabagismo, chiederò ai servizi di fare un'indagine per sapere se effettivamente ci sono dei rischi aggiuntivi per chi fuma o meno. Non sono in grado di darle una risposta, perché da un punto di vista scientifico non lo so, comunque darò, ripeto, mandato ai servizi di verificare tutto questo.

Credo di aver risposto anche all'onorevole Sonik con la riconferma del mio impegno, e l'impegno credo di poterlo dire per quanto riguarda la Commissione - c'è la Vicepresidente Wallström che è responsabile anche della comunicazione - faremo di tutto per informare i cittadini e soprattutto i giovani cittadini, quindi i principianti a quali sono i rischi e i pericoli che corrono ogni volta che si muovono sui mezzi di trasporto.

  Presidente. − Interrogazione n. 35 dell'on. Katerina Batzeli (H-0861/08)

Oggetto: Accordo interistituzionale sul tema "Comunicare sull'Europa in partenariato"

Il 22 ottobre 2008, i rappresentanti del Parlamento europeo, della Commissione europea e del Consiglio hanno, per la prima volta nella storia dell'UE, firmato una dichiarazione politica a favore di una cooperazione interistituzionale in materia di comunicazione che metta in luce le priorità dell'UE. Tale accordo riveste la massima importanza, dal momento che con lo stesso si tenta di fornire una soluzione efficace al rilevante problema democratico di mancanza di informazione dei cittadini europei, come pure un'importanza cruciale da un punto di vista cronologico dal momento che ci si trova in un periodo preelettorale per l'UE.

Quali saranno le priorità e i messaggi principali di questa politica comunitaria unificata di comunicazione per l'anno prossimo e, in particolare, durante il periodo preelettorale?

Secondo quali modalità sarà promossa la cooperazione dei tre organi comunitari durante la definizione congiunta delle priorità e degli obiettivi di questa politica di comunicazione nonché la loro cooperazione con le singole autorità nazionali competenti? In particolare, quale sarà la relazione tra la politica comunitaria e le politiche nazionali di comunicazione relativamente all'UE?

Quali sono i mezzi destinati all'attuazione di tale nuova politica di comunicazione comunitaria e quale ruolo svolgeranno le nuove tecnologie di comunicazione? Quale sarà, in tale contesto, il ruolo del multilinguismo?

Su quali risorse comunitarie sarà basato il finanziamento delle singole azioni della politica di comunicazione recentemente stabilita?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Parliament, the Commission and the Council have boosted their cooperation on EU communication and signed the political declaration on Communicating Europe in Partnership on 22 October this year. Thank you very much for your strong support on this issue. This is the first time that we have agreed on a common approach to communication.

Communicating is more efficient and effective if done in a coordinated way on priority issues. Besides, it requires a political commitment of all actors, including Member States. All institutions have a responsibility to communicate with citizens about the European Union. However – and let me stress this firmly – the political declaration also respects the individual responsibility of each EU institution and Member State for its own communication strategy and priorities.

Common communication priorities are at the centre of the political declaration and they will be agreed by the interinstitutional group on information (IGI) co-chaired by representatives of each institution. We have already identified and agreed to have four common priorities in 2009: the European elections, energy and climate change, the 20th anniversary of the democratic changes in Central and Eastern Europe and, of course, sustaining jobs, growth and solidarity in Europe.

Implementation will be assured together by Parliament, the Commission and the Council, as well as by Member States. Therefore we will aim to develop synergies with national, regional and local authorities, as well as with representatives of civil society. Our representations and Parliament’s information offices in the Member States will work with national authorities on joint activities adapted to national conditions. If needed, we will enter into appropriate administrative arrangements between the services at EU and national levels and action will be financed appropriately.

It goes without saying that in their actions our institutions and Member States will respect multilingualism and cultural diversity. In this context, let me mention that the Commission is very active in facing the challenge of multilingualism. Among other measures, translators have been assigned to our representations in the Member States to serve local needs and help to communicate Europe in the language of its citizens.

Finally, implementation of the common communication priorities will provide excellent platforms for European, national and regional politicians to debate with citizens on EU issues before the European elections. I hope it will have a positive influence on the turnout.

  Κατερίνα Μπατζελή (PSE). - Ευχαριστώ πολύ, κυρία Wallström, για την απάντησή σας. Θα ήθελα πρώτον να δηλώσω ότι αυτή η διαθεσμική συμφωνία στοχεύει πρώτα απ' όλα να καθιερώσει μια ενιαία ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική επικοινωνίας, την οποία με σταθερό ρυθμό, σιγά-σιγά, θα πρέπει να υιοθετήσουν όλα τα κοινοτικά όργανα, έτσι ώστε οι πολίτες να έχουν ενιαία ενημέρωση.

Δεύτερον, θα ήθελα ορισμένες διευκρινίσεις για το θέμα των χρηματοδοτήσεων των νέων προτεινόμενων δράσεων. Πρόκειται να ενταχθούν σε ήδη υπάρχοντα προγράμματα; Θα δημιουργηθεί μια νέα γραμμή, έτσι ώστε να υπάρχει ένας προϋπολογισμός για την πληροφόρηση; Πώς θα χρηματοδοτηθούν τα τομεακά προγράμματα; Η πολιτική της επικοινωνίας θα είναι μία αυτόνομη ή συγχρηματοδοτούμενη πολιτική;

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). - Frau Vizepräsidentin! Papier ist geduldig, aber es zeigt sich zunehmend, dass es nicht sehr informativ ist. In der Informationspolitik sind die elektronischen Medien – Fernsehen und Internet – eigentlich diejenigen, die man bevorzugen muss. Daher meine Frage: Ist dieser Trend auch in der derzeitigen Politik zu sehen? Zweitens: Es hat mich gefreut, dass vor allem die lokalen und regionalen Fernsehanstalten hier eingebunden werden sollen. Das ist vernünftiger, als das Defizit der großen öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehanstalten abzudecken.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Again I am pleased to hear what the Commissioner has to say but I share the concerns of the last speaker. I am concerned about how the message is going to be conveyed out there and I agree about the electronic media.

There is a real danger that brochures and books will remain in offices unread. I have seen this happen so many times. I suppose the question I want to ask is: how do you intend to get the message out there to those who are interested? Are you going to try to target interested groups, or is it simply a blanket approach?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Thank you for these important follow-up questions.

Let me say what I think is necessary. For the success of any campaign or information, we will need five elements.

First, to use the internet and new technologies intensively. We can only dream of the Obama campaign. I think they had USD 1.2 billion for their information campaign, but the way they used the internet proved to be decisive. Therefore, we need to do that.

Second, we need to use audiovisual tools: 60% of citizens use mainly TV and radio for any information about what goes on at EU level.

Third, we need to engage with multipliers, such as civil society and local authorities’ different networks. Therefore, we have other faces and other messengers about the added value of working together at European level.

Fourth, we need to cooperate with ‘ambassadors’, i.e. people who are willing to stand for the cause of democracy and who can reach out more than we, the politicians, can do.

Fifth, we need to reach young people and women, who tend to vote less and be less enthusiastic about the European Union, which, not least, the referendums in Ireland, and previously in France and the Netherlands, showed us.

These things are necessary.

What about the money, then? What kind of budget do we have? We have been able to identify some EUR 8.5 million in our budget for next year to cover centrally and decentrally managed actions that are linked to next year’s elections. Our representations have been instructed to devote the bulk of their modest communication means to the EP elections and, in fact, out of the decentralised monies that they have, they have allocated 60% to this task. We also now have meetings at a technical level with your services in Parliament to compare notes on the different activities in the different Member States.

This year we have activities aimed at the elections that represent around EUR 6.2 million. We have projects targeting young people; we have special Eurobarometers etc. There is also money for communication on Structural Funds, on agriculture and on research in each policy area, but we do not have any extra money or special money allocated to this. I have asked all my colleagues to integrate the elections in their communication plans. They will be reporting to me on how this is being done.

Next year’s budget has not yet been finalised, so there is still an opportunity to add extra money – but this is what we can identify today in the budget. So there is not an over-allocation of money, but we will have to use the already-existing channels. We will also help and assist the European Parliament as much as we can with all our resources and through our normal activities, i.e. producing audiovisual material, video clips on EUtube – all of the things that we do on a daily basis we will make sure are used to mobilise voters and to inspire good and lively discussion in the EP elections.

Seconda parte

  Presidente. − Interrogazione n. 36 dell'on. Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0809/08)

Oggetto: Informazione dei cittadini europei sulla partecipazione alle elezioni europee

L'instabilità economica internazionale che ha di recente posto a dura prova i sistemi bancari internazionali e europei ha provocato profonda inquietudine nei semplici cittadini europei che non hanno visto proporre soluzioni a livello UE né avuto prova di solidarietà europea in questa circostanza cruciale.

Quali provvedimenti e quali azioni intende proporre la Commissione per informare i cittadini europei sulle politiche e soluzioni europee a livello UE o di Stati membri in periodi di crisi e di circostanze politico-economiche straordinarie? Quali programmi ha in merito all'informazione pre-elettorale e alla mobilitazione degli europei affinché partecipino alle elezioni europee e per quanto riguarda anche l'andamento non favorevole di tematiche importanti per l'UE quali le relazioni economiche e commerciali internazionali?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I know very well that the financial crisis and its impact on the real economies are of huge concern to many Europeans and, as such, this will also have a particular impact on the European elections. It is no wonder, then, that most people would like the election campaign to focus on economic issues affecting their everyday lives, such as unemployment, economic growth, inflation and purchasing power. More recent opinion polls also show that people now see the EU as a ‘shelter’ from the current crisis and want the EU to regulate at global level.

The Commission keeps pace with developments. On 29 October we adopted a framework focusing on dealing both with a crisis in the markets, preventing future crises through reforms of economic governance, and minimising the impact on jobs and growth. Proposals to follow this up are in preparation and are central strategic priorities for our legislative and work programme for 2009, which we presented to Parliament yesterday and which was debated.

It is important that the need for action has been recognised by the Commission, Parliament and Council and that we are about to propose sustaining jobs, growth and solidarity as one of the interinstitutional communication priorities for next year. This means that it will be one of the themes on which EU institutions and Member States will work in partnership to communicate on EU activities in this area. Plans will be drawn up on how best to do this.

I have already mentioned the EP elections, which are another of the interinstitutional priorities. Here, preparations are more advanced, as we have all known for some time that it would be a priority.

Our institutions are working in close cooperation on all election-related communications activities, and the Commission will contribute actively to the framework communication strategy adopted by Parliament. The Commission’s goal is to raise people’s awareness of the elections and generate debate on substantive EU policy issues. This will be partly achieved by the use of our central tools, including the use of audiovisual media and the internet, and complemented by many decentralised activities organised by the representations in each Member State in close cooperation with Parliament’s information offices.

Those events should make people aware of the fact that the voter has a choice between different policy visions of Europe and that these choices will make a big difference to the lives of all our citizens.

  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου (PPE-DE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ την Αντιπρόεδρο για την απάντηση. Εύχομαι τα μέτρα που προτείνει η Επιτροπή να πραγματοποιηθούν, γιατί από την πρόταση μέχρι την πραγματοποίηση υπάρχει χρόνος, υπάρχει γραφειοκρατία, και δεν ξέρω αν θα φτάσει ο χρόνος μέχρι τις εκλογές, ώσπου να δουν οι πολίτες τα αποτελέσματα.

Επίσης η χρηματοδότηση και η στρατηγική ενημέρωσης είναι δυνατόν να φέρουν τα αντίθετα αποτελέσματα και, γι' αυτό, χρειάζεται ιδιαίτερη προσοχή για να μη θίξουμε τα ευαίσθητα σημεία των πολιτών, που δεν θέλουν να βλέπουν το χρήμα να σπαταλάται άδικα σε εκδηλώσεις, εκδόσεις και αποκεντρωμένες δραστηριότητες που είπατε.

Επίσης οι συζητήσεις δεν πείθουν πάντοτε. Γι' αυτό ίσως θα πρέπει να αναγνωρίσουμε τα μέσα που έχουμε στη διάθεσή μας και να είμαστε πιο ειλικρινείς με τους πολίτες.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). - Señora Vicepresidenta, ¿le parece a usted que la cercanía o la lejanía de los candidatos a los electores tienen que ver con el grado de participación en las elecciones europeas? ¿Está usted de acuerdo en que un Estado de 45 millones de habitantes no tenga más que una sola circunscripción electoral para las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo? ¿Qué puede hacer la Comisión para que los Estados de mayor número de población puedan tener circunscripciones más próximas a los ciudadanos?

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). - I just want to say to the Vice-President of the Commission that we should look at the situation in Denmark, where they are now talking about applying for membership of the euro; in Iceland, where the country has been torn apart; and in Sweden, where clearly they are looking again at joining the euro.

For example, who is telling the people of Ireland that, because they were under the euro and the European Central Bank, they have been able to weather this storm much better than these other countries? Is it not time that we actually start talking up the European Union? This week we have Members of the European Parliament from Ireland in this House making negative comments about the European Union. Who is going to make the positive comments and claim the good things for us so that people know the benefits of being in the European Union and the euro?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I tried to do my bit by visiting Ireland last week. I tried to explain what I think are the added values of European cooperation. I think the debate about the euro and why it has been to the advantage of Ireland to belong to the euro area is going well now, but it raises the basic question of who will advocate the European Union; who will speak for the European Union. Where does the responsibility lie? We can never count on Brussels doing all of that. It has to be shared and done in partnership.

Actually I think that the political controversy and debate are good, because there are different versions, different programmes etc. I think that helps to raise interest, and it is also ultimately good for voter turnout. Of course we want to encourage and stimulate a lively debate and discussion on the European agenda and European issues. We all have to be advocates. That is why I am proud and happy that we, for the first time, have this kind of framework of an agreed partnership on communication. We have never had that before.

So we should decide to share the responsibility to be advocates and also to listen to the concerns of people across Europe, because really it is communication, not only information, that matters. Listen better, explain better and go local: that is what I repeat with regard to communication. The campaign will be carried out differently in different Member States because it will have to be adapted to national conditions. This is what we are trying to do now. We are trying to speed it up as much as we can, but we also have to respect the Financial Regulation and all the rules. We have to be correct in everything we do. We had a meeting today, which we will follow up. We will try to respond as best we can to the Parliament’s detailed timetable for planning for the EP elections.

I think that we will already be able to allocate and spend money this year, but of course more resources becoming available would help us to organise more activities next year. I repeat that I think we also have to look at using audiovisual media and the Internet more extensively in order to be effective and to reach out to young people.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). - Discúlpeme, pero no he oído que la señora Vicepresidenta haya contestado a mis preguntas.

  Presidente. − Prendiamo atto della risposta della Commissione, non abbiamo prerogative o competenze per valutare nel merito la portata della risposta.

Interrogazione n. 37 dell'on. Georgios Papastamkos (H-0811/08)

Oggetto: Strategia di comunicazione della Commissione in merito al referendum in Irlanda

Quale è stata la strategia di comunicazione della Commissione e dei suoi componenti durante il periodo precedente al referendum in Irlanda?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I would like to stress that, on the Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission has worked through its representations and in close coordination with Member States to provide factual and objective information to EU citizens. We have supported this work with communication kits including various materials such as fact sheets, presentations and key messages. We also provided training and briefings for Commissioners, representation staff, Europe Direct information centres and other information multipliers.

Recognising the importance of the Web, we have created a dedicated website with comprehensive information on the Lisbon Treaty which was launched in the 23 official languages. On that basis the Commission representations in Member States have developed materials adapted for local needs and better suited for informing citizens. Further to this, the representations, including the one in Ireland, have drawn up communication plans in close cooperation with the national government and EP information offices in Member States.

Activities that we planned include training for journalists and multipliers, publications of brochures and leaflets, organisation of discussions with civil society and local authorities, and also public events at schools and universities. As such the citizens get tailor-made information in their language and addressing their real concerns.

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ την κυρία Αντιπρόεδρο. Η συμπληρωματική μου ερώτηση εμπεριέχει μία πρόταση: κυρία Αντιπρόεδρε της Επιτροπής, επισκεφτείτε - όχι μόνο εσείς - το Κολλέγιο των Επιτρόπων, την Ιρλανδία σε πολιτικά εύθετο χρόνο για το ιρλανδικό ζήτημα και ανοίξτε μία συζήτηση με τους πολίτες της Ιρλανδίας, απαντήστε στα ερωτήματά τους όλο το Κολλέγιο των Επιτρόπων "in toto".

Οργανώστε μία συζήτηση με όλους τους ενδιαφερομένους φορείς, η οποία να τύχει τηλεοπτικής κάλυψης, για να την παρακολουθήσει ο ιρλανδικός λαός, το ιρλανδικό εκλογικό σώμα, και να απαντήστε επί τόπου στα αγωνιώδη ερωτήματά του.

  Armando França (PSE). - Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, há dois meses que as agendas política e mediática estão dominadas pela crise financeira e económica. O referendo na Irlanda ou as dificuldades na República Checa sobre o Tratado de Lisboa quase não têm expressão nos media. Não acha que, agora, a estratégia de informação e de comunicação da Comissão deveria ser reforçada com a necessidade e a urgência da entrada em vigor do Tratado de Lisboa, também como uma resposta política para enfrentar e superar a crise em que vivemos?

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). - I will be brief. First of all I would like to compliment the Commissioner in particular for her efforts on this issue. As a former journalist, can I suggest that while a meeting of the Commission might be interesting for the Commission, we cannot force people to watch it.

The problem is, information without emotion will not be taken up and I am afraid Europe is pretty dull and boring – except your good self – so you need to address that.

Can I also say as a former journalist – and this is terrible that I am saying this in public – I was brought here, and to the Commission, on many occasions and the grey walls and the dull presentations did not stimulate my European genes. You need to tackle that issue. Finally, if the Irish Government had, as you said, listened better, explained better and gone local, there would have been a ‘yes’.

  Presidente. − Comunico che le interrogazioni dal numero 38 al numero 41 riceveranno risposta scritta.

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). - Παρακαλώ την κυρία Αντιπρόεδρο να απαντήσει στα συμπληρωματικά μας ερωτήματα.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I think that maybe the President forgot to give me a chance to reply to your specific questions. Of course we are learning important lessons from what happened in the referendum, and I think you are right in pointing out that there should perhaps have been more visits on the ‘yes’ side. We followed the advice at the time and we fully respected the wish not to be seen as interfering with the debate in Ireland, but maybe now the Irish will want send out invitations much more widely. I have encouraged all my colleagues to go there and engage in a discussion with the Irish. If they broadcast it on TV I am not sure it will always be that convincing, but we appreciate the media attention.

We are working now with the Irish Government to conclude a memorandum of understanding, where we look at the things that have to be done, both in the short term and the longer term, in making sure we have better civic education, that we work with journalists, that we perhaps have a more emotional approach to some of these issues, yet at the same time respect the laws and rules that exist in Ireland.

We are learning lessons and I think we will very much follow your advice to go there and to respond to everything from agriculture to fisheries policy to trade etc. This is the way to meet the challenge. I hope that we will stimulate a good discussion. Thank you for giving me this time.

  Presidente. − Interrogazione n. 49 dell'on. Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0797/08)

Oggetto: Emigrazioni interafricane

L'accumularsi delle difficoltà interne in alcuni paesi africani e le aspettative di emigrazione verso l'Europa hanno provocato lo spostamento di decine di migliaia di cittadini dei paesi dell'Africa a sud del Sahara verso paesi situati più a nord come la Libia, il Marocco, la Mauritania e il Senegal.

È al corrente la Commissione di questa situazione? In caso affermativo, intende adottare misure volte ad alleviare le penose condizioni in cui vivono questi emigranti africani e ad alleggerire la pressione a cui sono sottoposti i paesi dell'Africa settentrionale per via di questo anomalo spostamento demografico?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Now we are into a completely different policy area. The Commission is perfectly aware of the poverty which, combined with other factors such as instability, climate change and human rights violations, drives migrants to embark on a hard, sometimes tragic journey. The Commission is active on all these fronts, primarily via the political dialogue conducted with these countries and via the European Development Fund and its aim of combating poverty.

In response to the tragic events in Ceuta and Melilla and as part of the global approach approved by the European Council in late 2005, the European Union wanted a structured dialogue with Africa on the link between migration and development under the Rabat process in respect of the West African migratory route, shortly to be followed up by the Paris Conference on 25 November, and the Tripoli Process in respect of Africa as a whole.

The partnership on migration mobility and employment was launched at the December 2007 EU-Africa summit in Lisbon. The underlying idea is that the partnership should find solutions to migration by linking it to employment issues.

The Migration Information and Management Centre, inaugurated by the Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner and Malian President Touré in Bamako on 6 October, exemplifies the practical application of the integrated approach that the Commission is striving to promote. It is, moreover, ready to reproduce this example elsewhere in West Africa.

As regards migrants’ living conditions: one of the objectives of the migration and asylum programme is to protect migrants’ rights, inter alia by strengthening the capacity of administrations and stakeholders in countries of transit or destination such as the North African countries to assist migrants, especially in certain conditions.

By way of example, the European Community has recently granted funding under the programme for the following projects: the continuing financing of the Libya office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which plays a key role in promoting the rights of refugees and asylum seekers; improving the protection of the living conditions of international migrants in North Africa; strengthening the capacity of civil society organisations in the area of promoting the rights of migrants in North Africa; and a programme enabling migrants in Libyan Morocco to return home voluntarily in decent conditions.

Lastly, the Commission is using the programme to finance many projects in sub-Saharan Africa addressing the prevention of illegal immigration, the promotion of legal migration, the link between migration and development and the promotion of refugee and asylum-seeker advocacy.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). - Muchas gracias, señora Vicepresidenta. Me ha dado usted bastante información sobre el tema que planteaba y le agradezco esa información detallada. Creo que es importante la nueva etapa de la Comisión y, sobre todo, el proyecto de Bamako de un centro de la Unión Europea en materia de inmigración. Sé que acaba de abrirse, que es probablemente muy pronto, pero la pregunta que hago a la Comisión es: ¿En el caso de que ese proyecto de Bamako (Malí) en materia de inmigración diera buenos resultados, cree posible la Comisión extender esa experiencia al resto de los países de la orilla sur del Mediterráneo?

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). - Mr President, on a point of order, I just wanted to mention something in relation to the last session. I am sorry for raising it at this stage, but during the last session less than 15 minutes were given for three questions – 38, 39 and 40 – which were very much connected.

I think it is unfortunate that they were not dealt with, because I think they could have been dealt with, and yet only 15 minutes were granted to the last session. I had understood it was 20 minutes.

  Presidente. − Penso che lei abbia ragione, ne prendo atto, non ho altra possibilità in questo momento.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I am also learning all the time in this job. I am learning that similar projects – like the Bamako project – are planned for other countries in Western Africa such as Senegal. So apparently this is already on the agenda and the Commission is fully engaged in developing similar projects in other countries.

  Presidente. − Interrogazione n. 50 dell'on. Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García (H-0799/08)

Oggetto: Apertura di dialogo a Cuba

Le conclusioni del Consiglio su Cuba del 23 giugno 2008 sono state ricevute molto bene dai settori democratici dell'isola i quali apprezzano il fatto che la liberazione incondizionata di tutti i prigionieri politici sia una priorità fondamentale dell'UE e che essa si impegni a promuovere il rispetto dei diritti umani e il progresso reale verso una democrazia pluralista.

In linea con gli impegni adottati nelle conclusioni, può indicare la Commissione se i suoi membri hanno stabilito già contatti con rappresentanti della società civile e dell'opposizione democratica? Quali misure effettive sta avviando per approfondire il dialogo con tali rappresentanti? In che modo garantisce che azioni previste a beneficio della società civile (come i microprogetti per la promozione dell'inserimento e della coesione sociale) non subiscano interventi da parte di organismi ufficiali?

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − The Commission maintains regular direct contact with civil society in all countries of the world, including Cuba. The Commission’s role in Cuba is appreciated and supported by civil society and by opposition groups. The Commission delegation in Cuba regularly receives representatives of civil society and opposition groups, and the Commission’s departments in Brussels pursue an open-door policy vis-à-vis any person or organisation that wants a constructive discussion on Cuba or any other country.

The meeting that relaunched political dialogue between the European Union and Cuba, following the Council conclusions of 23 June which terminated the diplomatic measures adopted in 2003, was an EU ministerial troika meeting on Cuba in Paris on 16 October 2008. The positive spirit that reigned at that meeting allowed frank and open discussions to take place on subjects of common interest, such as the international financial crisis, human rights, cooperation with Cuba and reform of the United Nations.

The Commission is firmly convinced – and the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid has said this on several occasions – that frank and open dialogue between the EU and Cuba provides the best framework for discussion on matters of common concern to the two sides, including questions of human rights.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (PSE). - Agradezco la respuesta en nombre del señor Yañez-Barnuevo, pero he de decir, Comisaria, al señor Michel, que sus acciones, sus palabras y sus gestos son muy necesarios en contacto directo entablado realmente con la oposición democrática cubana para cumplir las conclusiones prioritarias del Consejo y reducir los efectos de la terrible dictadura castrista y favorecer a la libertad.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − I will of course convey to my colleague all Parliament’s responses and reactions. I think he recently visited Cuba, but of course, to date, we have not had the chance to develop this context. If I know him well enough, I think that this is definitely in his interests and that he will show openness and willingness to listen. This is, of course, part of what we have to do from now on. It is definitely in the Commission’s interest as well.

  Presidente. − Comunico che sono assenti gli onorevoli che avevano formulato altre interrogazioni e che quindi per le interrogazioni dal numero 51 al numero 58 sarà fornita risposta scritta.

Interrogazione n. 43 dell'on. Emmanouil Angelakas (H-0810/08)

Oggetto: Europa - Centro di attrazione per i ricercatori

Stando a taluni dati statistici l'Unione europea produce più laureati in scienze esatte degli USA e del Giappone. Ciò nonostante taluni studi indicano che l'Europa è incapace di trattenere questo gran numero di ricercatori laureati che emigrano verso paesi extra-UE. Questo fatto suscita logicamente particolare inquietudine soprattutto dal momento che l'Europa ambisce a divenire l'economia basata sulla conoscenza più dinamica del pianeta.

Quali sono i principali fattori all'origine di questo fenomeno e quali ne sono i contraccolpi per l'UE? Dispone la Commissione di dati statistici in merito all'occupazione dei ricercatori laureati in ciascuno Stato membro?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Researchers are at the heart of knowledge creation, transfer and exploitation. They are the key for Europe to turn the fifth freedom – the freedom of movement of knowledge – into reality, and with that to shape the knowledge-based economy.

The supply of human resources for research is indeed best reflected in the number of new university graduates. The benchmark adopted by the Education Council in 2003, to increase by 15% the number of graduates in Member States and decrease gender imbalance by 2010, has been reached. In 2006 there were in the EU-27 about 200 000 more mathematics, science and technology graduates than in 2000.

It is clear that not all university graduates go into research. For the European Union an additional factor here is that, due to the lower share of private research investments in Europe compared to other continents, the market for researchers in the EU is relatively smaller than those of our competitors.

On top of that, there is strong competition for attracting and keeping the most talented researchers. This is first and foremost a competition between research and other economic sectors. But there is also a competition between countries and world regions – in particular the US, but also increasingly China and India.

The European Union is facing the upcoming retirement of generations of researchers in Europe, with no prospect of their complete replacement. The situation will get worse if young people are not attracted into the research profession. What is at stake is whether Europe in the long term can remain and further develop as a world-class location for research and development.

The fact is that researchers in Europe are still faced with serious obstacles and a lack of opportunities. When I talk to researchers across Europe, I hear about unattractive working conditions and career prospects, an often precarious status and short-term contracts. Furthermore, many researchers are still trained in a way which does not equip them with the skills needed in a modern knowledge economy. There are strong disincentives for researchers wishing to move jobs within academia and industry and vice versa. Finally, the structural fragmentation of the European researchers’ labour market hinders the transnational mobility of researchers within the European Union, due to, in particular, a lack of open, merit-based recruitment and to cultural factors, as well as problems encountered by highly mobile workers in such fields as social security, taxation and transferability of supplementary pension rights.

It is therefore high time for Europe to step up its efforts to ensure the availability of the necessary researchers in the years ahead. That is precisely why the Commission last May proposed a European Partnership for Researchers: a partnership with and among Member States entailing a focused framework to make rapid progress across Europe in key areas determining better careers and more mobility.

The Council has responded favourably to this initiative and we are about to embark on its implementation, centred on national action plans and mutual learning. Evidence-based monitoring of progress, data-collection on mobility and career patterns are also foreseen. So, while we currently have very few data, the aim is to provide ourselves with the better statistics that the Honourable Member is looking for. We have many of the other data but not exactly these specific data.

The Commission Communication on the European Partnership for Researchers is currently under consideration in this Parliament. The Commission looks forward to Parliament’s opinion, which will hopefully reinforce this common endeavour for the future of research in Europe.

  Εμμανουήλ Αγγελάκας (PPE-DE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ τον Επίτροπο για την απάντηση. Έχω μια συμπληρωματική ερώτηση που αφορά το έβδομο πρόγραμμα-πλαίσιο για την έρευνα που έχει ένα πακέτο 54 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ: εάν έχετε στοιχεία κύριε Επίτροπε, μετά από 18 μήνες εφαρμογής του εβδόμου αυτού πλαισίου, για το πώς εξελίσσεται, ποιες χώρες ακολουθούν ικανοποιητικούς ρυθμούς απορρόφησης και ποια τα μεγαλύτερα προβλήματα που εμφανίζονται και εάν η Επιτροπή σκοπεύει να κάνει μια εκτίμηση της πορείας αυτού του χρηματοδοτικού πλαισίου.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). - Herr Präsident! Die Attraktivität für die Forscher hängt natürlich auch vom Nettoeinkommen ab, das sie bekommen. Gibt es hier gemeinsame Überlegungen mit Kommissar Kovács, einen Vorschlag zu entwickeln, dass Forscher ihr Einkommen steuerfrei bekommen können und dass Spenden, die an Forschungseinrichtungen gegeben werden, auch steuerfrei sind bzw. als Betriebsausgabe geltend gemacht werden könnten? In Amerika gibt es dieses System. Wäre es nicht möglich, hier eine Vergleichsstudie anzustellen, so dass wir auch hier incentives geben können?

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). - I would like to ask the Commissioner, when he is revisiting these questions and listening to Parliament, if he will again revisit the question of ethical research and ethical researchers. It is very clear that the destruction of embryos is no longer required and there are many other avenues for exploration. Will he now start putting resources into those other avenues so that we can return to a fully ethical research base within the European Union?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − I wish to begin by saying that of course we are following all the data and everything that concerns the framework programme. This is available and we can provide you with the data.

We also have regular monitoring reports, which are envisaged until the end of the year, and in addition we will have a progress report – I think at the end of May 2009. But the progress report is much more: it is about providing the input of ideas on how we should proceed in the future. Part of the logical implementation of the framework programme is to follow what you do and where you are investing or spending the funds.

Concerning tax-free income: I was always in favour of using those instruments which would stimulate science and research, including tax-free incomes. One of the problems which we have to deal with in this crisis and difficult situation is how to stimulate research and development so we are not in the same situation as companies. Because of the pressures they would certainly consider reducing investment in research and development.

This avenue is one of the possibilities, but we also have to be aware that we have a flexible growth and stability pact, which has to be followed, and we have to consider that the situation is certainly not the same in all Member States. Member States have different kinds of manoeuvres which they have established during the good times, when economies were better.

Finally, you asked me about the ethical approach, which was also mentioned in another question. I think we have truly invested a lot in order to reach an agreement on which to base our ethical approach in science and research and also when we are using the framework programmes. Agreement is difficult. There are different views across the European Union Member States, and we can be quite proud that we have established something like clear ethical procedures which are, in reality and in practice, proving to be based on true ethics.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). - Herr Präsident! Ich bitte um Verzeihung. Ich bin normalerweise sehr pünktlich. Aber zur Pünktlichkeit gehören immer zwei Seiten, und diese Fragestunde findet verspätet statt. Deshalb war ich in der Fraktionssitzung, und sobald ich auf dem Bildschirm gesehen habe, dass Kommissar Potočnik beginnt, bin ich rüber gerannt und kam in der Sekunde, in der er angefangen hat, herein. Ich bitte Sie, meine Frage 42 großzügigerweise noch aufzurufen, denn ich kam wirklich in der Sekunde ins Plenum, in der Kommissar Potočnik aufgerufen wurde. Sie haben mich vielleicht nicht gesehen. Ich kam da hereingelaufen.

  Presidente. − Onorevole Posselt, avevamo già notato il suo arrivo, sia pure con un piccolo ritardo di cui chiaramente lei non è responsabile, ampiamente giustificato, e si pensava, come Ufficio di Presidenza, intanto di seguire l'ordine con la successiva, ma faremo effettivamente tutto il possibile per recuperare in questa tornata la sua interrogazione.

Interrogazione n. 44 dell'on. Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0820/08)

Oggetto: Finanziamenti a favore delle tecnologie verdi

Nell'attuale clima di crisi economica e di crescente insicurezza energetica i cittadini si aspettano che l'UE svolga un ruolo di guida. È ora che l'UE e i suoi Stati membri accelerino il passo e promuovano un aumento dei finanziamenti per l'innovazione e la tecnologia. È necessario diffondere il messaggio secondo cui l'UE può svolgere un ruolo di leader a livello mondiale in materia di tecnologie verdi se agirà ora, non più tardi. La sfida del cambiamento climatico rappresenta un'opportunità per gli investitori e le imprese nonché in termini di ricerca e sviluppo e di posti di lavoro.

Può la Commissione illustrare i piani attuali e futuri concernenti gli investimenti a favore delle tecnologie verdi nell'ambito del Settimo programma quadro per le ricerca e lo sviluppo tecnologico?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − The Commission fully supports the analysis made by the honourable Member in his oral question.

We are the leader in green technology and we need to maintain and reinforce this position. This will also back the position of the EU in its leading role in the international fora for combating climate change. With the seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, the European Union is well equipped – and Parliament played its full role in its outcome – to mobilise EU R&D funds in support of the development of new green technologies.

The Commission is putting a lot of effort into making the most of FP7. Two of the joint technology initiatives adopted so far are fully dedicated to green technologies: ‘Clean Sky’, with a European contribution of EUR 800 million; and ‘hydrogen and fuel cells’, with a contribution of EUR 450 million from the European Community.

With the European Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan, we are strongly endorsed by Parliament and the Council. The Commission has initiated a process that will enhance the effectiveness of Research & Development spending in energy research. The SET Plan is committed to green technologies. It calls for the implementation of six new priority European industrial initiatives (industry-led programmes: wind, solar, CCS, grids, bioenergy and sustainable fission) and the establishment of the European Energy Research Alliance (research-led programmes).

The FP7 Energy Community Programme is the main instrument available in the short term to support the implementation of these actions. But more than EU effort alone is certainly needed. Therefore the Community Programme should be used to catalyse actions of Member States and of course of the private sector. This requires a shift in the approach: rather than just cofinancing projects, steering and enabling the deployment of a joint effort through joint programming is truly needed.

Analysing the whole set of work programmes from the first three years of implementation of FP7, the Commission estimates that 37% of the topics supported by R&D funding are for green technology. Forty per cent of the budget committed after the 2007 calls, under the ‘Cooperation’ Specific Programmes, also support green technology R&D.

In order to be able to monitor the contribution of FP7 to sustainable development, in general, and to green technology, in particular, the Commission is setting in place a monitoring system that should be operational in the first semester of next year.

In its Communication ‘From financial crisis to recovery: A European framework for action’, adopted on 29 October this year, the Commission also emphasises the role of R&D investment and education as well as enhancing European competitiveness by continuing to green our economy.

In more general terms it should be noted that, in addition to FP7 funds and activities, there is a wide range of policy initiatives and supporting programmes related to environmental technologies in the EU like the Environmental Technologies Action Plan, the Competitiveness and Innovation Plan and more recently, the Lead Market Initiative and Action Plan on sustainable production and consumption.

The Commission hopes that, with this element of response, the honourable Member will be convinced that we are fully engaged in harnessing FP7 funds to really greening our research and our economies.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). - A Uachtaráin, gabhaim buíochas leis an gCoimisinéir as an bhfreagra cuimsitheach sin.

Maidir le taighde mara, taighde na farraige, agus teicneolaíocht agus eolaíocht na farraige, an bhfuil cabhair ar fáil faoi sheachtú Creat-Chlár an Aontais chun cur leis an taighde mara agus le teicneolaíocht na mara faoin gclár sin?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − The answer is certainly ‘yes’. We discussed only yesterday in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy this specific activity which is devoted to marine and maritime matters. We want to make more progress in this area, because the situation is extremely complex. This whole area of oceans is extremely complex, but our life, the way we live, also influences the ecosystems there. It deserves special attention, and this attention should take the form of a new way of organising the system of research in this area: bringing marine and maritime researchers together, and also combining the efforts from the Member States in a different way than is the case today. This is a new way of thinking, which could be named ‘pilot thinking’ in the context of joint programming, which is something which I mentioned before. Certainly this will have our attention in the future also.

  Presidente. − Colleghi, vi prego, dobbiamo cercare di recuperare le conseguenze dell'inversione dei tempi che c'è stata, cercando di rispettare e dare la possibilità a tutti di svolgere l'interrogazione. Per far questo allora vi annuncio che cercheremo di svolgere tutte le restanti interrogazioni, però potrò dare la parola, dopo l'intervento del Commissario, soltanto al deputato che ha presentato l'interrogazione, non accetteremo altre richieste di intervento perché questo impedirebbe di raggiungere il risultato finale.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). - Mr President, I know I have just joined you, but I have been watching the monitor at a very important group meeting and I just wonder why we are not going seriatim. I really cannot stay. I came precisely when my question was scheduled and now you are reverting out of order. I would urge you please to stick to the order, Mr President.

  Presidente. − On. Doyle, non sto cambiando l'ordine, purtroppo è successo un incidente non dovuto a responsabilità dell'on. Posselt, perché siccome c'è stato un turno cambiato di orario per i Commissari, l'on. Posselt ha avuto 30 secondi di ritardo, quindi recupero l'interrogazione dell'on. Posselt e subito dopo ci sarà l'interrogazione della on. Doyle.

Interrogazione n. 42 dell'on. Bernd Posselt (H-0795/08)

Oggetto: Clonazione

La Commissione sta conducendo attualmente una discussione di fondo sulla clonazione. Qual è lo scopo di tale dibattito, e quali sono i fondamenti essenziali sui quali esso poggia?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − This is certainly a difficult and complex area. The debate on cloning at the Commission refers to the use of a technology called somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) with particular reference to farm animal breeding and how to deal with food produced from these cloned animals and their offspring.

In the case of the use of this cloning technique in livestock reproduction and breeding in the agrofood sector, the questions are in particular related to animal health and welfare. In the case of the safety of food derived from cloned animals and their offspring, the questions are in particular related to any possible risk to human health and to the consumer’s right to be informed.

The debate does not cover the use of SCNT in research. The Commission has been following the development of SCNT since 1996, when the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, was born. In 1997 the Commission asked the Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology to issue an opinion on the ethics of cloning.

In 2004, the Commission financed the project ‘Cloning in public’ under the sixth Framework Programme. This allowed an EU-wide debate to be launched as a first opportunity to have preliminary discussions with academics and civil society on ethical, legal and other societal aspects of farm animal cloning. The study concluded that the public is not well informed about the use and implications of cloning. The JRC published a study in 2007 in Nature Biotechnology on the prospects for future commercial use of cloning technology. The study mapped the state of the art of the commercial applications of animal cloning worldwide and produced a pipeline of products and their estimated time of arrival on the market. The conclusion was that cloned animals were not expected to arrive on the EU market before 2010 and that reproductive materials – semen – from cloned animals may be the first products to be traded.

Over recent years, the Commission has received information that the technology of somatic cell nuclear transfer for the reproduction of farm animals is about to reach its commercial stage, in particular in third countries, notably the USA. Based on the final risk assessment, a report written by the US Food and Drug Administration scientists and issued in January 2008 concluded that the consumption of food from cloned animals and their offspring is safe as long as the food comes from healthy animals, which is a general principle in food safety. Only healthy animals enter the food chain.

In order to prepare for an informed political debate, in 2007 the Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the actual and potential risks associated with the use of this technology in food production and also asked the European Group of Ethics (EGE) to issue an opinion on the ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply. The Group released their opinion in January 2008 and the Authority in July 2008. According to EFSA, ‘based on current knowledge ... there is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety between food products [derived] from healthy [animal] clones and their progeny, compared with those from healthy conventionally-bred animals’. Concerning the general health conditions of clones, the EFSA opinion states that there is no indication of adverse effects for the sexually reproduced progeny of cattle or pig clones. However, clones and their progeny have not yet been studied throughout the whole of their natural life span.

At present the EGE does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.

The Commission also asked for a Eurobarometer survey to be carried out on the attitude of Europeans towards animal cloning. The results were made available in October 2008. The study showed that 58% of the respondents were against cloning for food production purposes.

The Commission is now carefully considering these various elements to prepare an informal political debate on the use of somatic cell nucleus transfer for the reproduction of farm animals and food production. Should it be considered necessary to further develop the regulatory framework, it is important to recall that the new provisions would of course have to comply with the EC Treaty and with World Trade Organisation rules.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). - Herr Präsident! Ich danke dem Präsidenten für seine Großzügigkeit und dem Kommissar für seine gute Antwort. Nur eine Frage: Kann die Kommission definitiv ausschließen, dass das Klonen von Menschen – egal in welcher Form – Bestandteil dieser Strategie ist oder wird?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Under the rules which we currently apply, this is ruled out. The rules which we are using certainly do not allow research where the purpose would be the cloning of people.

  Presidente. − Interrogazione n. 45 dell'on. Avril Doyle (H-0827/08)

Oggetto: Consiglio europeo per la ricerca

Il Consiglio europeo per la ricerca (CER) è stato varato ufficialmente il 27/28 febbraio 2007, in occasione di una conferenza inaugurale organizzata a Berlino dalla Presidenza tedesca dell'UE. Uno dei suoi obiettivi è quello di promuovere la ricerca di frontiera interamente realizzata su "iniziativa dei ricercatori" ovvero la ricerca di tipo "bottom-up" (cioè "dal basso").

Può la Commissione chiarire cosa s'intende per frontiera di ricerca su "iniziativa del ricercatore" o "bottom-up"? Quali progressi sono stati sinora realizzati in questo ambito?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Here, I will be brief. The ‘investigator-driven’ approach followed by the European Research Council means that it supports projects at the frontiers of knowledge carried out by researchers on subjects of their choice, in any scientific field. So they have the freedom to choose.

The European Research Council, by supporting ‘frontier research’, puts particular emphasis on interdisciplinary projects and on pioneering research.

So far – and now I am talking about the progress – two calls for proposals have been implemented by the European Research Council, and Europe’s research community has responded with huge enthusiasm. A massive 9 167 proposals were submitted by young researchers in response to the Starting Independent Investigators Grants call last year and more than 2 000 proposals were received for the Advanced Investigators Grants call this year. This high level of participation demonstrates the appeal of the European Research Council and confirms that funding for frontier research on a bottom-up basis corresponds to an urgent need in Europe.

The Commission is convinced that such investment in frontier research in the long term will substantially contribute to improving our knowledge-based society and also our innovation capacity in research.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). - In the light of the French presidency’s objective of establishing a governance process for the European Research Area (ERA) by the end of 2009, could the Commission specify what measures it plans undertaking, in cooperation with Member States and Parliament, to put in place science policy evaluation methodologies to ensure evidence-based policy options for science and research and development in the EU?

With the announcement of the European Research Area’s ‘2020 Vision’ agreed by the French presidency, the Council and the Commission, what progress is being made in the whole area of governance here in the ERA?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − To be honest, this is quite a far-reaching question. We believe that it is important that we agree with the Member States on ‘2020 Vision’, because if we do then this would certainly reduce the length of further debates about what we want to do in Europe. We should not repeat again and again where we are going: that is the whole idea. Of course the debate is not starting now: the idea was launched with a Green Paper in 2000. I think it is great, especially for the new changed reality in which we live.

The structure and governance of ERA are extremely important, and that is why we have to be patient. It is clear that we will not be successful if the Member States are not in the driving seat. When we talk about the European Research Area and stimulating that, we do not talk predominantly about increasing funds at the European level, but rather about how we can all cooperate better – something that is inherently in the basics of the institutional framework of some of our major competitors, such as the USA, with which we want to compare ourselves. So we want to create a voluntary commitment of the Member States through which we cooperate more and better than at present.

Concerning science policy methodologies, this is all part of the discussion which we are focusing on. I think that this question will certainly have to be addressed, but I cannot elaborate on that. I know that ERA’s approach is in essence one of the developments that Europe most needs at this time.

  Presidente. − Interrogazione n. 46 dell'on. Gay Mitchell (H-0833/08)

Oggetto: Esame etico dei finanziamenti destinati alla ricerca nell'ambito del Settimo programma quadro

Le regole di presentazione, valutazione, selezione e assegnazione (COM(2008)4617) relative al Settimo programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico (7°PQ - 1982/2006/CE⁽²⁾) avevano esplicitamente stabilito che le attività di ricerca comportanti la distruzione di embrioni non avrebbero ricevuto alcun finanziamento. Ritiene la Commissione che l'esame etico dei progetti presentati abbia consentito di attuare efficacemente tale politica?

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − The ethical review of research funded under the Seventh Framework Programme is a system that safeguards the protection of fundamental rights and respect for ethical principles.

In the case of research involving the use of human embryonic stem cells, the procedure consists of five steps, including the scientific evaluation, the ethical screening and review, the national/local ethics committees’ approval for the proposed research and the submission of the proposals to a Regulatory Committee, so this relates to which project we decide on a single project basis.

In July 2007, the European Group on Ethics also delivered an opinion to the Commission on ethics reviews of Seventh Framework Programme research projects using human embryonic stem cells.

In following the above steps the Commission considers that the established ethical review mechanism has been successful in implementing the relevant EC provisions. In particular, as all research activities that involve the destruction of human embryos are excluded from the scope of the Community funding, no research proposals in this area have been funded under the Seventh Framework Programme.

The ethical review is meant to verify that no EU funding is granted to research activities involving the destruction of human embryos. In this sense, it is an integral part of the whole implementation of the Framework Programme.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). - Would the Commissioner tell the House if the framework can be used to carry out research on human embryos which have already been destroyed before the research starts, or is this semantics and are we just playing with words?

I return to the question I asked earlier and ask for more detail. Will the Commissioner take steps to ensure that everything possible is done to keep abreast of that form of research which does not raise the same ethical questions and which may well give the same or better results?

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io semmai ho la preoccupazione opposta a quella dell'on. Mitchell, che sicuramente è consentita la ricerca sulle linee cellulari già estratte, il problema, a mio parere, è che semmai gli ostacoli sono così tanti, che quel tipo di ricerca si trova ad essere penalizzata per ragioni che si vorrebbero etiche ma che non lo sono affatto.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). - Mr President, you said earlier you would not be allowing questions to the Commissioner from people other than from the questioner. People can then come in and go on the record; why do they not put their own questions down about these issues? You have to follow the ruling consistently, Mr President.

You said you would not allow anybody other than the person who put down the question to ask questions and then you allow a gentleman here to get in on the back of my question. If I knew that this sort of question was put down, I would have gone on much longer about the point that I want to make.

Unethical research is totally unnecessary...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  Presidente. − On. Mitchell, quando io do la parola a un onorevole per l'intervento di 30 secondi, io non so se lui formulerà una domanda o farà un intervento sulle domande che sono state formulate, in ogni caso lei ha avuto la possibilità, grazie all'intervento dell'on. Cappato di fare un ulteriore intervento di replica. Credo che possiamo essere tutti soddisfatti e, ringraziando per la pazienza il signor Potočnik gli diamo la parola per la sua ulteriore risposta, prego.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − You have seen how difficult this debate is when we talk about ethical questions. That is exactly what Europe is and how it looks.

To be precise, human embryonic stem cells research is allowed under conditions which were agreed and voted in the European Parliament and also in the Council. We have had a very thorough and in-depth debate and the procedure which is used is – I can say – based on a really ethical approach.

I have explained in the introduction which steps we have taken and how the decision is made. Firstly, we need to have a scientific evaluation. Then we have an ethical evaluation at European Union level, then ethical evaluation at individual Member State level. If any Member State is against something being funded in their country, we do not fund it. Then this project goes to the committee where the decision is taken by the Member States on the individual project basis.

When we do the scientific evaluation, the first question is: is it possible to attain this with any other kind of approach? And only if the answer is ‘no’ will we continue in the other direction.

Normally, there is an overwhelming majority of scientists who believe that the combination should be used. But if you look at the structure in our programmes, you would definitely find that the overwhelming majority of the programmes we finance are programmes which are connected with adult stem cell research. That is quite clear. So we try to follow the rules which were voted and agreed here and which we believe that, in practice are working.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). - Mr President, I was here at 18.15 this evening for these questions. My question was No 3 in a session. Fifteen minutes were given to it. Thirty-five minutes were given to this session. I think it is an unfair system when someone who is here on time does not get their question dealt with and I am extremely disappointed. I want my annoyance noted.

It is extremely frustrating to come in here, to be here on time, and then find that questions are skipped so as to accommodate other people. I find it very annoying.

  Presidente. − On. Burke, io comprendo la sua frustrazione, però il blocco di tempo previsto per ogni blocco di interrogazioni questa sera è stato rispettato. Purtroppo quando vi è, come conseguenza, che alcune interrogazioni sono inserite in un blocco e non riescono a essere assolte, questo purtroppo non dipende dalla Presidenza, ma dipende anche da una casualità a cui non posso porre rimedio. L'unica opportunità che ho avuto è stata ovviamente, come potete verificare perfettamente, di allungare di qualche minuto il tempo per ultimo blocco approfittando della disponibilità e della cortesia della Commissione. Ma non è stato sottratto nessun tempo agli altri blocchi.

Le interrogazioni che, per mancanza di tempo, non hanno ricevuto risposta, la riceveranno per iscritto (vedasi allegato).

(La seduta, sospesa alle 19.50, è ripresa alle 21.00)

PRÉSIDENCE DE MME MARTINE ROURE
Vice-présidente

(1) Risposta orale dell'11.3.2008.

(2) GU L 412 del 30.12.2006, pag. 1.