Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 18 May 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MRS DURANT
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 09.05)

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

3. Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

4. Composition of political groups: see Minutes

5. Amending budget no 1/2010: Section I - Parliament - Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year 2011 - Section I - Parliament (debate)

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

- the report by Mr Maňka, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on Draft Amending budget no 1/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I – European Parliament [2010/2045(BUD)] (A7-0158/2010), and

- the report by Mrs Trüpel, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the estimates of revenue and expenditure of Parliament for the financial year 2011 [2010/2005(BUD)] (A7-0134/2010).

  Vladimír Maňka, rapporteur. – (SK) Many procedures are now more direct and more transparent, due to the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force. Powers are more clearly defined. The European Parliament has greater power, and the European Union has boosted its standing both externally and internally. For the first time in the history of democracy, the citizens of a number of countries have the right to influence events on a supranational level.

In view of the size and diversity of Europe, we must take care that all citizens, including those who are not very wealthy and do not belong to large established organisations, have recourse to all democratic means. Utilisation of these democratic means must not be dependent on the possession of large financial resources.

The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has a specific financial impact on some European institutions. During the budget procedure for 2010, it was agreed that we would preferentially use an available reserve in Heading 5 for financing additional costs arising directly from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Today, therefore, after adopting the original budget for 2010, we are addressing the corresponding additional expenditure via an amending budget. Following the submission of applications for additional resources, we took every effort to locate reserves and distribute existing resources as far as possible.

The Treaty of Lisbon has a direct or indirect effect on all of the European Parliament’s services.

The amending budget of the European Parliament, which we are debating today, will secure the additional financial and human resources to enable Parliament to fulfil its new codecision-making role on an equal footing to that of the Council.

The net financial impact of the amending budget of the European Parliament is lower than the original demand for budgetary resources. In the conciliation proceedings with the Presidency of the European Parliament, we managed to find EUR 4 million. There was a further reduction in demand for resources as a result of the timing, as we approved the budget a month later than we originally expected.

Most companies and institutions, not only in Europe but throughout the world, are taking advantage of the global economic crisis to improve their efficiency and competitiveness. This is the challenge for us, the European Parliament, just as it is for other European institutions.

The Secretary-General of the European Parliament now has further savings and efficiency improvements at his disposal, and not just for this year. The detailed functional audit at the INLO Directorate-General and in the security service unit, which we agreed on when approving the budget in December, may bring significant and sustainable savings for future budget periods as well.

  Helga Trüpel, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament’s budget for 2011 is the first real budget for our Chamber since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. That means that Parliament has more competences, we have more duties, we have more responsibility, we have more legislative duties – in other words, we need more working capacity and that means we need a bigger budget.

At the same time – and this is very important to me – we have to be aware that we are in the midst of the economic and financial crisis and the euro stability crisis. In Germany the debt cutbacks will kick in in 2011, high levels of cutbacks are needed in Greece and in all heavily indebted public budgets. We thus need to find a very responsible position for how we approach the increases in Parliament’s budget in these difficult economic times. As rapporteur for the 2011 budget, I will reflect the majority position, although I will also set out my own green position.

Twenty per cent for Parliament’s budget, based on the administrative budget, was an upper limit that was laid down between the institutions in 1988. The majority in the Committee on Budgets believe, however, that that cannot apply to the same degree to 2011, as the reality has changed. We have enlargement, we have more competences and we have more duties, so the 20% figure must not necessarily be regarded as fixed. Despite that, it has become clear that we are aiming to stick to the area around 20% for reasons of self-discipline and responsibility.

The Bureau has proposed a figure of 20.46% – in other words, EUR 39 million above the figure for 2010. After some debate – and taking account of the conflict of aims – we have now agreed that we will only spend 20.32% – in other words, an additional EUR 20 million. There is consensus that we need more staff for enlargement, more staff for the library, IT and studies, that we need to give clearer priority to environmental protection here in Parliament and that it would be very positive for there to be more bikes available in Strasbourg so that less use would need to be made of the transport service.

Where is there controversy, however? There is controversy on the question of whether there should be more money in 2011 – EUR 1 500 – for assistants. I repeat that that is for assistants, not for Members of this House. That would total EUR 13.2 million. The majority in the Committee voted to place these increases for assistants in the reserve on the basis of the argument that this should be better evaluated and decided later in the year.

I would like to make the green position on this point clear, which is that we need to be sensitive to the general debt problems and my group therefore believes that we should waive this increase of EUR 1 500 for the next year. We should not change the Members’ statute at this point – we should instead undertake to take fewer business flights for short trips so that we actually apply environmental protection – which we repeatedly call for politically – to our own behaviour and our own Parliament. It is therefore very pleasing that we have succeeded in improving our own environmental protection data, one example being a 12.9% drop in CO2 emissions in 2008. We have reduced energy consumption by 0.8%. We would like to see a job-funded pass for local public transport, in other words, we want to prove ourselves to be responsible from both a financial and an environmental policy point of view.

  José Manuel Fernandes, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is advocating budgetary stringency, transparency and sustainability. We therefore welcome the work of the administration in specifying fixed and variable expenditure, as well as the fact that a medium-term strategy regarding buildings policy has been tabled. Nevertheless, we believe that these documents can be improved in the future, and we would remind you that we are advocating a long-term buildings strategy.

We are ambitious regarding budgetary stringency, so we want progress to be made towards a zero-based budget, in which each item of expenditure is supported by documentary evidence. To the same end, we also propose that progress be made in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of variable expenditure. We would argue that there is a potential saving and we therefore support – indeed we are ourselves suggesting this – reductions in some budgetary items.

Excellence in lawmaking is Parliament’s principle goal. We all know that not having the appropriate legislation or having bad legislation always leads to high costs; costs which, in the final analysis, are always borne by the European public. To achieve this aspiration of excellence in lawmaking in the face of the new competences resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we support the possibility of recruiting new human resources; we want these to be of a high standard; indeed, we demand it.

I would also remind you that we are going to have 18 new Members and that these too must be in a position to properly exercise their mandate. The times we live in are very demanding and European institutions play an essential role; it is a crucial role, in which they must not fail, and they therefore need to have sufficient means at their disposal.

We are well aware that there can always be strong doses of populism and demagoguery surrounding budgetary issues, and we repudiate these. There are even those who insinuate that MEPs’ allowances are increasing, which is not true. What we are seeking is for Parliament to have allowances sufficient for it to have the dignity that we all advocate, and achievement of the goal that the European public expects, indeed demands, of us: excellence in lawmaking.

  Derek Vaughan, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, it is always controversial when you discuss your own budget, and we have seen that in our discussions on the amending budget and in our own budget for 2011. However, I am pleased that most of the issues have now been resolved for 2011 within the Committee on Budgets itself. Indeed, I believe there are now very few differences between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau, apart from maybe three or four issues. One, of course, is the 20% threshold. Another is the buildings reserve, another is the posts which have now been put into reserve and another is the second tranche of EUR 1 500 per Member per month for the assistants’ allowance.

These two tranches of EUR 1 500 per Member are controversial and would be difficult at any time, but are, of course, even more controversial in difficult economic times. This is even though we all recognise that the Lisbon Treaty has given us more responsibilities. It is because of this that a compromise has been reached to put the funding for the second tranche of EUR 1 500 into a reserve and it will remain there until the full costings of this proposal are established.

I think the other controversial issue for us which is outstanding is the office-holders allowance. The compromise reached here was to reduce the figure allocated for office holders down from EUR 1.2 million to EUR 400 000 and, of course, documented evidence of receipts must be provided when any claims are made. I think that is an important principle and one we would all want to support. Colleagues themselves will decide whether these two compromises are acceptable to them or not. I believe the majority of the S&D Group will find those compromises acceptable to them.

One thing, however, has also become clear in our discussions on the 2011 budget, and that is if we are to fund extra responsibilities in the future because of the Lisbon Treaty, we must also find efficiency savings elsewhere. For the 2011 budget, some attempts at making these savings have been made. Indeed, the overall increase has come down from 6.5% to around 5.8%. That is welcome, but I believe we need to do much more in the future.

I hope that in the future, the Bureau will come forward with recommendations and proposals, not only about spending, but also about ways in which we can make efficiency savings in the future. I would hope those savings would include changes in the way we do things, rather than just making cuts.

I believe it is important in the future that if the Bureau does come forward – and I hope it will – with efficiency savings proposals, that it is discussed with Members at an early stage. This will give the European Parliament the chance to shape the budget, but also to shape our priorities and to identify savings ourselves, but in the meantime, we should continue to work to ensure that our budget for 2011 is acceptable to Members, to this Parliament and, of course, to the public as well.

  Carl Haglund, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Madam President, we have had an interesting debate on Parliament’s own budget for this year and next year.

I would like to start by giving particular thanks to Mrs Trüpel, who has done a good job on the preparation of next year’s budget. It is probably more balanced than was originally intended.

The Treaty of Lisbon brings with it new requirements of the European Parliament and, with that in mind, it is logical for Parliament to expect some increased costs, because there will be an increase in our activities.

At the same time, it is absolutely astonishing that we have been entirely incapable of reorganising our own activities in order to meet the new requirements. That is an area in which we need to improve.

In the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, we have been critical of the cost increases originally proposed by the Bureau which have, in fact, now been partly cut, as has been said. Nonetheless, I would like to say that the ALDE Group does not accept, and will not vote in favour of, a further EUR 1 500 per month increase in allowances for each Member so that they can employ further assistants. We also oppose the idea that the chairs of the committees should be given an entertainment allowance.

It is obvious that the two big political groups have now found a point of contact in this matter, but we in the ALDE Group will fight for our views in this Chamber. It is important that the European Parliament shows that we really are interested in the level of costs to which we give rise. I cannot really understand the logic that was presented here earlier according to which it is a matter not of cost increases, but rather of being able to perform our duties properly. That is not what it is about at all. In the final event, it is only about cost increases.

By extension, it is also good to remember that the greater the number of assistants employed in Parliament, the greater will be our requirements in terms of our buildings and it will become very expensive in the long term. We in the ALDE Group are highly critical of some of these proposals and will vote accordingly when the House votes.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to start with the magic word ‘balance’ once again, which Mr Haglund has just mentioned. I actually believe that, as we now discuss the 2011 budget, we must take as our starting point the question ‘How can we find a proper and responsible balance?’

Mr Fernandes spoke of popularism in relation to Parliament’s considered idea of being very responsible and self-disciplined in the 2011 budget. I completely disagree with him in this regard. I do not believe that it is popularism for us to together come to the considered conclusion that, in the light of the many cutbacks that we are demanding of other countries, we too need to examine very closely how we in Parliament must act with self-discipline. On the contrary, I believe that to be precisely the political responsibility of the European Parliament in the current circumstances. In the cutbacks that are being demanded of Greece and public budgets in general, we must have the courage, on the one hand, to legitimise the increases that we do need in order to do our work responsibly and yet, at the same time, to find a limit where we say: under present conditions, we also require a certain delimitation, as that is simply a part of the political landscape. This must be signalled according to the maxim ‘We have understood!’ That is important from a political point of view, and I therefore once again call on all the groups to consider what signal we will be giving the public with the 2011 budget.

  Lajos Bokros, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, in Romania, civil servants are facing a 25% cut in their salaries, in Spain, public sector employees will see 5% to 15% of their wages disappear, and in Portugal – not to mention Greece – governments are making huge efforts to save on human resources. In the UK, the new government has already indicated that there is a need for a major package of financial savings this year.

Does anybody in this Parliament think that now is the time for the European Parliament to spend more on anything – to increase spending, have more staff for groups, library, committees, IT staff and an additional EUR 1 500 in assistants’ allowances? We are debating the second tranche of the EUR 1 500; I say that even the first is absolutely unnecessary. It should not be a question of putting the second into reserve; we should eliminate both because this is not the time to do this. We are all aware of increased competences, but more competences do not necessarily require more spending. It requires more efficient spending, more accountability and more responsibility.

I completely agree with Mrs Trüpel, who said that there are ways to make additional savings. We do not need a fleet of cars here in Strasbourg. We have free public transportation. I use the tram every day. Instead of using business class tickets, we can use economy class in order to make savings. I, for one, as a matter of principle, have never flown business class when coming here from Budapest. All in all, while the discussion between the Bureau and Committee on Budgets was very useful in this respect, I think that a tremendous amount of further opportunities exist where we can make savings.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, once again, I am appalled to see how the Members of this Parliament continue to demand budget increases while people in the Member countries are struggling to live through the present crisis. But today I will refer to the ethics of this House.

In the present situation, is it acceptable that, while they demand power to control national budgets, the European institutions want to increase their own administrative budgets, as is the case with this Parliament? Is it acceptable that the EU institutions go to the Court of Justice over the Council’s decision to moderate the increase in salaries of EU civil servants? Is it ethically acceptable for Parliament to rush out its approval of the Council’s 2008 accounts in exchange for the latter’s approval of Parliament’s budget increases?

Let me explain: the Budgetary Control Committee has voted unanimously against approving the Council’s 2008 accounts due to a lack of transparency. Coincidentally, the Council has failed to approve budget increases for Parliament. I guess that we will see Parliament voting in favour of approving the Council’s accounts this week, and shortly afterwards the Council will be approving extra budget for the Parliament. These votes, ladies and gentlemen of Europe, the ones for Parliament’s budget and the Council’s discharge, are representative of the ethics of the institutions that aim to govern all of us.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon brought with it changes, including, and indeed specifically relating to, the importance of the European Parliament. I have already pointed out once that my ‘Yes’ to the amendment of the parliamentary budget is a conditional one. Of course, the European Parliament should strive for legislative excellence. Of course, strengthening Parliament’s role means that it has more obligations, more responsibility and more work. That said, in times of crisis like those we are in at present – the worst economic crisis in 60 years – I would point out that, as MEPs, we, too, and indeed we, specifically, should exercise particular care with the money entrusted to us. The Council and the European Parliament are supposed to and must work together to a greater extent, and this cooperation requires a willingness to act as partners.

  Ivaylo Kalfin (S&D). – (BG) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs, Mrs Trüpel and Mr Maňka, for their excellent work in preparing the decisions which we are discussing today. We must acknowledge that this was anything but an easy task, as witnessed by today’s debate.

On the one hand, we must be paragons of thrift and efficiency when it comes to spending European taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, however, we must give Parliament the opportunity to fulfil all its duties and responsibilities which these same taxpayers have entrusted to it through the Treaty of Lisbon.

The fact is that the new European Union treaty imposes the most changes and new duties actually on our institution. One of the most serious issues causing much debate was the extent to which the European Parliament is taking into account the tough economic situation in Europe and showing leadership in terms of restricting expenditure and increasing its effectiveness.

The parliamentary decisions which we are discussing today are relevant to the economic situation. A minimum 5.5% increase in expenditure allows us to increase the European Parliament’s staff by taking on 18 new employees. We need the administration to provide specialist support for areas which have significantly increased, where the European Parliament’s decisions are crucial.

We offer MEPs the opportunity to have more contact with their voters, to undergo specialist training in more areas and to fulfil their new duties, which were entrusted to them by the Treaty of Lisbon. We are paragons of thrift as we are accommodating all the new functions as part of an overspend of just 0.28% on the agreement reached many years ago so that the European Parliament’s expenditure does not exceed 20% of the European budget’s administrative costs.

At the same time, we must state very clearly that the old agreement needs to be renegotiated in future so that it reflects, to a large extent, the changes in the institutions’ functions and, in particular, the increase in the role and, accordingly, the expectations of the European Parliament.

Fellow Members, we still have reserves available. In future, we must increase our efforts to make Parliament work more efficiently, for instance, by relying not on buildings but on new technologies, by setting an example in terms of institutional and environmental standards and by analysing closely the impact of every expense and not allowing the budget to grow automatically, as is usually the case with any bureaucracy. We must not forget that we are accountable to our voters, who are going through difficult times at the moment, for every action we take.

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, in times of crisis, in particular, politicians must be able to separate their rational and emotional sides, especially when it comes to budgetary matters and money. I have the feeling that the Treaty of Lisbon and the associated budgetary issues are a little bit like the weather forecast – you never know exactly how things will look in the morning. The forecast says rain, so you take the umbrella, and in the end it maybe spits a little, but there is definitely no real rain.

It is the same with the Treaty of Lisbon: we do not know how Parliament’s workload will be changed by the Treaty. I have to wonder how it was possible for Members to have worked in the committees and the presidiums in the past in such a way that there will be no change as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The discussion about the EUR 1 500 increase in the secretarial allowance is symbolic for the issue of whether we are able to slim down our structures, save funds and make our working processes more efficient. Taking these three points into account would be of greater benefit to us than ever increasingly talking about the area of funding. Above all, it is only over the next year that we will see what impact the Treaty of Lisbon has really had on our work.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) There is no doubt that the European Parliament, which has more responsibilities and a greater role to play following ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, quite naturally must have greater financial resources to be able to fulfil this role. The previous speaker is right. We do not know how much, in practice, that role will increase, but we do know that it will increase. In relation to this, quite naturally, our voters’ and taxpayers’ expectations of us are greater, too. This, too, is why the request for an increase in funding, for example, for Members’ assistants, is unquestionably justified both financially and politically.

We are aware that at the moment, there is a huge crisis in Greece and generally in the countries of southern Europe, which is obviously also a problem of a political nature, but when cutting costs, we must not amputate certain functions of the European Parliament. I am profoundly convinced that the budget of the European Parliament should be significantly increased.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, Parliament’s draft budget for 2011 is EUR 1.7 billion. That is equivalent to EUR 2.3 million per MEP per year, EUR 200 000 per month and a staggering EUR 6 400 per MEP per day; and there are 736 MEPs in this House.

Madam President, EUR 6 400 is a huge amount of money. I can think of a hundred things it would be better spent on than this puppetry. Most importantly, however, citizens themselves must be able to take such decisions. Let us shut up shop in Brussels, Luxembourg and, primarily, Strasbourg today. Let us simply clear everyone out of the buildings, lock the door, throw away the key and give that EUR 1.7 billion back to the citizens who have earned it with their own blood, sweat and tears.

Each Member of this House should have to get up and go to bed every day with the thought that he or she will cost, or has cost, the taxpayer EUR 6 400 that day. Each Member must also see it as his or her duty to bring that amount down every day, as everything that is spent on nonsense here is taxpayers’ money that has been produced by citizens through enormously hard work.

That is what should happen, but it does not. In this House, more is always better. Via handshakes, like-knows-like, shadowy deals in back rooms, tens of millions are added to the budget. The elite decides, and the public coughs up. Everyone should think about this at night before going to sleep, and I would call on everyone to do so tonight: to ask him or herself, ‘have I cost EUR 6 400?’ If they do not do so, they should be deeply ashamed, as they are worth nothing as MEPs.

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would say to Mr van der Stoep: I am worth my money, and I am standing by that position. If you are not worth yours, then you have my sympathy. All I can say is that we are doing ourselves no favours if we create working conditions for ourselves in this House that effectively make it impossible for us to work. I support the increase in the secretarial allowance – indeed for both levels – and I believe that this is highly justifiable.

Anyone who works in this House needs staff. Those who do not want to work should not prevent those who want and have to work from doing so. No one will be forced to use the increase in the secretarial allowance – you can use it, you do not have to do so. If MEPs do not use the allowance, then all the better for the taxpayers, who will then get the money back. I, in turn, can only speak for myself when I say that I am worth the money and that the same applies to my staff. However, we must put under the microscope activities that were undertaken in the past on the basis of a surplus in this budget. We must examine whether we thus want to and are able to continue these activities. I am also thinking, in this regard, above all, about the web TV service. I think that we have to take action, that we cannot leave everything as it is.

Apart from that, we have undertaken many reforms with the Bureau and we should also allow these reforms to bite. The Committee on Budgetary Control will do everything in its power to point out where things are not working.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Madam President, across Europe, governments and public institutions are facing up to the need for cuts, but this Parliament continues to live in a fairytale world. I hear fine words about the need for savings and efficiency, but the budget of over EUR 1.7 billion in 2011 is an increase of nearly 6%. This is totally unacceptable. We should be talking about massive savings, not increases. There are many ways in which this could be done.

For a start, we should be cutting unnecessary waste and expenditure. This House should demand that Council end the Strasbourg circus and save annual costs of over EUR 200 million. A further EUR 50 million would be saved every year by closing the European Parliament offices in each of our countries. We must streamline the bureaucracy: the number of officials employed by Parliament has increased by 14% to 6 000 in just three years. Any other organisation in straitened times would meet new priorities with compensating reductions elsewhere. We seem to think that we live in a different world. We need to take the necessary steps to bring about real changes and real cuts in Parliament’s budget.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) I should like to come back to the idea of twice adding EUR 1 500 per month to the secretarial assistance allowance. It is true that Lisbon gives us many additional tasks, so I shall certainly not be opposing the idea of more staff for the parliamentary committees given additional tasks by Lisbon, such as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Nor shall I be opposing more staff for the groups, to enable them to better support that kind of task, but let us be honest, ladies and gentlemen: it is crazy, and also incorrect, to give each individual MEP EUR 1 500 more this year and a further EUR 1 500 on top next year.

I myself have worked in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for 10 years, and I continue to do so. That committee has very many legislative tasks under the codecision, or ordinary legislative, procedure. I have always managed with three assistants, and I assume that those MEPs currently working or about to work in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs can also manage with three assistants. Your suggestion, Mrs Gräßle – that extra staff should be given to those wanting to work but not to those not wanting to – is populism of the highest order.

  Vladimír Maňka, rapporteur. – (SK) I would like to thank everyone who expressed an opinion. I am pleased that you all want to perform your legislative work as well as possible, and to make the best possible use of resources. Each one of us has his or her own opinion as to where and how we might improve things. Today’s debate bears witness to this. I would like to say to Mr Bokros that there is a way to achieve savings through objective methods. This way was blocked one year ago by Members of your political group, among others.

Since January, I have been the head of a regional authority in my own country. After taking up this post, the first step was an independent external study of all the processes in my institution. This audit will eliminate duplication and reduce administrative costs by more than 15%. If we want to analyse spare capacity and reorganise existing resources to the greatest possible extent, an objective and independent external study is the best solution.

Those who had the courage to take this step achieved the best use of resources and managed to reduce their administrative costs markedly. In the coming days, we will be debating and voting on the 2010 amending budget of the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

These institutions are clearly expanding their activities, with greater powers and a greater workload. I would also like to make a request to the Council for us to be able to finalise these budgets as soon as possible, so that both institutions can carry out their responsibilities in a responsible and efficient manner in the new or expanded areas introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Helga Trüpel, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have all heard how controversial the debate about this 2011 budget is. No wonder, either, given that, in fact, it concerns real increases and cuts but also – as always in politics – symbolic issues.

As rapporteur, I would like to put the following on the record. You have seen the full spectrum of viewpoints here, from Mrs Gräßle from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which is very settled in favouring these increases – including the EUR 1 500 – in order to safeguard its ability to work, to other Members, who have said ‘We do not need this’ or ‘We need to evaluate much more precisely how the increases can be justified and provide ourselves with an overview, including of the individual committees and working areas of this House’.

As rapporteur, I would like to point out that the majority of the Committee on Budgets decided to place the additional money in the reserve – it has thus not yet been agreed by the Committee on Budgets – and to demand a precise evaluation. All of that therefore still has to be done. We need to get this evaluation on the table, and then in the autumn we will once again have to very seriously get to grips with these results so that we will be able to further negotiate with the Council in October under the new budget procedure and also so that we can find a majority position internally here in Parliament. In the current state of affairs, it is important to point out that there is controversy, there are very different opinions and there is a majority opinion according to which we need to look at the figures very closely once again.

My thanks for your advice, and I hope that we all demonstrate prudence as we move forwards.

  President. – Thank you, Mrs Trüpel. However, this ends the joint debate on the budget. Thank you for your speeches. The debate is closed.

The vote on the report by Mr Maňka will take place tomorrow, and the vote on the report by Mrs Trüpel will take place today at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) The amending budget is the outcome of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Parliament has come up against new challenges and will need resources if it is to meet its new responsibilities and challenges with success. I should like to emphasise that European citizens want Parliament to perform its duties impeccably and, in order to safeguard this, it is important for its members, its committees and its political groups to have the necessary resources. Furthermore, we believe that financial discipline and spending cuts are needed now more than ever, and European citizens quite rightly expect them of us, which is why we have prepared a budget that guarantees financial austerity and transparency.

We have also insisted on the need for long-term policy planning for European Parliament buildings, in a bid to safeguard satisfactory financial support both now and in coming years. We are sure that these measures will help to put us in a position to address the concerns, expectations and demands of the citizens of Europe.

To close, I should like to congratulate Vladimir Maňka on his excellent report.

6. European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 (amendment of Decision No 573/2007/EC). Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008) - Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Decision 2008/839/JHA) - The establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme (debate)

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

- the report by Mr Tavares, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’ and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC (COM(2009)0456 – C7-0123/2009 – 2009/0127(COD)) (A7-0125/2010),

- the report by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM(2009)0508 – C7-0244/2009 – 2009/0136(NLE)) (A7-0126/2010),

- the report by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Decision 2008/839/JHA on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM(2010)0015 – 2010/0006(NLE)) (A7-0127/2010), and

- the report by Mr Tavares, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme (2009/2240(INI)) (A7-0131/2010).

  Carlos Coelho, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by reminding you that Parliament has already criticised the enormous delays in implementing the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). On 22 October 2009, we adopted a resolution on the SIS II and the Visa Information System. The European Parliament once again expressed deep concern at the delays in commencing operations and requested information from the Commission and the Council on the results of the technical tests, demanding full transparency regarding the implementation process for the SIS II.

The SIS II should have become operational in 2007. We are now in 2010 and no one is able to give a firm answer on when it will be concluded. As regards the package of proposals that we are considering, four fundamental questions arise. First, when is this migration to take place? Before the SIS II can become operational it must be personally tested to check whether the system is capable of functioning in accordance with the technical and operational requirements set out in the respective legal instruments. Only after all these tests have been successfully concluded can migration from the first generation Schengen Information System to the SIS II take place.

Second, have these tests been concluded? No. Faced with enormous delays to the project, and because of all the problems and difficulties encountered, the Council decided to carry out two ‘milestone’ tests: the first in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the second in summer 2010. However, the first test had to be postponed until late January because the prerequisites had not been met. The test took place between 21 and 24 January 2010: apparently the system worked for the first 25 hours, but was notoriously unstable throughout the rest of the test. This test was carried out again between 2 and 5 March, and the final assessment and validation of the second set of tests took place on 6 April.

Although the test conditions were not fully respected by the Member States or the contracted company, and despite the fact that the limited number of transfers did not comply with the required response times, the great majority of Member States concluded that the deviations were insignificant and that the tests’ major objectives had been met. The new general timetable and budgetary plan are to be adopted at the next Council meeting in June, or in October 2010 at the latest.

It was also thought essential that the following conditions be met before the system becomes operational. The Milestone II test must be successfully carried out and the operating conditions must be fully met. The overall test for which there is provision in Article 55 of the Regulation must also be successfully carried out, and the safety of the network completely ensured.

Third question: why is it so urgent for these initiatives to be adopted? Although the conditions necessary in order to go ahead with the migration have not all been met, nor is a time foreseeable when that will be the case, the mandate that was granted to the Commission to develop the SIS II will expire again on 30 June 2010. We therefore have to amend the sunset clauses in the migration instruments adopted in 2008 in order to prevent them from expiring.

For my fourth and final question, what aspects of the proposals have I sought to amend? First, the insertion of a sunset clause, which the Commission had not proposed. We propose that it be set for 31 December 2013. Given the considerable delays, it is also essential that it be set out in the legal basis that the solution used, whatever it may be, must be based on the available technology, must follow a reasonable timetable and must be acceptable in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Global Programme Management Board must also be created, and its management of the SIS II formally integrated. I am absolutely convinced that if this body had existed from the start, we would have managed to be better coordinated, we would have known more, and we would have been more effective.

Finally, I consider it crucial that the migration process be submitted to parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament is not just responsible for the legal basis: as budgetary authority, it also ensures the supervision of actions financed by the Union budget. That is why I, alongside my fellow Member, Mr Alvaro, have tabled an amendment to place funds in reserve. I have also tabled an amendment alongside my fellow Members Mr Alvaro, Mrs Ludford, Mr Enciu and Mrs Hohlmeir to request an audit by the European Court of Auditors. I would like to thank everyone for being extremely cooperative.

  President. – I am unable to give the floor to Mr Tavares right now because he has had some slight transport problems thanks to a certain volcano. As soon as he joins us, I will give him the floor.

  Alexander Alvaro, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Madam President, SIS II is a tale of attempts, failures and new attempts that has gone on for years. These attempts, failures and new attempts have thus far gobbled up a total of EUR 90 million – 90 million which, in many people’s eyes, has been completely wasted.

From a budgetary point of view, I can endorse Mr Coelho’s every sentence, every word and every effort. We are working very closely and very well together on this. We all have a common interest in SIS II working. Sometimes, however, you have to admit – as with many things in life – when things are not working, and you have to consider alternatives.

We, as the European Parliament, are not prepared to give up this project already and we will support Commissioner Malmström, who has accepted this difficult inheritance, in any way we can. It must be clear, however – and we have established this in the Committee on Budgets and are also recommending it to the plenary – that contributions for SIS II be placed in the reserve, so that we can have more control over the use of these funds. Personally, I expect that there is a plan B for the case where we admit, one day, that we are not able to achieve what we wanted to achieve.

  President. – In the absence of Mr Tavares, I give the floor to Commissioner Malmström.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Coelho and Mr Alvaro for their contributions, and thank you for the very constructive cooperation we have had on this extremely complicated file that I inherited. It is very complicated, but I am determined to work together with you in order to get this right in a transparent way and to see the project completed.

The vote tomorrow is very timely for the SIS II project. The Council has confirmed that the Milestone I test was successful and that the development of SIS II should continue on the basis of current technical solutions.

The legislative proposals before you contained three substantial elements: Mr Coelho made reference to them, and that will change the development of the project. First, as Mr Coelho said, the initial expiry date of the instruments – 30 June this year – has become unrealistic and will therefore be changed. This will allow the SIS II project to continue in the light of technical requirements and a global schedule which are currently being redefined with the Member States’ experts. It will be available for the Council on 3 and 4 June.

The rapporteur calls for a specific deadline for SIS II development. I am sorry to tell you that the Commission is not yet in a position to take up that proposal. The Commission’s experts, together with all Member States, are in the process of finalising the adaptation of requirements and the new global schedule. Once this is done, the Commission will make appropriate suggestions in the light of the new global schedule to be presented at the next Justice and Home Affairs Council in two weeks.

Secondly, the Global Programme Management Board is a group of technical experts advising on SIS II development and that should be formalised. The global management board has already proven to be a very good tool of cooperation and technical analysis between the Commission and Member State experts. The proposal will make sure that this will continue whilst streamlining the board’s role, composition and procedures. For this reason – it is a purely technical body – it is not appropriate to open the board to MEPs and other parliamentary officials. We will continue to move forward on SIS II in a transparent way with the European Parliament, but we must keep a clear distinction between the technical work and political transparency. But in this spirit, the Commission is open to providing full technical information to the Members of this House by making available the reports of the board to Parliament, in line with what Mr Coelho suggests.

Thirdly, the necessary legal flexibility to carry out the development through an alternative technical scenario would be foreseen and I believe that we all agree on the rationale of this.

As regards the budgetary aspects of continuing SIS II development, the Commission shares the rapporteur’s aim to make the most efficient use of taxpayers’ money. In this context, the report asks to reserve Parliament’s right to put funds for SIS II development for 2011 in the budgetary reserve. This is, of course, entirely within the discretion of the budgetary authority. From the point of view of budgetary implementation, I would only ask Mr Alvaro if there could be some sort of clear and efficient de-blocking procedure for the case when we would need the money. I would like to thank the LIBE committee, Mr Coelho and the Budgetary Control Committee rapporteur, Mr Alvaro, for their excellent cooperation on this file.

I am sorry that Mr Tavares is not yet here. We would have had an opportunity to discuss the EU resettlement programme – an extremely important subject – with him. As you know, a large majority of refugees worldwide are hosted in countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Many of these refugees find themselves in Catch-22 situations: they cannot return to their country of origin, nor can they integrate locally in the country of first asylum, since many of these countries are themselves victims of conflict or poverty. For these groups of refugees, resettlement can be the only solution.

Through resettlement, the Member States of the European Union can demonstrate tangible solidarity with these often over-burdened countries of first asylum, at the same time protecting some of the most vulnerable refugees under sustainable and humane conditions. Today, resettlement is carried out, but there is no structural coordination at EU level. The Commission believes that the EU can play a bigger part and be more active on resettlement by strengthening the Union’s role globally and showing solidarity with the most affected regions. The proposal tabled in September 2009 aims to improve the situation. We are very satisfied by the very positive response that Parliament and the Council have given to the proposal. I would particularly like to thank Mr Tavares for his sterling work on this, and I welcome the strong political consensus among the different groups on this matter.

The idea in the proposal is that the EU, in partnership with the UNHCR, will contribute to more strategic use of resettlement on the basis of an annual decision on the common priorities for resettlement. By pooling the national quotas, the EU can help to alleviate some of the most difficult conflicts in the world and in refugee situations. The programme leaves to each Member State the final choice as regards the number of refugees to be resettled, although it will enable them to coordinate and mutualise experiences and best practices. Through the annual exercise, the EU will be able to be more reactive to evolving challenges and global refugee needs in order to render more efficient the Member States’ use of the European Refugee Fund. The programme will also help in a more targeted and practical cooperation project through the Asylum Support Office, working with both national administrations and civil society organisations. I fully support the rapporteur’s idea of creating a specialised unit in the office to be established in Malta.

The Joint EU resettlement programme is being discussed at a crucial time: since 2007, five Member States – in addition to those which already had the programmes – have decided to start national resettlement programmes. Several other Member States have resettled Iraqi refugees over the past year in response to a commitment agreed at EU level in 2008. It is crucial that we maintain this positive momentum and that the adoption of the proposal is not delayed.

We regret, however, that certain divergences and procedural issues are hampering the rapid adoption of this proposal. This proposal is of great political significance. The Commission’s decision to establish annual priorities for resettlement is an implementing decision, and forms part of the financial management of the European Refugee Fund. With respect to the ‘delegated acts’ procedures, we are concerned that the procedure would be considerably delayed, making management of the fund very difficult.

This is a first step towards a common approach; there will, of course, be a review of the experience, and there are plans to bring forward more ambitious initiatives as part of the Stockholm Programme.

  Georgios Papanikolaou, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Thank you, Commissioner, for your update. Although Mr Tavares is not with us, I want to thank him for the cooperation which we have enjoyed to date and to express on behalf of our political group our positive position on the resettlement programme.

We are talking about a single asylum area and the integrated refugee management policy that we need. Of course, the financing instrument to support this endeavour is the European Refugee Fund which, it is true, we have not sufficiently exhausted to date and there are margins for us to do bigger and better things.

The European response to global resettlement requirements has been adequate to date. I would remind you that the Member States participate on a voluntary basis and, so far, together with the two countries which took part in this particular resettlement, only 12 of the 27 Member States are participating in this endeavour and, to date, the figures from it have not been particularly encouraging. In 2009, 6 896 refugees arrived in Europe under the resettlement programme, which accounts for just 8.2% of the total.

We therefore certainly need better coordination and what we are trying to do, through this report and the consultation we held, was to give incentives, to explain to the Member States, that we have every reason to proceed with the application and implementation of this programme.

Of course, protection for human rights and our real solidarity with third countries are a top priority objective. However, we must understand that another argument why all the Member States have reason to participate in this programme is because, through this programme, we can send all those who need it a message that they have every reason to opt for legal channels in their efforts to reach Europe, to reach European territory, for a better future.

Illegal immigration could also be addressed indirectly through the resettlement programme, given that, if there are such programmes, refugees will not opt for illegal channels and will wait to be integrated into such programmes.

Finally, I wish to say that we tabled an amendment on the internal resettlement of refugees, which was not accepted. At some point, Commissioner, we expect an initiative from the Commission on this issue. Dublin II has put a burden on certain countries and it is very important that we push forward with the resettlement programme, with the help of the European Refugee Fund.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank Mrs Malmström for being here. I would like to express my support for the report and for the spirit of the work done by Mr Tavares, because his work with the non-governmental organisations, with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and the observance of comparative law from outside the European Union is very important.

These experiences are fundamental, and having been a member of a local council, I also believe that all the councils in Europe should make a commitment on this issue.

This is because, although we are going through a crisis, the deepest crisis has been the refugee crisis, which has been a crisis of collective amnesia. In Europe, and in rich countries, we have forgotten that the wars that cause refugees are wars for which we are responsible, for which our countries and governments are responsible. We need to overcome this collective amnesia.

I agree with what Mrs Malmström said about making a commitment and, of course, we need to make a commitment. A commission from Parliament has visited the Iraqi Palestinians. Of course they have: we need to make a commitment to these refugees.

I would, however, say the following to Mrs Malmström, with all due respect: the differences need to be overcome between Parliament – she herself was a Member – and the Commission regarding delegated acts. I would not like this report, which today appears to be generally well received, to end up being blocked because the Commission and Parliament do not agree on delegated acts.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTH-BEHRENDT
Vice-President

  Nadja Hirsch, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, what we all discussed on this subject was that we simply must convince more Member States to take part in this programme. I believe there is much to be achieved in this regard by explaining the programme and also highlighting its benefits, as those who take part have thus far always said that they will continue to do so and that they welcome the programme.

It is very important to make clear which people this relates to. It relates to people who do not, themselves, have the power to come to Europe. These are women, children and the sick, who find themselves in refugee camps outside the EU and need our help. I think it is very positive that we will be deciding to make a larger proportion of the European Refugee Fund available in future.

At the same time, I also believe that it is very important that this money, if it is paid to the national Parliaments, the nation states, in other words, must not just disappear into the budget, but it really must be used in order to build a durable structure, that the money, in fact, even has to be passed on to the local authorities and to the towns and cities where the integration actually takes place, where the nursery places and housing are provided. It is a very important point that the towns and cities and the local authorities, as our allies, must be involved in this discussion.

The Member States are perhaps more inclined to reject this in the short term than the local authorities on the ground. In the predictability that this brings with it, I see an important element connecting us – the EU – and those on the ground bringing about the integration. All together, this could certainly give a boost to the resettlement programme, something that I think is very positive. Above all, there is one thing that needs to be stated very clearly, which is that the citizens cannot be left behind – people and associations must be found who ease the path of people who want to start a new life locally and who show them how their new town works or where the nearest swimming pool is.

We need a cross-society consensus that we want to take part in a resettlement programme, that it is a good solution, and that people will actually bring about integration on the ground.

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I would have preferred to hear from the rapporteur, Mr Tavares, but never mind; now he has finally joined us in this debate, and that is the main thing. I think that the work that he has managed to do to reach a consensus on the use of the European Refugee Fund, whose job it is to fund and encourage the Member States to develop their refugee resettlement programme, is exceptionally positive work, which Commissioner Malmström is strongly encouraging, and I am delighted to see that.

We must nevertheless bear in mind a few figures, which will allow us to put the scope of this fund into perspective. If we were to allocate the entire European Refugee Fund – something that I do not want because it would inevitably be detrimental to the funding of the conditions of reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe – we would barely be able to resettle 20 000 refugees in Europe, a number far removed from the request of the UNHCR, which has established that there are more than 470 000 refugees worldwide in need of resettlement, that is, people who genuinely have specific needs, vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and who cannot possibly return to their country of origin. We must therefore be sensible.

To me, the second precaution we must take – because we have experienced this in my country, France – concerns the media coverage of the resettlement of some refugees as a tree of charity hiding a forest of malpractice, because at the same time, this country, France, has just been condemned by the United Nations Committee against Torture for returning asylum seekers to third countries where they risk facing inhumane or degrading treatment.

I believe – and this is my final point – that these are the precautions that we must bear in mind.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, I would like to speak about the Schengen Information System. Today, we have to examine the legal framework within which migration from SIS I to SIS II can take place. I would say that the warning lights are all flashing red on the subject. Commissioner, the least we can say is that the tests have been inconclusive in this regard.

Nevertheless, despite the opposition of three of the larger Member States – France, Germany and Austria – the Commission is persisting. As you know, we in the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left are just as persistent, I would say, when it comes to our reservations about the issues of storage and the risks that this involves in terms of data protection. I think we are living in a rather surreal period when the abuses and the risks linked to every aspect of security are increasingly being denounced by experts, who know what they are talking about. We must take precautions in the area of data protection for all citizens, whoever they may be. We must have a minimum commitment on file connection risks. We in France are well aware of the abuses that can result from file connection.

Commissioner, under the current circumstances, the GUE/NGL Group cannot support such a migration.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, Britain is not signed up to Schengen, so technically this proposal should not apply to the UK. The old Labour government did not opt in, and the new Lib-Dem/Con coalition government must stay opted out. Such a scheme would merely encourage more refugees, genuine or not, to come to the European Union.

Imagine if Turkey joins the European Union: we can expect not just 72 million Turks to have automatic right of entry to European countries and Britain, but floods of refugees from places such as Iran and Iraq might cross the border into Turkey and then seek resettlement in Europe! Britain does not have to join this scheme, but watching our new government grapple with such issues will be interesting. One half of it, the Conservative Party, pretends to be Eurosceptic, whatever that means, while the other half, the Liberal Democratic Party, is unreservedly Europhile. However, our new Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, can solve such problems at a stroke as I described here yesterday.

The increase in the numbers of Members of this place requires a complete re-ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Mr Cameron can simply choose not to re-ratify it, or he can belatedly uphold his cast-iron guarantee and give the British people the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that they were denied.

  Rui Tavares, rapporteur. – (PT) Ladies and gentlemen, there are refugees in the world who can neither return to their countries because the situation is too unstable, nor stay in a transit country because it has not signed the Geneva Conventions and they cannot, for example, work in that country.

The numbers are relatively limited: 200 000 per annum, and the problem has already been solved for some of these refugees – whose only option is to be given a new life in a third country – by actors on the international stage that resettle refugees: 80 000 by the USA and some by Canada, Australia, Brazil and Chile. Who is missing from that list? Europe is missing, that is who.

During the Swedish Presidency, the Council judiciously admitted that it was necessary to greatly increase the number of refugees being resettled in Europe, going so far as to talk about 100 000. The Commission has also judiciously reviewed some statements by the European Refugee Fund to make possible a more vigorous and robust policy for resettlement of refugees.

I currently have two reports in the name of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: one codecision and one own-initiative. We have four new additions to correct the policies that are currently in place in the codecision; two of these, however, are procedural.

The first new addition is a dual approach. The Commission’s proposal on which we are working mainly argues for regional priorities and then, within the regional ones, priorities that I would call ‘humanitarian’. We saw fit to maintain these priorities but give them autonomy. In other words, we think that Europe must have intervention strategies in terms of resettling refugees, which are very important from a foreign policy point of view. These strategies must sometimes allow for intervention in certain areas of the world, open doors to a given country, or establish trust relationships in certain areas of the world. They must, however, give the Member States freedom to respond to situations in the rest of the world that are priority in humanitarian terms.

What situations are priorities? Victims of torture, women and children who are victims of sexual violence, or people who need to be resettled for serious health reasons, for example.

The second new feature is modulation. This aims to move from only 10 Member States that currently resettle refugees at European level, so that we can try to ensure that the other 27 Member States will start resettling them. To achieve this, we proposed increasing the sum to be assigned per refugee to the new Member States in the first year, decreasing it a little in the second and making it the same as the other Member States that resettle refugees from the third year onwards; this was conditional on the increased amount for the first years, which are the years in which it costs most to start a new resettlement programme, being used to develop a sustainable resettlement programme.

The other two new features are procedural. One gives the Commission the opportunity to start an emergency procedure to resettle refugees from a given area of the world – where there was a humanitarian disaster or a crisis situation – because the procedure that we had was being carried out on an annual basis and, clearly, disasters and humanitarian crises do not follow a timetable. The fourth new feature was that of the delegated acts, and here I must tell you very clearly, Mrs Malmström, that Parliament can take care of timetable arguments and procedural arguments very efficiently, and we promise to not take long to respond to delegated acts. We also promise that the prior consultation and debate that we proposed with, for example, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development, can prevent any differences of opinion between Parliament and the Commission regarding the regions that are resettlement priorities.

What we cannot accept is the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, telling us that delegated acts to which it has no legal objection must not be adopted within the framework of this decision, which is so important in foreign-policy and humanitarian terms, simply because the acts seem bureaucratic to the Commission when we say that they are not.

What is happening is that, from our point of view and that of the legal service, this decision is part of the delegated acts, and, as such, we believe that it falls to the Commission to argue for the adoption of the delegated acts here, as guardian of the treaties, and not raise objections that are, currently, merely procedural. Above all, we believe that none of these issues must prevent us from achieving our common goal: that of resettling more refugees in the European Union.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Madam President, this resettlement programme which is being set up is filling a significant, long-standing void. I am, in fact, astonished at how this programme has not existed on a European level before. There are countries which have already set an example, such as the United States, which already operate very efficient resettlement programmes, having garnered considerable experience in this area. We can learn a lot from them.

These kinds of programmes are important because they demonstrate the European Union’s willingness to show its human side with refugees worldwide. However, their other important objective is to curb the influx of illegal immigrants towards the European Union, including those who require protection.

Therefore, if the resettlement programme that is to be set up today can be used to resettle international protection seekers in Libya, then these people will doubtlessly have little reason to cross the Mediterranean Sea and risk their lives in the process. In this way, we would be helping both them as well as those European Union countries which are shouldering a disproportionate burden.

It goes without saying that this programme must be used in conjunction with another programme, one intended to help European Union countries who are carrying a disproportionate burden due to the current immigration flow. We need to prove to these countries that we are willing to establish a programme that will allow the transfer of people who are granted international protection to other European countries.

Thus far, this is still a pilot project, one that concerns Malta. However, I would like to see this project manifest itself permanently, and to see it extended to the other European Union countries that require it.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) As rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament for the SIS issue, I am going to speak about this very matter. First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Coelho for the huge effort he has invested in this and, in particular, for the consistency he has shown in finalising these two reports. I would also like to thank Commissioner Malmström because, since she has taken up her post, the Commission has started to show some transparency.

What has caused, and continues to cause, us concern is the failure to meet the deadlines for implementing SIS II. Parliament has expressed its position on several occasions on the delays, especially regarding the Commission’s inability to set a precise date for launching its operation. The fact that we do not know for sure even now whether the tests carried out have been successful or not only serves to raise serious doubts about how the project is being managed.

Given that it is the European Parliament’s duty to monitor the way in which Community money is spent, the proposal to keep in reserve the funds due to be allocated to the development of SIS II during the 2011 budget year is a normal safety measure to take. Parliament must be continually consulted on and informed about the progress of the SIS II project, which cannot be compromised due to a lack of political will or management ability. It must meet current requirements, support data protection and comply with the cost/benefit principle, with its deployment taking place within the exact timeframes specified for its implementation.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I shall also speak on the Schengen Information System. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Coelho for his excellent work, and I would like to stress that my group – from the very beginning – was quite cautious in accepting SIS II, due to many implications concerning data protection.

Now it seems that the long SIS II saga is far from being finished. We see time delays and cost overruns; we do not have any positive results. We do not even have a consensus about the evaluation of test results – as Austria, Germany and France do not see them as being successful. In our opinion, the approach taken by the rapporteur is absolutely right. We have to be honest and admit that the current project might fail, and we have to discuss the alternatives. We should also carefully examine the reasons behind this failure; if we need to invest an additional EUR 30 million, Parliament should have all the information necessary for an informed consent.

We must also maintain a sunset clause. We cannot continue investing money into a lifelong project. Of course, certain flexibility should be there, but we must have clear criteria for evaluation and to react quickly if, again, something goes wrong.

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Madam President, first of all, let me say that I believe – and I am referring to the Schengen Information System here – that the EU should not be operating a wish-based policy, but a policy based on the reality. When it comes to the Schengen Information System, that means that we must take account of the fact that the tests – what have been called the ‘first milestone’ – have failed.

After eight years of tinkering, we know that the aim of the measure proposed by the Commission – the migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II – is unachievable by the Member States, both on technical and legal grounds. That is not my evaluation – it is the evaluation of the Federal Republic of Germany. That is the position back in my home country, and it is a position, by the way, that I fully share. EUR 90 million has so far been squandered on this scheme, and the Commission would like to spend more. We do not want an extension of the deadline to 2013; we want to make that very plain. Instead, we want to abandon this system and start the search for an alternative.

Secondly, the German Left Party is fundamentally critical of SIS II – I want to point that out, too, at this juncture – as access to the system is being dramatically extended, for example, to the secret services. In Germany, there is a requirement that the secret services and the police are separated. Thus, any mixing of the secret services’ and the police’s data will mean that the whole system will be brought before the German Federal Constitutional Court. That is something that I needed to mention, at least from the German point of view. We also oppose SIS II because it involves the collection of vast quantities of data and the gathering and recording of biometric data. That is neither purposive nor proportionate.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of defining a framework of consistent strategies with a will to express real solidarity between Member States represents a step forwards in the coordination of Community policies on migratory flows. Yet this measure also represents part of a wider process, whose aim is the international protection of refugees. If civil society can usefully be involved in this process, this measure seems to be closely related to the imminent activation of the European Asylum Support Office.

We must immediately establish a list of priorities and aims to be achieved, with a time schedule and specific incentive measures. We must also allocate specific finance to increase the number of members, currently only ten, participating in the programme. Neither must we forget the need for health protection to supplement the social protection offered to people who are often worn out by their state of extreme weakness.

A computerised database will also allow the traceability of every process implemented to protect the family unit while they are in the process of resettling. In this context, collaboration with Member States may be decisive in ensuring that procedures are streamlined and flexible. We want a fairer and more realistic European Union that takes into account the efforts of southern European Member States in particular.

With third countries, it is crucial for the European Union to take responsibility for defining cooperation agreements, as Italy did recently with Libya and Niger. We believe that this is the way, the only possible way, to move on from a form of solidarity which, hitherto, has all too often been just a façade, to proper solidarity between European Union Member States in the overall management of migratory flows.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) First, I would like to thank Mr Tavares for his work in the area of refugee policy, and at this point, I would also like to express my disappointment that less than half of all European Union Member States have official resettlement programmes for refugees from third countries.

Moreover, as has been said here many times, these programmes are not sufficiently coordinated, and as a result of the low level of coordination and cooperation between Member States of the Union, the costs associated with resettlement are also high, which naturally makes this idea rather unattractive.

I firmly believe, however, that given sufficient political will, we Europeans will be capable of creating an effective, fair and unified resettlement programme. To this end, it will be essential to create not only the programme itself, but also a special fund for the resettlement of refugees in the Union. This package would finance the creation of national resettlement programmes where they do not exist already, as well as coordination of activities at the central level. In my opinion, the ideal coordinator appears to be the European Asylum Support Office.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I wish to thank everyone who has been working very hard on the seemingly never-ending story of SIS II: Mr Coelho and those in the field.

The issue of recurring delays and cost overruns is very worrying and, if not this, what else could be more telling about Mr Barroso’s management skills in his first Commission? I believe that we should take these lessons which can be learnt here today and project them into the creation of a new IT agency, which could be situated in Tallinn. This would be a win-win situation: while the French colleagues could keep the servers in Strasbourg, the new programming work would be done in Tallinn by competent specialists with low management costs, thus avoiding a monopoly and embracing the idea of EU integration, and also giving a guarantee of data protection.

Finally, I would like to express my confidence in Commissioner Malmström’s ability to resolve these complicated issues.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I will explain my position succinctly.

I would first like to congratulate Mr Coelho. The process was supposed to be completed before 30 September, so the regulatory instruments need to be amended before they expire.

Secondly, there is no proposal from the Commission setting a deadline or removing the expiry clauses from the original proposals.

Thirdly, a precautionary period should be established for migration which, if necessary, could be extended through comitology.

Fourthly, the process is not subject to control by Parliament, which I think is a very bad thing.

Fifthly, we do not know the results of the tests of the second generation Schengen Information System, and Parliament must be informed.

Sixthly, based on what I have said, I support the rapporteur’s proposals and the warning that the Court of Auditors will intervene if the project fails.

Regarding the reports by Mr Tavares on the European Refugee Fund and resettlement, I would also like to congratulate Mr Tavares. The main problem is a lack of solidarity within the Union. We need to be cautious about financial aid for Member States that take in refugees for the first time, particularly due to comparative injustice. These measures, which I support in principle, Mr Tavares, require a detailed prior financial study.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in many respects, it is essential that we vote in favour, tomorrow, of amending the European Refugee Fund, and it is on this subject that I will focus my speech, at the same time as congratulating Mr Coelho and Mr Tavares on their deliberations and their work.

The vote on the ERF will shed light on the need for the Member States of the European Union to play their full part in resettlement in order to fill a double gap that exists in terms of the number of countries committed to the programme and the reception capacity of each country. Let us recall that here, we are talking about refugees who are often barely tolerated in the countries that have received them and whose living conditions can sometimes take a tragic turn if solutions are not found quickly.

Thanks to these new means, we can actually provide these particularly vulnerable people with greater security, so long as – and I stress this – each of the Member States involved with the ERF uses the funds concerned correctly and transparently, which is something that I know you are very concerned about, Commissioner Malmström. It will be difficult to take up the challenge when we know the lukewarm reception that the Member States have reserved for this new measure, and here too, Commissioner, I would like to underline your determination.

Finally, I would like to stress the fact that the integration of refugees is one of the keys to the success of this enterprise. The more we prepare for and explain the arrival of refugees, the greater the chances are that it will be accepted and will take place under the best conditions, and the more the Member States – we hope – will prove their commitment to resettlement. That is why our Parliament must vote overwhelmingly in favour of these amendments to the European Refugee Fund.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, in many Member States, including my home state of Austria, people no longer know where new asylum seekers can go, and the population quite rightly resists the idea of new reception centres. How can it be that, despite this, the resettlement of refugees in the EU is being promoted? The plan to allow into the EU asylum seekers who have already fled to a bordering third country such as Ukraine because the standard of living here is higher is thus completely incomprehensible. Especially in such times of economic crisis, it is all you can do to shake your head when it comes to proposals like this.

The entire EU asylum concept is a disaster, as far as I am concerned. According to the concept, an asylum seeker who is first picked up in Romania can then be sent back there for appraisal and for an asylum process. The idea of granting basic welfare provision to asylum seekers at the same high social security level as to nationals of the Member State in question is unrealistic and unaffordable. The EU should grant the protection of asylum to everyone who really needs it, to those who really are in need, but it should not open the floodgates to economic migrants.

What we need is greater protection of the external borders, quick, unbureaucratic procedures and, of course, a consistent repatriation strategy.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) The basic principle underlying the European Union’s involvement in asylum matters is to ensure a higher level of cooperation and solidarity between Member States. This cannot be achieved within individual countries. The adoption of a common European Union initiative is dictated by the increased strategic use of resettlement. A sound, well-targeted programme is required, which will be effective and of good quality. This programme will provide a suitable framework for ensuring that Member States will participate in the refugee resettlement process.

The efforts made by Member States to admit refugees must be supported and encouraged with additional financial incentives. These measures will enable us to show greater solidarity from the EU in relation to the global refugee issue. We will also encourage the participation of a significant number of Member States in this process.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) I would first of all like to begin with a comment for my fellow Member from the left. I believe that the converse example is also valid: when an Englishman or Irishman commits a crime in my country, it should be possible to send him back.

The process for implementing the second-generation Schengen Information System has been delayed and it seems that this will not take place before the end of 2011. As a result, I would like to ask the Commission about what repercussions this has on the timetable for the countries not yet included in the Schengen area, but which are due to join.

It is unacceptable that, at the moment, the Commission cannot give an exact date for the launch of SIS II’s operation, thereby raising considerable doubts about the management of this project. The additional costs and the need for new investment, if the migration to SIS II is going to end up failing and be included in the SIS 1+RE emergency plan, mean that much tighter budget control is required, especially for the new agency responsible for regulating and coordinating the implementation of SIS, VIS and Eurodac.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, a year ago, all of the Members of the European Parliament were in the midst of an election campaign and were seeking either to gain or regain our mandates, and I know that in many countries, the issue of the Schengen area in particular played an incredibly important role in the election campaign. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among our electorate, the citizens of Europe, about the way in which the EU deals with these issues: the lack of internal border controls, the severely deficient external border controls, the utterly inadequate control of immigration and the spectre that is lying in wait for us in just under a year’s time with regard to whether the Commission will give its approval for Bulgaria and Romania to also join Schengen.

I hear people saying that we must show solidarity, but, quite honestly, who is it we are to show solidarity with? Who is it that needs to show solidarity? When we see a massive exploitation of the system that both the EU and our Member States have set up, it is perhaps time that we also showed a little solidarity with the citizens, who are living with the failed policy that the Commission and its Member States have pursued.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, creating a common European asylum policy and resettlement policy means ensuring human rights and, at the same time, restricting illegal immigration.

Thank you, therefore, to the speakers and to Commissioner Malmström, as we now have a valuable tool, especially for countries with a Mediterranean coastline: countries such as Italy which, up until now, have not been able to rely either on real solidarity between Member States or on a fair division of responsibilities. These policies must be supported by an appropriate budget, but also by reliable checks on the programmes implemented, with suitable follow-ups and the identification of good practices.

My last words on the subject of human rights: we must give priority to those who are most vulnerable, minors, women who are victims of trafficking, of exploitation and of violence, including victims of genital mutilation, but I know that Commissioner Malmström has this properly in hand.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, at present, the European Union does seem to have access to unbelievable financial resources. After the EUR 750 billion support package we are now, once again, to spend enormous sums on the migration issue, but not, for example, on repatriation measures or even on securing borders – the supposedly secure Schengen borders, in any case, are as holey as a Swiss cheese. No, EUR 6 000 per person is to be provided for the voluntary acceptance of refugees from third countries.

If the EU really has the necessary loose change lying around, it should, I beg, support European families – then, perhaps, we would have a rising birth rate. The argument that we need immigration to counter the lack of children would then finally be superfluous. Instead of just opening up the floodgates to immigration, the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees should finally be accurately applied and it, of course, does not apply to the army of economic migrants. If we do want to spend many millions, then they could be spent on the border protection agency FRONTEX, rather than the money pit that is the Schengen Information System.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) I would like to talk about the Schengen Information System. We know that this system has taken relatively long to develop and has cost a lot of money, in addition to which the implementation costs are constantly rising and the results of trials are not known.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to conduct an audit of the work carried out so far on this system, to consider whether the system is viable and whether we know how to bring it to completion in such a way that it will be useful for Europe, and then decide how to proceed further.

As far as the resettlement programme is concerned, I agree that it is necessary to draw up a legislative standard which would restrict illegal immigration into the European Union, and which would establish the conditions for legitimate migration.

However, perhaps we should draw on the experience of our colleagues from developing countries, who say that not all migration, not all the journeys their countrymen make into the European Union, are about the security restrictions faced by these people, but are for economic reasons.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I would actually just like to get a couple of comments about the Maňka report off my chest. I agreed this earlier on with your colleague. I want to express very clearly my opposition to the increase in the secretarial allowance, especially to the envisaged amount of EUR 1 500. Furthermore, I also oppose any increase in the staffing of this House and, should it be decided after a further evaluation that an additional EUR 1 500 per month for the secretarial allowance is to be made available, that would simply be to mock the taxpayers.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. – Mr Ehrenhauser, I think you are speaking on the wrong subject. This is the joint debate on the Schengen Agreement. I am sorry that you did not get to speak about the Maňka report, but I am afraid we have to move on now.

  Piotr Borys (PPE). – (PL) Above all, I would like to congratulate Mr Coelho on two more successful reports. Secondly, there can be no turning back from SIS II today. If we want to think about a secure system, SIS II must be introduced, and this is why I think we need to continue these measures and support the Commission on this. I will remind everyone that the new visa code stipulates that biometric data must be shown in the system. SIS 1+ does not give this guarantee. SIS II will enable rapid verification of data in future. So in this area of security, we must not stop work on SIS II. Of course, we might wish that this work could be more effective and more successful.

I will remind everyone that not so long ago, we also adopted measures which make it easy to travel throughout the Schengen Area with a long-term visa. In relation to this, work on SIS II must be continued. We want to support the Commission on this, in the hope that its work will proceed faster and be more effective, and we should wish the Commission success in this regard. Thank you.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank all Members for their support and comments on these two different, but very important, subjects.

Starting with the SIS II, this has of course – and I am the first to recognise this – been a long saga, as somebody said. It is a complex dossier and very difficult. Probably there were things that could have been done better in the past, but since I took up office, I have really tried to deal with this in a very transparent and thorough way. The Commission has followed, to the letter, the roadmap outlined by the Council, and the Council agreed on conclusions at the last meeting. Some Member States were sceptical, but they did agree on the conclusion that the Milestone 1 test was successful. Right now, we are working with the different experts in order to assess and to define the final requirements of Member States to meet their operational needs and to define a more concrete timetable and way forward. I will make this proposal on 3 and 4 June to the Ministers for discussion and there will be a further assessment of this after the summer. We will, of course, be transparent and work with the European Parliament and the rapporteur all the time.

To answer the question on the new Member States, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania will be done via SIS I for all. Arrangements for Bulgaria and Romania are being made for that in the meantime.

We are preparing for a – hopefully successful – Milestone 2 test on SIS later this autumn. Until that is successfully complete, we have contacts and ways open in order to maintain the contingency plan for the future. We hope it will not be needed but we have made that preparation as well. In the meantime, let me thank all Members, especially Mr Coelho, for your support and assure you of the maximum transparency and engagement on the part of the Commission with the European Parliament on this dossier.

On the issue of resettlement, I fully agree with Mr Busuttil, who said that he was surprised that this did not exist before. It is, of course, a very good initiative to pool the resources of the Member States and to encourage further engagement on the global scene in order to alleviate pressure in refugee camps following a crisis or a very difficult situation. We can inspire Member States to make more intelligent use of the funds and to coordinate this with UNHCR. This is, of course, something that could really reinforce our role on the global scene, but also make a real difference for these people who are caught in a very difficult situation. UNHCR estimates there was a need for resettlement, last year alone, for 747 000 people. As Mr Flautre said, what we can do is a help but the needs are enormous. I think there is broad agreement on the aim and the purpose of this fund and I hope we can find a solution to the procedural issues very soon so the proposal can be adopted without delay.

Several Members made reference to internal solidarity. This is, of course, related, but is a slightly different subject. I recognise the need for this as well. The Commission has already made proposals in this regard. We have proposed a temporary suspension mechanism in the Dublin Regulation and we have established the European Support Office that will open in Malta later this year. We have the Malta pilot project and are evaluating this. I agree that we should try to find ways to make it more permanent and to involve more Member States. This is, of course, subject to the willingness of Member States to contribute, but the Commission will look at this and we will also look at a general intra-EU solidarity mechanism and present that next year. So we can come back to this discussion, which is slightly different from the EU resettlement programme but nevertheless very important.

Thank you very much to Mr Coelho, Mr Tavares and Mr Alvaro for your work on these two very important dossiers. I am looking forward to working with you to conclude them as soon as possible.

  Carlos Coelho, rapporteur. – (PT) Many thanks for the positive comments by various fellow Members. Mrs Malmström, I wanted you to know that Parliament is aware that you inherited this process and we have faith in your abilities and your intelligence, to bring it to the best possible conclusion. We also appreciate the efforts you have made towards transparency, which my fellow member, Mr Enciu, did a very good job of highlighting, as a matter of fact.

As regards the deadline, we are giving off the wrong signals if the new migration instruments do not have a deadline. After all the delays, indefinitely extending the Commission’s mandate does not make any sense. I understand that the Commission is in no position to bind itself to the target suggested by Parliament, but we will set it and, if for any reason, the process has not been completed by that point, you can come back to Parliament to request an extension and explain why it is needed. Extending the Commission’s mandate without any deadline is a terrible signal after these delays, both to the European institutions and to the European public.

I agree with your idea that the Global Programme Management Board must not be an assembly. I therefore understand the Commission’s reservations about limiting access to its work: I could not agree more. Parliament’s proposal was the result of a less favourable draft of the Commission’s original proposal, because the Commission, at the same time as limiting the composition of the Global Programme Management Board, was allowing any other official of the Commission, the Council or the Member States to participate. This raises a legitimate question: why can officials of the Commission and the Member States participate and not those of Parliament? If we restrict this body to its functions, I believe that we will all be in agreement, especially with the guarantees that the Commissioner has given regarding greater transparency.

  Rui Tavares, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, my thanks to the Members who have taken part in the debate and to the Commissioner. I believe that if there is any agreement about what is wanted in relation to the issue of refugee resettlement, it is because we understand that for once, in the debate on immigration – and we all know how difficult that is in Europe, along with the debate on asylum and refugees – what we have is a problem that we can solve. We can resolve it for ourselves and for the refugees, because anyone who has visited refugee camps knows that there are children there losing one, two, three years of study that they could be undertaking in Europe. I think that gives us the right degree of urgency for this debate.

I also hope that the procedural issues will be rapidly overcome, in accordance with what is written in the treaties, because we all know that what we have is not enough and we all know that just assigning part of the budget is still not a true refugee resettlement programme. It is, in fact, at this type of subject that we aimed the own-initiative report that we are also discussing here today and which is about quality: quality is of vital importance in the integration of refugees and requires a multilateral approach involving non-governmental organisations, local actors and local authorities. This approach must also resolve many of the bureaucratic issues with coordination that we have today.

If the process for these children, who are in refugee camps and are not yet studying and who would have the right to be resettled, is taking a long time, we are told by actors in the border agencies of several Member States that it is because it takes a long time for Member States to coordinate to validate transit documentation, for example, which can be done mainly using an instrument which, in the own-initiative report, we suggested should be implemented by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The EASO is a resettlement unit with a reduced number of officials, but with people who work permanently in resettlement, who know how to exchange best practices, who know how to introduce the new Member States to resettlement mechanisms, and who know how to coordinate even with the European External Action Service to facilitate resettlement processes.

When we have already decided that those people will be resettled, there is no reason for us to delay in tackling red tape and bureaucracy, before we can really deal with integrating them on European soil.

  President. – The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place at noon today.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) We are voting today on the adoption of a joint EU resettlement programme for asylum seekers from problematic third countries in the EU. However, there is another debate which needs to be held. For over ten years, Europe has seen an influx of large numbers of refugees and waves of immigration. The south of Europe has been left to shoulder the entire burden of European humanitarianism and it reached its limits some time ago. While Europe – quite rightly – has a fund ready for third countries, there is no provision for the Member States.

If nothing else, the rapporteur’s report recognises the problem. Other reports, such as the report on the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office, constitute – at least on paper – an obligation to support states whose asylum and reception systems are under particular pressure, due to their geographical position. One expressly stated objective is to support the development of a solidarity mechanism, such as the transportation of persons entitled to international protection within the EU.

Let us hope that Europe gradually discovers solidarity. We must bear in mind that any delay here will harm our innocent fellow men.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) In relation to the matter of the Schengen Information System, I would again like to point out the fact that the state authorities in the Czech Republic, as well as local authorities and individual politicians, including MEPs, constantly face complaints from Czech citizens over the gratuitous and humiliating police checks and inspections they are often subjected to when travelling to Germany, both in the vicinity of the state boundary and in the wider German border regions. This approach taken by German police and customs authorities, carried out with great frequency and dexterity, has a significant negative impact, not only on Czech-German relations but, above all, on the attitude of Czech citizens to European integration. Following the accession of the Czech Republic to the Schengen Information System, Czech citizens were told they had free and unhindered movement within the territory of the EU, including Germany, just as the Schengen System anticipates and guarantees. In my opinion, the behaviour of the German state authorities towards persons travelling from the Czech Republic is unfounded in a clear majority of cases and contrary to the declared free movement of persons.

7. Specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006) (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Alves, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (COM(2009)0510 - C7-0255/2009 - 2009/0138(COD)) (A7-0054/2010).

  Luís Paulo Alves, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to point out the fact that we are debating the first report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is an historic moment and, if this House votes in the way I am suggesting, it will get this new period of shared competences regarding agriculture in the European Union off to the best possible start.

It does so precisely by colegislating with its outermost regions, in a practical demonstration of the will to build a Union that is strengthened by cohesion, in a spirit of active solidarity, in respect for the specificities and differences of its parts, as the only viable path towards building our common European project.

It also does so by introducing basic regulations to make the sugar sector in the Azores – and I particularly welcome this, as that is my home region – more viable, as it is hundreds of years old. Furthermore, it contributes to the healthy diversification of agriculture in a region which, as we know, makes an irreplaceable contribution to Portugal’s milk sector. We must consolidate it and make it sustainable.

Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Cioloş and the Commission’s high officials, with whom we worked and negotiated, for the openness and flexibility they showed. The Spanish Presidency has given everything towards making our shared desire of reaching an agreement at first reading become a reality. I would, obviously, also extend my thanks to our shadows in the other political groups, as well as to the excellent officials of the secretariat of Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, whose collaboration allowed us to achieve a result that I consider very positive.

I would also stress the decisive contribution of the Agricultural Association of the Azores, as well as of the regional government and the government of the Republic; they were heavily involved and played a significant role in finding a solution for the sugar of the Azores.

The proposal for a Council regulation was tabled on 2 October in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, at a time in which there was no prospect of the Treaty of Lisbon entering into force, which continued to await ratification by the Member States. In this context, the initial idea of the Commission and the Council was for the proposal to be adopted under the simplified process without any amendments, to become effective from 1 January 2010.

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and despite the fact that the opinion that the proposal should continue to follow the simplified process predominated in the other political groups and the Council – because they thought that the proposal did not need amendments and should enter into force quickly – at the time, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and I understand that Parliament needed to express its opinion then in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon, and take up its role of colegislator.

We did it at the right time, because new possibilities have opened up as a result, first with the contribution of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of Mr Teixeira – whom I would like to congratulate and thank, by the way, for the help he has always provided throughout the process – and then with my report introducing the new possibilities for sugar in the Azores, as well as the contribution and support of my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Finally, I would like to say in this first speech that we failed to get the amendments proposed by the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and supported by me, accepted in the commitment obtained in trialogue. It was essential to obtain a commitment at first reading, thus safeguarding the improvements already obtained and the need to enter into force quickly, in order not to compromise its retroactivity from January this year. However, as the Commission is already preparing a review document for the POSEI, we will surely soon have another opportunity to debate them.

  President. – We have changed the name on the screen, as you have seen. Unfortunately, the Commissioner in question was not able to be with us on time, which I find regrettable, as there is no ash cloud at the moment and as it is already 11.00.

Maybe at some point, the Commission could discuss the fact that the competent Commissioners should be here. That, too, is a subject for the framework agreement. I am sure that Mrs Malmström will be a wonderful representative.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for your understanding. I would like to apologise on behalf of my colleague, Mr Cioloş, who is delayed and who is trying to get here as soon as possible to discuss with you. He has asked me to thank the rapporteur, Mr Alves, and the shadow rapporteurs of the European Parliament for the excellent work which has been achieved in the adoption of this proposal.

The adoption is important because it is the first text adopted in the ordinary legislative procedure concerning agriculture and rural development following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. A very good cooperation has been established between Parliament, the Council and the Commission during these months, and that has created the conditions for a fast adoption in first reading of this proposal.

With this first experience of the ordinary legislative procedure, my colleague, Commissioner Cioloş, and his services have learned a lot, and this has set an excellent precedent for future work. The adoption of this regulation is very important for the outermost regions as it imposes technical simplifications and it also imposes derogations to the benefit of several sectors: the milk sector in the Canary Islands, Madeira and Réunion, the sugar sector for the Azores and the wine sector for Madeira and the Azores.

Concerning the Azores, I consider that the current circumstances justify an additional and joint effort from all of us – the public, regional governments, national governments and the European Union – in order to facilitate a diversification of the agricultural activities in this region. The diversification must indeed be one of the major priorities of the outermost regions to which the treaty has acknowledged a particular status due to their specific handicaps. The diversification must allow an indigenous development that would create stability and well-being in these regions. For this reason, following the assurance received from the Portuguese authorities, who committed themselves to support the sugar beet sector in the Azores, I can give my agreement for the extension of a derogation which has already been granted in the past for the benefit of the sugar industry in the Azores.

I will listen to your comments to this text and I will try, to the best of my abilities, to answer your questions on behalf of my colleague.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Nuno Teixeira, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, my fellow Member, Mr Alves, on his work, especially the capacity that he demonstrated for incorporating the various contributions that he received and which are nothing more than respect for the interests of the various outermost regions covered.

In my function as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, I welcome the fact that all the amendments proposed were fully accepted by the rapporteur and that the Committee on Regional Development voted in favour of all of them. These are proposals that aim objectively to improve and correct aspects of the regulation in force that are inadequate and anachronistic. Of these aspects, I would stress the fact that the maximum amounts for export and despatch of any processed products that have benefited from POSEI grants are currently calculated on the basis of the average between 1989 and 1991.

Assuming that the report is adopted, I hope that the Commission and Council will be able to read Parliament’s position and not use a possible future review of the regulations of the POSEI scheme as an excuse to not accept this House’s positions and the proposed amendments, which are of the greatest importance for the affected regions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PT) Owing to their permanent natural handicaps, the outermost regions need the European Union to have a specific look at the best conditions for them to carry out their economic activities.

In the case of regions like the Azores, that are highly dependent on agriculture, particular attention to that sector is needed. It is in this context that we welcome this report on specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions. The version voted on by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development was quite satisfactory; the version that has emerged from the trialogue inexorably penalises working conditions in the sugar sector, whose export allowance is touching on the merely symbolic.

At a time in which the diversification of agriculture is gaining acceptance as one of the ways to minimise the sector’s recurrent crises, it is regrettable that this report does not express the confidence and encouragement that sugar beet production and the associated industry in São Miguel needed.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (RO) I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur for the objectives mentioned for agriculture in the outermost regions. The agricultural support scheme for the EU’s outermost regions provides an important mechanism for continuing agriculture and maintaining the rural landscape.

I support the current exercise of reviewing the delimitation of these areas in order to remove any inconsistencies in delimiting them. I believe that the application of uniform criteria will simplify the implementation of the payment scheme for outermost regions at European Union level, provide greater transparency and ensure uniform treatment for the beneficiaries of these support schemes. We all know what a key role agriculture plays in the local economy.

In this respect, I think that it is appropriate to have measures in place in the European Union’s outermost regions which are aimed at boosting the agricultural sector’s competitiveness and promoting diversification. I support and completely agree with the basic objectives of the scheme for the outermost regions, which I regard as being relevant and which have proven to be an effective instrument for continuing agriculture in these areas.

  Riikka Manner, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, firstly I wish to thank and congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Alves, for his excellent work on this report. Our group fully supports this compromise, because it is very important and obvious that the economic and social development of the EU’s outermost regions is greatly determined by their periphery, difficult climate and geography and economic dependence on a short range of goods and services. It is very important, especially now in a time of crisis, that we focus attention on the balanced development of the regions of Europe and on achieving regional and social cohesion.

We and the European Union must ensure that we are self­sufficient in agriculture everywhere in Europe. This is vital for security and biodiversity. The measures proposed in this report should now be put into actual practice, thereby producing permanent and, above all, long­term results everywhere in Europe, including Europe’s peripheral regions.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, first of all, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur for a very good job of work. My group was also able to support the agreement in trialogue and I think it has found a good compromise.

I believe the outermost regions of Europe should be given the required support that they need where possible in order to compensate for their location and the difficulties that entails. These regions have permanent handicaps and we need to recognise this. The economic crisis and the crisis in the dairy sector have affected these regions disproportionately in relation to most of the rest of Europe, and that is why these regions deserve some special attention.

I am particularly sympathetic to the situation in the Azores, where the dairy sector is very important and has had serious difficulties. Allowing the Azores to export relatively small quantities of sugar to the EU has to be a good decision for the economic future of that particular region.

  João Ferreira, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, justifying the prolongation of the re-exporting of sugar using the models that are currently being proposed, with the gradual abolition of the system of milk quotas, is dangerous and unacceptable. This abolition – against which we have fought and will continue to fight, supporting the struggle of the milk producers – will have very serious consequences for a productive sector that is fundamental to the economy of the Azores. Contrary to what is being suggested, it will not be possible to mitigate these consequences using the measures that are being proposed relating to the sugar-processing industry; all the more so when its gradual abolition is also being suggested. What will be left when these five years are up?

On the other hand, it is important to take into account that the process of reconverting vines is significantly behind schedule, not least in the case of Madeira, and could even be compromised if the incentives are not strengthened. The restrictions and constraints that affect the outermost regions are permanent. For this reason, the practical effect of acknowledgement of the specificity of these regions must be a set of permanent aid measures, not unconnected and time-limited ones. It is important to maintain Union aid to the agricultural sector in the outermost regions; even more so in the current socio-economic climate.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we are dealing with a reform that is simple but extremely important for the outermost regions. This is especially the case at a time when the crisis is affecting everyone, but is affecting these regions in a fundamental way, as they have permanent structural handicaps that mean that they need these changes.

I am going to talk about the Canary Islands. In the case of the Canary Islands, the most important change is regarding supplies of milk-based preparations intended for industrial processing. We are talking about skimmed milk powder with vegetable fat, which is a traditional product for local consumers that has been sold in the Canary Islands for more than 40 years. After a great deal of effort and despite many difficulties, a local industry was established that generates employment and obvious added value. I would like to highlight this because, in the current times, particularly on our islands, which have extremely high unemployment, supporting a small industry that creates jobs is not only a necessity but an obligation.

The proposal is to maintain the supply of this product, which is used for local consumption in small quantities of 800 tonnes per year. This would eliminate the transitional nature of the measure, which is of little importance in the global context, and therefore give stability to this industry.

As I said before, the outermost regions have significant handicaps, but they must be considered an opportunity for Europe. The different association agreements that are being worked on and debated at the moment, such as the free trade agreements with Colombia and Peru and others on which negotiations are beginning, such as with Mercosur, are a clear threat to our agricultural sector. I am thinking about numerous products: tomatoes, bananas, and the livestock sector.

I have said this many times: these agreements must achieve a balance, whereby everyone surrenders a little ground, so we all win. However, in no way must one product or one specific sector be forced to bear the cost of the agreements.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Alves, and thank the Commission and the Council who, along with Parliament, have succeeded in reaching an agreement in this first trialogue on agriculture.

  Patrice Tirolien (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when this text came before the Committee on Regional Development, I managed to introduce the idea of an extension of the exemption authorising the production of reconstituted milk in Martinique and Guadeloupe, following the example of the sustainable growth model which proved its worth in Madeira.

Unfortunately, there was no consensus on this position at the last trialogue. This is regrettable for two reasons. Firstly, in terms of substance, dairy production in the French overseas departments would offer multiple unmissable opportunities: the strengthening of the cattle industry, self-sufficiency in a basic foodstuff and the creation of jobs. Secondly, in terms of content, our Parliament as a whole was unable to reach a decision on my proposal since it wanted to pass this text at first reading via an informal procedure that I oppose.

Be that as it may, our work on this POSEI regulation will continue very soon during the mid-term review of this regulation. At that point, I will again request an exemption in the other French overseas departments.

  Albert Deß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am pleased that the report on specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union has been so amicably discussed in the House.

In the last electoral term, I was the shadow rapporteur for reform of the sugar market. At that time, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development visited the island of Réunion where I visited a small agricultural holding that grows sugar cane. Without our support, this small agricultural holding could not stay in existence. As someone from the continental mainland, I also observed that these farmers in the outermost regions of the Union do face a special set of circumstances.

It is necessary for us to ensure, through certain rules on exceptions, that we offer these farmers in all these regions that are in the European Union future prospects and ensure that they are able to guarantee food security – at least for the most part – in these areas. It is up to us all to help ensure that agriculture – including through these rules on exceptions – has future prospects and that the security of supply for the local population is safeguarded. The way the report has now been drawn up provides good conditions for achieving these goals. My heartfelt thanks go to all those who have been involved.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the outermost areas are distinguished by socio-economic and structural particularities determined by their distance from the markets, their isolation, their small area, their topography, their difficult climate and their economic dependency on certain products. There are three particularly important agricultural sectors: sugar beets, dairy products and wine production.

The economic system of these areas depends on correct running of the production systems for each of the above sectors, but it will take a lot of work to restore the balances that have failed over time, and to ensure the derogations needed to apply the appropriate market instruments.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is with great concern that we learn of the negotiations in progress with Mercosur countries. If these are not backed by appropriate compensatory measures, this agreement could greatly endanger not only the outermost areas but also many sectors of European agriculture.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, I must say that the compromise on sugar, such as was negotiated in the trialogue, falls short of what we had proposed in the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and I deeply regret this.

However, as far as Réunion Island is concerned, this text is important for the farmers, who are waiting for the swift implementation of the exemption given on milk. For them, it will guarantee the sustainability of the industry. However, I would have preferred the safeguards recommended in committee to have been kept.

Still on milk, I agree with our fellow Member, Mr Tirolien. We would have liked a study to have been conducted for Martinique and Guadeloupe in order to keep an industry in these regions. However, these questions will quite clearly be back on the table during the POSEI negotiations, and we will have the opportunity to talk about them again.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, for years, we have been observing a phenomenon that seems to leave the European Union powerless, namely an enormous rate of farms going under which undermines EU states’ self-sufficiency. Clearly, those worst hit by this are those in disadvantaged areas, such as the outermost regions, but also farmers in mountainous regions like we have in Austria.

Unfortunately, that is a consequence of the common agricultural policy, a policy that has been subject to many years of criticism, is constantly being reformed and yet still does not function properly. We have reached a turning point, however. In crisis situations – be they brought about by the depreciating euro or simply by the fact that a volcano in Iceland has paralysed air traffic and with it the supply of easily perishable goods – the Member States have to rely on themselves. We saw that most recently from the last time that Russia turned off the gas.

When things get difficult, everything depends on a country’s self-sufficiency, and that needs to be maintained within the EU, in those countries and regions with disadvantaged areas, and in the outermost regions. I believe that can only be done if agriculture is, to a certain extent, re-nationalised.

  Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, in this debate on the specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions, I would like to start by complimenting the rapporteur and everyone who has worked on this subject. I would also like to say that the amendments, which are often technical and specific, do not lead to significant changes.

However, to call attention to the issue of sugar and sugar production in the Azores is to also call attention to a deeper problem. The outermost regions such as the Azores, which I recently had the opportunity to visit, have a very strong link to the agricultural sector. Specifically, in the Azores, the issue of milk quotas is very important. Milk production and how it is regulated are extraordinarily relevant for hundreds of producers and many of the people of the Azores and for that very reason, I want right now, here in the Chamber, to call attention to the need for solutions to be found that have the specific situation of these regions in mind.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, I am happy to see a report on helping agriculture in the outermost regions of Europe. There is no doubt that geographical location, distance from markets and other such factors create many difficulties. The economic crisis has also had an impact. Price volatility has been very significant and had a detrimental, and indeed destabilising, effect on farming, not only in the outermost regions, but in all areas of Europe. However, I just want to address one very particular point to the Commission today, and that is that the Commission must be careful in its own actions not to disadvantage the European farmer and the European agricultural industry.

In Northern Ireland, the dairy and beef industry has been greatly affected by imports. This has resulted in price volatility and great financial losses for farmers. Last week, I attended the Royal Agricultural Show in Northern Ireland. This is the largest show of its kind in the province, and farmer after farmer expressed very grave concerns at the attitude of the Commission in reopening the Mercosur trade talks. Surely the Commission, and we in this Parliament, must be very careful not to sacrifice Europe’s industry in order to have so-called ‘gains’ in other areas.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome proposals to help the outermost regions. Firstly, agriculture is primarily an industry that puts food on the table – without which we all would die – but also these regions without agriculture would die as well, both economically and by probably becoming denuded of people. So I welcome any proposals to help them.

I also want to add my voice to those who expressed concern about the Mercosur proposals. These could do enormous damage to the outermost regions, and indeed every region.

I think that it is time that the European Union got stronger and fairer with its own farmers. We were never meant to be the policeman for the farmers within the Union and the fairy godmother for the farmers in the rest of the world. That is what is happening here: there would be less stringent rules, less transparency and less accountability for food coming into the European Union than for food that is produced within it, and that would be unfair to the outermost regions and to all regions.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, please excuse me for being late, but I was very keen to be present for this debate since it is my first one and it is about the first decision taken in codecision in the area of agriculture. I would like once again to greet and thank Mr Alves and all of Parliament’s services for the very cooperative and effective way they have worked with the Commission and with the Council to reach this decision.

We wanted a swift decision precisely so that the measures provided for in this report can be applied quickly in the regions concerned. Some decisions will even be applied retroactively. That is why – and I am also answering Mr Tirolien here – we have not introduced other amendments. In fact, as with some other proposals, we would have needed additional justifications and analysis, so as to establish the way in which they should be introduced. We preferred to move quickly, and I had several discussions with Mr Alves on this subject. I am therefore delighted to see the support that this proposal enjoys and I hope that we will be able to work in the same way with Parliament on other subjects in the future. Moreover, I am sure that we will be able to do so.

As Commissioner for Agriculture, I can also assure all the speakers that negotiations with the Mercosur have been mentioned several times. I can assure you, as I did during debates within Commission bodies on the reopening of these negotiations, that I will check very carefully that these negotiations continue in the interest of European agriculture. We must, of course, consider these negotiations more comprehensively, without limiting them to agriculture, but I can assure you that, during the coming months and years of these negotiations, I will ensure that the European agricultural model, which is based on quality, diversity and land use, is preserved either through the results of these negotiations or through the measures that will be taken following these negotiations.

The question was also asked as to why we should apply degressivity, why we do not opt for quantities such as those applied thus far to the Azores for sugar. In the latter case, we specifically agreed with the Portuguese authorities and with the local Azorian authorities to establish an economic instrument that enables the sector in question to cope with competition by means of economic investment measures. I am delighted with the support that I have observed and the commitments that have been made by the Portuguese Government to support the sector in this move and I hope that, in this way, we will be able to offer an alternative to the producers of the Azores.

Mr Mölzer stated that the common agricultural policy was not robust enough, that it was not functioning well and that we needed renationalisation. I would like to put a simple request to you: look at what farmers receive in income today, look at what part of this income is support from the CAP, and ask yourselves how farmers could cope today if we did not have the common agricultural policy. That does not mean that the CAP should not be adapted. It must be substantially adapted in order to take account of precisely these changes that European agriculture faces. I can assure you that every effort will be made in the reform of the CAP in 2013 to take better account of current realities. Of course, that will be limited to the resources that the Council and Parliament make available to this policy. I hope that these resources will be directly related to the ambitions that Europeans and Europe have for their agriculture. I do not think that renationalisation is a solution because, in my opinion, the Member States would not have the means to assure the adoption of specific measures in these outermost regions if we did not have the common agricultural policy and a Community approach.

I will therefore conclude here with the hope that, when it comes to the recasting of the POSEI regulation, we will be able to make progress on some points that were raised today and that, in general, in all the decisions concerning the common agricultural policy, we will be able to work as effectively as we did for this regulation.

  Luís Paulo Alves, rapporteur. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this last speech, I would stress the importance of updating Regulation (EC) No 247/2006. The change that has occurred since it was adopted in 2006 – both in the field of legislation and in that of its application, as well as to the situation itself – has necessitated the introduction of amendments so that an updated version of it can continue to be an important instrument in the adaptation of certain Union agricultural policies relating to the specificities of the outermost regions, as set out in Articles 349 and 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Allow me to briefly enumerate the improvements achieved. In the Canary Islands, the derogation allowing milk-based preparations that are considered ‘a traditional product for the local consumers’ is to be temporarily prolonged. In Réunion, it will now be possible to produce UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder below the limits set by the World Trade Organisation, with the obligation to set the level of integrated powered milk also disappearing. In Madeira, this same exception is being renewed using these models, and wine produced from direct-producer hybrid vines can be consumed in the region. In the Azores, the derogation for re-exporting sugar is being brought back and extended, both in amount and in time limit; the region is also benefiting from the provisions on wine already mentioned for Madeira.

These are measures to be applied retroactively from 1 January 2010 which do not represent any obstacle to free competition in our single market and constitute important contributions to the economies of these regions, whose natural frailties make them more vulnerable at a time of profound crisis. Lastly, I would like to mention that, apart from the opportunity given to agricultural diversification, the adoption of this report means that the ban on re-exporting certain products has been lifted. It is also important to remember that thanks to its adoption, we will be contributing decisively to restructuring and maintaining several dozen jobs in the Azores, as well as the technical know-how linked to activity in the agro-industrial sugar sector, at a time of extremely tough economic crisis.

  President. – I am delighted to inform Mr Alves and everyone that in 8 or 10 days time, a large-scale conference is going to be held on the outermost regions, sponsored by the Spanish Presidency. The President of Parliament has appointed me to speak along with Mr Durão Barroso, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero and the President of the government of the Canary Islands at the opening of the conference.

I am definitely going to use the result of this debate and Mr Alves’s report as major sources of inspiration for the speech that I have to make then.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s island and outermost regions are facing a number of problems at the moment. This is why specific measures are required to promote their future social and economic development. I welcome the additional measures proposed by Parliament and the Commission, intended to improve the state of agriculture in the outermost regions, especially against the backdrop of the problems facing the Azores and Madeira.

Milk is the Azores’ main agricultural product. However, given that a number of European Union Member States have faced a milk crisis recently, it is necessary to change these islands’ agricultural profile. I agree on this point with the rapporteur, who expresses the view that sugar beet is the best alternative to milk production, in terms of both economic efficiency and environmental protection. I wish to emphasise that sending the maximum volumes of sugar beet to Europe must still be encouraged.

In conclusion, I wish to stress that, in the current economic crisis, the post-2013 financial framework must have solidarity as its main foundation and also still aim to achieve high standards of territorial and social cohesion.

  President. – (The sitting was suspended at 11.35 and resumed at 12.05)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS
Vice-President

8. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

8.1. Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee - Towards a European road safety area: strategic guidelines for road safety up to 2020 (vote)

8.2. Establishment of a European Asylum Support Office (A7-0118/2010, Jean Lambert) (vote)

8.3. The energy performance of buildings (recast) (A7-0124/2010, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău) (vote)

8.4. European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 (amendment of Decision No 573/2007/EC) (A7-0125/2010, Rui Tavares) (vote)

8.5. Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008) (A7-0126/2010, Carlos Coelho) (vote)

8.6. Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Decision 2008/839/JHA) (A7-0127/2010, Carlos Coelho) (vote)

8.7. The establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme (A7-0131/2010, Rui Tavares) (vote)

8.8. Key competences for a changing world: implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme (A7-0141/2010, Maria Badia i Cutchet) (vote)

8.9. Deontological questions related to companies’ management (A7-0135/2010, Klaus-Heiner Lehne) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD). – Madam President, in anticipation of your calling the next vote on the Lehne report on deontology, may I please ask why this vote is being taken? It was due for debate last night under catch-the-eye. That was cancelled, so here we are voting on something which has not been debated, although it does not say so. For your information, Madam President, when this came before the Employment Committee a short while ago, nobody on that committee knew what deontology meant until I tried to explain it to them – not even the Chair! I think it is highly improper, therefore, to take a vote on this unknown, undebated motion.

  President. – I can tell you that it was debated in the Committee on Legal Affairs, from whence it comes, and it has been through all the proper procedures, so I intend to proceed with the vote.

8.10. An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering (A7-0113/2010, Georgios Papanikolaou) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, these are critical times for the whole of Europe. A future for Europe – which is what I want to talk about – means, above all, future generations. Optimism about the future of Europe means young people with opportunities, skills and qualifications.

This report, and every other initiative on this issue, will have no value in the future unless all of us, especially those of us who are directly elected by the citizens of Europe, highlight in every policy, in every pillar of our action, the priority and emphasis which we need to give to young people. In these difficult times, both in Greece and in other countries, we believe that we can achieve this. We can achieve it with real effort together with young people who, if they have the wherewithal, if they have the opportunity, will take the future in their hands and lead us to a better tomorrow.

My thanks to the shadow rapporteurs from all the groups for their cooperation and the unanimity which we achieved.

(Applause)

8.11. Equal treatment between self-employed men and women (A7-0146/2010, Astrid Lulling) (vote)

8.12. Textile names and related labelling of textile products (A7-0122/2010, Toine Manders) (vote)

8.13. Macro-financial assistance for Ukraine (A7-0058/2010, Vital Moreira) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Vital Moreira, rapporteur. – Madam President, this is just a brief explanation of what we are going to vote on.

In November last year, here in Strasbourg, when we were discussing the approval of four previous macro-financial assistance proposals regarding other countries, the Commission promised us that, under the Lisbon Treaty and until the adoption of a framework regulation for macro-financial assistance, all future individual proposals for such assistance would be subject to codecision by Parliament and the Council. Now, only six months later, you have in front of you not only a proposal for a codecided decision, but also a first-reading agreement with the Council. In trying to reach that agreement, we were operating under a very tight timetable. Therefore, I would like to express my recognition and gratitude to the Spanish Presidency, the Council and the Commission, as well as to the shadow rapporteurs on the Committee on International Trade and everybody involved, for their positive and constructive approach.

Under the proposed decision, Ukraine could get a loan of up to EUR 500 million in order to finance its balance of payments deficit and meet external financing needs. This loan would supplement IMF support and the EU assistance of EUR 110 million that was agreed back in 2002 but has not yet been disbursed.

During our informal trialogue negotiations, Parliament insisted on keeping references to certain disbursement conditions that were important for us, such as the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the assistance. We also insisted on the importance of Parliament being kept duly informed about the actual implementation of the assistance.

(Applause)

In protecting our institutional prerogatives, we also resisted demands to introduce a management committee procedure for implementing measures so that finally an advisory committee…

(The President cut off the speaker)

8.14. Specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (A7-0054/2010, Luís Paulo Alves) (vote)

8.15. Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year 2011 - Section I - Parliament (A7-0134/2010, Helga Trüpel) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Jutta Haug (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, it is a little unusual, but I must inform my own group that our voting list for the Trüpel report is not correct in the form that we have laid it down. There has been a misunderstanding. We reject all the amendments, except our own.

  President. – Ms Haug, thank you for that. It looks as though the leadership of your group is well aware of the situation.

8.16. Simplification of the CAP (A7-0051/2010, Richard Ashworth) (vote)

8.17. New developments in public procurement (A7-0151/2010, Heide Rühle) (vote)

8.18. The EU Policy Coherence for Development and the ‘Official Development Assistance plus concept’ (A7-0140/2010, Franziska Keller) (vote)

– Before the vote on paragraph 34:

  Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Madam President, I propose that after the words ‘introduction of an international financial transaction tax’, three words be added: ‘at global level’. It seems to me this will make more sense. Thank you very much.

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

8.19. Penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport (A7-0130/2010, Hella Ranner) (vote)

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Rui Tavares (A7-0125/2010)

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) I voted against the Tavares report, as the introduction of a joint resettlement programme is the umpteenth step towards a completely uniform European asylum policy.

One does not need to be a clairvoyant to be able to predict even now that a uniform policy such as this will lead to a large increase in the number of asylum seekers in the Member States. The recital in the report stating that the introduction of a joint resettlement programme would make illegal immigration less attractive is particularly disagreeable. This hypocritical pseudo-argument resurfaces time and again when votes are held in this House on texts concerning immigration or asylum. It pulls the wool over people’s eyes. In countries such as Belgium, illegal immigration usually occurs when people go underground following their asylum procedure and are subsequently rewarded with regularisation.

This kind of thing must be combated, and a joint resettlement programme by no means offers a solution.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) We have passed a directive that will undoubtedly open up further opportunities for research into the energy efficiency of buildings and will contribute to savings in relation to the heating of buildings. It is mainly old buildings that are a problem, of course, and not just blocks of flats. Yesterday, my colleague, Marian-Jean Marinescu, mentioned a special fund. The provision of additional resources in a time of crisis is questionable. It is therefore necessary to make better use of current resources – which amount to 4% for the period 2010 to 2014.

Report: Carlos Coelho (A7-0126/2010)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I wanted to speak again about the report on the refugee fund, and that is why I have come forward. I would like to say that the voting equipment showed that I abstained. I would like to declare here, however, that I support shared responsibility for more dignified conditions for legitimate asylum seekers and that I was in favour. On the other hand, we must fight more effectively against illegal migration.

Now to the Schengen item, if I may. Today, we have approved further steps for launching version two of the Schengen Information System, which reinforces security guarantees for all Europeans living in a unified space without barriers.

However, the actions of the German and Austrian police cast a dark shadow over the idea of Schengen and European solidarity, when numerous Czech citizens are forced to undergo unnecessary, intimate and degrading checks at internal borders. I raised this problem, along with other issues, two years ago in a question to the European Commission, but the situation has not yet been resolved satisfactorily. It amounts to a clear breach of the rules, and in the case of Czech citizens, including businessmen and workers, it restricts free movement, which is one of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Report: Rui Tavares (A7-0131/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) A migratory policy, Mr President, that seeks to be fair and realistic, necessarily requires the adoption of shared European regulations on asylum and must also make provision for a resettlement programme that is effective, solid and sustainable. At this point, I feel I must emphasise that resettlement pursues not only a humanitarian aim, but also the political and economic goal of relieving third countries of the burden of accepting large numbers of refugees, and the equally great burden of sharing costs and financial responsibilities.

We believe, however, that one budget line and one form of financial support are not enough and so we urge Member States to promote the creation of further private financing mechanisms, encouraging public-private partnerships with NGOs and other social partners, such as religious and ethnic organisations, in order to help promote voluntary work in this sector. Where new financial perspectives are concerned, we think it would be a good idea, for example, to make provision for a specific ad hoc financial allocation, perhaps by means of a new fund set up for this purpose.

Finally, we propose a firm commitment from all those involved to offering refugees, especially the most vulnerable, access to appropriate housing, education and language courses, health care, psychological services, as well as access to the job market, which is essential to ensure that they become properly integrated.

Recommendation for second reading: Astrid Lulling (A7-0146/2010)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I am pleased that the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality has received such broad support in today’s vote. I realise it is primarily the responsibility of the Member States to secure social conditions for female entrepreneurs that are on a par with those enjoyed by female employees. Nevertheless, this report provides clear outlines which countries should follow. I do not consider this a breach of subsidiarity, but if anyone has doubts, they can initiate a review. Even domestic parliaments can do this, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon. I am curious as to whether they will take advantage of this criticism, or merely engage in endless empty talk.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – (LT) I voted for this report and feel it is important to stress that on average, women in the European Union are still being paid less for every hour they work – 17.4% less than men. This disparity has only been reduced slightly in the past 15 years, while in some countries, it has even grown worse. I agree with Parliament’s call for the preparation of regular reports on the gender pay gap in the European Union, and I support all measures to help reduce discrimination against women in the European Union.

Report: Toine Manders (A7-0122/2010)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) We approved the controversial proposal because our IMCO committee broadened and enhanced it by introducing country of origin labelling for the European Union as well. Italian Members submitted further proposals at today’s plenary session, including broadening the regulation to encompass shoes as well. I have strongly backed this idea for a long time, but it must be drafted to a high standard by the European Commission. It is a matter of resolving the technical definitions, which Parliament cannot do very well itself. I therefore did not vote in favour of it, but at the same time, I would like to ask the Commission to begin work immediately and to submit the proposal.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE) . – (DA) Madam President, I would just like to say that I voted against those parts of the report that concern ‘made in’ labelling because I do not think there is any evidence to show that the advantages are greater than the disadvantages. I believe that this is tending towards protectionism and that is something that I find difficult to vote in favour of. I therefore voted against the parts in question.

Report: Luís Paulo Alves (A7-0054/2010)

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I decided to endorse this initiative, which gives certain regions in Europe the opportunity for development. Attention should be drawn to the fact that in economic terms, certain areas in Europe itself are also becoming outermost regions. Therefore, programmes like this have as their objective, among other things, the development of areas in Europe, and I hope they will stimulate development by agriculture and also by the fishing industry.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to express my concern regarding the situation of banana producers in the Canary Islands, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Madeira, which the treaty include among the outermost regions.

Their situation has been made more difficult especially since the EU, within the World Trade Organisation, concluded an agreement with Latin American countries on lowering tariffs for banana imports from that region. I would like to draw attention to the fact that in 2006, the EU reformed its common market organisation for bananas. It committed budgetary funds for aid to banana producers in those regions. Since the reform, the EU has committed EUR 208 million each year to supporting banana producers in the Canaries, the French Antilles, Madeira and, to a lesser extent, in the Azores.

Although we should welcome such support, for many banana producers, this support will not be enough. So I would like to urge the competent institutions to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that traditional branches of the economy in the EU are not compromised for more strategic trade goals.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I support this report because it addresses the issue of diversity and our agricultural policy between the regions. However, I want to comment on the winding-up remarks made by Commissioner Cioloş. He responded to concerns expressed on the reopening of talks with the Mercosur countries and, while his words brought some comfort to those who listened – because he said he would ensure that the interests of EU farming and the EU farm model would be safeguarded – I am afraid I was not reassured.

It is very clear from the Commission’s own papers that European Union beef producers, poultry meat producers and pigmeat farmers will be adversely affected if a deal is done. We are having this reopening of talks at a time when we are reforming agricultural policy. The budget is under threat. We may not have a sufficient budget and yet we are facing further disruption of farm prices and incomes. It does not make sense, and I hope the Commissioner hears these views.

Report: Richard Ashworth (A7-0051/2010)

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) I support this report because it simplifies the enormous administrative and bureaucratic burden currently weighing down farmers. I am very confident that as a result of the report, a new form of relationship will emerge between the officials responsible for implementing the common agricultural policy in Member States, especially in post-communist states like Hungary, and farmers. This will put an end to the sort of practice in use until now, which systematically punished, penalised and terrorised farmers. I hope, too, that a new form of cooperation will also develop at last between officials and clients. I think it is very important that responsibility does not rest only with farmers, who have hitherto had to pay fines for every petty incident, but that the state, too, assumes responsibility, such as when the office is late in paying farmers what they are owed. Claims for such payments should be enforceable in a court of law by both farmers and clients.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) I voted in favour of the Ashworth report because I believe that simplifying and reducing bureaucratic procedures relating to the CAP, the common agricultural policy, is not only desirable, but necessary so that European farmers can take full advantage of its benefits, and not, as so often happens, encounter administrative difficulties and delays.

I also believe that many will share the desire to ensure clearer and more comprehensible legislation, both for the responsible authorities and for farmers, to do away with all superfluous regulations, and to promote the exchange of good practices between Member States and local authorities.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the common agricultural policy needs to be constantly checked for its practicability, as unnecessary red tape costs us and, above all, our farmers, a great deal of time and money. Elements that are not meaningful and appropriate must be dismantled and simplified. This is the case, in particular, for the often very complicated and disputed cross-compliance regulations.

Our stated goal is to make agricultural policy simpler and more transparent. The European Union’s farmers should be able to spend more time in the field again, rather than behind a desk. I really hope that the Commission takes note of this important message from our report and takes action to realise it.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I voted for this report, like many others who are actively engaged with farmers in their region. One of the key things we hear about all the time is the bureaucracy involved in the industry. So a key aspect of the new CAP must be a reduction in the amount of red tape and bureaucracy. Legislation must be meaningful to farmers and we must not restrict farmers from food production. However, not only streamlining of legislation is important but also flexibility for Member States and, most importantly, with the Commission and the European Court of Auditors.

The European Court of Auditors has shown little to no flexibility, or indeed common sense, when applying penalties. This legislation needs urgent attention, and more common sense is needed. A financial review is also needed to assess the cost of farm inspections and the amount of money recovered in penalties, to see if this is actually value for money for the taxpayer.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I think when we introduced decoupling, few of us realised the implications of making cross compliance part of the package which farmers now need to comply with. I think it is over 17 different directives. Perhaps we should ask ourselves in this House how well we legislate for simplification.

However, there is one particular area that I want to comment on, and that is the area of inspections. We have the overarching inspection for cross compliance by competent authorities, but farmers are increasingly facing other levels and layers of inspections from processors, from retailers, from all sorts of groups; we need a little bit of coordination and not duplication of inspections. They do not add any value or any degree of safety or security to the final product, but they add a huge amount of bureaucracy and frustration for the producers who are required to meet and greet all of these inspectors. I welcome this report.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ashworth, for his excellent report. To my mind, there is very good reason now to focus attention on our ability to simplify the processes that relate to agriculture in the European Union. You could say that the payments jungle is such that the ordinary farmer, whether in the north or east of Finland, or anywhere in Europe generally, is disinclined to look into it. We therefore need clear, workable and comprehensible models. We also need trust between the farming population and the government in order to be able to make headway.

At the moment, the European Union’s agricultural policy is such a shambles, with its 27 different countries and 27 different cultures, that it is hard to see any clear future other than a simplification and clarification of the systems. This report by Mr Ashworth is an excellent step in this direction, and I hope that we will be able to continue along this path: clear, simple instructions and guidelines on agriculture now and in the future.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I think it is refreshing to have a report coming before Parliament today starting with the word ‘simplification’. Of course, that in itself should not be necessary but it suggests that until now, it has been too complicated.

Anything involving an educational approach to a particular topic should involve simplification rather than complication. We have had too much complication up until now, as anybody who has attended farmers’ meetings will know. Farmers are driven absolutely berserk by the amount of forms they have to fill in and the overbearing inspectorate they have to endure.

So I welcome this proposal. Of course, it also has to be said that what you do with forms is not actually going to decide how you farm your land. It is the way the farmers treat their animals and the way they farm their land that is going to give us the traceability, accountability and food security and quality that we need.

So this is a step in the right direction. I hope we see many of them and, in due course, eliminate the need for the word ‘simplification’ to be introduced, because it should be there automatically.

Report: Helga Trüpel (A7-0134/2010)

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report, but I voted wrongly in the all­important Article 34, under Amendment 5. It is very important that we clarify the size of this carbon footprint and, furthermore, discover its costs. It is high time the European Parliament sat in just one location, and I am very glad that the new government in the United Kingdom has decided that this matter should be raised as part of its programme. I hope that the other Member States will also make it their concern. It is a matter of the environment, and it is a matter of costs. As long as the European Parliament is able to spend as much money as it does now on a rally of this nature, we will continue to ignore the economic crisis.

Recommendation for second reading: Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (A7-0124/2010)

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) As regards the Ţicău report, I voted in favour of the common position on updating the directive on the energy performance of buildings, because the aim is that, from the end of 2020, all newly constructed buildings will have an energy balance equal to zero, an aim that the European institutions must make every effort to achieve. Europe has a shared commitment, and is firmly convinced that in the near future, it will not be necessary to produce more energy, but to make better use of that which is already produced.

Energy saving and energy efficiency effectively represent a source of energy production. We do not need to wait ten years to move in this direction; instead, Member States need to commit as of now to achieving energy efficiency targets, using financial resources that, until today, have been dedicated to producing greater quantities of energy.

I remind you especially of the iniquitous launch of the nuclear programme in Italy, which damaged and endangered the health of citizens and the environment. A huge quantity of public resources was wasted on this launch in order to produce, in less than twenty years, the same quantity of energy that we could do without if we were to invest the same resources in energy efficiency right now. Green investments for our children, not radioactive waste!

I will now move on to the explanation of vote for the Rühle report.

Report: Heide Rühle (A7-0151/2010)

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) I voted in favour because I think it is important for Parliament to support the simplification and rationalisation of public procurement law. This will make work easier both for administrative bodies and for businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, which will find it easier to participate in tenders.

I consider it essential to refer to the use of public procurement as a means of encouraging paths of sustainable development, by introducing environmental and social criteria within invitations to tender. I also think that it is the duty of this Parliament and of the European institutions to continue pressing for all-round transparency surrounding the use of public money, particularly with regard to public procurement, using all possible means and especially the Internet.

Citizen control represents a crucial contribution for using public funds in a way that is genuinely in the collective interest and, as the Committee on Regional Development reminds us, for fighting the corruption that prevails within local and regional authorities.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Public procurement is unfortunately an area suffering from one of the highest levels of corruption. I was happy to back the report by Heide Rühle calling for a simplification of public procurement. At the same time, however, I would like to point out that until the Commission introduces a public portal with information on the circumstances of suspicious contracts funded by the Union, not much will change. Competition will not be efficient, fair and accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises. I am talking about monitoring and analysis, about a reference price for one kilometre of motorway, for example, publishing the names of the real owners of victorious firms, including subsidiaries of parent companies, and also the names of firms that win repeatedly, so that they can be investigated by the media and the public.

Report: Franziska Keller (A7-0140/2010)

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I also wanted to speak on energy efficiency but apparently the rule is that, if there are no amendments, no oral explanation may be made, so I will put in a written one.

On the Keller report, I want to be very clear that I reject it on the basis of paragraphs 44 and 45 and recital I. I regard paragraph 44 as deeply disturbing.

Also, where does this Parliament sit? Last year and the year before, we pressed the Commission to take action to assist dairy farmers across the European Union who were in a dire situation. The Commission responded with export refunds as an emergency measure. The only people who complained to me about it were from New Zealand, which is not a developing country. I think that to put these paragraphs into this otherwise good report does a disservice to this Parliament and to our producers across the European Union, who are struggling. We are reducing production in Europe. That has a consequence for the developing world. We need to heed it.

  President. – Mrs McGuinness, you were exactly right on the Rules. I had thought that Mrs Alfano was going to carry on in a similar vein to Mrs Jäätteenmäki, but in fact, that report should not have had any explanations of vote. You are correct.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I just want to say that I agree with my colleague Ms McGuinness. We had difficulties with some of the proposals here and for that reason, we did not go with the EPP line, which we would normally like to do. I think Ms McGuinness has explained why. I fully understand and also concur with what she said, so I hope that the EPP will understand as well.

Report: Hella Ranner (A7-0130/2010)

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Madam President, I voted in favour of the Ranner report on the grounds that it offers a good solution to the problem of driving times and rest periods in road transport. This solution lies in the harmonisation and interpretation of the legislation. This can be found in paragraph 17, as amended.

The European Commission, in cooperation with the Confederation of Organisations in Road Transport Enforcement (CORTE), Tispol and Euro Contrôle Route, must work on producing an article by article interpretation of the application of the legislation. In addition, this interpretation must be clear for, and known to, everyone involved in applying legislation on Europe’s roads.

I also welcome the amended paragraph 27, and call on all drivers to make use of the Disproportionate Fines Complaint Desk at Euro Contrôle Route. Drivers, things have to change in Europe in terms of driving times and rest periods, and so proof is required. I encourage you, therefore, to report your complaints to this desk provided by Euro Contrôle Route.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, my colleague’s report accurately emphasises that there are still notable discrepancies between the way serious social road traffic offences are treated in the various Member States. I am therefore in favour of the proposed measures for the harmonisation and levelling of offences and the relative European penalties, and of the possible setting up of a coordinating instrument at European Union level.

Written explanations of vote

Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee - Towards a European road safety area: strategic guidelines for road safety up to 2020

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) There are still far too many accidents on Europe’s roads. This is connected to the growing traffic volume, but also to the excessive demands on road users due to professional or private stress and overtiredness as well as a confusing mass of traffic signs and advertising billboards, etc. We must also not forget that, in particular in the case of accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries, heavy traffic has a negative role to play.

For the sake of the environment, we must finally implement ideas that are only paid lip service to, such as transferring goods transport to the rails, but we must also implement intelligent traffic arrangements such as traffic light phasing. Traffic calmed zones, city centre driving bans and similar measures have not yet been sufficiently researched and therefore should not be implemented on a large scale. There are a number of problems that this report simply does not go into in sufficient detail and I have therefore voted ‘no’.

Recommendation for second reading: Jean Lambert (A7-0118/2010)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is part of the Union’s legislative efforts towards establishing a European asylum system. This European Asylum Support Office must therefore provide the Member States with expert assistance and contribute to applying a consistent and high-quality common European asylum policy.

The creation of this new office will, without doubt, be an added value for the reinforcement of mutual confidence and sharing of responsibilities between the Member States. It must facilitate exchanges of information, analyses and experiences between them, organise training activities, and develop concrete cooperation between the administrations entrusted with analysis of asylum requests. It is important to confront the significant divergences in the decision-making processes of the 27 Member States regarding international protection requests and to successfully achieve a certain amount of convergence in how the Member States analyse and respond to these requests.

I support the rapporteur’s proposal to include the offering of support on resettlement. I agree that the necessary budgetary changes to the European Refugee Fund will provide adequate funding for the new agency in its initial phases.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Issues relating to immigration and, especially, the right to asylum are particularly sensitive. Whether or not this right is awarded to non-EU citizens could have a dramatic impact on their lives, so the decision must be taken seriously, given thought and treated with humanity. I think that it is basic common sense that an open-door policy – without criteria to restrict access to the Union’s territory – is unacceptable, but that a policy of absolutely prohibiting entry is intolerable. A fair balance is needed which seeks to reconcile the legitimate interests and concerns of the nationals of the Member States with the needs of those who are seeking them.

The establishment of a European Asylum Support Office could constitute an important step towards the adoption of best practices in this area, giving Member States greater confidence in each other, and resulting in the improved exchange of information.

Nevertheless, I must emphasise that the Member States must continue to have a freedom of movement regarding whether or not to admit those seeking asylum within their borders. I would also stress that the EU must not hide the fact that the interests of its Member States in this area are not absolutely convergent.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The goal of the European Asylum Support Office is to provide expert assistance that contributes to applying a consistent and high quality common European asylum policy. This office enables the development of mutual trust and the sharing of responsibilities and will be responsible for coordinating the exchange of information and other actions relating to resettlement by the Member States. As a promoter of values of human dignity, which constitute basic elements of freedom, democracy and socio-economic development, in the context of the current global landscape, the European Union must be a pioneer and an example to others regarding asylum. The creation of a European office, to support the Member States in this area of intervention with citizens of third countries, will be a determining factor in applying a common European asylum system and the solidarity of Member States in consistent action that fits with the values and principles of the project of building Europe. I call for the mechanisms and resources necessary to establish the Asylum Support Office to be ensured quickly.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the creation of the European Asylum Support Office in the hope that it will allow a certain added value to be brought to a European asylum system that today is clearly flawed. Certainly, I would have liked the mandate of this Office to be more ambitious and to be the instrument through which compulsory solidarity between the Member States is finally established, so as to put an end to the lottery of the right to asylum. This will remain a pious hope until common asylum procedures are adopted. Hopefully, this office will at least have the merit of contributing to improved identification of asylum issues and problems, in order to ensure the best possible protection for people who are the victims of persecution and are seeking refuge in our country.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of setting up the European Asylum Support Office as, in the case of Member States whose national asylum system is under pressure, the Office can support the implementation of solidarity mechanisms intended to promote a better reallocation of beneficiaries of international protection from such Member States to others, while ensuring that asylum systems are not abused. I welcome the fact that the European Asylum Support Office will coordinate the joint assistance actions of Member States which are facing specific situations, such as large influxes of third country nationals requiring international protection.

It is vital for us to harmonise both our asylum laws and practices. The European Asylum Support Office will identify good practices, organise training courses at European level and improve access to exact information about the countries of origin. Furthermore, I believe that the European Asylum Support Office’s activities should also include drawing up guidelines aimed at facilitating a fairer assessment of asylum applications, as well as monitoring compliance with and enforcement of the relevant Community legislation.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are persuaded of the added value that the European Asylum Support Office will represent for the development of mutual trust, and for the division of political and financial responsibilities. The EU Member States have yet to reach a final agreement on the treatment to be afforded to refugees, the profile of individuals to whom refugee status should be accorded and they must, above all, overcome the reservations of some governments where possible costs are concerned.

This office will be responsible for providing specialised assistance. Its role will involve coordination, information exchange and actions relating to the resettling of refugees. It will run training programmes aimed at those responsible for this sector within each country, contributing to greater harmonisation between the various practices. We MEPs reserve the fundamental right to appoint its executive director.

I feel it is my duty to stress our call to make the necessary changes to the European Refugee Fund in order to ensure that the new agency operates appropriately. The biggest political question remains the relationship between human solidarity and the division of financial burdens: the EU is called upon to offer effective support to States most affected by migratory flows and by a high number of asylum seekers, and which face specific and often disproportionate pressures due to their relatively small size.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On such a sensitive subject, relating to human rights, the creation of a European Asylum Support Office is important in enabling specialised assistance at EU level to define a consistent and high-quality common European asylum policy. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Asylum Support Office could represent a very useful body, specifically if it took on a coordinating role in relation to repatriation and thus accelerated repatriation measures. As a result, the support would also be helpful for resettlement. The present report treats this element, which I find very important, only as a subordinate issue. Instead, it contains numerous bureaucratic proposals that will result in a bloated apparatus and a sluggish implementation of the measures. I have therefore abstained from voting.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I express my support for the proposal to create a European Asylum Support Office. The role of this office, initially financed by the European Refugee Fund, will be to provide the specialised assistance needed to activate a common asylum policy, and to coordinate information exchanges and actions relating to the resettlement of refugees. It will be the job of the European Parliament to appoint its executive director, implementing principles of transparency and democratic control. Solidarity within the community will be assured by an agreement between Member States with the consent of stakeholders. I also support the establishment of a consultative forum as a result of pressure exercised by us MEPs, which will ensure close dialogue between the Asylum Support Office and the various stakeholders.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Today, we are giving the go-ahead to the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office. It will have multiple benefits. The Asylum Support Office will make a decisive contribution to the integration of a single European asylum area. It will quickly put an organisation into operation which will coordinate and strengthen cooperation between the Member States on asylum issues by promoting a rapprochement between various national practices. The Office will also help to promote convergence between regulatory arrangements which apply in the EU in the field of asylum rights. Bearing all these benefits in mind and the consent of both the Member States and the European institutions to the establishment of the European Office, I was delighted to vote in favour of its establishment.

Recommendation for second reading: Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (A7-0124/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Although a favourable vote on this report is merely a formality, since the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon required some adaptation of the legal basis and delegated acts, I would still like to highlight the importance of energy efficiency in the building industry when it comes to achieving the EU target of reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions by 20%, and to increasing energy production from renewable sources by 20% by 2020. As we know, achieving energy efficiency and emission cutting targets in urban centres depends chiefly on improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings, and those under construction.

I still believe, however, that the directive sets very ambitious targets that local administrations will struggle to achieve unless they are given financial aid, including EU aid. I am thinking particularly of the huge amount of energy recovery work required in existing building stock, such as social housing, where energy renovation (which would help families to cut their utility bills) will require a significant financial commitment by local authorities.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of this ambitious text is to encourage the construction/renovation of buildings according to standards that are more environmentally friendly since they are more energy efficient. I voted resolutely in favour of its adoption. With this type of initiative, the European Union is demonstrating its role as a leader in the area of sustainable development. This directive is a good compromise between encouragement and constraint where environmentally responsible construction is concerned.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The construction sector is responsible for 40% of the EU’s energy consumption and 35% of its emissions. This legislation stipulates that by 2020, new buildings must be nearly zero energy and that renovated existing buildings must meet minimum energy performance requirements. This legislation will therefore contribute to reducing energy dependency in Europe, decreasing CO2 emissions, improving internal and external air quality, and increasing well-being in cities. The incentive to improve the energy performance of buildings also represents a chance to reclassify our cities, contributing to tourism, job creation and sustainable economic growth in the EU. However, reclassification requires increased public and private investment. We are looking at direct public investment with a direct effect on job creation and on the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises; a programme of urban regeneration will be appropriate for the economic recovery. I therefore call on the Commission and the Member States to use the Structural Funds to reclassify buildings in environmental and energy terms, with this financing used as a catalyst for private funding. I also call on them to find the appropriate financing model for renovating existing buildings.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We spend 50% of our lives in our homes. Today, 30% of existing homes in Europe are unhealthy, even if there is a great disparity between the different Member States. It is therefore important not only to promote new sustainable buildings, but also to carry out sustainable renovation. I welcome this new legislation, which will help consumers to reduce their energy bills and the whole of the EU to achieve its climate objective of reducing energy consumption by 20% in 10 years. The Member States will have to adapt their building regulations so that all buildings constructed from the end of 2020 comply with high energy standards. Existing buildings will have to be improved if possible. For the Democratic Movement, the housing issue is also one of urbanism and build quality. We must give priority to the way in which our homes are designed. We must therefore encourage the rehabilitation of our building stock, for example, through a modulation of property taxes depending on the energy performance of buildings. We therefore call on the Member States to establish a tax system that is reoriented to encourage all the parties involved to behave in a more environmentally responsible way.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I regard this report as being beneficial to the future of the European Union’s energy sector, as long as the objectives outlined in it are feasible and compatible with the financial situation of all Member States. I welcome the objectives adopted by the Council on 14 April 2010 on the need to reduce the major disparities between Member States in terms of heat efficiency in buildings, as well as the proposed target of all buildings achieving zero energy consumption by 31 December 2020, based on gradual steps being taken by Member States in 2015 and 2018. However, the Commission and Council must bear in mind that many Member States are still facing economic recession and will require financial and logistical support to achieve the objectives being proposed. The Commission must consider for the future drawing up a financial intervention plan based on allocating development funds that will support Member States which are unable to allocate the necessary funds, especially for renovation work. This measure must be seen as beneficial to ordinary citizens as they are the ones who are footing the bill for part of the renovation costs.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendation on the energy performance of buildings, because it presents ambitious and feasible proposals for a 20% reduction in energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the sectors not covered by the emissions trading scheme by 2020. This directive will have a direct effect on the lives of the European public, as it will help consumers to cut their spending on energy and, at the same time, it can contribute to creating millions of jobs throughout the EU through the planned investments in improved energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2008, the EU committed itself to a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020 and for 20% of energy consumed to come from renewable sources. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is the most effective way to reduce by 20% the energy consumption and emissions for sectors outside the Emissions Trading System. Furthermore, energy savings for energy efficient buildings average 30% over conventional buildings.

On 13 November 2008, the Commission tabled its proposed amendment to Directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings. These amendments will impact the lives of the European public significantly, as they will have immediate consequences for the buildings in which they live, and will create the need for more efficient technologies in the construction sector to be researched and developed. Moreover, this strategy will create jobs and contribute to sustainable growth. As the current draft is based on the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council in November 2009, I support the rapporteur’s proposal.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this directive relating to the energy performance of buildings is an important step towards reducing Europe’s CO2 emissions and energy dependency. These factors are increasingly decisive for the European public’s quality of life, and the competitiveness of our economy and social organisation. Given that the building sector is responsible for 40% of energy consumption and for 35% of total CO2 emissions, the self-sufficiency and improved energy performance of renovated buildings are taking on decisive importance in the European Union’s ability to achieve, by 2020, the goal of a 20% reduction in energy consumption and a 20% increase in the use of renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency. As well as helping private consumers and public services to cut energy costs, it is hoped that the application of this new legislation will help to fight the crisis in the civil construction sector and that it will contribute to developing urban regeneration programmes, which will have a positive impact on improving the quality of life and well-being of the public.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Improving the energy performance of buildings is particularly important in increasing the EU’s general energy efficiency and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If the European Union wants to achieve the objectives that it is proposing, seeking to reduce energy consumption by 20%, to ensure that 20% of energy consumption comes from renewable sources and to increase energy efficiency by 20% before 2020, it will have to make a significant commitment to the energy performance of buildings.

The political agreement reached between Parliament and the Council has resulted in the clarification of technical aspects, minimum energy performance requirements depending on the age of a building and whether or not it has been renovated, evaluation of the role of local and regional authorities, and support for public authorities in applying the recommendations.

Nevertheless, we still have some concerns regarding the stronger role for the Commission in evaluating national plans and inspection reports, as well as the adaptations to the Treaty of Lisbon, which focus more power on the Commission through the so-called ‘delegated acts’.

  Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The basic factors affecting energy performance are: 1. Conversion of one form of energy into another so that it can be put to a specific use. The longer the chain of conversions, the greater the losses. In practice, this mainly concerns the stream of heat energy released from primary energy sources. A large part of this passes into the environment. This effect can be reduced in cogeneration processes, which can achieve an efficiency rating of as much as 90%. 2. Electrical resistance, or Ohm’s resistance, which is important in the transmission of electrical energy. 3. Thermal resistance. Low resistance is important in heat exchangers, while high resistance is important because of the low thermal conductivity of insulating materials. Use of these insulating materials – such as polystyrene, mineral wool and cellular concrete – significantly reduces residential housing’s thermal energy requirement. At the moment, it is quite high – around 40% of the total energy used. 4. Friction in anti-friction processes, such as in bearings, and in friction processes such as brakes. This concerns mainly cars and turbulence in aeroplanes. Friction losses are around 30% of total energy.

I voted in favour of the regulation without the amendments, because energy losses in residential buildings are – alongside conversion losses – the greatest, while savings will help poor people. In Poland’s case, thermal modernisation, alongside cogeneration, can bring economic, social and ecological benefits. In this area, there should be a certain priority of realisation, because new regulations often slow down the implementation of earlier ones.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the draft revised directives on the energy performance of buildings because I believe that new buildings should abide by the principle of energy saving and that binding standards should apply in this area, so that they are respected effectively everywhere. Public buildings will lead the way from 2018, giving public authorities more weight and legitimacy in their information campaigns for citizens. These texts also stipulate that energy saving must be a fundamental element in the renovation of buildings. I would therefore like these measures to give SMEs a new momentum and the Member States to strengthen training programmes for the workforce responsible for making buildings energy efficient. Similarly, as far as the energy labelling of energy using products is concerned, I feel consumers should be aware of the energy characteristics of the products they buy.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The issue of energy efficiency is crucial to the 2020 strategy. An important step has been taken towards reducing energy consumption over the coming years with the adoption of this recommendation, which aims for nearly zero energy buildings by 2020. The effort must be made not only when constructing new buildings, but also on large renovation projects involving already existing buildings. It will also be crucial for a good example to be set in public construction projects. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Easy to implement energy saving measures have often been implemented in the past and it is difficult to estimate how high the easy to achieve (meaning that they are possible without extremely extensive renovation work) potential for energy savings is. All of this, in any case, must not get out of hand to the extent that buildings on which excellent energy efficiency renovation work has been carried out stand empty because the rent rises exorbitantly. Generally speaking, even in the interests of protecting the climate, we must not interfere unacceptably with the ownership rights of citizens where renovations are concerned.

Energy saving measures are, for one thing, very cost intensive and do not always involve completely mature technology, so in that respect, we must not simply lay down something; we must provide incentives through subsidies. Given the wage and social security cuts that we are facing, we must double and triple check that the new regulations do not drive simple house builders or residents to wrack and ruin. The impact of energy demand cannot be clearly estimated, for which reason I voted ‘no’.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The building sector was identified by the EU as one of the markets with the highest energy saving potential. Energy savings for energy efficient buildings average 30% over conventional buildings. In the new EU Member States, including Lithuania, in many apartment blocks, around 60% of thermal energy is wasted. In Lithuania alone, there are over 35 000 apartment blocks. Their inhabitants not only pay huge sums for heating, but are also responsible for tonnes of CO2 emissions. The Conservative government in Lithuania is incapable of beginning building insulation. After almost two years of promises that renovation will start imminently, not one building has been renovated.

I voted for this recommendation on the energy performance of buildings, since it promotes the objective of moving towards nearly zero energy buildings. This will guarantee that in time, EU buildings become sustainable from an energy point of view. By implementing this directive, we will begin the process of reducing the EU’s energy consumption by one fifth by the year 2020. Investment to increase energy efficiency will create millions of jobs and will contribute to the growth of the EU economy.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I express my support for the recommendation to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. Energy efficiency means not only saving energy, but also reducing CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this target, we should limit household energy loss, which has increased due to a technology that has shifted energy costs from construction to maintenance. Research in the construction sector is moving towards a greener approach to building.

Today, the largest projects are concentrated within temperate countries, where this kind of technology is spreading at a rate that suggests we will have sustainable cities in the not too distant future. In Mediterranean countries, these new technologies are not spreading at the same pace. Even if the problem of heat dispersal is less serious in these areas, the buildings are no more environmentally sustainable.

The growing use of air conditioning systems, which are increasingly widespread in homes, actually requires a great deal of energy. The European Union therefore needs to implement information campaigns, and to take action by making use of Community funds, incentives and information campaigns, and by applying and researching new production technologies.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Achieving the 20-20-20 objective by 2020, in other words a 20% reduction in energy consumption, an increase in the ratio of energy from renewable sources to total energy consumption to 20% and a 20% increase in energy efficiency requires coordinated and targeted action, both by the EU and by the Member States. More importantly, improving the energy efficiency of buildings is the most effective way of reducing energy consumption and emissions within non-ETS sectors by 20%. To be precise, energy savings for efficient buildings average 30% over conventional buildings. In addition, energy efficient buildings use less water and offer lower maintenance costs and utility bills. I therefore voted in favour of the directive on the energy performance of buildings, because it is expected to have a significant impact on the life of European citizens, given that it directly affects the buildings in which they live and which they use. In addition, investments in improving energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources will create millions of jobs and will contribute towards growth in the EU; at the same time, they will also help to cut the money currently wasted on maintaining energy-intensive buildings.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Buildings are responsible for nearly half the CO2 emissions not included in the EU emissions trading certificate scheme, offering a major potential for cutting these emissions, with negative or low abatement costs. The new Energy Performance of Buildings Directive establishes a set of minimum indicators/requirements for the energy performance of new buildings so that they can achieve by 2020 an energy consumption close to zero, with a large part of the energy coming from renewable sources. This also involves applying these requirements to existing buildings.

It is vital to inform citizens of these requirements and to encourage them, even when buildings are being renovated, to introduce smart metering systems (to replace the hot water and air-conditioning systems with energy efficient alternatives, such as reversible heat pumps). Partial funding will be provided from the EU budget to encourage energy efficiency measures. Member States must adopt suitable measures in order to implement this directive quickly. I voted for this report as the new legislation will help consumers cut the value of their energy bills, thereby enabling the EU to fulfil its objective of achieving a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) I have voted in favour of this important directive due to the need to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, which is one of the areas with the greatest potential to contribute to the EU’s general targets of increasing energy efficiency by 20% by 2020. According to the text agreed between Parliament and the Council, before the end of 2020, all new buildings must have zero energy consumption, producing as much energy as they consume. Public buildings must set an example by complying with this legislation before 31 December 2013. The EU budget will fund part of the costs of the reforms. Moreover, existing buildings will have to comply with very high energy efficiency standards calculated by the Member States based on a common framework established in the directive. The indicator for measuring the energy efficiency of buildings must be included in advertisements for sale or rental that appear in the media. Another important new element is including smart meters and control and management systems focused on saving energy. The directive will be revised before 2017.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) Today’s vote on EU rules on the energy performance of buildings represents major progress in the area of energy efficiency. However, we utterly deplore the fact that the legislation does not take into account the renovation requirements of existing buildings, which account for 40% of the energy consumption and 36% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Instead of establishing an ambitious energy efficiency policy by investing heavily in the renovation of buildings, the EU is concentrating exclusively on new buildings. It is letting slip the opportunity to create millions of jobs, to reduce our energy dependence on our neighbours and to significantly combat climate change.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) The construction sector is one with tremendous energy saving potential. The sector is responsible for 40% of energy consumption and 35% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is the most effective way of reducing energy consumption and emissions.

This agreement deserves our full support. By 31 December 2020 at the latest, all new buildings must be nearly zero energy. All public sector buildings must achieve this two years earlier. Minimum energy performance requirements will even apply from now on when older buildings are renovated. Nearly zero energy buildings are buildings with very high energy performance. In addition, the negligible or very small amount of energy they consume should originate, to a very large extent, from renewable energy sources.

It is to be welcomed that the directive devotes attention to the provision of funding instruments to enable this transition. The Member States must draw up a list of measures for achieving the objectives of this directive by 30 June 2011 at the latest. Finally, the Commission must assess the functioning of the directive in good time; that is, by 1 January 2017 at the latest. This directive represents an important contribution to the fight against climate change.

Report: Rui Tavares (A7-0125/2010)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Stockholm Programme provides for the creation of a reliable and sustainable common asylum policy in the European Union. However, in order to implement and ensure asylum policy objectives, it is necessary to encourage Member States to participate voluntarily in the Joint EU refugee resettlement programme. Therefore, the European Parliament is aiming to provide as many Member States as possible with the opportunity to participate in EU refugee resettlement programmes. The European Parliament supports the Commission’s proposal and is of the opinion that resettlement of refugees should play a central role in the external asylum policies of the EU. It should be further developed and expanded into an effective protection instrument by the EU.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) By voting in favour of this report, Europe has taken a step towards reaching a common policy on asylum. This will make it possible to protect human rights more effectively and, at the same time, to limit illegal immigration.

The EU must make its voice heard as far as migration and integration are concerned. It must assume responsibility for defining European rules, and for contributing to the expenditure incurred by the EU countries affected by migratory flows. Resettlement cannot and must not, however, be divorced from a shared line of action against illegal immigration. Such action requires not only the agreement of bordering countries but also of the countries from which future illegal immigrants will depart.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – Resettlement of refugees is a process in which it is possible for these individuals to be resettled following a request by the UNHCR where it is deemed that there is a need for such individuals to receive international protection. This is one of the eligible criteria under the ERF. This process can be an ideal solution for those persons whose safety cannot be adequately guaranteed by nations of first asylum.

I am in agreement with the conclusions that have been made by the rapporteur and have therefore decided to vote in favour of this report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is only through a common asylum policy and joint resettlement scheme that we can pursue a proper human rights policy in the EU. Resettlement is, without doubt, one of the durable solutions for refugees whose protection cannot be assured in countries of first asylum. It is important for adequate funds to be available, although just assigning part of the budget cannot be considered a true refugee resettlement programme.

We have no doubt of the importance of this amendment to the Refugee Fund, making it possible to plug a gap that exists in several Member States and improving their resettlement capacity. I am pleased to note that the number of Member States participating in this programme has increased in recent years; it is important that we manage to encourage the others to take part. The EU’s development and expansion of this resettlement instrument must continue in order to establish the most effective protection possible.

The Commission will, therefore, be able to set the EU’s joint priorities regarding resettlement of people every year. These priorities may relate to specific geographic regions, nationalities or categories of refugees to resettle, although I agree that flexibility must be guaranteed in order to respond to emergency situations.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The pressure of migration flows is intensifying and there are a number of migration target countries whose concern about this phenomenon needs to be understood. This is why it is important for the resettlement programme to be in operation as it would facilitate a fair distribution of the responsibility for complying with international obligations on refugee protection, as well as ease the load on countries burdened by the large number of refugees they are accommodating.

One positive step would be to get the European Asylum Support Office up and running during this year, which can provide Member States with support in applying resettlement initiatives. No matter which country refugees are going to be resettled in, what is paramount is that they are provided with instant access to language and cultural courses about the relevant country, as well as to other facilities of a religious nature and to psychological counselling, if required.

I believe that sustainability must be the main feature of such a programme, which is guaranteed a longer-term budgetary outlook as a result of this decision. The beneficiaries have already been traumatised by the break with the culture and traditions of the country they come from. They have to create a new identity for themselves, which is a traumatic process that does not need to be exacerbated by the precarious and insecure nature of their future.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The need to resettle refugees has been becoming increasingly important in a Europe that does not wish to be closed off to the outside world or blind to what is going on there. A welcoming nature and solidarity for those who are suffering are two European characteristics that are inspired by Christianity and which it would be good to bring back in full. This must be done, however, without neglecting the legitimate limits set by the Member States. The EU’s joint annual priorities in terms of geographic regions and in terms of specific categories of refugee to resettle must really take into account the needs of the Member States and their individual circumstances; the Member States’ participation in resettlement actions must be encouraged.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One of the ‘eligible actions’ of the European Refugee Fund (ERF) is resettlement. The Stockholm Programme states that the EU must act in partnership and cooperate with third countries hosting large refugee populations. The Commission defines annually the common EU priorities of persons to be resettled and this definition must be sufficiently flexible to respond to emergency cases. Particular attention must be given to the victims of the most repressive cultural, social and political systems. The number of Member States participating in EU resettlement programmes has been increasing and must be extended to the greatest possible number of Member States. I would stress the positive impact of introducing funds to assist with resettlement, with larger amounts for the first and second years of the process. These funds are in response to the increased costs naturally incurred by the creation of mechanisms and structures, as well as the importance of guaranteeing conditions to ensure the greatest sustainability and quality of the refugee resettlement process.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Given its rather poor performance, Europe must contribute more to the effort to resettle refugees whose existence is threatened in the countries that have received them. It was in order to encourage the Member States to join this movement of collective solidarity that I voted in favour of this report, which aims to encourage the reception and resettlement of refugees in Europe. Good intentions are no longer enough; we must transform words into action and, in particular, give priority to women and children who are victims of violence or exploitation, to non-accompanied minors, to people who have been victims of torture, and to people who are seriously ill.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Only 10 EU Member States, including Portugal, accept refugees for resettlement. The resettlement of refugees is a procedure whereby, based on a request from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees according to a person’s need for international protection, third country nationals or stateless persons are transferred from a third country to a Member State. The adoption of this recommendation seeks to increase the number of Member States that resettle refugees, to which end those that do so for the first time will have increased financial assistance for the first two years. The resettlement of the following must take priority, irrespective of any geographical priorities that the EU may have set for a given period: children and women at risk of violence or psychological, physical or sexual exploitation; unaccompanied minors; persons with special medical needs; survivors of violence and torture; and persons who need emergency resettlement for legal and protection reasons.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The eligible measures for support under the European Refugee Fund (ERF) include the resettlement of refugees from third countries. ‘Resettlement’ means the process whereby, on a request from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) based on a person’s need for international protection, third country nationals or stateless persons are transferred from a third country to a Member State whereby they are permitted to a) reside as a refugee or b) be given a status which offers them the same rights and benefits under national and Community law as refugee status.

The measures proposed in the report will result in the EU – which already has to face the problem of mass immigration – becoming even more attractive to migrants. The UNHCR’s figures confirm this. While, in 2008, approximately 5 000 people were resettled throughout the EU, at present, there are 750 000 people around the world with this need. It is for that reason that I voted against this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In many Member States, including my home country of Austria, the capacity for accepting refugees is already at bursting point and the population is quite rightly resisting new reception centres and similar facilities. The report on the European Refugee Fund, calling, as it does, for the resettlement of refugees in the EU, is thus all the more incomprehensible. I therefore voted against this report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The problem of refugees is a European problem and cannot be left to be managed by national States, particularly given their geographic and economic differences. I therefore support the setting up of a fund at European level.

The setting up of such a fund must serve two purposes: it must support refugees who arrive in our countries, often on our coastlines, seeking help, and also those States that receive the greatest numbers of these desperate people due to their geographical location. The problem is, and must be, a European problem and we cannot leave certain States to manage it alone. I hope that the fund will be merely the beginning of a journey towards developing a more European and united approach to the whole issue.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In view of the need to help refugees in Europe, I think the decision made by the European Parliament about this is extremely important. The main objective of the fund is to support measures taken by Member States, which very often involve additional expenditures. Such measures are intended to ensure decent living conditions for refugees, and also concern legal regulation of their stay in countries of the Union. I think it is essential to increase financial assistance for countries which are engaged in helping refugees.

We must not give any grounds for the criticism that, as developed countries, instead of protecting refugees at all costs, we are trying to prevent them from coming to us. Refugees who come to Europe from the developing world, and who often have had to face enormous problems, such as violence, lack of the means to live and lack of access to medical care, should be given care organised in the best possible way by EU Member States.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, in the committee, there were many amendment proposals put to a vote which were aimed at pointing out the importance of the church and faith groups in solving the problem of refugees. All of these amendment proposals were rejected. When liberals and left-wing politicians assert that day-to-day work with refugees is sufficiently covered by non-governmental organisations and state funding, it reveals their short-sighted cynicism and hypocrisy. In reality, the exact opposite is the case. Is it not perhaps true that states often face criticism over the fact that conditions in refugee camps are, for the most part, undignified? Would it be out of place to state openly the hypocrisy of states such as Germany, Spain, France, Italy or Malta? Governments fail in the reception and care of refugees. The misery of these poorest people is an affront to affluent Europe, and so we return them. Due to political correctness, we ignore the fact that in the deepest misery of the reception camps, where the politically correct non-governmental organisations have already given up the fight, it is now the unobtrusive orders of Catholic nuns alone that work on with enthusiasm. Thanks to the Maltese Order, the Jesuit Refugee Service and many Christian organisations, governments are acknowledging their obligation to tackle the fate of the refugees. The Christian organisations are a thorn in the eye of our conscience. For this, they deserve our thanks – even now, when they get very limited funding from the EU budget and cannot even be mentioned in the own-initiative report on this topic.

Report: Carlos Coelho (A7-0126/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report on the Schengen Information System and its modernisation contributes to this magnificent breakthrough in free intra-European movement. Faced with growing movements of people between Member States in the Schengen Area, as well as the latter’s enlargement, we must improve the handling of data to ensure that this freedom is exercised in total security. The Coelho report contributes to the search for greater effectiveness in the circulation of information, as well as to the necessary respect for individual freedoms that the European Union guarantees. I logically voted for this report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The objective of this proposal is to ensure the migration from the Schengen Information System, whose current form is SIS 1+, to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). It is indeed regrettable that the start of this system has been delayed. The European Parliament did all it could to ensure that this system would start to operate as soon as possible and that the SIS II implementation process would be completely transparent. However, it is necessary to seek the approval of all of the institutions. It is important to stress that the Commission would have to apply an alternative programme if the SIS II project is unsuccessful, and that Parliament should be included in the decision making as regards migration. Before switching over to the new SIS II system, Parliament should be fully informed by the Commission on the test results and given an opportunity to issue an opinion.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – Prior to the migration to the new SIS, it is necessary that the appropriate tests be carried out and that the necessary safeguards are in place. While I believe that the above should be carried out in a professional and thorough manner, I also share the rapporteur’s disappointment with regards to the extended delays that are impeding migration to the new system.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted broadly in favour of the proposed amendments to this regulation. The data-migration phase is the final task under the development mandate for the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). This therefore justifies the need to give the Commission a development mandate valid for the development of the system until it becomes operational. Given the considerable delays that have already been confirmed and the increased costs of the SIS II project, I understand that the sunset clause must be kept. The new mandate conferred on the Commission must be defined according to the date envisaged for the SIS II to become operational, in late 2011.

However, the Commission must have some flexibility in order to be able to postpone dates using the comitology procedure so that it can adapt the legal framework to an alternative scenario if the SIS II is unsuccessful. The Commission’s inability to set a likely date for the SIS II to become operational is unacceptable, since better guarantees of security, freedom and justice in the European area are depending on it. It also raises doubts about the lack of transparency in the way the process has been handled.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The particular sensitivity of this subject justifies the assigning of the report to one of the Members of this House who has dedicated himself most to this subject, my colleague, Mr Coelho; I would congratulate him on his work. The delays that this process has suffered are regrettable, but I share his caution on the success of the migration process and his concern over Parliament’s right to be informed of developments.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The ‘saga’ of migration from SIS I to SIS II has simply gone on for too long. That is why I voted for this report: to point out the need to respect the deadlines set and to end what could be viewed, following numerous fruitless outcomes and given the resources deployed to achieve the objective of said migration – so far without success – as mismanagement. The ball is in the Commission’s court, but as the budgetary authority, the European Parliament must use its powers and reserve itself the right to ask the European Court of Auditors to proceed with a detailed audit of the management of the project and of the financial impact that a failure would have on the EU budget.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I see slight progress in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ amendments contained in this report. The latter, in effect, demands that the European Parliament be involved in the decision-making process and indicates that its favourable opinion is required before there can be any migration to the second version of the Schengen Information System. However, this report is still unacceptable. We cannot support the possibility of migration to SIS II – the new tool for achieving ‘total security’ – with impunity.

With this system, more and more personal data can be gathered together, and for reasons of which the validity is subject to interpretation. How can the suspicion of the will to commit a terrorist act be deemed valid? Worst of all, the United States could be given access to this data. In this hour of crisis, the reigning eurocracy continues to build us a Europe characterised by competition and by an overemphasis on law and order. However, now more than ever, it is time to build the Europe of solidarity and cooperation that we need.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) We have a Schengen Information System that works and is capable of expansion, and we have a prestige project costing millions that seems to be flopping. It is time to stop pouring money into the money pit and to rescue what can still be rescued. If the EU really wants to spend further millions, they should be spent on border protection or on benefiting indigenous families. Instead of simply paying out ‘bounties’ for taking in refugees, the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees should finally be accurately applied and it, of course, does not apply to the army of economic migrants.

Finally, we do not need a new asylum support office to further expand the asylum jungle and the morass of EU agencies that gobble up millions. Until we have a functioning Schengen Information System, the Schengen Area must not be expanded. The new proposals are not only badly thought-out, they are quite simply counter-productive, and that is why I abstained from the vote.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I express my full support for the report by Mr Coelho. The Schengen Information System has proved itself an excellent and valid instrument for management and control within the European Union. It has, however, required adjustment and adaptation during the course of its development, and also in view of further requirements that have become apparent.

The rapporteur’s proposal very much agrees with this viewpoint: second generation migration can no longer be postponed or put off. We need effective and efficient instruments for coordinating information on and controlling those who enter and travel within the Schengen system. For this reason, I join Mr Coelho in emphasising the need for the Commission to implement the new second generation SIS system as soon as possible.

Report: Carlos Coelho (A7-0127/2010)

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – Prior to the migration to the new SIS, it is necessary that the appropriate tests be carried out and that the necessary safeguards are in place. While I believe that the above should be carried out in a professional and thorough manner, I also share the rapporteur’s disappointment with regard to the extended delays that are impeding migration to the new system.

In addition, I feel that it is necessary for the Court of Auditors to be asked to take an in depth look into the management of this matter.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The increased number of Member States has seriously complicated the process of transition, and migration between the Schengen Information System to the second generation Schengen Information System. Parliament has been demanding exact and up-to-date information on how this report is coming on, and rightly so. I hope that the migration takes place in the most effective way possible, that this change does not in any way damage Europe’s security, and that it has a satisfactory outcome.

Report: Rui Tavares (A7-0131/2010)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report since the question of refugees in the Community is still very relevant. At present, the issue of the resettlement of refugees in the European Union is not properly coordinated and only 10 Member States resettle refugees on a yearly basis, causing a lack of strategic use of resettlement as an EU external policy instrument. I welcome the Commission’s decision to set up the European Asylum Support Office, which will be able to offer support to the Member States in carrying out resettlement initiatives, while ensuring coordination of policies within the EU.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The EU is participating far less than the United States and Canada in the reception and resettlement of refugees from third countries. I voted for the European Parliament’s own-initiative report on the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme. The latter demands that an ambitious and sustainable resettlement programme be established within the EU and proposes financial support for Member States ready to participate in this.

This report also indicates our disagreement with the Council’s vision. The latter wishes to take refugees’ nationality as the basis for deciding who has priority to be resettled. In addition to the geographical origin of refugees, we would like a category of ‘vulnerable refugees’ to be established (women and children exposed to violence and exploitation, unaccompanied minors, people in need of medical care, torture victims, and so on). The latter must always have priority.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is essential that the European Union has a fair and realistic migration policy. I therefore welcome this effective, sound and sustainable resettlement programme, providing a durable solution for refugees who cannot return to their country of origin. The resettlement programme may help to make illegal immigration less attractive to refugees seeking to enter the European Union. The success of an effective resettlement programme requires access to job opportunities for adults and immediate integration of minors in schools. For this reason, access to educational and professional guidance services is essential. The follow-up measures must be undertaken by various entities of the public sector (for example, municipalities) and civil society, as well as NGOs, charities, schools and social services; it is essential to promote cooperation between entities. I call on Member States to promote the creation of private funding mechanisms and more widespread public-private initiatives so as to underpin the European resettlement programme.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is positive that the number of Member States participating in these resettlement programmes has been increasing in recent years. Nonetheless, only 10 Member States resettle refugees on a yearly basis, without any coordination among themselves or a joint EU resettlement programme. It is important that the Member States show solidarity with each other and fairly share responsibility for compliance with international obligations.

An effective and sustainable European resettlement programme will bring benefits for the refugees being resettled, for the Member States, and for the EU itself by giving it a leading role in the international humanitarian field. A multilateral approach is desirable, involving all the relevant actors at local level and without forgetting the fundamental role played by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

An effective EU resettlement programme must provide lasting protection and solutions, as well as the creation of mechanisms for cooperating and coordinating between the Member States. Such a programme must allow the exchange of best practices, create a joint strategy and reduce the costs of resettlement operations. I support the suggestion by the rapporteur – Mr Tavares, whom I congratulate on an excellent report – to create a resettlement unit that makes it possible to coordinate and facilitate resettlement processes.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The draft regulation applying to the EU programme for managing and regulating resettlement will, as a matter of priority, resolve the settling and adaptation of refugees in their new environment. Humanitarian catastrophes and other unforeseeable events can unleash a wave of refugees, to which we must be able to respond jointly, within an EU framework. However, I completely reject refugees seeking asylum on political grounds within the EU. I cannot imagine that it would be legally acceptable in any EU Member State to persecute a citizen for political reasons. The participation of local authorities in a resettlement programme should always be on a voluntary basis, as is the case with Member State participation.

Some countries are used to having increased numbers of foreigners in the local population, but for others of course, it is something new. In order to avoid phobias and concerns about foreigners in some countries or regions, we should respect their interest or lack of interest in participating. It would also be appropriate, for the sake of the conformity and complementarity of the EU resettlement programme with other asylum-related EU policies, to coordinate the proposed programme within an EASO framework. Despite the previously mentioned reservations, I back the entire report.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The resettlement of refugees has been proving necessary in cases where the receiving third countries are unable to provide them with safety and a livelihood so that they can settle there. That is why various entities that are active on the ground are feeling the need for this problem to be fought at European level, and the joint EU resettlement programme proposed by the Commission could be the appropriate means of tackling this. Irrespective of which model wins out in the end, it is clearly urgent for the Member States to cooperate more with each other and with first-settlement countries in order to provide a lasting, sustainable and interconnected solution to this serious humanitarian problem.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) European citizens should not be deceived by the title of this report: by resettlement. We are not talking about some aid package or other for the repatriation of immigrants, but about the reception, on EU territory, on the recommendation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, of people who have already sought asylum in a third country – the first country of asylum or refuge that, for some reason or another, does not suit them or does not suit the United Nations. This is an incredible new incentive for socio-economic immigration that is disguised under cover of an application for international protection, while a European Asylum Support Office will be increasingly responsible for distributing applicants across the EU, whether we like it or not. How can we trust the UN and the first countries of asylum to organise such a check? How can we tolerate the fact that a European agency is telling Member States who they have to accept on their territory and under what status? According to the UNHCR, there are 750 000 people in the world who could claim asylum. Do we have to receive all of them in our countries, on the orders of this organisation? This is completely irresponsible.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Only 10 EU Member States, including Portugal, accept refugees for resettlement. This situation must be changed, and solutions and incentives found to make the majority of Member States start accepting the resettlement of refugees. The creation of this programme constitutes an important step in that direction. It will also contribute to increasing the EU’s involvement in resettlement at global level, and so also have an impact on the EU’s ambition to play a leading role in world humanitarian issues and the international stage.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Allow me to express my support for the report by Mr Tavares. As I stressed with regard to the setting up of a European Fund for refugees, the problem requires a European line of action and approach.

I believe that procedures for conferring refugee status should be harmonised to achieve this end. We cannot have discrepancies over this definition at European level. A common concept would prevent the ‘migration’ of refugees within European States, while allowing more appropriate management. It therefore seems to me that a common programme would take us in the right direction. Finally, an efficient EU resettlement programme should provide protection and lasting solutions, not only for long term refugee situations, but also for the need for swift and appropriate responses in emergency situations, or situations of sudden urgency.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Approval of the European resettlement programme for refugees from third countries in Member States of the EU is a step in the right direction and, of course, I voted in favour of the report for which I acted as rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). In fact, it is very important to build solidarity between the EU and third countries on refugee issues. However, we shall soon need to be bold and show the same solidarity within the EU by creating an internal refoulement programme, in order to mitigate the disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, compared with others. The pilot programme in Malta is a very good example in this direction.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) It is good that a joint EU resettlement programme has been established. The number of refugees who need to be resettled is growing, in contrast to the number of places available to accept them. However, the Member States which receive refugees are often among the poorest, and their resources do not allow them to accept a large number of people. Resettlement should be treated as a last resort – the only solution when refugees cannot return to their own country and cannot find a safe haven in a third country. The Member States should adopt a more ambitious programme which will ensure the quality and effectiveness of resettlement.

We need to support the creation of mechanisms of private financing and the adoption of more frequent public and legal initiatives to strengthen the European resettlement programme. Particular attention should be given to the human resources needed in the current and future EU resettlement programme so that a procedure can be introduced which will enable good practices concerning adaptation and integration of refugees into the receiving society.

The objective is to establish a joint EU resettlement programme, so that thanks to the closer cooperation of governments of EU Member States, the number of people resettled can be increased and their situation in the EU improved. Every effort should be made for more EU Member States to join the EU resettlement programme, which will initiate political and practical cooperation between Member States for the permanent protection of foreigners.

Reports: Rui Tavares (A7-0125/2010 - A7-0131/2010), Carlos Coelho (A7-0126/2010 - A7-0127/2010)

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted yes to these reports, as agreed also with the rapporteurs during our debates in the Committee on Civil Liberties.

Report: Maria Badia i Cutchet (A7-0141/2010)

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D). in writing. – (ES) The report, which I hope the vast majority of you will vote for, is an evaluation of the progress made in Europe on education and training policies in the period 2007-2009. The report also discusses the challenges identified by the ‘New Skills for New Jobs’ initiative. The result shows that there is still too much lacking in the training of our young people, both in terms of preparation for the new sectors of the economy and in terms of giving them the skills to develop in a context in which Europe and the world are increasingly open and increasingly interdependent. The 2020 strategy reflects the importance of training and education for successfully tackling the social and economic challenges facing us in the next decade. Therefore, in the context of an EU economic crisis, I want to stress the importance of preserving education and training budgets at national and Union level.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report, since I believe that we must improve the quality of education and training in the EU. Unfortunately, the guidelines identified in the Lisbon Strategy will not be implemented until the end of 2010. Despite progress in recent years, many European citizens are still not yet sufficiently skilled and one third of the population of Europe have very low-level educational qualifications. Also of concern is the fact that an increasing number of young people are leaving school early and do not acquire any qualifications later. I think that it is very important to begin to implement as soon as possible a policy aimed at raising the quality of education and training in the Member States. The European Commission, Member States and employers should cooperate closely with education and training providers, to ensure a higher level of education and broader scope in order to meet the demands of professional sectors and the labour market.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on implementing the ‘Education and training 2010’ work programme because the report includes some very important passages, which I hope can find specific application in the sphere of EU policies and then be implemented in full by the Member States.

I am referring particularly to the points on vocational training and the link between training processes and the needs of the job market. From this point of view, for the future of both our education system and our economic system, which is made up almost entirely of SMEs, one hopes that the need to strengthen the connection between institutions, particularly vocational training institutions, and the world of enterprise, will be recognised.

The idea of fostering the establishment of forms of partnership between national and local production businesses, on the one hand, and the world of training, on the other, is without doubt a good one: this would allow schools to be more successful in coordinating training programmes with real local needs and the economic world that reflects those needs, not to mention the fact that the idea would also help schools to overcome the perennial problem of finding suitable resources for providing young people with high quality training that they can put to immediate professional use.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report, because this is an appropriate time to review the education and training objectives that were laid down in the Lisbon Strategy and to evaluate what was unsuccessful in this area. I am pleased that one of the most important objectives in the new Europe 2020 strategy is to improve the level of education, reduce the number of people leaving school without qualifications and increase the number of people with higher education or equivalent. Firstly, I would like to highlight the fact that due to the rapid development of information and new technologies, the educational environment is becoming increasingly complicated and varied and it is necessary to adapt to new needs in a changing world. Therefore, it is necessary to reform and improve curricula in schools and universities, taking into account the needs of the changing market. Secondly, I call for more efforts to increase literacy and encourage skills upgrading for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. One of this programme’s most important objectives is the modernisation of vocational education and training (VET) and higher education. In other words, closer relations with the world of business are increasingly needed and it is crucial to develop new, more attractive qualification perspectives and mobility opportunities for students enrolled in VET. I am delighted that the European Parliament has drawn significant attention to the fact that we must facilitate the integration of people with disabilities in the areas of education and training. I also agree that we must allocate appropriate funding in order to ensure the integration of people with disabilities in the area of training.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Quality education and training are a must in terms of personal fulfilment of the individual, equality, fighting social exclusion and poverty, active citizenship and social cohesion. It is essential to improve the quality of education and training for all students in order to attain better results and competences. That is the only way to implement the renewed social agenda for opportunities, access and solidarity, and help to create more and better jobs. Mobility between higher education institutions, the business world and vocational education and training must be promoted in order to promote student-centred learning and the acquisition of competences, entrepreneurship, intercultural understanding, critical thinking and creativity. I also call on the Member States to modernise the agenda of higher education and, in particular, to coordinate curricula with the demands of the labour market

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the Lisbon Strategy, education and training policies have been becoming increasingly important within the European Union. I therefore welcome this report in general and, very especially, the Commission communication ‘Key competences for a changing world’. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the mismatches between skills levels acquired at school and the requirements of the labour market in the European Union.

A clear commitment to professional training and lifelong learning will contribute much to the success of the ‘New Skills for New Jobs’ initiative, as will the development of transversal key skills such as digital competence, the ability to learn, social, civic, sporting and artistic competences, a sense of entrepreneurship and cultural awareness.

In order for the coming generations to be able to overcome the current gap between acquired skills and the needs of the market, I therefore believe it to be essential for preschool teaching to be of high quality as an instrument for early acquisition of essential skills. I also see primary and secondary education focused on the development of more specific skills as essential, for example, mastering foreign languages and adapting to the needs of communities in which schools are located. Higher education that is coordinated with the needs of the labour market, companies and society in general is also crucial.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on key competences for a changing world: implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme. Despite some improvements, we are still a long way off achieving the goals on education and training set out in the Lisbon Strategy. This report analyses what went wrong and proposes challenges that have yet to be overcome, such as better linkup between teaching, professional training and lifelong learning systems.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Having worked in government in the area of education in my country, I find it deeply regrettable to see it continually wrongly classified in practically all indicators relating to these subjects. I fear that these unfavourable results are, in large measure, the result of an ideology of learning that seems to be completely absent from the Commission’s communication and Parliament’s resolution: in these, not once can the words ‘merit’, ‘rigour’, ‘effort’, ‘concentration’ and ‘discipline’ be seen, and ‘knowledge transfer’ and ‘memorisation’ are seen as less important than the issue of ‘aptitudes’ and ‘attitudes’ based on ‘essential competences’.

It would be useful if governments stopped worrying about statistics and instead tackled the root of the problem, abandoning methods involving a lot of talking, taking away responsibility from all the people involved in the education process and statistical camouflage. They must instead adopt methods focused, above all, on scientific content and cognitive processes; on effective learning and teaching. There must be less focus on stating shared positions that are as hollow as they are well intentioned. Given the generally positive content of the resolution, I will vote for it, but not without registering my profound disagreement with this interpretation of what the education system should be.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Education and training issues are clearly of the greatest significance, given the never-ending advances of science and technology, and the increasing incorporation of scientific and technical knowledge into productive processes. It is in this context that the report under discussion considers it ‘vital to introduce policies seeking to improve the quality of education and training’; naturally, we share this concern.

However, in voicing this concern, it does not even make the necessary mention of the importance of state schools in pursuing this goal, nor is there reference to the consequences of the lack of investment in public schools, or the exclusion of many young people from access to education and training; it chooses instead to make a mistaken and ambiguous reference to strengthening ‘cooperation of the public and private spheres’. As regards higher education, the Bologna Process does not put forward any solution for the necessary improvements to education: on the contrary, in countries like Portugal, it has made it worse, not least the state system.

We cannot fail to point out and condemn the advocating of ‘flexibility’, pushing young people into insecure, uncertain, intermittent and poorly paid work. We also disagree with the concept of volunteer work as a substitute for jobs, exacerbating the exploitation of young people seeking to enter the world of work.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR), in writing. – I and my British Conservative colleagues can agree with much of this report. We remain supportive of attempts to develop lifelong learning strategies and to promote vocational education and training (VET) and the better integration of key competences such as foreign language learning, mathematics and science. And we believe that the most important element is to ensure that labour markets are flexible enough to ensure that young people can gain employment.

However, we cannot support the reference in this report for all migrant children to be taught in their mother tongue. It is our belief that this will be extremely unworkable, costly and inefficient, particularly in schools which have children from many diverse linguistic backgrounds and would do little to foster integration of migrants into local communities. In addition, education policy is, and should remain, the preserve of individual nation states. For this reason, we voted against this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the 2000 Lisbon Strategy, a series of initiatives has been implemented aimed at reaching the strategic goal set by the European Council of Europe ‘becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010’. Commitment to education and training is essential and must involve improving the quality and effectiveness of education systems in Europe. A commitment must be made to training teachers and educators, providing access to education and training systems for all, making the teaching process more attractive, opening up education and training systems to the rest of the world, and promoting stronger links with the world of work. The standardisation of objectives in a Framework for Key Competences was an important step towards achieving the goals proposed for 2010, which were not, however, fully achieved. From the point of view of reviewing and assessing the work done up to now, this document becomes even more important if it is viewed from the perspective of preparing recovery strategies in order to achieve objectives initially proposed for the education sector, taking into account the new proposal for strategic framing of European cooperation in this sector: Education and Training 2020.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Education is important, but the reality is that a good education and training has, for quite some time, been no guarantee of employment, let alone a good job. Instead of investing money in appropriate qualification schemes, the plan is to ship lowly qualified staff into the EU using all possible kinds of card solutions, with transitional deadlines in the labour market to be dismissed as unnecessary. In the context of the basic conditions referred to, the training programme is not adequate, for which reason I voted ‘no’.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The recognition that education and training are essential for a knowledge-based society, and for the future economy, is no longer a myth. These things represent the basis of our society and the foundations for our own future and that of generations to come.

Education (pre-school, primary, secondary and higher) and professional quality training are indispensable if we are to respond to the challenges that Europe must face, including under the EU 2020 strategy. I support the communication system which mentions various strategies that could be implemented, such as supporting the development of teachers’ competences, updating assessment methods and introducing new ways of organising learning. I express my support and I congratulate the rapporteur for the sensitivity she has shown in drawing up the report.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on key competences for a changing world: implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme. The text presents a global approach to upgrading and adapting education to modern requirements. Identifying the reasons which led to the failure of the objective of the Bologna Process on the convergence of higher education between the Member States, the importance of adapting education systems, in order to prepare European societies so that they can exit the economic crisis and resume sustainable growth, and the importance of the penetration of new technologies at all levels of education, are key points for the education system of tomorrow. That is why I tabled amendments to that effect, which were adopted by the Committee on Culture and Education.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I am very glad that today, we adopted the report led by my Catalan colleague from the S&D Group, Maria Badia i Cutchet, on the very important issue of seeing education and training as key competences for a changing world.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report and would like to recall the importance of the basic skills that every European must acquire. The number of young people unable to read properly by the age of 15 is steadily increasing (21.3% in 2000 and 24.1% in 2006). With a European strategy focused on quality jobs and a smart economy, this knowledge gap is something that will marginalise an ever-greater section of the population. The Member States must integrate this priority to acquire basic skills (reading, writing, arithmetic) into their educational programmes before their pupils specialise. Moreover, the learning of foreign languages is crucially important. As an English teacher, I am particularly aware of this. The fact that some European countries have fallen behind in the teaching of foreign languages closes many doors to students, at a time when jobs are becoming increasingly international in scope. Finally, the adaptation of educational models to the new professions of the green economy or the digital economy is a major challenge for education in Europe. For that reason, assistance for lifelong learning is the key to a career path that is flexible and adapted to the jobs of the future.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report on the Education and Training 2010 programme with pleasure and with hope for rapid implementation of the programme’s ideas. As an academic teacher and a professor with many years of experience, I pay particular attention to the necessity of creating greater mobility between institutions of tertiary education, the world of business and vocational education and training.

Modern higher education should prepare students thoroughly with a view to entering the labour market. As well as the right knowledge, competences such as entrepreneurship, intercultural understanding and creativity are becoming increasingly significant, and are playing a decisive role, on a par with formal training, in the achievement of professional success.

From this point of view, therefore, education is very important. It is also essential to adopt effective measures to increase the representation of women in science and scientific research. On this matter, I have already asked the European Commission for an opinion and to consider the possibility of establishing special programmes to create equal opportunities for women in science.

Taking into account the alarming statistics on the qualifications of Europeans – including, among others, the fact that 77 million people, or nearly one third of Europe’s population between the ages of 25 and 64, either have no formal qualifications or very low qualifications – I consider this report to be extremely important for promoting science and raising vocational qualifications. In relation to this, I appeal to the EU’s Member States and the Commission for effective realisation of the ideas of the programme.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Education has important social functions, opens doors and offers prospects for a better future. Therefore, we must make every effort to help in the education of young people through EU programmes and grants combined with national measures. In an era of globalisation, increased competition and rapid change, it is important to participate in lifelong learning.

Thanks to student exchanges, such as Erasmus, our young people are not only furthering their knowledge in specific subject areas, but are also broadening their horizons. Experiencing new cultures and languages and making international contacts leads to the creation of more solid bonds within Europe and helps in creating the European identity. Europe’s ambition is to be at the forefront in terms of research and development, innovation and new technological solutions which enable better management of energy resources.

Our hopes are pinned on young people, so we have to treat this group as a priority. Young people who have completed their university education find it difficult to enter the labour market because employers very often emphasise professional experience, which young people do not have at that stage of their lives. For this reason, we need to promote dialogue between universities and businesses, adapt courses of study to the needs of the labour market and emphasise placements and practical experience which will make it easier to find work.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, the belts being tightened throughout Europe – as a painful and severe measure – are beginning to have an impact. Victims and compromises have already become part of daily life in many EU sectors, but it is important (particularly during the economic recession) that we do not neglect our commitments in such fundamental areas of policy as education. As history has shown, education is a thing worth fighting for – whether in the underground educational institutions of Nazi-occupied Europe, or in the dissidents’ ‘flying university’ in the Stalin era. The global economic crisis means that we are being forced to adapt once again. Vocational education and training must be adapted to the needs of the labour market. Europe’s literacy rate must be improved, since in this area, Europe is far behind the United States and Japan. We must fill the gap. Not only is it important to raise the level of literacy, numeracy and computer literacy among young people, but also that of unemployed adults belonging to the lower socio-economic class. Lifelong learning from the cradle to the grave, as well as so-called ‘second chance’ programmes for adults with limited abilities, are not only important for stimulating the economy and the labour market, but also for social inclusion and active citizenship. It is our duty to raise the level of the quality of training throughout Europe and make education appear more attractive. That is a long-term struggle, but it is something worth fighting for.

Report: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (A7-0135/2010)

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The administration and management of commercial companies is an area which raises new concerns, especially during the current crisis, even though it has been subject to constant regulation. In fact, making managers accountable, and I am not only referring here to administrators, is an absolute necessity in the context where we are intending to reduce systemic risks. In the case of corporations operating in strategic sectors, with either a large turnover or a significant market share, the financial problems which such corporations may encounter obviously go beyond the simple interest of shareholders, entering into the realm of ‘stakeholders’, in other words, creditors, employees, consumers, the relevant industry or state.

In this situation, the amendment being proposed by myself about making members of the Board of Directors accountable by forcing a percentage of this body’s members to be professionals supports the reduction in systemic risks as, at the moment, it is no longer enough to be a representative of the shareholder as long as, just as I showed, the benefit to the financial health and stability of certain corporations exceeds the strict investment benefit in the form of ownership of share capital. In addition, in order to encourage shareholder involvement in these corporations, which is passive in many cases when the proportion of capital held is too small, electronic voting should be regulated.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The governance of companies and their ethics is a critical issue, particularly in the current situation in which many shareholders are suffering losses on their investments because of violations of some of these principles. Good managers who are responsible and whose conduct is guided by ethics are central to the balanced decision-making process which leads companies to become competitive. When we talk about regulating certain ethical practices, we cannot forget the principle of private autonomy and that there must be a limit at which certain practices must be regulated.

I also consider it essential for shareholders to participate more in and take more responsibility for ensuring that good administrators are rewarded by the market and that less ethical managers are punished, so that their practices do not harm the rights of shareholders or have a negative impact on the entire market.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent financial crisis reinforced the need for us to look at deontological issues relating to managing companies in a more responsible way. Issues relating to remuneration regimes and governance arrangements with regard to the remuneration of the directors and managers of listed companies must be governed by ethical and deontological principles that do not allow situations such as those experienced in the recent past, with the awarding of management bonuses in companies that immediately afterwards filed for bankruptcy or were found to be in serious difficulties. The EU must have a productive, social and environmental model with a long-term outlook that respects everyone’s interests: companies, shareholders and workers. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I express my support for the report by Mr Lehne. The recent financial crisis has illustrated the need to analyse issues related to pay policies of company directors. I agree with the rapporteur when he suggests a method based on binding measures, aiming to avoid a situation where the variable payment element (bonus, shares, etc.) gives rise to investment policies that are too risky and too far removed from the state of the real economy.

To this end, there seems to be a need for legislative measures, allowing us to resolve the problem of disparity between national regulations concerning payment for companies, especially in cases of cross-border mergers. It is necessary, particularly when it comes to the financial sector, to put ethical issues at the centre; not only from a moral viewpoint, but also and, above all, from a social viewpoint. In order to achieve this, we must introduce uniform and global guidelines.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report on deontological questions related to companies’ management as, above all, I support the European Parliament’s call for encouraging higher numbers of women to be assigned to management posts and the request for the European Commission to put forward a proposal to introduce a system for the filling of posts on company decision-making bodies, posts in other bodies and posts in general. At the same time, however, I regret the fact that my amendment, which would have made this an obligation, was not included in the final resolution.

I would have liked to have seen the European Parliament make more ambitious demands. In connection with pay policy, I would also like to point out the serious differences that do prevail in reality and to emphasise that the principles laid down in the European directives of equal pay and equal treatment for men and women must be observed and nurtured. I advocate these fundamental principles being made mandatory in every Member State and believe that a system of sanctions should be introduced for non-compliance.

Report: Georgios Papanikolaou (A7-0113/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported the report by Mr Papanikolaou because I am aware that the consequences of the economic and financial crisis have already reached and affected the fabric of society, especially young Europeans, exposing them to alarming rates of unemployment.

I therefore believe that it is the duty of European institutions to establish a well-defined strategy that can make the most of existing training and mobility programmes (such as Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci), while also increasing the correlation between the supply of training, competences and the demands and needs of the labour market, in order to make the necessary transition between vocational and occupational training smoother and more secure.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this resolution because as we shape the policies of today, we have a strong responsibility towards young people and future generations. The European Union possesses important tools relating to youth policies, yet these tools need to be fully exploited, communicated and integrated. I am concerned about the increasing numbers of young people who are unemployed, under-employed or have no job security, especially in the current economic crisis. It is very important to ensure a youth perspective in the post-2010 Lisbon and Europe 2020 strategies. I also support the proposal to develop appropriate measures targeted at young people in the recovery plans drawn up in the economic and financial crisis plans and to ensure better integration of young people into the employment market.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report, which I voted in favour of, contains interesting reflections and suggestions for developing constructive policies that aim to give young people in today’s society a sense of responsibility.

Young people face many challenges today if they are to make their way in the job market and in society. I agree with the basic premise of the report: Parliament could be a useful instrument for implementing European youth strategies, in view of its democratic roots and its resulting ability to gather the requests of young people on the ground and within Member States, and to bring their demands to the attention of Europe.

I reiterate, as have other previous speeches, the importance of ensuring training pathways reflect local business patterns: only by doing this can we help the young people of today and tomorrow to enter the job market more easily and with greater satisfaction. Nowadays, jobs are still the main problem for millions of young people in Europe, especially during the current economic crisis, which has raised the youth unemployment rate to more than 20%.

I also agree fully with the report’s emphasis on the social and human importance of young people taking part in voluntary work as a factor in helping them achieve personal and collective growth.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report, since the preparation and implementation of the EU strategy for youth is very important, particularly at this time when the economic and financial crisis has had a negative impact on youth employment and still threatens their future prosperity. Since young people are Europe’s future, it is our duty to help them by applying a well prepared strategy for youth. Therefore, above all, Member States need to safeguard the right of all children and young people to obtain state education and must provide everyone with the same opportunities for education, irrespective of their social background and financial situation. I would like to draw attention to the fact that, as provided for in the new Europe 2020 strategy, it is necessary to take measures as soon as possible to reduce the number of students leaving school without qualifications. Only by creating more flexible learning conditions for all young people, and safeguarding for all the right to learn and study, can we create opportunities for young people to get a foothold in the labour market. I would also like to stress that it is necessary to prepare specific policy guidelines to implement employment policy and combat youth unemployment. It is very important to stimulate youth entrepreneurship and provide young people with more flexible conditions to take advantage of micro-credits and micro-finance facilities.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial crisis has been having a serious impact on the lives of young people. I therefore welcome the renewed youth strategy, which puts the well-being of future generations on the political agenda. As the knowledge triangle is a key element for growth and job creation, I would stress the importance of creating more opportunities for youth in education and employment through increased interaction between education, research and innovation. The Members of the European Parliament play a crucial role in promoting European youth policies in the Member States. I would draw your attention to the problem of early school-leaving and the need to ensure that a higher percentage of young people complete compulsory education.

The European Parliament also plays an essential role in the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of youth strategy. It is essential for Union programmes and funds to reflect Europe’s ambitions for young people, and for the EU’s policies, programmes and actions to be coordinated, with a view to an EU strategy for youth.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour because, though the EU strategy for youth is, by its nature, a wide-ranging and all-encompassing document, it is crucial to reassert that any new strategy must place education at the centre of its ambition and policy. In the past, such an education policy would have correctly placed its emphasis on the need for all students in the EU to complete primary and second-level education. Thankfully, we have now come to the point where we can afford to cast our attention towards more ambitious goals. In the past two decades or so, many initiatives have been trialled which have been aimed at getting those from demographic groups traditionally disinclined towards university to attend third-level institutions. Some of these initiatives have been more successful than others, but in general, it remains the same social groups who make up the overwhelming majority of third-level students. This cannot be allowed to continue. If we are to truly address the poverty which remains but often goes unremarked in the EU, an effective system by which less-inclined areas of society start to become truly represented at third level must be achieved.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I support Mr Papanikolaou’s report on ‘An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering’. I agree with his call for the Member States to fully implement the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon in the area of youth policy, such as encouraging the participation of young people in democratic life, special attention for young sportsmen and sportswomen, and the legal enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I would stress the important role of the Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes in the development of European education and training policies. I urge the Commission to prioritise instruments that improve young people’s qualifications and increase opportunities to work and, especially, to develop ‘Erasmus first job’. I agree with combating the use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco and other forms of addiction, including gambling.

I would stress the role of informing young people about sex education issues in protecting their health. I would highlight the importance of volunteering activities and, as the Portuguese Social Democratic Youth Movement (JSD) has always argued, giving young people central responsibilities in conceiving and implementing youth policies at European, national and regional level.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Investment in youth policies is essential to the future of European societies, particularly at a time when the number of young people in the general population continues to decrease. I welcomed receipt of the ‘EU strategy for youth’, in which information on the situation of young people of Europe was collected for the first time, as well as the three priorities for youth set by the Commission.

Creating more opportunities for youth in education and employment, improving access and full participation of all young people in society, and fostering social inclusion and solidarity between society and young people, are fundamental aims for an effective European youth policy that is capable of contributing to the development of a European mentality. Nonetheless, the existence of different definitions of ‘youth’ in the various Member States, as well as the fact that youth policy is covered by the principle of subsidiarity, show the problems involved in effectively implementing the instruments of youth policy. Strong desire and great commitment from the governments of the Member States are requirements for renewed European cooperation on youth in order to produce concrete results, as is the urgent strengthening of the open method of coordination.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering’. The financial crisis is mortgaging, at least in the short term, the professional futures of millions of young people throughout the European Union, essentially because of the increased difficulty in entering the labour market. We urgently need to ensure that training measures ensure a better match of skills and the demands of the labour market, thus promoting young people’s autonomy and economic independence; otherwise, we run the risk of squandering young people’s talent.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At a time when Europe is struggling through the largest, most serious economic and financial crisis of recent decades, it is essential that the European strategy for youth that we are now discussing be focused on the problems which the crisis has caused and which especially affect young people. Of these problems, we would stress the high rate of youth unemployment; the difficulty of getting into the labour market; low pay; the inadequacy of formal training from schools and universities for the demands of working life; and the difficulty of reconciling starting work, which is always difficult, with family life.

These are concerns that must be present in any European strategy for youth. Policies and strategies that enable Europeans to adapt better and quicker to the challenges of the twenty-first century – especially in a crisis situation – must also be sought. I would especially stress the importance of measures that give education its due importance, those that aim towards the acquisition of new skills, and those that stimulate creativity and entrepreneurship. Finally, I believe that in order to successfully achieve the proposed objectives, it is necessary to strengthen coordination between the various agents involved in pursuing the strategy for youth.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) A commitment to young people is made through a good education system that gives absolute priority to the problems of early school-leaving and illiteracy, and that supports equal access for all young people to high quality education and training at all levels. We also advocated the promotion of opportunities for lifelong learning. Given the high rates of unemployment to which Europe’s young people are exposed, and as young people with poor qualifications are more likely to be unemployed, it is essential to ensure that they receive the best possible training, which guarantees them prompt access to, and a long-term stake in, the labour market. The first job is very important. That is why we proposed an ‘Erasmus first job’ scheme, which was approved; we are waiting for the Commission to follow up this proposal. The EU should better inform, develop and implement the instruments that it already has at its disposal. Young people must be called on to participate more, not least in building the recycling society and in the objective of combating climate change, to which they have already been generously contributing, as a matter of fact.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We believe that this report takes the correct point of view in approaching young people’s problems as something that cuts across several sectors of society. By doing so, it identifies specific problems in several areas: education and training; employment; health; well-being and the environment; culture; and others. These problems include, amongst others: school leaving; insecure and precarious jobs; unpaid work placements; the brain drain; environmental degradation; drug dependency; and social exclusion.

Although the rapporteur presents some proposals to solve these problems which seem fair to us and deserve our support, there are others that are clearly inadequate; some are even ambiguous and others go so far as being contradictory. We cannot accept, for example, that a Europe 2020 strategy that is ‘more focused on young people’ can adopt insecure or intermittent employment as ‘strategic’ solutions for young people; both of these concepts are present in the aforementioned strategy, which also advocates competitiveness as a possible way out of the crisis.

As in other areas, harmonisation achieved through social progress and not by everyone ending up with the same, low standard of living is required here. Some countries – including Portugal – have included a broad range of youth rights in their constitutions; it is important for these to be implemented and not restricted.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Unemployment, temporary work, internships. What kind of prospects await the younger generation? What life expectations? How must they feel, being forced to stay at home and be supported by their parents, and not even able to think of starting a family? Working intermittently, often underpaid, and doing jobs that are far below their level of education. No prospects of a pension. What does the future hold in store for them?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is young people who are bearing the brunt of this crisis.

They are disillusioned and alarmed by the possibility that they will be cut out of the job market. There is no point hiding behind good intentions and promises. Young people are asking for facts. And it is our duty to give them proper answers.

We must invest; we must provide certainties, offer opportunities. The world of work is changing, and we must create conditions whereby young people are the first to adapt to these changes, making the most of new technology, and following educational pathways that are appropriate for the new needs.

We must redouble our efforts; we must put young people at the centre of our European policies. If there is no future for young people, there is no future for society as a whole.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on the new youth strategy, as I believe that the future of Europe is the young people today. We need to take action now to ensure that young people are best prepared for their life ahead and best equipped to face the challenges.

I urge the Member States to take the new youth strategy seriously and implement the proposed measures vigorously. The youth strategy needs to feed into the personal and professional development of each young person in Europe by providing them with the means to learn at home and abroad, through formal, non-formal and informal learning. The strategy should also serve to empower young people and increase their participation in society.

Furthermore, no policy can truly function without cross-sectoral implementation. All relevant actors across sectors need to work together to make the strategy a success. Although youth policy in Europe is carried out at national level, we need to learn from each other and set examples. Making the national reports public is a crucial step in getting closer to our young citizens, but also in learning from each other through best practices and from possible challenges.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The global economic crisis is just one of the factors contributing to a change in the behaviour and living conditions of young people in Europe. This must sound an alarm bell for both Member States and the European Union as a whole.

We have been witnessing for some time now in Europe a declining population, with the dramatic consequences this entails for our economies and social welfare systems. It is a source of concern that young people are getting married increasingly later and having ever fewer children at a late age. At the same time, they are not being provided with adequate conditions for developing theirs skills and taking an active involvement in society.

Education, employment, social inclusion and health are the major concerns of the young generations, but these pose challenges for Member States. This is precisely the reason why I voted for the draft report compiled by Mr Papanikolaou. I firmly believe that the amendments which we have proposed will make a significant contribution to the task of devising policies aimed at young people, by allowing them to make decisions independently and supporting their personal initiatives, equal access to education for disadvantaged young people and their inclusion in the labour market later on.

I believe that the partnership with the mass media aimed at raising the profile of the European programmes and projects for young people is a key factor in helping us achieve our objectives.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU strategy for youth has become increasingly important and must now be faced up to as one of the Union’s political priorities, given that young people make up 20% of the total population. The objectives are clear and defined, and are connected with areas as important as the creation of more employment opportunities or encouraging young people to play a more active part in society. In the situation of economic and financial crisis that we are currently experiencing, combined with the problem of ageing, young people are one of the most vulnerable groups. I therefore advocate an ever greater commitment to youth policies at EU level. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Young people, in particular, are especially hard hit by the current crisis. In the face of rising youth unemployment, it is important to improve educational opportunities. While we at EU level are still talking about promotion, the Member States are already making cuts in the funding for universities.

If we really want to help the youth, we need to rein in the phenomenon of ‘eternal trainees’. These measures are, at best, a declaration of intent but, given the conditions in these times of crisis, they are scarcely enough to actually achieve anything. I have therefore abstained from voting.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this document as I am myself part of that same younger generation shaping the future of the EU and I am concerned about the sort of future that awaits me and people of my generation. At present, unemployment is one of the main problems facing young people in my country of Lithuania and in other EU Member States and we are already beginning to refer to today’s young people as the lost generation of this era. Another problem is the incompatibility of the education system with the needs of the labour market. Although we agree with the Communication from the Commission on an EU strategy for youth, I am concerned that, like many of the other strategies we have adopted, it may never be anything more than a set of fine declarations on paper. We, the European Parliament, other EU institutions, the Member States have to understand that unless we care about young people today, it may be that none of our other strategies, including EU 2020, are ever implemented, as there will not be anybody left to implement them. Therefore, I call on the Commission, the other competent institutions and the Member States to take specific action as soon as possible so that this strategy becomes a reality.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of European Parliament resolution No A7-0113/2010 concerning the report on ‘An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering’ (2009/2159(INI)), because defining a strategy for young people is extremely important today. The young section of European society is faced by many challenges which will have to be tackled in the near future. The economic crisis and the ageing of society are undoubtedly important and urgent questions, and they mainly concern those who are going to build the future. What we ought to do, and what in fact we must do, is to create equal opportunities and equal access for all those who will begin their adult life in a few years, and also for those who are beginning their adult life today. Unfortunately, there are many young and talented people who, for a variety of reasons, have been left behind. We should give them a second chance. Measures such as financial support for people who have completed university are essential for a smooth transition to the labour market. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate among young people is high, and inequalities in the labour market persist. There are definitely more problems than those I have mentioned. Therefore, I fully agree with the rapporteur that the ‘present report constitutes a further step of a continuous effort. An effort that is our duty. An endless duty towards future generations.’ This is what is expected of us, today, and it is what we should do.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the view expressed by Mr Papanikolaou. The creation of a new EU strategy for youth is of crucial importance. The main aim of the new strategy for youth should be to use existing instruments more effectively and to promote knowledge. It is possible to make progress by urging governments to cooperate more on this issue, regardless of the existing differences between national policies concerning young people.

This is an essential factor when it comes to offering future generations of European citizens a promising future. The economic crisis is having profound effects on young people, and represents a threat to their future prosperity. The ageing population will also have a strong impact on their future. Given the many pressures to which young people are subject, the resulting duty to support them by means of an effective youth strategy, the fact that policies favouring the young are subject to the principle of subsidiarity and the fact that Member States’ cooperation in this area is voluntary, it is crucially important that the new strategy should overcome the weak points of the previous strategy and provide concrete results.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D), in writing. – Educating young people is a crucial task because if mistakes are made, and they are not corrected in time, they tend to have generational consequences and are liable to be repeated, thus bringing about further degradation. The trouble with our ‘Strategies’ is that, once elaborated, we become obsessed with implementation, thus neglecting the need to revisit and adjust them regularly.

The current strategy on youth, essentially elaborated before the current crisis, is already facing a number of challenges: how to protect the young from the negative psychological impact of the current crisis; how to prepare them for tomorrow’s world, not today’s; how to ensure equal opportunity to education irrespective of income; how to separate ‘mobility’ from ‘brain drain’; and how to balance ‘virtual bonding’ through the net with actual bonding and team spirit through collective action.

These are ‘strategic’ challenges which need ‘strategic’ attention from decision makers in all EU countries.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report since its goal is to promote the active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity of all young people. As regards youth policy, where subsidiarity is the rule, we must encourage the Member States to define common objectives and agendas, and to improve their cooperation and their exchange of good practice. This is a matter of urgency because we know that, in Europe, 1 in 4 15-year-olds cannot read properly. While we are discussing the 2011 budget, I am concerned about the gap between the ambitions of the report that we have just voted on and the 3.4% reduction in the ‘Youth in Action’ budget. Why cut a programme that aims precisely at developing a sense of citizenship, solidarity and tolerance among young Europeans? I therefore hope that the 2020 strategy, which is based on a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy, will result in ambitious financial commitments to youth education and training, because in these times of systemic crisis, the medium-term survival of the EU is dependent on young people who are educated and mobilised by the European project.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the EU strategy for youth with complete conviction and with certainty as to its success. It is one of the key areas of the work of the Committee on Culture and Education, on which I serve. It is imperative to improve the situation of young people and their educational and vocational chances. Three matters are crucial in this regard.

1. Young people in the EU, and also in Poland, are making good use of EU programmes, such as Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci. Therefore, it is very important to increase funding for these programmes and to recognise them as the basis for development of a multiannual EU strategy for youth. In the future, these programmes should receive greater financial support. Investment in the education of young people is the best possible use of the EU budget. I also appeal for improvement and full implementation of the Erasmus Mundus programme.

2. As a socialist, I also stress the need to create equal opportunities for young people in their access to education. It is essential to give financial assistance to those who cannot afford to complete tertiary education. It is also important to help young people by making their access to the labour market easier.

3. In view of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, I would like to draw attention to the obligations of Member States concerning implementation of the strategy, which includes encouraging young people to participate in democratic life, paying special attention to young sportsmen and sportswomen and the legal enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The report adopted by the European Parliament is a thorough analysis of the multi-dimensional question of youth – a question which sometimes appears to be under-discussed or pushed into the background. Today’s young people are going to create the Europe of the future, so we must make sure they develop properly, and we must help them make the best use of the opportunities the Union offers. Young people are a special kind of added value – they bring freshness and innovation, and can make Europe’s social vision a reality, based on tolerance, diversity and equality. The question of young people acquires even greater significance in the context of the current situation – the economic crisis and demographic factors in Europe.

Young people are more vulnerable to the adverse effects brought by the current economic situation. Unemployment in this group is almost twice as high as the overall rate, and the financial situation facing young people often forces them to give up their education, which can, as a result, lead to poverty and exclusion.

In the context of an ageing population, instruments need to be found which will encourage young people to start a family. They often put off this decision because of their unfavourable financial situation, problems with finding work or the need to reconcile work with family life. As for questions of organisation and structures of cooperation in the area of young people, we should be more clear and specific. The question of young people is complex and requires the involvement of many policy areas.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The resolution adopted today concerning the Commission communication on ‘An EU strategy for youth’ points us in the right direction based on an integrated approach to the problems and needs of young people. We expect that taking account of the interests of young people and future generations when formulating policy strategies at all policy levels will ensure efficient and effective resolution of the most urgent questions. For example, the continued high level of unemployment in this social group shows a lack of structural solutions, such as errors in education systems, which educate young people in isolation from the needs of the labour market.

We need to encourage young people to be active in civil society, to be politically active and to stimulate them to enterprise. We must create the conditions for them to be creative in the area of culture and awaken an interest in art, science and new technologies. On the other hand, we should ensure young people protection from discrimination and run campaigns which promote pro-environmental ideas, while not forgetting the fight against drug abuse and other dependencies to which young people are particularly vulnerable. This is why, today, I was delighted to endorse the resolution prepared by Mr Papanikolaou.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The 96 million young Europeans aged between 15 and 29 account for approximately 20% of the European Union’s population. The unemployment rate among young people hit the 20% mark at the start of the year, due to the economic crisis, while the school dropout rate reached 17%, with young people in rural areas being mainly affected by this. In addition, young people are being increasingly offered temporary employment contracts, thereby reducing their chance of achieving financial stability and buying themselves somewhere to live. Young people are our future and we should be involving them more in the decision-making process at European level. They are the ones who should be planning and implementing along with us, contributing to the development of the society we live in. I call on the Commission and Member States to adopt urgently a specific strategy and measures to help young people become more involved in society. These measures should have the following objectives: providing non-discriminatory access to education enabling young people to acquire the skills they need to find a job which will provide them with a decent living, offering accessible child care services to facilitate the work-life balance and giving support to facilitate young people’s entry into the labour market and to provide social housing for young people.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The global economic crisis came as a painful blow to us all. The saddest thing is the fact that the strongest blow was borne by those on whom our future depends. The financial tsunami of the last few years has made most young people unemployed or underemployed. On the basis of this report, the unemployment rate among young people in most EU Member States has almost doubled in comparison with the working population. Now we have the chance to turn the crisis into an opportunity. We owe it to the future generation of Europeans.

It is important for my country, Lithuania, together with most of its neighbours, to halt the ever-increasing brain drain of qualified workers. As the name of the report suggests, we can achieve that by investing and providing opportunities. Education and employment are the principal areas from an investment point of view. We need to facilitate a smoother transition between education and the labour market. However, the impact of this essential investment will be limited unless we provide our young people with opportunities. We must encourage our young people to become more active citizens both socially and politically. Voter turnout among young people is very low in Eastern Europe. Therefore, we must revive their interest in the political process.

Civil society and the corresponding non-governmental organisations can support EU interests, for example, the ‘My vote’ project, which used innovative Internet technologies, contributed to the political awareness of young people. In addition, we must start a constructive dialogue with young people and youth organisations in Europe, free from the web of bureaucracy and technical jargon.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I supported the report on a European youth strategy as I believe it will prove vital in getting young people into full-time employment over the coming years. With 5.5 million Europeans under the age of 25 out of work, it is clear that an effective strategy to combat the problem is needed.

The problem of youth unemployment is not only due to the economic crisis; employers are looking for people with professional experience. I fully agree with the suggestion that higher education should be more effectively linked with the labour market. Cooperation between Member States is key to dealing with the problems of youth unemployment, which can have both heavy social and economic costs.

Recommendation for second reading: Astrid Lulling (A7-0146/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It was important to strengthen the protection of self-employed women. Mrs Lulling’s report on equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity is a step in that direction. It provides for 14 weeks’ maternity leave and social security cover for assisting spouses, which was not the case previously. Once again, the European Parliament is guaranteeing the protection of women in their work. As I share this vision, I voted for this report.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Bearing in mind the need to repeal Directive 86/613/EEC on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, this proposed amendment represents a significant step forward, for the situation of the spouses of self-employed workers too.

As regards social protection, it is being proposed that where there is a social protection system in place for self-employed workers, the Member State takes the necessary measures for spouses to be able to benefit from social protection in accordance with national law. Although the social protection of spouses is not mandatory, this proposal constitutes an important step, since in many Member States, spouses do not enjoy any form of social protection, mandatory or voluntary.

Finally, there is provision in this proposal for maternity protection, although not for the assisting spouses of self-employed workers to have the same amount of maternity leave as that for salaried workers. However, they will have the right to an appropriate payment to enable them to cease their activities for at least 14 weeks and/or request a temporary substitution service. For the above reasons, I voted for this proposal.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) In order to overcome the economic recession, it is very important to invest in human capital and social infrastructure, creating the conditions for men and women to take advantage of all their opportunities. The European Union has now come close to the Lisbon Strategy objective of achieving a 60% employment rate for women by 2010, but female employment in the Member States is very uneven. Therefore, the Commission and the Member States must take effective measures to implement at the earliest opportunity the directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity. The issue of maternity protection for self-employed women and assisting spouses or recognised partners is very important. It must be recognised that they need to be granted an allowance enabling them to stop work for long enough to come safely through their pregnancy and physically recover after a normal confinement, and that the maternity allowance granted to women should be adequate. Therefore, I particularly agree with the rapporteur’s opinion on the proposals at this directive’s second reading. In addition, in the Commission’s consultations on the new 2020 strategy, insufficient attention is given to the issue of gender equality. We must strengthen and integrate issues surrounding the gender equality dimension in the new strategy.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of this directive that establishes a framework for the application in the Member States of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in a self-employed activity, or who contribute to carrying out such an activity. Women’s reduced participation in self-employed work constitutes an inequality, in as far as family responsibilities seem to have a negative impact on the entrepreneurship of women in comparison with men. As regards collaborating spouses, lack of social security cover and non-recognition of their contribution to family businesses confers an unfair competitive advantage on some companies, so this initiative would guarantee equal conditions in Europe. It is essential to adopt measures to resolve the gender disparities in entrepreneurship, in order to better reconcile private and professional life. I call on Member States to ensure full equality in practice between women and men in professional life, with a view to promoting entrepreneurship initiatives amongst women.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The directive of December 1986 has proven to be ineffective, as it has had quite unsatisfactory results according to its implementation reports. That is why it is urgent to proceed towards reinforcing the protection of motherhood for self-employed women and ensure equal treatment for women who work for themselves, including their assisting spouses.

In Europe, 16% of the active population are self-employed, of which only a third are women. This figure is undoubtedly a result of the innumerable obstacles that businesswomen encounter, not least in terms of juggling their family and professional lives. However, if the 1986 directive did not achieve its goals, the current proposal also lacks ambition.

It is regrettable that the potential of this directive has been reduced in order to reach a political compromise in the Council. Nevertheless, it may be considered a first step towards improving the current situation regarding the social protection given to self-employed workers and assisting spouses. Minimum rules have been created under which, for the first time, the right to maternity benefit will be recognised at Union level, enabling work to be interrupted for at least 14 weeks.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark, Anna Ibrisagic and Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The Swedish delegation within the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) yesterday (18 May 2010) voted against the recommendation for a second reading on the common position of the Council at the first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Directive 86/613/EEC (A7-0146/2010). It is crucial that the Member States work together to ensure equal treatment for men and women so that more women can become self-employed. On the other hand, we do not believe that it is the job of the EU to take decisions on equality policy, which have a far-reaching impact on the public finances of the Member States. That must be for all of the Member States to decide for themselves. Furthermore, we do not believe that women and men are being treated equally if only self-employed women (and not men) are to be guaranteed benefits and parental leave when they become parents. Finally, we would like to highlight the fact that greater equality is one of the EU’s major challenges, and one where Sweden could give inspiration to the other Member States of the Union. In the current economic crisis, it is of the utmost importance that the self-employed be supported and encouraged.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) It has been well over two years since we debated the report on the situation of women in rural areas, when we urged for necessary updates to be made to social protection legislation. The Council is now submitting to us a new type of directive whose scope of application, however, is confined only to agriculture. I do not think that there are any grounds for this restriction. The situation of women in rural areas is extremely hard, especially in the new Member States, and we must be constantly and actively concerned by this. However, when we are talking about self-employed activities, we must not overlook those who are involved in gainful employment in handicrafts, trades, SMEs and the liberal professions.

In addition, I think that those provisions proposed by the Council, which could allow Member States to limit access to social protection schemes, need to be avoided. In compliance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, the directive, in the amended form proposed by Parliament, provides the necessary framework which is conducive to narrowing the disparities between women and men involved in self-employed activities. In this regard, I believe that, on the one hand, maternity protection is vital, based on the entitlement to a minimum of 14 weeks’ leave and to maternity benefit. On the other hand, the right for spouses or life partners to legally set up a company is just as vital.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As a staunch defender of human rights and the principle of equality, I would not undermine initiatives that aim to protect the rights of women in the labour market, as is the case with this report by my dear colleague, Mrs Lulling. As I have already said, ‘Men and women need to be treated fairly, giving them the same rights but taking their respective needs into account. In the case of women, this is particularly pertinent in areas such as maternity support, the reconciliation of work and family life ... ’.

That is why I welcome the fact that I find, amongst other things, concern for the protection of maternity for self-employed workers here. Nonetheless, I am also a staunch advocate of the principle of subsidiarity and believe that many of the subjects being debated must remain under the Member States’ jurisdiction.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that the European Parliament has been making to strengthen social justice and gender equality mechanisms in the European Union. As well as being an incontestable principle of the civilised world, and not least in a Europe that sees itself as culturally and socially developed, ensuring the equal treatment of self-employed men and women – particularly as regards access to social protection mechanisms, above all, those relating to maternity – is becoming even more pressing and obvious during this long period of profound economic and social crisis. I would stress our concern that differences in treatment between areas of activity be eliminated, in the face of well known developments at the levels of both organisation and of tools and mechanisms of work or production. Workers must have the same criteria for accessing public social protection schemes, notably as regards contributions and privileges. I would also stress that this recommendation will definitely strengthen incentives to female business entrepreneurship. The European economy still has much to gain, and many developments to undergo, as a result of stronger and more inclusive participation by women.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) As someone who is particularly sensitive to issues of gender equality and equality in general, including equality of social rights, I welcome the adoption of this report. Indeed, it seems fundamental to me that the Member States should guarantee social protection for self-employed women and assisting spouses and that this protection should be equivalent to that of salaried women. This measure is about boosting the entrepreneurial activity of women in Europe, which is still too hesitant; and, above all, it is about allowing these women to benefit from maternity leave in the same way as women doing another type of job. Maternity leave must be guaranteed in all the Member States and for all women, regardless of their employment. Since this measure is subject to the principle of subsidiarity, let us hope that the Member States will do what has to be done to ensure that these men and women can reconcile family and professional life as quickly and as easily as possible.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I would like to congratulate my fellow Member, Astrid Lulling, on the acceptance of her report, which represents an important step forward in resolving an extremely long-standing problem. The situation of spouses and life partners of self-employed workers – who contribute to the activities and earnings of the business without having the status of an employee or business partner – could not be satisfactorily addressed in the 1986 Council directive. Therefore, it was time to repeal the abovementioned legislation and draw up a new directive recognising the work of assisting spouses and putting them on a par in terms of social security protection with self-employed workers.

Moreover, an important achievement of the rapporteur and the European Parliament is that, compared with the original Council recommendation, the scope of application is no longer confined solely to gainful self-employed activities in the agricultural sector, since this target group also works in small and medium-sized enterprises, for example, or in retail, where they constitute a majority. Although the Council did not accept several important recommendations made by the rapporteur and Parliament – leaving the provision of equal social protection for spouses and life partners up to Member States and allowing Member States to maintain restrictive provisions relating to certain schemes or levels of social security protection – nonetheless, the draft directive as a whole represents a significant step.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I applaud the approval of the proposal for a directive on applying the rule of equality for treatment of men and women who are self-employed. At last, the European Parliament is expressing an opinion on the application of this principle, so symbolic of social and economic progress!

While respecting state prerogatives, I believe there is a need not only to formulate a minimum standard of protection for self-employed women-mothers, as well as for assisting spouses and recognised life partners, but also to make their degree of protection equal to that of women-mothers who are employed, as opposed to self-employed.

It is hoped that the declaration of these rights will be followed by de facto respect for them, and that States will commit to introducing appropriate measures, especially for protecting self-employed women and assisting spouses during pregnancy and motherhood. We must fight discrimination in the workplace in all its forms in order to support female emancipation as well as that of men.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal seeks to ensure equal treatment for self-employed men and women. I therefore see the adoption of this text as an important and very positive step in moving closer to current European legislation on salaried workers, as the fundamental rights of equality and social protection are already protected, and the proposed amendments to the original text are moving in the direction of a general improvement as regards the protection of the spouses of self-employed workers, specifically with respect to the maternity allowance awarded to self-employed women and spouses or recognised partners of self-employed workers. That is why I voted as I did.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report, not just because it is important and will, I believe, affect millions of EU citizens. I know many artists, lawyers and other people who are self-employed and I know that very often, they are assisted by family members, usually a wife or children. The fact that they will now have a right to social protection will doubtless improve their material status, morale and drive to work. This is particularly important for Lithuania, because now at a time when the crisis has hit the Baltic States hard, the material status of many families borders on poverty.

No longer can we look on from the sidelines as self-employed women or men with families experience social injustice. The adoption of this report is a clear signal to the governments of the EU Member States to support the spouses of self-employed people, to guarantee them the right to a pension, paid holidays, maternity or paternity leave and to help them reintegrate into the labour market.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I wish to express my support for Mrs Lulling’s report. The proposal is necessary because of the great gender divide that still exists in the self-employed sector and threatens to become even more pronounced. The proposal also considers that social protection should be provided for assisting spouses, who often make a substantial contribution to the business of self-employed workers, yet completely lack any such protection in many Member States.

The proposal, which aims to provide incentives for women to gain access to the job market and to help in the fight against undeclared employment, brings three main changes to current Community law: the definition of ‘assisting spouse’ is changed to include couples who are not married, where they are recognised by national law; self-employed women and assisting spouses are granted the right to benefit on demand from paid maternity leave lasting at least 14 weeks. The assisting spouse is also granted the right to a social protection scheme on demand.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I believed that adopting this directive is of paramount importance at European Union level, given the current economic and financial crisis we are going through. Taking into consideration the fact that in most Member States, assisting spouses do not enjoy the social security benefits of their spouse, I believed that, in the case where a Member State makes it obligatory for the self-employed to join a social security scheme, this should also be mandatory for their assisting spouses and life partners.

The Council’s position is regrettable in that it does not accept that it should be compulsory for spouses and life partners assisting self-employed workers to join the social protection schemes in those countries where they are recognised as having this status under national law. Given that the large majority are not members of such schemes, they are therefore unaware of the benefits provided by the social security schemes which cover illness, disability and old age.

As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I supported the position that self-employed women, spouses and life partners who decide to have children should enjoy social protection and paid leave and should not be prevented from receiving child allowance, as the Romanian Government is doing.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I am very glad of the fact that today, the European Parliament adopted its position in second reading on the directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Directive 86/613/EEC.

Women play an essential role in sustaining self-employed businesses as owners and assisting spouses or life partners. I welcome Parliament’s decision on the application of the principle of equal treatment between women and men for self-employed workers and their spouses as an important part of EU legislation.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – The ECR Group are strong proponents of working to bridge the gender gap for self-employed workers and their partners. We support the report’s aim, in that we would like to see all countries of the EU offering support and social protection to self-employed workers. However, we do oppose this legislation being made at EU level. The ECR Group has always defended the principle of subsidiarity and strongly believes that Member States should take the lead role in creating and driving employment legislation and social policy. For these reasons, the ECR Group has abstained on amendments 1-17.

Report: Toine Manders (A7-0122/2010)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, Parliament has reiterated the need to obtain a high level of consumer protection throughout the EU, and the importance of harmonising regulations concerning the labelling of textile products, making this obligatory for all items of clothing marketed in Europe. The implementation of a future regulation on the naming of textile products, as well as information on labels about materials, will simplify the existing regulatory framework, making it transparent, clear and advantageous for consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Consumers will be able to use labels to make informed choices about buying products, also based on ethical considerations, such as health, considerations of environmental impact, human rights, and the pay and conditions of workers employed in the manufacturing of textile products. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized enterprises, and the textile industry in general, will be able to protect the quality, design and innovation of their products, all of which will make them more competitive, not just in the European market, but also worldwide. The ‘made in’ labelling would enable consumers not only to obtain additional information about product characteristics, but would also help strengthen the economy by developing new products for many sectors, promoting employment and supporting the fight against counterfeiting as far as products from third countries are concerned.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In this era of globalisation, when products are increasingly the result of a journey through an international assembly line, it is difficult to know their ‘nationality’. In parallel to this phenomenon, consumers want to be able to make purchases in full knowledge of the facts, sometimes favouring articles coming from countries with higher quality standards or social and environmental standards. In this context, I decided to vote in favour of this report since it proposes to make country of origin labelling obligatory. In my opinion, this is essential information that must always be communicated to the consumer. I also support the idea of the European Commission preparing, two years from now, a report, or even a legislative proposal, aimed at the harmonisation of textile labels. Indeed, given the fact that we have shared the same market for decades, why is it that size systems and many other, equally important, items of information still vary from one Member State to another?

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this regulation as I believe that it will provide more clarity both to textile manufacturers and consumers. I welcome the form of regulation chosen, which brings together the separate directives currently in force and so will reduce the administrative burden incurred by Member States when transposing into national legislation the technical adaptations required each time a new fibre name is added to the list. Nevertheless, I feel it is time we began to discuss a revision of the textile labelling system, which would not be an additional burden on manufacturers and would be clearly understood and accepted by consumers. Therefore, I support the proposals adopted in the regulation that the European Commission report should cover such issues as an EU-wide uniform size labelling system for clothing and footwear, an indication of any potentially allergenic or hazardous substances and issues of ecological and social labelling.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Surprising though it may seem, the phrase ‘made in’, which we find on many clothes labels, is not compulsory today and its use varies greatly from one Member State to another. Having considered the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the time-to-market of a new fibre, we used it to remedy this labelling problem. In fact, in the absence of European legislation, there is a risk that products will appear that were manufactured in third countries, but which bear an inscription suggesting that they were manufactured in Europe. The report also calls on the Commission to consider labelling which would give consumers access to information on the social and environmental manufacturing conditions of the products they buy.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Manders, for his hard work in bringing together three complex directives. This report simplifies the existing regulatory framework by ensuring, for example, that a new fibre can be quickly brought to market. For our small and medium-sized enterprises, this means saving on administrative expenditure and profiting more quickly from the sale of new fibres. These measures encourage innovation, an element which is – in my opinion – essential for European companies. Indeed, only with innovative and high quality products can we overcome the fierce worldwide competition and emerge from this difficult time of crisis.

The text also protects consumers, whose interests – I stress – are central to our policies. The adopted rules will ensure clearer and more transparent regulations for European citizens, and will also mean they can benefit more quickly from innovative products. Finally, public health will be better protected: more detailed labelling will provide citizens with information on the origin of yarn and related products.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome this proposal for a regulation, which seeks to simplify and improve the legislative framework currently in force, with the aim of encouraging innovation in the textile and clothing sector, whilst allowing fibre users and consumers to benefit more readily from innovative products. The issue of simplification is essential to promoting innovation in European industry and increasing the amount of information given to consumers. It is also important to find alternative legislation that is less burdensome in terms of procedures and costs when transposing directives. Industry will benefit from the reduced time between the submission of an application and the ability to place the product on the market, meaning savings in administrative costs and the possibility that it will reach the market earlier, increasing sales profits.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At last, we have adopted ‘made in’ regulations in the textile sector. Parliament had already voted in favour of the proposal for a Council Regulation on the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries back in 2005, but this was blocked by the Council. Since it was not a codecision procedure, however, it was not possible to do very much against the opposition of some national governments.

This vote today, though, represents a strong political signal from the Assembly which represents European citizens and now forcefully calls upon the Council to adopt these regulations. This goal is closer today and is also in line with the Treaty of Lisbon goals.

This may only be the first reading of the vote, but it is an important result, the outcome of much work in recent months with colleagues from other national delegations and other political groups. This new regulation protects European consumers who wish to know the origin of textile products, and small and medium-sized enterprises who manufacture them within Member States. This means, for example, that we will no longer be able to state that a product is ‘made in’ a Member State where in fact only 25% of it is made there; today, at least 50% of a product must be made in the ‘made in’ country.

  Lena Ek, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) Broadly speaking, we support our colleague Mr Manders’ report on textile names and related labelling of textile products. That said, we are very critical of mandatory origin marking as we are convinced that it would lead to higher prices for the consumers of Europe, together with inferior conditions and higher costs, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. We believe in free trade, and we therefore believe that it is important not to create greater technical barriers to trade through unnecessary regulation. Instead, we support a voluntary labelling system based on consumer demand for origin marking.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 30 January 2009, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on textile names and related labelling of textile products. The proposal brings together all the existing legislation on textile names and related labelling of textile products in a single regulation. In the words of the rapporteur, the review ‘is essentially a technical exercise without major political implications’.

Nonetheless, we know that the competition faced by European textiles – above all from Chinese products – makes it necessary for more profound measures to be taken on labelling in the future, and that must be the Commission’s task from now on. Furthermore, the challenges that the European Union is facing today make it necessary to improve and strengthen the market, and efforts must therefore be made to remove obstacles to this being fully realised. The harmonisation and simplification of standards relating to textile names meet this objective, since they clarify the information provided to the consumer and so contribute to making the sector more competitive.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The ability to properly identify where and how a product was manufactured and what it is essentially made of is a fundamental prerogative of consumers to ensure their trust and protect their rights; it also introduces an important factor in promoting fair competition in the global textiles market. In this context, the standardisation of how textile products are labelled will benefit the competitiveness of Europe’s textiles and clothing industry, and Portugal’s in particular. I would stress the need for harmonised rules on the indication of the origin of textile products imported from non-EU countries and precise criteria for the use of a ‘made in’ origin marking for products manufactured in the Union, as well as social labelling to keep consumers informed about respect for health and safety standards and human rights. I also consider ecological labelling relating to the environmental performance of textile products important. The introduction of these clearer and more transparent rules on labelling – which include information about non-textile components of animal origin – will also enhance consumers’ ability to differentiate products and their quality.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for this report because of its main thrust, which advocates marks of origin and is concerned with defending the rights of consumers, the workers and the production of our countries’ textile and clothing industries. However, we disagree with some of the details about labelling, notably about overly detailed content regarding fibres, especially when small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are involved because of the costs that could be involved.

Therefore, although we have voted in favour in general, there are proposed details with which we do not agree. We would argue that it needs to be revised or, at the least, that there needs to be provision for aid measures to guard against the problems of SMEs.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The designation of a product’s origin is important so that consumers know the exact source of the product that they are buying. It is not correct to designate a given product as originating in the EU when it is only packaged in an EU country, with the other phases of its production carried out in countries that are not in the EU. The new rules adopted will contribute to greater transparency in international trade and to making things clearer for consumers. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Once again, the organic label promises something quite different to what it actually delivers – one only has to think of the ‘Organic Cotton’ scandal or the recent bio-chemicals fiascos. Firstly, it gives rise to yet another confusion of labels and marks in this organic market – which the EU could sensibly standardise once and for all, something which it usually loves doing – and, secondly, it is high time that the EU accepted genetically modified cotton. If we are waiting for studies into the possible effects of harmful substances, then, in the meantime, labels should at least state that products contain genetically modified cotton.

Moreover, it is high time for the EU to also take care of radio frequency identification (RFID). We cannot apply electronic labels to textiles without the knowledge of those concerned; we still do not have appropriate labelling rules. If pedestrians are to be made visible by means of RFID clothing, it will be possible to monitor people’s every step. As the report also notes this, it received my support in the vote.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report by Mr Manders on origin labelling for textile products, since it resolves a problem that has long threatened our consumers’ freedom of choice. Origin markings are essential to ensure transparency, safety and information for European citizens and, at the same time, to give our enterprises clear, common rules.

The problem does, however, remain open for textile products coming from third countries, our trading partners. I therefore invite my fellow Members to confirm their support for the regulation on origin marking under discussion in the Committee on International Trade. This will protect our consumers and enterprises, with regard not only to textile and clothing products, but also to sectors that are sensitive as far as European economic growth is concerned.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European textile industry has reacted to the great economic challenges of recent years by undertaking a difficult journey of restructuring, modernisation and technological innovation. European enterprises have improved their own position on the global market, concentrating on competitive advantages such as quality, design and technological innovation of those products with the highest added values. European industry plays a key role worldwide in developing new products, hi-tech and unwoven textiles for new applications, and products for cleaning, the car industry or the medical sector.

I welcome the Commission’s proposal for a regulation, as I believe it simplifies the existing regulatory framework for developing and growing new fibres, and has the potential to encourage innovation in the textile and clothing sectors and, at the same time, to enable fibre users and consumers to benefit from innovative products sooner.

Finally, I will express my full support for the ‘Made in’ regulation, as I believe that this is essential for ensuring that consumers have adequate information about the composition and origin of the product they are buying.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We, as greens, have abstained on the final vote of this report mainly because some of the key amendments proposed by the PPE, Liberals and EFD were adopted. In summary, all these amendments go in the direction of widening ‘made in’ provisions.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I did not support the amendments in the Manders report on textile names and related labelling of textile products regarding ‘made in’ (47/49, 48, 12 and 67). These amendments, which seek to impose origin marking for textile products imported from third countries (with the exception of Turkey and the EEA Member States) or to regulate precisely the conditions of voluntary origin marking of textile products manufactured in Europe by means of this regulation, would amount to endangering the adoption, within a reasonable timescale, of this important legislation. The proposal for a regulation on origin marking put forward by the European Commission is still under discussion in the Council and is the subject of a report by the Committee on International Trade.

I am not against transparency and traceability of products for the benefit of the consumer. Nevertheless, as Members of the European Parliament, we have a responsibility to respect certain regulatory frameworks. In my opinion, before adopting the mandatory ‘made in’ indication on the labels of clothes sold in Europe, we should have first made sure that the draft regulation on ‘made in’ labelling included all the necessary guarantees, in particular, in its methods of implementation.

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0058/2010)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – I have supported this document. The relations between the EU and Ukraine have always been very close and based upon a constructive dialogue. The Ukrainian economy, like the economies of the EU Member States, has been hit by the international financial crisis resulting in a dramatic decline in output, a worsening of the fiscal position and an increased need for external financing. Union macro-financial assistance of EUR 500 million should not merely supplement programmes and resources from the IMF and the World Bank but should ensure the added value of EU involvement. However, this assistance can only contribute to economic stabilisation in Ukraine if the main political forces ensure political stability in the country and establish a broad consensus on a rigorous implementation of the necessary structural reforms.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Macro-financial assistance to Ukraine is particularly significant at this time. This assistance may increase EU influence on the formation of Ukrainian policy and help Ukraine to overcome the current deep economic crisis. The Community’s financial assistance shows that Ukraine is strategically important as a potential candidate country for EU accession. The MFA would be provided at a time when the EU is also helping to mobilise financing to support the reform of the Ukrainian energy sector. The Commission and other institutions involved are working together on a support package to the Ukrainian authorities designed to assist in developing a sustainable solution to Ukraine’s medium-term gas transit and gas payment obligations. Even though the proposed MFA is not intended to be directly linked to that package, it would support Ukraine’s economic stabilisation and reforms. I agree with this decision to provide Ukraine with exceptional MFA. Without this assistance, Ukraine would be unable to further integrate fully into many areas of the economy and implement its further objectives.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Ukraine is now paying the price for a severe economic crisis, as well as for protracted political instability, which have allowed the authorities in Kiev to slip behind in the commitments they made to the international financial institutions. It is important for the European Union to be involved in providing assistance to its neighbour on its eastern border at a time when the social situation is deteriorating against the backdrop of a lack of cash flow, which is needed to keep any state running.

Ukraine must have stability. The loan granted by the European Commission, with the approval of the Community legislative, also provides confirmation that Kiev can be considered as a candidate for accession. However, the European Commission must focus, from now on, a great deal of attention on the mechanisms for monitoring the trail of the loan granted to Kiev.

Furthermore, the European Union is in a position to ask Ukraine to tackle more decisively vital reforms which will help consolidate the rule of law. Ukraine’s transition from a state-controlled economy to a market economy is a difficult and painful process, especially for its population. This economic transition must be supported by efforts aimed at institutional reform. Ukraine must grasp the nettle on both fronts, no matter how difficult it might seem at the moment.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of the legislative resolution providing macro-financial assistance to Ukraine, since it will allow the country to address the consequences of the global financial crisis by ensuring that its fiscal and external accounts are sustainable. This response to Ukraine’s request is essential to economic stabilisation, in conjunction with the current International Monetary Fund programme. However, Ukraine needs to take appropriate measures to prevent and fight fraud, corruption and any other irregularities associated with this assistance, as well as providing for controls by the Commission and audits by the Court of Auditors. I am referring here to the memorandum of understanding and the loan agreement to be agreed with the authorities of Ukraine, which will provide for specific measures to be implemented by the country in relation to the prevention of, and the fight against, fraud, corruption and other irregularities affecting the assistance.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I was pleased to vote for Parliament’s proposal providing macro-financial assistance to Ukraine. As a potential candidate for joining the European Union, Ukraine is a privileged partner and must be the target of specific policies aimed at resolving its particular problems. However, macro-financial assistance from the European Union to Ukraine will only contribute to the economic stabilisation of the country if the party-political landscape stabilises and the dominant political forces – which, in recent years, have been too caught up in their little internal wars over power and influence – establish a broad consensus on strictly implementing the structural reforms that the country’s future requires.

It is also absolutely essential for the Ukrainian Government to take action to bring an end to the judicial authorities’ lack of independence, as they are subject to too much influence, not only from the political powers but also from economic actors. Without a free and independent justice system, there can be no rule of law, human rights are not guaranteed, and there is no foreign investment or progress. Any mechanisms set out by the loan agreement must take these factors into account in order to enable the EU institutions to strictly monitor how well it is being implemented.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Ukraine, which is an immediate neighbour of the European Union, also features among the European countries which have been hit hard by the global economic crisis. The crisis’s detrimental impact on the Ukrainian economy is jeopardising not only internal stability, but also that of the region as a whole. I voted in favour of providing macro-financial assistance to Ukraine, which will make a particularly important contribution to creating stability and continuing the economic reforms in this country.

The Commission and the other institutions involved – the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank – must speed up the process of putting together a support package for Ukraine in order to identify and implement a sustainable solution with regard to reforming its economy and, primarily, its energy sector.

Resolving problems relating to the transit of natural gas across Ukrainian territory is strategically important. I think that the inclusion of the gas transit issue on the European Union-Ukraine Association Agenda was welcome. I firmly believe that this cooperation must be consolidated, which also means finding new forms of cooperation. Ukraine must be supported in continuing the reforms to help it progress along the road to European integration, which is in keeping with the European Union’s objectives outlined within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent news of violence between Members of the Ukrainian Parliament has been of concern to the whole of Europe, and clearly reflected the divisions in Ukrainian society, the crossroads at which the country finds itself today and the inescapable role of Russia in the region. I believe that the European Union must not stop pointing out the European way to Ukraine. To this end, the macro-financial assistance that we are currently providing must constitute another sign of getting closer to Ukraine and solidarity with the country, at a time of particular social, economic and financial weakness.

I hope that Ukraine unreservedly undertakes a process of convergence with the European Union, that the proposed association agreement comes into force and strengthens bilateral relations and exchanges, and that the end of this road could be Ukraine’s accession to our common area. I also hope that the need for aid of this type gets progressively less, that Ukraine recovers political stability, that the country manages to rebalance itself socially and renew its commercial fabric, and that it can continue to choose democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Ukrainian economy has been increasingly hit by the international financial crisis, with dramatically declining output, a deteriorating fiscal position and rising external financing needs. EU financial support reflects Ukraine’s strategic importance as a potential candidate country for joining the Union. I therefore voted in favour of giving Ukraine macro-financial assistance in the form of a loan facility with a maximum principal amount of EUR 500 million, with a view to supporting the country’s economic stabilisation and alleviating its balance of payments and budgetary needs, as identified in the current International Monetary Fund programme. I consider it important to help Ukraine return to minimum necessary socio-economic levels and enable the stabilisation of its public accounts, so creating prospects for growth and political confidence. I also agree that monitoring mechanisms should be ensured that increase clarity, transparency and accountability. The European Parliament should be given regular updates on the work of the Economic and Financial Committee.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The macro-financial assistance to Ukraine that is currently being proposed does not constitute a form of genuine, disinterested aid: quite the contrary. Amongst other things, making this assistance conditional on the International Monetary Fund’s requirements and the ‘key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda’ means the following: the establishment of a comprehensive free-trade area between the EU and Ukraine; obedience to the objectives of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy; closer cooperation through military channels in order to tackle matters of common interest; the possible participation of Ukraine in the EU’s Atalanta naval operation; the establishment in Ukraine of a complete and fully operational market economy and the principles of macro-economic stability established by the EU; and the exchange of ‘best practices’ between the EU and Ukraine on reforming the welfare state, with the goal of making Ukraine’s pensions system more sustainable. As a result of everything that is explicitly stated and of everything that can be read between the lines, given the well known meaning of much of the EU language mentioned above, our vote could clearly only be against this proposal. By voting this way, we are also expressing our solidarity with the Ukrainian people.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I endorsed the report on macro-financial assistance to Ukraine. It is an important decision, which means that we will help a very important neighbour of the European Union and Poland.

A loan of EUR 500 million will help Ukraine come out of the financial crisis. I do not suppose I have to persuade anyone that the economic stabilisation of Ukraine and reform of the Ukrainian energy sector lie in the Union’s interests. Whether it will be possible to achieve those objectives depends on the Ukrainians themselves. I am pleased we have shown, today, that we want to work with them and to help.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the financial assistance granted by the European Union to Ukraine as I believe that we must show solidarity, which also means aiding recovery from the current economic crisis. As a neighbouring European country wishing to join the EU in the period ahead, Ukraine must be given a clear political signal which will encourage the authorities to implement the reform measures agreed with the EU.

At the same time, it is important for us Europeans to have prosperous neighbours, with a stable internal political situation, in keeping with European standards and values. In this respect, we hope that the loan provided by the EU to this neighbouring country will be used to help the whole of Ukrainian society. This includes more than half a million Romanians living in Northern Bukovina, Northern Maramureş and Southern Bessarabia. The European Commission must, of course, take every measure to ensure that this exceptional financial assistance is used prudently and in the places where it is needed, in order to achieve the anticipated effects. The terms for granting this assistance must be in line with the major objectives of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda, and the process for using the funds must be subject to rigorous European control, with the European Parliament being briefed on a regular basis.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) It is intolerable that European loans and subsidies are subject to constraints imposed by the IMF. It is unacceptable that the European Commission is setting itself the job of verifying that the policies of the World Bank and the IMF are applied by the Member States that are beneficiaries of them, regardless of the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people.

I am voting against the macro-financial assistance presented today to the European Parliament. It is not the case that I do not support the people of Ukraine. On the contrary, I do not want them to suffer more than they already do from the obsolete and dangerous neoliberal system that the IMF, the World Bank and the European Commission are imposing on them.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The process of economic stabilisation and recovery in Ukraine is supported by the financial assistance of the International Monetary Fund. In the face of its worsening economic prospects, Ukraine has requested macro-financial assistance from the Union. The macro-financial assistance programme is vital for improving the financial stability of European nations that have gone through the recent global crisis and have suffered from the effects of this crisis on their main trading partners. The financial imbalances relate to budgets and the balance of payments. This aid is important in order for Ukraine to tackle the crisis in the most coherent way. The EU must therefore be an area of solidarity. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Ukraine, a major and important partner of the EU amongst its eastern neighbours, has been hard hit by the global economic crisis. For this reason, the provision of macro-financial aid of up to EUR 500 million in the form of a loan under the Commission proposal should be approved. This funding was to cover the country’s general balance of payments requirement and its external financing gap, as determined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Ukraine is to be supported in strengthening its long-term macro-economic stability, as it is also an important trading partner for the EU. For me, however, it was also important that the aid granted from the EU budget not only conforms to the IMF programme but also to the most important principals and objectives of EU policy towards Ukraine. Thanks to the EU’s help, further necessary structural reforms have been set in train in Ukraine on the basis of a positive conditionality. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Moreira. The proposed macro-financial assistance aims to supplement the IMF support provided as part of the stand-by framework agreement, as well as the support of the World Bank, which should take the form of loans granted to the budget support policy.

The macro-financial assistance programme sets out to complement other financing from the Union. The Union’s financial help reflects the strategic importance of Ukraine as a potential candidate for EU membership. MFA is granted at a time when the EU is also participating in the mobilisation of finances to reform Ukraine’s energy sector. I agree with the rapporteur’s aim of improving the clarity, transparency and documentability of the proposed project.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D), in writing. – Nobody disputes that Ukraine is our ‘strategic partner’ whose situation is of great interest to us. Today, Ukraine stands at a crossroads economically, given its difficult situation, and politically, with a new government that favours closer relations with Russia. Helping Ukraine by making EUR 500 million available is therefore the right decision strategically, which we will support. However, tactically, is there not a discrepancy between the level of financial support – a mere half billion compared to other schemes involving tens of billions in financial support – and the control over Ukraine’s economic policy we want to achieve in exchange?! The EU does, of course, have strict rules that beneficiaries of its financial support have to respect, no matter the sums of money they receive, but sometimes, especially when the level of that support is relatively low, maintaining the same high conditionality reflects a political inflexibility which only diminishes the effectiveness of this instrument, especially at a time when others are much more flexible in their support.

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE), in writing. – In my capacity of EURONEST Vice-President, I voted in favour of the macro-financial assistance for Ukraine. I hope it will be swiftly delivered in conformity with the conditions underlying the provision. I welcome, in particular, the involvement of the European Parliament in this decision-making process as a consequence of the enactment of the Treaty of Lisbon provisions. The macro-financial assistance for Ukraine is the first case to be decided under the new procedure. Meanwhile, the delay registered in the decision-making process due to the new procedure is regrettable.

I urge the EU institutions to build upon the experience of granting Ukraine macro-financial assistance and avoid further delays. Our Eastern Partners should be spared unnecessary delay. I refer in particular to the case of the Republic of Moldova and its pro-European government, which is still waiting for the delivery of the EU macro-financial assistance. While the Republic of Moldova is in urgent need of assistance, the proposal of the European Commission is already unacceptably late. It will be submitted to the European Parliament only this week. I call upon all EU institutions to avoid further delay in deciding on the macro-financial assistance for the Republic of Moldova.

Report: Luís Paulo Alves (A7-0054/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Our nine outermost regions (the Azores, the Canaries, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Madeira, Martinique, Réunion, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin) are a real asset for the European Union. Since their remoteness handicaps their development, the European Union must adopt specific compensatory measures. Thus, in Réunion, for example, it must be possible to produce UHT milk reconstituted from powdered milk for human consumption. The valuable exemption granted to Madeira must be extended to Réunion, which shares this characteristic of very significant geographical remoteness. I therefore voted in favour of this report with the objective of introducing, extending or adapting the existing exemptions for the Azores, the Canary Islands, Réunion and Madeira in the sugar, milk and wine sectors.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The outermost regions face greater challenges because of geography, which places them far from the centre of the Union. I therefore welcome the adoption of specific measures in the area of agriculture to help these regions in the current economic crisis. In particular, I would stress the specific nature of the regions of the Azores and Madeira, and I welcome the main measures adopted. These measures are related to the introduction, extension or adaptation of certain derogations in the sugar, milk and wine sectors. It is important to stress that it is essential to have an integrated strategy for the outermost regions, without forgetting that each of them has its own specificity: it is important to find the best responses for each different region. Several existing EU instruments, such as regional strategies and the European Neighbourhood Policy, should be highlighted, as should the importance of our continuing to debate strategic guidelines for the outermost regions, so as to raise awareness amongst decision makers of these regions’ specificities and potentials.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) There is more than just one outermost region. Each island, each territory has its own specific character, identity and problems. The report that we have just adopted will allow the introduction of certain exemptions in the area of agriculture to help the outermost regions. As an example, the people of Réunion will now be able to produce UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder of EU origin, thus compensating for the insufficient production of fresh milk. The Azores, meanwhile, will benefit from an exemption from the rules limiting sugar exports to the EU, since the production of sugar beets represents the most viable alternative for the island – for both its economy and its environment – when milk quotas end. These exemptions will help the outermost regions. That is a good thing, and it is why we would like them to be guaranteed in the long term. This is what we expect of the Commission.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the proposal for a regulation laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the European Union. As well as providing an opportunity for agricultural diversification, the adoption of this report means that the ban on re-exporting certain products has been lifted. At a time of economic crisis, this is a decisive contribution to restructuring and maintaining, not only many dozens of jobs in the Azores, but also activity in the region’s sugar industry.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal envisages amendments to Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union. The changes are related to the sugar, milk and wine sectors. I congratulate the rapporteurs involved on the quality of their work. One of the basic principles of the current multiannual financial framework and the next financial perspectives must be the principle of solidarity; social and territorial cohesion must be ensured in this way. We all know about the natural difficulties against which the outermost regions of the European Union struggle because of their geographic location and conditions, resulting in negative effects on their economic activity and productive capacity. The proposed amendments are in line with this principle of solidarity, so I support them.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The budget underlying this report – which is made explicit in the first item of the compromise proposal’s preamble, accepting an end to dairy quotas – is unacceptable to us, which is why we voted against. In fact, bringing an end to quotas will – as the adopted report admits, presenting it as a fait accompli – have extremely serious effects on the milk sector in the Azores, and for the region’s entire dairy sector.

The consequences of abolition of the milk quotas for the region’s economy – against which we have fought and will continue to fight – will not be mitigated with the measures aimed at the sugar-processing industry that are being proposed now, considering that the re-exporting of sugar is being prolonged. This is a fair goal. It is weakened from the start when it is accepted that this measure, too, will be gradually abolished over a five-year period.

As far as Madeira is concerned, the process of reconverting vines is significantly behind schedule and could even be compromised if the incentives are not strengthened. The negative consequences for the region of the so-called ‘Geneva Agreement’ on the banana trade are also being ignored. Another issue that it would be important to consider is the possibility of aid to stimulate an inter-island market for the sale of local agricultural products.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the final text, which was pushed through urgently, since the application of these different exemptions for Réunion, the Azores, the Canaries and Madeira was key to ensuring the protection of jobs and the continuation of agricultural activities, in particular, milk production in Réunion. However, I voted against the compromise proposed by the European Commission and the Council since the latter was making proposals that fell far short of the measures that we had proposed and which had been adopted by the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Agriculture.

It is regrettable that the quotas for sugar exports have not been kept at 3 000 tonnes for the Azores, that the exemption granted to Réunion for milk production has not been considered for the other French overseas departments, and that the safeguards concerning the sustainability of the results achieved by the Réunion milk producers have not been upheld by the Commission. I would put all of these questions back on the table during the negotiations that will deal with the reform of the POSEI programme.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The outermost regions are usually characterised by a low population, small size, stagnation and difficult economic conditions. They are regions which are strongly dependent on climatic and geographical conditions, and whose access to products and services is based on cooperation with the mainland of the Union. Assistance for these regions should be permanently guaranteed, just as the difficulties which the people of outermost areas have to overcome are permanent. In order to guarantee these regions development of enterprise, stimulation of professional activity and the same level in the agriculture sector as in the whole of Europe, we need to introduce new legislative concessions – and continue with those which already exist – adapted to the needs of specific regions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The economic and social development of the outermost regions of the European Union is conditioned by their extreme remoteness and insularity, their small size, difficult terrain and climate, and their economic dependence on a small number of products. As these factors, taken together, severely restrict their development, there is provision in Article 349 of the Treaty of Lisbon for specific measures to benefit the outermost regions, which must be put into practice through appropriate initiatives that seek to respond to their specific needs, not least in the agricultural and fishing sectors. The main amendments are related to the introduction, extension or adaptation of certain derogations in the sugar, milk and wine sectors. We are voting in favour of these measures because of all these constraints and the international crisis that is devastating us. That is why I voted as I did.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution (A7-0056/2010), because the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, namely rural development policy, is extremely important for improving the effectiveness of the CAP itself, but also for facilitating the management of land which has natural handicaps. The document which has been drafted by the rapporteur is very necessary, not only for us, but for the whole of the European Union. We must have information about land which, for reasons not dependent on the owners, cannot be used effectively or well. I agree with the rapporteur in his assessment of the review, which began in 2005, of criteria for classifying disadvantaged areas. The previous criteria for support of these areas must be modified so that they reflect actually existing handicaps. It should also be remembered that there are areas which come under specific criteria but where the handicaps have now been removed due to the application of effective measures. It is Member States which should be responsible for identification of less-favoured areas and for development of aid and development programmes. Of course, all measures must be based on a Community framework.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission’s proposal, as improved by the rapporteur, makes provision for some changes to previous Community law, specifically to Regulation No 247 of 2006. The main changes concern the introduction, extension and adaptation of some derogations in the sugar, milk and wine sectors. I believe that the proposed changes are positive for the outermost areas concerned.

The situation is very difficult, especially in some areas whose main economic sectors have been hit by the recent crises (dairy sector in the Azores, sugar beet, etc.). It would therefore be advisable to encourage the diversification of economic activities. However, to encourage such diversification, producers and transformers must be offered long-term prospects, and economic operators must be allowed to reach an appropriate level of industrial and commercial activity. In view of the system outlined by the rapporteur and the amendments presented by my colleagues from the relevant Committee, I declare myself in favour of the report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development on the report by Mr Alves, I am satisfied with the road we have started down with a view to a quicker, more effective adjustment of the maximum export quantities for products included in the arrangements for supply from the outermost regions. The framework for this report is Article 349 of the Treaty of Lisbon, in which there is provision for aid for the outermost regions to overcome permanent difficulties resulting from their geographic situation, topography and climate.

The provisions of this regulation must address the specific needs of these regions and the realities of the local market. It was this objective that I had in mind when drafting my proposals, which the European Commission has committed to revisit during the general review of this regulation that is still to be undertaken in 2010.

I was also concerned with safeguarding the incomes of Madeiran and Azorean producers of wine from hybrid varieties banned by the common organisation of the market in wine, enabling them to continue growing these varieties for consumption by their families, which means that they are not forced to grub them up. As I was hoping, the compromise resulting from the trialogue between Parliament, the Commission and the Council was confirmed by a large majority in Parliament today.

Report: Helga Trüpel (A7-0134/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Trüpel report on the 2011 budget is a new stage in the European Parliament’s budget adoption procedure. In March, Parliament adopted the guidelines for 2011. The aim here is to adopt the draft estimates, which follow the negotiations that took place between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau of the European Parliament, which is the body responsible for the matter. I supported this report, which notably provides for the adoption of the second instalment of the EUR 1 500 per month increase in parliamentary assistance allowance, the financing of the 18 new MEPs as they take office, the improvement of support services provided for MEPs (policy departments, library services), and the increase in the number of visitors that each MEP can sponsor financially from 100 to 110 per year. These various provisions are in keeping with the European Parliament’s new responsibilities granted by the Treaty of Lisbon: henceforth, as colegislators with ministers of the Member States on almost all European competences, MEPs must be able to benefit from in-depth technical expertise on legislative matters, but also to inform citizens of their work, in particular, by receiving them in Parliament in Strasbourg or Brussels.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI), in writing. – (DE) I voted against Mrs Trüpel’s report. In so doing, I am coming out very clearly against the increase in the secretarial allowance and any increase in the number of officials here in the European Parliament. The argument that the Treaty of Lisbon will bring more work for MEPs must be proven first.

Should this be the case, the solution in these times of exploding state debts, however, can only be more efficiency, not more bureaucracy. There is an enormous potential for greater efficiency in this House, and it would be easy to also increase performance with a smaller staff and less funding.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As I have said before, under the Treaty of Lisbon, the amount of matters to be dealt with by Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure will increase. Adequate technical and logistical means are necessary in order for the work to be carried out quickly and efficiently.

Taking into account the future enlargement of the European Union and the need to better inform the public about the work of this House, it is therefore necessary to allocate funds that will make it possible to work efficiently in 2011, so that the Union’s entire legislative process does not become slower because Parliament is underfunded.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In line with the policies that I have been advocating, I consider the adoption of the policy of zero-based budgeting at the beginning of each parliamentary term important. As a result, Parliament’s budget will reflect real needs and will increase transparency, budgetary discipline and efficiency. I also advocate a distinction between fixed and variable costs, with the latter justified by a cost-benefit analysis. This cost-benefit analysis is important to ensure better results and resource management. New competences were assigned when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force and the inclusion of 18 new Members makes it necessary to create conditions that enable them to exercise their mandate in a fitting, effective way. I would stress that excellence in law making must be Parliament’s main priority. This House must be provided with the resources necessary for it to operate properly; all the more so in this very demanding time that we are experiencing, in which EU institutions have a crucial role to play for Europeans and society in general.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We, as Greens, have voted in favour of the report by our colleague, Helga Trüpel. All amendments tabled to the report were rejected. The estimates of the EP for the year 2011 are thus forwarded to the Commission for inclusion in the draft budget proposal for 2011. As to the assistants’ allowance second tranche increase for 2011, this means that the appropriations are currently entered in reserve pending a detailed financial statement of all related costs. Parliament can come back to this issue at the first reading of the 2011 budget in September/October. As to the first tranche of the secretarial allowance increase for 2010, this will be voted tomorrow as part of the Maňka report on the amending budget No 1/2010. Here we are already in the budget procedure proper and the vote here will constitute the final result.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) We have managed to get used to the fact that the European Parliament budget reflects complicated compromises between the European Parliament and other EU institutions, and also – indirectly – between the European Union and Member States.

Next year may turn out to be particularly difficult in this respect, if we look at the importance and scale of the work which awaits Parliament. For, on the one hand, Parliament is faced with having to adapt to new conditions which result from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and from enlargement of the EU with Croatia – I need only mention the 18 new Members, the 68 additional posts and the 62 posts linked to the Croatian enlargement. On the other hand, Parliament’s budget is not going to rise significantly in comparison with 2010 (5.5%), which raises the question as to how to reconcile this figure with the new reality. In this context, I welcome the proposal, which is repeated throughout the report, for spending to be planned prudently.

Like the author of the document, I think it is necessary to review the level of subsidies given to employees’ families, to increase employment in the library only after a thorough analysis of MEPs’ needs and to ensure the security of Parliament’s staff at a sensible cost and based on the principle of openness towards the ordinary citizen. Parliament remains too closed as an institution and, as far as is possible, we should increase financing for projects such as the House of European History and tours of Parliament.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has meant that the European Parliament’s powers have increased, which naturally means new funds to meet the increased needs. That being the case, this estimate of the budget for 2011 represents a 5.8% increase compared to the financial year 2010, in an attempt to ensure that Parliament is able to fully make use of and exercise its prerogatives.

The budget for 2011 will increase to EUR 1 710 574 354, of which 20.32% will be for Heading 5 (administration), allowing the political objectives to be reconciled with the respective finance. This budgetary proposal includes provisions relating to representation for Croatia, to extra funds for Members’ secretarial services, to extra jobs, to an increase in the annual number of visitors that Members can invite, to the reduction in Parliament’s carbon footprint, and to financing for the House of European History and the Visitors Centre.

This report reflects a sensible budget, aimed at a policy of the sustainability of Parliament. However, it does not fail to have a rigorous approach to the effective use of available resources.

Report: Richard Ashworth (A7-0051/2010)

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. – We voted against this report in accordance with UKIP principles and on the basis that we support legislation only where it limits the power of the EU or returns it to nation states. Any amendments which we felt unnecessarily harmed British farmers were not supported, as were any amendments that expanded EU control in this sector. UKIP will continue to defend the interests of British farmers against EU interference, as we feel the British agricultural sector is perfectly capable of running its own affairs, and already has high standards of both quality and safety. UKIP opposes the British taxpayer being forced to subsidise farms in other parts of Europe which compete with our own farmers. UKIP is committed to trade in agricultural produce under the terms of WTO rules.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The administrative burden placed on farmers must be reduced and the excessive bureaucracy that is often involved in agricultural affairs must be cut back. Farmers should be able to focus on their primary responsibility: producing high quality products.

I voted in favour of the provisions of this report that relate to removing the current duplication and that relate to improving flexibility. I also agree with the report’s statements in relation to legislation in this sector; that is, that this legislation should be proportional to the objective and that no legislation should be brought in until an assessment is made of the legislation’s impact as regards its potential financial burden. Excessive bureaucracy must be cut back if we are to achieve an efficient, competitive agricultural sector in Europe.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this document as I believe it is necessary to continue the simplification of the regulation and the provisions of the common agricultural policy that started back in 2005. Farmers and other economic operators in the agricultural sector should be freed from red tape and requirements that are not necessary to reach political objectives and ensure proper management of taxpayers’ money. Simplifying the CAP is essential to making our agricultural economy more competitive, preserving and creating jobs and contributing to a sound development of our rural areas. A high level of errors in applications has been recorded in some Member States and this makes it difficult for farmers to receive assistance on time. Member States should place at the disposal of potential beneficiaries systems that are simple, clear and transparent. Therefore, I call on the Commission to include this matter in the bilateral discussions with the Member States.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Three years on from the CAP reform, we are now wondering how to adapt our agricultural policy to today’s challenges. The own-initiative report offers useful and widely shared suggestions for achieving the aim of an agricultural sector that combines quality and competitiveness. We must welcome the spirit of this report positively, because with this report, Parliament is calling for the introduction of a new CAP in 2013 that cuts down on bureaucracy for farmers. Any measure capable of reducing the administrative procedures and burdens that weigh down agricultural producers – not to mention the local authorities concerned – and that does not compromise quality standards definitely deserves our support. A report such as this, which is attentive to the needs of farmers, including the need to ensure that they are not hampered by excessive bureaucratic burdens, will certainly be a useful contribution to the process of reforming the common agricultural policy which, for obvious reasons, is bound to be a complex and very sensitive process for the future of the European economy, and for the protection of the countless varieties of traditional local produce. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Farming has always been close to the heart of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), and we consider it a fundamental sector of the European economy. However, our farmers have too long been overwhelmed by bureaucratic and administrative burdens: it is time to lighten their load.

I am, in fact, convinced that simplifying the bureaucratic procedures to be adopted with the CAP reform from 2013 is not merely desirable, but necessary. I therefore think it is right to simplify the rules for the electronic identification of animals, and to create a telephone helpline in every EU Member State to provide better access to information. In addition, it is essential to rebuild trust between authorities and farmers.

Farmers, moreover, must no longer spend their days filling in forms and declarations, but tending their fields, and thus supplying better agricultural products that comply with higher standards. I therefore voted in favour of these measures, which form part of the process of simplifying bureaucracy, boldly supported by my parliamentary group, which offers a substantial response in times of crisis.

  David Campbell Bannerman (EFD), in writing. – We voted against this report in accordance with UKIP principles and on the basis that we support legislation only where it limits the power of the EU or returns it to nation states. Any amendments that we felt unnecessarily harmed British farmers were not supported, as were any amendments that expanded EU control in this sector. UKIP will continue to defend the interests of British farmers against EU interference, as we feel the British agricultural sector is perfectly capable of running its own affairs, and already has high standards of both quality and safety. UKIP opposes the way CAP has historically been used in corrupt ways (e.g. phantom vineyards) or the way it is used to top-up the income of certain politicians in EU countries who own ‘farms’. UKIP also objects to being forced to subsidise farms in other parts of Europe, which compete with our own farmers. UKIP is committed to trade in agricultural produce, under the terms of WTO rules.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. – UKIP voted against the report on simplification of the CAP because, although the implementation of the report would make the policy more comprehensible, transparent and workable, simplifying farm inspection, adding to flexibility to payment arrangements and making it more farmer friendly, to do so is to keep the CAP on track and potentially help to extend it for another generation! UKIP therefore voted against the resolution as a whole, especially as it is without legislative impact.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on simplifying the common agricultural policy, and I congratulate Mr Ashworth and the shadow rapporteurs on the excellent work they have carried out. We must take action to simplify the bureaucratic procedures and requirements imposed on farms, in order to reduce their costs and, at the same time, increase their competitiveness and legal certainty. We often forget that, although they produce a staple product, farms too are businesses whose competitiveness suffers as a result of excessive bureaucracy.

For this very reason, I think reports like this are important, because they underline the problems that arise due to conditionality, or over-complicated procedures, whilst also proposing solutions to simplify and improve what is still, after all, the most important EU programme, at least in financial terms. I believe that, by voting in favour of this report, Parliament has taken another step towards a CAP that is more up-to-date, efficient and economical and that is, above all, able to ensure that Europe’s food requirements will be met not merely today but also in years to come.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Farmers have always been the most ardent and steadfast supporters of European Union integration. They firmly believe that the CAP still is a common policy in the true sense of the term. In a globalised world, the European Union, with its Community market, must take uniform action in order to guarantee food supply security and promote renewable resources. It must also combat climate change and step up its research effort in order to make the best use of the opportunities that research can offer.

The potential cuts to the CAP budget would cause considerable social and economic disruption, thereby preventing agriculture from coping with the challenges of the future. It is important for us to understand that farmers’ incomes are dependent on direct payments, even though these alone do not provide farmers with a decent standard of living. The average agricultural income in the EU, including all direct payments, only amounts to half the average salary paid in the remaining economic sectors.

I believe that reducing direct payments as part of Pillar I of the CAP would have devastating consequences not only for farmers, but just as much for rural areas, as well as for public services related to agricultural production, for consumers and for society benefiting from these payments as a whole. Direct payments are therefore vital and must be maintained.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In general, I voted in favour of the efforts to simplify the common agricultural policy (CAP). This simplification should benefit farmers, enabling them to concentrate on producing safe, quality food, and also the national and EU authorities, by reducing the bureaucratic burden associated with implementing the CAP.

The CAP is of vital importance to the EU, both because it ensures the production of safe food and because of its concern for preserving the environment or rural areas, with a view to properly sustainable development. Simplification has to mean greater responsibility for all the actors involved.

I would therefore stress the need to transform the CAP into a simpler, fairer and more transparent instrument. To start with, I would highlight the proposal to create a uniform system of animal identification. This system must include the possibility of self-certification, the reduction of inspection quotas to limits lower than those currently in place, and the issue of the traceability of meat from sheep and goats; I am referring specifically to the proposal for herd identification for livestock. Finally, the necessary reform of the CAP will have to distinguish between supporting individual farmers or cooperatives of such individuals, and leaving big agri-food companies at the mercy of the markets.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The draft report on simplifying the common agricultural policy is a further step towards making the CAP simpler and more efficient. We must, of course, do much more to boost the competitiveness of European agriculture, retain and create additional jobs and support the natural development of rural areas. In this context, I would like to mention the issue of direct payments in border regions, where there is unfair competition and discrimination based on the place of registration of agricultural entities.

In neighbouring regions of Member States with differing price levels, there are indications of massive economic action on the part of some agricultural entities in response to these price differences. An agricultural entity which gets higher prices in its country of origin does business in another country (with lower direct prices) at lower production costs and records the sales on the other side of the border. In this way, agricultural entities in countries with lower direct prices are discriminated against and economically disadvantaged on the local market, while agricultural entities from Member States with higher direct prices secure an economic advantage on the market as a result of EU policies. For these reasons, it is necessary to take account of the implications for prices when reforming the CAP; that is, comparing the place of production to the place where the direct prices are recorded. Through this regulation, we will also contribute towards creating a new and fair market in agriculture. I am in favour of the report submitted.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I consider the simplification of the common agricultural policy crucial to the competitiveness of EU agriculture, the preservation of jobs and the sustainable development of Europe’s rural areas. The rules for checks must be simplified and made more accessible to farmers through help and advice by national bodies, in order to ensure that the quality of European agricultural products does not bring about unnecessary burdens and additional difficulties for actors linked to agricultural activity.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The simplification of legislation is a goal that is essential to bringing Europe closer to the public. Simple and perceptive policies are necessary for those who have not mastered the Union’s code and do not speak ‘Europese’. That is why a policy as fundamental and permanent as the common agricultural policy (CAP) must be understood by its main beneficiaries; in this case, European farmers.

I would therefore acknowledge how right the rapporteur is in saying that ‘a new CAP should allow farmers to concentrate on the core objective of providing safe, quality and traceable food while also supporting them to deliver non-market public goods’. I hope that the new CAP will be simpler, more transparent and fairer; that it will be better aimed at the needs of farmers and the market; and that its processes will be faster and less bureaucratic, but secure and effective. Legal certainty does not require complexity or sluggish processes, but rather simplicity and effectiveness. That is exactly what we want for the new CAP.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The common agricultural policy (CAP) must, on the one hand, ensure an adequate supply of safe food and, on the other, respond to such challenges as the conservation of rural areas, mountain regions, disadvantaged areas and the multifunctionality of European agriculture. The harmonisation of legislation must be accompanied by the elimination of redundancy. It is to be hoped that the target of a 25% reduction in the administrative burden will be reached ahead of 2012. The CAP must be simplified, as that will make our agricultural economy more competitive, so preserving and creating jobs and contributing to the sustainable development of our rural areas. Simplification of the CAP must benefit farmers first and foremost and not only the national authorities and payment bodies in the Member States. Farmers must have access to workable systems that allow them easily, and without needless bureaucracy, to submit applications for direct payments in the place in which they live. This simplification must go hand-in-hand with simplification of its implementation, and the Member States must minimise the bureaucratic formalities required of beneficiaries, especially in the area of rural development. Greater flexibility is needed, so we are advocating the authorisation of more flexible payment arrangements even before all checks have been definitively completed.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report has positive aspects, of which we would stress the following: the simplification of the common agricultural policy (CAP) must not mean less aid for framers and the dismantling of traditional instruments for managing markets; the need to amend the fines, not least when they relate to offences that are not the producer’s responsibility; the simplification of the application process; and very positive amendments regarding animal identification, particularly of sheep and goats.

Nonetheless, the approach proposed by the rapporteur is largely aimed at the market, at competitiveness, at ‘reducing excessive protectionism’, and at going further with liberalisation, with its well known and disastrous consequences. The report also continues to support the current model for distributing aid. It states that ‘the distribution of the single farm payment should ensure fairness’, but does not propose specific measures to achieve this goal.

It expresses its belief that the current definition of agricultural activity for the purposes of single payment should be reviewed, but proposes nothing to amend the current model in which people are paid to not produce. In summary, the report lacks proposals and measures to change the CAP model in force, to begin with (but not only) as far as the distribution of aid is concerned.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I fully agree that the simplification of the CAP should not result in less support for farmers and should not lead to the dismantling of traditional market management instruments. Furthermore, I agree with a deferral on the obligation of electronic sheep tagging.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Simplifying the principles which define the operation of the common agricultural policy is extremely important. The CAP should not be reduced just to the distribution of money. Personally, I would like greater resources to be directed to individual agricultural investors, who could more effectively modernise farms and expand production. However, increasing the financing of direct payments is, in my opinion, a way to retain poverty in the most backward regions, which supports people who, in reality, are not connected with agriculture and hinders the restructuring of agriculture. Only subsidising ‘real’ farmers – producers of healthy food and high quality products – can guarantee security in this area for Europe and the world.

  Cornelis de Jong, Kartika Tamara Liotard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I have voted against the Ashworth report on simplification of the CAP (A7-0051/2010), because of Paragraph 12. Farmers do not need more EU direct support; they need fairer prices for their products.

However, I do agree with the essence of the report. The CAP is overly complicated and unnecessarily burdensome on farmers, Member States and decentralised governments and authorities. There is a great need to relieve this administrative burden and reduce bureaucracy, especially in these times of crisis.

Furthermore, there should be a possibility of error correction for farmers who have, unintentionally or due to factors beyond their control, committed infringements and are penalised as a result of this, as well as a greater transparency regarding these penalties.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The common agricultural policy is an essential element of the European Union, whether we are talking about providing food for our citizens or about conserving and protecting mountain regions and rural areas, as well as the outermost or disadvantaged regions. I voted for this report because I support the need to simplify the CAP. It has to be results-orientated and offer a greater capacity to respond. I also think that closer cooperation is needed between Member States and local authorities in terms of exchanging good practices. At the same time, farmers must be kept well informed and be given more assistance by the authorities.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Agriculture is one of the main resources in Europe, but it is also the sector that is most burdened by the grinding wheels of EU bureaucracy. Neither must we underestimate the impact of climatic and environmental factors that are, by their very nature, hard to predict and force the farming world to face new and difficult challenges due to the global changes that are taking place.

Against this backdrop, the European Parliament considers it indispensable to bear in mind that the goal of reducing administrative burdens by 25% set out in the 2003 programme is not enough and also not ambitious enough, given that we will probably achieve it before the deadline of 2012. Parliament also believes it must suggest urgent strategies to the Commission and the Council for further reducing the burdens oppressing our farmers.

The proposals in this parliamentary resolution also aim to anticipate the redrafting of the CAP in the light of the EU 2020 strategy. This step is crucial for ensuring growth in this sector, and for ensuring that its financial allocation is maintained, in view of the erosion of EU resources that is foreseeable for 2013.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report has the merit of pointing out that the public service alone guarantees the independence and impartiality of inspections and of stressing the idea of agriculture as a public good. The insistence on the traceability of foodstuffs is also important, although clear labelling on their environmental footprint is more likely to raise awareness among all citizens (producers and consumers) of the importance of relocation and of the environmental quality of produce.

The determination shown in the report to simplify the administrative rules of the common agricultural policy is also important. However, the fact that the CAP is considered only from the perspective of competitiveness and neoliberalism, in the direct tradition of the policies implemented by the European Union in the last few years, prevents me from voting in favour. I am therefore abstaining on this text as a sign of goodwill for the progress made in the intentions shown.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is essential to simplify the common agricultural policy if the goal of a 25% reduction in the agricultural sector’s administrative burden is to be achieved by 2010. Bureaucracy is a serious impediment for farmers, who neglect their daily activities in the fields because they waste a great deal of time on red tape. Furthermore, the new amendments will also mean a reduction of hundreds of millions of euro in the administrative burden borne by farmers, with palpable benefits, especially if we take into account the difficult economic situation that we are experiencing. The simplification of standards and of checking mechanisms is essential for farmers, who must ensure the food supply for 500 million people at a reasonable price. That is why I voted as I did.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, which contains important provisions aimed at removing the red tape which affects Europe’s farmers, especially at the moment when agriculture is being hit very hard by the financial crisis. I would like to thank my fellow Members who voted for the amendments I tabled, thereby retaining the text already approved in committee.

I am referring mainly to Amendment 49 relating to the high level of errors in applications submitted for direct payments registered in some Member States, which also highlights that these errors are attributable mainly to the orthophotographic equipment used rather than to the farmers themselves. I am also referring to Amendment 65 concerning the deferment of the obligation on the electronic identification of sheep and goats starting from 2010, due to its excessive cost in the present economic crisis.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal to simplify the CAP is part of the wider process of reducing bureaucratic procedures, a process initiated some time ago by various EU Member States, to ensure more efficient and accessible services for citizens.

This reform is also necessary for the agricultural sector, to allow farmers to save time and money, and to have access to the benefits under the system of conditionality and direct payments, as well as with regard to some aspects of rural development and methods of identification for reared animals.

At the present time, with the debate for the post-2013 CAP already under way, this proposal for simplification represents a test bench that can be used to highlight opportunities and threats and form the basis of a proposal for European agriculture in the future. For the reasons I have expressed above, I voted in favour of the report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report on the simplification of the common agricultural policy (CAP) examines an issue that has been of serious concern to farmers, who are the main beneficiaries of the CAP, and also to the European public in general, who find the CAP hard to understand because of the complexity of its mechanisms. The simplification measures are therefore recognised as necessary and urgent by everyone. It is essential that these measures have a direct impact on farmers and not just on each Member State’s administration, as has very often been the case. The elimination of the market management instruments cannot be put forward as one of the means of simplification.

One thing that the simplification needs to address is the need to eliminate discriminations in the single payment scheme in the various Member States, which are problems that result from the inefficiency of national administrations, such as checks, deadlines, payments, etc. Eliminating these discriminations will prevent us having a multi-speed CAP that encourages inequalities between the farmers of the various Member States.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Ashworth report in favour of a simpler common agricultural policy which is also easier for farmers to understand. Administering the common agricultural policy is often excessively complicated. Consequently, it is of paramount importance to the whole agricultural sector to simplify it and make farmers’ lives easier. The rules proposed by the European Commission are, on many occasions, extremely difficult to implement and there is a very high level of bureaucracy in Member States with regard to applying agriculture legislation. In particular, the animal identification legislation must be reviewed to make it more flexible and less bureaucratic. Current legislative provisions in this area are far too rigid and counter-productive on many occasions.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The simplification of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is crucial to making Europe’s agricultural economy more competitive, preserving jobs and encouraging their creation, and contributing to the development of rural areas. It seems essential to me for the Commission to seek to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles at the same time as proposing new regulations in this area.

The simpler the legislation is, the easier it is for interested parties to understand, be they farmers, national and regional authorities, or bodies for monitoring the application of funds. In the same way, the less time these actors need to prepare applications, the fewer errors they will make. The cost of monitoring financing will also be lower.

Simplification is also needed in the monitoring of how funds are used, and outside audits seem to me to be the most efficient way of doing this. Fines must be applied in a way that is transparent and proportional, and must also take into account the size of the farm and the local situation, not least in the outermost regions such as Madeira. I voted for this report in the Chamber today because it attempts to tackle these issues. We must now ensure that there is better coordination between agricultural policy and cohesion policy in the general review of the CAP.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) By endorsing this document, we have given expression to our determination over simplification of the common agricultural policy. This process is essential to guarantee the right level of competitiveness in the European agricultural sector. It is obvious that by harmonising regulations, reducing bureaucratic burdens and restricting costs, we have the chance for a simpler, fairer and more understandable common agricultural policy. However, it should be remembered that the intended addressees of the simplifications should not only be the authorities and national bodies which manage the agriculture sector but, first and foremost, the farmers, who are excessively burdened with regulations.

Report: Heide Rühle (A7-0151/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report presented by Mrs Rühle is an own-initiative report aimed at studying ways of improving public procurement procedures in Europe, in order to obtain a more stable and transparent legal framework. The incorrect application of the rules on public procurement is, in fact, one of the most frequent causes of errors in the payment of the European Structural Funds. I support the main points made by the own-initiative report: a call for better coordination of public procurement procedures within the various directorates of the European Commission, a statement that the objectives set by the 2004 review of the directives on public procurement (clarification of the rules and greater legal certainty) have not yet been fully achieved. I also approve of the position taken by the report to the effect that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, suffer from the complexity of these procedures, which may sometimes prevent them from participating in an invitation to tender through a lack of legal aid resources. I therefore voted in favour of this report and will monitor closely the proper application, in our Member States and in France, in particular, of the public procurement directives that are already in force.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report since a public procurement system that operates properly and transparently is particularly important for the internal market in order to promote cross-border competition and innovation and achieve optimal benefit for government institutions. The aims of the 2004 revision of the public procurement directives have not yet been achieved, particularly with regard to the simplification of procurement rules and the creation of more legal certainty. The European Court of Justice has examined a disproportionate number of infringement cases in the area of public procurement, indicating that many Member States have struggled to comply with the public procurement directives. The Treaty of Lisbon has incorporated into European Union primary law the first acknowledgement of the right to regional and local self-government and consolidated the concept of subsidiarity. Given that public procurement law serves to ensure that public funds are managed soundly and efficiently and to give interested companies the opportunity to be awarded public contracts in a context of fair competition, I call on the Commission to simplify public procurement procedures in order to relieve both local governments and companies from spending a large amount of time and money on purely bureaucratic matters and facilitate SMEs’ access to such contracts and enable them to participate on a more equal and fairer footing.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) A significant portion of the funds from Member States’ budgets is spent on public procurement. Therefore I agree with the opinion of the rapporteur that public funds should be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Public contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions whereby all stakeholders are treated equally and the relationship between price and project performance is the ultimate criterion, so that they go to the best tender and not merely the cheapest tender. In order to increase the transparency of public procurements it is necessary to simplify public procurement procedures to relieve both local governments and companies from spending a large amount of time and money on purely bureaucratic matters. Simplifying the procedures will also facilitate SMEs’ access to such contracts and enable them to participate on a more equal and fairer footing. Due to globalisation processes, it is particularly important for the Commission to focus on procedures for the application of social criteria. Therefore, guidelines or other practical assistance given to public authorities and other public bodies in connection with sustainable procurement are essential.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome this resolution, which seeks to simplify public procurement rules, while simultaneously contributing to creating greater legal certainty. European initiatives on public procurement require coordination at European level to avoid inconsistencies and legal problems. Legal clarification of the conditions under which procurement law applies to institutionalised public-private partnerships is also important. I call on the Commission to simplify procedures in order to relieve both local governments and companies from spending a large amount of time and money on purely bureaucratic matters. Simplifying the procedures will also facilitate small and medium-sized enterprises’ access to such contracts and their participation on a more equal and fairer footing. Public authorities must be encouraged to base public procurement on environmental, social and other criteria. I call on the Commission to explore the possibility of using green public contracts as a tool to promote sustainable development.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2004, the Commission carried out a revision of the public procurement directives, the purpose of which was to simplify the procedures, making public procurement more transparent, more efficient, more flexible and less bureaucratic.

As the rapporteur says, ‘The main purpose of public procurement is the cost-effective purchase of goods and services with a view to the performance of public-service tasks. Public authorities are not typical market participants, however; since they manage public funds, they bear a particular responsibility.’

I am forced to say once again that a complex law is not the one that best serves the interests of the parties; quite the opposite in the case of public procurement. The more complex, the less transparent and the slower procedures are, the more likely it is that the law will be circumvented and, in extreme cases, that there will be corruption. It is therefore crucial that, during the process of revising the current public procurement directives, simpler and more effective rules be sought to regulate a sector that represents almost 16% of the European Union’s GDP.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Total annual expenditure on the public procurement of goods and services in the European Union amounts to EUR 1 500 billion, or more than 16% of EU gross domestic product. Against the background of the current economic crisis, public procurement directives must not make the process of awarding contracts slower or more costly. Contractors, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, demand legal certainty and swift processes. I believe that the Commission and the Member States should revise, in cooperation with regional and local authorities, the various sets of rules applicable to public procurement in order to unify those rules and simplify the whole legal framework for public procurement, with a view to reducing the risk of errors and increasing efficiency in the use of the Structural Funds. It should be noted that improper transposition of EU procurement rules leads to a large proportion of the irregularities in the implementation of European projects cofinanced by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. I believe that the Commission must consider the possibility of continuing to use accelerated procedures in connection with the Structural Funds, even beyond 2010, so that Member States do not waste these resources.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) While I support the report’s objective of inviting the Commission to simplify public procurement procedures in order to save local government and enterprises from having to devote substantial amounts of time and money to strictly bureaucratic issues, I regret the wording of the second part of paragraph 9.

I feel that this interpretation of a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union indicating that local authorities can cooperate without ever resorting to the market deviates from the principle of neutrality. That may well be detrimental to enterprises (private or public capital), which thus see themselves ruled out of any opportunities to compete for contracts to deliver public services of an economic character.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) This report throws a little light on the social and environmental standards that we must be able to integrate into invitations to tender; it also proposes recommendations to facilitate SME access to public procurement markets. Nevertheless, it has a major shortcoming on account of the explicit absence of any reference to the necessary adoption of a legal instrument specifying the definition and the status of service concessions at the time of the recast of the public procurement directives. We cannot settle for the current case-law of the European Court of Justice on public service concessions; the need for a framework directive on services of general interest is keenly felt. Legal clarification is essential, for everyone’s benefit. That is why I abstained from the final vote on this report.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Public procurement in the internal market of the European Union represents about 15% of GDP. Opening up the public procurement market is beneficial to the ordering institutions, because larger markets give greater opportunities for choice, and so for lower costs and better quality. How public money is spent is extremely important, especially now, when the post-crisis economy requires stimulation, and the Member States are having budget problems. As the rapporteur rightly observed, current legislation is fairly complicated, which is a particular challenge for local and regional authorities and for small and medium-sized enterprises. Furthermore, clarification is still required for questions including public-private partnerships, town planning and service concessions.

Therefore, I agree with the main points of Mrs Rühle’s report, which show the need for greater legal transparency in the field of public procurement, and which do not call for the current directives to be changed at the moment, but for a thorough analysis of existing problems to be carried out by the European Commission services.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Public procurement accounts for a significant proportion of the European Union’s GDP. Its purpose is to purchase goods and services at the best price/quality ratio. European procurement directives delay the process of awarding contracts, make it more costly and restrict the public procurers’ scope for action. Unfortunately, an ever increasing number of Member States have encountered such problems. This is the reason why I voted for the report as I strongly support measures to simplify and update the procedures. Simplified, uniform legislation is required for all Member States. This will enable us to eliminate current discrepancies between the regulations applied by Member States, along with errors, as well as to make more efficient use of public money.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Public procurement is a very delicate matter which deserves to be treated very seriously as it concerns public funds. Public contracts must therefore be transparent and completely open to public scrutiny so that they do not arouse suspicions of any kind. That being the case, public contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions whereby all interested parties are treated equally and the relationship between price and project performance is the ultimate criterion, so that they go to the best tender overall and not the one that is, perhaps, merely the cheapest. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Public procurement accounts for approximately 18% of Community GDP, and therefore has a key role to play in relaunching the economy and employment. Procurement also has a significant impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, which often act as subcontractors.

In the current context, where the interaction between the internal market and international markets is increasingly clear, European companies run the serious risk of suffering unfair competition from companies in third countries (for example, China), which benefit from State subsidies that European companies are not allowed, and which can offer considerably lower costs and shorter production times due to their failure to comply with European standards for safety and workers’ rights.

We need coordinated action at European level to counter this effect. Lastly, I would remind you of the importance of respecting the principle of reciprocity and proportionality. For example, Chinese enterprises have access to the European market, but European enterprises cannot take part in invitations to tender in China. I applaud the rapporteur for his work and am voting in favour of this.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I am very glad the amendment proposed by the Socialists and Democrats Group has been rejected, which has allowed our group, Greens/EFA, to vote in favour of the Rühle report.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I condemn the ostrich politics of those who think that the European Court of Justice’s current case-law on service concessions is satisfactory and that there is absolutely no need to legislate. For years, the socialists have fought and campaigned to obtain framework directives protecting services of general interest, and there is no question of us abandoning this commitment. The only long-term guarantee for public services is real European legislation, not judicial decisions, however well-founded they may be. As we can see with the difficulties in transposing the Services Directive in relation to social services, only a specific framework can provide legal certainty and quality of service. Small and medium-sized enterprises and local and regional authorities expect clarity and legal certainty in the awarding of public procurement contracts such as social housing public procurement contracts. However, neither did we want to vote against this report, which contains important elements, in particular, as regards social and environmental standards, which we must be able to integrate into tender procedures, recommendations to facilitate SME access, and a clear call for vigilance in public-private partnership contracts.

Report: Franziska Keller (A7-0140/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is essential for European policies on development to be coherent. However, this report by Mrs Keller sometimes has a tendency to be either excessive or vague in its wording. Very clearly I say ‘Yes’ to EU policy coherence, but ‘No’ to questioning the commitments made by the European Union (and by France) within the framework of the World Trade Organisation. Our agriculture must evolve gradually and by responding to the difficulties faced by our farmers, who are key players not only in our rural areas but also in our cities. I therefore voted against this report.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is the biggest aid donor in the world. This year in fact, it is expected that the amount of development aid provided to non-EU states will reach EUR 69 billion, marking a 20% increase on 2008. The European Union has shown itself to be consistent with regard to the commitments it has undertaken towards the international institutions. The clash between Europe’s development policies and its trade policies is a reality. However, the European Union has made the commitment that all EU policies with an impact on developing countries will take into account the development objectives which have been assumed.

Contrary to initial predictions, the economic crisis is affecting poor countries in particular, many of which are involved in development projects run with European funds. On the other hand, the export and agriculture policies applied by the EU in these countries have an adverse impact on their development. We therefore have to deal with an undesirable upshot from this: the EU builds at macro level and has an adverse influence at micro level. In these circumstances, the objectives adopted through the resolution voted on yesterday during the European Parliament plenary acquire huge importance and must be adopted by all EU institutions.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the face of the economic and humanitarian crisis that the world is currently struggling through, it is more urgent than ever for Union development aid policies to be processed in a way that is consistent and unified between themselves, and which is fully linked to the Union’s other policies on trade, the environment, etc. It is now clear that, despite the EU’s commitment to development policy and the fact that it is the biggest development aid donor in the world, there is not always an effective link between its policies, undermining the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

We aim to change the status quo, and rightly so. We must look at Official Development Assistance from a long-term point of view of bringing together synergies between all the Member States and consistency between policies. This consistency must be achieved because it contributes to meeting the development requirements of the needy. I support this European Parliament report in general, and consider it crucial that EU actors give their all to removing obstacles to development, to achieving the MDG, to the fight against poverty, and to ensuring that human, social, economic and environmental rights are actually put into practice in developing countries.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The Swedish Conservative delegation yesterday (18 May 2010) voted against report A7-0140/2010 on the EU Policy Coherence for Development and the ‘Official Development Assistance plus’ concept (2009/2218(INI)). The primary reason for this is that we do not support the proposal for the introduction of an international transaction tax. Introducing a Tobin tax would simply harm developing countries and lead to greater poverty. We would like to stress, however, that there are elements in the report which are in line with our thinking, for example, the point that EU export subsidies for European agricultural products have had a disastrous effect on food security and the development of a viable agricultural sector in developing countries.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) One billion four hundred million people in the world survive on less than EUR 1 per day. The European Union has a duty to combat this situation. That requires more efficient and effective development cooperation and assistance policies. Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments are still not being fulfilled satisfactorily. To address the urgency of development, we call on the Commission to urgently define innovative additional sources of financing for development, such as a tax on international financial transactions intended to generate additional resources, in order to overcome the worst consequences of the crisis. In the same spirit, the Member States should reaffirm the commitment made at the Millennium summit to devote 0.7% of GDP to ODA over the next decade, while taking into account the absorption capacities and good governance of the recipient states. Finally, European development policy must be linked to flexible regulation of the movement of people, goods and capital with developing countries.

  Lena Ek, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) We support the objective of this report for EU policy to be consistent with the Union’s aim of promoting development in low and middle-income countries. Yet Mrs Keller’s report talks, for example, of a developed services market and clear competition rules as obstacles to meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The result of this is that we do not feel able to support the report as a whole. Clear ground rules are a precondition for the ability of a market economy to function properly and the trade in services is an important element in the development of countries’ economies.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union often comes up against paradoxes of its own creation and the incongruities that its policies bring about for the Member States and their citizens, as well as for third countries and their peoples. As the biggest development aid donor in the world, the European Union and the Member States must strive for their development aid policy to be not just efficient but also consistent and coherent; this has not always happened. All the efforts to encourage this consistency and seek to keep in mind the multiple needs of the peoples that receive the aid should be welcomed. Trade policy cannot be immune to this goal.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The subject of this report is very relevant, since we know that the EU’s policies and actions in several areas frequently contradict stated ‘development aid’ objectives. There are several significant and positive aspects, such as: calling attention to the tragedy of hunger at world level; pointing out the incongruence and ineffectiveness of agreements on fisheries in the face of proclaimed development-cooperation objectives; denouncing the effects of Union subsidies on exports; criticising the liberalisation of services, the introduction of competition rules, tax havens, the capital outflow from developing countries into the EU caused by incoherent policies, the small amount of aid dedicated to agriculture; and advocating the creation of a patent pool for HIV/Aids medicines. Unfortunately, the rapporteur herself ends up being inconsistent, notably by advocating the further development of instruments such as free-trade areas and the so-called economic partnership agreements. The rapporteur ignores the fact that these instruments threaten the interests of developing countries in several areas, as has been becoming clear from the resistance of many of them to signing these agreements, which have only been overcome in some cases through unacceptable pressure and blackmail on the EU’s part.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I fully recognise the importance of EU development policy and of assistance to developing countries. However, I voted against the Keller report, due to the position it takes on the impact of EU agricultural export subsidies on the farming sector in developing countries, which is totally inaccurate.

Moreover, the EU is a particularly open market in terms of imports of products from developing countries as a result, among other things, of the ‘Everything but Arms’ and other preferential agreements. It should be noted that the commitment made by the Member States of the WHO at the ministerial summit in Hong Kong (2005) concerns the parallel elimination of export subsidies and the imposition of disciplines on all export measures with equivalent competitive effect.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of this report as it is a particular concern of mine that international free trade agreements should include legally binding social and environmental standards. I think it is particularly important for the European Union not only to apply the principle of the social market economy within the EU, but also to take it outside its borders. Our partners in free trade agreements should maintain certain standards, and I also believe that we should bring an end to negotiations with states that do not comply with such standards.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted enthusiastically in favour of Franziska Keller’s report on Policy Coherence for Development, and I am very glad it was adopted by a majority vote. I deplore the negative vote of the EPP and ECR groups.

  Alf Svensson (PPE) , in writing. – (SV) In the European Parliament vote, I voted against the report ‘The EU Policy Coherence for Development and the ‘Official Development Assistance plus’ concept’. Conducting a responsible, effective policy for development should be a key focus for the European Parliament. It is something that I, along with many others, work for on a daily basis in the Committee on Development. It is clearly absurd and anything but responsible for the EU to take with one hand – for example, through agricultural subsidies that make developing countries less able to compete – and then provide aid to ‘repair the damage’ with the other. The debate on EU Policy Coherence for Development is important and valuable.

However, the present report contains elements that I cannot support, such as the paragraph on the imposition of a tax on financial transactions and the use of the vaguely defined term ‘environmental rights’. Large parts of the report – which was voted through in plenary – are very sound, however, and my ‘no’ vote should not be interpreted as an unwillingness to participate in the work on Policy Coherence for Development. On the contrary – it is a process that I am very keen on, and I am keen that it should happen in the best way possible.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I am particularly pleased about the adoption of the report on EU Policy Coherence for Development and the ‘Official Development Assistance plus’ concept, which is an excellent report aimed at ensuring greater respect for developing countries. I especially welcome the adoption, by a slim majority, of paragraph 70, which asks the Commission systematically to include legally binding social and environmental standards in trade agreements negotiated by the European Union. This is an important step towards fairer trade. The European Union must set an example in this area.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the current global economic situation, this report is extremely important as it seeks to make the Union’s policies more consistent in order for it to achieve the goals that it has set itself, such as the Millennium Development Goals. The EU is the biggest development aid donor in the world – the latest sums point to some EUR 49 million – and its interventions pay attention to both countries and their citizens, so it is a far-reaching Union policy, with trade, environmental and social concerns.

The need is stressed here to promote the access of products from these countries to European markets; amongst other things, the development of Union instruments for lowering customs tariffs. However, I would express my concern regarding some suggestions, since it must be said that they could have consequences for European producers, not least those that come from geographic locations that deserve special attention. Development aid and poverty eradication are a requirement of the greatest importance that deserve my full support. Nevertheless, I think that commitments that cannot be met without endangering the interests of our fellow citizens must not be made. Our citizens must not be forgotten or subordinated: we have special obligations to them.

Report: Hella Ranner (A7-0130/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this European Parliament own-initiative report, which responds to the European Commission’s analysis of penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport. Today, differences exist between the Member States that adversely affect the fair functioning of the internal market and road safety. The European Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism is proposing in this regard some ways in which to provide solutions. In particular, the report proposes a harmonisation of penalties by means of a common categorisation of fines. It calls for the creation of a coordinating body, to be responsible for improving cooperation between the Member States in the implementation of social rules, as well as the setting up of inspection bodies. Finally, the report underlines the need to provide hauliers and drivers with sufficient information on the relevant social rules and the penalties for infringements by means of printed media, information technology and intelligent transport systems. As I fully support these proposals, I voted in favour of this report.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The penalty systems in the Member States of the European Union show wide disparities, and therefore the legal position with regard to international transport operations has become very hard for undertakings and especially for drivers to understand. The regulations and the directive on social rules in road transport currently in force afford the Member States a great deal of scope for interpretation and this results in a failure to achieve uniform transposition into national law in the Member States. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for an opportunity to approximate the provisions of criminal laws and other legislation of the Member States. I believe that the Commission must use this opportunity to develop and promote such harmonised approaches to checks and take regulatory action so as to remove obstacles to the European single market and improve road safety. In order to ensure, as effectively as possible, the implementation of the social rules in road transport, the European Commission should come up with a uniform and binding interpretation of the Regulation on driving and resting hours, which the national inspection bodies should take into account.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Since 2006, a European regulation has obliged all road hauliers driving in Europe to respect the same maximum daily driving limit and to take rest periods in order to guarantee safety on European roads. Unfortunately, the way these measures are being applied is far from optimal: the penalties for an infringement are completely different in each Member State.

Thus, the fine imposed on a driver who exceeds the maximum daily driving limit by more than two hours is ten times higher in Spain than in Greece. In some Member States, a prison sentence may be applied for serious infringements, while in others, the driving licence is simply withdrawn. This lack of harmonisation undermines the effectiveness of the regulation and introduces considerable legal uncertainty for road hauliers.

I voted for Mrs Ranner’s report, which calls on the Commission to propose minimum and maximum sentences for infringements that would be harmonised in all the Member States. The report also calls for the creation of a simple and accessible information brochure to inform lorry drivers of the risks they run should there be an infringement.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s concern about the absence of a uniform system for regulating road penalties at Member State level is justified. The enforcement of such penalties, at least non-financial ones, on all car drivers in Member States would lessen the confusion experienced by many hauliers or individual drivers as a result of legislative discrepancies between the country of origin and a third EU Member State in which they are driving.

On the other hand, the European Commission and specialist parliamentary committees are right when they say that it is too early for us to even contemplate standardising the financial penalties applied to traffic offences. The European Union shows significant discrepancies in terms of the economic situation of companies and the population, which means that fines imposed for the same traffic offence cannot be the same across the board in all Member States. However, standardising the regulations applied to passenger transport would place greater responsibility on transport companies.

Harmonisation of the regulations across all Member States, supported by their strict enforcement, without leaving it up to each Member State whether or not to adopt the European recommendations, would also increase safety on Europe’s roads.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Infringements are a serious problem in road transport, which poses significant questions as regards border crossings. It is therefore important for the Commission to consider the situations in the various Member States, as well as what constitutes an offence in the different national legal systems and the respective penalties and fines. On this subject, the rapporteur argues ‘that an effective, balanced and dissuasive penalty system can only be based on clear, transparent and comparable penalties across the Member States’ and ‘calls on the Member States to find legislative and practical ways of reducing the, in some cases, very substantial differences in the type and level of penalties applied’.

I tend to agree with the importance of an effective and balanced penal system, and that the Member States should work together to reduce the differences in how road infringements are handled. However, I have greater difficulty in thinking that the national legislator should be losing authority on criminal matters in favour of harmonisation at Union level regarding the nature of penalties and the value of fines.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report prepared by the European Commission summarises the various types of penalty existing in Member States and demonstrates the differences between the systems adopted by each Member State in this area, concluding that the situation is unsatisfactory. It therefore calls on the Member States to apply the social rules in road transport in a harmonised way. The European Parliament’s rapporteur is proposing to increase harmonisation efforts in this area, particularly at the level of ‘interpretation of the application of social legislation’ and penalties, by ‘categorising’ it and so seeking to ‘achieve an internal market in transport and to increase legal certainty’.

Road safety is, without doubt, an important matter, as is improving working conditions in the road transport sector, not least driving times and rest periods. We would reaffirm that these objectives are not necessarily achieved through generic harmonisation. Harmonisation is indeed necessary, but through progress and not by everyone dropping down to the same low level, as has been common practice where attempts have been made ‘to achieve an internal market’. Increased road safety is necessary, as are improved working conditions in the transport sector. This will ensure better road safety in each of the Member States.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Road transport safety has always been a concern of the EU. The adoption of this resolution is another step towards eliminating serious infringements of the social rules in this area. Greater cooperation between Member States is necessary in order to create an easy communications network for all the sector’s professionals whenever they are working in a Member State that is not their own. A financial effort is also necessary in order to establish an appropriate infrastructure, including a sufficient number of safe parking spaces and services, on the European road network so that drivers can, in fact, comply with the provisions on driving times and rest periods. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Statistics show that heavy duty vehicles in particular are involved in a high proportion of traffic accidents. It is therefore that much more important the vehicle be in faultless condition. Drivers’ attentiveness falls almost as much as a result of tiredness as it does under the influence of alcohol. Consequently, in the name of general safety, we need to ensure compliance with these regulations. It is important, in this regard, that the same conditions apply to employees and the self-employed so as not to push ever more people into fake self-employment, who are then utilised up to or above the limits of their tolerance.

Fines, however, are often an unsuitable way of guaranteeing compliance with rest periods, which can only be possible when a vehicle is immobilised. As no expansion of these road safety measures is planned, I voted ‘no’.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report by Mrs Ranner, whom I congratulate on account of her work, sheds light not only on the differences between fines in different Member States, but also on differences surrounding the types of penalty in highlighting the unsatisfactory nature of this situation for drivers and transport enterprises.

I agree with the approach of the Parliamentary report, which underlines the importance to the internal market of fully implementing social regulations, by applying more frequent checks if necessary, establishing a European coordination instrument and harmonising infringements and their associated penalties. Only by having a uniform arrangement will it be possible to ensure the rapid recovery of sums due for infringements. I therefore voted in favour.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by my colleague in the Committee on Transport and Tourism is an excellent initiative towards solving some of the existing problems regarding the road transport penalties applicable to serious infringements. The rules applicable in the case of serious infringements against the social rules vary considerably in each Member State with regard to the value of fines and the nature and categorisation of penalties, making greater harmonisation necessary.

I welcome the solutions proposed for such differences in the report, not least the necessary harmonised categorisation of serious infringements, and the implementation of a system of checks – coordinated at European level by a body with the appropriate characteristics – the purpose of which would be to improve cooperation on the implementation of social rules and ensure the training of inspection bodies charged with applying these rules.

I would also stress the importance of developing initiatives to provide adequate information about social rules, and create adequate infrastructure and car parks to ensure respect for the rules. For the above reasons, I voted for the report brought before Parliament today.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.05 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KOCH-MEHRIN
Vice-President

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

12. Standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation - Action plan on organ donation and transplantation (2009-2015) (debate)

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

– the report by Mr Mikolášik, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation (COM(2008)0818 - C6-0480/2008 - 2008/0238(COD)) (A7-0106/2010), and

– the report by Mr Perello Rodriguez, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Commission Communication: Action plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation (2009-2015): Strengthened Cooperation between Member States (2009/2104(INI)) (A7-0103/2010).

  Miroslav Mikolášik, rapporteur. – (SK) I am delighted to have this unique opportunity to appear before you today and to talk about the progress we have achieved in the negotiations in Parliament, and also in the subsequent trialogue on this very important topic of organ donations and transplants.

I personally consider this bill to be enormously important, not only as the chief rapporteur, but also as a doctor. I firmly believe that this new directive fundamentally addresses the greatest challenge we currently face in the process of organ donations and transplants, which is the shortage of organs faced by patients who are waiting for them.

In the context of providing the best health protection for European Union citizens, our goal is to ensure that human organs designated for transplantation are safe and of a high quality.

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety voted on the draft report on 16 March, when it was adopted by a clear majority in the context of the rapporteur’s recommendations. Subsequently, we completed three intensive interinstitutional trialogues involving Parliament, the Commission and the Council, under the leadership of the Spanish Presidency.

I would especially like to highlight the following points, which were key to our discussion.

First, the principles applying to organ donation.

Voluntary and payment-free donation is a fundamental principle which must not be challenged in any way or under any circumstances. The altruistic nature of donation must be preserved so that we can prevent any form of commercialisation or financial motivation of donors. At the same time, the greatest possible protection must be ensured for living donors. Here, I would like to mention the lively discussion provoked by the topic of organ donation by living donors. On the one hand, this method remains complementary to the acquisition of organs from dead donors but, on the other, it is an alternative with remarkable potential.

Of course, it is not our intention to prevent progress in this area, but we must ensure that the donation of organs by living donors who do not have a genetic or family connection with the recipient is always voluntary and payment free. The principle of non-payment does not apply to cases of so-called compensation, where a living donor may receive a contribution in line with the expenditure related to donation. However, Member States must precisely define the conditions under which such contributions can be made, so that we can avoid any kind of financial incentive or profit for potential donors.

Other important matters in the context of principles include allocation criteria – ensuring that organs are not taken from a person before the legal acknowledgement of death, and the fully-informed consent of the donor. We defended these in the introductory parts of the provision known as the recitals.

The second principle includes traceability, protection of personal data and confidentiality. Member States must ensure that all organs which are taken, allocated and transplanted on their territory can be traced from the donor to the recipient and back again. This concept has replaced the original proposal for anonymity, which is inimical to the safety of the process. Personal data must remain confidential.

The third principle is the framework for quality and safety. We expressed clear agreement that Member States should set up a national framework which will set out all stages of the process organisationally, from donation to transplantation. The Member States will subsequently inform the Commission about the activities and results achieved in the context of fulfilling this regulation within three years of it entering into effect. Here, we are expecting great progress, especially in the case of countries where the system is not sufficiently well developed and which may significantly increase the number of transplants through the adoption of appropriate systemic measures.

I would especially like to underline the role of the transplant coordinator or coordination team, the importance of which is beyond question. It has proved its worth in many countries where operations run smoothly.

I would like to end by mentioning criteria such as the organisation and performance of collections, the specification of roles for competent authorities, the involvement of third countries, the swapping of organs with third countries and the safety of the process. We approved the so-called delegated acts under provisions based on the Treaty of Lisbon (I will finish shortly).

Finally, I would like to emphasise how hugely important it is to increase public awareness, and I would therefore like to call on the Commission to encourage the Member States to promote organ donation via special programmes. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the successful course of the negotiations, and especially to applaud the efficient and constructive approach of the Spanish Presidency.

  Andrés Perelló Rodríguez, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, Mrs Jiménez García-Herrera, Commissioner, it is 43 years since Dr Christiaan Barnard said the sentence ‘Jesus, dit kan werk’, which in Afrikaans means ‘Jesus, this is going to work’, as he watched in disbelief as the heart he had just transplanted was beating. In that time, it has become common practice to transplant a useful organ from a person who no longer needs it to another who needs it in order to live.

It is, however, also true that this has not yet prevented 56 000 Europeans from being on the waiting list, and has not prevented the possibility that 12 of those people will have died by the end of this debate because they do not have the organ that they need. Therein lies the challenge for Parliament which, in this plenary sitting, has to adopt both the directive, which was explained so well by Dr Mikolášik, and also the action plan.

There is no doubt that we need to offer clear and efficient channels of support for the European public so that no European dies due to a lack of organs as a result of shortcomings in the transplant system.

Europeans living longer, a reduction in traffic accidents and advances in science are, of course, to be celebrated, but they also mean that more organs need to be available as there are more people who need them.

The response from Europeans when they are asked whether they are willing to donate organs in order to save the life of a fellow citizen is very strong and very positive. The reason that this is often not directly reflected in the number of transplants carried out in each country is undoubtedly because we need to improve essential aspects of our transplant system such as coordination, information, professional training and educating the public on this issue.

In some countries, we have examples that show that when coordination and training are at optimum level, the number of transplants per million people increases. If you will allow me, I will quote the example of Spain, where a model has been established that must be used as a benchmark.

In addition to the guarantees of quality and safety in transplants and the complementary, free and voluntary nature of transplants from living donors established by the directive, there are the recommendations established by the action plan on the need for continuous training for professionals, and for society to be provided with information and education on this issue, without which it is difficult to work.

All of this forms the basis for optimising what we could call a harmonised European transplant system shared by all the Member States as an instrument for achieving the objective that we have set ourselves. Our objective is simply to reach the point where no European dies because he lacks an organ that he needs in order to live due to systems that have not been perfected.

In 21st century Europe, we cannot allow a lack of coordination or of optimised systems to cause an organ to be lost so that another European cannot benefit from it. This is what the adoption of this directive and action plan is achieving, which is the result of hard work.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the willingness and cooperation shown by both the rapporteurs – in this case Mr Mikolášik – and the shadow rapporteurs. I would also like to highlight the major impetus that the Spanish Presidency – represented by the Spanish Ministry of Health and Dr Matesanz, as Director of the Spanish National Transplant Organisation – have given to this directive and to the action plan, because we have been able to count on them at all times.

I would like to stress that those who have worked so hard deserve our thanks and ask you to repay them by unanimously adopting this report. As a Member, I am thankful for the work that has been done, and as a European I am thankful that this step is being taken to save the lives of all the citizens of the Union who might need it at any time.

  Trinidad Jiménez García-Herrera, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be appearing before Parliament’s plenary sitting to take part in the joint debate on organ donation and transplantation.

This is certainly an important debate, firstly because it has a direct impact on people’s lives and on the health of thousands of Europeans. In this respect, I would like to remind you that, despite the constant increase in the number of donations and transplantations in recent years, it is estimated that currently there are 56 000 patients in the European Union on the waiting list for the right organ, and many of them die before receiving it.

Secondly, it is an important debate because it enables us to enhance the generosity and solidarity of our society. Allow me to give you an example: currently in the European Union, there are 18 donors for every million inhabitants. If we were able to increase this figure to equal the highest figures, such as 34 in Spain or more than 30 in Portugal, 20 000 more lives would be saved in Europe.

Likewise, promoting organ donation by living donors across the European Union to the levels in Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands would free a further 2 000 people from dialysis every year. We should never forget, ladies and gentlemen, that without donors, there can be no transplants.

The debate this afternoon is going to enable us to give a definitive boost to the launch of a common Union strategy for achieving the best structure in the world for organ donation and transplantation. Moreover, Article 168 of the recent Treaty of Lisbon gives us the opportunity to create this common, high quality and safe framework for the process of donation and transplantation.

We now have two important Commission initiatives on this, which were presented in 2008, and on which the Council, along with Parliament, has worked very hard and very generously in recent months.

The first is the proposal for a directive regulating the quality and safety aspects of organs intended for transplantation. As I said, this directive establishes a common legal framework which must enable us to limit certain risks in all the stages of the process of using organs for treatment, from donation to transplantation. This involves guaranteeing the quality and safety of the organs but also protecting donors and recipients by appointing the competent authorities.

Secondly, we also have an action plan that helps to strengthen cooperation between the Member States, the objectives of which are threefold: first, to increase the availability of organs; second, to improve efficiency and accessibility to the transplant system; and third, to improve quality and safety.

Ladies and gentlemen, these two initiatives give us a common framework, which is a European framework that incorporates not only the best shared elements, but also the best of good organisational and welfare practice that the different Member States have been building up in this field. In other words, it is a framework based on quality, security and innovation.

We are doing so by establishing a European model for donation and transplantation around values and principles that we all share: solidarity, fairness and cohesion, which are the symbols of the Union’s identity. This will help to achieve self-sufficiency in organ donation and therefore to combat transplant tourism.

I am sure you will agree with me that the entry into force of this directive and Parliament’s support for the action plan will, in themselves, boost the exchange of organs between the Member States and promote donation.

Firstly, we are establishing an EU framework to give Europeans equal access to health in general and to transplant treatment in particular. Secondly, this more efficient Union framework will directly benefit patients who, due to their characteristics, have a smaller chance of finding an organ that suits their needs. As a result, there will be a reduction in the number of organs wasted due to the absence of a suitable recipient in a particular geographical area.

Ladies and gentlemen, before I conclude, the Spanish Presidency would like to thank the Czech and Swedish presidencies for the work that they did in beginning the negotiations in 2009, creating the circumstances for significant progress thanks to the cooperation of the Member States and the Commission.

The Spanish Presidency would also like to thank Parliament for its hard work and particularly the rapporteurs, Mr Mikolášik and Mr Perello, for the work that they have done to promote the necessary agreement and consensus.

It is through the joint work of all the Union’s institutions that we have to reach an agreement that will enable us to launch a European service which, on the one hand, will give 500 million people the best guarantees of quality and safety and, on the other, will promote equal access to the treatment on which so many lives depend every year, and also the solidarity of our society. Let us enhance what the European Union means today.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, 56 000 Europeans are waiting for an organ transplant in Europe; for many of these people, a successful transplant is a matter of life and death. This is why we are here today: to ensure high quality and safe organ transplantation across Europe. This is what the Commission’s proposal for a directive and the action plan are about. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Dr Mikolášik, and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent work on the proposed directive on the quality and safety of organs. I would also like to thank Mr Perello Rodriguez for his supportive own-initiative report on the action plan on organ donation and transplantation.

Let me recall that the key objectives of these two initiatives are to improve quality and safety for human organs for transplantation, to increase organ availability and to make transplantation systems more efficient and accessible. The proposal for a directive sets the legal framework for quality and safety requirements, and the action plan focuses on increasing the availability of organs, and the efficiency of transportation systems.

The six-year action plan sets out 10 priority actions to reinforce cooperation between Member States through joint actions and the sharing of best practices. I note the wishes of Parliament to include in the action plan activities which could not become legal obligations in the directive under Article 168 of the treaty, in particular, regarding criteria for allocating organs, recording the wishes of potential donors and issues related to medical practices. The Commission is willing to support the Member States in addressing these issues of importance to Parliament.

With regard to the directive, I am very pleased that we are now close to a first-reading agreement following swift and constructive dialogue between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. I believe that this is the first agreement to be reached at first reading since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

I am convinced that the text with the amendments proposed includes Parliament’s key concerns as set out in Dr Mikolášik’s report. Allow me to comment on a few specific issues.

I strongly support strengthening the principles of voluntary and unpaid donation, which are essential for ensuring the quality and safety of organs. I also welcome clarification that the principle of non-payment shall not prevent living donors from receiving compensation, provided that this is strictly limited to covering the expenses and loss of income related to the donation. I fully share Parliament’s concern as regards combating organ trafficking. However, the scope of the proposal is limited to quality and safety as stipulated in the public health article of the treaty. In this context, I welcome the text stating that the directive will indirectly contribute to combating organ trafficking, for example, through the authorisation of transplantation centres, the establishment of conditions of procurement and systems of traceability of organs.

I also understand Parliament’s concern about transparent, non-discriminatory and scientific criteria for organ allocation. Although the matter falls outside the EU’s sphere of responsibility, I can accept the inclusion of this principle in a recital. I also welcome the fact that the text proposed recognises that living donation coexists with deceased donation in most Member States. Living donation increases the number of available organs and I welcome the text strengthening the efforts to protect living donors as a means to guarantee quality and safety of organs for transplantation.

Moving on, as regards the provisions dealing with consent systems and certification of death, these issues are governed by national law. However, in the spirit of compromise, the Commission can accept the additional clarifications proposed. I also note Parliament’s wish to include in the action plan activities which cannot be covered by the directive, in particular, regarding criteria for allocating organs, recording the wishes of potential donors and issues relating to medical practices. The Commission is willing to support the Member States to address these issues.

Let me also raise another issue: adopting a law is the first step. What really matters is that the law is implemented. This is why the Commission insists that Member States report how they transpose directives into national law: the ‘correlation tables’. Parliament has always supported this. I regret that, for the very first time, Parliament does not support inclusion in the directive of the obligation for Member States to report on transposition.

Finally, several amendments align the proposals to the comitology provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. I welcome the possibility granted to the Commission to adopt, in clearly defined cases, delegated acts under the urgency procedure in this regard. I declare that the European Commission undertakes to keep the European Parliament and the Council fully informed on the possibility of a delegated act being adopted under the urgency procedure. As soon as the Commission services foresee that a delegated act might be adopted under the urgency procedure, they will informally warn the secretariats of the European Parliament and the Council.

I also declare on behalf of the Commission that the provisions of this directive shall be without prejudice to any future position of the institutions as regards the implementation of Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or individual legislative acts containing such provisions.

To conclude, let me state that the Commission is prepared to support the compromise package.

  Cecilia Wikström, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (SV) Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Mikolášik for such excellent and very constructive cooperation on this important report.

There are many challenges in the area of the donation and transplantation of human organs. We have a responsibility and must live up to the expectations of the great number of people on the waiting lists who live in uncertainty from one day to the next, as they await the new life that a new organ can bring. The line between life and death does not come any clearer than this.

The tasks of the European Parliament also include conducting a determined battle against the despicable trade in human organs. That is also something that we are doing. By laying down clear ethical and safety rules, we can better ensure people’s self-evident right to their body, their integrity and their self-determination. I am pleased that the views advanced by the Committee on Legal Affairs have been taken account of.

It is hard to paint a finer picture of our common purpose than that of safeguarding people’s lives in our various Member States. This report portrays that picture very clearly.

  Eva Lichtenberger, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, yes, it is true, this is a question of life and death. That is precisely the reason why this debate is quite so emotionally charged.

There are completely different systems for organ transplantation in the different countries of Europe and for how people give their consent or non-consent, whether people’s own organs may be used or whether family members can consent to a transplant. In future, under this report, those countries with very restrictive systems ought to take a very close look at the examples of other countries in order also to observe the positive effects. Since, when so many people are waiting for transplants, that must be a signal to us, not only to create more opportunities and greater accessibility, but also to guarantee quality, safety and accessibility. That would also provide an important tool to combat the trading of organs – a truly ignoble activity – and make possible the better regulation of living transplants, which really must take place without payment.

  Peter Liese , on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mrs Jiménez García-Herrera, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish are the champions of Europe at football, most people know that, and it is nice, but it is not as important as the fact that the Spanish are also the champions of Europe when it comes to organ transplantation.

The key to the Spanish model, we should all understand this quite clearly, is the organisation in the hospitals. In other European countries organs, I am sorry to say, are lost, not because the family members were unwilling to give consent, or because the victim does not have a donor card or had stated that they did not want to donate their organs, but, for most organs in Europe that are lost, it is quite simply due to the fact that the doctors do not have enough time to deal with this matter.

Spain has organised this much better with its transplant coordinators. Wherever this system is adopted, more people can be saved and more people can live a healthy life without having to suffer dialysis and other difficult experiences. That is why we should really press home this point in the Perello report to the Member States.

The directive deals, above all, with quality and safety, but also with the effects on people who are waiting for organs. This is because, at present, an organ in one Member State may not be used because no matching recipient can be found fast enough. If we have common quality and safety standards, we can also improve cross-border organ exchange in order to help people. That means that this, too, is an important point.

Another very important element in the directive is that we must combat the trade in organs. This is a subject that we must not simply ignore. For that reason, a few other Members and I have also invited an expert who has investigated organ trading and the deliberate killing of people in China for organs to transplant to come and speak to us tomorrow. I would ask all my fellow Members to also take an interest in this topic.

With the directive and the action plan, we have sent a clear signal. Voluntary and unpaid donation is laid down in a legally binding way and I would like to thank everyone who has helped us to achieve these goals.

  Karin Kadenbach, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mrs Jiménez García-Herrera, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to agree with the preceding speakers and open with the words ‘life is beautiful’. This is a sentence I hear again and again from a former colleague of mine, Vice-Governor Ernst Höger, who suffered a serious heart condition as a result of a tick bite but had the good fortune, in December 2004, to benefit from a matching heart donation. Ernst Höger is still alive and kicking, he walks among us, full of life and full of energy and he tells us that ‘life is beautiful’.

We have heard the figures today: 55-60 000 Europeans are waiting for the opportunity to be able to tell us in future, like Ernst Höger, that ‘life is beautiful’. Twelve of them are lost to us every day because our systems have simply not progressed to the stage where we can get the organs to the people who need them from another location where they become available in time. That is why it is our task to put that into practice. I believe that this action plan is something really important, that we must ensure the security of organ donations and transplants, that we must also give the living donors, who we also need just as much – I say that thinking purely of the many dialysis patients – the certainty of the best medical standard, and that we must be absolutely vehement in our fight against any trade in organs – in other words, voluntary and unpaid donation is the absolutely essential thing.

We must guarantee the consent of donors. We must develop Europe’s systems so that we can close the major gap between the one donation per million citizens in many Member States and the nearly 40 donations per million in Spain, our European champions. We should aim, together with our national health care systems, to implement these action plans as soon as possible and to guarantee the highest standard so that the 55 000 who are currently waiting can say that ‘life is beautiful’.

  Frédérique Ries, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, tomorrow we are expecting to have this directive on organ donation and transplantation, which is essential. In Europe, some 60 000 patients awaiting a heart, lung, liver or kidney have been waiting for this law for years. Twelve of them die every day because they have waited too long.

Like those who spoke earlier, I would like to stress the excellent result that we have achieved, which would not have been possible without cooperation between our rapporteurs, Mr Perello Rodriguez and Mr Mikolášik, the shadow rapporteurs, of whom I am one, and the Spanish Presidency. I would like to take this opportunity to praise Dr Matesanz, who was our excellent guide during our visit to Madrid.

Let us not mistake the objective here. The main priority is indeed to increase the number of organ donations in Europe and, therefore, of course, at the same time, to make European men and women more aware of donation, as the disparities speak for themselves, they are quite blatant: there are 34 deceased donors per million inhabitants in Spain, 27 in my country, Belgium, and just one single donor in Romania. Therefore, we also have to educate people about this issue of donation; enable potential donors to access information; break down administrative barriers, which is essential; establish throughout the 27 Member States a national authority in charge of controlling the quality and safety of organs, from extraction from the donor to transplantation; and then also inspire – as has been said – better examples of organisation, such as exist, once again, in Spain, where progress is linked to a kind of early warning system, a constant warning throughout the chain, from the death of the donor to transplantation.

Our directive’s compromise, our famous Amendment 106, which sums up all our efforts, sends out the right message to patients, the message of hope, by authorising – and this was sometimes at the end of very in-depth discussions – the use of a non-optimal organ in cases of extreme urgency, especially by encouraging living donations, where this is possible of course. Here I am essentially talking about kidney or liver donations, donations which are necessary, which are fast expanding, which are encouraged by practitioners and specialists, and which, at the moment, still only account, on average, for 5% of donations.

Do more and cooperate more: that is the rationale behind the action plan that has been guided by Mr Perello Rodriguez. One example is my proposal for online enrolment in a register, in a national or a European donor register, with the idea of adding a reference to a person’s identity card or driving licence identifying him as a donor and therefore allowing matters to proceed more swiftly, where necessary.

I would just like to sum up for a second by saying that we have done an excellent job and that we preferred the ethics of hope to the ethics of prohibition.

  Satu Hassi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to Mr Mikolášik and Mr Perello Rodriguez for their quite excellent work. The hardest question in the talks related to living donors. On the one hand, there are long patient waiting lists for a kidney transplant and, on the other, there is the need to protect living donors and prevent the illegal trade in organs and the extreme exploitation of poor people that is associated with it.

We did not achieve the sort of good result that we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance would have liked. The safest solution as far as the human rights of donors are concerned would be to insist that Member States impose a strict national system to prevent the illegal trade in organs, if donations from living persons are to be allowed outside the sphere of family members and close relations. Although the legislative text negotiated is rather less robust in its objectives, I hope that all the EU countries will take strict measures to weed out the illegal organ trade. According to the Council of Europe, 5-10% of transplanted kidneys come from the illegal trade in organs, and that means thousands of victims a year. Voluntary donations that are free of charge are also the safest option, even for the recipients of organs.

There can be no crimes associated with the trade in organs unless there are middlemen and the demand. It has been appalling to read reports about how organs are bought in poor countries in regions such as Africa, Asia and even eastern Europe. The most shocking have been the reports that describe people actually being killed. For example, Australian organ transplant surgeons have condemned the practice in China of killing prisoners for their organs. We in Europe must do all we can to avoid creating a market for this kind of criminality.

  Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Jiménez, the lack of organs for transplantation is a major problem. It has already been referred to several times and it is a major problem that is raising questions for us, both about public health and about associated matters, such as the strengthening of the grey market and of organ trafficking; this last is in no way good for our health systems or our citizens. We must therefore fight this crime, and one way of doing so that seems more than important and more than relevant to me is through legislation and proposals such as those that we are discussing here today. That is why I want to focus on the most important issues raised by these two proposals.

The system that we have had up to now is one with enormous inequalities, because it lacks these two proposals. Inequalities between Member States, inequalities between existing systems, inequalities in access to organs, inequalities between members of the public: I believe that we cannot put up with these inequalities. It is therefore important to reduce them further and these proposals seek to do exactly that. Nonetheless, I think that a European system that maintains some of the specificities of some countries, so that they are not obliged to have more restrictive systems, is the response to this problem. The work that has been carried out by the rapporteurs, Mr Mikolášik and Mr Perello Rodriguez, is extremely important and contributes to solving the problem that we are facing.

If we are talking about proposals that are based on, and supported by, issues such as donation, volunteering, gratuitousness, confidentiality, safeguarding of data, traceability, accountability – and here I think that Parliament’s interest in helping until the patient recovers and not just in donating is important – and cooperation between Member States, we are on the right track.

However, in relation to donations between living people, I must just mention that I am pleased that this enlargement with rights has been included. Obviously guaranteeing all rights and all conditions, but it is very important to have gone beyond the restricted circle of the conventional family because, if not, that would be another way for us to have other forms of inequality. Therefore, promoting donation as the main source of transplantation, as well as protecting the data and security of patients, seems to me to be more than enough reason for us to all be together this morning and vote in favour of these two proposals that are extremely important for the European Union.

  Anna Rosbach, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (DA) Madam President, I hope that no one here ever needs to make use of this directive. Twenty seven EU countries means 27 different sets of regulations plus people from countries outside the Union who have been illegally let in and who, because they are poor, are willing to donate a kidney for very little money. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen a number of examples of botched work that has affected both patients and donors. We therefore need coordination at EU level and, of course, we must ensure that both recipient and donor receive the best possible treatment. In a couple of EU Member States, you are born a donor, whereas in most countries, you can only donate by making an active personal decision to do so. Thus, we are in a situation where we have 27 different statutory regulations and insurance schemes, which does not exactly promote opportunities for cooperation.

It is an extremely complicated subject that we are talking about, because we must also ensure that the quality of organs is a top priority. For health reasons alone, it is important for us to take up the issue of illegal donation, as we often do not know the donor and hence, his or her state of health. It would be very unfortunate if we were to end up with kidneys, hearts and other organs coming from donors with contagious diseases, infections, leukaemia or worse. We therefore need to screen the organs concerned before they are used. We need to be sure that interventions are carried out safely, in other words, that the personnel responsible for the operation itself are well trained in their field and that the highest level of monitoring is carried out.

  Pilar Ayuso (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Jiménez García-Herrera, I would first of all like to highlight the work done by the rapporteurs – Mr Mikolášik and Mr Perello – and all the work that they have done to reach the best possible compromise for a transplant policy in the European Union.

I would also like to highlight the contribution made by the Spanish Presidency and by Dr Matesanz, the Director of the Spanish National Transplant Organisation, because Spain is currently the world leader in terms of donations, with 34.4 for every million inhabitants. This is solely due to the constant improvement in organisation and to the measures that have been taken to raise awareness among the population about organ donation.

We need to achieve this for the whole of the European Union: increase the number of donations, ensure that all transplants are done to the same quality standards, and also promote cooperation between all the Member States.

We also need to ensure that every donation is voluntary and not rewarded, with the exceptions listed by Commissioner Dalli, in order to combat organ trafficking, which is entirely linked to a scarcity of organs. The action plan can contribute to this by helping to solve the shortage of organs and improving public access to transplants.

The solution that has been reached for living donors is very important, as we cannot forget that living donations are complementary and have been shown to be effective even if there is no genetic relationship between the donor and the recipient.

  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, to encourage, coordinate and supervise organ donation: those are our objectives, and that is why it is very important that we be gathered together here to enable the development of organ donation and transplantation in Europe.

Currently, 60 000 people – European men and women – are awaiting transplants in Europe and, according to our estimates, 12 people die every day for want of a transplant, because, while 81% of Europeans say they are in favour of organ donor cards, only 12% possess one. It is, therefore, first of all, a question of harmonising practices by following the example of Spain, the star pupil of the 27. Organ donation rates vary considerably from one country to another. It is therefore a question of harmonisation.

As you indicated earlier, Commissioner, the challenge is also to create a European network of organ donors, which would allow us to better satisfy the needs of European citizens.

It is also a question of improving cooperation among all the Member States. We must ensure that we can establish national authorities that will be responsible for controlling organ quality and safety, from extraction from the donor to transplantation. For example, in France, a person waiting for a liver transplant could thus receive a compatible organ from Germany or Italy, knowing that minimum common standards are applied throughout Europe.

It is also a matter of reaffirming, as has been indicated, the free and voluntary nature of donation as a more effective way of combating organ trafficking and transplantation tourism and thus, of stopping rich patients from going abroad – to China, for example – to receive a transplant.

Finally, I welcome the action plan aimed at developing transplants in Europe, on which we will also vote today, and I am delighted with the work of the rapporteurs and, in particular, with the report by Mr Perello Rodriguez.

  Miroslav Ouzký, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) I would first like to express my astonishment that a representative of my group has been interrupted in the introductory part of a speech on behalf of the group. It was clearly just an error of some kind.

In my speech, I would like to praise the work of both rapporteurs, which I consider to be very valuable. If there is one area in health care and public health that is genuinely European, then it is surely transplants. This standard is a logical and very welcome step. I would also like to applaud the rapporteurs for leaving out the ethical element, which will naturally fall within the scope of the Member States. As has already been said here, there is a different approach and, in my own country, for example, we use the previously mentioned principle of assumed consent. Some countries, on the other hand, require explicit consent.

In my opinion, this is a foundation stone which can improve and expand the scope of the existing Intertransplant, and if it has been said here that this is clearly the first standard that can be adopted at first reading following adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, then I am pleased about that. However, I am even more pleased that this is a topic which is genuinely European. I value that highly.

  President. – As far as the list of speakers is concerned, the cause is being looked into.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, increasing the availability of organs, improving their quality and access to them and making the public more aware of these issues: these are the demands of the European Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in order to reduce the waiting lists for transplants.

We therefore need to promote biotechnological research and organ circulation within the European Union, but we also need to introduce a European donor card, prevent transplant tourism, and strengthen our opposition to the illegal trafficking of organs, by imposing strict penalties upon those responsible. In order to avoid illegal practices, living donations must be considered only as a last resort, when there are no other possible options, such as post-mortem donation. The living donor must not receive remuneration of any kind, other than compensation to cover inconveniences following the operation, to be determined by national regulations.

Member States should also approve or maintain strict legal measures over transplants and living donors who are not blood relatives, in order to make the system transparent and to rule out the possibility of illicit organ sales or forced donations. They must also ensure the reimbursement of social costs for living donors and protect them against discrimination, especially by insurance systems.

Parliament emphasises, however, that living donations must be considered complementary to donations after death. Organ donation must remain strictly non-commercial, supporting the measures aimed at protecting donors and ensuring that organ donation occurs on a voluntary basis, for altruistic reasons.

  President. – Mr Ouzký, many thanks once again for bringing this to our attention. We have looked into it. It was a problem in the allocation caused by the computer system. You will thus be listed in the minutes as the speaker for your group. I hope that this resolves the issue. Thank you for pointing it out.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, today we find ourselves discussing organ transplants, which is, without doubt, one of the most positive aspects of progress in the sphere of health, but which also opens up a series of problems concerning the rights of the donor and the patient, which must be dealt with on ethical, social, legal and economic levels.

It is a question of embarking on a virtuous path that addresses the serious imbalance between the need for and the quantity of organs available, without damaging the principle of free, voluntary donation. The aim must be that of preventing all forms of commercialisation and illegal trafficking, ensuring the quality and safety of organs destined for transplants and introducing measures that combine confidentiality and traceability. It goes without saying that, in the context of cross-border exchanges and significant differences between the transplant systems used in different Member States, these objectives can only be reached by promoting coordination and cooperation.

On this note, I think it is very important to establish a European database and to adopt common quality and safety standards. We must, however, be careful not to introduce pointlessly rigid rules or create further bureaucratic burdens which compromise a process that is currently taking place correctly and efficiently. This would not only fly in the face of our aims …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing a topic which, by its very nature, directly affects a limited number of people, compared to other issues which are important to health care in the European Union. On the other hand, it is a subject of heightened interest for two basic reasons. The first reason is that transplants are perceived as a crowning achievement of modern medicine. The second reason is that, in practice, all citizens are potential donors, which raises many questions of a different nature.

In addition, I want to emphasise that human life is priceless and that every conceivable effort must be made to save such a life. Statistics show that the situation differs greatly among the various Member States. In some countries, a good structure has been set up across the whole chain, whereas in other countries, health care systems are experiencing enormous difficulties and transplants are more likely to come under the heading of ‘exotic medicine’. Patients requiring transplants in these countries are forced to resort to transplant tourism, clearly aware of the high risk involved and that they are infringing the law and ethics as their life is often saved at the cost of another life taken or destroyed through violence.

It is important to avoid the commercialisation of organ donation and to guarantee that the donation of organs from live donors is completely free, while obviously ensuring the provision of all the necessary care and compensation for loss of earnings. It is particularly important to set up a transparent system for monitoring organs within the European Union, including after transplantation as well.

I believe that the proposed directive will improve access to organs for European citizens requiring a transplant, increase trust in the donor system and encourage the exchange of good practices which can be applied at supranational level.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, we all support directives that help save lives, and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work with a report that seems simple in principle but is, in fact, complicated in detail.

In the area of post-mortem donations, there are issues of a delicate nature to be addressed, such as ethics, the deceased family’s positioning, the question of whether donor cards should be compulsory and, indeed, whether there should be a European donor card. All these areas need to be treated with respect as there is no right or wrong approach.

The area of living donations has been the most challenging. There is an important red line that cannot be crossed and this line ensures that living donations can be made freely and with no financial gain.

The directive has achieved the balance between ensuring a good quality of post mortem donations, while recognising the need for living donations. Its strength is in its recognition that post-mortem donations alone cannot achieve the supply of organs needed and therefore has set up controls and guidelines to ensure that when living donations are made, they are done in a correct manner, protecting both donor and recipient and ensuring that it is done on a free and voluntary basis.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, myself, have a staff member who was reliant on an organ transplant. I have seen how pleased he was that he was able to benefit from this. However, I also saw how he waited and how his quality of life was restricted. It is therefore important that we adopt this proposal now. A thousand patients still die in Germany every year – and this is a fact – because no organ is available, and it is therefore important to rectify this shortcoming and to guarantee quality. There is a high social relevance to this.

In Europe, we have the best conditions to be able to achieve a significant improvement, thanks to the existence of the internal market and the European institutions. Let us make use of those conditions. I am very pleased that we have stipulated in the directive that donations must be voluntary and unpaid, thus ensuring that human dignity is maintained.

As far as the fall in donors is concerned, I would like to ask the Commission – it has already proven this several times – to generate a culture of discussion and information in Europe so that acceptance amongst citizens is reinforced. I really do not believe that we need to harmonise the differing systems. What we need to do is coordinate them and I think that the appointment of a transplant coordinator in hospitals is an important step.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  António Fernando Correia De Campos (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, Mrs Jiménez, Commissioner, the ability to replace deteriorated human organs with those of another person, preventing it from being rejected, is one of the great successes of contemporary medicine. European benchmarking shows differences. It shows that average countries like Portugal do very well in such comparisons and that larger countries such as Spain are today recognised as leaders in terms of organisation and best practices.

There are some principles and practices to be safeguarded. First, the strengthening of any scientific knowledge and information that leads increasing numbers of donors to donate whilst alive and making post mortem donation general. Second, the banning of commercial donations not only in the Member States but outside them too, banning transplant tourism and fighting organ trafficking. Third, the proactive promotion of donation in hospitals as a way of overcoming shortages.

Lastly, Madam President, guaranteeing equal access to transplants for all those who need and qualify for one under harmonised clinical criteria, obeying the principle of universal access to health: a paradigm of social Europe of which we are proud. Congratulations to the rapporteurs on their work.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank both rapporteurs, who have worked very hard on these reports and have produced between them an excellent body of work and, within, a real plan for organ donation and transplantation throughout Europe.

We are all well aware of the figures – thousands of people across Europe require organ transplants every year. In light of this, I am glad to see that we are going to make concerted efforts to boost the numbers of organ-donor registers by encouraging different forms of registration schemes and strengthening our cross-border cooperation so that the best matches between donors and recipients can be made. For me, the key issue is raising awareness and I believe these reports will help achieve this.

Can I also say that I am glad to see that we have highlighted in these reports the key principles that organ donation should always be altruistic, voluntary and unpaid. This is important if we are to encourage people to donate and ensure the quality and safety of the system as a whole. Many lives have been saved. Many more can be. I commend this report.

  Theodoros Skylakakis (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, the directive we are debating today will concern more and more people over coming years, as medical technology and genetics progress. We literally cannot forecast today the number of transplants that will, at some point, be covered by this directive, which may become much more important than we imagine.

That is why it is very good that the text has solid foundations based on altruism and voluntary donation and requires the Member States to adopt very strict procedures for the whole endeavour. However, one drawback of the compromise on which we will be called to vote is that it waters down controls in comparison with the text we initially voted on, saying that there will either be a control or an ‘audit’, whereas the initial text made provision both for control and evaluation of organisations which will carry out transplants and provide organs. This is a weakness and I hope and believe that it is not serious. However, I consider that it is important to point it out, because transparency is the key to the issue of transplants.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, transplantation and transplantology need our strong support and, as a matter of priority, they need better organisation and coordination as part of health care services. However, it is also extremely important to increase the trust of society in this branch of medicine, especially because every so often, news comes to the attention of public opinion in Europe about a variety of irregularities, including the illegal trafficking of organs from unknown sources.

As Public Prosecutor General in Poland, I supervised an investigation in which a series of irregularities in obtaining organs was found, including illegal payments made to doctors, which motivated them to look for information about donors with suspected brain death. For supplying information about a single donor, doctors in Poland could earn more than one month’s salary.

In the matter of transplantation, society must be sure that everything is being done in accordance with the law, transparently and without any hidden interests, and that this noble medical procedure is not being used as a cover for considerations other than that of saving human life. Trust is absolutely essential.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, today we are having a debate that clearly shows that the evidence is alarming and that, in order to rise to this challenge, we must strengthen the cross-border exchange of organs so as to make the link between donors and receivers. It also shows that, given the length of waiting lists, the absence of such action will mean that there is very little chance of patients receiving the organs they need.

Common binding standards on the quality and safety of donations in the 27 Member States absolutely must be adopted in order to improve cross-border exchanges and to increase donation rates. That is why a European framework on the issue is required.

Of course, we must be extremely vigilant as regards the issue of illegal organ trafficking. All measures must be implemented to combat mafia-style networks and transplantation tourism. However, care must be taken not to hinder donations from living donors, which must be a matter of free and informed choice. We must guarantee the principle of free transplants and prevent any pressure from being put on potential donors.

We must therefore encourage those patients who want to freely give their organs to save lives, because the risks of rejection during these transplants are significantly lower than in cases where the organs come from deceased donors.

I would also like to warn those who, for ethical reasons, would like to limit organ donations from living donors in Europe, by arguing that there are risks of trafficking. The donation of organs from living donors must, above all, be very strictly regulated, and that is the only solution.

  David Casa (PPE). – (MT) Madam President, as the Commissioner mentioned, there are around 56 000 persons awaiting organ transplant surgery within the European Union. Many of these cases, as has already been said, can mean the difference between life and death and therefore, I believe that these are important developments that merit further discussion. The measures will not directly add to the number of organs to be transplanted, yet the implementation of common practices within the Member States should increase the level of trust and reliability between these countries which, in turn, will lead to an increase in organ donations both within and amongst countries.

Some of the problems mentioned in the report, such as organ trafficking, cannot be directly addressed. However, I appreciate the rapporteur’s efforts in increasing awareness on this issue and I hope that these are annexed to the final document in a non-binding manner. To conclude, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Dalli and the rapporteurs for the good work carried out on this sensitive topic.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – (RO) Transplants and organ donation save and prolong the lives of thousands of European citizens every year. It is unfortunate that thousands of other patients die while waiting for a transplant, even though there are compatible donors available in the European Union. This is a difficult and controversial issue which raises important questions. Parliament confirms through this report a common viewpoint, which is that any commercial element in this process which may lead to the sale and purchase of organs is illegal.

It is vital for us to approve and implement an effective system as quickly as possible, not only because we will save patients’ lives, but also because such a system will reduce the request for organs which, otherwise, will be obtained illegally for profit and even against the donors’ will.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to congratulate everyone on this initiative, because it means improving the life expectancy of many people and making solidarity and fraternity into something more than just words.

The Basque Country – Euskadi – has the world record for organ donation. In 2009, we had a rate of 38.5 donations for every million inhabitants. This means that every year, we carry out 60 kidney transplants and 30 liver transplants for every million inhabitants. In the United States, the figures are 54.7 and 21.4; in Europe, they are 35.1 and 13.4; and in Spain they are 48.8 and 24.6.

This success is due to the protocol used in hospitals in order to secure donations and a process of organisation and awareness raising, which are the two ideas that we need to support. It is also due to the work begun in 1986 with the creation of the regional transplant coordination system: another example of how the regions can make their contribution to Europe.

  Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Approximately two years ago, the European Parliament adopted the Adamou report by an overwhelming majority. The report discussed the policies at EU level in the field of organ donation and transplantation for the first time. It was my very great pleasure to cooperate on this as one of the shadow rapporteurs.

Today, I note to my great satisfaction that the rapporteur, Mr Mikolášik, and his shadow rapporteurs, have done a splendid job and, even in this short period of time, have succeeded in achieving an agreement with the Council at first reading. For the most part, the key points of the report from two years ago have been incorporated and built upon. I hope, therefore, that this directive and action plan will result in an increase in the number of organ donors in the European Union, so that patients no longer need to end up on waiting lists.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Madam President, I would like to have some guidance from the rapporteur on two issues. One is the issue of the ‘presumption of consent’ system and the ‘presumption of the lack of consent’ system. As I understand it, these two systems still coexist in Member States. In one system, it is presumed that the deceased donor would have consented to the transplantation. It seems to be quite obvious that this is a much more effective system from the point of view of the number of transplantations made available. Should it not be recommended to every Member State to use the presumption of consent system?

The other thing is anonymity versus traceability. There seems to be a kind of controversy between the two. What are the issues here? What is anonymity and traceability?

  Alf Svensson (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, around 95% of us say that we would want an organ transplant if it would extend our life. No more than roughly half of us are prepared to donate organs, however. We therefore need to influence public opinion in this area.

Can coordination be improved? Absolutely. A heart that is removed from the body of a person who has died is viable for only four hours. That is how it was. Today, however, it is viable for up to 24 hours if we decide to utilise the modern medical technology that has been developed for transplantation.

We also now have medical knowledge that enables us to ‘cleanse’ or recondition lungs, to put it simply – so that they can be used for transplantation in ways that were inconceivable in the past. It is a known fact that the lungs live on for two hours after death has occurred.

Let us push for factual knowledge to be exploited in practice. I believe it is a basic prerequisite if this coordination is to become a reality and not just something that we talk about.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. I would like to come back to what is, in my opinion, a fundamental matter.

In different Member States of the European Union, very different methods are used for identifying potential donors. In some countries, written consent is required from a potential donor, while in other countries, it is assumed that if there is no objection, an organ can be taken from that donor. These measures do, of course, have a fundamental influence on the number of donors. In relation to this, I would like to ask the representative of the European Commission if the Commission should not support more actively the second solution, where written consent is not required? A situation in which organs can be taken from those who did not express their objection to this would be enough to create a radical increase in the number of donors.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, more than 55 000 patients are on waiting lists for an organ transplant. Nearly 10 people a day die whilst waiting.

Organ transplantation – yes, of course, but truly only voluntarily, with a declaration of consent and without payment, in order to be able to counter the illegal trade in organs and, of course, based on the highest possible quality and safety for those involved.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – (PL) I am pleased that the question of organ donation and transplantation is a priority for the Spanish Presidency, because it can be said that this is a matter of life and death. Despite the fact that every year, the number of transplants rises, the number of those waiting for a transplant is not falling.

In spite of growing social awareness, a huge disproportion is noticeable between Member States in terms of donation and transplantology. Therefore, besides establishing a European model for donation and transplantation which will use the best practices and solutions, it is very important to improve social awareness and acceptance. This is why I am pleased that the model for the proposed measures is Spain, which has achieved the best effects, both in terms of numbers of donors and numbers of transplants performed, but also in gaining huge social support for the idea of organ transplantation and donation.

  Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Mrs Jiménez García-Herrera, allow me to start by telling you that I come from Cantabria, a small region of Spain with a rate of 61 donations per million inhabitants, the highest in Spain and in Europe. I would like to congratulate Mr Perello and Mr Mikolášik on this report and for supporting this proposal for a directive that has come as a response to the scarcity of organs in the European Union.

The success of the Spanish case is a model that can be useful to the rest of the European Union with elements such as the competent national authorities, traceability of organs and living donors.

I would also like to congratulate the Spanish Presidency on its firm support for this issue as one of its priorities.

Lades and gentlemen, as you are aware, nearly 56 000 patients are currently on the waiting lists. Donation rates and the availability of organs vary considerably between European countries. The lack of organs is a key factor affecting transplant programmes. The good practice that can be achieved produces much greater benefits in some Member States than in others. For this reason – I will now conclude – the adoption of this report is essential for improving this situation in all the Member States

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Mrs Jiménez García-Herrera, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these days, people are often denied the right to have a transplant. The denial of this right is perhaps the most problematic condition as far as social welfare is concerned, not least on account of its psychological consequences, and yet there remains a chronic discrepancy between the number of people on the waiting list and the number of patients who receive a transplant. Moreover, the donation procedure is very sensitive with regard to health and legal issues, and is often weakened by procedures that are generally cumbersome and slow, when instead we should be reinforcing the welfare response.

The European Union must therefore commit to ensuring real solidarity and voluntary action that does not make the procedures any less rigorous, by improving the professional nature and the culture of donation itself. Adopting common quality standards is therefore a definite step forwards, which must be viewed favourably as part of a goal to which the World Health Organisation can contribute further.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I have followed this debate very closely. Words draw pictures in people’s minds. Today, we have repeatedly heard about the illegal trade in organs – about an illegal activity and about trade. I believe that this directive quite clearly states that the trade in organs is itself an illegal activity. We must not send out the signal that trade in organs could be legal in some circumstances.

I would ask Members to emphasise, including when dealing with the media, that we want organ donation, in other words, an activity where one party has a will to help someone to live longer but there is no payback except for gratitude. Thus, there cannot be any illegal trade in organs because no trade in organs is allowed. There is only organ donation.

  Trinidad Jiménez García-Herrera, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all of the political groups and everyone who has spoken for the support and the constructive tone of their speeches. I would also like to express my satisfaction, because with this agreement that we are achieving here today, in this debate, we are concluding a process.

In addition to the difficulty of legislating on technical aspects that could vary as science progresses, we have had to tackle the practical difficulties of applying the Treaty of Lisbon in this six month term. The Spanish Presidency would therefore very sincerely like to thank all the European institutions – Parliament, the Commission and the Council – and all the Member States for their cooperation in completing this exercise. It has been an exercise involving, firstly, flexibility and adaptation and, secondly, responsibility and a desire for consensus, which has been expressed this afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have succeeded in making the Union more effective and relevant to the public, and we should be pleased with this. However, as you are aware, the work does not end with the adoption of this directive. On the contrary: we need to continue to work towards ensuring that the spirit of protecting public health that we have sought and achieved is maintained when it is transposed.

We need to continue to work to generate more solidarity and maintain the social value desired by everyone who has been involved in creating and launching this directive. We also have a great deal of work left to do in the context of the action plan, which offers us a unique opportunity for continuous learning, adaptation and improvement.

Thank you once again to all the parliamentary groups for their support, their tone and their constructive attitude. Together, we are going to achieve this. We have already achieved it.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, following the very good collaboration between the Commission, Parliament and Council, I am convinced that we have now reached agreement on all the key issues. I would like to again congratulate and thank Dr Mikolášik and Mr Perello Rodriguez for their contribution.

I believe that by ensuring high quality and safety standards for human organs, the proposed directive will be of great benefit to European patients. The directive will provide a comparable safety standard across the Union and increased trust in transplantation systems. I am convinced that the proposed directive strikes the right balance between citizens’ data protection and organ traceability, and indirectly contributes to the fight against organ trafficking.

This is not the solution to all the problems in the area of organ transplantation; this directive provides the framework, clarifies the boundaries of responsibilities and sets some standards. However, more needs to be done in the area of organising our hospitals, collecting and disseminating information, proper characterisation of organs and action against illegal trafficking. In the latter context, traceability will go some way to redress this, but this depends on the enforcement exercised in Member States.

Member States are being given a great deal of flexibility, and we hope that all Member States will give this issue the importance it deserves. The competent authorities that they need to set up should be adequately equipped and resourced to ensure proper data collection and control, traceability, supervised standards, characterisation of organs and in transplantation and to conduct effective vigilance to report adverse events and reactions which will help all of us to minimise risk in the future.

President, Minister-in-Office of the Council, honourable Members, from the contributions of the honourable Members during this debate, it is evident that the compromise text which is on the table today responds to everybody’s concerns. Thank you for your input, your cooperation and your support.

Analytical Table of the Amendments on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation

(COM(2008)0818 – C6-0480/2008 – 2008/0238(COD))

Rapporteur: Mr Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE)

Amendments:

Directly acceptable: amendment 106 (Text as a whole, Block No 1, compromise amendment). The Commission is in favour of the adoption of the compromise text by the colegislators

  Miroslav Mikolášik, rapporteur. – (SK) I would like to thank you for your contributions to this discussion and to express the firm belief, which I think we all shared during the negotiations, that this directive goes beyond political controversy, because it is about people, about patients and about saving lives.

In my opinion, more organs and more successfully cured patients will mean that more people return to a full life, to their families and to new jobs or back to existing jobs, making a fundamental change to their quality of life.

Openness, accessibility, safety, quality, availability, altruism, more living donors, payment-free and voluntary donation – these are the principles we have all incorporated into this directive.

I believe that this directive will also provide more organs, thanks to better cooperation and cross-border swaps between individual countries, and that it will link EU Member States together in a new and fundamental way.

Through this directive, I believe we will all contribute something that we resolved upon at the outset: more consensus, more love, more cooperation and especially more happy patients.

  Andrés Perello Rodríguez, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, the fact that, during the difficult crisis period that Europe and the world are going through at the moment, Parliament has been able to adopt the first directive since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon at first reading says a great deal about this House’s sensitivity. It also increases confidence in democratic institutions and shows that the Members of this House want to move forward and make progress at the same pace as science and with the same level of willingness and strength of solidarity as European society.

I do not know if we have done everything too well or if we could have done something more, but I do want to clear up any doubts that may have arisen. What I am sure about is that if we fulfil everything that we are going to adopt in this House, we will be giving people longer lives and preventing any organ trafficking crimes from being committed in the Union. These crimes may be committed anywhere else in the world, but that is absolutely not the case in the European Union.

Therefore, if, as a result of any speech, any of these doubts has remained in anyone’s mind, as fellow Members have said, I want to clear them up. That was not our task. We have tried to respect everyone’s conscience, the measures of ethics and morality, without losing sight of the fundamental objective: that not a single European should be left without the transplant they need to live, because we can achieve more transplants, and therefore less organ trafficking.

Therefore – and I will conclude now – I do not know if we have succeeded in saving everyone’s conscience with the work we have done, but I am totally convinced that we are going to save many lives. That was our task and that is what we have done.

  President. – The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 19 May 2010.

(The sitting was suspended at 16.25 and resumed at 16.30)

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the new legislation to regulate quality and safety standards of organ donation in the EU. In particular, the introduction of practical measures to help ensure that live saving organs are not wasted, such as the creation of a pan European organ database. The new law will save many lives and optimise the organs donated by allowing Member States to share organs. Before this legislation, if there was no suitable recipient in a particular Member State, the organ went unused. Now, the organ can be given to one of the 56 000 EU citizens awaiting transplants. This regulation constitutes an important framework which needs to be developed upon by the respective Member States. With reference to Ireland, we need an independent body to monitor the transplantation and harvesting of donated organs. At present, Ireland and Malta are the only two countries in EU without a national transplant authority to maximise organ usage. In order to eliminate transplant patient waiting lists, one of the primary aims of the resolution, we need to raise the profile of organ donation among EU citizens – in Ireland, this could be done by the introduction of a government supported awareness programme.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ANGELILLI
Vice-President

13. Institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda (debate)

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

- the report by Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2009/2241(INI)) (A7-0144/2010), and

- the Council and Commission statements on the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr López Garrido, I think this is an important day. I know that there are many important days in this House, but I sincerely believe that since the Treaty of Lisbon was adopted on 1 December 2009, the mandate for the European Union to sign up to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been one of the big headlines of the process of European integration.

I therefore think that we are witnessing the culmination of a long-held aspiration that is part of the historical process of European integration, because human dignity, human rights, democracy and the rule of law are part of the DNA of what has largely been the historical process of European integration.

The report that we will adopt tomorrow is realising this mandate, which the European Union has had since the Treaty of Lisbon required accession to the convention. I would like to summarise the content of this report based on three main ideas.

First of all, I would like to point out that it is not only the Member States that protect human rights. Now it is the European Union that protects human rights, with its new legal personality under the Treaty of Lisbon; it is Union law and it is the development of an EU state that Member States can achieve. They can do so if they submit to the principles of the European Convention and to a court that is external to the Union and to the Member States and guarantees the fulfilment of those principles at all times and in all places.

The second idea is providing the European public with a new law and a new court: the right of Europeans to apply to this new court in order to guarantee fulfilment of the rights established by the convention in relation to the European Union or the Member States when they are implementing Union law.

Even the European Union’s activities involving foreign policy, policing, security outside our borders and international cooperation are subject to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. What does this mean? In my opinion, ladies and gentlemen, it means a major step forward, historically speaking, in the process of integration and in building the most essential notion of the European idea of human dignity which, as we said before, responds to the demands of the European public.

It also means strengthening the European system for protecting fundamental rights because, alongside the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty of Lisbon, it creates a setting, a legal protection framework that is almost perfect and is therefore the most advanced in the world. It also strengthens the Union’s credibility in the eyes of third countries, as the European Union has always demanded the fulfilment of human rights in its bilateral relations.

This report sets out institutional and legal aspects that I am not going to describe now. What I do want to do is point out that here and now, a process is beginning, since, along with this report that has been drafted jointly with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Commission now has a position, a negotiating framework that will enable it to come back to Parliament to adopt this agreement and will enable the Member States to ratify accession to the European Convention. I would like to thank Mrs Reding for the swiftness with which the Commission adopted the mandate for negotiations, and the European Council, which will do so shortly. I would also like to thank Mrs Gál and Mr Preda for their cooperation in the two other committees. Ladies and gentlemen, I think that this is headline news.

  Diego López Garrido, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Madam President, as Mr Jáuregui was saying, the debate that we are going to have now, along with the one that we have just had, is extraordinarily important. I think humanity is taking a historical step forward when defending human rights becomes not just the responsibility of states, which are the traditional political actors and the traditional political players of the last few centuries, but something which, in terms of defending humanity, goes beyond the borders of states and establishes a series of mechanisms and institutional guarantees in order to better defend their universal values.

The European Convention on Human Rights, which is probably one of the greatest treasures that Europe possesses, and the International Criminal Court, which goes beyond Europe, are examples of this step forward that is being taken in our times towards the globalisation and defence of human rights.

With regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, there is little to add to the speech made by Mr Jáuregui and to his excellent report, which was drafted along with the rapporteurs for the opinion, Mr Preda and Mrs Gál, on the issue of the European Union signing the European Convention on Human Rights.

I would like to reiterate many of the things that Mr Jáuregui said, and point out that signing the convention constitutes an element of European integration, which therefore strengthens the European Union. Moreover, it is going to join forces with the major new element brought in by the Treaty of Lisbon, which is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and they are going to work together. This is one of the tasks – not only political tasks, but also technical tasks – of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, without impinging even slightly on their jurisdiction.

Moreover, this initiative, which is provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, also increases the European Union’s credibility in defending human rights, as we are asking not European Union countries but European countries to contribute to strengthening the European Convention on Human Rights. In other words, we are asking them to guarantee that the rights laid down in the convention are respected and protected and, in this way, the European Union itself, not just its Member States, is going to be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. This increases our credibility, as Mr Jáuregui’s report very rightly states.

With regard to the International Criminal Court, I think that this is a time that we are also going to describe as ‘historic’ and of major political significance, because in a few days, the review conference of the Rome Statute is going to meet. This is the only compulsory conference that must meet to review the Rome Statute if necessary and evaluate the extremely important step forward that is the International Criminal Court.

This is therefore an extremely significant event, which today is being examined in the Political and Security Committee and tomorrow is going to be discussed in the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper). We hope that next week, the Council resolution will be adopted so that we can join in the very positive evaluation of the International Criminal Court given by other states, such as the Latin American states that are part of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur).

We are talking about an International Criminal Court that represents a commitment to defend human rights, and therefore to prosecute crimes against humanity at universal level. This is a commitment that has been made by the European Union and by its Member States. I would like to remind you that there was a common position in 2003, there was an action plan in 2004, and there was also an agreement by the European Union on cooperation with the Court in 2006. All the Member States of the European Union are now parties to the Rome Statute, and therefore submit to the International Criminal Court.

I think this is extremely important in order to highlight the role that the International Criminal Court plays in the world and the European Union’s commitment to strengthening it. The International Criminal Court is currently essentially working on the continent of Africa, but the Kampala conference is telling the African people that we are not against Africa: quite the contrary, we are with Africa.

This is also why this review conference is very important. It is open to all states, along with civil society and international and regional organisations, and is going to enable us to evaluate the state of international justice at a time when the International Criminal Court is becoming established as the only permanent international criminal court.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I agree with all the speakers and with all those Members who have been working on the subject. The accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights is a step of constitutional importance. It will complete the system of protection of fundamental rights within the Union, and you know perfectly well that the Lisbon Treaty does not make this an option but a destination.

I therefore welcome the fact that Parliament takes such a great interest in this file – and has from the very beginning, by the way – which is evidenced by the resolution which Parliament has put on the table.

In particular, I would like to thank the rapporteurs of the Committee on Constitutional Rights and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for their excellent cooperation on the file. I would like to thank them for the hearing which was organised and which was of real help and great use in bringing this file forward.

The draft report presented by Mr Jáuregui Atondo is, to a very large extent, in line with the position of the Commission. Let me just mention three points which, in my view, are very important.

Firstly, the Commission shares the position that accession by the EU to the additional protocols of the European Convention – which, by the way, have not been ratified by all Member States – is also very desirable. Indeed, many of these protocols are of potential relevance as regards the exercise of the Union’s powers, and certain guarantees enshrined in these protocols are also reflected in the Charter. The negotiation directives should therefore mandate the Commission to negotiate a provision ensuring that the Union may accede to any of the additional protocols.

The decision then to which protocols we will de facto accede, on top of the convention itself, will have to be taken unanimously by the Council after obtaining the consent of Parliament. In the Commission’s view, such decisions should preferably encompass all additional protocols and should be taken together with the decision concluding the accession agreement itself.

Secondly, it is important to deal with the specific situation of the Union as a distinct legal entity vested with autonomous powers that is going to become a contracting Party to a mechanism initially designed for States only. Therefore, a number of limited and technical procedural adaptations to the convention are necessary with regard to the specific nature of Union law.

Among those is the so-called ‘co-respondent mechanism’ to take account of the decentralised implementation of Union law by Member States. By that mechanism, the Union will receive the right to join the proceedings as a co-respondent in cases brought against Member States when Union law is at stake. I am glad to see that Parliament’s report also argues in favour of this.

Thirdly, I fully subscribe to the report which recommends participation by representatives of the Union in the bodies of the convention on an equal footing with those of the contracting parties. Such participation is indeed a key element in the smooth integration and insertion of the Union into the system of the convention. You have understood this now to mean, in particular, the presence in the Strasbourg Court of a judge elected from each contracting party.

The Commission is therefore strongly in favour of having a permanent full-time judge elected for the Union, who enjoys the same status and has the same duties as his peers. An ad hoc judge, who would intervene only in cases brought against the Union or involving Union law, would, in our opinion, not be sufficient.

As for the method of electing a Union judge, the normal procedure provided for in the convention should apply.

This means that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council will elect a judge from a proposal for three candidates presented by the European Union, and I agree with the draft report that an appropriate number of Members of Parliament should be allowed to participate in sessions of the Assembly when it elects the judges of the European Court.

The procedure for drawing up the list of the three candidates is not a matter for the accession agreement: it is a matter for us. We have to do this by internal legal rules, and the idea that Parliament should be involved in a way similar to that provided for by Article 255 regarding the selection of candidates for the Court of Justice is a very interesting one which deserves close examination.

Honourable Members, the Spanish Presidency attaches very high priority to this dossier, as you know, and the Spanish Presidency would like to reach an agreement before the end of June. If the Council could reach an agreement by then – which I hope it will – this will allow us to then start accession negotiations after summer. As I already said two weeks ago in Brussels, I will ensure that the Commission – as the Union’s negotiator – keeps Parliament fully informed throughout the negotiation process.

This all relates to European affairs, but we also have the question of international human rights on the agenda. As you know, 138 states took a step forward in 1998 when they adopted the Rome Statute creating, for the first time in history, a permanent international court to ensure that perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are brought to account. The Court started to operate in 2003 and now, seven years later, we have the review conference in Kampala, which invites us to conduct an early analysis of the Court’s activities, of the challenges that lie ahead and of the effectiveness of EU support.

As regards the activities of the Court, we know that the Court is fully operational, but is still in its infancy. No judicial cycle has been completed, but the ICC is considering the situation in five countries: one trial has started, another trial is going to start on 5 July and one further case is in the pre-trial stage – all for DAR and DRC.

Let us not forget that this is only a court of last resort, so the primary responsibility lies with the states themselves. In most cases, the Court acts as a catalyst for states to investigate and prosecute cases before national courts. At the same time, in its short life, the Court has been a powerful deterrent for future atrocities because perpetrators now know that justice will prevail and, in this sense, the Court faces challenges.

The ratification by Bangladesh brought the number of State Parties to the Rome Statute to 111. However, it is very clear that we have to go for universal acceptance of the Statute and of the Court. The Court needs the participation and the cooperation of all State Parties and non-Parties, as well as international and regional organisations. The Court cannot perform its functions without the states arresting those for whom an arrest warrant has been issued by the ICC; nor if the witnesses cannot be protected; nor if there are no prisons for those who have been condemned, and that is why the EU supported the Court over the last ten years to help solve these problems.

We, as the EU, have, from the outset, been staunch supporters of the establishment of the Court as an essential mechanism in the new international order designed to end impunity which, as you know, has seen millions of people in recent history subjected to crimes but only a handful of those responsible brought to justice.

The EU considers that an effective ICC is an indispensable instrument for the international community to combat this impunity and to promote a rule-based international order. That is why we have been supporting the Court using the various instruments at our disposal that the Minister has already mentioned. The common position was translated into an action plan. We were the first organisation to enter into a cooperation and assistance agreement with the Court in 2006, and we give the ICC full political and diplomatic support with démarches, political dialogues and statements. The inclusion of ICC clauses in international agreements is now standard practice for the European Union.

Since 2000, the European Initiative – later entitled the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights – has contributed EUR 29 million to support the Court directly or indirectly, notably through global civil society campaigns. The EU has also adopted several decisions in the justice, freedom and security area with a view to strengthening cooperation among Member States in the investigation and prosecution of Rome Statute crimes at national level, so we do our best in order to advance the system. The system needs further perfection, but it needs strong engagement by all nations around the globe for this to happen.

  Cristian Dan Preda, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – (RO) I am going to refer to Mr Jáuregui Atondo’s report. I wish to begin by congratulating him for drafting this excellent report which, in my view, provides a comprehensive description of the benefits and challenges arising from the European Union’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

From the perspective of the opinion which I drafted for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I would like to emphasise the main benefit of the EU’s accession to the ECHR. This step may seem nowadays, in the post-Lisbon period, to be completely obvious, but it has been hoped for on a regular basis during the last 30 years. I consider that accession to the ECHR will boost the EU’s credibility in any human rights dialogue with third countries, confirming to all once again that the European Union is, above all, a community based on law.

The EU’s institutions, as well as those of the Member States of the Council of Europe, will therefore be subject to external, independent control by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, based on the statement: ‘a single standard in human rights, a single Court’. From the perspective of having a single standard in human rights, I must emphasise that accession to the ECHR offers, at the same time, an opportunity for the EU to accede to other Council of Europe treaties as well. I mean, of course, the supplementary protocols, the revised European Social Charter which, as you are aware, complements and reinforces this protection at pan-European level. I also believe that the European authorities’ increased involvement in the bodies of the Council of Europe specialising in the protection of human rights is a logical consequence of this single standard of protection.

Another point which I also emphasised in the opinion that I drafted for the Committee on Foreign Affairs is that a balance also needs to be found between, on the one hand, preserving the specific features of the European judicial system and, on the other, preserving the system of jurisdiction in Strasbourg, which has shown its effectiveness in protecting human rights at a pan-European level.

  Kinga Gál, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, allow me to thank the person responsible for the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Mr Jáuregui Atondo, for his cooperation. I believe that the close cooperation between the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, along with the Subcommittee on Human Rights that supplemented our work, has successfully addressed the series of questions relating to our accession to the convention, and has correctly indicated the emerging questions that remain to be clarified.

I personally, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, resolved first of all to focus – and this was ultimately confirmed by the Committee – on ensuring that our accession does indeed represent added value for citizens of the European Union and that the latter are aware of these values and opportunities, although we should also avoid raising exaggerated expectations.

There are countless crucial questions that must be clarified in the coming period in the course of the negotiations; these include the relationship between the Strasbourg and the Luxembourg courts, since there will be no change in the system of jurisdiction in either of these courts. I consider it important to emphasise that reforming the functioning of the Strasbourg court coincides with the accession, and this should be a significant consideration. I would also like to stress that this accession will be successful only if it truly reinforces the current institutions, and the Member States’ judicial systems must take the necessary steps to this end. The EU’s accession to the convention is a unique experiment, but it must not jeopardise what is already in place as regards the enforcement of human rights. It is very important that we are aware that it will be successful if it reinforces already existing institutions and truly provides added value for citizens.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, the review conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a long awaited and important event in the evolution of the Court itself and, more broadly, international criminal justice.

The review conference is a good opportunity for the stakeholders to consider the existing deficiencies of the ICC and propose possible changes or directions for reform. I would like to mention several issues that EU Member States, as well as the EP delegation, should have on the agenda.

One of the issues is certainly the position of our transatlantic partners on the ICC. I would like to point out that the lack of participation of the United States in the ICC is the single most important factor reducing the relevance and authority of the ICC. It would therefore be very useful if our American partners could express more clearly their current position and commitment to the ICC.

I would also like to urge the EU to insist on discussing – and hopefully revising – Article 124, also known as the transitional provision, of the Rome Statute, which allows states to choose not to have their nationals subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction over war crimes for a seven-year period after the ratification of the Statute. This is a regrettable loophole that should be removed from the Rome Statute.

Last but not least, I would like to point out that the EU should strive for the widest ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute in relations with those countries that have not yet done so. It must be an objective of the EU during the enlargement negotiations and accession phases of the new EU Member States. It should be high on the agenda in our dealings with Russia as well, especially taking into account the fact that we are currently negotiating the modalities of the partnership agreement with our Russian partners.

  Debora Serracchiani, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur for his excellent work on the European Union membership of the Human Rights Convention, which benefits European citizens: due to this convention, there will be a new court, external to the European Union, to ensure that the rights of European citizens are always respected by the European Union and Member States.

Under the principle of democracy, the European Union and its Member States should always have the right to be able to defend themselves. I therefore believe it is crucial that every nation belonging to the convention should have a judge to explain the context of every appeal, just as I think it important that the European Parliament should have an informal body to coordinate information exchanges between Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council, and that Parliament should also be consulted during the negotiation process.

I would also like to add that European citizens have the right to understand the mechanisms governing this membership, just as they have the right to know what their rights are. Therefore, I believe it is essential for the Council of Europe and the European Union to consider establishing guidelines, with a clear explanation of all the effects and implications that membership will entail.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, the accession of the EU to the ECHR has been a long time coming. It is an essential piece of the jigsaw whose final picture is to be a superior rights regime fostered by the Court of Justice and enjoying the external supervision of the Court at Strasbourg.

It is a necessarily complex measure because it is a quid pro quo for making binding the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It signals an important fresh consensus between those like the traditional British, who have favoured the intergovernmental Council of Europe approach, and federalists such as me who have favoured the supranational approach. Such a twinning is extremely appropriate at this time of coalition politics in the UK between the British Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties.

  Barbara Lochbihler, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, the adoption of the Rome Statute and the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a success story. There are many examples that show this, but the crucial thing is that, for the first time in history, it is now possible for high-ranking representatives of a State – civilian or military – to be called to account for having ordered war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The EU has supported the establishment and the work of the ICC in numerous and very positive ways and it must continue, in future, to support and reinforce the Court and to protect its independence. The forthcoming review conference in Kampala will take stock and ask what has been successful and what needs to be improved. Now is exactly the time to clearly recognise that the States must strive at the national level to adopt laws or implement existing laws consistently so as to support the ICC.

Many are still slow to act when it comes to arresting high-ranking people for whom an arrest warrant has been issued. Commissioner Reding has pointed this out. Often, the fear of diplomatic difficulties carries more weight than the understanding that the ICC needs tangible support in order to be effective.

The conference in Kampala needs to work on the definition of the term ‘war of aggression’. A dedicated working group from the States that are party to the Rome Statute has done some successful preparatory work on this and has already submitted a suitable text, which can also be found in our resolution. We call on the Commission and the Member States to work intensively for the incorporation of this definition into the Statute and thus its inclusion within the competence of the Court.

In so doing, the strictest attention must be paid to ensuring that no restrictions are introduced in connection with the Court’s independence. Allow me, in closing, to also emphasise just how important the call for the EU to be represented at the conference by the highest-ranking people possible is. That would be a signal of our support for the International Criminal Court, as well as a positive example for other governments.

  Ashley Fox, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, my Group is committed to protecting human rights, but we are not convinced that allowing the EU to sign the convention is wise. Given that every Member State is already a signatory to the convention, what benefit is there to the EU signing as well? I should be very pleased if someone in this Chamber could give me a practical example of how the human rights of one of my constituents will be better protected as a result of the EU signing the convention.

At present, Member States are not required to make the convention directly applicable within their domestic law. I want to be reassured that if the EU signs the convention, that position will not change. I do not want the power of the British Parliament to change the way we decide to protect human rights to be undermined. My suspicion is that one of the motives behind this proposal is a desire to enhance the status of the EU to show it is a player on the international stage. In my view, that is a very good reason not to permit the EU to sign the convention.

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, my group very much welcomes the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is, no doubt, Europe’s most important human rights instrument and the importance of the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights – maybe even for Mr Fox – is clear from the fact that it handles an average of 30 000 complaints a year. In 2009, incidentally, there were 57 000, and the Court issued 2 000 judgments that year or, more accurately, it had to pronounce these judgments.

In the shape of the Court of Justice, the European Union, too, has a court, but, unlike the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice is not solely responsible for protecting fundamental rights, and it is also not completely wrong to establish at this point that the Court of Justice did not, in the past, occupy the sole leading role in evolving European fundamental rights.

Both the Council of Europe and the EU are calling the forthcoming accession historic, and I think we in the plenary will give a majority backing to this in our vote. I, hope, first and foremost, that it will indeed prove itself to be historic for Europe’s citizens, as it will create an area of applicable human rights to which not only 47 governments, but also the institutions of the European Union, are bound. In that way, the EU will be sending a strong signal to the citizens of Europe that it is not above the law when it comes to human rights and that they, the citizens, can bring an action if the Community institutions should infringe their human rights.

The specific form of the accession process itself will certainly create some problems, and it is therefore important that we find the best solutions for the extremely difficult technical and legal problems quickly and constructively and with open-mindedness and creativity.

  Morten Messerschmidt, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (DA) Madam President, it is easy to see the benefits of the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. It will benefit those people who have been employed in the EU and have been fired for refusing to put their signature to false accounts and becoming whistle blowers. They can bring cases of this nature before the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6. It will benefit fellow Members here in Parliament who receive extortionate fines for expressing their opinions freely and who have nowhere to go to appeal against this. Such cases can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg under Article 10. It is thus easy to see the benefits.

The reason that my group and I are nevertheless opposed to the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is the fact that the disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages. For example, there is no doubt that the Court of Justice, in particular, would use the accession to once again extend the EU’s powers. In ever more areas – the social sphere, the policy on aliens and fundamental freedoms – we will see how it will be possible to use accession to the Convention on Human Rights as yet another argument in favour of more decisions being taken at EU level, which means fewer decisions being taken by the Member States. We do not want to see a situation where Member States are not able to determine their own policy on aliens or issues concerning their freedoms, the freedom of expression and everything else covered by the convention. These must remain national matters and therefore, the EU should not go down this route.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Madam President, the rapporteur states in his report that the accession to the ECHR will afford citizens protection against the actions of the Union. I would be far more interested in protecting the residents of my constituency, the West Midlands in the UK, against the action of the Convention on Human Rights.

Of course, in the UK, we incorporated this into our law in 1998, allowing the ECHR to have effect in all our courts. In the manifesto of the new Conservative government, it was promised that they would repeal the Human Rights Act but, as they should have known, Lisbon made the EU a legal entity and the EU has greater powers than the electorate of the United Kingdom. We are reminded of George Orwell. The writing is on the wall and, as we know, some people are more equal than others when it comes to human rights.

Earlier this month, my constituents in Meriden and Hatton suffered invasions by so-called ‘travellers’, who have broken the peace and who are building unauthorised and possibly illegal developments on what little remains of our precious green-belt land. Thanks to the Convention on Human Rights, these travellers have special protected rights. They have priority in health care and education, all at the expense of local taxpayers!

The rapporteur wants us to involve our national courts and ministries of justice in this process. I say that the Convention on Human Rights has done enough damage already. Perhaps the rapporteur would like to visit my constituency and witness at first hand the desecration of our land. Perhaps he would like to speak to the hardworking villagers who have seen the value of their homes plummet. He can inspect the lines of police drafted in to keep the peace and, of course, preserve the special rights of the travellers. He could even enjoy the spectacle of 90 lorries laden with gravel churning up the country lanes where parents walk with their children. He might help residents as they rush to install security equipment in anticipation of the surge in criminal activity that often accompanies such developments.

Of course, these are but small tragedies and are nothing when compared to the important political project that is the European Union, but let us consider that when we propose special rights on one group of citizens, we automatically degrade the rights of others.

The Convention on Human Rights has degraded the rights of my constituents. It should not be up to unelected officials to decide who is special and who is not. We have a newly elected government in the UK which has made promises in this area. In the name of democracy, let them carry out those promises!

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, more than 20 years ago – in fact 23 years ago – I was fortunate enough to witness the signing of an agreement in the other parliament building between the then President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Marcelino Oreja, for what were then the European Communities to sign up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. That was 23 years ago.

This reminds me of the answer that the poet Heinrich Heine gave when he was asked, ‘Where would you like to die?’ He replied, ‘In England, because there everything happens 100 years later’. Based on some speeches that we have heard, it seems that everything happens 200 years later, Madam President. I trust, however, that Mr Duff’s influence in the new Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition government will improve this situation.

Therefore, Madam President, my Group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), has been in favour of this accession for a long time now, and we warmly welcome the excellent report by Mr Jáuregui. It is his first report and I am sure that it will not be his last.

We are doing so because we feel that it will increase guarantees for the public, because what we are doing is giving more guarantees to people that the European Union legislation applied by the Member States and European Union laws is in line with the set of rights recognised in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

This report opens the way for resolving many of the technical legal problems that are going to arise, because we must not forget that the convention was designed to be ratified and applied by Member States. Whatever the propaganda from some sides of this House, the European Union is not a state or a super-state. It is an international organisation, and therefore, there are difficulties in adjusting an international organisation to something that was made for states.

Mrs Giannakou, who was our shadow rapporteur and did an excellent job for which I sincerely thank her, will talk about the specific issues. All I want to do now is join Vice-President Reding in calling for the Council to give the Commission a mandate to negotiate swiftly, and I am sure that my friend, Mr López Garrido, will ensure that this is the case. This will mean, Madam President, that soon we will be able to celebrate the European Union signing up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to join in congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Jáuregui, and the rapporteurs for opinion, who have worked on drafting this report. I do so, above all, in order to highlight the fact that in the same way that we have been dealing with the economic crisis in the Monetary Union during this year of Parliament’s mandate, this is the time to say that Europe will not be built through the internal market or the single currency, but through the people.

The rights of the people are strengthened by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, this ‘bill of rights’ that must take into account the political and public dimension of European integration.

They are also strengthened by the mandate in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

This does not diminish any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to European citizens by the legislation of the Member States due to the fact that they are citizens of those Member States. On the contrary, it multiplies, strengthens and increases the rights that we all have as participants and players in a joint project.

I also wish to highlight, as Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the fact that we have discussed all the problems – which will arise – with incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights within that shared culture of strengthening and guaranteeing rights and citizenship. We have organised extremely fruitful visits to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, and we have called a third conference on 21 June which is going to be attended by important specialists and judges from the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to put together a joint, advance response to what the legal guarantee should be for citizenship rights.

A British legal expert named Hart wrote that there are no rights without legal guarantee, and there is no legal guarantee without judges, in the same way that there can be no Europe without citizens and there are no European citizens if they are not aware that European integration makes us grow and strengthens the fundamental rights that we already have as members of the EU Member States.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Madam President, as we review the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, let us be reminded that its creation truly marks a success for liberal democracy and a commitment to effective international law. With all EU Member States ratifying to comply with the Rome Statute, we set out on the next chapter of meeting our ambitions and responsibilities in the field of human rights, peace and justice.

A critical evaluation is important, but the ICC is already an important institution in ensuring that these fundamental values are not just European but universal. It is a last resort, as Commissioner Reding said, but an important one. The EU and Member States should continue their commitment to the ICC, or the principles it seeks to ensure, by adopting the EU guidelines on the ICC. It is a primary obligation to investigate and prosecute those who commit war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

With the Lisbon Treaty, we are working towards an effective common foreign EU policy. The High Representative should actively promote the accession to the Rome Statute of other global players – China, India, Russia and important candidate Member States, such as Turkey – but, also, the long-term ally of the EU, the United States, should be engaged in a dialogue of contributing to global justice and should seriously consider joining its ally. As a Dutch European, I would like to reassure our citizens that the ‘Hague Invasion Act’ will never be invoked.

The EU needs to work constructively with Turkey and the US to stop impunity in Iran, which is one of the most urgent cases of aggressors and where execution, rape and torture are brought upon citizens by their own government on a daily and systematic basis. We need to work on the true globalisation or universalisation of human rights, justice and the rule of law, and the ICC is an important instrument to meet this goal. Support for this Court needs to be globalised as well. The European Parliament has been working constructively and is united on this subject.

  Gerald Häfner (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are working towards here today is the extension of law at the supranational level. The importance of this can be seen from a glance at the terrible history of my own country, along with a glance at the human rights infringements currently taking place. In reality, Germans did not carry out the most horrific crimes in history because they broke laws, but because they drafted laws that made the unethical legal and that, for example, made the murder of Jews, Communists, Christians, homosexuals and others a legal obligation. If such people and, above all, those who ordered these actions later say that they only did what the law stated at the time and it was not possible to prosecute them later on, that would demonstrate an unbelievable weakness in the law and in humanity.

For that reason, what we have done here with the International Criminal Court represents a major step forwards in that all such people will know, in future, that there is a judge beyond national law and that, for the rest of their lives, they will have to live with the fact that they will be held to account. That is a major step forward, just like the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, something which we, and I personally, championed for quite some time. I am pleased that we will be able to implement this together here today and I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Jáuregui Atondo, for his outstanding report.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, my national party, the British Conservatives – for those who do not know, I am a Conservative – has expressed serious concerns in the past about the ICC and its enforcement of international criminal jurisprudence, as encapsulated in the Rome Statute, in the areas of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.

However, the 10th anniversary of the Statute’s entry into force does offer us now an opportunity to make a clear assessment of the role of the ICC and, in my view, the Court has, to its credit, stuck rigidly to its brief, eschewing mischievous prosecutions and seeking to arraign only the most serious tyrants.

The Court’s Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has skilfully helped the Court to strengthen its impartiality globally. The aggressive pursuit of politically motivated cases has, thankfully, failed to materialise, which was one of the big worries of our American allies. Britain joined the ICC under the previous Labour administration. Perhaps the recent establishment of a Conservative-Liberal coalition in the UK last week offers us now a chance to reassess Britain’s relationship with the ICC and, at Kampala, to amend some of the disputed areas, like command responsibility.

We cannot allow the UK’s vital national interests to be compromised by the ICC but, at the same time, we should also recognise that in certain circumstances, the ICC may have a constructive role to play in ending a climate of impunity for genocidal dictators.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to talk at the same time about accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and about accession to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

First of all, I would like to thank our rapporteurs for the quality of their reports and for their willingness to integrate everyone’s proposals in a great spirit of consensus.

In addition to everything that has been said in favour of this accession, I would like to stress two points that I feel are important: the establishing of a control outside the Union and the extraterritoriality of the convention; in other words, its application to all the acts of the Union, including outside EU territory. Allow me to express the hope that the ‘human rights and democracy’ clauses will thus make a little more sense. Therefore, not only must the Commission’s negotiating mandate relate to the convention itself, to all the protocols and agreements already enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but we must make a commitment very quickly to accede to all the legal instruments of the ECHR in order to have a coherent system for the protection of human rights.

As for the ICC, I would like to express two wishes. Firstly, I would like the European Union to be particularly vigilant as regards the rights of victims and of their legal representatives. That implies ad hoc legal assistance affording access to specialist external lawyers.

I have one other wish, Commissioner: that the Union will use all of its weight, all of its energy, to ensure that the Member States as a whole adapt their law to international law. France, in particular, has not yet done this. I regret this, just as I regret that some large countries, such as the United States, are not participating in the implementation of this international law in the area of crimes against humanity.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, the European Union signing up to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights will be followed by legislation that will make the convention part of European Union law, as well as being another organisation’s document as an external benchmark. That means that the EU’s Court in Luxembourg will have the jurisdiction to interpret and enforce two potentially competing documents – the EU’s Charter and the Council’s Convention.

I have asked several experts in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs what would happen if there should be a conflict between the two documents or between different sections of the same document. Which document or which section would take precedence?

I was told, first of all, that the document or section that granted the greater amount of freedom would take precedence over the one that granted the lesser amount of freedom. I later asked what would be decided if there should be two parties to a dispute and each claimed different but competing, and possibly contradictory, rights – for example, the right to practise one’s religion without being offended and the right of freedom of expression involving criticism of the tenets of followers of a religion. This is not entirely theoretical as the case of the Danish cartoons illustrates.

This was the case of the dog that did not bark or rather the expert who did not venture an opinion. The silence was as deafening as it was clear for all to hear and to understand. Free speech will always be sacrificed because that is the EU’s default position. Denying free speech is what the EU does best!

We are talking about two different categories of right – the political right of freedom of expression against prosecution by the state and the right not to be offended by criticism. The right not to be offended is considered to be much more important than the right to debate a matter of public interest. Should there be no restrictions on freedom of speech? There should be restrictions on those who incite violence, but criticism that falls short of that should be free from interference from the criminal law.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) I wish, in particular, to congratulate Mr Jáuregui Atondo on his report and on our excellent cooperation and, of course, Mr Preda and Mrs Gál, on their contribution from two different committees.

The material accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and hence, to the jurisdiction of the Court is, of course, based on the fact that the Union acquired its own legal personality under the Treaty of Lisbon. Of course, some people are wondering why, having incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we need to accede to the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

First of all, the Court in Strasbourg has, in the sense of res judicata, acquired much broader capabilities than those provided for under fundamental rights, as both the Presidency and Commissioner Reding have hinted.

Secondly, this somehow forges a link between the European Union and what is happening in Europe as a whole, and hence with the countries of the Council of Europe. Of course, some people are wondering if this will cause more general complications, but the report stresses that there should not be any transnational appeals, nor is one Court above or below the other. Each court will have jurisdiction for the powers vested in it, as will the European Union, therefore, for the Court in Luxembourg.

I consider that accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is an important step, as it is the procedure for accession to the protocols relating to corresponding powers; this will, of course, give the European Parliament the facility to become actively involved in negotiations and to help select a judge through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Madam President, I am proud to be chairing this Parliament’s delegation to the review conference for the International Criminal Court, to celebrate how its establishment has helped build global justice and fight impunity for crimes against humanity and to represent our European Union’s determination, in our common foreign and security policy, to work towards the Court’s universal jurisdiction.

In calling for better access to justice for victims, we should acknowledge that 15 of the 24 countries worldwide who have contributed to the Trust Fund for Victims are our own EU Member States – but we should also note with humility that that means 12 EU Members have not given such funding and that 14 of our countries have neither designated national contact points nor responded to the annual survey, as required by the Charter. Universal jurisdiction abroad starts with universal implementation here at home and, Madam President, I have to regret that one of the first decisions of the UK’s new coalition government is to go to the review conference to oppose jurisdiction for the crime of aggression and to resist Belgium’s proposal to include the use of prohibited weapons in internal conflict as a war crime.

Aggression, the unlawful use of force against another state, was prosecuted by the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals at the end of the Second World War, and I find it hard to understand why the ICC should not be used to prosecute the war crimes of the 21st century. Meanwhile, how they justify saying that the use of poison gas or dumdum bullets is illegal if going across a border but not if staying within it, I do not understand. They are saying that when Saddam Hussein gassed the Marsh Arabs, or when demonstrators in Gaza are shot with bullets that intentionally break into shrapnel inside their bodies, the perpetrators are able to do so free from the fear of being held to account. Quite simply, they are wrong.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, conceived as it was to try the authors of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the long-awaited International Criminal Court is an initial response to those victims who have too often and, sadly, in vain, demanded compensation and justice.

Prior to its creation, many of us wanted the Court to have a preventative role. Indeed, could an international body authorised to punish the authors of crimes as heinous as those perpetrated in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur not dissuade a given dictator-executioner, who knew that once his crimes had been committed, he would no longer feel safe outside the borders of his country, where he was able to act with complete impunity?

In this regard, I would like to ask the Commission and the Council whether they believe the objective of prevention has been achieved. For example, could the Commission tell me if, in its opinion, the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against President Omar al-Bashir constitutes part of the solution or part of the problem? Personally, I continue to believe that it is part of the solution.

Be that as it may, what lessons will be learnt from the short period in which the Court has been in existence?

Having taken these lessons on board, does the Commission intend – and this is my final question – to table amendments during the ICC review conference in Kampala, which will be an opportunity to table and, if necessary, adopt amendments to the text that constitutes the Court’s legal basis?

  Konrad Szymański (ECR). – (PL) When we accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, we must, at all costs, avoid a number of serious dangers.

We have a significant problem related to competition between two courts: the one in Strasbourg and the European Court of Justice. The fact that two documents will be in force – the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention – will create problems. It will be very difficult to explain to our citizens which court is the right one for their complaint. As a result, there will be a rise in the number of instances of refusal to examine a case due to a conflict of jurisdiction of courts and the legal grounds involved. There is also a danger that accession by the Union to the European Convention will reduce respect for the constitutional traditions of Member States which form the general principles of law today. In particular, accession by the Union to the convention should not be a means of circumventing the protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon which guarantees the United Kingdom and Poland exemption from any unexpected effects of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, I am very sorry that I have only one minute for this important topic, so please allow me, no matter how short the time is, to inform you that there is a terrible flood devastating Northern Hungary, Slovakia and Poland as we speak. The lives of hundreds of people are at stake. We should reassure them from this Chamber in the European Parliament in Strasbourg that we are in solidarity with them and sympathise with the victims, and that we hope that this destructive flood will recede as soon as possible. I ask the leaders of the European Parliament to offer assistance to the victims, should this become necessary. At the moment, there are several dozen towns in northern Hungary that are entirely under water. We hope that fate and God will have mercy on these disaster-stricken regions.

The main problem with this report is that it is important for all of us present, as MEPs, to raise human rights to a higher dimension, namely the protection of human rights. Accession to the convention, however, does not increase protection for human rights. It is only the ideology of a United States of Europe that emerges, which we do not support, since sovereign countries, the Member States, have already signed up to the convention. We also oppose the notion that this symbolic decision should be taken as suggesting that we are part of a large empire.

  Carlo Casini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Mr López Garrido, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this membership is surely a sign of one of the European Union’s missions: the mission to defend and promote human rights.

A mission that is already fully formulated and borne out by history, by the fact that individual Member States already belong to the European Council convention, by the reiteration that the general principles of the convention and Member States’ constitutions are now part of European law. So this symbolic gesture is extremely important.

However, translating this ideal concept into substantive legal rules is not so simple: this report refers chiefly and ultimately only to institutional questions, and is completely acceptable. I must say that I also thank Mr Atondo, and am bound to report that the AFCO Committee on Constitutional Affairs – which I chair - has approved this document almost unanimously. We are therefore satisfied with this document, and I will not dwell on individual elements of it, because we fully support everything that the President of the Council and the Commissioner have said.

I would like to make just one suggestion, since the statement about the institutional presence of European Members of Parliament within the European Council Parliamentary Assembly when meeting to appoint the judge and the judges is somewhat vague: I would say that there is a small problem with the relationship between the population of Europe, of the European Union, and the populations of other countries. Luckily, the regulation governing membership and representation in the European Council Parliamentary Assembly already states that there can be no fewer than two per State, and no more than 18 altogether. Given the importance of the European Union, I suggest that we should draw the line at 18.

I must conclude, however, and so I will finish by saying that this resolution exposes a problem that it is worth examining in more depth, in other words, the problem that we have already highlighted many times of the relationship between the Courts. I believe we must reflect a little more upon this problem but, above all, on the problem of the European spirit: we are the European Union and, as stated in Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon, we are founded on human dignity and human rights – and equality is founded on human dignity. In Europe, we are not united on this point, and so we must reflect carefully on this concept of human dignity, its limits and what it covers. That is not the subject of this decision and this very welcome report, however. I thank the rapporteur.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, the European Union is, and remains, an ardent supporter of the International Criminal Court and its role in defending the universality of human rights. We all hope that the review conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala will be a real milestone in the further development of the Court.

The international community is being called up to strengthen the validity of the institution and to safeguard the protection and further strengthening of the independence and efficacy of international criminal justice. Within the framework of the review process, various proposals have already been presented, of which the most important is indubitably that relating to the crime of aggression. What is paramount today, however, is to make it clear that the European Parliament wishes to stress that heinous crimes against humanity cannot go unpunished. What we want is clarity of law and cooperation from as many Member States of the international community as possible, so as to put an end to impunity through fair and impartial process.

War criminals must be absolutely certain that they will have to account for their actions. It is this certainty of punishment that can help to prevent similar actions in the future and pave the way for reconciliation following violent clashes.

We therefore affirm our absolute support for the purpose of the Court and our devotion to human rights and international humanitarian law and wish the review conference in Uganda every success.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). – (PL) The review conference of the International Criminal Court will be an important opportunity to commit Member States of the Union to values which, to us, are crucial. Fortunately, there is a general conviction among Europeans that the greatest crimes must be judged, and the perpetrators punished.

In view of this, it is good that the review conference will take place in Africa. Africa is a continent where many crimes have not yet been punished. The Court is currently conducting investigations in five African countries: Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic.

The impunity of those who commit terrible crimes against their own citizens and against other people regardless of their citizenship must be ended. The role of the Court in this matter is crucial. If the Court had existed 70 years ago, perhaps the Katyń Massacre would never have happened. The existence of an effective court can, of itself, have a preventative effect.

European states should strengthen the Court in its basic roles: investigation and prosecution of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It is important that more states accede to the Rome Statute, because the effectiveness of the Court is dependent on cooperation between states and international organisations. Therefore, all State Parties of the Rome Statute should join in such cooperation, because otherwise, that effectiveness will not be achieved.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) There are important items on the agenda of the Kampala conference such as the crime of aggression. However, bringing the accused Omar al-Bashir to trial is currently the most significant step in consolidating the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

It was thanks to pressure from the European Union that the Security Council of the United Nations referred the crimes in Darfur to the ICC. The arrest warrants issued by the ICC include one for the current Head of State of Sudan for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The European Union must act in accordance with the assessment of its observers in the Sudanese elections, who concluded that the elections had not complied with international standards. Even if Omar al-Bashir had been elected legitimately, the European Union should still be demanding that he be brought to justice. The European Union cannot continue to give contradictory signals.

It is imperative that President Omar al-Bashir be handed over to the ICC. That will send a powerful signal to discourage other dictators from using violence against their peoples; failure in this case will have the opposite effect.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, I will speak on the Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. I want to underline that I am going to speak as a lawyer.

I would like to draw attention to the role of the Court of Justice in the construction of the European Union’s accession to the European Convention. In particular, the requirement in the European Convention on Human Rights that the applicant must exhaust domestic remedies before applying to the European Court of Human Rights must be transposed into a procedure which would give the Court of Justice in every case the opportunity to decide as the last domestic remedy before the Strasbourg Court looks into the matter. I mainly refer to the cases where Member States apply EU law and Member States are sued by individual applicants following the application of that EU law. The Court in Luxembourg must first be given the possibility to apply the convention in such cases. Let us not forget that the Court in Luxembourg has been applying the convention for years. In relation to this, I would like to recall the European Court of Human Rights’ finding in the case of Bosphorus Airlines vs. Ireland in 2005. I quote, ‘The protection of fundamental rights by Community law can be considered to be equivalent to that of the convention system’.

Along with my colleagues, I welcome the Union’s accession to the convention but, at the same time, I ask for a very careful analysis of the procedure we put in place, as we need to protect citizens’ interests and, at the same time, to preserve what is working well.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) I would stress that it is with great satisfaction – shall we say – that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and its Portuguese Members are seeing the start of Europe’s process of accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In the end, in a country like Portugal – which has always been at the forefront of human rights with the abolition of slavery in Portugal as soon as 1761 and which was a pioneer in abolishing the death penalty – we could clearly only be interested in supporting this accession process.

I would like, however, to call attention to the fact that we believe it to be very important for Parliament to monitor the EU’s process of accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We consider this to be essential from a technical, legal and political point of view, because Parliament itself is a House of human rights and one in which human rights are of great importance. I would also like it to be noted, Members, that we consider it very important that we are in contact with many third states; this is a very important signal that we are giving to the members of the Council of Europe (the entry of the European Union to the Council of Europe) who are not Member States.

For these members of the Council of Europe, it is a signal of strengthening, of a commitment by the European Union to the situation and levels of democracy and respect for fundamental rights.

  Milan Zver (PPE). – (SL) Honourable representatives of the Commission and the Council, it has been some time since human rights and freedoms were confined to the level of the individual nation state. This renders superfluous the fundamental dilemma of whether the European Union should be based on intergovernmental agreements or whether it should become some sort of a supranational state. I think that the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is a step towards extending human freedom and the freedom of the individual. This move will also bring added value and we must make it our goal to make the European Union a zone where standards of human freedom are the highest in the world.

That said, I do not think that the European Union will become a realm of freedom all of a sudden just because it has acceded to the convention. On the contrary, there will still be breaches of human rights and freedoms, but it is important that these rights and freedoms are not under systematic and systemic threat.

We must strengthen the functioning of the courts and other structures and delimit their competences, and on this note I would like to bring my speech to a close.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) I would like to say something about the subject of today’s proceedings. It should be borne in mind that, unfortunately, Africa is a continent where there have been numerous cases of crime and genocide on a frequent basis. The European Union must not be passive in this situation. Fortunately, the International Criminal Court in Kampala is becoming increasingly significant in measures being taken against these crimes. Criminals must know they will never go unpunished anywhere. In relation to this, I am among those who are decidedly in favour of the Union giving its support to the work of the Court. I do not suppose we can raise any doubts about this, today. I think we should discuss and think about what to do for the Court in Kampala to work still more efficiently and effectively.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) As has already been mentioned, the accession of the EU to this convention is, above all, a symbolic gesture. Despite this, I believe that it can only strengthen the integration process, and that it is a further step towards the political unification of the European Union.

In addition to the symbolism, this legal measure also has practical significance for EU human rights policy. On a formal level, it will also eliminate double standards. The Union, that is to say, was not previously obliged to observe human rights. From now on, however, EU laws will be subject to external judicial checks, which will monitor compliance with the convention.

A further practical benefit of the EU’s accession to the convention will be a guarantee of protection not only for EU citizens and other persons in the EU, but also for all individuals falling within the jurisdiction of the Union outside its territory. Personally, I am pleased with the idea that the aim of the Union will be to observe the clauses of the convention fully in all of its external relations and activities.

It is important that the submitted report mentions the possible technical and administrative complications of the whole process, and suggests how to reduce the complexity as much as possible. The EU, as a non-state member acceding to a convention that was designed for states, should take care not to demand needless changes to the convention or to its judicial system. The European Court of Human Rights is already overstretched enough. Moreover, needless complications might undermine the legitimacy and popularity of the process of EU accession to the convention.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, I have been a Member of the European Parliament for nearly a year now, and I am beginning to get used to what is impossible to get used to, namely, that the debate on every single report follows the same script. There are some 20 or 30 of us present in this Chamber out of almost 800 MEPs, with a few of us who are not even here out of a sense of duty, but simply because we do not wish to vote according to the party line but based on personal conviction and sound information, and who all have had the same experience. We ask questions but never receive any answers to them, save perhaps for some general statements. I sincerely ask the Commissioner responsible for human rights to make an exception this time and give a precise answer to my question. The question is what added value and benefit are derived from the perspective of European citizens by the European Union’s accession to the same Convention on Human Rights that every single EU Member State has already joined. I ask that you kindly provide a single example that shows what new contribution this accession will make to the citizens of Europe in terms of protecting their human rights. I thank you in advance for finally making an exception to the general rule for once.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, becoming a member of the European Court of Human Rights represents a crucial step in the Union’s growth: the two systems of guarantee will strengthen the protection of individual fundamental rights, both within and outside our 27 countries, if we consider all the member countries of the European Council. This is therefore an opportunity not to be wasted, and one for which we have waited many years.

The doctrine and law, both of the Court of Justice and of the Strasbourg Court, have, for some time now, been working towards this moment, or rather paving the way for this goal, because for me it is a goal: it is a goal for all of us. I am therefore compelled to mention the importance of membership for all Union citizens, who will thus be able to refer cases to the Strasbourg Court against a European institution or a Member State because of the wider protection they enjoy.

I conclude, in the knowledge that the independence of the two courts remains unchanged, as is clearly explained and ratified in the report – more than that, I congratulate my colleague on this report – and accords with all of our wishes, with the obvious exception of cooperation between the two institutions, which respect their own areas of responsibility.

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, the articles that are in the Charter of Fundamental Rights that are also in the European Convention on Human Rights are the same and mean the same thing: Articles 52 and 53 of the Charter; there is therefore no contradiction.

Secondly, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is supranational. Therefore, if someone wants to apply to it due to a European Union decision or the application of Union law, they will first have to apply to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

I understand that Europhobes always want to vote against Europe, but at least out of parliamentary courtesy, they should read Mr Jáuregui’s report, which sets everything out clearly.

  Diego López Garrido, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Madam President, in relation to the first point regarding the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I would like to join in congratulating the rapporteurs and also the Commission for the way in which it has very quickly put forward a draft mandate for negotiation. I would also like to welcome the speech by Mr Duff, who said quite clearly that the government that has been formed in the United Kingdom between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is absolutely in favour of the European Union signing the European Union Convention on Human Rights, and therefore of complying with the Treaty of Lisbon.

However, some of Mr Duff’s compatriots said exactly the opposite: representatives of the European Conservatives and Reformists and the representative of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group – who is not British – along with Mrs Sinclaire and subsequently Mrs Morvai, who said quite clearly, ‘Why does the European Union need to sign the European Convention on Human Rights if the Member States are already parties to it?’

What has happened is that the Member States have transferred some of their competences and powers to the European Union, so they are not exercised by the Member States but by the European Union. The European Union could therefore theoretically infringe the European Convention on Human Rights. This is the case unless it is considered that the European Union does not have any power or any competences whatsoever, but it does have powers and competences that have been transferred by the Member States. This means that it is not enough for the Member States to have signed the convention. The Union needs to sign it too in order to complete the protection of human rights throughout the whole of the European Union.

I do not understand how people such as the representatives of the two groups that I mentioned, who have demonstrated their obvious euroscepticism, are refusing supranational control over the European Union. It is absolutely contradictory for someone who wants the European Union to be controlled or considers that everything that the European Union does is bad or that wretched bureaucrats are doing everything badly to be refusing supranational control over the European Union. This is absolutely contradictory. There will be other reasons to do with human rights or to do with an international organisation that defends human rights being more legitimate, stronger and more solid. There may be other reasons, but not the ones being given.

I believe that the need to sign the convention is very clear, and I also believe that it needs to be done with the speed with which the Commission has already begun to act. As Mr Méndez de Vigo said, the Commission has acted quickly and the Council needs to do the same. I am sure that the mandate for starting negotiations will be adopted on 4 June at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels, so he does not need to worry.

With regard to the issue of the International Criminal Court, I think that the review conference is a very important meeting. It is a very important meeting which the Presidency, on behalf of which I am speaking, is going to attend in order to clearly establish and reaffirm that the Member States have to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, and that they are going to work along those lines, naturally based on the principle of complementarity, which is a basic principle of operation of the Criminal Court.

I agree with one of the major objectives of this conference, which is to introduce the crime of aggression, and also with removing from the Rome Statute the possibility of delaying for seven years before handing over possible or alleged war criminals. I also agree with the issue being debated – a proposal put forward by Belgium – as to whether the use of certain weapons in conflicts can constitute a war crime in itself.

In any case, the Presidency will make a statement supporting the Criminal Court and will also give an evaluation of what the Criminal Court has meant. I also presume that many Members will be at the debates at the Kampala conference. I therefore believe that this is a very important conference, with great political, symbolic and legal significance; decisions will be taken that affect legal texts.

I am, of course, very grateful to Parliament for holding this debate today, which has enabled us to reaffirm our common values and also to recall that basically, when we talk about the International Criminal Court, we are talking about people who have suffered the atrocities that the Rome Statute seeks to prosecute, and that it is ultimately about fighting impunity and making it clear that in the 21st century, there is no room for impunity.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Convention on Human Rights are extraordinary texts. They are the basis of the values on which we have been building our society and our European Union. I think they are much too important and much too historical to give way to party political polemics. I must say that I am very proud indeed that, at this moment in the construction of the European Union, we can go ahead by putting the Charter of Fundamental Rights into practice and by acceding to the Convention on Human Rights.

When I hear what your rapporteur, Diego López Garrido, and your co-rapporteurs, Cristian Dan Preda and Kinga Gál, have said in your name in this Parliament, I know that you are also very conscious about the historical task which is now in our hands. The added value of the accession has been very well explained in those texts and in the contributions of many of the Members.

The Member States have all signed up to the Convention but they have also – as the Minister-in-Office of the Council just explained – transferred substantial competences to the European Union. It is therefore normal that the European Union, when it acts as a European Union, will be subject to the same external control of the specialised Court on Human Rights as are the Member States.

To give one very concrete example, there could be a decision of the European Commission against an industry in the area of competition law which could be potentially challenged directly before the Court in Strasbourg, which is something that is difficult to do today. As you have already pointed out, there will be a lot of very concrete examples: concrete examples which will help the citizens because – and this is something new – they will now have a double guarantee. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg will judge on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which, by the way, is binding for all Member States. That should be clearly stated once and for all.

I cannot understand how somebody who has an elected mandate and has been elected by citizens can call into question the rights of those citizens. It is better for citizens to have twice the rights than to have zero rights. Here, we are giving them twice the rights, and that is what Europe is about. Europe is about rights for European citizens and I am very proud that this House is standing for those rights. Yes, we will now have the bills of rights where the citizens will know that they can go to the courts in order to have their rights taken seriously.

The question of whether or not we shall now be part of the Convention on Human Rights is not a question anymore because Article 6 of the treaty obliges the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. So I do not think we should discuss this any further because that is simply done.

We should also know that this accession will leave the position of the individual Member States, vis-à-vis the convention, completely unaffected as long as there is no European law at stake. This will continue to be the case. The individual relationship between a Member State and the convention will stay exactly the same as it is. Now there will be supplementary guarantees concerning the EU law.

Of course the issue of the risk of conflicting jurisprudence has to be analysed. It is being analysed and I am grateful to the rapporteur who has taken this issue on board. We have so far seen that these conflicts are considered to be minimal because the convention is already part of the norms which the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg takes into account today and the convention will operate as a minimum standard. The Commission expects case-law of Strasbourg and of Luxembourg to develop harmoniously and converge in the coming years.

I now move to more specific questions.

On litigation: that is not an issue for the European Court of Human Rights or of the European Court of Justice. For the moment, that is an issue for the British system of litigation, and I have already started to discuss this with the British Government to see if they could review this system of litigation, which can, in certain cases, when it comes to the freedom of the press for instance, become very harmful indeed.

The European Parliament has so far, under the leadership of its rapporteurs, done very good work. I count on Parliament to continue to participate in a process which will certainly be a difficult process, a long process, where we have to solve the technical problems – and technical problems can become very political indeed – so I count on Parliament to continue to participate in this very difficult task.

As for relations between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I leave that in the hands of Parliament. If you need a helping hand, I will be there to help you in that respect, but it is a matter for the parliamentarians themselves to see that they find a common ground and I believe that it should not be that difficult.

Concerning the ICC, this Parliament has already received the Prosecutor, Mr Moreno-Ocampo, and the President of the Court, Mr Song. I think this was a very strong political signal from the European Parliament that Parliament is taking seriously human rights, not only within Europe, but also outside Europe.

We also believe that the Kampala conference is the most important international conference devoted to international justice in a decade. We have to make it count. There again, I count on Parliament also because I know that Members will be present and will be speaking up in Kampala.

We know that the EU has played and will play an important role by integrating the outcomes of the conference into its policies on international justice, on its assistance to third states and, most of all, into all the negotiations which will take place in the coming months and years. In particular, we will continue to support national capacity building in order to strengthen and enable national jurisdictions to conduct credible and effective national investigations and trials of Rome Statute crimes.

Our policy in this respect remains unchanged and undiminished, but we now have a new tool, and the new tool is the Lisbon Treaty, which gives us a new capacity to be more consistent and more effective in our support to the Court. In line with the encouragement by Parliament and expressed in the resolution and during the debate, the High Representative/Vice-President and her services will continue resolutely to promote universal accession to the Rome Statute. We will do that systematically in all our discussions with partners outside of Europe.

There were two very specific questions which I would like to answer briefly.

The first was whether an arrest warrant against President al-Bashir is a part of the solution or part of the problem. The Commission clearly sees this as part of a long-term solution because this arrest warrant shows that, with the establishment of the Court, justice has become imminent. Whoever the person is, even if this person is a Head of State, and even if this arrest warrant is not immediately enforced, it will not disappear because the ICC is a permanent court, so let me assure you that the EU will continue to call on Sudan to cooperate fully with the Court.

On the question of whether the Commission will present amendments in the Kampala meeting, here the answer is ‘no’ because the EU, as such, is not a party – it is the Member States who will negotiate the amendments. However, the Commission will play an active role in the stock-taking part of the conference, and we count fully on the Spanish Presidency to lead the European nations so that their voice will make a big difference in this conference.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to express my thanks to all those who have spoken, because the vast majority of them have expressed a very favourable position regarding the accession agreement that we are going to vote on tomorrow; in fact, it has almost been unanimous.

I would especially like to thank Mrs Reding for giving us the opportunity to continue working together, as there are very complex negotiations to come and I believe that Parliament needs to be very close to those negotiations.

I would like to answer a few questions and clarify a few things very quickly. Accession is not a symbolic act, ladies and gentlemen: it has legal value. Some are asking what the point is, and what it adds. I will give you an example.

Let us suppose that a competition for European Union staff discriminates against Hungarian lawyers, for example, for some technical reason or any reason at all. Where do the Hungarian lawyers take their complaint? To the Court of Justice of the European Union. What does accession add? The opportunity for these lawyers to take their complaint to the European Court of Human Rights if their right to equality has not been recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is a new court, it is a new opportunity for guaranteeing fundamental human rights, for example, the right to equality. It is therefore clear that this event does not make a symbolic contribution but a legal contribution.

I would like to clarify two things, ladies and gentlemen. Members have expressed their desire for the negotiations not to be limited to accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, but for the protocols that the convention has been building up over the years to be incorporated, especially those that refer to the rights acknowledged by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as that will provide equivalence between the two documents.

Finally, Parliament is also calling for accession to Convention and Council of Europe bodies and authorities, because this will enable recognition of the universal human rights protection system, including the Turin European Social Charter.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ at the end of the debate.

The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 19 May 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon creates the legal framework for the European Union’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR), thereby making the EU the 48th signatory to the convention. The EU’s accession to the ECHR will supplement the level of protection established by the Treaty of Lisbon through the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has binding legal force.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will acquire the authority to exercise judicial control over the acts of the EU’s institutions, bodies and agencies, including decisions made by the European Court of Justice, with regard to compliance with the convention, thereby creating an additional layer of judicial control over fundamental rights within the EU. Following the EU’s accession, the convention will provide the minimum standard of protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe and will be applied on a mandatory basis, especially in situations where the level of protection provided by the EU is lower than that offered within the convention.

I believe that both Member States and the Commission will have to prepare information briefings which will provide explanations about all the implications and effects of accession so that the EU’s citizens are fully aware of the significance of this process.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a logical step following on from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and enhances the depth of integration and creation of a common political area. The EU’s accession to the ECHR will provide greater coherence between the European Union and the countries belonging to the Council of Europe and its pan-European human rights system.

In my opinion, the most important upshot of accession to the ECHR is that it will provide citizens with protection against the actions of the EU, similar to the protection they enjoy against the actions of all Member States. This is a substantial development, given that Member States have transferred important powers to the European Union. It is logical to have the option of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights concerning decisions made by the EU as a whole. As we talk about European citizenship, we must also provide it with specific content, which includes offering this option.

I hope that this additional instrument made available to European citizens will be easily accessible and, in particular, that the decision to accede to this convention will help create a more coherent framework for human rights within the European Union.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) In connection with the forthcoming negotiations on accession by the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I would like to draw attention to the matter of external relations. This is an area which will be particularly affected by the Union’s accession to the convention. Why? Firstly, I will permit myself to remind us that under the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Court of Justice has very limited jurisdiction in the area of foreign policy. Accession to the convention will partly make up for these limitations by ensuring external judicial supervision of all aspects of the Union’s activity. The Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will gain the right to assess how the Union observes fundamental rights in all areas of its activity, and so also in foreign policy. Secondly, it is not necessary to remind anyone how often discussion on the subject of the necessity to observe human rights comes up in the Union’s relations with third countries, including in the forum of the European Parliament. Accession to the convention will, therefore, give the Union credibility in dialogue with third countries on human rights. There is no doubt that by submitting to the supervision of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the Union has the opportunity to strengthen the human rights aspect of foreign policy and security and, in so doing, to promote the idea of human rights more effectively around the world, to the extent that the EU treats its own human rights obligations seriously. Let us hope that this is how it will be.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Accession by the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is, without doubt, a step in the right direction on the road to ensuring our citizens equal and fair privileges. We must make sure its principles are upheld in all Member States. This will also improve legislative cohesion between the Union and the countries of the Council of Europe, and will increase the number of institutions to which citizens will be able to appeal if their rights have been breached. It will also raise the significance and credibility of numerous initiatives of the European Parliament in the area of the protection of fundamental freedoms, which are the right of every person. However, let us not forget that as well as upholding the rights of the people of third countries, the Union should first take care that these rights are not broken in the Member States.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) There is a country in the European Union where, for nearly 20 years, the human rights and fundamental freedoms of about 20% of the population have been violated. Regardless of this fact, Latvia was accepted into the European Union in 2004. At the time that Latvia’s accession negotiations were taking place, the Latvian Government promised the then EU Enlargement Commissioner, Günther Verheugen, to solve the non-citizen problem, but to this day, regardless of those promises, the question has not been resolved. As a result, there are approximately 340 000 non-citizens living in EU territory. In Latvia, they are second-class people, who are not allowed to work in the public sector, or hold official posts even in districts where more than 60% of the population are non-citizens. There is a city in Latvia, Daugavpils, where more than 90% of the population is Russian-speaking. Despite this fact, the use of Russian as an official language in the city is forbidden, and 30% of the population do not have the vote in local elections. Local councillors, elected in a Russian-speaking city, are not allowed to use their mother tongue in meetings. Funny though it may be, to this very day, the European Commission has found neither the necessary arguments nor the time to influence the Latvian Government to bring to an end discrimination on grounds of language. It is essential to set up a working group to investigate the situation in Latvia without delay, otherwise I do not see the point of the EU’s being a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We must make it known clearly and unambiguously that there is a country within the European Union where the rights of more than 25% of the population have been cynically violated over many years.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) When we talk about accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, we are talking about work which has been going on for 10 years now and about many fears concerning, inter alia, competition between the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. This will certainly lead to problems in the area of jurisdiction and the autonomy of the Court of Justice. I think, however, that what we have achieved after those 10 years can mean complementarity of the two systems, so perhaps we should depart from such hierarchical thinking. The Court of Justice has, for a long time, been following the work of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and vice versa. Both these systems coexist and there is no competition between them, so perhaps those fears are unjustified. We need accession to the convention for symbolic reasons but, above all, we need the convention because it will complement the system of protection of human rights in the European Union and will give it greater credibility in the eyes of its citizens, for they will gain protection against the European Union and its institutions, and not only against the Member States, as has been the case until now. So we should be glad that the system will be strengthened. However, we do need a certain loyalty, so that we do not undermine the credibility of the system. This is why we propose that Member States do not prosecute each other on matters of EU law by using the possibilities afforded by the convention.

(1) See Minutes

14. Stockholm Action Plan (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the Stockholm Action Plan.

The previous debate was very interesting, but we have exceeded our allocated time, so I ask all those who are about to speak to stick closely to the time allocated.

  Diego López Garrido, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Madam President, the European area of freedom, security and justice is one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. It is one of the advances in cooperation between Member States, civil cooperation, criminal cooperation and internal security. It is one of the most important results of the European project and one of the results that has come closest to achieving what the European Union always fails to achieve, which is relating to the public.

It is definitely this aspect of the Union’s policies that its citizens feel adds the most value in the most important aspects of their daily life, in enjoying their freedoms, for example, security. This is undoubtedly one of the great achievements of the area of freedom, security and justice.

There were even some decisions adopted by the Council in this area of freedom, security and justice before the Treaty of Lisbon – when the area was practically intergovernmental – which concern the subject we were debating before: the investigation of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes at national level.

For example, the Council decisions of 13 June 2002 and 8 May 2003 established the capacity for the Member States to cooperate at national, intergovernmental level to prosecute these crimes, which fortunately – and we all remember the case of General Pinochet – are even part of the legislation in some Member States.

For example Spain, not to mention other countries, has what is called universal justice, which means crimes that are so serious that even if they have been committed outside a country they can be tried there, if possible, even if that means going beyond the sacred principle of territoriality in criminal law. This principle has been waived in practice by some states where crimes that are particularly intolerable and deeply damaging to the dignity of humanity itself can be prosecuted even outside the territory in which they are committed.

One aspect of this area of freedom, security and justice is what has been called the Stockholm Programme, at a time when the Treaty of Lisbon is already opening up this area not only to the intergovernmental sphere but also to the sphere that is strictly and clearly the EU. It is clearly particular to the EU method and therefore gives Parliament and the Court of Justice leading roles that they did not have before.

The Stockholm Programme is extremely important, which is why we welcome its adoption by the Council in December 2009 and subsequently by the European Council. It is a programme that sets out a clear programme of work for the European Union and its Member States, and places the interests and needs of the people at the heart of its priorities for the next few years.

It is therefore an extremely important programme. The programme establishes – and if you will allow me I will refer once again to the previous debate – the obligation for the Member States to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in the prosecution of crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, so that they do not go unpunished. This is part of the Stockholm Programme that was adopted at the end of last year under the Swedish Presidency.

We are therefore talking about an extremely important programme, which must be implemented and set out in detail. In this respect, we recognise the importance of the communication from the Commission entitled ‘Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens – Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme’, which presents initiatives to help implement the programme.

The Stockholm Programme enables us to build on previous achievements and face new challenges, taking advantage of the new opportunities presented by the Treaty of Lisbon. It is a new era. Institutionally, it is probably, to a greater extent, a genuine revolution – if you will allow me to speak so emphatically – because it is a genuine legal and institutional revolution for an area of freedom, security and justice that was previously entirely in the intergovernmental sphere to now clearly move into the EU sphere. This is initially taking shape in the important Stockholm Programme. The Council acknowledges the importance that Parliament has as the colegislator, as an institutional partner, in relation to the majority of the measures that we are going to adopt in the next five years.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, you know it already, but let me briefly present you with the action plan of the Commission, entitled ‘Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens’, an action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme. This action plan is a guide for very concrete measures to be taken during the next five years.

But first let me go back a step: it has been proven by events of the last weeks and months that there is a shared sense of urgency to confront the economic and social situation of Europe, as well as a very clear expectation from our citizens that the EU must act rapidly and decisively. You will recall the adoption of the work programme of the Commission at the end of March, the content of which showed that the Commission not only has the intention but is already taking action. It focused, among other things, on the need for the EU to build a citizens’ agenda which puts the people at the heart of European action. The action plan in the area of justice and home affairs is the first strategic initiative of the new Commission in order to put this work programme into practice; it follows very closely the mandates, as well as the broader philosophy, of the Stockholm Programme, and it takes into consideration the proposals and suggestions by Parliament and by the Council.

The challenge of ensuring the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, while also integrating and guaranteeing security in Europe, is addressed here in what we think to be a comprehensive way. The set of initiatives laid down are a roadmap – a roadmap to a free and secure Europe. We believe that you cannot separate freedom from security: they are two sides of the same coin; they are all related to the citizens and this is one way of getting citizens more acquainted with Europe.

The action plan will guide us in delivering an ambitious set of very concrete measures in a field where the added value of Europe will be very visible to our citizens. It is also a powerful message reiterating what we have been discussing before, that the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are actions for the citizens. As all these actions are interlinked, indispensable and consistent with the scale of ambition which have been fixed in the Treaty of Lisbon and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have to reach this ambitious outcome as quickly as possible in line with citizens’ expectations.

That is also why Parliament should not view this action plan as being carved in stone; there might be unexpected events, and if there are such unexpected events, the Commission will certainly make use of its right of initiative in order to help solve the problems. That is why we have the intention – and this will be important for Parliament – to submit a mid-term review of the implementation of the Stockholm Programme in 2012, in order to ensure that the programme remains in line with European and global developments.

But, as the Minister-in-Office of the Council already has rightly said, this action plan is not only about what the European Commission is going to propose. It is also very much about what the Member States are going to do: how the Member States are going to take their initiatives where subsidiarity is at stake; how they are going to implement European Union decisions in their national law; and how they are going to collaborate with other Member States.

Therefore, this action plan will only be a success story in the end if all the institutions play their role, and I am very confident that Parliament will help us to advance quickly on the right road.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Commission for its timely presentation of a very concrete action plan to empower European citizens. I have been very active in the discussions in Parliament because I truly believe that the Stockholm Programme is the best way forward to a citizen-centred Europe: a Europe for citizens, with the people.

I therefore invite the Commission to stick to the vision of the Stockholm Programme when presenting the specific proposals for the next five years. The programme adopted represents a real balance between providing security to citizens while respecting their rights, freedoms and integrity, and strengthening their citizenship.

On the action plan, I particularly welcome the measures presented recently to combat trafficking in human beings and child abuse and to increase the protection of unaccompanied minors – to mention just a few. I also welcome the fact that the action plan includes a strategy to combat female genital mutilation, domestic violence and violence against women. I nevertheless wish that this proposal could have been presented earlier than scheduled, Madam Commissioner.

We also need to encourage the participation of citizens during the process and ensure the transparency of decision making and the openness of documents. I hope that the measures will be presented in a user friendly way.

To conclude, I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues in Parliament, and with the Commission and the Council, to really deliver an area of freedom, security and justice, and make it a reality.

  Kinga Göncz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (HU) I would like to make a few general and a few specific remarks regarding the plan. Of course we consider the Stockholm Programme to be very important. It is precisely for this reason that the action plan has been somewhat disappointing, since its ambitions do not truly reflect the importance this Parliament has attached to it or the size of the majority with which it voted on amendments on several topics. We see that the most important or many important points in the plan have been deferred until 2013-2014, and as regards this year, we can already see a certain level of slippage. It seems to be a general problem as well that cooperation between the Commission and Parliament with regard to international treaties has not yet been clarified. Although the feedback has improved considerably, such as the feedback on the SWIFT and TFTP negotiations with the US, there are still some points that have yet to be clarified.

I wish to make a few concrete proposals: we regret that hate speech does not appear in the draft legislation but only the reports and the framework decision referring to implementation appear among the plans. Likewise, the provision of information on human rights is not sufficiently categorical. We know that implementation is related to the degree to which people are aware of their rights. In connection with immigration, I would like to mention that cooperation has begun but there seems to be an inadequate level of ambition. There are two other important issues. The first concerns reciprocity on visas, where new, effective solutions are needed due to both the reintroduction of the visa requirement and inequalities. The second concerns the free movement of labour where it is important to put an end to the discrimination that continues to exist against new Member States.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, the Stockholm Programme is undoubtedly ambitious, but we still need to adopt an action plan that would implement it in the most efficient way. Efficiency means not only a suitable timetable, but it also refers to the content of the legislation that we will adopt in the coming years and to the institutions that will be built upon in the future.

If we want the Union to be more coherent, we have to work towards a level of trust and mutual recognition in the judicial area or on police cooperation, similar to the principle which has governed the EU single market. To achieve it, we need to shift our views on our legal traditions, which should no longer be perceived, used or misused to prevent us having minimum standards, particularly in criminal law.

Our citizens demand and deserve better protection against terrorism and against organised or trans-border crime. It is our duty to provide for this protection, but we have to do it while fully respecting not only the rights of the victims but also those of the defendants as well. This is why minimal procedural standards must apply to all EU Member States and if we need to be bold for these, we shall be. We will be bold when entrusting Eurojust with more power or when we have to protect the data of our citizens or when we will have to regulate on the asylum package.

My political group is determined to constructively work with the Commission and the Council and, at the same time, to persistently fight for the protection of human rights.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, listening to the Commissioner and the Council representative on the Stockholm Programme, some questions come to mind.

It is now close to the end of the Spanish Presidency, with five weeks to go. At the beginning, we heard great ideas from the Spanish Presidency on asylum, migration, the Anti-Discrimination Directive and the emancipation of women, but I must say that, with five weeks to go, I wonder where the concrete results and proposals are.

The Commission and Parliament did their work on asylum and migration, and we are really waiting for the Council to act. It is not only – as Commissioner Reding said – the individual Member State that needs to implement its laws. It is the Council that needs to come up with ideas on Dublin, on the Reception Directive, on the Eurodac system and on the Qualification Directive. We really are waiting for it.

The Anti-Discrimination Directive is something this plenary voted for and the Greens are really waiting for that. Turning to the Commission on that issue, equality and anti-discrimination are, of course, fundamental basics in the Stockholm Programme, but why did the Commission not choose to make same-sex partnerships a priority for this action plan? You said people would be put at the centre. Organising same-sex partnerships is putting people at the centre. Could you give me an explanation as to why?

With regard to Europol, in the pre-Lisbon era, Europol was submitted to a minimum of scrutiny by Parliament, and that is still the case, although we now have the Lisbon Treaty. For example, the competence to enter into negotiations for cooperation agreements with third countries is based on Council decisions that date from a couple of years back. It is rumoured that Europol is now discussing a treaty with Israel, and who knows what other countries are being approached for treaties. The Lisbon Treaty gives Parliament a new role, and I would like the Commission to act upon it.

  Mara Bizzotto, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 170 measures in five years, numbers that are too ambitious for a programme devoid of any real connotation, especially when it comes to certain issues.

Where immigration is concerned, the programme is embarrassingly weak when you look beyond the official documents: what is the point of promising to strengthen bodies and agencies if there is then no political strategy? A truly useful strategy that must be based on some firm points: the fight against illegal immigration along the southern border, ensuring that responsibilities for opposing illegal immigration are shared between all European States, a policy of agreements with third countries, especially the recognition that immigration is not a resource at a time of crisis.

Parliament’s homepage tells us that more than 20% of young people in Europe are unemployed. On a continent where 25 million people are out of work, the Commissioner for Home Affairs says that the issue of immigration must be based on solidarity. Instead, what is really needed is joined-up reasoning and realism: today, our priority is giving work to our citizens! All the rest is do-gooding rhetoric that does not help immigrants to integrate, and certainly does not help our people.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, we are talking about more than 360 actions in five years. From my perspective, the presentation of the action plan should have been given more time in Parliament in order to give Members the opportunity to debate and, more importantly, to amend the proposals.

Let us look at some examples: combating radicalisation; monitoring terrorist funding and the possibility of creating a European Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP); the coordination of the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen), Europol and Eurojust in the fight against terror and organised crime; combating the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes; amending the Frontex Regulation; and the viability of creating a European border guards system. Along with what I have mentioned, there is a great deal more that has been said. These are very important issues that would have been worthy of a different parliamentary format.

In addition it is notable that in relation to protecting the victims of crime, the plan only proposes one measure: creating a global instrument for protecting victims, which will include victims of terrorism. I believe – and this would be an amendment that I have not been able to table due to the rules – that the creation of a special instrument to protect the victims of terrorism should be an inalienable priority for the European Union. I would like to stress that this is my view.

To conclude, Mrs Reding, with reference to Europol, I would like to know why a Council decision is going to be replaced by a Europol regulation by 2013.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) There are several areas in the action plan of the Stockholm Programme I would like to talk about, and as we have to move on, I will name these problem areas.

I definitely consider the EU’s common asylum system to be a problem area, which we have discussed together at least several times here, where, on the one hand, the Commission talks of the need for legal migrants or immigrants to be successfully integrated into the common system but, on the other, the action plan displays very little ambition in this direction.

Likewise, it appears that we do not expect a proposal for the unified processing of asylum applications until 2014, and therefore no mutual recognition of the rights of refugees between EU Member States either. Your plans are nonetheless quite concrete in the area of restricting the influx and movement of immigrants or migrants, for example, seasonal workers.

So, to be brief, there is no progressive and fair common asylum system in sight, and the plan specifies rather repressive measures.

I would like to mention at least two more areas. The first is the sad fact that, even in the Commission’s own words, progress over the mutual recognition of registered same-sex partnerships within an EU framework is not a priority, and the sidetracking of this topic really concerns me.

The final area I would like to mention is the rights of corporations. The Stockholm Action Plan often mentions citizens and their rights, but very clearly emphasises the freedom of business without sufficient regulations, which is at least surprising, particularly in the context of the current financial and economic crisis.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Madam President, for me, the best bit of the action plan is the list of five concrete measures regarding rights of the individual in criminal proceedings that comprise the roadmap endorsed by the Stockholm Programme.

I speak as rapporteur on the first of these measures on interpretation and translation for defendants on which, I am pleased to say, I reached provisional agreement with the Spanish Presidency this very morning and I hope that our respective institutions will endorse that result.

I do thank Commissioner Reding for her staunch support as we drew solidly on the Commission proposal and Commission representatives made a full contribution, so my personal thanks to her.

We are finally, a decade overdue, but finally building the mutual trust necessary for mutual recognition. My support for the European arrest warrant is qualified by my dismay and indeed anger at some miscarriages of justice and the way it currently operates such as in the cases of Gary Mann and Andrew Symeou that I am involved in. If we had these measures in place a decade ago, I believe those miscarriages of justice would not be happening.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Madam President, I agree with those who say that the Common European Market, the single market, is probably the largest project the European Union has ever undertaken. I believe that this project, which favours European citizens, is the next big task for the European Union. It is interesting that the single market began in 1992, the same year in which we adopted the Maastricht Treaty that introduced the concept of European citizenship.

By means of this action plan, we are now creating a space within which European citizenship can be exercised. This can be done in several areas: human rights, civil rights, access to justice and the right of freedom of movement within the European Union. The European Union can also serve as an example in a number of fields, namely, trafficking, combating paedophilia, children’s rights, cyber crime, and of course, immigration and asylum matters.

Nonetheless, I believe that this project requires three things: Firstly, a political stamp will give it importance and meaning for our citizens. Secondly, respecting the subsidiarity principle, because there are certain important areas that cannot relinquish the right to employ subsidiarity. Thirdly, deadlines: these must be honoured in this action plan, otherwise it will all come to nothing.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, as the Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I was the co-author of the resolution adopted on the Stockholm Programme in November, along with Mr Casini and Mr Berlinguer. I would like to point out that I said at the time that the Stockholm Programme was not going to make Parliament’s life easier in the area of freedom, security and justice but, on the contrary, it was going to make it much harder.

I want to say here that some of the requirements in the resolution that was adopted have not been reflected by being clearly set out in the action plan proposed by the Commission. Therefore, as I am aware of the limitations of parliamentary debate and parliamentary intervention in the debate on the action plan, I do wish to point out that paragraphs 148 to 150 of the parliamentary resolution contained some precise indications regarding extremely important issues.

Many of these have been stated, from victim protection to the institutions and agencies related to Schengen, Europol, Eurojust, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office and its pending new regulations, but there were also some regulations on substantial and fundamental problems, such as data protection and the clause to combat discrimination. The interdependence of data protection and security has certainly been debated in Parliament, in particular, during the debate on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), and the debate highlighted the need for Europe to make its own commitment to an appropriate balance between security and privacy.

What is really important, however, is that the Commission now has five years of work ahead of it to implement each of the links in the action plan for the Stockholm Programme step by step. I therefore call on it to really work very hard with Parliament to take into account all of the commitments relating to paragraphs 148 and 150 of the resolution, keeping in mind that if the Commission does not work diligently and closely with Parliament, it will be vigilant and it will make proposals. It will, of course, also work with the Council, which can adopt initiatives that might deserve to be considered and dealt with by Parliament.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr López Garrido, I, in turn, wish to say how pleased I am to be talking about this action plan, the roadmap, as Mrs Reding called it, for implementing the Stockholm Programme. It deals with a host of fundamental issues, and rather than compile a random list in the very little time I have, I will simply focus on those points that will cause some frustration – one on form and one on substance – to talk about this issue.

In terms of form, as we have said in this debate, we have set ourselves some very precise deadlines for the implementation of the measures, and I would like us to try our best to take concrete action, so that we are not simply paying lip service to ideals.

To that end, in terms of substance, we must address two main points in order to make a success of this implementation. We must define some priorities. On the question of substance, Mrs Reding spoke of added value. I suggest that we press ahead with some points that we consider more urgent than others: firstly, on legal cooperation, so that we are on the same page in legal terms, with, of course, a kind of Erasmus for judges, but why not a kind of Erasmus for all the legal professions and another for the police professions?

Then, the second point in terms of substance, and a key priority, is that of taking every possible measure to ensure the rights of children, to protect them, and to combat cyber crime, child pornography and sexual exploitation.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D). – (EL) The big word missing from immigration programmes is the word ‘solidarity’. Today, we voted on the resettlement of asylum seekers from third countries in Europe, but the Commission programme refuses to promote a similar provision for the settlement of asylum seekers from one country of Europe to another or for money. Whatever happened to solidarity?

Over 100 000 illegal immigrants arrive in Greece from Turkey every year. Whatever happened to the Europe-Turkey agreement on the return of these illegal immigrants? It is being side-stepped and is barely even mentioned in our programme. Whatever happened to the agreement being negotiated by Frontex with Turkey today? Can you assure us that it will not directly or indirectly dispute the sovereign rights of Greece, and hence of Europe, on the borders?

Finally, of course, there is the huge obligation of solidarity towards immigrants themselves called ‘integration’. Without the integration of immigrants, there is no way that 40 million people who have come to live among us will be able to do so on equal terms. We may be building time bombs. Programmes are needed, money is needed and, at the moment, the Commission does not have them.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – (ES) (Start of speech with microphone switched off) I feel that a Europe in which the borders have disappeared and in which there is an increasing amount of supranational crime needs to have more ambition from the point of view of responding to the problem of supranational crime.

I believe that we need to have greater ambition in terms of police coordination, in other words, Europol; judicial coordination, in other words, Eurojust; the European public prosecutor; the technical standardisation of criminal investigations; unifying criminal trial law; and in terms of bringing the respective criminal legal systems closer together.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that there is little ambition and too much national resistance, and I urge you, especially in the Council, to overcome the pro-sovereignty tendency of the Member States, and to unify our criminal justice systems in order to effectively combat insecurity and supranational crime.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the opportunity offered by the Stockholm Programme is definitely an important one: a high number of positive actions that the Commission must implement, carving out a real common space for freedom, justice and security.

Achieving these aims, however, requires a method of cooperation between European institutions, and between these institutions and the Member States, which are an indispensable instrument of true cooperation. Issues such as the regulation of migratory flows according to objective criteria of fairness, the dignity of people in today’s overcrowded prisons, the welfare of those who are rehabilitated after drug addiction, the revitalisation of agencies, the opposition to organised crime at cross-border level, make this genuine cooperation truly necessary.

The activities of our Parliament are obviously centred on this challenge, and also provide strong and definite stimulus for the Commission and other Community institutions, as well as for Member States.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Madam President, Dame Sarah Ludford said that she had some concerns about miscarriages of justice in relation to the European Arrest Warrant, in the cases of Andrew Symeou and Gary Mann. That is an understatement if ever there was one! The European Arrest Warrant is a gross miscarriage of justice in itself. Extradition has been reduced to a mere bureaucratic formality. British courts have been stripped of their ability to protect British citizens from unjust arrest and imprisonment when they are extradited to a foreign country. I know because I sat in the appeal court in the case of Andrew Symeou when two Senior Law Lords were unable to prevent the extradition of Mr Symeou, even though it was obvious to everybody in the court that the evidence was either non-existent or fabricated by the police. But of course, that is the whole point, because the court is not allowed to look at the evidence; they have no right. Dame Sarah and the Lib Dems can cry crocodile tears now over cases like Mr Symeou, but they have to bear responsibility for the human misery which they have caused.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, it was with real satisfaction that we voted in the Stockholm Programme for provisions which refer to solidarity on immigration issues and in the fight against illegal immigration. I read in the action plan that the Commission will create an instrument in 2011 to evaluate national asylum systems, so that it can provide better assistance to the Member States in terms of each one’s capabilities and needs.

At the same time, however, we have given the go-ahead in this Parliament for the European Asylum Support Office to start operating in Malta. The question is this: will the European Asylum Support Office have anything to do with this mechanism and, via this mechanism, with the evaluation carried out? Has provision been made for an internal resettlement programme for refugees in order to even out the pressures between the Member States?

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to refer to the mechanism to assess corruption in the Member States – the mechanism that is provided for in the action plan. We have a Council decision for the Stockholm Programme, which refers to this matter, and we have the Commission action plan on implementing the Stockholm Programme. They both refer to an evaluation of the anti-corruption efforts in the Member States. Therefore, we need strong political will and commitment from the Member States for such a mechanism to come into place. I say this because we all know that, so far, the domestic efforts have not been effective in all Member States, to say the least.

Secondly, the deadline for the communication in the action plan on the Union’s policy and mechanism against corruption is 2011. I would like to suggest having it done before the end of 2010. This would better respond to the need of combating corruption in the Union, as corruption is also seen as a cause of the economic crisis. Therefore, it would be a measure to stop and prevent it.

  Diego López Garrido, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Madam President, what is really at the heart of this debate on the European area of freedom, security and justice is something that I think was rightly said by Mr Busuttil when he was talking about European citizenship.

What we are talking about here is the composition of that European citizenship, which we need to deepen. This is certainly one of the focuses of the new political phase beginning in Europe with the Treaty of Lisbon, and it has, of course, been one of the focuses for the Spanish Presidency.

There was a very clear and direct question on this to the Council from Mrs Sargentini, on what had been done by the Spanish Presidency during this period and what is in place for the future.

I thank her for this very direct question, and I am going to try to structure my response around some points that all relate to European citizenship and the content of rights, freedoms, securities and justice: in short, the status of European citizens in the 21st century.

With regard to freedoms, we were talking earlier about accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is one of the Spanish Presidency’s priorities. I refer to the extensive debate that we had earlier.

I also believe that, in relation to freedoms and rights, we need to talk about the directive on rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. As you know, work is under way on this directive.

We are waiting for the European Commission to make a proposal in general terms on the very specific directive mentioned by Mrs Sargentini: the non-discrimination directive. This is a very ambitious and very important directive. The Presidency of the Council does, of course, support it, and we are awaiting the Commission’s initiative.

Issues surrounding victims have been a concern and a priority for the Spanish Presidency, especially victims of gender violence. I would like to say to you that during this period, progress has been made on the directive to combat people trafficking. With regard to the directive to combat sexual abuse, we are working on reaching a common position in June. Work is also being done on a legislative initiative to combat gender violence: the European Protection Order, which is currently being debated in various parliamentary committees: the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Gender violence is undoubtedly the biggest scourge that exists with the greatest number of victims in European societies. The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) also adopted the European Observatory on Violence against Women and the helpline for victims last month.

Regarding security issues, the internal security strategy was adopted in the March European Council. In relation to this, the constitution has been adopted for the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security. There have been agreements with the United States on security issues, and agreements are in progress: the Toledo Declaration on security and civil aviation; the SWIFT issue, which is very well known to parliament, on which there is a mandate for negotiating a political agreement with the United States as soon as possible. We are also working with the United States on a joint declaration on the fight against terrorism and an agreement on data protection.

With regard to civil cooperation, we hope to agree the Rome III Regulation, a law that applies to marriages.

In relation to the subject of immigration and asylum, which has also been mentioned in many speeches, it should be said that the Spanish Presidency is responsible for the first evaluation of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which it is going to prepare in cooperation with the Commission. At the same time, also in cooperation with the Commission, a returns programme is under way for unaccompanied minors.

Also, in relation to asylum, the Frontex operations are being maintained, and work is being done on a European programme for refugees and on the resettlement of refugees, and also with some countries on repatriation programmes.

In addition to those, there is the European Refugee Fund, which should be ready by 2011: the Tavares report from Parliament provides for it to be adopted by then. So, there are various important initiatives under way in relation to immigration.

I would like to add to this response with a debate that has been taken up very constructively by the Commission – specifically by Commissioner Reding – on the European public prosecutor, which is provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. I think this is a debate that we need to have. It would be very interesting, not only, as the Treaty of Lisbon says, to protect the economic interests of the Union, which is, of course, a very topical subject. It would also be very interesting at a later stage in order to be able to prosecute transnational crimes. It is also a debate that has been launched by the Spanish Presidency of the European Union.

These are some of the specific elements that are being launched or have been launched during the Spanish Presidency, in cooperation with the Commission and Parliament. We believe that it is absolutely crucial for us to have credibility in terms of building an open, safe Europe that protects its people. This is the spirit in which the Spanish Presidency wants to continue, along with the trio of presidencies that will be operated by our partners: Belgium and Hungary. This is the Spanish Presidency’s intention, and we are, of course, counting on the cooperation of the European Parliament, which we have.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, everybody is talking about the Stockholm Programme. That is a Christmas tree with several hundred wishes. I would like everybody to speak about the reality. How were these Christmas tree wishes treated before the Lisbon Treaty? Behind closed doors, without much consideration for the citizens and what they want, wish for and expect; in the third pillar, where ministers of the interior were asking neither the European Parliament nor the Commission, and where the European Court of Justice had no possibility to intervene.

That is where we are starting from: an impossible situation. Where de minimis decisions were not even carried out at national level, where citizens did not have the means or the instruments to go to court, to protest and to seek justice.

Fortunately, we now have the Lisbon Treaty. There is no third pillar any more. There are Commission proposals, codecision, implementation at Member State level, control by the European Court of Justice, but that means also that things cannot be done instantly any more. Rules and proposals have to follow the normal way, under which you parliamentarians have asked the Commission to conduct its work.

First, a thorough analysis of what is feasible, what is good, what has added value. Second, public consultation, in order to know whether the ideas that we put on the table will be accepted or not by civil society, by industry, by the Member States, by the national parliaments, which are now a player in all these questions and which conduct the subsidiarity test. And then, impact assessments, in order to see if what we are doing is the right way. And, only then, we have the definite proposal from the Commission.

If you want the Commission to continue to do as has been done over the last number of years, just tell me, and I will come with a proposal every week. And do you know what will happen with those proposals? They will first be blocked in the national parliaments, and rightly so, because we have to come with serious proposals based on the legal assumptions that what we are doing is strong, is feasible and can be implemented in the Member States.

I do not want the first proposal we make to be challenged before the Court of Justice and before the Court of Human Rights. I would like to lead all of us to the way where the citizens will understand that the added value of what we are doing here is of real benefit to them in practical terms. Yes, as the Commissioner responsible for women’s affairs, I have heard this Parliament discussing what we need to do, most of all in order to give legal certainty to women in all our Member States, that when they have a problem of violence, they will get justice and not the illusion that they hope they will get justice and then they get nowhere and end up with nothing. So here we really have to work together.

There are hundreds of measures which have to be ‘Lisbonised’, which have to be taken out of the hole and brought into the light of day, which have to be adapted to the real rules of law – hundreds of measures that do not work.

The arrest warrant: Ms Ludford was just speaking about this. Of course it is not carried out in the Member States because the construction around the mutual recognition and the mutual trust, which is at the basis of the mutual recognition, has not been built up. Colleagues, you cannot do all this without having mutual trust. I am sorry, I cannot by decree insert mutual trust in the heads of the judges all over Europe!

We have to build this mutual trust with the legislation and with the measures to boost the rights of citizens in all our Member States, so that the judges also implement the rules we have been looking for and, yes, we are advancing very quickly on this.

An action plan, well, the colleague is not there any more, but an action plan for combating the violence against women. In 2011, a comprehensive text about protecting the victims, all kinds of victims – for me there is not a victim here, a victim there and a third category of victims – all kinds of victims have to be considered.

Yes, we have been working on data protection; when fortunately you, Parliament, said no to the way things have been working before Lisbon was implemented. We will not continue like this any more and, yes, Chairman of the committee, you know that your committee and the other committees are fully integrated in the way we are preceding.

We will have many things to do together: very technical questions, which will have a very important impact on our society. We will have to do something; we will have to explain to the citizens what we are doing. Because that is also a part of the whole thing and it is not the easiest part of the whole issue.

Yes, we have to take measures, for instance, on illegal immigration and asylum and, as you have seen, my colleague, Cecilia Malmström, has very concrete proposals on illegal immigration, on border controls, on legal migration. Yes, it would be important if the Parliament could, together with the Council, adopt the existing proposals, the asylum package, the simple permit proposal, the joint resettlement programme, the mutual recognition and the just adopted action plan for unaccompanied minors. There is an awful lot in the pipeline.

It is not about who is going to do what because certain things you simply cannot do. Here is an example: you asked for the Anti-Discrimination Directive. The Anti-Discrimination Directive, I am sorry to say, is a question that has to be solved by unanimity and it is blocked in the Council. So what do you want me to do – not me, because it was before my time – the Commission has put anti-discrimination on the table, unanimity is blocked in the Council? So speak to the Council; speak with those who are blocking it.

Same-sex couples: well you know perfectly well that it is the prerogative of subsidiarity, the competence of Member States to regulate the way they treat same-sex couples. Where the European Union comes in is the cross-border treatment of these same-sex couples. But I cannot do the work for France, for Italy, for Poland, for Romania, for Greece and for Luxembourg; that has to be done by those Member States alone. I can see there is no discrimination if those people, from wherever they come, are exercising their rights to cross-border mobility, and that is what we are going to do.

We have started already to see that, in terms of mobility, in terms of citizens rights, in terms of collaboration between the legal systems, in terms of eliminating the borders that still exist in this single market, which, sorry to say, is not a single market when it comes to citizens. That is why I am very happy; I have read the report by Mario Monti. There are many elements in this report, which say where we have to move. You know what is my bible? The report, which was drawn up by one of your Members, contains all the elements on the free movement of citizens and all the problems that have to be solved.

Now what I propose to you is to take them, one by one, and solve them, one by one, in full cooperation with you. When I put on the table a proposal, and you have seen how it goes, you will have so many proposals that you will have to work at night – I do not know if it is permitted under employment rules and human rights, but I will not care for your human rights as Members of Parliament. We will work until we have solved these problems – there are hundreds of problems to be solved and I cannot do it alone. I need your very constructive help. I know I will get this help but help me to work on one element after the other, even if it has to be one element per week. It is going to be on your table. I am willing to come to your committees as often as you call me, Madam President, and we will discuss this over, element by element. In five years’ time, with your help, we will have changed this continent.

  President. – The debate is closed.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

15. Question Time (Commission)

  President. – The next item is Question Time (B7-0211/2010).

The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Part one

Question 17 by Zbigniew Ziobro (H-0238/10)

Subject: Communication providing for a higher target for greenhouse gas emission cuts

A few days ago, the Commission released to the media a communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in which it raised the possibility of increasing the target for greenhouse gas emission cuts to be met by 2020 under the climate and energy package from 20% to 30%.

A number of remarks need to be made on this proposal. First, lowering the costs involved in cutting emissions would give a much-needed breather to national budgets, which the Member States are currently struggling to balance. Second, greenhouse gas emission levels have been falling sharply as a result of the recession, although they may be expected to rise again as we emerge from the crisis and production is scaled up. As a result, the cost of making cuts will rise again. Third, it is questionable whether this is the appropriate moment to raise the target, as this would precipitate a fresh increase in reduction costs, which, at a time when we are just starting to emerge from recession, could meet with understandable resistance from the business world.

What is the Commission’s reaction to the above remarks?

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – I will promise to start answering very briefly because the document to which the honourable Member refers is not a document adopted by the Commission and its release was not authorised, but later this month, the Commission intends to adopt the Communication to the Council and the Parliament assessing the benefits and the costs of the EU stepping up to a target of 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

This communication was actually requested by the Environment Council in its conclusions dated 15 March this year. So, needless to say, we have had a very short time, but we think it is an important debate; afterwards, there will, of course, be a lot of details that we have to look at more closely. In addition, this communication will present, as requested under the ETS Directive, an analysis of the situation of energy intensive sectors that it has been determined are exposed to a risk of carbon leakage in the light of the outcome of Copenhagen.

But let me just say one thing very clearly. It is not the intention of the Commission to take a decision to go to 30% the day after this communication has been presented. It is just one step to try to ensure that, when we have the discussions on these reduction targets, we have a very informed foundation to take this discussion forward from. That is the purpose of this – to give us the analysis, the costs, the figures and the calculations, so that we can have an informed debate. I really hope that Parliament will also take part in this debate.

  Zbigniew Ziobro, author. – (PL) The document indicates that increased greenhouse gas emission cuts in Central and Eastern Europe will be of fundamental significance for achievement of the new target. It is true the Commission does note that such measures will require significant financial outlays, but it wants to look for this money in the structural funds for these countries. In other words, this would depend on redirecting means earmarked for other purposes, in particular, for reducing disparities in development between European Union Member States and the standard of living in these states, and would, for example, take place at the cost of development of the road infrastructure in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – I hope the honourable Member will respect the fact that I will not go into detail about one draft out of many that has been leaked. It would not be appropriate for me to do so.

I said during my hearing at the European Parliament that we should take care that when we spend European Union money for different purposes, we also ensure that the different projects – infrastructure was mentioned for instance – are being climate-proofed. I do not, however, think that anybody can give an answer at this stage as to exactly how we would do that if we were to go to a 30% reduction by 2020. Instead, we are trying to provide an analysis and invite the Members of Parliament and the Council, among others, to take part in the debate.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) We voted today on the report on the amendment to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. This is only the beginning of a new process where we can actually cut emissions and energy consumption in buildings significantly. As my fellow Member has also said, we still need funds. I hope that we have your support for a significant increase in the allocation rate from the ERDF for energy efficiency in housing, as well as for the creation of a fund, starting in 2014, for improving energy efficiency in the industrial sector too.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Commissioner, does not the original question demonstrate the scale of the problem you face when addressing this issue? Many Members here and many governments represented in the Council just do not accept the need for urgent action to prevent climate change. It is easy for them to sign up to pious resolutions at a time of economic prosperity, but, now that is not the case, they are reluctant to sign up to practical action. Do you not need to address the problem of climate change denial if you are to raise our ambitions?

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – Firstly, I would like to study whatever you have agreed today on energy efficiency in buildings. There are many ways to cope with improved efforts there.

There are also some alternative financial models that can be used so that it would be in the interest of those taking care of the buildings to make them much more energy efficient. There will be many ways of doing that – not necessarily requiring funds – and I would be happy to look into that.

I agree very much with the questioner that one of the areas where we can do so much more in Europe would be within the field of energy efficiency and buildings. There is such a huge potential there and it is just stupid that we use a lot of energy that none of us really benefit from because we are not using it efficiently enough.

In response to Chris Davies, and regarding climate change deniers: I try to address it when I meet it. Despite all the discussions – and particularly in the United Kingdom you have a huge discussion on this with East Anglia and, although the IPCC should be better at correcting errors when they find them – to this day, I have seen nothing that really goes against the main finding of science, namely that we have to address this issue and we have to be serious about it.

I think there are so many other reasons – which climate sceptics should also agree with – that it is so important to do something with energy efficiency and energy technologies. If Europe is not ambitious here, I am very much afraid that we will lose the growing markets of this century to our competitors. Carbon leakage is not a case where if we do things, we risk losing jobs. I am really afraid that if we are too hesitant over the next number of years, we risk losing jobs on a very large scale. I am very happy to see that the new British Government also seems to be very keen on being ambitious in the field of climate change. I think that is very crucial to all of us.

  President. – Question 18 by Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (H-0220/10)

Subject: Action by the Commission on copyright

Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which gives the Union competence to legislate in the field of intellectual property rights, stipulates that: ‘in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union and for the setting up of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements’.

The lack of a single EU legal framework governing copyright is a major barrier to the development of an internal market in copyrighted goods.

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take in the area of copyright, pursuant to Article 118 of the TFEU?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) I would firstly like to thank Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg for her question. It goes right to the heart of the current debates on copyright and the Internet.

Unfortunately, too often, copyright is presented as an obstacle to the creation of a single digital market. I think that is unfair. Copyright allows the creator to sell what he has created and guarantees him a return on his investment. Moreover, that is not just true in the realm of cultural creation, which Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg knows so well. It is also true in the field of industry, of creation, of industrial innovation; a return on the investment, thanks to which the creator will then be able to go on creating other works and new content. This economic model, which underpins copyright, has existed for many hundreds of years, but rights management has evolved naturally with technologies, radio, television, cable, satellite, and, today, the Internet. Each time, new technologies have enabled us to switch to new economic models that have led to a change in the use and commercialisation of copyright.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rather than propose some radical copyright amendments, I want to protect creation while also searching for a legal framework that will allow for the emergence of new economic models. I announced that when I appeared before you on 13 January, and this is precisely the principle that will guide my action. Furthermore, this is the role that I envisage, with you, for the European legislator. The digital agenda adopted by the Commission on 19 May, at the dynamic instigation of my colleague and friend, Mrs Kroes, contains my roadmap, which covers copyright and the Internet.

Moreover, this year, I will take three initiatives along these lines. Firstly, a proposal for a framework directive on collective copyright management. The idea here is firstly to enable collective management societies to organise themselves better in order to offer new Internet services, such as made-to-measure directories, or one-stop shops. On the other hand, the aim is also to align the rules on the governance, transparency and supervision of collective management societies so as to allow for more transparent pricing and returns for members of collective management societies.

Secondly, a directive on orphan works: the objective is to create the necessary legal certainty to support the efforts to digitise our cultural heritage. I am thinking about a European definition of orphan works.

Thirdly, I will present a green paper on audiovisual content and the Internet. Here, it is a question of analysing the conditions for the emergence in Europe of new video-on-demand services. In 2011, we will launch a dialogue with the various interested parties on subjects that have an impact on the emergence of new value-added content services on the Internet so that we can ascertain how to clarify the existing rules. The idea is to see what role technology can play in identifying and paying for digital content, to identify the issues surrounding the digital media, and to know how to combat the black economy of Internet piracy more effectively. My method will be simple: I want to listen to the various interested parties while proposing action to you. I want a Europe that allows for the emergence of new economic models. I have no preconceived idea of the type of intervention that will be needed, legislative or otherwise. Neither am I dogmatic or deluded about the chances of finding one-size-fits-all solutions. However, I would like to use this new process of recovery of the internal market and of the digital agenda – which, incidentally, Mr Monti spoke of in his report – to develop a real economic policy for the cultural sector in Europe.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, author. – (PL) I welcome the initiatives being taken by the Commission. I have a supplementary question concerning the 2008 Green Paper entitled ‘Copyright in the Knowledge Economy’, in which the Commission admits that the current system of optional exceptions to copyright protection put in place by the 2001 directive is not fulfilling its purpose, in other words, that it does not facilitate distribution of works protected by copyright and does not reflect a balance between the rights of authors and the rights of people who use their works.

Furthermore, what is important is that mandatory exceptions to copyright protection are highly necessary for libraries, for making works available to blind people and also for distribution of orphan works. I would like to ask what initiatives the Commission is planning to present in the near future in relation to these exceptions to copyright protection?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, you also asked me about a point that I would like to confirm, about how the Commission will act; you would like it to make a statement on the use of Article 118 of the treaty. I can confirm that, on this point, this is not the approach that we have chosen. Our preferred approach is to create a regulatory framework favouring pan-European copyright licences. This is a pragmatic approach that would allow us to achieve the desired results in a more effective way than the introduction of a new unique and centralised copyright. Moreover, I would say that this Green Paper is very important and must enable us to ask many questions, and to move ideas forward. In particular, I am thinking about the question of the partially sighted.

You wonder why we are not more ambitious as regards the creation of a single European copyright. The biggest obstacle to the introduction of an EU copyright, Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, is that it would absolutely have to take precedence over national copyright in order to be effective. In other words, the European Union copyright should prevail over national copyright, which frankly seems difficult to sell, both culturally and politically. Even if such an approach were accepted by the Member States, it would have a rather limited impact because it could not be applied to old works. It could only be applied to recently created works. Therefore, the new copyright would not apply to all pre-existing musical compositions.

I also said why I wanted to work on a directive concerning orphan works. However, before arriving at a definitive wording of this draft directive, I will be careful to consult those MEPs, yourself included, who are most involved in this issue.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) I would like to ask you if you are intending to revise the directive on copyright and related rights in the information society. I am asking this as we need legal certainty. Unfortunately, exceptions have been interpreted in different ways in different countries, which has resulted in different decisions on the same matter in different Member States. This is why I believe that it is useful for us to carry out a review, especially in the light of the new Treaty of Lisbon.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mrs Ţicău, to answer your question very clearly, for the time being, we do not intend to amend the catalogue of exceptions in the 2001 directive. We have adopted an approach that I believe is pragmatic and progressive, with these three initiatives that I mentioned on collective management, orphan works and the Green Paper, and it is therefore in that framework that we will deal with the concerns you express. However, we do not intend to amend the catalogue of exceptions.

  President. – Question 19 by Alan Kelly (H-0190/10)

Subject: The EU’s State aid map

Would the Commission be open to a wholesale review of the EU’s State aid map for the period 2007-2013?

While there will be a review this year, is it true that the State aid map review only allows a form of ‘exchange’ as opposed to redesignating regions to reflect new economic realities following the financial crisis?

The current State aid map was agreed based on statistics from 2006. The European economy is now radically different. Would the Commission accept that this fact represents a weakness in the current map and how does it feel it can be addressed?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – I have been asked by Mr Almunia to answer this question.

In order to ensure continuity of the regional development effort, the Commission decided in 2006 that the list of regions designated by Member States as part of the regional aid maps should apply through the whole period 2007 to 2013. However, the Commission recognised in its guidelines for national regional aid that situations might arise where adjustments are necessary and, in accordance with point 104 of the guidelines, Member States were therefore offered the possibility to proceed to a mid-term review of the regional aid maps regarding regions designated under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Three out of seventeen Member States concerned by the mid-term review have decided to use this possibility. Under the mid-term review, Member States can replace up to half of the regions at present eligible for regional aid by newly designated regions. Under certain conditions, it is also possible to increase the aid intensities for regions already designated under the original regional aid map. As part of the mid-term review, the eligibility of the newly designated regions, and of the possible increases in aid intensities, is assessed on the basis of the average of the most recent years of the Eurostat data as regards gross domestic product per capita and unemployment at the relevant NUTS level 3 region. This helps to ensure regional investment aid is targeted towards the economic development of regions which are disadvantaged in relation to the national average.

The fact that only three of the Member States concerned by the mid-term review have decided to notify amendments to the regional aid maps seems to suggest that the majority of the Member States consider that the economic crisis has not substantially affected the set of regions in need of development aid.

  Alan Kelly, author. – Thank you very much for your reply. I find it amazing that only three states have actually applied. It is unbelievable.

I come from a region where we have lost thousands of jobs: Dell – 3 000 jobs; and, just today, 800 jobs have been lost through the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, 300 of them in my area, which is the south of Ireland, and that has a Gross Grant Equivalent of zero per cent. Our government has reapplied, and I am hoping that that will change, because, if it does not, it ensures that the government cannot apply really active measures from a state point of view to bring in larger companies. That to me is very regressive and needs to change. So I will actively look for the Commission to pursue a different strategy, because I believe that the State aid map is out of date.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – It might indeed be strange, as the honourable Member has pointed out, that only three Member States have asked for this mid-term review. However, that is the case according to the figures we had this morning.

Of course, many Member States and many regions are severely affected by the economic crisis, but maybe some Member States are finding that there are other ways and other means to handle this because, as we have seen, very few have asked for this review. Seventeen Member States were given the possibility but only three have done so.

I think the honourable Member would agree with me that the basic purpose of the long-term programme is, of course, that we should have continuity for the regions in order to plan for the long term. There are of course other means of addressing the crisis than this, but I am sure that Commissioner Almunia is willing to discuss this with you further on a later occasion.

Part two

  President. – Question 20 by Bernd Posselt (H-0179/10)

Subject: EU-Ukraine police cooperation

How is cross-border police cooperation developing between the EU and its most important neighbour to the east, Ukraine, and what measures is the Commission planning to take to step up cooperation?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Thank you, Mr Posselt, for your question on a very important subject. Cross-border police cooperation with countries which are neighbours of the European Union is primarily a competence of the Member States. However, the European Union supports bilateral cooperation between the Member States and Ukraine mainly through the operation of Europol. On 4 December 2009, an agreement on strategic cooperation between Europol and Ukraine was signed that will allow coordination of the work to fight against international organised and serious crime and terrorism. However, the strategic agreement does not allow the exchange of personal information on suspects. That can only be exchanged with countries who have concluded an operational agreement with Europol, and, before such an agreement can be concluded, Ukraine needs to adopt a law on personal data protection and to ratify the 1981 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data and its Protocol.

This is part of a broader Commission priority to see Ukraine establish a personal data protection regime in line with European standards. That would allow the establishment of an actual independent data protection supervision authority, which could be supported by technical and expert assistance from the EU. The EU also supports financial police cooperation with Ukraine through a twinning project, increasing the capacity of the Ukrainian police and the European Union Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM). And last year EUBAM, with the cooperation of FRONTEX, with OLAF and the South-East European Cooperation Initiative, supported the Nikoniy Joint Border Control Operation to improve cooperation between the Ukrainian and the Moldovan police forces in fighting cross-border crime and irregular migration.

  Bernd Posselt, author. – (DE) I just wanted to ask what the situation is with regard to supporting police training and reinforcing the justice and interior authorities in Ukraine. Does this take place as a focal area in the context of the Eastern Partnership, and are the Commission and also the European Police College involved? Or does this only take place at the Member State level?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – We are, of course, in constant dialogue with Ukraine on this issue. My colleague, Commissioner Štefan Füle, has presented a matrix of cooperation and I am very much involved in this as well. It does cover home affairs in order to see how we can help the Ukrainian authorities to develop on these matters and how we can deepen our cooperation further. This will also be dealt with in a meeting with the Ukrainian authorities in only a few weeks time.

Police cooperation and education as such are not foreseen in the immediate future but that could, of course, be discussed once Ukraine has carried out the necessary reforms. We are open to cooperation with them. They are an important neighbour. We have lots in common. We have common challenges concerning cross-border crime, so it would also be good for us if we could engage further in this. Of course, the Ukrainians also need to improve, but we are there and are ready to help and assist them, and we will see what this will lead to in the longer term.

  President. – Question 21 by Georgios Papanikolaou (H-0184/10)

Subject: Spiralling crime rates in Europe

According to Eurostat data published a few months ago, there has been a major increase in the level of crime and violence in Europe directly linked to the economic crisis and therefore affecting with particular frequency those countries facing the most serious economic problems.

Does the Commission intend to take bolder steps with a view to achieving more effective cooperation between the Member States in preventing and combating crime in Europe, given the need to defend the individual liberties of European citizens?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – The most recent edition of Eurostat crime and criminal justice statistics that was published date back to 29 May; it covers the period from 1998 to 2007 and it does not indicate the increase described by the honourable MEP. The Commission nevertheless acknowledges that organised crime is a threat to citizens and the economy throughout the European Union.

The Commission is committed to come up with relevant proposals, and to implement the actions to prevent and to combat various forms of criminal activities, organised or otherwise. This is why these objectives are part of the Stockholm Programme comprehensive framework for EU action on the citizens, justice, security and migration policy for the next five years. Recently, the Commission adopted the Stockholm Action Plan and I think my colleague, Vice-President Reding, was here just half an hour ago to present it and discuss it with this plenary.

Furthermore, before the end of this year, the Commission will present a communication on the internal security strategy and that will contain concrete proposals and threat assessments for the coming five years. Of course, organised crime will be included in this.

Common threats require common responses, so common tools should be effectively used by all Member States, public authorities and private organisations. Let me mention three types of crime which are truly European and also have an international dimension: trafficking in human beings, cyber crime and identity theft. The Commission is determined to reinforce cooperation in this and is also preparing operational and legislative proposals on this. We will do this in cooperation with Member States, with the European Parliament and with NGOs and the private sector.

Dialogue coordination and operations are key words for the future; sharing best practices, standards, guidelines, developing training and research should increase mutual effectiveness and understanding. The cooperation with candidate and third countries is important to tackle crimes effectively.

I would like to underline that an ambitious approach in the decision-making process depends on the political willingness of Member States. The effective and efficient implementation of the adopted measures depends on the national resources allocated to achieve objectives. The Commission can support Member States by financial programmes to cooperate at a European level.

As you all know, the Lisbon Treaty provides the European Parliament with new competences in this field, and I would like to stress your responsibility and important role in shaping security in the European Union.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – I thank the Commissioner for her reply. I wrote Parliament’s report on the European Central Bank last year and one of the issues I raised was the significant increase in EUR 500 notes, and I think the EUR 200 notes as well, but significantly EUR 500 notes. I raised the possibility that these were being used for money laundering purposes, for criminal purposes. I understand now from the United Kingdom that there are real concerns about this.

Could I invite the Commissioner to take up with the European Central Bank the concerns I have raised to see who it is who is using such large quantities of EUR 500 notes? I have to say there has to be a reasonable suspicion of tax evasion or perhaps other criminal activity.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – I just want to thank the honourable Member for this information. I will certainly look into it and see whether we can track some patterns in this. For the moment, I am not in a capacity to answer this but I will certainly look into it and thank you for suggesting this.

  Georgios Papanikolaou, author. – (EL) Thank you, Commissioner, for your reply. You were informative and honest in this particular reply in terms of the date up to which you have data, in other words, up to 2007. This question was put to you by me on 6 April 2010 and on 5 May 2010. As you know, three people tragically and needlessly lost their lives during peaceful demonstrations by Greek citizens claiming a better tomorrow.

I shall repeat the question in order to obtain a more specific reply. Does the Commission plan to make a more systematic intervention and to make recommendations to the Member States on these issues? Do you intend to collect data on these issues more directly and quickly, given that the problem appears to be getting worse, especially at this time, in numerous Member States?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – The Commission – and I myself – very much deplore the deaths of these three people in the riots recently, as described by the Member. It is always a tragedy when innocent people are affected by these issues. We deplore it, and our thoughts are with their families.

As you say, we need to refresh our statistics all the time, and Eurostat is looking at this. Hopefully, we will be able to have a better assessment some time soon. We do not plan any initiatives for the moment on this. These crimes and these deaths are horrible, but the Commission’s competence is limited to cross-border crime and to facilitating cooperation between national authorities and European authorities. For the moment, there is no initiative planned in this regard.

  President. – Question 22 by Pavel Poc (H-0185/10)

Subject: A common EU visa policy

Under Article 77(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and pursuant to secondary legislation published on this legal basis, namely Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001⁽¹⁾ of 15 March 2001 (as amended) determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, Member States are bound to apply a uniform visa policy and reciprocity.

Does the European Commission understand ‘common visa policy’ solely to mean laying down uniform rules for third countries within the internal EU area? Or is it the case that this article of the Treaty on European Union – in addition to dealing with visa policy towards third countries – can also be understood as binding the European Commission and EU Member States to seek to achieve common conditions for all EU Member States in third countries?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – The visa policy of the European Union is harmonised and it is a common policy. It is based on three legal instruments applicable to Member States, namely Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, listing the third countries whose nationals are subject to visa requirements and those who are not; secondly, the visa code covering all procedures and conditions for issuing short-stay Schengen visas; and finally, Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 establishing the uniform format for visas. These rules apply to nationals of all third countries subject to visa requirement.

The first Regulation I referred to establishes a list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing external borders; this is the so-called ‘negative’ list. There is also the positive list: those nationals who are exempt from that requirement on the basis of different criteria, amongst which reciprocity is a basic principle. This Regulation is applicable to all EU Member States except for the United Kingdom and Ireland and also to Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

In accordance with the principle of reciprocity, the EU considers that, in the case of nationals from third countries who are exempted from the visa requirement for travelling to the EU Member States, the third country should provide reciprocal treatment for the EU citizens by exempting them from the visa requirement when travelling to that country. When a third country on the positive list maintains or introduces a visa obligation for nationals of one, two or more Member States, the reciprocity mechanisms apply. This is the framework in which the Commission could take steps to obtain the restoration of the visa-free travel by the third country, or if that is not achievable, to propose retaliatory measures on the temporary restoration of the visa requirement for nationals of that third country.

This system has proven to be quite efficient, as the steps taken by the Commission and drawn up in the periodical reciprocity report show, and under this reciprocity mechanism, applicable since 2005, 75 cases of non-reciprocity concerning 13 third countries of the positive list were notified by Member States. Since then, reciprocity has been established with most of these 13 countries, such as Japan, Panama, Singapore, Australia, Uruguay and Costa Rica, and recently the Commission concluded negotiations on a visa waiver with Brazil, and that will be submitted to you and to the Council very soon.

Problems of non-reciprocity continue to exist for certain Member States vis-à-vis the US and Canada, and this is something that we always bring up with these countries.

The mechanism does not apply in case a third country on the negative list maintains or imposes the visa obligation only on nationals of one or more member countries, or when the third country applies different conditions for citizens of different Member States. The community acquis does not contain rules for such cases and does not provide a specific mechanism, so it is very difficult for the EU to intervene.

  Pavel Poc, author. – (CS) Commissioner, if the European Commission is the guarantor of the common visa policy, and if this policy is based primarily on the principle of reciprocity, how long specifically does the Commission intend to go on tolerating the unprecedented, asymmetric visa regime introduced by a third country, namely Canada, against an EU Member State, namely the Czech Republic?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – I am, of course, very familiar with the case that the honourable Member is referring to, and the Commission has been extremely involved in this.

The Canadian authorities have established an office in Prague – that is one condition that we imposed on them – and they are also establishing a roadmap towards restoring visa freedom again. We have had several high-level meetings with Canada, the Czech Republic and the Commission in order to outline the steps that need to be taken. The Canadians have said that they will change their law and they will submit it very soon to their Parliament in order to change it. We are in dialogue with them and with the Czech authorities in order to make sure that the dialogue is still there, that there is a constructive atmosphere, and that we can move towards a solution to this. It will be discussed again by the Member States in the Council at the beginning of June.

I am sorry that this conflict has not been solved yet but I can assure the honourable Member that we are trying, together with our Czech colleagues, to find a solution to this as soon as possible.

  President. – Question 23 by Nikolaos Chountis (H-0205/10)

Subject: Unresolved issues in the Turkey-EU Joint Statement of 5 November 2009

Bearing in mind:

the Joint Statement issued by Mr Atalay, the Turkish Minister of the Interior, Mr Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission, and Mr Billström, representing the EU Council Presidency, on 5 November 2009, in particular, point (3) which refers to the resumption of the formal negotiations on the Turkey-EC readmission agreement and point (5) which states that agreement has now been reached at technical level on the working arrangement between Turkey and Frontex;

the answer given by Ms Malmström, President-in-Office of the Council, to my question No. H-0431/09 before the plenary sitting of the European Parliament on 16 December 2009; and

the constant harassment of Frontex aircraft by Turkish aircraft;

Will the Commission say: What stage has been reached in negotiations on point (3) of the Joint Statement? Is there any linkage with the discussions with Frontex? Is the harassment of Frontex aircraft linked to Turkey’s refusal explicitly to recognise the EU’s Aegean borders?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – I have a busy agenda today! I would like to recall that we have had a difficult history in negotiations with Turkey starting already with the mandate in 2002, but recently there have been very many positive steps. Last year, the Council conclusion on illegal immigration urged accelerating negotiations with Turkey, and, also last year, my predecessor, Mr Barrot, visited Turkey together with the Swedish Minister Billström. There was a joint statement at that time moving forward.

Since then, there has been progress. There have been several talks over the winter, and we are now very close to an agreement in negotiations on the readmission agreement with Turkey.

The Commission is confident that the agreed parts of the text are balanced and that they reflect our needs while addressing Turkey’s concerns. We are working in order to finalise this text as soon as possible and we are in constant contact with the Turkish authorities.

The aim is to finalise this and to report on the outcome of the negotiations during the June Council. We will keep Parliament fully informed as it will be asked to grant its consent for conclusion once it is concluded.

On the Frontex arrangement, there is no formal linkage between the negotiation of the working arrangement and the EU-Turkey readmission agreement. Having said that, the Commission is taking the necessary steps in order to ensure overall coherence in addressing similar issues in both acts.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the delimitation of the territory or the borders of a given Member State, as these issues are the sole responsibility of the Member States and the applicable provisions of international law. We would like to encourage Frontex and the host Member State to ensure that adequate information is provided to neighbouring third countries on the deployment of assets such as airborne means close to the borders before a joint operation is launched.

  Nikolaos Chountis, author. – (EL) Commissioner, the difficulty in giving a clear reply to a string of similar questions makes me realise that these negotiations are, in any event, difficult and, to my mind, confirms the question that numerous political issues are being raised by the Turkish side which are making it hard to conclude the negotiations.

I would be most obliged if, as soon as these negotiations are concluded, as soon as there is an agreement, you would update us. I should also like to say the following: during the Turkish Prime Minister’s recent visit to Greece, to Athens, a protocol was signed, a memorandum of cooperation with Greece on illegal immigration issues. What I want to ask you is this: can this memorandum, this – let us say – readmission agreement between Greece and Turkey replace the agreement between the European Union and Turkey which is being negotiated?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Without knowing the exact details of the agreement made between Turkey and Greece, I think it shows the constructive mood that we are in as regards the Greek authorities on the one hand and the Turkish on the other.

There is a parallel negotiation going on with Turkey. We are, as I said, very close to wrapping these negotiations up. There has been a very constructive atmosphere and I think this shows the necessity for the European Union of achieving this and also the interest on the Turkish side in reaching an agreement with us on re-admission. This is, of course, to the benefit of everybody.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Commissioner, in other replies we have received, you expressly said that Frontex is negotiating technical issues with Turkey. I understand that. You recently told us in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, when you came and updated us on matters within your jurisdiction, that the final agreement with Turkey on illegal immigration issues was, as you said today, making good progress and was close to being wrapped up.

In this agreement between the European Union and Turkey, should there not also be provision for Frontex between the European Union and Turkey? Is Frontex not a very important factor in combating illegal immigration? I do not know how much you can tell us of what is included in the negotiations, but does common sense not tell us that there should, at this point, be provision for operation and actions by Frontex?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – I had the opportunity to address the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs last Monday and I repeat what I said at that time, namely, that progress is being made on the negotiations with Turkey.

Concerning Frontex and the border control of Turkey, they have reached an initial agreement on a draft working arrangement at a technical level. Discussions are being pursued by both parties and, for the time being, Frontex is awaiting a reply from Turkey in order to continue the discussions. Frontex is an important actor in this but, first of all, we need to get the agreement and then continue in parallel discussions with Frontex. I agree that there is a lot of room for cooperation here.

  President. – Question 24 by Sarah Ludford (H-0236/10)

Subject: EU counter-terrorism policies and CIA rendition

A number of recent developments have shed more light on Member State involvement in the US rendition programme. A 2010 UN Joint Study has revealed that EU Member States colluded with and participated in activities relating to the CIA rendition programme and secret prisons⁽²⁾.

Given these numerous abuses of power over the past eight years by Member States, and in the light of the Commission’s proposed communication on a stocktaking of counter-terrorism policies, can the Commission provide details of specific measures it plans to take to ensure that EU counter-terrorism policies prevent such abuses in the future?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Thank you to Sarah Ludford for this question. As you know, I have an interest in this and we have also cooperated in the past on this. It is needless to say that freedom and security go hand in hand, and respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law is at the heart of the European Union’s approach to countering terrorism. Measures to fight terrorism must always be undertaken within the framework of full respect for fundamental rights, and the EU must be exemplary in this respect.

This is not only a legal requirement but also a key condition to ensuring credibility and legitimacy as well as for promoting mutual confidence between the national authorities, and confidence among the public at large. The Commission will therefore continue to follow an approach on counter-terrorism which seeks to combine operational and legal effectiveness and feasibility with a clear commitment to the respect of fundamental rights.

Practices referred to as renditions and secret detentions are a violation of human rights. The Commission has always stressed this, and it is up to the Member States concerned to commence or to continue in-depth, independent and impartial investigations to establish the truth. This is a positive obligation, deriving from the European Convention of Human Rights, in order to establish responsibilities and to enable victims to obtain compensation. We have, from the Commission side, encouraged Poland and Romania to carry out investigations into allegations of the existence of secret detention facilities, and we welcome the launch of criminal investigations in Poland in March 2008.

The Commission has also written to the Lithuanian authorities welcoming their proactive attitude in initiating investigations. As far as the debate on rendition flights and its implications for EU aviation policy are concerned, the Commission draws some lessons in the context of the communication of civil and business aviation from January 2008. Furthermore, the Single European Sky, which entered into force last January, provides additional measures for monitoring the actual movement of aircraft, and we will continue to follow this carefully – within our powers, of course.

In 2008, the Commission provided panoramic factual information in its public staff document on terrorism and fundamental rights. This is a synthesis of the replies from the Member States to the questionnaire on criminal law, administrative law, procedural law and fundamental rights in the fight against terrorism. All Member States have replied to this questionnaire, and we are right now, in addition, preparing from the Commission side a stock-taking exercise of the main EU measures and policy initiatives taken in the field of counter-terrorism until the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

Counter-terrorism policy conducted at national level by Member States or the participation on the CIA rendition programme will not specifically be assessed in this context, but it is very clear what the Commission thinks about this, and we will continue to follow developments in Member States, including legal challenges brought against counter-terrorism measures in national courts, and to draw lessons from sustainable policy making at EU level.

  Sarah Ludford, author. – Commissioner Malmström, I think never has the phrase ‘poacher turned gamekeeper’ been more appropriate, and I always welcomed working with you on these issues.

I think what you said is somewhat encouraging in that it signals some strengthening in the oversight and mechanisms that the Commission will have for the future, but the fact is that there is the past. Member States participated in illegal CIA rendition, torture and disappearance, and there was a lack of oversight and accountability. There was a lot of rhetoric about human rights, just as there is now, but a huge gap between rhetoric and reality. We still do not have a full calling to account.

Are there things that the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, can think of that could still be done not only to try and make sure that Member States respect their obligations in the future, but how we can still get investigations – including, I very much hope, a proper public inquiry now under the new UK Government – to make sure that we know fully what happened in the past and what went wrong?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – I think the work done by the European Parliament on this aspect has been extremely important in shining a light on the rendition programme and showing what has been happening. This has created momentum, but also strong public opinion to find out the truth. As I said, the Commission has been urging and encouraging full, in-depth investigations in the countries affected and will continue to follow up and ensure these are really being carried out. The Single European Sky proposal is there to help us to further monitor this.

We will keep an eye on this and will continue to push for clarity. Besides that, there is not much concrete that the European Commission can do, but we are happy to work with the European Parliament in order to continue to push for clarity and to make sure that this is not something that would be part of the European policy against terrorism.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) I would like to ask you, Mrs Malmström, for information on something which is, in my opinion, an important matter. The fight against terrorism – and, of course, we all know very well that we have to fight terrorism – also needs European states to cooperate with each other. In relation to this, I would like to ask the following question: do you observe that there is a greater tendency on the part of Member States of the Union in terms of cooperation, and is there also a greater tendency in terms of exchanging with each other the different and very important kinds of information necessary to combat terrorism? Have there been any positive changes I this respect?

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – The fight against terrorism is, of course, one crucial element in the policy of the European Union. The main actions are being taken by national services, police authorities and national politicians. The European Union can support these initiatives, we can provide a certain legal framework, and we can make sure that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is respected. We have some funding, we can provide support for victims and we can encourage further cooperation.

My feeling is that there is a lot of cooperation going on between the Member States on this. Of course there is still the very sensitive issue of sharing intelligence. This is based on trust – or lack of trust sometimes. This has to be developed and it can only be done by harmonising and making sure that our European Union systems fully respect the rule of law and that they are trustworthy. This is an area where the European Union can help. In the Stockholm Programme and in the discussions leading to that, there was a clear willingness for Member States to strengthen cooperation – with each other, within the European Union, but also with third countries – in order to fight terrorism. This, of course, always has to be done with full respect for fundamental rights, and the CIA rendition programme is not part of this.

  President. – As they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together:

Question 25 by Marian Harkin (H-0188/10)

Subject: Entrepreneurs and SMEs

In the light of the upcoming SME week (25 May - 1 June 2010) and the European Enterprise Awards (31 May), can the Commission give an update on the implementation of the Small Business Act particularly with regard to measures on investment readiness of entrepreneurs, improving their access to finance, reducing administrative burdens and, in particular, on Member States’ initiatives and policy decisions to help SMEs tackle problems which hamper their development?

Question 26 by Jim Higgins (H-0198/10)

Subject: SMEs

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce measures to help existing SMEs across the EU who are struggling, and would the Commission consider introducing a special scheme to help young entrepreneurs trying to create successful SMEs in the Union, thus reducing the EU’s reliance on FDI in order to boost industry?

Question 27 by Gay Mitchell (H-0213/10)

Subject: SMEs and job creation

It is widely recognised that small and medium-sized enterprises are the key to reducing unemployment in Europe, yet they face a disproportionate regulatory burden when compared to larger companies due to economies of scale. If every SME in Europe could create one job tomorrow, this would have an enormously positive effect on employment levels.

What is the Commission doing to promote job creation through SMEs with, for example, regulatory reform and investment? What targets has the Commission set and how will it propose to monitor these targets?

Question 28 by Liam Aylward (H-0225/10)

Subject: European SME Week

Next week is the European SME week. Its aim is to promote entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness and to provide information concerning the work being done by the European Union and the authorities at all levels to support and fund micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises.

The greatest challenge being faced by small and medium-sized enterprises at the present is securing capital and funding. There are many small enterprises, small family businesses and start-ups which were very successful but are now vulnerable because they cannot secure capital. What can be done at European level to solve this problem?

Question 29 by Brian Crowley (H-0234/10)

Subject: Measures to reduce administrative costs for SMEs

Can the Commission outline what measures it is undertaking in order to reduce unnecessary administrative costs for small to medium-sized enterprises in the European Union?

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, with your new Liberal hat on, could I ask you to clarify what questions will actually be taken? Will Question 33, in Part 3, be taken? We are all trying to attend several meetings. If you could clarify exactly the ones that will not be taken, it would be helpful.

  President. – I think it extremely unlikely that we will get to Question 33. If you are waiting for that, I would not do so.

Mr Tajani will now give a single reply and, after that, I will give the questioners – and other colleagues – the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

May I make the point that we are going to finish at 20.30 because the staff and the interpreters have to have something to eat before we resume at 21.00.

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, I have now been speaking in my new capacity for two years. Small and medium-sized enterprises continue to constitute a priority for the new Commission, which is convinced of the need to do everything it can to prevent the financial crisis becoming a social crisis that would chiefly affect small and medium-sized enterprises and their employees.

Since the adoption of the Small Business Act in 2008, substantial progress has been made. The Commission has adopted five legislative proposals relating to the Small Business Act, two of which have already been implemented: the block exemption regulation on State aid and the directive on reduced VAT rates; the other three, the directive on late payment, the directive on VAT invoicing and the regulation on a European private company statute, are still under discussion here in Parliament and in the Council.

The Commission has also set in motion the required non-legislative actions; an ‘SME test’ has now been introduced across the board for impact studies, to improve the quality of legislation. To give an example: the directive on late payment, and the exemption of micro-entities from accounting burdens.

Member States have also demonstrated a strong political desire to implement the Small Business Act: for example, they have made the ‘SME test’ part of national decision-making procedures, and small and medium-sized enterprises were amongst the main beneficiaries of the measures adopted by Member States in the context of the European recovery programme to deal with the crisis. For instance, the creation and extension of loans and guarantees to small and medium-sized enterprises was among the measures adopted to improve access to finances.

However, the chosen methods and the results obtained differ between States, and we therefore need to continue working on the implementation of the Small Business Act at national level. I therefore consider it crucial to pursue the courses of action undertaken, and ensure that the principles and recommended courses of action are implemented at both European and national levels.

The policy in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises is fully supported by the Europe 2020 strategy, is an integral part of many lighthouse initiatives envisaged and will be subject to a specific check when the strategy is implemented in Member States. One of the 10 supplementary guidelines proposed by the Commission calls on Member States to implement a series of measures for small and medium-sized enterprises, according to the principles of the Small Business Act.

The next stage will involve ensuring that Member States incorporate these measures in their national reform programmes. By the end of this year, we will have carried out an in-depth examination of the implementation of the Act, to measure the progress made and identify new courses of action that also take into account the Europe 2020 priorities. The main areas of action will include improving access to credit and innovation, encouraging the spirit of enterprise and promoting the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises. Small and medium-sized enterprises, especially those managed by young entrepreneurs, will be among the main beneficiaries of these new initiatives.

Mindful of the difficulties that small and medium-sized enterprises currently encounter when trying to access finances, the European Commission has closely followed developments in the sector, collaborating particularly with the European Central Bank with the aim of carrying out regular surveys of the situation.

The Commission has also drawn up a series of programmes that offer financial support to help small and medium-sized enterprises to gain access to capital that they need to develop their activities. The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, for example, incorporates certain financial instruments developed in conjunction with the European Investment Fund, which provide incentives for risk operations and loan guarantee operations for enterprises. The Jeremie programme financed by the European Regional Development Fund offers a huge range of specific financial products to develop and strengthen small and medium-sized enterprises in European territory as a whole. Finally, the new European micro-finance instrument, a joint initiative between the Commission and the European Investment Bank, is specifically directed at micro-enterprises that have difficulty obtaining ad hoc financing.

Access by small and medium-sized enterprises to credit has also improved, due to an increase in the sum of credit lines granted by the European Investment Bank to the intermediary banks that are responsible for reallocating the sums to small and medium-sized enterprises in the form of loans. In 2009, the European Investment Bank granted a total amount of EUR 13 billion to financial institutions; the equivalent of a 55% increase over the previous year. For your information, more than 75% of the EUR 21 billion granted in 2008-2009 reached the small and medium-sized enterprises to which they were destined, that is to say, 50 000 small and medium-sized enterprises all over the Union.

A few days ago, the Commission also organised a high level conference where banks, risk capital funds and small and medium-sized enterprises came together; a meeting also attended by representatives from the European Parliament. This allowed us to examine the current market situation and to explore new ideas and strategies to improve access to finances for small and medium-sized enterprises. It was an important occasion for discussing possible courses of action to be undertaken to help enterprises in order to sustain recovery and economic growth.

One of the courses of action that was decided upon was the establishment of a permanent discussion forum with financial institutions, risk capital funds and representatives from small and medium-sized enterprises. Quarterly meetings will be chaired by the European Commission. The conclusions from this forum will constitute the first stage of a strategy intended to establish a plan of action to provide access to credit and capital for small and medium-sized enterprises in our Union.

Finally, I shall take advantage of this debate to inform Parliament that as part of the first European SME Week, more than 1 200 national, regional and local events will be held, concerning a wide range of issues affecting this sector. The SME week will take place between 25 May and 1 June, at the same time as the 2010 European Enterprise Awards ceremony, planned for 31 May in Madrid.

All this is to confirm to you my personal commitment to ensure that employment in our Union can be defended by offering support to small and medium-sized enterprises. The necessary restructuring of large-scale private industry will cause some jobs to be lost, and the only way we can bolster employment is by supporting the development of the small and medium-sized enterprises that represent the backbone of our European economy.

  Marian Harkin, author. – I want to congratulate the Commissioner on progress achieved. However, Commissioner, you talked about one of the major problems as being access to capital, and you mentioned the European Investment Bank. It has distributed funds to Irish banks to distribute on to SMEs. However, a considerable amount is not being distributed, mainly because of the mismatch between the needs of SMEs – refinancing of some sort – and the European Investment Bank objective, which is money for medium-term investment. So I want to ask you if you agree that some measures need to be put in place for SMEs which will require refinancing, and what role the Commission could play. Furthermore, would you favour some kind of enterprise guarantee scheme, similar to what is in the UK?

  Jim Higgins, author. – (GA) Mr President, I agree completely with the Commission’s statement that SMEs are very important, not only due to the number of jobs they create but also because they are more stable than large companies that come in and have no loyalty to the region or to the country.

I completely agree with my fellow Member Marian Harkin’s statement that a lack of finance is the biggest hindrance at present, and the Commission has referred to this. As well as that, there is too much bureaucracy or ‘red tape’ in place.

  Gay Mitchell, author. – I want to ask the Commissioner if he will look at the non-direct financing aspects of the problems that SMEs are encountering.

For example, I do not know what it is like in your country, but in my country, there is no such thing as a bank manager any more. We are giving money to banks, but banks do not assess people on their track record, on their character and on the knowledge of their business. We got into the mess we are in because people were on automatic. To some extent, they are still on automatic. How do you win an election? One vote at a time. If we can get one job in every SME in Europe, we will end the unemployment crisis.

I ask you please to consult with the European Central Bank and European Investment Bank and try to bring your influence to bear to get us back to traditional bank managers who engage with SMEs and help them to develop their businesses. It will return a dividend.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). – The obvious question is, does the Commission actually believe that SME Week can deliver on its aims? Can I ask the Commission what action can be taken to ensure that the European Union and Member States create an environment in which entrepreneurs and family businesses can survive, develop and thrive and entrepreneurship is rewarded, not hindered, which is often the case in the present economic climate?

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, I will be brief: I agree with the observations of all the Members of Parliament who have spoken in this debate.

As regards the European Investment Bank, I took immediate action after taking up my position as Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship to meet President Maystadt and urge him to deliver the EUR 30 billion allocated to help small and medium-sized enterprises from the European Investment Bank. This is what I promised Parliament in my hearing, before it entrusted me with the job of Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship.

To continue, the President’s response was quite positive: he told me that, after an initial freeze, some EUR 6 to 7 billion of the EUR 30 billion allocated had reached the intended destination. I urged the President to speed up the delivery times.

There is also a problem concerning the banks in our area – a point raised by the last speaker – because the European banking system is quite diversified: not all banks are the same. Some banks engage in financial speculation, but fortunately, we still have a banking network where the manager knows the businessman who goes to ask for credit, and so he can trust him, and also knows that the money he invests will be reinvested in the bank, and that what happened in the United States will not happen here.

The meeting that I organised a few days ago, which was attended by many of your European Parliamentary colleagues, was really aimed at this: at developing a strategy. This is why I said that we have set up a forum that will later lead to an action plan for providing credit.

The aim is for our small and medium-sized enterprises to be competitive. For them to be competitive, there must be innovation, but innovation is impossible if no funds are earmarked for this purpose. Hence, my primary commitment to involving the banks – even the banks supplying credit. Many of them have committed themselves to doing this in the future. We are taking strong action, with stimulus from the Commission, involving banks and financial operators and also the European Investment Bank, which sent two vice-presidents to take part in the debate. The aim of this action is to achieve at least some of these objectives, in the conviction that small and medium-sized enterprises represent the best instrument today for emerging from the crisis and – as I said at the start of my speech – for preventing the economic and financial crisis from turning into a social crisis.

You can count on my total commitment to defending, protecting and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises – and that also applies to financial aspects – in the hope that they will be able to grow, and that new businesses will spring up, because our goal is still the same as ever: with a market economy that allows small and medium-sized enterprises to become increasingly competitive, we can create a genuine social policy, in the words of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  President. – I apologise to colleagues for the rather shortened Question Time because the previous debate overran by 25 minutes.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 20.30 and resumed at 21.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

(1) OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1

(2) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf

16. Principle of subsidiarity and universality of social public services in the EU (debate)

  President. – The sitting is resumed.

The next item is the oral question to the Commission (Β7-0218/2010) by Jan Olbrycht and Lambert van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the PPE Group, Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Oldřich Vlasák, on behalf of the ECR Group, Peter Simon, Françoise Castex, Evelyne Gebhardt and Proinsias De Rossa, on behalf of the S&D Group, and Ramona Nicole Mănescu and Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on the principle of subsidiarity and universality of social public services in the EU (O-0062/10).

  Jan Olbrycht, author. – (PL) I would like to point out that the oral question which has been asked here was brought about by a decision of the European Commission on identifying which groups can make use of social housing in the Netherlands. That decision provoked a great deal of discussion and interest among Members of the European Parliament because it has important consequences. It has to be realised that in different Member States of the European Union, different definitions are in use for social housing considered as a public service. These definitions also concern the fact that we have different criteria for use of social housing, and that we have different ranges of responsibility as well. Responsibility rests with the public authorities, but the contractors are both public and non-public.

Interest in social housing results, on the one hand, from regulations concerning public aid, but also concerns the definition which is used in the case of identifying qualified costs for structural funds. In relation to this, as a supplement to the question, it would be interesting to know whether the Commission thinks that there should be one definition for the whole of the European Union. Should the same principles function in relation to public aid in social housing? Does the Commission intend to establish in each case a permissible level of domestic income as in the case with the Netherlands? Is this type of action definitely in accordance with the subsidiarity principle which operates in the European Union?

  Heide Rühle, author. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to make reference to a press release that the Commission itself issued on 19 December last year in connection with the State aid decision on the Dutch social housing system.

I will now quote from the statement. ‘The Commission’s decision confirms its long-standing policy line that national authorities have a wide margin in defining the criteria and conditions for social housing and other Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI).’ That is the quotation.

My question is as follows. How does this statement by the Commission fit in with the fact that, through this decision, the Commission laid down fixed income limits for social housing in the Netherlands? Does that actually fall within the Commission’s competence, and how does it relate to subsidiarity and proportionality?

Furthermore, I would also like to ask the Commission how the decision to formally recognise the necessity of a social mix whilst speaking out against social segregation can be compatible with the fact that, at the same time, a fixed proportion of no more than 10% above the EUR 30 000 threshold has been laid down whilst the Commission also states that if, at any point, more than 10% above this EUR 30 000 social housing threshold obtain housing, this will have to be made up for in other areas in the Netherlands? That, it seems to me, is a very fixed and rigid arrangement when it comes to the issue of social mixing.

How does that fit in with subsidiarity and – as you yourselves stated in your press release – with the ‘wide margin in defining the criteria and conditions for social housing and other Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI)’?

  Françoise Castex, author. – (FR) Madam President, I, too, would like to address the Commission on this notification of aid for social housing by the Netherlands, the European Commission’s response to which is that it must be brought into line with competition rules. It has therefore recommended a radical reform of social housing and its missions of general interest and, in my opinion, has developed a restrictive definition of what constitutes social services of general interest.

In fact, the Commission recognises the social character of this public service, but underlines that it should be defined, and I quote, ‘in direct connection with disadvantaged social groups’ and that, consequently, the supply of social housing in the Netherlands exceeds the individual needs of disadvantaged social groups. The proposal for a reform of social housing thus presented by the Dutch Government limits to 10% the volume of social housing that can be allocated to other social groups, but always according to social criteria or in order of priority.

This limitation amounts to undermining another public service mission that is fulfilled by the service of social housing, namely the objective of social and urban diversity, which is defined for social housing by the Dutch legislator. Therefore, the question for me, Commissioner, Members of the Commission, is on what legal basis in the treaty can the Commission call into question the universal character of social services and force a Member State to redefine the missions that it allocates to one of these social services?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the question put forward by the honourable Members falls into three parts. The first: whether the Commission is of the opinion that there should be one single definition of social housing in the EU. The second: the question on the principles of subsidiarity and universality. The third: a question of income limits for access to social housing. Before replying to these questions, I would like to underline that the Commission attaches great importance to social housing. Social housing is a key tool for active social and economic inclusion policies in the European Union.

In reply to questions 1 and 2, I would like to be very clear. The Commission imposes no single definition of social housing at EU level and fully respects the principle of subsidiarity. The honourable Members rightly refer to the Commission’s 2005 decision on State aid for services of general economic interest. This decision provides legal certainty in the provision of the services and reduces the administrative burden on the public authorities which finance them.

According to this decision, aid to social housing which meets the conditions set by the decision receives preferential treatment, as it is exempted from notification – irrespective of the amounts involved. According to this decision, that exemption applies when social housing is qualified as a service of general economic interest by the Member State concerned. It is for each Member State to define the scope of social housing in line with its traditions, culture and state intervention.

I would also like to refer to the Commission communications of 2006 and 2007, which clearly highlighted the Member States’ responsibility and wide discretion as regards social services of general interest. Furthermore, this point was emphasised more recently in the Protocol on Services of General Interest. However, as the term ‘social housing’ suggests, what is involved here is not housing in general, but housing provided on the basis of social criteria.

This is why the recitals in the 2005 decision refer to housing for disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups which, due to solvency constraints, are unable to obtain housing at market conditions. The Member States must therefore define a target group for social housing to allow social housing to be allocated in a transparent way and to prevent those most in need from being excluded.

The Member States have wide scope for manoeuvre in determining the size of the target group and in applying the social housing systems. The Commission’s role is limited to checking that there is no manifest error in the definition.

This approach was confirmed in a Commission decision adopted in December 2009 on social housing in the Netherlands. This approach is also fully in line with Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which refers to social and housing assistance for all those who lack sufficient resources.

A clear definition of social housing also ensures that State aid cannot be channelled into financing commercial activities outside the scope of services of general economic interest.

Question 2 also refers to a universal right to housing. However, as I have already said, housing in general is not the same as social housing. Clear-cut, transparent eligibility and allocation criteria for social housing are in the interest of the beneficiaries and ensure the proper use of public funds.

In reply to question 3, in which the honourable Members ask why access to social housing is limited to households with an income of less than EUR 33 000, I would like, here again, to be very clear. There is no income limit set at EU level for access to social housing.

This amount concerns one Member State – the Netherlands. It was part of the changes introduced by the Dutch authorities to bring the national social housing system in line with the European State aid rules. The Dutch authorities set such a limit to identify the target group for social housing in the Netherlands. The Commission did not identify any errors with that definition of social housing and therefore approved the Dutch State aid scheme. I would add that the target group defined by the Dutch authorities is very wide and covers 43% of the Dutch population.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) At a time of crisis, and of debate on how to maintain a sustainable society and our competitiveness, we are discussing an apparent detail that, as I see it, nevertheless goes to the heart of many people’s concerns.

The issue concerned is who is to be allocated housing? Particularly now that banks are being much more reserved than they were when the debate started – which, in the Netherlands, was in 2005, when the situation was quite different – it is clear that some people are really getting into difficulties. The threshold that has now been set is EUR 33 000. These proposals still have to be presented for approval to the members of the lower house of the Dutch Parliament, and they will tell us straight away that this threshold should, in fact, be in line with the threshold for the Netherlands’ sickness insurance fund, which is approximately EUR 40 000.

The debate in the Netherlands is still in full swing, therefore: it is not the case that everyone is now in agreement. I feel that insufficient room is left for flexibility, for tailor-made solutions. Member States must be able to adapt to circumstances. This 10% is very small. After I graduated, my income was also above the threshold, but I was able to keep on my rented accommodation for a quite a few years before deciding once and for all to buy and to go and live somewhere else.

We are talking about flexibility; there is not enough elbow room. This leads me to the conclusion that subsidiarity – countries’ ability to arrange things themselves within a much broader range – is not being sufficiently respected. Following today’s debate, we must look at whether to come back again with a resolution. On the whole, I think that the Commission is making a good job of this, but I think that Member States’ elbow room is excessively restricted, to the detriment of people who depend on it for their housing.

  Evelyne Gebhardt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I follow this debate, I note that there is actually a great deal of uncertainty in relation to how the law is to be applied in these areas. Mr Andor, you just said that there is no European regulation laying down EUR 33 000 as a fixed limit. Dutch legislators, however, have laid down this limit of their own free will, probably because they were afraid that otherwise, the Commission would, at some point, require clear criteria to be put in place.

This uncertainty leads to a great many difficulties in the Member States in relation to taking decisions themselves, specifically in terms of shaping those decisions so that they truly match up to what we need for these people and, in particular, for social housing, as these are people who do not have enough money to be able to move about freely.

It is therefore very important for us to create a legal framework and legal certainty that also properly clarifies what is possible. Services of general economic interest, of course, really do need to be protected. They are provided at the local level in the Member States and they are universal and we need to ensure that they really are offered to everyone.

We therefore have to consider – and I know this is being considered in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs – demanding from the Commission a legal framework to protect services of general economic interest, especially in the social field, and I think that such a framework, were it to be provided, would be a good thing.

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, we are talking here about legal basis, which is obviously very important. However, behind this legal basis, I would like to underline the fact that housing and, in particular, social housing, is clearly not a market like any other or a commercial activity like any other. Moreover, social housing is much more than housing reserved for people on low incomes or in need.

There are the issues of social diversity, which we have spoken about, but there is also the integration of these houses and of the people who live in them into their neighbourhood, into their town, sometimes in town centres, sometimes on the outskirts. A great deal of work is done with the tenants, work to help them integrate and to establish solidarity, including among the different generations who live in these neighbourhoods and in this housing and, therefore, in this regard, I really think that this is a different kind of subject.

In addition, during this legislature, we are going to work on services of general interest. It seems to me that coming here and underlining problems linked to aid or to limited access to social housing sends out the wrong signal. As for the income limit, which was mentioned by other Members apart from me and which is set at EUR 33 000, I think that it poses a problem because there is a whole range of very different families: single parent families, families comprising elderly people, families comprising members from past and present relationships, families that have separated. How can we calculate their incomes? All of that leads me, like others, to call for more flexibility and subsidiarity if we want real social projects in these neighbourhoods.

  Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, you just said that the Commission attached great importance to social housing. Indeed, we are talking about a fundamental right that is not being applied in our Member States. Moreover, this is another stain on our current model of European integration.

As for the rest of your answer, Commissioner, you recited the Commission’s usual prayer book, but experience shows that the Commission, your Commission, and the European Court of Justice are passing judgment on the basis of the European treaties, in accordance with a fatal principle, that of free and undistorted competition, and are therefore creating illegal access to housing construction and to housing itself. Worse still, in 2005, the European Commission defined social housing as housing reserved exclusively for, and I quote, ‘disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups’. The Commission is thus encouraging the creation of ghetto cities for the poor, to the detriment of social diversity.

Like many Members, I support the idea of a new framework directive that is positive and progressive, but I fear that it is the very principle of competition enshrined in the treaties that should be changed.

On the other hand, I fear that the statements made by President Barroso and confirmed today by the Ecofin Council which, in principle, recommend controlling the budgets, will lead to a reduction in the spending allocated to low-cost housing offices and, in particular, to social housing. I definitely believe that Europe must start from scratch.

  Frank Engel (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I would like, in a way, to echo the opinion of Mrs Durant, who rightly affirmed that social housing is not a commercial sector or a sector subject to competition like any other. Commissioner, I believe that we will agree on this point.

State aid is being called into question here. I wonder why, in an area such as social housing, we would not theoretically be precisely in the area of State aid. Indeed, we are talking about State aid for the beneficiaries of social housing, not so much for enterprises. Ultimately, aid is allocated because it is deemed necessary; it is not so much issues of competition that are at stake.

I note – and I can certainly only speak on the basis of my own experience nationally – that social housing is linked to such different conditions that we should really be glad that the European Commission, the European institutions, Europe and Brussels are not, as is always felt, responsible for giving us a precise definition of aid, for telling us which citizen can benefit from which aid and under which circumstances.

I would stress that what is at stake here are specific local conditions and changes in the family circumstances of each and every one of us. How could somebody who had a family, but whose family status then changes, somebody whose income varies in the course of his life, as Mr van Nistelrooij said, one day be granted the right to social housing, according to a number of criteria, only to then see it withdrawn? I feel that this is unreasonable and, in these circumstances, I do not believe that the Commission should go beyond its remit again to propose to us, and ultimately impose on us, rules that would inevitably lack flexibility and probably also humanity.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). – Madam President, I participate in this debate as the Employment Committee rapporteur on the future of social services of general interest. This oral question seeks to establish from the Commission what proposals it has to address a serious problem in relation to the delivery of social housing for citizens.

I regret that the Commissioner did not indicate any such proposals rather than seek to justify the existing system. There is a persistent refusal by the Commission to come to terms with the need to create legal clarity and flexibility for Member Sates with regard not only to the delivery of existing public services – and particularly social services – but also to meeting new social needs. We must be able not only to provide citizens with a safety net in times of need, but also to provide a robust social framework which serves all citizens. Health, housing and education are services which should obviously be provided on a universal basis and not simply at the whim of the market. That the market is incapable of delivering universality on the basis of equality and equal quality in these areas is self-evident.

These are all services which reach beyond the profit motive and deliver social value, which cannot be accounted for by a profit-and-loss balance sheet. They are also, as it happens, needed to create a solid basis for a modern economy. The present legal inadequacy with regard to what governments at both national and local level may do in the delivery of services identified as essential to the well-being of society cannot be allowed to continue much longer.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to place something on record: Community competence does not exist in the area of housing policy in general and of social housing in particular.

However, in the decision that we mention in this oral question, the Commission does give a definition of social housing. As has been said repeatedly, Commissioner, the problem of social housing and of access to housing is a major problem today, at this time of crisis. Let us put a little bit of humanity back into our technical, legal, and even technocratic, debates.

Over and above housing per se, social housing is the foundation of real integration, of real social inclusion for those who benefit from it. The definition that was given in the course of the review carried out by the Commission on State aid is entirely debatable. Commissioner, Descartes, the great French philosopher born in my region, the Loire Valley, said: ‘The general interest is a circle of which the centre is known, but the circumference is unknown’.

Therefore, I have two questions for you. The first is simple: what is the legal status of this definition? Is it to be applied to all Member States?

The second question is much more general. In the opinion of the Commission, where does Community competence as regards the organisation of public services begin and where does it end? For this question is important, after all. The universality and the accessibility of public services are at stake.

  Peter Simon (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, right across Europe, our cities and communities have to struggle with problem districts. Right across Europe, we try to solve this problem by bringing these disadvantaged areas and the people living in them up to the level of normal life in the rest of our towns and cities.

If, however, we now lay down criteria in the field of social housing, as the Commission is doing here, if we lay down criteria that explicitly – as some Members have already said – preclude a mixing of the population in these areas, that will undermine all the efforts made by the competent parties on the ground for decades. It will also undermine ventures that the European Union has promoted with its Community initiatives Urban and Urban II.

If, here, we restrict the criteria according to which social housing can be subsidised in such a way that actually only the poorest of the poor, the most disadvantaged of the disadvantaged, receive a subsidy and can be helped within the framework of social housing, we will actually be putting up obstacles to this segment of the population mixing in disadvantaged districts, something that is, in fact, urgently needed. This will lead to more social exclusion of precisely these population groups and will only increase these problems in our cities. With that in mind, a broad definition and broad interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity are the order of the day, and I would be grateful to the Commission if it could briefly express a position in this regard.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, what we have here is more of a global question, specifically that of the principle of subsidiarity and the universality of public social services in the EU as a whole. However, social housing has been set in the spotlight of this debate on the example of the Netherlands. This is not a one-off case – tenants’ associations and tenants’ representatives, in particular, have suspected for years that Europe’s focus on competitiveness at the very least restricts social housing in Europe, if not aims to make it completely impossible.

After the need for food and clothing, the need for housing is a basic human need, after all, and for that reason, housing is one of the social public goods, and preventing homelessness is a social challenge.

An expression of this is the fact that in States that are considerate of the welfare of their citizens, either social housing is supported or else housing is individually subsidised based on people’s income. Of course, we now have a special case in the European Union following the accession of numerous eastern, central and south-eastern European countries. Due to the different structuring of housing provision in the former Western and Eastern parts of Europe, there is a need, especially following the most recent enlargements of the European Union, to compare the structures of housing subsidies and housing provision in the Member States.

As a result of the method of privatisation of housing in many eastern, central and south-eastern European Member States immediately following the political changes and, in particular, as a result of the perceptible shortage of housing in those countries, the European Parliament reacted by making structural funds available for housing in these countries.

Despite that, housing policy continues to always be a reaction to the national, regional and, in particular, local circumstances in each case; in other words, it is a classic case of a policy area where subsidiarity applies, where there is no need for supranational regulation and where no such regulation exists. For housing as a public social good, market laws can only have a very limited application within the scope of public services.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, public services and social services are beset by enormous economic and political upheaval, the more so given national cost-saving measures. In the European Union, we are facing growing income disparities. Especially in times of uncertainty, the economic crisis and fears for the future, social stabilisers are more important than ever.

In my home city of Vienna, the basic idea of social housing consists of bringing about affordable housing for broad sections of the population and not restricting this – as defined by the Commission – to disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups. The result of that is ghettoisation. I thus have no intention of changing my opinion in this regard – it should be a principle or a right of local self-government to define social services, including social housing, at that local level and to exclude social services from the scope of competition and State aid law.

In any event, though, we need legal clarity in the European Union and a legal instrument at the EU level that covers and defines social services accordingly.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, firstly, I would like to thank the Commissioner for clarifying some of the points which were raised in the questions. It has to be said that the provision of a house is an absolute necessity for everybody, particularly in the modern welfare state. Having a roof over your head is absolutely vital; it is a right and is something which everyone would agree that should be provided either through one’s own means or through government agencies, etc.

Having said that, there is a debate to be had on how much interference the government of any particular country should have in the provision of housing. In my own country, the property bubble was created by tax incentives – which were too generous and not well thought out – for builders to build houses and providing them with the planning permission – sometimes even in flood plains, which have since been flooded – and rezoning land which should not have been rezoned. Then, of course, the banks chipped in by giving generous loans to builders which they could not pay back and to individuals to purchase houses which they could not pay back.

We therefore have the crisis we have at the moment. So there are a lot of questions there on how involved the state should be in the whole property development area.

However in the provision of social housing, I think firstly basing it on income is just too prescriptive and does not make any sense for the reasons given by many people. There is definitely a role, I think, for the Commission in the broader sense, perhaps in giving guidelines on the provision of social housing, but to be too prescriptive in regard to such things as income, etc. does not make sense; it will not work and it should not be attempted.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Social housing does indeed come under services of general interest. Unfortunately, the rate of youth unemployment has reached 20% in the European Union at the moment.

According to the European Regulation, a rate of 4% of the European Regional Development Fund allocation can be used by all Member States to fund the building of social housing and the improvement of energy efficiency in buildings. Unfortunately, due to the economic crisis, the economic situation of European families is getting worse, and the unemployment rate, which is extremely high among young people, is a cause for concern. This is precisely the reason why I would ask you, Commissioner, to support us in raising this rate up to 15% during the forthcoming financial programming period for the building of social housing and energy efficiency improvements in buildings.

In the majority of Member States, health care, education, social services and the care of young people and the elderly are managed by the State. These public services play a vital role in ensuring protection and the inclusion of all citizens in society, provided that they are accessible to all citizens. In order to ensure that this applies throughout the whole European Union, we call on the Commission to draw up a public services framework directive which will introduce minimum requirements in this area and guarantee both equal, universal access for all European citizens and good quality and transparency with these services.

  António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, social housing is an economic service of general interest with an important role in the market, creating positive outcomes for the benefit of the whole of society. In accordance with Protocol 26, Annex to the Treaty of Lisbon, it falls to national, regional and local authorities to implement and organise this type of service. It is therefore hard to understand this restriction of the target market to families whose income is less than EUR 33 000. This is a measurement of poverty that is carried out in terms that are absolute and purely financial, and does not take into account the diversity of the 27 Member States; its line of argument can be summarised as one of simple solvency.

Social housing responds to cultural and social questions; to proximity to a place of work; to the significant redefinition of the role of women in the market; and to the mobility of workers in the European area. The struggle in which the European Union is engaged to get out of the present crisis requires economic growth, which leads to immigration and ethnic, economic and cultural minorities, and the need for their integration, even with the risks of ghettoisation that are associated with it and which we must fight with fair balance. Is the Commission not intruding in the competences of the Member States?

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – Madam President, the Treaty of Lisbon recognises the importance of the availability and accessibility of social services and the roles played by local and regional authorities in providing these. The issues of social housing are of extreme importance to people with low incomes, and it is a reality that the crisis has left a large number of people unemployed, who are in need of social housing.

Currently, Member States apply different standards when deciding their criteria for social housing. It is understandable that the economic and social situations differ significantly in the Member States. In order to implement the right of access to universal services, I believe it would be reasonable to define general principles and to set the recommended upper income limit at EU level. However, we need to allow broad discretion for the Member States to make this lower, taking into account economic and social differences.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) I wish to thank the Commissioner for the clarifications he has provided on this issue. I do not believe either that there should be a single definition of social housing. Such a definition would be difficult to use in the situation where there are large differences in terms of standard of living. The issue of subsidiarity is relevant in this debate. I will digress slightly, if I may, beyond the specific scope of the question.

I believe that there should be, nevertheless, a set of clearer standards, but, in another respect, for example, in situations which involve the application of new regulations on eligibility for housing for marginalised communities. This is a regulation which this Parliament adopted in February and which was also mentioned by Mrs Ţicău. I, too, wish to take this opportunity to say that I would welcome an increase in the funds available, based on this regulation.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I wanted to have this debate simply because I, like others here, am concerned.

Several regions of Europe, including my own, are currently carrying out an assessment aimed at reforming their policy for allocating social housing in order to avoid the phenomena of ghettoisation and of grouping disadvantaged social groups together in the same buildings and the same neighbourhoods. Your decision runs counter to this policy of social rebalancing and of necessary social diversity.

Commissioner, it is not right that the Commission is preventing the Member States from conducting policies of social diversity. Certainly, access to social services of general interest relating to housing could, on the one hand, be limited to certain categories of people, but, on the other, a certain room for manoeuvre should be left so that they are accessible to people on other incomes, in order to improve social diversity in our neighbourhoods.

In any event, the balance between these two aspects should be defined by or with the Member States and the regions, and not by the Commission.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, we all know that the right to housing is a fundamental right. The Member States of the European Union are therefore obliged to guarantee social housing for anyone who needs it. At a time of profound social crisis, where the number of people and families with high levels of debt, and who are finding it difficult to repay the loans with which they bought their houses, or who are enduring high rents, is rising, it is even more important to give full support to people and families who cannot afford suitable housing with adequate facilities and utilities.

It is therefore essential for the Member States to be able to use Union and national funds to build social housing and guarantee the fundamental rights to which all citizens are entitled, bringing an end to social inequalities and encouraging social inclusion. The European Commission must take urgent action in this area, without threatening the principle of subsidiarity but supporting the universality of social public services.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) European centralisation is sometimes accompanied by fanfares, as we saw with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon. At other times, however, it arrives unobtrusively. The creation of various EU support funds, which often deform the market environment, has made it necessary to introduce mandatory notification of the provision of State aid.

The need then became apparent for exemptions from this obligation in the case of social housing. Suddenly, we have a European definition on our hands. If we define obligations at this level and then order those at lower levels to implement them, it is not subsidiarity.

Responsibility for social housing is fully within the competence of national, regional and local authorities. Let us not question the ability of national societies and local communities to solve their own problems. They are the ones who know these problems best. They also know the options for solving them.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D). – (PL) It is clear that we are dealing with a problem which is different in different Member States.

In the new countries, including Poland, we have very many regions where very many people do not have a home because of very, very low incomes. Those people are mainly taken care of by local authorities. It rests with the local authorities and regional institutions to help such people as quickly as possible. Without additional funding at the disposal of local authorities, and without public support, help for people who are in this most difficult situation is impossible. At the same time, it would also be necessary to consider how, in the future, by creating a common policy and a common definition in this area, to try to obtain additional funds which could be used by regional authorities. They would use the money and would create social housing, of which there is, truly, very, very little in many countries of Europe.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I fully agree that we have to look at this question in a wider context, in this case, in the context of the financial and economic crisis. In the last two years, we saw that this was a test of competition policies no matter whether it concerned the financial sector, the automotive sector or, in this case, the housing sector, and it was also a test of our social policies, whether it concerned children or the elderly or the homeless.

In this set of questions which I received, these two issues – competition and social policies – overlap. That is why it is even more complex than it would be outside the context of the crisis.

The crisis demonstrated an enormous market failure, not only in the financial sector but also in the housing sector, and it became very clear that market forces alone cannot resolve these problems, not only for the extremely poor, but also for larger groups of society. That is why I would be strictly against any principle that would restrict the concept of social housing to only the poorest groups in society, especially with respect to the diversity of European countries and the principle of subsidiarity. I would certainly insist on leaving the definitions in this context to the Member States themselves as I have said already in my introductory speech.

Going back to the Dutch case, which has been the focus of the discussion, I would like to repeat that the Commission is not imposing the criteria that have been set in the Dutch context to any other country. In full respect of subsidiarity, it is for the Member States to decide the actual conditionality of social housing.

This is confirmed by the decision concerning the Dutch State aid scheme, and I would like to recall that the limits set by the Dutch authorities – which apply only in the Netherlands – cover 43% of the Dutch population, which is certainly well beyond the poorest groups. The Dutch decision, moreover, has confirmed that the social mix and social cohesion are valid public policy objectives for which State aid may be justified, and not only for those living in extreme poverty or at risk of poverty.

I think the social distress in this over the last few years has destabilised society on a much wider scale, and that is why we have to be sensitive to this. I would also need to add that the Commission only verifies aid given to housing companies. Any subsidy given directly to citizens is not subject to State aid rules.

The discussion also touched upon a wider context, which is social services of general interest. That is why I need to address this as well and emphasise that beyond housing, other services of general interest and, in particular, other social services play a preventive and socially cohesive role which is targeted at the whole population independently of wealth or income. The Commission made this point clear in its 2007 communication when it highlighted the objectives and principles of organisation of social services.

The Commission is committed to promoting the quality of social services. For instance, we support the development of a quality framework for social services of general interest within the Social Protection Committee.

A few final thoughts in closing my answer. Since some of the questions concerned a longer timescale, spanning into the next financial perspective, I would agree that, in a variety of contexts, housing will be affected; indeed, refurbishment in the context of energy efficiency – which, from our point of view, falls under the category of green jobs – will certainly be an area where we will have activity, without, of course, trying to have a common European housing policy.

There will also be other issues like housing for the most vulnerable groups of society such as the Roma, where there is already a beginning, and I think there will be continued support from the Structural Funds to address housing issues, in this particular case, for the extremely vulnerable marginalised groups in a variety of Member States. This also highlights the importance of having a very diversified view because countries are different in terms of their social needs, and certain decisions and solutions that are applied in high-income countries certainly do not necessarily have to be followed – and definitely not imposed – in other Member States.

  President. – The debate is closed.

17. Security and prevention measures on offshore oil platforms in the EU (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on security and prevention measures on offshore oil platforms in the EU.

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, 20 April was a dark day for the Gulf of Mexico, for the United States of America, nay, for the whole world. For exactly four weeks now, the industry and the authorities have been trying everything – without conclusive success thus far – to bring a halt to the enormous oil leak and to minimise the environmental damage, in particular, on the coast.

The accident throws into sharp relief the risks associated with oil and gas supply works out at sea. The public perception has increased, and quite rightly so, not only in the United States, but also in Europe. Europe, together with Norway, produces more than 200 million tonnes of crude oil a year, most of it from the North Sea.

Even if the exploration for and conveying of oil and gas does not take place under comparably extreme conditions or at the same depths as in the Gulf of Mexico, we must still plan for the possibility of an accident in the EU and be ready for it. We have the competent bodies and mechanisms in order to be able to react quickly to a potential accident.

There is the European Maritime Safety Agency, we have rescue boats, we have civil protection mechanisms, we have good coordination of assistance measures, and Commissioner Georgieva was thus able to offer European assistance for ongoing measures in the Gulf of Mexico from an early stage.

Our goal must be prevention, so as not to have to deal with the major clear-up after a disaster at all. Together with Commissioner Potočnik, I have therefore asked our offices to review applicable EU legislation. The European legislation represents the framework for safety and environmental protection measures, both in general and in the event of a specific accident.

Our directives ensure minimum safety standards for equipment and they contain detailed minimum standards for the health and safety of workers. We will now review all these legal texts to see whether they provide an adequate and optimal toolset for a similar disaster or a worst case scenario. This means close cooperation with the national regulatory authorities, as a major part of the safety provisions governing conveying oil and gas and health protection is in the hands of the Member States rather than our hands directly.

Of course, no set of regulations can offer a 100% guarantee. A lot depends on the approach and the behaviour of the operative field in our industry. We therefore have every reason to get together: politics and the industry must cooperate in order to ensure that the European environment and the public are as safe as possible.

I want to put safety and sustainability in the transport of oil and gas at the heart of our stakeholder conversations. That is why, in the last week, I hosted a gathering of high-ranking officials from the major energy firms active in European waters. Commissioner Georgieva was also there. In this technically-oriented meeting, we asked the industry to ensure that all possible efforts were made to prevent comparable accidents in the vicinity of European coasts.

We presented a catalogue of questions that were answered by the companies over the following days. There were 12 questions, and they very specifically included everything that is crucial to safety on oil platforms and gas platforms and for the waters, the coasts and the Member States. I see this meeting with the industry as the beginning of a process that will strengthen the transparency of the industry’s operations and promote compliance with the regulations and the application of best practice.

We are planning a second meeting in the upcoming months, when we have a better understanding of the causes of the accident, in order to evaluate the situation and to learn the lessons for Europe from the accident in the Gulf of Mexico.

At this point in time, when the causes and circumstances have not yet been analysed, it would be premature to draw conclusions or to call for new legislative initiatives. If it should transpire, however, that a regulatory response is needed, I can assure you that the Commission will waste no time in submitting proposals for European legislation to you.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, there are constant efforts in Europe to prevent a similar tragedy over here. Should a similar accident nonetheless occur, we have a number of measures and mechanisms to react effectively and without delay, and to minimise the magnitude of any such accident for citizens and the environment in Europe.

I will be more than happy to report back to you after our next meeting on what we are planning.

  Bogusław Sonik, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) The explosion of the platform in the Gulf of Mexico is the greatest ecological disaster of its kind in history. Every day, 800 000 litres of crude oil are flowing into the Gulf, which means over 22 million litres since the disaster began. The oil slick now covers over 43 000 square kilometres, which is bigger than the Netherlands.

At the moment, it is our duty to declare solidarity with the United States and all the victims of the tragedy, and to ensure that we give as much help as possible. In the light of this disaster, I think it essential that we immediately carry out a special assessment – a detailed and far-reaching technical inspection of drilling platforms operating in the territorial waters of the European Union. This should be the first step at supranational level towards ensuring the safety of Europe’s seas. In addition, I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that if a similar disaster were to happen in the Baltic Sea, which is a closed sea, it would cause permanent and irreversible devastation in the entire region and its coastal areas.

It is essential that all developments carried out in the territorial waters of the European Union should be subject to special monitoring, and that they should comply with the highest safety standards and be equipped with the most modern safety systems. In this respect, I think it is also essential to develop a common cross-border procedure for reaction and cooperation, which would be put into action immediately if a leakage of crude oil occurred.

Observers in the United States point out that in many cases, permission to install platforms in the Gulf of Mexico has been given under pressure and in the interests of the oil industry, at the cost of the natural environment. It is hard, here, not to mention the decision to build Nord Stream, the Northern Gas Pipeline, which was a political decision which did not take account of the dangers this investment may present to the Baltic Sea ecosystem.

Mr Oettinger, in the face of the drama in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling installations for extracting crude oil or gas should never be allowed to appear without a 100% guarantee of safety for the seas and oceans concerned. Decisions made under pressure from an industrial or political lobby should not be allowed.

  Kriton Arsenis, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Commissioner, often it is not enough to simply increase prevention measures. The recent explosion in the Gulf of Mexico involved a platform which was only built in 2001 and its subsequent sinking is causing one of the biggest ecological disasters to date. Thus far, and it is 29 days since the accident, it has not been possible to stop the leak and, as Mr Sonik said, over 5 000 tonnes of oil a day are flowing into the sea in the Gulf.

This massive pollution has happened at a time when a great many species, many of which are disappearing, are in full spawning season. I refer to five of the seven species of sea turtle, dolphins, numerous whales and numerous important sea mammals. Inevitably, man is also affected. This explosion, this accident occurred just when the area was starting to recover from the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina; it also claimed 11 lives.

However, measures are being taken in the United States. In 1981, Congress voted for a moratorium banning offshore oil drilling in 85% of the coastal waters around the United States. The Obama government confirmed the moratorium after the accident, despite its initial statements to the contrary. At the same time, however, oil platforms are still being commissioned, mainly in the North Sea. There are, at present, hundreds of offshore platforms, drilling for both oil and natural gas.

The recent accident in the Gulf of Mexico really did confirm the danger of annihilation of the marine environment from offshore oil platforms. Nonetheless, under European legislation, drilling for oil under the sea is exempted from the scope of the Seveso Directive on major accident hazards involving dangerous substances.

This recent disaster shows us that no one is in a position to guarantee that a similar disaster will not happen in the European Union and, sometimes, merely increasing prevention measures does not suffice. The Obama government was forced to retreat by the scale of the disaster. Perhaps the time has come, in addition to extra prevention measures, for the European Union to introduce a moratorium banning offshore drilling in EU waters with immediate effect, to match the US moratorium? We need to act at once, before an accident waiting to happen like that in the Gulf of Mexico comes knocking at our door.

  Corinne Lepage, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, the collapse of the platform off the coast of Louisiana on 22 April has caused an oil slick on an incredible scale. The latter raises three major issues. The fact that no systems were put in place in advance to stop a leak of this nature and on this scale is hard to understand, as is the absence of sufficient controls, on the part of the public authorities, over security systems required and implemented by the platform operators to avoid the risks of pollution and, ultimately, the specific risk relating to pollution by hydrocarbons of particularly sensitive and/or particularly inhabited areas. A moment ago, our fellow Member, Mr Sonik, reminded us of how disastrous such pollution would be in the Baltic Sea, for example.

The North Sea has already seen at least two serious accidents on offshore platforms and is one of the regions of the world with the greatest concentration of platforms. Under these conditions, it is absolutely essential that we take stock of the situation to make sure that a similar accident is not possible off our coasts, and we are delighted, Commissioner, that an initiative of this nature has been taken.

Having said that, what measures do you intend to take in the short term to improve safety and accident prevention on offshore platforms located in our territorial waters? You spoke of minimum standards, Commissioner, but that is not enough.

Secondly, what control measures are in place to ensure that safety requirements are fully met? Having safety rules on paper is not enough; they have to be applied and their application actually monitored. What do you intend to do to move in this direction?

Thirdly, in the event of an accident, what resources are in place to avoid coastal pollution? It is all very well having vessels and civilian forces, but what do we have at our disposal? Is it not time that we demanded that operators have specific technical equipment that could be pooled? Is it not also necessary, given the inclusion henceforth of environmental harm in EU law, to provide for an adequate system of compensation and associated financial guarantees?

Finally, oil companies are operating at ever-increasing depths, making intervention very difficult when there is an accident and putting the marine environment at risk. What measures are planned for offshore oil exploitation at greater depths and, in particular, in the Far North?

Finally, I will return to the question that our fellow Member, Mr Arsenis, asked just now: is it not time that we considered an extended moratorium under the same conditions as those that the United States wants to introduce? We want and we need to move away from this oil-based society. Is it not time that we did so?

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I too feel that we need to stop those in industry from playing God.

Today, more than ever, the industrialised nations are thirsty for oil. They are drilling everything they can, and at ever-increasing depths, which clearly increases the risk of accidents. In recent times, the industries have favoured exploration and extraction, to the detriment of safety and of the environment; every day for almost a month now, 800 000 litres of crude oil have been flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, and the environmental and economic damage will be catastrophic. I see a huge gap between the colossal sums spent on deeper and deeper extraction and the utterly inadequate resources devoted to the upstream prevention and the anticipation of risks.

Like my fellow Members, I too demand several things. Firstly, I think we need to conduct an audit of all the oil platforms to check their state of repair, their level of safety and their compliance with standards. Of course, we also need to perform platform inspections, even if these inspections are the responsibility of the Member States, and we need inspections by the Commission of the inspections themselves.

Furthermore, I think we need to protect the most fragile ecosystems once and for all. In this respect, as well as the initiative which you have taken and which I welcome, to try to ascertain how we could cope with such circumstances if a similar accident were to happen off our coasts, I do think that Europe must take initiatives to protect the most fragile ecosystems once and for all. I am thinking about Alaska, for example. We need an international convention on the same model as that which exists for the protection of resources in Antarctica, and Europe could spearhead this type of work and this type of convention.

Finally, if we still needed one, this is a very good reason to invest more and sooner in renewable energies. The volcano – I will not say its name, because it is unpronounceable – was a sign for us on the issue of air transport; in the same way, this terrible accident is another sign for us on the issue of oil extraction. It is time for us to acknowledge that the folly of racing to extract oil anywhere and at any cost is behind us.

  Giles Chichester, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I welcome the statement from the Commissioner. The world has watched in amazement, both at the immense flow of gas and oil from the ruptured pipe following the explosion and disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and at the seeming inability of both the industry and the US authorities to stem the flow; we must hope that recent developments will prove successful.

We have had, as colleagues have mentioned, our own experience of platform disasters in the North Sea. I think of Piper Alpha as one example, and I believe that lessons have been learned from that. But let us remember that there is a significant difference between the depth of sea in which they are operating in the Gulf of Mexico and the depth of the North Sea. Let me urge that we are cautious and do not rush into new legislation. Let us be certain as to what happened. Let us be certain whether our existing rules would have prevented it happening here, and let us be certain that any new rules would prevent it happening.

Accidents and acts of God do happen, and we cannot guarantee to prevent them. There has to be a limit to what we can do in order to prevent them. I would like to give you a final thought, when we are considering relative risk: that accidents like this put the relative safety of nuclear energy into a different perspective.

  Elie Hoarau, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, the oil rig leak in the Bay of Mexico is a real disaster, both environmentally and economically. Apparently, there were some irregularities in the granting of drilling permits by the United States Interior Secretary. This would constitute unforgivable irresponsibility, the consequences of which are incalculable and do not only affect the United States.

We know that hundreds of offshore drilling authorisations are granted by countries throughout the world, and if these authorisations were granted just as irresponsibly, it would pose serious problems to the entire world. As MEP for a European outermost region and for the overseas countries and territories (PTOM), made up almost entirely of islands, nearly 130 in total, scattered over three continents, I must express my great concern for our islands in the face of offshore oil exploitation projects. That is why it is essential for the European Union, which must set an example, to review with the utmost rigour the security and prevention measures on its own offshore oil platforms.

Furthermore, accidental or operational oil spillages into the sea, not necessarily caused by Europe, are estimated at several tens of thousands of tonnes each year. Is it not time the European Union took initiatives so that, henceforth, offshore platforms fall under an undisputed scientific authority, which should be established in the form of an international authority?

After Copenhagen and in preparation for Cancún, the European Union should pride itself on promoting real global governance where the search for, protection and exploitation of deep-sea resources are concerned.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, as a neighbour of the ‘Swabian Sea’, I would like to call on you to take the accident, the disaster, in the Gulf of Mexico as seriously as if it had happened in our own Lake Constance. You would then no longer have any drinking water and in my home town, there would be no more festival, with all the dramatic consequences that would involve, and much else besides.

What does that mean? Are you sure that the oil rigs far away from us – in other words, in the North Sea and the Baltic – will really stand up to the different storm conditions that we will have to face as a result of climate change? Are you sure that your European Maritime Safety Agency really is equipped to deal with something like this? You spoke about good coordination. We have already often experienced failures in radio contact between the different countries. Has that been checked, before an emergency incident occurs? When something actually does happen, what is the legal situation in relation to lawsuits against the oil companies? Would a risk fund perhaps be useful in this connection?

Finally, is it clear to you that the monitoring authorities in the US were much too closely interdependent with the oil industry? Can you rule out us having the same problems at European level? The stipulation should not be ‘You can do everything, except ...’.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE). – (RO) I, too, welcome the Commission’s initiative. I think that it is important for us to discuss this topic, even though the accident did not occur in an area under the jurisdiction of a European Union Member State.

There are currently a huge number of platforms in Member States’ territorial waters extracting oil. This activity is expected to increase at a time when the International Energy Agency estimates that only 5% of sea oil reserves are currently known. It is important for us to see what lessons we need to learn from the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and what the current situation is in waters where similar production activities are being carried out in EU Member States. If necessary, we must also take additional measures to improve the safety of workers on these platforms, as well as further measures to prevent accidents with disastrous consequences for Europe’s vulnerable regions.

Another lesson which we must learn from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and from the past as well, is that we need to look very closely at how operating licences are granted and what current contracting practices are followed. We must ensure that companies cannot shirk from assuming responsibility. A company entering into a deal with a certain degree of risk which must be tackled with specific safety measures and can generate huge revenue must also be prepared to suffer the consequences if an accident occurs.

If you have followed the course of the inquiry into this disaster in the United States, the chain of contractual relations established between several firms allows companies to pass the buck to each other, while oil continues to pour into the sea. We cannot put up with a similar situation here. This is why we must look at the legislation in this area and make any improvements to the legislative framework so that we can ensure we reduce the risks of such an incident occurring.

Past experience shows that huge human and environmental losses remain in the wake of accidents, with the procedures for establishing liability capable of lasting for years on end. The Commission must ensure that the legislation for exploiting oil resources in safe conditions does not contain provisions which are too lax and assess to what extent this legislation needs to be amended in order to reduce the use of means of shirking responsibility.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) The example provided by the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico forces us to think carefully about investment projects under way in the European Union. I am talking about the Northern Gas Pipeline, which is being built in defiance of recommendations made by the European Parliament.

The source of the gas will be the Russian Stockman field in the Barents Sea. The project plans the extraction of 24 billion m3 of gas annually in the first phase, but this will then rise to 68 billion. To obtain this amount of gas, many boreholes have to be made in a very short space of time. It will not be possible to stop the stream of 148 000 tonnes of methane, because there are no valves or transit stations. Damage to the pipeline will by no means mean its closure. Gas will continue to flow out until the fault has been repaired, because if water got inside, it would cripple the pipeline completely. Therefore, I call upon the Commission to carry out a thorough analysis of the dangers presented by development projects of this kind.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is a timely one. We have not yet solved the problems in the Gulf of Mexico, nor do we know where the next problems will occur.

That is the reason for my first question, Commissioner, which is as follows: where, at this present time, can Europe help with specialist expertise, the Joint Research Centre or with the various other bodies that we have so that we can attempt, together, to obtain a solution for the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as quickly and as effectively as possible? In reducing CO2 emissions by 20% and making up the difference through renewable energy sources, the European Union has chosen the right route, and we can achieve a very great deal through greater efficiency. Do you believe that we could, for example, launch new initiatives together with Norway within the European Economic Area?

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Like other speakers, I am terribly shocked that it has been possible for hundreds of thousands of litres of crude oil to gush into the sea for weeks on end without us managing to stop it. I am also terribly shocked by the enormous damage this is causing and by the fact that the company in question, BP, is constantly playing this down. We are being forced to face the facts, and we have not even been able to assess all the longer-term consequences.

It is essential, therefore, that we take the measures at European rather than national level that are needed to render such occurrences impossible in future. In so doing, we must concentrate on the procedural and also the technical aspects, by imposing the necessary safety systems. This has a cost, of course, but the cost of doing nothing would obviously be much higher.

In the past, we took the global lead by imposing double hulls for oil tankers. I think that here, too, we should take the lead and set a good example.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Oettinger, as a Member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and as shadow rapporteur for biodiversity, this disaster obviously has a personal impact for me. There is a lot of destruction of life that should be conserved. Someone has said it already today, but the truth is that, despite every precaution, accidents do happen, as there are limits to prevention.

However, accidents are not confined to oil platforms – nuclear power stations, too, are not immune to incidents and accidents. In Austria, we have a saying, and it goes as follows: ‘Does something always have to happen before something happens?’ In other words, does there always have to be an accident before we learn anything? This oil disaster should make us all consider whether leaving behind nuclear power would not be a way forward for Europe. We should also concentrate all our mental energies and our financial resources on investing in renewable energy.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, it is good that we are discussing this important issue but, at the end of the day, I do not know what will come of our talks or what effect we will have on large companies – the oil companies who own the oil wells which caused this damage and this disaster.

At the same time, the Commission is to be applauded for their recommendations that measures be implemented here to ensure that the same will not happen in our own area. However, if there is one lesson to be learned from this disaster, it is that we desperately need to make other sources available to provide energy in our own area, particularly natural energy such as wind and solar power. The sooner we do this, the better it will be for everyone. If we do not succeed in doing this, the oil companies will be going further out in the ocean searching for oil and damage and disasters like this will happen not just once, but over and over again. We should not allow this to happen.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) We support the investments made in Europe’s energy infrastructure, but only when they guarantee total safety for construction and production activities. I also take this opportunity to call for any project involving the underwater extraction or transport of hydrocarbons to be implemented only after a proper assessment of the environmental impact has been carried out.

I have called on more than one occasion for European maritime accident intervention centres to be set up in every Member State with access to the sea. This type of accident also comes under this category. Last but not least, all companies involved in the underwater extraction and transport of hydrocarbons should offer guarantees and have insurance policies for paying out damages in the event of accidents.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) I believe that the whole world is watching with concern the events that continue to unfold today on the coast of the Bay of Mexico. Nobody could have envisaged and forecast that such a huge country, the world’s leading nation, the United States would be unable to deal with what at first glance seems manageable. I think that we, Europe too, are contributing considerable funds and human resources towards solving the problems of climate change. However, nature has its own demands. I feel it is very good that we will have opportunities to learn from others’ mistakes, but again, I would also like to remind you of the problem with the Northern gas pipeline and I believe that we, Europe, will be politically responsible for the exploitation of this gas pipeline and therefore, I would also urge the Commissioner to ensure that we once again review the conditions of the exploitation of this gas project, and I also welcome the opportunity and will to strengthen Europe’s own rescue capacities.

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, like you, I am shocked, not only in my role as a Commissioner, but also as a citizen, when I see how nature is disrupted and destroyed in such cases for many years.

Although we are shocked, we must still remain calm and level-headed, as frenetic activity and hysteria would be out of place here. The exact cause of the accident in the Gulf of Mexico is still unknown. Was it the technology that failed? Was it human error? I have confidence in the US Government and public to seek an explanation with the same thoroughness as exists in our interest in explaining the causes here in Europe.

I also believe that the population of the United States of America expects, with the same shock and thoroughness, that lessons will be learned. In that regard, I have confidence in the United States as an industrialised nation, in its technical skills and in its democracy.

As a second point, we must move away from oil. It is clear, however, that we have been going down the oil route for generations and this applies to the industrialised nations of Europe in particular. Our citizens have far in excess of 200 million cars – and you and I all drive them. I drive a lot, and I also fly a lot for business purposes. At the weekend, hundreds of thousands of people will be flying south once again, and spending their Whit break in Mallorca. When it comes to Greece and Spain, people say that only tourism can solve the economic crisis, and that means more flights to Athens, to Palma, to Marbella and to other destinations. We consume oil – all of us, you and I. It seems to me that even this august Chamber, this honourable House, is not exactly constructed in an energy friendly way. There are more neon lamps than MEPs here tonight. It is because of all that that I believe that we simply have to be aware that we still need many years of major oil consumption but that we must nevertheless be fully ambitious as we walk the path away from oil: 20% renewable energy sources in 10 years’ time.

We are a preparing a ‘Roadmap 2050’ and we will present the various alternatives to you in the course of the year. Expert opinions say that, in four decades, we can obtain 80% of our energy needs from sources other than fossil fuels and thus other than oil. Electromobility represents an option here, but the majority of vehicles will still not be electrically powered for many years and will instead be powered by oil in the form of diesel and petrol.

It is clear that drilling for oil in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico represents an attempt to reduce dependence on a number of countries. Without this, without our own deposits, our dependence on the OPEC States and on countries that are not always characterised by democracy would be even greater than it is.

There is one crucial difference though: in the North Sea, drilling takes place to around 150 to 200 metres, whereas in the Gulf of Mexico, the depth is 3 000 to as far as 4 000 metres, with far inferior opportunities to guarantee safety. Depths of 150 and 200 metres can be reached with manned submarines. In the Gulf of Mexico, human beings are, in principle, far away from the source of danger, far away from the technical safety provided.

I also have confidence in our Member States. We have every reason to have confidence in our national authorities and our technical teams in the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway and Denmark. Also, in the partnership which currently exists between the European Union and our authority (the European Maritime Safety Agency – EMSA) and the national safety teams, we have an excellent, high level of cooperative safety between the European Union and those of our Member States that are bordering countries.

In the case of Nord Stream, too, we naturally had to examine the issue of safety. This involved complicated safety and approval processes that were all carried out, and I want to make clear that Nord Stream will probably be the most modern and the safest gas pipeline in the world. Here, too, there is one crucial difference: if there were ever a problem in the gas pipeline, the gas could be stopped at the source or at the coast. Nord Stream is not comparable with what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico.

Ultimately, we will have to take the path that leads away from oil, but we will need decades to go down that path. All of us in politics and in society must take that path. On the way there, and in the meantime, we must check whether our safety standards and laws and guidelines and safety teams represent the highest level. We have put the relevant questions. In the autumn, when we know the causes, when we have the answers, when we have grilled our energy companies, we will be happy to give you more information. I believe that the energy companies are well aware of the seriousness of the situation.

I have one final point to make. There are already bases for liability for punitive damages. Incidentally, none of the parties involved in the United States disputes that. When it is clear who bears the guilt, the party in question will be liable and we can already see that this will amount to billions. In European environmental law, as well as in our national environmental regulations, the question of liability, of causing damage and of punitive damages is clear. This, too, will reinforce a precautionary approach when it comes to safety.

I assume that, in a few weeks, we will know whether we in Europe have any legal or technical need to act, and we will then be happy to report back to Parliament again. Your words also show how important it is to you, across all the parties, to act in a foresighted and precautionary way on this subject rather than to react afterwards once a disaster has already occurred. That is how we work in the Commission.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. – (HU) After the disaster involving the deep-sea oil rig on US shores, it is advisable for us, too, to draw a few lessons. First and foremost, we must assert that although deep-sea drilling showcases state-of-the-art industrial technologies, it is still not without risk. We must also state unambiguously that the increase in private investment in the oil sector must not mean that political decision makers surrender the right to strict environmental regulation. The oil disaster in the United States is a good opportunity for the EU to review its own safety regulations. These are still too general in nature. We only need to think about the directive on environmental impact assessments or the framework for occupational safety. The review is further justified because the rules that are somewhat more specific focus more on the steps to take after a disaster has occurred. Considerations to do with prevention therefore take a back seat. Learning from the US example, we need to delineate clearly the areas of responsibility for the oil well owners and operators and those of the supervisory authorities. Industrial regulations and voluntary undertakings by companies do not offer a reassuring solution. It is absolutely clear that legally defined safety guarantees are needed.

18. Volcanic ash crisis (debate)

  President. – The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Brian Simpson, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the volcanic ash crisis (O-0061/10) (B7-0217/10).

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, author. – Madam President, Mr Simpson apologises for not being present during the discussion on the ash cloud crisis. Ironically, in view of this evening’s discussion, he has been caught up in the flight restrictions related to the ash cloud restrictions in the UK and therefore has been unable to travel to Strasbourg for the discussion. I will therefore be speaking on his behalf this evening.

The oral question on the volcanic ash crisis is just as relevant today, in the context of the ongoing disruption to airspace, as it was at the time of the initial eruption of the Icelandic volcano last month, when we saw much of EU airspace closed for six days. We are now dealing not only with the aftermath of that disruption and its financial impact but also with the present ongoing uncertainty of continued and prolonged disruption to European airspace.

While I believe that some important lessons have been learned and acted on following the unprecedented scale, duration and cause of the initial airspace shutdown, it is clear that the response at European level needs to be stepped up a gear in the face of ongoing disruptions.

Faced with the challenges that the unprecedented nature and unspecified duration and the disruption is causing to air travel, I am concerned today to get assurances that the mechanisms we have in place for coping with the disruption are working effectively and that, where gaps have been identified over the last few weeks, these are being adequately addressed.

I am pleased to say that the Air Passengers’ Rights Regulation has proved vitally important in providing a safety net to ensure that it is not the passengers who bear the brunt of the financial consequences of the disruption and who are not left stranded by the chaos. The airspace closure has, however, raised important questions about airlines fulfilling their obligations when it comes to air passengers’ rights, especially in the light of any compensation afforded to the aviation industry.

What feedback is the Commission getting on the treatment of passengers, and what assurances can it give that airlines are fulfilling their obligations in line with the legislation? Furthermore, the current situation has exposed the vulnerability of those passengers booked on third-country airlines for whom the air passengers’ rights legislation does not apply. How does the Commission propose to address this gap in the legislation?

We also – very early on in this crisis – recognised the heavy financial losses suffered by the aviation industry during the airspace shutdown. My concern with any compensation package made available to the aviation industry is to ensure that compensation is directed at the different sectors of the aviation industry – not just the airlines – and that the compensation measures are of an EU-wide nature.

I know that some Member States will be more sympathetic than others when it comes to giving financial aid to their airlines. What assurances is the Commission able to give that some conditions will be levelled to avoid any distortions in the compensation handed out at Member State level and to ensure a level playing field?

I now turn to the most pressing concern today, which is over the procedures in place for defining no-flight zones in the EU. The continued disruption to European airspace has once again put the procedures applied for defining no-flight zones under the spotlight. There are concerns that Member States are being over cautious in their implementation of no-flight zones and that aeroplanes are safe to fly amid higher densities of ash than are currently allowed by EU rules.

The ongoing closure and opening of airspace by Member States over the last few weeks has very much highlighted the need for a more joined-up approach at EU level, rather than the differentiated approach we are currently seeing. I am also aware that the Commission has put renewed emphasis on improving data collection and modelling methodologies to give a more detailed picture of the risks involved for aeroplanes flying through an ash cloud.

How does the new information we have impact on the restrictions currently in place and the definition of the no-flight zones?

Finally, we have seen the value of increased European coordination when it comes to responding to the ash cloud crisis. Further areas where we have recognised the importance of greater cooperation include the acceleration of the Single European Sky initiative and the creation of a mobility action plan to help the EU cope better during such crises.

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to provide an update on the evolution of the Icelandic volcano crisis which, of course, is linked to aviation.

The European Union has been heavily affected by the consequences of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption in Iceland. The volcano eruption laid a cloud of volcanic ash over most of Europe. Volcanic ash contains many problematic substances that are harmful to aircraft and, in particular, their engines. The presence of this safety threat in the sky forced national authorities to take decisions, in accordance with the relevant procedures developed at international level, to close off all affected airspace.

The European Union immediately mobilised resources to tackle the most pressing problems. Taking into account evolutions in the situation and the need for a more differentiated approach to the model and risk management procedures, the Commission took the initiative, over the weekend of 17 and 18 April, with the Spanish Presidency and Eurocontrol, to propose a coordinated European approach. As a result of this work, in full cooperation with Member States and the industry, new procedures were defined. At the extraordinary meeting of EU Transport Ministers that took place on 19 April 2010, this new procedure was endorsed, thereby allowing for a gradual reopening of airspace in a coordinated manner as of 08.00 on 20 April 2010.

As a follow-up to this immediate action, the Commission produced a report addressing the impact of the volcanic ash cloud crisis on the air transport industry. It received broad support from the Council of Transport Ministers at its extraordinary meeting of 4 May 2010. Whereas the focus of the report was to address the current volcano crisis, it has nevertheless sought equally to address the European Union’s need to be able to deal effectively with similar crisis situations in the future, should they arise.

The events of the past 10 days have shown that the situation is far from being resolved at this stage. The volcano continues to be active, and recurrent closures of airspace continue to take place, depending on the weather conditions affecting the dispersion of the ash cloud. The Commission is therefore committed to ensuring a prompt follow-up to the Transport Council conclusions as adopted on 4 May 2010. I am happy to report the first steps taken as a consequence.

The European Crisis Coordination Cell has been agreed with effect from 11 May 2010. The final arrangements for setting it up are being made this week. The nomination of a functional airspace blocks coordinator was endorsed by the Single Sky Committee on 7 May 2010. The designation of Eurocontrol’s performance review committee as an SES performance review body was also carried out by the Single Sky Committee on 7 May 2010. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has been given the task of defining binding standards for engine ash tolerance levels.

The Commission will shortly be calling for the creation of a task force to explore how the current European forecasting and dispersion models can be improved so as to enhance associated risk assessment and risk management in such crisis situations. There is more to come as the Commission works towards meeting the Council of Transport Ministers’ expectations, as expressed in their conclusions of 4 May 2010.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (RO) The volcanic eruption in April highlighted to us that traffic in European airspace is not prepared with an appropriate response in the event of unexpected disruption. There has been no coordination, flexibility or effort to make the maximum possible use of flight conditions.

The SES II package was adopted in November 2009 in record time, as is also mentioned in the Commission’s briefing note. The package was adopted in spite of Member States’ resistance. In fact, the translation and publication took longer than the actual negotiations. The crisis has come and we have seen the benefit of implementing the SES II package.

In my view, if Member States dropped their current reservations, we could have a Single European Sky in next to no time. To do this, we require a network of direct routes and an efficient traffic control system which disregards national borders from now on. Unfortunately, there is no intention of this happening. The only solution therefore is for us to implement the SES II package extremely quickly.

The Commission has tabled urgent measures which have actually already been requested in the approved regulations. They are excellent measures. However, the main action required is to create functional airspace blocks by no later than the specified deadline or by the end of 2012. This also requires the regulatory guide, which, unfortunately, is not mentioned in the Council’s conclusions of 4 May. The guide’s absence can be used by Member States as a pretext for delay. In addition, the guide must be the instrument used to ensure that, by the requested deadline, we not only have coordinated traffic zones, but a proper Single European Sky too.

The guide must provide for traffic control within the blocks, coordinated with adjacent blocks so that there are no overlapping areas. Otherwise, we will replace the current national boundaries with the blocks’ boundaries, thereby extending without any justification the deadline for implementing the Single European Sky. I do not believe that we need to consider in future that an SES III regulation will be required to combine the blocks. This approach also allows the SESAR system to be implemented in ideal conditions at minimal cost.

In 2011. the last Member States will join the Schengen area. I believe that it is unacceptable for us to maintain borders in the sky when we do not have them on the ground.

  Saïd El Khadraoui, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (NL) I want to start by thanking you for your answer. In my opinion, a number of questions have not yet been answered fully, and so I should like rather more explanation of several points.

Mr Simpson’s absence demonstrates that the issue is indeed still current, and that the consequences of such eruptions are unpredictable and can be far-reaching in terms of our citizens’ mobility, and also in economic terms if the situation is protracted. As I see it, it also demonstrates that we cannot, in fact, rule out the possibility of something similar occurring in a few weeks’ time, for example – in the middle of the peak summer season – and the airspace having to be closed.

Consequently, we must continue to work not only on structural measures to improve the efficiency of our aviation and of our transport system in general – I shall return to this shortly – but also on better crisis management. A minute ago, you also talked about setting up a kind of coordination cell. More clarity will be provided on that subject this week.

Nevertheless, could you perhaps already tell us a little more about the kind of task you envisage for this coordination cell? What exactly should its initial tasks be? The occurrences in April have made it abundantly clear that coordination between the parties concerned – such as airports, airlines and travel agencies – falls short, and that there is no mechanism for informing the parties concerned of what they have to do in such cases. Also, stranded travellers, for example, do not really know what their rights are.

Thus, as I see it, we need a European preparedness plan to enable the right decisions to be taken rapidly and the right contacts to be developed. In fact, the same goes for the repatriation of travellers; after all, where tens of thousands of people are concerned, a system must be set up somewhere to facilitate this.

Passengers’ rights are a very important element. Europe has done a very great deal of work in this field, which is to be welcomed. As you know, though, there are gaps in the legislation. We are talking about third-country airlines, which do not actually fall under our legislation, and so I would advocate integrating these kinds of rights into our aviation agreements with third countries. I also think that we need to monitor the application of this kind of legislation by the Member States. We heard just this week that the Italian authorities have fined the airline Ryanair. That is good news, but what is happening in the other Member States? Can we obtain an assessment of this?

Of course, there are also the numerous structural measures, but I do not wish to dwell too much on those: the Single European Sky that is under construction, and also the railways, for example. The railways proved not to be a viable alternative. There are many reasons for this: it has to do with different systems and also with circumstances such as our lack of so much as an integrated ticketing system. In my opinion, that is also very important, Commissioner. Therefore, a very great deal remains to be done, but you have our support in this.

  Gesine Meissner, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we have already held a debate about the ash cloud and the associated problems for aviation in the immediate aftermath of the volcanic eruption.

We observed various things in this crisis. We observed, for one thing, that aviation really is essential for the transport sector, as it is not only passengers that get stranded, but goods, too, can be left untransported. In Germany, for example, BMW had some production bottlenecks due to not receiving deliveries. We observed that we need every mode of transport, including aviation. For another thing, we observed that it is a significant crisis for the airlines if it is not possible to fly for several days. A five-day break, the airlines said, could be coped with. A 20-day break, however, could perhaps have caused a collapse of the entire industry lasting quite some time. We need not talk about compensation just yet, the airlines themselves said, but if it had lasted longer, that would have been necessary.

Passenger rights have been subject to varying comments from different speakers. They have now put to the test the rule that, in such extraordinary cases, too, everything can be done for passengers in relation to information, compensation and recompense to the extent that they need it and in the way we originally laid it down here.

There are still two subjects in particular that I would like to go into. The first is the Single European Sky. We do not have a single European airspace, and that is something that was painfully absent this time, too. A single European airspace clearly would not have prevented the volcanic eruption, we all know that, but we would certainly have been better able to bring about the smooth evacuation of passengers. We have appointed a Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) coordinator, of course. He is now starting work, and we all very much hope that his work will relatively soon be able to lead to a single European airspace. The question is also how long will it take until we actually achieve this? Perhaps you are not in a position to answer that precisely.

We have also discussed before whether better European coordination of the railway sector – something that we have long been wanting and, on paper, have long had – could have helped passengers to get home more quickly. In this regard, too, we observed quite clearly where our difficulties lie.

I will now move on to my final question. Do we have good crisis management arrangements for cases like this? We have the institute in London, which is actually there to provide information when there are earthquakes. It also deals with volcanic eruptions as a secondary responsibility. Now it has been producing computer projections based on second-hand data, and it has been criticised for that. What can we learn from other parts of the world where volcano eruptions are more common, such as the United States, Indonesia and others? What other measurements do they take? According to my information, they are better prepared for such situations. Perhaps we had not planned for this in Europe, but we do then have to learn the resultant lessons. We are a hi-tech location, we have a lot of opportunities, and researchers in Germany, for example, have called for a specialised monitoring network for those aerosols, those minuscule items, that volcanic ash contains. What else do you think that we can do? How can we improve our technologies in the interests of aviation, the people and goods?

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, the closing of European airspace was doubtless a necessary preventive measure in the interests of safety. Subsequently, and before the airspace had to be closed again, a more suitable technique to handle the problem should have been found. Unfortunately, I have to say that this clearly did not succeed at all, either in coordinating the measurements, in the analyses or in respect of passengers. The second time, too, the treatment of passengers who were held up due to flights that were downgraded was extremely inadequate, and it must be a priority to improve this. I find myself wondering when there really will be plans in place.

Commissioner, you have, furthermore, not provided a very detailed answer to the question relating to funding and potential compensation for the airlines. That is a key issue, as this subject continues to be constantly under discussion. Quite how, then, is this to be solved? Who, exactly, is to be compensated? The airlines? Do they then pass the money on to the passengers? For example, will business people who missed important appointments receive compensation? Will a dealer, a company, that had to wait for replacement parts receive compensation? Why should it only be the airlines that receive compensation? I do not regard that as justified if you compare it with the economic consequences of this crisis. Moreover, we really need to take account of the fact that, ultimately, the airlines have been receiving a long-term subsidy from European citizens through the abolition of the kerosene tax, meaning, of course, a priori that they already have a subsidy.

Commissioner, this question is pending and I await an answer from you.

  Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (LV) Thank you, Madam President. I should perhaps like to start by thanking Commissioner Kallas for his endurance during those five days. We might perhaps consider that the first two or three days could have seen a little more action, but on the whole, I believe that the Commissioners carried out their work extremely properly, and that the decisions of the Council were such as to give great encouragement within the context of the Single European Sky to the measures taken on the adoption of functional airspace bloc coordinators and the implementation of the measures by the European Aviation Safety Agency, and many others of these measures were taken quickly. At the same time, I think it very important that by understanding this pressure between business interests and the political interest, and by standing up for passengers’ rights, the rule under current legislation that decisions about the opening or closing of particular airspace are taken by Member States was preserved. Since, if we were to imagine that, God forbid, an accident were to happen, then the Commission or the relevant European institutions might perhaps have exceeded their powers, and there would then arise a very big question, not about how large the losses to business were, but about who was responsible for the wrongly taken decision that helped bring about the accident in one particular airspace within the EU Member States, then the situation would be very different. As a consequence, I believe we should draw some conclusions from this relatively critical situation. In the short term, several measures have been taken, as I said, but, of course, as far as passengers’ rights are concerned, as Mr El Khadraoui has already mentioned, several low-cost airlines in fact ignored passengers’ rights (and these are not third-country airlines, these are airlines from EU Member States) and, in principle, abandoned their passengers for five days and nights; in reality, they will be the winners – they will save money – and this remains an unresolved issue directly in the sphere of implementation in relation to passengers’ rights as they currently stand in the European Union. Another challenge in the long term is the lack of connection in several European states via other means of transport with the central part of Europe. Thank you.

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, first of all, I feel it is essential to point out that in this case, as in others, the precautionary principle must prevail, because human lives are at stake. However, if it is to prevail, its application must not result in extreme decisions that would lead citizens to view precaution as ineptitude.

Therefore, in this case, why did we only take into account the use of an old virtual mathematical and meteorological model and ignore the pilot unions, which recommended test flights and the use of weather balloons? Perhaps we might then have avoided total paralysis of the airports and the shambles that followed.

While the VIPs have always been treated well, a large number of European citizens were abandoned by the whole world, including by their own governments.

Finally, I repeat my request for a parliamentary committee of inquiry to bring to light the fraud that some people have been engaged in during this crisis.

  Juozas Imbrasas, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (LT) I will not repeat the thoughts already expressed by many speakers on the consequences of the Icelandic volcano, the closure of air space and the losses incurred by airlines and consumers, i.e. passengers, who were imprisoned in the airports. I am pleased to hear today that there will soon be decisions on the creation of the Single European Sky and that, according to the Commissioner, an airspace coordinator already began work in May. Today, however, as we are not sure whether we will be able to coordinate such unstable situations or even slightly similar situations in the future, I feel that we should think about how to develop and devote greater attention to other, alternative means of transport and ways of carrying passengers, as the German MEP mentioned, railways, for example. In our region, the Baltic Sea region, represented by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (which are on the edge of North-Eastern Europe), this situation with the eruption of the volcano has especially highlighted our need for good rail services and here I have in mind the Rail Baltica project. I understand that other European regions possibly have the same problem as well and the situation is not any better (is it?), but today I am talking about my region and therefore in this case, we would like to have the opportunity to reach Western and Central Europe through Poland, once Poland has joined our rail track. Otherwise, we will be isolated from the EU’s transport system. Other countries have railways and possibly motorail trains, but our three Baltic States do not have this yet. Therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner whether, in the immediate future, sufficient attention will be devoted or is being devoted to the suitable implementation of alternative transport projects? With the help of the European Union, will we manage to gather the required political will and ensure alternative means of transporting passengers so that we can avoid such consequences in similar crisis situations.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Kallas for being here and for the work that he has done during this difficult time.

This is a debate that had to take place, ladies and gentlemen, and unfortunately, I think it will not be the last of its kind. I will spare you any repeats of the statistics of this serious event and the negative impact that it has had on the economy. I simply wish to remember those who were affected.

Firstly, there were the passengers. Ten million people were left without flights and with no guidance as to what to do. The impact on passengers was so great that the provisions of directives and regulations could not protect them. The exclusion of liability in contracts due to catastrophe or force majeure brings to mind the need for a joint fund to tackle the consequences of a global disaster such as that caused by the volcano.

I now come to the airlines. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that they lost EUR 1 700 million worldwide. The Association of European Airlines (AEA) assesses the loss at EUR 850 million at European level. This blow was all that they needed to accentuate a spiralling crisis that is threatening many airlines with closure.

The other victim has been tourism. The consequences for tourism have been devastating. Firstly, due to the cancellation of contracts that had been made in advance, as is usual in this sector, and secondly, due to insecurity, which has caused a change in normal booking trends.

This is my diagnosis, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. There can only be one conclusion: the European institutions do not have the tools to effectively tackle a crisis of this magnitude.

Now I come to the criticism, because criticism is necessary and inevitable; self-criticism, if necessary. No one can be exonerated, because everyone involved acted badly, late and inefficiently, sometimes through no fault of their own. The Member States cannot be exonerated because, although the decisions were within their competence, they were still unable to act. The European institutions cannot be exonerated because they took four long days to react, and because their reaction, which invoked safety as their priority, did not unfortunately produce calm, but paralysis.

I will now discuss the Commission’s response. Today, the Commission is reiterating the measures that it had announced to us. In my view, they are reasonable measures, but there is a lack of clarity about the timescale for implementing them.

We are not talking about something in the past. Even today, there is a latent threat of flights being grounded, and it is concerning that we are dependent on air currents. I know that we cannot fight the elements. This was said by a famous Spanish sailor regarding a big naval battle that we lost.

The crisis will not help us to take measures. The Member States will be reluctant to provide resources. If we are mean, however, this volcano could do more damage to the European economy than is being forecast.

I ask the Commission to be determined, and I ask the Council to urgently tackle the need to take decisions. I ask everyone to be generous in implementing alternatives to make up for the incapacities of the institutions. I do not hold the Commission or the Council responsible, but we need to acknowledge the diagnosis that the institutions have not been capable, as they currently stand, of solving a crisis of this magnitude and proportions.

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Kallas for his work over the last few days and say that the crisis involving ash from the Icelandic volcano causing European mobility to be blocked, which even yesterday caused further closures of European airspace in Ireland and the United Kingdom, along with the two extraordinary Council meetings called by the Spanish Presidency at the Commission’s suggestion, have taught us several things.

Firstly, they have taught us that this crisis has affected the whole sector, not only airlines but also airports, and we congratulate the Commission on its comprehensive vision when considering the consequences and assistance. This has been done by Mr Kallas, Mr Almunia and even Mr Tajani, who has considered the impact on tourism and on the agencies. We therefore welcome this approach by the Commission.

Secondly, while we already knew that the Single European Sky was necessary, we now know that it is urgent. This is why we need to definitively appoint the coordinator – a former colleague of ours who is highly qualified – and, of course, remove the obstacles that still remain in the Council.

We also urgently need to launch the Single European Sky ATM Research system, which underlies the Single European Sky, along with guaranteed funding. Could the Commission tell us what reluctance or reservations it observed in the Council meeting on 4 May? We need to know. We even also have the impression that there are Member States that are opening up airspace more than others, and that is not good in a very competitive sector such as air transport.

In addition, although Parliament has been prioritising passengers’ rights, and that has been reiterated, with strong reticence on the part of the Council, now the need has clearly been seen to review the application of these laws. We need the Commission to be implacable with the low-cost airlines that have spread confusion by lying to passengers and to the public. The necessary penalty proceedings must naturally follow.

I also invite you, Commissioner, to launch a pilot project that my group proposed for the 2010 budget of having consumer offices in the airports to facilitate the necessary measures for passengers and consumers in the midst of the general confusion.

While some of us were already fighting for rail networks, trans-European networks, as an alternative to modes of transport with a greater impact – and this has been demonstrated in Spain by the AVE high-speed train, for example, between Barcelona and Madrid – now we know that we urgently need to build an alternative secondary mobility system, as is prudently done with electrical and telecommunications networks. This is why the review of the trans-European networks with a view to the financial perspectives must be more ambitious.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, my particular perspective in this debate is on the impact on the more peripheral airports and on airlines which are already in economic difficulties.

I live on an island which is behind an island which is off the coast of Europe. As such, our peripheral airports and our airlines are particularly important for connectivity and mobility. There are a number of regional airports on the west coast of Ireland. We have Donegal, Sligo, Ireland West Airport Knock, Shannon and Kerry. Given our proximity to Iceland and our island status, we have particularly severe problems to deal with because of the ash.

With reference to peripheral airports, I believe the Commission should fully promote international PSO routes in terms of connectivity of peripheral airports to hubs and that Member States should be given real flexibility when it comes to State aid to peripheral airports. Furthermore, there are many airlines already in financial trouble and they may go out of business because of this crisis. Let us not fool ourselves. It is not going to go away any time soon. This will lead to job losses in the airline sector and consequently, less competition in the market. We have to look very seriously at how the EU can play a constructive role, both from the perspective of an equitable distribution of financial assistance and the crisis management tools that are at our disposal.

Finally, it is important to realise that current legislation was put in place to stop airlines cancelling flights because it suited them, but we are now in a position where airspace is closed and airlines cannot fly. The financial burdens are very significant on all actors – passengers, airlines and airports. The question is, who is responsible, and who bears the financial burdens?

  Isabelle Durant (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, since this new volcanic eruption is confronting us with the same problems that we have already experienced, I would like to go beyond the crisis management and coordination system, in which progress has been made, and emphasise, as others have done, interoperability and the rail reservation system. Land transport and, in particular, the railways, must be able to take the place of air transport more easily when it is put out of service. It is not just volcanoes that put it out of service; it may actually be grounded on other occasions too.

However, beyond this aspect, and more structurally still, I would like to ask you about risk cover by the sector itself in this type of crisis – and I stress by the sector itself. In fact, I think that State aid, every time that it is granted (or every time there is a problem), will very quickly prove to be untenable at budgetary level and will lead to quite unacceptable discrimination between airlines, between operators in the aviation sector, who would introduce identical demands and, finally, between the ultimate beneficiaries of this potential aid and those who would be excluded from it.

Given the size of the airlines, I think we must do as we did in the banking sector and move towards prudential rules in their case, rules that would oblige them to provide themselves with a form of compulsory insurance. This insurance would enable them to cover this type of risk by pooling the cost of the cover, without always asking the Member States to insure them free of charge, particularly as airlines already benefit today from the historic tax exemption on kerosene and airline tickets.

Finally, we must also ensure that these airlines duly compensate their passengers, but without passing the bill on to taxpayers.

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR). – Madam President, we are all aware of the horrendous disruption caused, and continuing to be caused, by the volcanic ash cloud. More than 100 000 flights have been cancelled and around 12 million passengers have not been able to travel as planned. Goods and cargo have been delayed or not transported at all and businesses, both large and small, have been affected. Our European airlines and airports have suffered catastrophic financial losses. I believe that European airlines alone have lost more than EUR 2 billion.

In all this chaos, one thing is clear: air transport is enormously important for the European economy, and as individuals, we depend on a thriving and efficient air transport industry where safety for crew and passengers is the first prerogative. As such, I applaud the decision of the Commission to respond decisively following the compulsory grounding of the European air transport sector.

The Commission has recognised the need not only to consider financial compensation, but also the necessity to speed up the implementation of SESAR measures. As a general rule I believe that the state should not artificially support business. Risk, as we all know and accept, is part of running a business. However, these are exceptional circumstances. We have not seen such sustained disruption to the industry with such enormous financial losses since 9/11 and, notwithstanding the financial difficulties currently facing all Member States, I would urge them to back plans to support an industry which simply cannot sustain further losses.

The question now is, what can and should be done in future to deal with such crises? Firstly, airlines must be involved in discussions about possible airspace closures from the outset. Secondly, the SESAR package must be brought forward in a sensible fashion. I still have some reservations about the creation of a network manager. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but I strongly believe some questions remain to be answered. For example, what would be the exact role? To whom would this person be accountable? How would this improve the current situation? I look forward to serious debate on the issue, Commissioner, before any legislation is implemented, as a knee-jerk response could prove more damaging than intended.

I also think it would be wise to look at North America and elsewhere to see how they deal with the issue of volcanic ash. In the UK, we apply the same terms of reference as the ICAO, but the Americans use a different method to calculate the ash drift. They seem to apply a more measured approach and I believe that we could perhaps learn something there.

In addition, we must remember that when decisions are made in the EU regarding closing EU airspace, the impact of such decisions does not stop at our borders, and discussions with the remainder of the ICAP countries must take place.

Finally, as European policy makers, we have a responsibility to develop a viable long-term strategic vision for aviation in the EU, taking into account the international dimension. I believe we should support the establishment of measures to improve risk management, settling justified compensation claims without distortion of competition, as well as promoting well balanced, cost effective structural reforms.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) The closure of air space after the April eruption of the Icelandic volcano confirmed that air transport is highly sensitive to various restrictions on flying conditions. Not only clouds of volcanic ash, but also heavy snow, whirlwinds, thick fog and other weather phenomena cause airline companies huge complications in the provision of regular flights.

Responsible airline companies therefore conclude various policies with insurance companies, which are supposed to cover their financial losses resulting from unforeseen emergencies. The costs of this airline company insurance are, of course, included in the price of air tickets, and passengers also pay as part of the price of the air ticket for the airline company to provide them with the necessary services and alternative transport arrangements in the event of an emergency.

I would like to emphasise and repeat once more, Commissioner, that passengers make a payment as part of the price of an air ticket so that airline companies will be able, in the event of an emergency, to deal with the resulting problems operationally, and to request appropriate compensation from the insurance company for the resulting damage later.

An ordinary EU citizen who does not directly use aviation services has nothing to do with this business. It is therefore totally inappropriate to transfer such aviation losses to EU Member States. It is therefore quite right that governments who run their affairs wisely do not want to comply with these absurd demands. If anyone is to compensate airline companies for the restrictions arising from the exceptional weather conditions, it should be their insurers, who must fulfil contractual obligations within the scope agreed in their insurance policies.

After all, that is how it works for every one of our citizens in the EU: if their house burns down, for example, or ice crushes the roof, they receive compensation only from their insurance companies, if they are insured at all. They will not get a new house or better accommodation from any airline companies or EU governments.

Why should they, therefore, contribute towards making up for the lost profits of airline companies? That would surely be absurd. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that in a healthy entrepreneurial environment, no support – and I mean no support at all – of this kind can be justified for airline companies from the governments, and therefore from the citizens, of the EU.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) In April, a volcanic eruption caused the complete paralysis of air traffic in European air space. This event, which was not, of course, caused by anyone, resulted in adverse effects both for passengers and for all European airlines. At dozens of airports, passengers were left to their own devices and did not have access to information about the resumption of flights. The only fairly specific information came from statements about the closure of more areas of air space.

Although we cannot blame anyone for the forces of nature and their effect on our daily lives, we should ask very directly about this situation and sum up the actions of the European Union institutions which are responsible for matters such as ensuring the safety of air passengers.

Unfortunately, I think their action was definitely insufficient and very delayed in relation to the event which had taken place. For after all, the total chaos in air traffic experienced by passengers, and their complete lack of knowledge about when flights would be resumed, show the EU institutions, including principally the European Commission, in an extremely bad light. Therefore, I would like to find out what the Commission intends to do in the future in the case of other volcanic eruptions. What steps will the Commission take to prevent a repeat, in a similar situation, of the paralysis of almost the whole of Europe and, most of all, to improve the flow of information directed to passengers which, hitherto, has been decidedly lacking? I think that the measures currently proposed by the Commission are, unfortunately, not sufficient.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Commissioner, the closure of two major airports yesterday, in London and Amsterdam, due to a new volcanic ash cloud, demonstrated that the grounding of flights in April was not the result of an improbable event with no long-term repercussions or risk of repetition. Moreover, Mr Simpson’s absence from this evening’s debate says far more than his presence.

We are going through a difficult economic period, which is bringing with it successive mergers in the aviation sector and which is governed by uncertainties for the airlines and their employees. For three consecutive days in April, the international industry lost USD 400 million a day, threatening to blow efforts to restructure the financially weaker airlines in Europe sky high. What is certain is that suitable institutional instruments to conduct a risk analysis at European level and to use a specific method to process all the data at the disposal of the Member States and the European authorities were, and still are, lacking.

The risk of a repetition of the highly damaging confusion which we experienced beneath the ash cloud is real and the measures taken must institutionally safeguard the Union’s ability to intervene in a coordinated and premeditated manner in this type of crisis, thereby limiting the incredible inconvenience to millions of passengers and the financial losses to carriers and tourist companies.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Madam President, as Ireland does not have a land connection to mainland Europe, Irish air passengers have faced extreme difficulties; I would venture to say, more than any other Member State. For example, I myself travelled to Strasbourg this week overland, and had to take a ferry to Wales, a car to Folkestone and a train to Strasbourg. I raise this because it is typical of the many journeys undertaken by Irish people in recent weeks.

The EU Transport Ministers have established three separate flying zones based on the safety risk to aircraft. I have to say that, since the introduction of the third zone, over 300 000 hours of airline operations have taken place. This is a welcome development and, of course, further measures are still needed.

I strongly support the efforts to fast-track the introduction of the Single European Sky concept. The Declaration of Madrid, adopted in February by the Spanish Presidency, established a roadmap for putting this policy in place. I have no doubt that the Commissioner, who is with us this evening, will spearhead this.

The role of Eurocontrol must also be closely examined. It must be given statutory powers as opposed to the coordinating role which it currently holds. As early as yesterday, a joint agreement was reached between Ireland and the UK so as to curtail the disruption of air travel: a welcome development.

(GA) Volcanic ash does not recognise any political or physical borders and this incident reminded us once more of the immense power of nature. It is now clear that there is a real need for a common air transport policy in European Union airspace. The role of the European Union must be strengthened in the aftermath of this crisis.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) The consequences of the volcanic ash crisis had a negative impact on the transport system of all of Europe when ash from the erupting volcano forced the cancellation of more than 100 000 flights and disrupted the journeys of 10 million passengers. This crisis affected the European Union’s Eastern Member States particularly badly, as they remained completely isolated from Western Europe and, unlike other EU Member States, did not have the opportunity to choose alternative modes of transport. Yet again, this proves the importance of the development of transport infrastructure, the development of Trans-European Transport Networks and the creation of a system of alternative means of transport, both for transporting goods and passengers. Therefore, we must establish a passenger transport system that operates effectively, which is not so dependent on air transport, but is dominated by other alternative types of transport, especially for transport in Central Europe. We really must create a transport system that would not only ensure the effective transportation of passengers, but the smooth functioning of the economy. I agree with the ideas mentioned on the realisation of additional links and I therefore urge you to support the European rail corridor project for the competitive transportation of freight, which would allow the Baltic States mentioned to be linked to other Western European countries and would allow the creation of added value for the entire Community. In addition, following the implementation of this project, the region’s residents would have an alternative to air transport.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I am going to talk about tourism, a fundamental sector for the Canary Islands, which receive around 12 million tourists per year. If there is one thing that tourism needs, it is certainty. Situations like the one that we have experienced – and which may be repeated – have dramatic consequences for this strategic sector for the Canary Islands.

The losses have not only been suffered by the airlines, the airports and the tour operators: hotels, car hire companies, restaurants and services in general have suffered huge damage. Between 15 and 23 April alone, 313 818 aeroplane seats were cancelled in the Canary Islands, with losses of around EUR 57.3 million as a result of the tourists not coming. This is, of course, a significant loss.

We need immediate measures when the event occurs, such as opening airports at night without additional costs and looking after the public, the passengers, properly; but we also need compensation.

I am not going to criticise what was done or what was not done or say whether the crisis was managed well or not. It is only worth being aware that it could happen again and that we need to be prepared for it.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your steadfastness when it comes to passenger safety issues. In recent days, we have seen that it is clearly not only in the financial sector that major speculation takes place but that a few of the airlines, too, are prepared to gamble with the safety of passengers, at least in words – though luckily not yet in actions. After all, we are not merely talking about the passengers in the air, but also the people on the ground. I must ask you to continue working to this end. I must also ask you to continue working for passenger information and passenger rights.

Over recent days, we have seen that not everyone and not every age group has unrestricted access to the Internet. Telephone lines were broken, the Internet was not available, and people who are not routine business class fliers like we here in the plenary are, tourists and older age groups, had hardly any information. I must ask you to continue working to this end.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, the situation created by the eruption of the volcano in Iceland has demonstrated the significant impact that a certain type of natural phenomena – that are fortunately rare, but demonstrably occur periodically – can have on the economy and society. By doing so, it underlined once again the importance of a preventative approach to these phenomena. In this case, that means seeking to adopt any measures that reduce the aforementioned impact, not preventing it from happening, as that is clearly impossible.

However, it is not legitimate to use a pretence at better crisis coordination in response to these phenomena as a pretext for seeking to breathe new life into a broad range of initiatives. I am talking about the Single European Sky initiative and the goal of opening European air traffic control up to liberalisation and then privatisation. In this regard, if there is one thing that the current volcanic ash crisis has confirmed, it is the importance of keeping air traffic control in the public domain: it is done in the public interest and is, first and foremost, a basic guarantee of public safety.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about disturbances in air traffic and also its economic impact on aviation. I would like to stress, once again, that the safety of Europe’s citizens is the most important thing.

Commissioner, many steps have been taken and it is now time to contemplate specific alternatives and to implement them, for example, the expansion of the trans-European high-speed network, which can also help reduce CO2 emissions.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are 2 000 volcanoes around the world, 50 of which are active. Thus, it is not just a European problem, but a problem for international aviation.

We need to clarify in the research where exactly there are risks and where there is also a certain scope of responsibility. I would therefore ask the Commissioner, together with Eurocontrol, to perhaps entrust the European Research Council with the task of carrying out research in order to properly judge this risk. Ultimately, the final responsibility always lies with the aircraft captain and consumers are also called on to consider whether or not this poses a risk for each of them. Everyone can remove the risk by simply not flying. An objectification of the entire issue must be at the heart of things, however.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the Joxer character created by the great Irish playwright, Sean O’Casey, observed the whole world as ‘in a state of chassis’. And certainly the evidence is there for all to see. If we look downwards, we see oil gushing from an oil well, decimating the environment; if we look upwards, we will see volcanic ash gushing from a volcano decimating the airlines, and if we look outwards, we see recession gushing from the banks decimating the economy.

Certainly I have suffered, like many more, from the volcanic ash, the first time going home: it took me two days; I had to hitchhike part of the way. The second time I could not get out to the last plenary; it took me one and a half days to go to Brussels and one and a half days to come here, but the one thing I have learned is that it is impossible to book a ticket on the Eurostar when you are travelling. You need your credit card to book it and you need it to get the ticket, which is impossible when you are in transit.

I would ask the Commission to use their influence to try and get them to have the same system as that which applies to ferries and airlines.

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – (ES) I am not the only one, Madam President, but thank you. I just wanted to add that we need to be able to extensively use all the available technology in order to measure the ash. In fact, a few days after the closures, in a visit to Astrium in Toulouse, we were told about an extremely detailed information system on the composition of the atmosphere via a satellite network, and we are not clear as to whether this existing systematic information was used, which, moreover, comes from a European enterprise, namely the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company. Could the Commissioner tell us whether it was used or whether this is being considered?

  Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for the many interesting and detailed comments on this ash problem. I only had three minutes at the beginning. Now I can elaborate at least 10 times more on all these issues, but I will be brief – do not worry – or at least not too long.

I can only say that it has really been a very exciting and extraordinary period, and it is back again. It is clear that volcanoes continue to erupt as this Icelandic volcano is doing. This is all part of life for the aviation industry, but it is not only volcanoes but also thunderstorms, snow and such occurrences which all disrupt aviation. This is a part of this business, we must be very clear about that. Nobody alone can be responsible for this risk – no airlines, no governments, no European Union. I must also say that so far, the European Union has no jurisdiction at all in regulating air traffic. It has been intergovernmental bodies that have been dealing with this so far, as well as national authorities.

To exclude, prevent or foresee everything which can happen in aviation is impossible. The risks must be shared and clients who decide to use aviation services must be prepared – as we must all be – for some delay if, for example, the runway at Brussels airport is not cleared of snow or some other thing.

Regarding the criticism that we acted late and regarding who in fact acted: I was there in Eurocontrol; the risk from ash is a real risk, and we cannot hold out for the possibility that we will finally find scientific solutions concerning what size of particle would be considered dangerous for engines, because nobody wants to give this assessment. We can determine particle size and we can assess the cloud, but nobody wants to give an assessment and to say that this ash is no longer dangerous for the engines. This will be a very complicated thing. The decision to close airspace was taken strictly in accordance with the existing rules and with all relevant institutions who were responsible for this. To those who ask who is now responsible for the closure of airspace, I would ask them who would be responsible if the airspace had not been closed and something had happened.

When Eurocontrol sought to find some different approaches to the ash cloud, it was not an easy decision or easy discussion because it was a matter of deciding to take enormous responsibility for the safety of aviation. The safety of planes and lives must come first. I think it was done reasonably fast under these circumstances because the volcano was, and continues to be, very exceptional and extraordinary.

Regarding the future, the key issue mentioned by somebody is what about Indonesia, what about the United States? There is a responsibility, which mainly rests with the pilots. In Europe today, pilots tend to reject this kind of new responsibility. European air traffic is very busy and there must be some kind of combination between greater flexibility and clear data about the possible threats and possible risks. I do not know about Indonesia, but in the United States, the system is very simple: it is the pilot who decides how to circumvent the ash and I must say that this works very well. But in Europe, we must obviously first create some common approach to the methodology of possible assessment of risk.

Regarding passengers, I must say that we have always consistently and forcefully stated from the Commission side that passenger rights legislation must be complied with. This is a very clear message. Again, the enforcement of this legislation is in the hands of Member States but I understand that most airlines and most Member States also have taken this very seriously. There are different examples and, of course, in the aftermath, there will be exposure to negative examples as well, but mostly they have been taken seriously, and we are planning a revision of passenger rights. We will definitely then assess what to do with the attempts to abuse passenger rights and excessive interpretations of passenger rights. In general, the passenger rights legislation has worked very well and the logic must be there. Passenger rights stipulate that passengers must be provided with information, with care and with rerouting or reimbursement under these extraordinary circumstances, not compensation. This is a different word.

There is a huge programme under way with the Single Sky initiative in order to streamline air traffic management, and I cannot complain about the cooperation between Member States during this particular period. The Transport Council was very cooperative and made many decisions which probably, under other circumstances, would have taken much longer. I really cannot say that we had bad cooperation with Member States in preparing and handling this extraordinary Transport Council.

Regarding finance and financial consequences, its rules are very simple and they are very clearly described in our paper prepared by three Commissioners – Rehn, Almunia and myself. This is State aid, and State aid can be given if Member States consider that there are enough reasons to give State aid to an airline which is in trouble, because passenger rights and all these costs must be borne by the airline. If the airline is in trouble and if a Member State considers that this is really a very bad situation, then State aid can be given, but, before State aid is given, a very careful assessment must be made not to create distortions and unfair advantages in the market. This was the main concern of airlines as well, and a fair approach to everybody is also the Commission’s concern; our competition department will definitely look very carefully at all possible State aid cases.

So far, I do not know if anybody has applied for State aid in this particular area because, as I said at the beginning, airlines have contingency plans.

Somebody mentioned that they should have insurance. I asked them as well about the insurance. Insurance is more or less impossible because you cannot describe the product, or you can describe the product but it will be so expensive that it is not affordable. They have contingency plans on how to deal with extraordinary circumstances which disrupt the schedules. Of course, as an economist, I can see that there is a lot of room for different fantasies, what to calculate under the losses and what is a real number. It is a huge work to define the exact consequences of this volcanic ash which can be presented as a claim.

Regarding alternative transport, we will, of course, push ahead. We will have a TEN-T meeting soon where the Commission will push ahead for the development of a network of other modes of transport. I asked railways what is possible and what they actually did during this crisis, and they sent a lot of interesting information. There were additional trains, but the information about availability, timetables and other things remain, so far, very poor. One of our biggest priorities for the near future will be to have better information about all these possibilities.

Again, if there is a crisis in aviation, then bringing passengers home or taking them to destinations will still mainly be in the hands of airlines. It is at the planning stages that it is very important to also consider other modes and indeed other engines. This is another interesting story. There are lessons to be learned, and we are learning these lessons, and we will push forward with many plans and measures to create more streamlined air traffic management in Europe.

I must stress that volcanoes do not obey any rules, and we cannot exclude possible extraordinary events. There will always be some risk which must be taken into account, and such a risk must be part of planning our activities.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when a volcano erupted in Iceland in the 18th century, the country was veiled in a cloud of ash, and in Europe crops failed for the next three years. We do not have reports on the damage to air transport. This year’s far smaller eruption of Eyjafjallajökull has literally wrought havoc with air transport in the European Union. The damage to airline companies and airports – in other words, the direct damage – has had a counterpart in the chaotic care given to travellers stranded in various corners of the world. The rights of passengers are certainly an interesting topic for academic debate, but in this case, they were the lowest priority for the staff concerned. We have no reports of other forms of transport being used to bring people home. The chaotic responses show a lack of coordination, and also hesitation, at a time when quick decisions should be made on re-opening air space. Commissioner, will the Commission speed up its work on applying the partial results of the SESAR programme to the practice of managing aviation operations? My other questions would merely repeat the questions of Brian Simpson.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) There are 56 000 citizens of the European Union who are ill and waiting for a transplant, and this includes 2 000 in Poland. Every day, 12 people die because of the shortage of organs available for transplantation. Organ donation rates range from less than one donor per million individuals in Bulgaria to 34-35 donors per million individuals in Spain. In Poland, the figure is 11. Most organs are taken from deceased donors on the grounds of prior consent (the opt-in approach) or presumed consent (the opt-out approach). In Poland, cells, tissues and organs can be taken from deceased donors if the person who has died had not registered with the Central Register of Objections. The development of transplantation requires an atmosphere of social approval for filling in the declarations of will which make it possible to take organs after the person has died, as well as condemnation of opposition to donation.

I, personally, am actively involved in work to promote transplantation, and I encourage all fellow Members to do the same. In Poland, I have distributed badges and bracelets which encourage support of transplantation medicine. With fellow Members from other political groups, I have started the ‘Chain of Relatives’, a national social campaign to propagate transplantation and voluntary blood donation. Promoting the idea of transplantation and coordinating the exchange of experience between Member States can save thousands of lives. It is essential to create a common EU database of organs available for donation and transplantation, and a database of all living and deceased donors. This would also be a significant tool in the fight against organ trafficking and human trafficking.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The affair of the Icelandic volcano and its current consequences lead us to reflect that the European Union must not be unprepared for an emergency or unexpected occurrences, but must protect passengers above all else using existing or new management instruments or measures. As an example of such measures, could airline companies not have offered to buy train tickets to avoid long queues at train ticket offices, especially for passengers with reduced mobility?

19. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

20. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 23.50)