Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 6 September 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Resumption of the session

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 17:05)

  President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 8 July 2010.

2. Statement by the President

  President. – I would like to draw your attention to the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, who has been condemned to death in Iran. We have been informed that an appeal against this sentence is currently being considered by the Supreme Court. Recently, Mrs Ashtiani has also been sentenced to 99 strokes of the whip for allegedly publishing her photograph in European newspapers. I urge the Iranian authorities to cancel both sentences and to examine Mrs Ashtiani’s case in a way which is transparent and fair. I would like to reiterate that the European Parliament is opposed to the use of the death penalty, regardless of the circumstances.

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

4. Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

5. Request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes

6. Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes

7. Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

8. Documents received: see Minutes

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

10. Petitions: see Minutes

11. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

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

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

14. Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

15. Order of business

  President. – The final draft agenda drawn up on 2 September by the Conference of Presidents pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:

I have received a request for urgent procedure (Rule 142) from Mrs Angelilli and Mr Pittella and at least 40 other Members with a view to bringing forward the debate on the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani from Thursday afternoon to today, Monday 6 September.

  Gianni Pittella (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I address my comments to Mrs Angelilli and the other signatories. I would just like to say that you have made some sensible and well-founded points about the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani. However, words that have won admirable applause are one thing, and an official pronouncement from Parliament is another. We must issue one as quickly as possible, because this woman’s fate hangs on the decisions that are going to be made in the coming hours.

The number of voices calling for the ruling to be changed is growing, but Parliament must not fail to add its authoritative voice to this clamour. That is why I am making an urgent appeal to you and to the whole Chamber to bring forward the debate scheduled for Thursday afternoon.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am taking the floor to endorse this request, in the knowledge that if Europe is to play a leading role in peace and war, it has to take a stand when the time is right.

We realise that in many ways, we are upsetting Parliament’s timetable, but at the same time, we believe that what we are required to do under the circumstances is imperative. I therefore endorse my fellow Members’ request and hope that everyone else will do the same.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I would simply like to ask that we vote on the text as soon as possible, on Wednesday if we can, because there is no point in us having the debate today but not voting on it until later.

  President. – Thank you. Now I would like to ask if anyone would like to speak against the request? No one wants to speak against, so we will take the vote. Who is in favour of Mrs Angelilli and Mr Pittella’s request to bring forward the debate from Thursday to today? Thank you, the request is accepted. Ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the Commission statement on Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani will take place at the beginning of today’s order of business, immediately after the order of business has been established. The deadline for tabling motions for resolutions falls this evening at 19:00, and the deadline for tabling joint motions for resolutions falls tomorrow, on Tuesday, at 12:00. These are the shortest deadlines possible. Please table motions for resolutions today by 19:00 at the latest, and joint motions for resolutions on behalf of Parliament can be tabled until tomorrow at 12:00. Voting will take place on Wednesday at 12:00. This is an extraordinary, fast-track procedure. Ladies and gentlemen, are there any other proposals for Monday? I do not see any. There are no other requests.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not have any requests for Tuesday and Wednesday either, but I would like to say a few words in connection with tomorrow’s debate on the State of the Union. It is an extremely important debate, which is being held by the European Parliament for the first time. We want the debate to place particular emphasis on the role of the European Parliament in defining the future of the Union. I think we all want the debate to proceed in a suitable and responsible manner and that we want to assume responsibility, under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, for many things which will take place in the Union in the next few years. So I think, too, that all of us are very serious in our approach to this. As you all no doubt know, this matter was also discussed by the Conference of Presidents last Thursday. Attention was drawn to the very low attendance in the Chamber during important debates, especially debates on interinstitutional issues.

Four days ago, the Conference of Presidents had an in-depth discussion about the state of the Union. It was a preliminary discussion, and tomorrow at 09:00, we are going to hold a plenary debate on the subject. The chairs of the political groups stressed the importance of ensuring the highest possible attendance during this key debate, the first of its kind. In July, the chairs of the political groups decided that no permission would be given for any kind of meeting to take place while this debate is in progress, so tomorrow, from 09:00 to 11:30, there are no other meetings, no other debates and no other appointments planned for Members of the European Parliament.

Last Thursday, the chairs of the political groups also decided to introduce a special check on the presence of Members in the Chamber during the debate. The idea is for attendance to be monitored by having Members press a button at three different moments. I will inform the Bureau of this decision, because the Bureau is to meet today at 18:30, and I will ask the Bureau, as it is the competent authority, to decide exactly what is to be done, as well as how to use the information we receive about attendance. Leaving aside the question of the decision which the Bureau will make, and we do not yet know that decision, I would like to make a personal appeal to you to be present during this key presentation of the European Union’s programme of work for the next year. Once again: the debate will be held at 09:00 tomorrow, and I would like to ask you all to be present in the Chamber and to take part in the discussion. It is also important for the image of our Parliament, and will show our readiness to accept responsibility for what happens in the Union in the future. I repeat: no particular decisions have yet been made on how to use information about the presence or absence of Members from the Chamber. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this decision can only be made by the Bureau.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, we are freely elected Members and we prioritise matters as we see fit. I had fully intended to attend the debate tomorrow and I am still considering doing so. However, I must state quite clearly that if electronic checks are made, then I will not participate in such checks, and that should the administration implement other counting measures, then I will leave the building during this debate. I had intended to come, but these methods are not worthy of an elected parliament and elected parliamentarians.

(Loud applause)

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I completely agree with Mr Posselt and the tragic thing is that this is a massive own goal.

If you had simply encouraged us to be present I, certainly, would have respected your authority and your leadership. I had every intention of being present. If I am present now tomorrow morning, I will certainly not participate in any electronic vote and I think that you have actually damaged the reputation of the European Union and indeed of President Barroso.

This will now be a farce. I hope the Bureau actually chucks out this suggestion in an hour’s time because if it does not, people will say MEPs are only there because they are being paid to go and listen to Mr Barroso.

It really is a massive case of shooting yourself in the foot in terms of public relations and I am astonished that the Conference of Presidents ever made this suggestion.

(Applause)

  President. – I have already appealed for attendance at the debate, but I am certain this heated atmosphere, irrespective of the Bureau’s decisions, will mean we will all be in the Chamber and we will achieve the desired result.

  Joseph Daul (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, it is true that we in the Conference of Presidents took a decision for which I feel responsible, even though I was unable to be there personally, but I accept my responsibility. Two points must be emphasised, however.

Firstly, we in the Conference of Presidents take decisions which we communicate when there is a group meeting. The group meeting held in my political group, as in others, with the colleagues whom I consulted, disagreed with the decision that we had taken, perhaps too quickly, in the Conference of Presidents.

Therefore, I propose to you that it should be in the Bureau that the group chairs present in this House reassess the situation. As you know, everyone is calling for change, but changing something is not as easy as people think. That is the first point.

Secondly, I would like all the same to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, of all the debates that have been held here with the President of the Commission. One may agree or disagree with him, but there are 27 Commissioners present in the Chamber – yes, indeed, the 27 Commissioners are usually present during these debates – and President Barroso takes the floor, before the group chairs, and the Chamber is empty.

That is why I support the President of Parliament in saying that we should not apply what we had envisaged in the Conference of Presidents, that we should review it, that we should discuss it again within the various political groups and that we should apply the old method, but by calling on all the Members to take a responsible approach to the major debate on Europe that we are going to have here, in this Chamber, tomorrow morning.

I therefore call for a sensible analysis from the Bureau, perhaps more sensible an analysis than that of the group chairs present here, and we shall, of course, pursue democratic debate, which is how we shall make progress.

(Applause)

  President. – As I said, the Bureau is going to discuss this in an hour’s time. I am sure the Bureau will take account of your comments. Three comments have been put forward. They were not in accordance with procedure, because there are no regulations in the Rules of Procedure which allow this, but I do not want to prolong this debate. There are representatives of the Bureau here in the Chamber, and I, too, am listening to your comments. We are all treating this very seriously. We will give it some thought this evening, and the Conference of Presidents is meeting on Thursday. Please allow us to look calmly at this. The Bureau will make an initial, preliminary decision today. I would ask you not to make any more requests to speak, because I have quite a number already. We know your objections, and I propose that we end the discussion at this point. We have all heard your reaction and the way it has been received, so let us leave this discussion here, and we will give it our very serious consideration. However, if we do have to end this discussion, it is with just one request: let us be here in this Chamber, tomorrow, for two and a half hours, because that is how long the debate will last.

We want to hold the debate with due ceremony, by which I mean we want to emphasise the presence of the European Parliament in Union decisions, a presence which we have not so far had, because it was only the Treaty of Lisbon which gave us such powers. Our own image and the strength of the Union are going to depend on our being present here. I appeal for your presence in the Chamber, and propose we end the discussion on this note.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to reopen the debate on the checking of attendance tomorrow but – not least in the light of Mr Daul’s speech – just as the timetable or order of business can be amended by the House, I call for this House to be able to vote on the decision reached by the Conference of Presidents and perhaps change it.

  President. – We can vote on that tomorrow. I propose we wait for the Bureau’s decisions. Mr Speroni, let us wait until tomorrow. We now come to the first debate on the order of business for this sitting.

16. Bilateral safeguard clause in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Zalba Bidegain, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (COM(2010)0049 - C7-0025/2010 - 2010/0032(COD)).

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, President of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the adoption of the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea will open up opportunities for both European and Korean industry. However, in order to prevent any negative effects on European industry, it is essential to have an effective safeguard clause.

That is what my colleagues and I have been working on over the past few months in the Committee on International Trade, which is why it is important for Parliament as a whole to strongly support the whole package of amendments.

The report was adopted by 27 votes in favour and one abstention in June. Under this clause, it will be possible to apply safeguard measures if the reductions to the customs duties on products imported from South Korea threaten to cause serious damage to European industry.

As you know, under the new powers given to Parliament following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the adoption of this regulation is following the ordinary legislative procedure. Unfortunately, it was not possible to hold a trialogue with a mandate from the Council before the summer recess.

The first official trialogue was held on 30 August, and both the shadow rapporteurs and I were able to hear the Council’s reaction to our amendments. That meeting enabled us to move forward on many points and define the final text of some paragraphs, and our feeling following the meeting is that we believe the Council genuinely wants to reach an agreement on the most controversial points and is working hard to do so. This is, of course, something that we view very positively.

However, at the same time, we do not think there has been time to sufficiently clarify the Council’s position on the points on which it has a different view to that adopted in the Committee on International Trade.

All the political groups therefore unanimously decided that the time had come for Parliament to take a position in plenary on the amendments adopted in the Committee on International Trade in July, which are vital in order for the safeguard clause to be applicable and effective.

At the same time, a unanimous decision was taken not to close the door on a possible agreement at first reading, which we firmly believe will be possible when the Council clarifies its position.

We will therefore vote tomorrow only on the amendments tabled by the Committee on International Trade and, in accordance with Rule 55, we will defer the vote on the legislative report to the second part-session in October, when we hope to reach a positive conclusion to the legislative procedure.

We believe that the report incorporates a whole series of improvements such as creating an on-line platform to speed up the processes; the possibility of the industry being able to initiate an investigation process; the Commission being obliged to produce reports; and improvements in the monitoring and surveillance of Korean imports. These are points on which we have already reached an agreement in principle with the Council.

I think this is a good result, but we still do not think it is enough. There are other, even more fundamental points that deserve the full attention of the negotiators and which all the political groups must defend here, as we did in the Committee on International Trade. I am essentially talking about four points.

Firstly, we need to mitigate the possible risk to the more vulnerable Member States by establishing a regional clause, region by region, to prevent some sensitive industries from being affected. We should not forget that the safeguard clause is essentially temporary and its objective is precisely to safeguard the most sensitive sectors of the economy so that they have sufficient time to adapt to the new situation.

Secondly, we need to clearly establish surveillance for the products affected by the duty drawback clause.

Thirdly, we need to defend Parliament’s role in the process of initiating investigations, and the final point is the decision-making process or comitology.

As well as mentioning the good will shown by the Belgian Presidency during the negotiations, finally, I want to mention the vital role that the Commission is playing and will continue to play in bringing the negotiations to a sound conclusion.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the regulation implementing the bilateral safeguard clause in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement is a very important piece of legislation, not only because, once adopted, it will provide the necessary protection for the EU industry if needed, but also because this is the first trade dossier on which the European Parliament is involved as colegislator. Therefore, I am pleased to see the commitment and responsibility with which Parliament is dealing with this particular file.

I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the European Parliament in preparing the amendments to the Commission proposal to very tight deadlines. I would also like to confirm that the Commission is fully committed to finding an agreement that will secure an effective safeguard mechanism which will address the potential concerns of some branches of EU industry.

I have been informed that the first informal trialogue meeting concerning the Korea safeguard regulation went well and that progress was achieved on a significant number of amendments, as the rapporteur has just mentioned. For instance, an agreement was reached on such important issues as granting EU industry the right to request initiation of a safeguard investigation, and the inclusion of internal rules on duty drawback in the safeguard regulation.

I am aware that the most difficult issues have not yet been discussed in detail in the informal trialogue. I hope that the next meetings between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which I understand will be organised in the near future, will bring substantial progress and allow an agreement to be reached, even on the most difficult issues.

I would like to thank the honourable Members, and especially the members of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), for treating this file as a priority. I would also like to reiterate the Commission’s commitment to rigorous implementation of the whole FTA. This implies not only the safeguard mechanism, but also all other aspects of the FTA, notably including sustainable development provisions and disciplines relating to non-tariff barriers.

Finally, let me also use this opportunity to inform you about the latest developments concerning the adoption process of the EU-Korea FTA by the Council. As you might know, the Foreign Affairs Council scheduled for 10 September will, we hope, authorise the signing and provisional application of the FTA. Once this decision is taken, it will be possible to officially sign the agreement and transmit it to Parliament for the consent procedure.

The date of provisional application will be decided at a later stage by the Council. That decision will, most likely, be adopted once Parliament has given its consent to the FTA and an agreement on the safeguard regulation has been reached.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner, for presenting the views of the European Commission.

  Daniel Caspary, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what Parliament, the Council and the Commission have together achieved here in recent weeks and months is exemplary. I would particularly like to thank Mr Zalba for his work.

In the first foreign trade policy matter since the Treaty of Lisbon – in which we have a decisive role to play – the European Parliament is showing that we are capable of action. We had the first reading in Committee in July, and this evening it is time for the debate. If it were up to us in Parliament, we could vote on the safeguard clauses tomorrow. Unfortunately, however, the other institution – that is, the Council – has so far failed to make it possible for us to approve the agreement tomorrow. I would have appreciated it if the Council were present here today. I would also appreciate the Council demonstrating a little more flexibility and a little more speed in this matter.

I would like to say the following very clearly concerning the role of the European Parliament: the Commission, the Members and industry will, in future, have the right to initiate an investigation under the safeguard clause. We, the European Parliament, want to have that right too. I think I can speak for all the Members when I say that we will not waive this right. I urge the Commission and the Council to agree to this in the negotiations as quickly as possible.

My next point concerns duty drawback. The Commission proposes that this be included in the safeguard clauses. I urge the Council to stop blocking this and to accept this matter.

My third point concerns the matter of South Korea’s CO2 regulation, which also needs to be addressed. The Korean Government is planning to bring in a CO2 regulation in the automotive sector. We are all concerned that this regulation could be used to scale back to opening up of the Korean market to cars from Europe. I urge the Commission to speak to the Koreans about this in the strongest possible terms. This matter of the CO2 regulation is a litmus test. It would not be helpful if the first piece of new legislation adopted by the Koreans were to undermine the Free Trade Agreement.

With this in mind, I wish the rapporteur and all those involved much continued success. I would be very grateful if we could conclude this matter before the year is out.

  Bernd Lange, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to add my thanks to the rapporteur for the good cooperation that has helped Parliament unanimously adopt an extremely fundamental position in Committee – which is very much to be welcomed – and which has once again made clear the significance of this safeguard regulation.

Together with the agreement with South Korea, this is the first agreement that we have negotiated following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which gave Parliament a new role that it must play. Secondly, this Free Trade Agreement with South Korea and the safeguard regulation are also something of a blueprint for future agreements, and to this extent, we must tread particularly carefully here. These are two important reasons why we should not nonchalantly adopt diluted positions, but should really fight for prudent regulations to be adopted.

As you are aware, Commissioner, there are six points that we are particularly concerned about here. I would like to give a brief recap of what these are. Firstly, the duty drawback mechanism. If Korean manufacturers use parts from third countries when manufacturing their goods, they do not have to pay duty on these and can export them to Europe, while European manufacturers – even if they use the same parts – do not enjoy this exemption from duty. This therefore provides Korean manufacturers with a competitive advantage. This must be closely monitored to see whether it gives rise to distortion of the market. That cannot be achieved by means of a simple declaration; rather, it must be made legally binding by including it in the safeguard regulation as a basis for initiating investigations.

Secondly, there will also be regional variation. The sensitive sectors are not all represented equally strongly in all the Member States. Consequently, we must pay particular attention to how sensitive sectors in individual regions can be protected from targeted assaults. That is no simple task, because we are in an internal market – but a political solution must be found.

Thirdly, as this is the first agreement since the Treaty of Lisbon, Commissioner, it also involves a new balance between the Council and Parliament; and since we have also reached agreement with the Commission, it is only right that an equal role for Parliament and the Council is anchored in the agreement.

Fourthly, the implementation processes are, of course, your business – we have no desire to interfere with the operational implementation – but as Parliament we must ensure that Parliament’s rights are not brought into question in the comitology procedure. In particular, we need a right of withdrawal – this, too, must be ensured.

My fifth point is that many decades of experience with South Korea has shown us that in addition to tariff trade policy, non-tariff barriers to trade are constantly being constructed. We must therefore also have a clear mechanism for monitoring, reporting and initiating consultations should problems arise in the area of non-tariff barriers to trade.

My sixth point is that if we are serious about this new kind of trade agreement, then we must also involve and strengthen civil society. This means that fundamental ILO standards – such as standard 87, which grants workers the right to strike – need to be firmly rooted and implemented. In contrast, Article 314 of South Korea’s penal code states that ‘Interfering with the smooth running of the business’ is a criminal offence. We need to do something about this – civil society must be strengthened, fundamental ILO standards and fundamental environmental standards must be ensured, and civil society must also be involved in the monitoring of the agreement in the form of the Domestic Advisory Groups.

My final point, Commissioner, is that you said that provisional application will most likely occur once agreement has been reached. I would like to delete this ‘most likely’. Provisional application cannot take place until Parliament has reached a decision on this matter!

(Applause)

  Michael Theurer, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would like to thank Commissioner De Gucht as well as the rapporteur, Mr Zalba, for their positive cooperation in connection with the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea and the safeguard clauses.

I would first like to emphasise that we Liberals and Democrats here in the European Parliament would like to see the agreement ratified and adopted as soon as possible, because we are in favour of free trade and because we see an agreement with South Korea as providing great opportunities for both the economy of the European Union and that of South Korea. Where the safeguard clauses are concerned, however, we need to take the concerns raised with us by European industry very seriously. We believe that the safeguard clauses represent an instrument that is capable of taking account of these concerns. We hope that the vote this week will send a signal that the political forces in Parliament are united and that these safeguard clauses will result in a well-functioning agreement being concluded here. We therefore call on the Council and the Commission to move towards us on the important outstanding issues.

Above all, we do not want to see the duty drawback system being abused. We cannot allow duty drawback to provide an open door via South Korea for cheap products, particularly cheap primary products from China and other Asian countries. Moreover, we want the South Koreans to dismantle their non-tariff barriers to trade – such as the CO2 regulations for cars – so that we do not have new barriers to trade coming in through the back door.

We want social and environmental standards to be upheld. Naturally, the matter of comitology must also be settled; that is, for the later application of the agreement. Here, we want to see a strong role for Parliament. We also want industry itself and the Member States to be able to initiate such investigations and monitoring in future.

One last point is a cause for concern: in the coming days, the Council will debate the provisional application of the agreement and possibly also vote on this. I must sound a note of warning here that, under the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament must give its consent. Provisional application would be contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon. I therefore call on the Council not to approve provisional application of the agreement, but to wait for Parliament to make its decision. We have done everything in our power to make a timely decision possible, and we should demonstrate this again by showing a united front in the vote.

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner De Gucht, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group, I would like to add our support to the Committee’s efforts to put the proposal for a regulation implementing the bilateral safeguard clauses of the Free Trade Agreement to the vote during this plenary week.

Transparency, openness – while clarifying the rights of the European Parliament to be a codetermining legislative EU institution in all trade agreements in the future – and thus taking seriously the opinions, concerns and worries of many of those involved and the actors affected as regards the yet to be ratified Free Trade Agreement; all this is directly affected by the safeguard regulation. Let me state that there are widely differing views on the content and, in particular, the text of the Free Trade Agreement – not just here in the European Parliament, but even more so among employees of enterprises as well as among the management of such enterprises, and that applies not only to large enterprises but even more so to small and medium-sized enterprises, on the side of both trading partners.

This is the first Free Trade Agreement of the 21st century between highly developed economies in a globalised economic world and it will enter into force during conditions of economic and financial crisis. The safeguard clause mechanism is therefore imbued with considerable significance that is likely to extend far beyond the specific aspects being presented here.

Legal certainty must be ensured as regards the implementation of and the opportunities to apply the safeguard measures provided for in the agreement if trade cooperation, global openness and joint progress as regards the economic and social development of the respective economies in the interests of the workers and citizens of the two trading partners are to be driven forward in a positive manner. Time planning and deadlines, regional safeguards, the furnishing of proof, monitoring measures – all these are indispensable, and as my fellow Members here have already mentioned, the European Parliament must have the same rights as the Council. The concerns relating to duty drawback that have been expressed by actors in civil society, trade unions and enterprises – concerns arising precisely out of their own experience – make it necessary to specifically lay down rules on origin.

I also support the approach that the clause must not only be effective, but must also be able to be asserted in practice. The clause must be an instrument that can be used in serious cases. I consider it a matter of urgency to emphasise today once again that this regulation must be carried and approved by the Council and by all 27 Member States; otherwise, the agreement cannot enter into force.

  Anna Rosbach, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (DA) Mr President, this Free Trade Agreement is a ‘win-win’ situation for both Korea and the EU on both an economic and a social level, as well as from an environmental perspective. It is in the EU’s interest for this agreement to be adopted before Korea concludes a similar agreement with the United States. This needs to be done quickly, because President Obama announced recently in Toronto that the US intends to ratify a trade agreement with Korea next year. However, I am starting to have my doubts about whether this agreement is really so simple after all. In Korea, quite a large network of corruption at the highest level has just been uncovered, so we need to follow the developments with our most important trade partners very closely. A Free Trade Agreement underlines the fact that Korea belongs to this group.

We also need to find ways to ensure that independent experts in labour law or the EU itself can have direct access to workers in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC), in other words, the trade areas in Kaesong where North Koreans are working for South Korean companies. Otherwise, we risk providing access to products manufactured using forced labour and without regard to human rights. If we cannot get access to these areas, we must refuse to allow KIC products to be included in the agreement. However, on the whole, it is a good thing that this agreement will bring about greater transparency and that charges can be brought against companies and they can be taken to court if they do not meet the requirements set. Similarly, the conditions of workers have now been disclosed and can therefore be discussed and inspected. If we succeed in this, it will be a definite step in the right direction.

Finally, I would like to make the point that it looks like the EU will benefit most from this agreement. That will hopefully result in more jobs and a boost to European growth.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, as we can see, there is full agreement regarding the proposal, and we can congratulate ourselves that we all want it implemented as soon as possible and that it is very important to us.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – (SV) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Zalba Bidegain, because I know that he has worked really hard on this and I think that he has achieved a very good result.

Tomorrow’s vote on the safeguard clauses for the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea will, in fact, be a historic one for two reasons. Firstly, it means that we will now begin discussions regarding the most comprehensive Free Trade Agreement that the EU has ever concluded. It is the most radical agreement and the one that will result in the highest profits of any that we have been involved in. There is nothing strange about that, of course. It is essentially due to the fact that South Korea is one of our most important trade partners, the world’s 11th largest economy, and one of the first OECD countries with which the EU is concluding a Free Trade Agreement.

It is also the first agreement in which we are using ‘Global Europe’, where the starting point is Europe’s competitiveness and what is economically important rather than simply what is politically important. It is evident that we have ambitions. For example, we are doing more in the area of agriculture here, as far as free trade is concerned, than we have ever done before. It will open up a lot of opportunities for our industry. It will, of course, open up opportunities for our South Korean friends’ industry too, but that is what free trade is all about. It is difficult, it has been difficult and it will be difficult in the future, but things that are important are often very difficult. That is the whole point of it.

Secondly, this is the first case in which the European Parliament has been involved and has the power of codecision. This has meant that we have had to show that we can take responsibility, and I think we have done that. We have to show that we can bring something to the table and strengthen the EU’s role rather than simply acting as a brake. I think we have achieved that. Not all of our demands will be listened to, of course, but the simple fact that we have made them means that the Commission will be forced to pay more heed to the issue of social conditions and non-tariff barriers to trade, for example.

I have one opinion that I would like to highlight in particular, because I do not agree with everything that we voted on in the committee. It concerns the question of regional safeguard measures. I have my doubts about this after the Treaty of Lisbon, and I think that it would be better if, instead, we introduced safeguard measures throughout the EU. With an internal market and free movement, there are considerable opportunities to circumvent this type of regional safeguard measure, and I do not believe that anyone here would want to stir up or call into question either free movement or the internal market. Overall, however, tomorrow’s vote is an important signal that we are entering a new period with regard to trade policy, and that is a good thing.

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I think we must ask ourselves what we want as Europe, what we are calling for as Europe, and what commitments we intend to adopt in relation to this serious economic and financial crisis, the depression we have experienced around the world, and the difficult recovery that we are facing.

In my view, a Free Trade Agreement at a time of such great difficulty for multilateral relations, when the Doha negotiations are at a standstill, should fulfil at least two major requirements. On the one hand, it should establish a truly level international playing field between us and the other competitors in world trade and, on the other, it should show the world the direction in which Europe wants its economy and development to go.

This agreement is divorced from all that. It takes no account at all of the global context. It is on one side or on the other. It is simply a very cleverly produced Free Trade Agreement. It is an important conceptual document, and it would certainly be able to open up useful scenarios in a totally regulated world, a world in which reciprocity, common rules and common qualitative standards are the order of the day. The world is not like that, however. What we see, in fact, is that Europe’s manufacturing industry, on which it should build in order to create more development, more employment and more jobs, is being penalised, while once again, the financial services sector is being rewarded.

In its positive aspects, this agreement has hardly any effect on increasing GDP; in the best case scenario, it will raise it by 0.03%. I do not see the need for it. After President Obama’s cautious overtures, even the United States is putting the brakes on now under pressure from at least 100 congressmen from the majority party, who have described this kind of agreement – similar to the one we are about to sign – as ‘job killing’.

The ratification process in Korea is extremely slow and neither the ecological standards nor the social standards are guaranteed. Even so, we want to move towards ratification very fast.

We must ask for one thing, however. We asked for it before in the preliminary stages through the vote that we cast then. There can be no provisional implementation of this Free Trade Agreement unless the safeguard regulation is adopted, and in this Parliament, we have introduced some important amendments that will enable us to address the subsequent stages more effectively.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are a little like the Ryong, the dragons of Korean mythology, which are gentle, benevolent but highly determined dragons. We are also aware that we are the European institution that is directly elected by our citizens, and we therefore call for an effective safeguard clause.

Parliament is willing to conclude the agreement at first reading, but on condition that there are concrete proposals taking account of the interests of European workers and industries and especially of Parliament’s institutional prerogatives. We have six demands, which have already been put forward in part by other Members.

The first one is no provisional implementation before the safeguard regulation has been adopted and before Parliament has given the agreement its approval.

The second is a regional or, in any case, a flexible safeguard clause, because Europe is diverse and it is important for the agreement to be accepted and welcomed by its various stakeholders.

The third and even more important demand concerns Parliament’s role in the procedures: the right to call an investigation – we have, of course, asked to extend this right to industry – the right to be given full information, and access to the online platform.

The fourth concerns comitology in implementation of the regulation: the Council cannot have a greater role than Parliament. We insist on Parliament having a strong role, with a procedure – the advisory procedure – providing for a veto in cases where the Commission decides not to apply measures after an investigation.

Fifthly, with regard to customs duty drawback, customs duties must be included in the safeguard clauses and must be one of the factors in any investigation and monitoring.

Lastly, the sixth demand is that there needs to be monitoring of social and working conditions and environmental standards, and there needs to be a level playing field putting the Koreans and Europeans on an equal footing as regards CO2.

We are fully in favour of this Free Trade Agreement and of any Free Trade Agreement that is an instrument for stability and peace. Nobody, however, should be naive about its content, nor can the Council ignore Parliament’s role.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, we are being called on today to approve an important legislative text relating to international trade, the implementation of which will have serious consequences for the European market. Given the current international economic crisis, whenever a Free Trade Agreement is executed, care must be taken, step by step, to ensure that there is no risk of causing serious losses to productive sectors in the Union.

The safeguard clause in the Free Trade Agreement with Korea is needed so that it can be incorporated into EU legislation, so that it has the force of legislation, and so that it can be activated without complications. At the same time, the European Commission needs to systematically monitor import and export statistics, so that it can intervene directly if imbalances arise. Also, compliance with specifications relating to working conditions and environmental standards needs to be carefully monitored in order to avoid creating unfair competition between the same or directly competing products as a result of failure to apply the above criteria to the letter.

Finally, I should like to highlight the fact that we endorse the application of the regional clause to safeguard the optimum operation of the internal market, as it allows measures to be taken in regions and countries with productive sectors which often have an important share of a core market. As the Free Trade Agreement with Korea is the first to open Europe up to such a large Asian market, we need to take particular care, because it will act as a precedent for other such agreements.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, any Free Trade Agreement must be based on the principle of reciprocity or of mutual benefit, and, frankly, I doubt that this is the case with the agreement concerning South Korea.

I should like to quote a figure: 50% of our current trade with South Korea concerns the automobile sector; however, the European Union imports 450 000 South Korean cars but exports only 33 000 European cars. This is an extremely unbalanced trade relationship, to say the least, and it is against a backdrop of an exceptionally serious crisis.

The fact is, this agreement will set a precedent. It will pave the way for other agreements with large Asian countries – I am thinking in particular of Japan, but there will be others. What is more, this is the first agreement reached after the Treaty of Lisbon, and it is therefore crucial for the European Parliament – and I support our rapporteur on this point – to make its voice heard and to be heard by the Commission.

That is why, whatever happens – I am not prejudging the vote on the Free Trade Agreement – we must make the safeguard clause tougher and, in particular, we must review the duty drawback mechanism, implement a regional safeguard clause, strengthen the European Parliament’s role in the procedure, introduce an ad hoc committee procedure that respects Parliament’s rights, and integrate social and environmental standards.

Lastly, as you promised, Commissioner, we do not want this Free Trade Agreement to be applied on a temporary basis before the European Parliament has voted definitively on it.

Thank you for listening to me and, I hope, taking my comments on board.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, this first Free Trade Agreement since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force contains some positive elements: the role of the European Parliament has been strengthened and safeguards have been provided for the event that trade union or workers’ rights are infringed.

Nonetheless, the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea must not be used as a blueprint for future free trade agreements on the part of the European Union. Why is that? The European Union has set itself high aspirations with the objectives and values laid down in the treaties and, in particular, in the Treaty of Lisbon – and it must live up to these in matters such as human rights and legal certainty, to name but two.

I would therefore like to draw a connection between this and all the other current Free Trade Agreements – particularly that with Colombia and Peru, with the Andean states, which has already been negotiated and is awaiting approval. Before concluding an agreement with third countries, it is essential to conduct a very meticulous dialogue on human rights. The content of the Free Trade Agreement needs to be tailored to the specific situation of the countries concerned, particularly in the areas of trade and of social and environmental standards. We must especially prevent these countries – and also the EU – from simply running after the carrot of a Free Trade Agreement, and then – once they have got the carrot – simply returning to their old ways, having received absolution for their infringements of human rights.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) The bilateral safeguard clause in the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea is a protection measure which would be required if Korean imports were to threaten to cause serious harm to industry and jobs in the European Union.

The principle of duty drawback, whereby Korean companies are permitted to have customs duty refunded for major components, is particularly sensitive as it could benefit the latter and could also have a sizeable impact on European competitiveness.

The EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement remains a beneficial arrangement as long as it abides by the principle of fair competition. In this context, the Commission will need to monitor rigorously the trend in exports between South Korea and the European Union, especially in the sectors regarded as being vulnerable, and take rapid action to rectify any irregularity.

The control system deployed also needs to be strengthened to allow representatives from the industries affected, trade unions and social partners, as well as the European Parliament in its role as direct representative of the EU’s citizens, to sound the alarm bell and ask for an investigation to be launched.

The European Parliament’s role in the control system and the concerns regarding duty drawback are issues on which Parliament, the Council and the European Commission will need to reach a compromise rapidly. With this in mind, the vote for this report during this parliamentary session is a positive step, indicating Parliament’s readiness to adopt this regulation as soon as possible.

IN THE CHAIR: Roberta ANGELILLI
Vice-President

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the work they have done and for their good cooperation, and wish them continued success throughout the remainder of the negotiations.

Above all, I welcome the rapid headway made in the negotiations on the safeguard clause of the agreement with Korea. Through the prompt vote in Committee in July and the planned vote on the amendments in September, as well as its capacity to act in the negotiations, the European Parliament has shown that we can work efficiently and constructively in the wake of Lisbon. The Council is now urged to do the same, so that we can quickly reach agreement on the safeguard clause.

I welcome the Commission proposal for a declaration on social and environmental standards. It is a good compromise which highlights the importance of this point. In particular, the strengthening of the role of Parliament may be seen as an important step towards the democratisation of trade policy and I urge the Council and the Commission to find a solution that ensures the efficient and strong involvement of the European Parliament.

I would like to emphasise once again that Parliament will not yield on this matter. In particular, I see the Commission proposal to include duty drawback in the safeguard clause as an important step and I urge the Council to support this proposal.

My request to the Commission is to pay more attention to the Korean Government’s planned CO2 regulation and to push in the negotiations for a fair and free regulation for our European enterprises. The matter of the CO2 regulation should be settled before the agreement enters into force.

There has been a lot of positive feedback from nearly every area and sector: mechanical engineering, pharmaceuticals, electrical engineering, chemicals and numerous service providers. No doubt, some sectors would have liked to have more, but overall, there is great satisfaction – with the exception of the automotive industry. Even here, there are clear differences between some manufacturers and suppliers and others. We are definitely on the right path when it comes to the agreement with Korea.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) The Free Trade Agreement with South Korea should generally contribute towards stimulating trade and boosting employment. Some branches of industry, however, will secure many advantages from it while others, conversely, will suffer considerable harm.

I am in favour of taking into account the justified concerns of certain branches of industry, including the car industry, and therefore also the adoption of a regulation on the implementation of a protection clause in relation to free trade between the EU and Korea. In view of the fact that the Free Trade Agreement could affect branches of industry in the various Member States in different ways, I fully agree with the rapporteur’s proposal for there to be a possibility of applying protective measures in exceptional cases at the regional level, because it is necessary to take account of the specific situation in the various Member States, and the regions affected must have the possibility of applying measures preventing a serious negative impact on the regional economy and employment.

In conclusion, I would like to mention that the Commission consequently has a responsibility to see to the correct and prompt implementation of this legal instrument in order to prevent serious harm being done to an area of the EU.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I wanted to mention a number of matters relating to the automotive industry, especially the popular car industry. I would like to draw attention to two aspects, the first being the value of car parts imported into Korea and then sold to us, for which there are certain thresholds, and the second being the method used to calculate customs duties for the mounted parts within the framework of the quota. Apprehension has been expressed by popular European car manufacturers concerning these two thresholds, the number of parts imported by Korea and the method used to calculate customs duties. I would like to request that perhaps attention should be paid to our ability to enforce the relevant regulations.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, I sometimes think that we need to remind ourselves what Europe’s strength – the fundamental strength for Europe’s development – actually is. Where has this strength lain? It has lain in the ability to open up markets, to create opportunities for freer trade. The situation in Europe today is not good, but it is much better than it could have been.

Is it also not the case that it is our intention, with global free trade, to overcome poverty and create freedom in the world in exactly the same way? I have to say, therefore, that I am sometimes a little concerned when I listen to some of my fellow Members, who are clearly trying to create new barriers and make the development of free trade more difficult.

I think that this is the wrong way to go about things. I just wanted to say this and to express my support for Commissioner De Gucht. It is free trade that creates freedom and keeps people out of poverty. That is the path that the European Parliament should take.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, when this was discussed last year, I spoke in favour of it. I am very pleased at the progress that has been made since and congratulate the rapporteur and the Commission.

I think it is very important for us in the European Union to have good Free Trade Agreements, particularly with countries whose political philosophy we can sympathise and agree with. I think a country like Korea needs close links with the European Union, especially when it is surrounded by some hostile regimes. Certainly there are huge benefits. I think it is important that we emphasise those benefits to all our citizens, so that they can benefit.

It is up to Korea to do the same in their country. There are pitfalls, but I think the safeguards, as outlined by my colleague, Ms Köstinger, can overcome those. I certainly welcome this agreement. I hope it will come into being as quickly as possible and we can go on to make agreements with other, similar countries with a philosophy something like our own, especially in Asia, and especially with Japan.

  Jiří Havel (S&D). – (CS) Madam President, Commissioner, I welcome the fact that such progress has been made in negotiating an agreement with Korea. Of course, the development of the market is our goal, the development of competition is helpful to us, and Korea is unquestionably a friendly country. On the other hand, there remain serious questions which the current form of the agreement does not address. It is, however, a question of obligations in the environmental field which should be reciprocal; it is a question of human rights and also of ensuring that products from other countries do not come to Europe via this agreement with Korea. All of this could endanger our jobs; it could endanger our companies. I hope that as before, we will move forward quickly and find an acceptable compromise. Without such a compromise, it would, of course, be very difficult for us to vote in favour of this agreement.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) The European Commission proposal fulfils the expectations of the European Parliament, and especially of our industry, regarding protection of the latter and observance of the principles of competitive trade. The European Parliament, representing European society, considers the creation of protective clauses to be very important in order to create equality of opportunity for particularly vulnerable sectors of our economy. Free trade and participation in the world market are what drives development, but only when all sides abide by environmental and occupational standards and there are no other forms of State support, so that trade is based on the principles of full competitiveness.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, as several Members have stressed, negotiations are ongoing between the Commission, Parliament and Council, so I will limit myself to some summary remarks.

Firstly, concerning the CO2 provision, I had a discussion with the Korean Minister for Trade about ten days ago in Da Nang. We discussed the CO2 provisions they are going to initiate in Korea. These are very important because, if the content were not acceptable, it could make the concessions the Koreans have made for European car exports seem rather hollow.

It is clear that the Korean Government will come forward with proposals before 15 October, which means that we will be fully aware of what they contain before we have the final discussion on ratification. We will follow this matter very closely. I made it very clear to the Korean Minister that if this is not satisfactory, then this is a no-go for us in Europe.

Let me also add something on the agreement. There is, in fact, already an agreement between the United States and Korea but, up to now, the US administration has not proposed it to the US Congress. There is talk that there will be new discussions between Korea and the US. Let me just stress that the Korean Minister has stated very clearly that, if anything changes in the agreement between the US and Korea, this will automatically also apply to Europe. So the fear that something might happen between Korea and the US that would be detrimental for Europe is not correct. It will automatically apply to Europe as well.

On duty drawback, we agreed to monitor this, from its entry into force, in the sensitive sectors. We can also take that information into account in safeguards investigations. We are very close to an agreement on this in the trialogue discussions.

I have rather more problems with the possibility of Parliament initiating proceedings, and with the regional safeguards, because regional safeguards, to my mind, are no longer possible under Lisbon. We are prepared to discuss possible alternatives to this, but the Council’s legal service has made it very clear that this would completely contradict the Lisbon Treaty. So we will have to be careful there.

I must say that, as far as the possible initiation of proceedings is concerned, I do not see much room for this. To my mind, that is not what I would call the proper role of Parliament. Obviously, you can ask the Commission to initiate these proceedings by voting through a resolution, but I have doubts as to whether there should be a right to initiate them formally.

I would like to make a final remark concerning my introductory speech. Thank you for listening with great concentration to what I said in that intervention, namely that a decision will most likely be adopted once the European Parliament has given its consent to the FTA and an agreement on the safeguard regulation has been reached.

You will probably have some difficulty with the words ‘most likely’, but I cannot put it any other way for the simple reason that it is up to the Council to decide. I cannot speak for the Council. I can say what the Commission’s position is, and we will insist with the Council that it would only do this once the safeguard regulation is adopted and Parliament has given its consent to the FTA.

That is our clear position. Parliament should ask in the trialogue for the Council itself to engage on this and say that it will not do this before the final vote in Parliament. However, I can only say ‘most likely’ because it is not up to me to say what the Council should do. I can explain the Commission’s position but I cannot speak for the Council.

So that is where we are at the moment. The discussions are going well in the trialogue. In the coming days, we will have fresh discussions and I really believe that we can come to a solution that is acceptable to everyone.

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank my fellow Members for their kind words.

Commissioner De Gucht, as we have heard here today, the European Parliament is making its position very clear.

As one fellow Member said, this is an historic moment that will set a precedent and this is an historic report that will set a precedent for future agreements. Parliament wants to reach an agreement at first reading and will do everything it can to achieve that.

As one of my fellow Members said, this is a key moment for European industry, which needs the new incentives and new markets that this agreement is bound to bring.

This is also, however, a delicate time for employment, and we need to guarantee employment in Europe. We also need to guarantee that this agreement does not damage European industry, and in order to do so, we need a strong safeguard clause such as the one adopted by the Committee on International Trade, which will probably be endorsed and strengthened by Parliament’s votes tomorrow.

It is therefore now time for the Council and also the Commission to act. The Commission must continue to support us, and we appeal to both institutions to take responsibility. I want to stress that we will seek to reach an agreement at first reading, but we need to get moving. I believe that it is possible, and we await the proposals.

  Robert Sturdy (ECR). – Madam President, unfortunately my transport here – the train from Brussels, on which I know some Belgian members of the Council were also travelling – was held up for well over an hour. I did telephone ahead to ask for my name to be taken off the list, as I take my speaking time in this Chamber very seriously. I tried to telephone ahead and my secretary telephoned and asked my name to be taken off the speaking list.

I apologise for drawing this to your attention. I would have spoken had I been here. Unfortunately I was unable to do so because of the transport situation, but my name was still left on the list. By the way, I support Mr Zalba totally.

  President. – Thank you, I take note of that.

17. Fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Bové, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe (COM(2009)0591 - 2009/2237(INI)) (A7-0225/2010).

  José Bové, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking all my colleagues from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and especially the shadow rapporteurs, for their support in this task.

This report, like the one by Mr Lyon, is part of our major debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). We have managed to reach a large number of compromises, which have been adopted by a large majority in our group – by 32 votes to 4.

I believe that our message to the Commission is a powerful one: we all want greater transparency in the food chain and legislation that guarantees fair competition between farmers and all operators in the food chain. We also want concrete measures, in Europe and elsewhere, to combat speculation and abuses of market power and to safeguard farmers’ revenues.

I am surprised that, on the initiative of one or two political groups in this House, we are being asked to vote tomorrow on a long list of separate votes, which go against the powerful and consensual message that we adopted by a large majority in committee.

Could it be that events over the summer have made you change your minds? I rather think that the intense lobbying carried out in recent days by the large-scale distribution sector and certain operators in the agri-food industry is the reason for the excessive number of separate votes. In any case, I cannot imagine, ladies and gentlemen, that you would give in to such pressure in order to weaken our common message.

Our committee has taken stock of the crisis affecting European farmers. It intends to propose concrete, strong measures: in less than 10 years, the Union has lost 3.5 million farming jobs. It is a massacre on a terrible scale. Bulgaria, for example, has lost one in two farmers. In 2009, revenues plummeted. In France and Germany, farmers have lost 20% of their revenue on average, and in Hungary, they have lost more than 35%. Farming and rural communities are in danger of disappearing.

Forced as it was by the exasperation of farmers and by the demonstrations of dairy cattle breeders, in December 2009, the European Commission published a communication entitled, ‘A better functioning food supply chain in Europe’. The latter shows that, between 1995 and 2005, the proportion of the added value of the food chain that went to agricultural producers decreased from 31% to 24%. The prices paid to farmers are falling in virtually every sector, without European consumers benefiting as a result.

The Commission says that these problems are linked to increased concentration in the wholesale, processing and distribution sectors, which impose their will on unorganised producers.

The Commission is concerned about the lack of transparency in relation to pricing and margins. It recognises the difficulty in obtaining precise and reliable data, and admits that it does not have the information it needs to adapt its policies quickly and effectively.

To remedy this, I propose that the Commission creates a European farm prices and margins observatory, on the model of that which exists in the United States. This body will be responsible for defining European farmers’ production costs. It will tell us the real costs of a litre of milk, a kilo of wheat or a kilo of beef from the moment it leaves the farm. This information will serve as a basis for negotiations between farmers and the other operators in the food chain. This body will also be responsible for assessing which sectors claim all the added value, to the detriment of producers and consumers.

The European Commission would thus be able to identify which operators are abusing the balance of power and abusing their dominant position. It also seems crucial to make the 20 largest European companies draft an annual report on their market share and the internal margins they generate.

Transparency poses no threat to the market economy. On the contrary, it is an absolute necessity in order to prevent the abuses that have been observed in agriculture and in many other sectors, in particular, that of finance.

Who can claim that, when farmers sell their milk or their meat, they are on an equal footing with multinationals, which influence commodity price building on the global markets? The balance of power is completely unbalanced, and some would say unfair.

In order to restore the balance, a first emergency measure would be to allow farmers to come together within producers’ organisations. The second, additional measure involves prohibiting selling of goods below purchase price at Community level.

Forced discounts, subsequent alterations to contract terms, and unjustified listing fees are a common occurrence. They are hitting farmers and the thousands of small and medium-sized processing companies hard, because they have to go through the large-scale distribution sector in order to sell their products. The European Commission must take stock of the extent of these anti-economic practices, and it must take the measures required to stop them.

Lastly, speculation on agricultural commodities is a scourge. Financiers and speculators are looking for instant rewards and instant profits. For them, poverty, hunger and famine are synonymous with profits. We did not think that we would relive the 2008 riots, but we could not have been more mistaken. Since June, the price of wheat has risen by more than 70%. The prices of maize, soya and rice are also on the increase. Last week, seven people were killed in Maputo, Mozambique, for demonstrating against the 30% increase in food prices.

Are we going to continue to stand by and do nothing, as we did two years ago? Are we going to continue to put up with investment banks bankrupting European farmers and crushing the men and women of our planet?

I call on the European Union to take the initiative to create a global agency to regulate the markets.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to send out a strong message so that the new CAP is fairer for European farmers and consumers and so that there is fair competition between operators which allows for the creation of a framework for regulating the markets and which gives short shrift to speculators. It is the responsibility of the European Parliament, as it prepares to exercise its joint decision-making power in agricultural matters, not to submit to any pressure, from wherever it may come. Our message must remain clear and consistent.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the increase in the price of foodstuffs, the functioning of the agri-food sector, price transparency, negotiating power and the repercussions for farmers’ revenues have been at the top of the political agenda in recent months.

That is why the report presented today by Mr Bové – may I thank him personally, as well as all the members of Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and of the other committees that have contributed to the drafting of this report – outlines the main challenges facing us. Moreover, as Mr Bové was saying, these are issues that are not only highly topical, but which also feature among the decisions to be taken in the short and medium terms, in particular, within the context of the common agricultural policy reform that we are working on.

I share most of the concerns expressed in this report. I believe that the functioning of the food chain must be further improved. All of the operators concerned have everything to gain from this: consumers, the retail sector, the processing sector and, in particular – as Mr Bové was saying – farmers, who are probably the ones who face the greatest difficulties in obtaining a fair share of the revenues that are divided up within the chain.

The Commission has recently taken a number of initiatives in this regard. I would like to mention one or two of them. Firstly, the High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the Agri-Food Industry has made a number of strategic recommendations. Mr Bové takes up some of the analyses and enriches some of these proposals in the report he is presenting to us. These proposals will be supplemented by a high level forum, launched recently by Commissioner Tajani, and which will focus, in particular, on issues regarding contractual arrangements, logistics and competitiveness.

With regard to price transparency, it is, in fact, considered essential to the smooth functioning of the chain, and this is an area in which there is work to be done. As you know, the food price monitoring tool has been introduced within the framework of Eurostat, but it must be refined. It will be refined so that the information obtained can actually be of use to operators in the food chain, to farmers and consumers, and to all the other stakeholders too.

The Commission has recently published a retail market monitoring report, in which it is acknowledged that ‘structural inefficiencies’ in the food supply chain could contribute to ‘asymmetrical price transmission, price rigidity and unfair contractual conditions being imposed on primary producers’. I would point out that interested parties are invited to submit comments on this report before 10 September of this year. This report is the responsibility of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for the Internal Market, and it will doubtless provide us with some new elements that can be used to devise measures so that this asymmetrical price transmission, which causes structural inefficiencies along the chain, can be remedied.

The Commission is also preparing some legislative proposals with a view to improving the legislation on the quality of agricultural and agri-food products. We have already had occasion to speak about this issue, including in this Chamber. By the end of the year, the Commission will present the legislative package on this issue, and we are going to present some proposals, among other things, in order to support local and regional food marketing initiatives, and to enable producers, especially small producers, agricultural producers who are trying to enter direct sales markets, or short food supply chains, to make their products more easily identifiable on the markets and thus to help consumers, too, to make more informed choices when buying products.

As part of the proposals on the post-2013 common agricultural policy, I am also going to ensure that instruments for promoting agricultural products can be improved. I believe that this is an area in which the European Commission, precisely under the new conditions, can do more to help agri-food producers and the food supply chain to promote products more effectively on the European market and the global market alike.

I would also mention here that the High Level Expert Group on Milk has presented its report. As a follow-up to this report, the Commission is going to present – I repeat, by the end of the year – a legislative proposal for the milk sector that will address, among other things, the issues relating to producers’ negotiating power and the opportunities for them to organise themselves in order to better negotiate their contracts, as well as to contractual arrangements within the chain. In this context, I also plan to address the issue of the role of interprofessional organisations in the smooth functioning of the chain, particularly in the dairy sector.

As for derived products, commodities and the issue of speculation, we in the European Commission are currently putting the finishing touches to a legislative proposal of general application, and I am working in consultation and very closely with my colleague, Commissioner Barnier, on this. Other proposals will follow as part of the review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive.

We must also make progress in analysing how added value is distributed within the entire agri-food chain; this is a point to which I attach particular importance. As I was saying, imbalances between the negotiating power of producers and the rest of the agri-food chain has put serious pressure on producer margins in the agricultural sector. Therefore, I believe that, here too, there is work to be done and an issue to be addressed, within the context of the CAP reform.

I should also like to stress in this regard that the competitiveness of the EU agri-food sector cannot be guaranteed to the detriment of some of its component parts, and I believe that agri-food chain operators should be aware that putting too much pressure on commodity producers, on farmers, may well harm the entire chain, its economic power and its representativeness within the European industrial sector.

May I thank you once again for the report presented by the European Parliament. It is a very useful contribution to the achievement of our common objective, which is to have a better functioning food supply chain. I shall pay close attention to your debate today and to the vote on this report.

  Esther Herranz García, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Commissioner Cioloş that this report is essential and comes at the right time because it has demonstrated the abuses committed by mass distribution, severely disrupting the various links in the food chain.

While the Bové report may go too far on some points by seeking to be too interventionist, it must be acknowledged that from the point of view of the social market economy that we advocate in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), it provides responses to the justified complaints made by European producers.

It also brings transparency to the different parts of the food chain, which is always a good thing, offers the weakest sectors in the chain much more opportunities to defend themselves and, of course, supports European consumers in becoming more informed about that food chain.

The European food industry could perhaps have been taken into account to a greater extent in this report, which would have been a good thing, but the report does also include measures for curbing the volatility of prices, which was very necessary.

It also sets out measures for achieving equality between the links in the chain, as requested by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and it also asks for abusive and unfair practices in mass distribution to be combated. The time is now coming to establish a list of abusive practices to be strictly banned by European legislation.

It is also important that measures be set out for preventing difficult practices through private labels that go against competition and intellectual property law.

For all these reasons, we should support the Bové report, and all our fellow Members in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, who have worked hard to ensure that this report was finally published to help European producers move forwards.

  Ashley Fox, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – Madam President, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted an opinion analysing the problems of the food supply chain as a whole.

We recommended that farmers should be encouraged to be more efficient and to consolidate their negotiating power, and that ombudsmen should be established in all Member States to arbitrate disputes in the supply chain, ensuring that competition between all actors in the supply chain is rigorous but fair, so as to secure the lowest possible food prices for consumers, while also recognising the valuable role that retailers’ own brand labels play in enhancing competition and providing choice and lower prices to consumers.

I am disappointed that Mr Bové and the Committee on Agriculture took little notice of these suggestions. They may not like it, but markets work, and the freer the market, the better it works, to the benefit of all, especially the consumer.

I have to urge all Members to vote against this resolution and to support the alternative ECR resolution.

  Elisabeth Köstinger, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the initiative for this report came from the Commission’s Communication concerning the considerable problems that exist within the food supply chain in Europe. Those active in the agricultural sector are particularly disadvantaged. These alarming problems are reflected in the dramatic price fluctuations that have been seen for primary produce in the farming sector.

The economic crisis has not spared farms. In some cases, farm revenues have declined by up to 28%. Production costs are at their highest for fifteen years. In some countries, farmers are already having great difficulty obtaining credit. The Commission has established that some actors at the top end of the food supply chain are abusing their dominant standing in the market on the basis of their monopolistic position. In the practices that this involves – including high listing fees for products, a lack of transparent pricing and poor bargaining power – it is always the farmers that lose out.

The largest profit margins are clearly being made by processors, wholesalers and retailers. In some cases, farmers face prices that are below production cost. We cannot allow the burden of liquidity problems to be pushed onto farmers’ shoulders as a result of actors further up the chain taking months to pay them. We cannot have retailers treating farms as banks.

One of the core points of this report is the specification of payment periods. Commissioner, you have initiated the negotiation process for the common agricultural policy after 2013. There is some uncertainty in the sector as to the direction that European agricultural policy will take – what type of agricultural production will be wanted in Europe in the future: will it be just intensive, industrialised agricultural production, or will it be diverse, sustainable and, above all, comprehensive agriculture?

In the coming months, we will reach a crossroads. We urge Parliament to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and to securing the food supply in Europe. Questions such as ‘What will we eat in the future?’, ‘Where will we live?’ and ‘How will we heat our homes?’ are more relevant than ever. The answers lie in agriculture, because agriculture’s functions include more than just producing quality produce. Our communities expect politicians to take the right action to secure sustainable production in Europe.

  Marc Tarabella, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to apologise on behalf of my colleague, Mr Alves, who was the shadow rapporteur for our group. His luggage has been lost, and so he was unable to join us in time. He has therefore asked me to replace him, which I am very happy to do.

I should like to emphasise the excellent report by our colleague, Mr Bové, in which we advocate fairer revenues for farmers and a more transparent and better functioning food supply chain in Europe. Moreover, I am also delighted with the compromise we reached in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Indeed, following, among other things, the serious dairy crisis which befell us in 2009 and of which the causes are still present today, there was a need to identify the toxic factors responsible for the long descent to hell of that sector – which, incidentally, is not the only one in this situation.

Some potential solutions have been found to ensure that our farmers can finally do better than just cover their production costs – which, I might add, they cannot always do – and actually earn a fair income from their work.

Although we recognise just how important it is to have a supply chain in which producers and consumers are no longer the ultimate losers, at either end of the chain, and although we successfully arrived at some balanced solutions, it appears that the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) are going back on certain fundamental paragraphs of the compromise amendments negotiated before the parliamentary recess.

Unfortunately, my speaking time is too short for me to specify the paragraphs that might be rejected during the vote in plenary. However, if I had to mention just one, it would be paragraph 21, which considers that there is a need to prohibit selling below purchase price at Community level. May I say that I find the position adopted by the ALDE Group and the PPE Group scandalous: it calls into question this paragraph, which is crucial for our farmers. How could we allow our agricultural products to be sold off cheaply for the benefit of the distribution sector and, more blatantly still, for the benefit of the processing sector?

How can one question, by rejecting paragraph 41 of the report, the relevance of creating an independent global regulatory agency against speculation on food commodities?

I could also mention paragraph 52, to which I am particularly attached since I tabled it in my group together with my colleague, Mr Tabajdi. This paragraph considers that preferential treatment should be granted to producer organisations, farmers’ cooperatives and SMEs when awarding public procurement contracts in the food supply chain, and therefore calls on the Commission to suggest measures in that regard. It, too, was the subject of a compromise which is apparently today being called into question by both the PPE Group and the ALDE Group.

At a time when millions of people throughout the world are suffering from malnutrition and famine, and when speculation is exacerbating families’ financial problems – the speculation on wheat stocks following the fires that affected Russia this summer is a telling example of this right now – have the agri-food industry lobbies gained the upper hand over what seems obvious to all of us? I wonder what kind of terrible stunt we are pulling here. Is it the case that in the PPE and ALDE Groups, processing and distribution considerations take precedence over the protection of producers, who are nonetheless today under threat?

At a time when food security and food sovereignty are under threat, it is irresponsible, with regard to the public and our farmers, to pick apart our initial motion for a resolution, which is urgently needed for our farmers, who – should anyone still need reminding – make up a fundamental section of our society.

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, first of all, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Bové, for his work on this report. The food supply chain is extraordinarily complex, with so many different factors impacting on how it operates. I believe it needs delicate handling so that we do not end up enforcing the law of unintended consequences.

There is a problem, a real problem. We know this from our own Member States. Indeed, a recent survey in Ireland revealed that 74% of consumers believe that farmers do not receive a fair price for their produce. In Ireland, farmers receive approximately 33% of the retail price of milk, 50% of the retail price of beef and 20% of the retail price of cheese. But we also know this is true at EU level, as Commission research explicitly shows that, since 1995, the only actors in the food supply chain whose share of the retail price has been decreasing are the primary producers, or the farmers.

This cannot continue to happen. If it does, we will lose many of our primary producers, and then what happens to EU food security and food sovereignty? We must deal with these issues in the context of the CAP. The food supply chain is not functioning properly and farmers are not receiving fair revenues. I disagree with Mr Fox on one point; there is, in my view, a case of market failure and some intervention is needed, but the crucial question is to know what interventions we should make.

The Commission, I believe, needs to investigate and, where necessary, take action against, anti-competitive behaviour. There is no doubt that contractual imbalances associated with unequal bargaining power have a negative effect on competitiveness in the food supply chain, particularly for the smaller actors. The asymmetry in bargaining power that exists between the different contracting parties, to which the Commissioner referred, can often lead to a situation where larger and more powerful actors seek to impose contractual arrangements to their advantage. In simple terms, the small guys get squeezed.

A very interesting point that has not featured in this discussion, but is of relevance, is that there is ample evidence that we are exporting our unfair trading practices to developing countries, where huge EU-based multinationals abuse their dominant position in the marketplace. In that context, I believe we need a global response. I support voluntary contracts rather than compulsory ones, and the establishment in all Member States of an EU ombudsman. On a personal level, I disagree with below-cost selling.

Finally, I am pleased to hear the comments of the Commissioner and I applaud his proposals. This is a complex issue and requires a multi-faceted approach.

  Martin Häusling, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Bové has tabled a very good report and we were all very much in agreement in Committee; there were just four votes against.

We are naturally surprised, therefore, that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have tabled amendments to have certain paragraphs removed from the report. It is astonishing to find a compromise that has already been reached being later called into question. I am curious as to the reasons, but I am also curious as to why then one would take the time to sit down and draw up something together.

Let me give some examples of what I am talking about. Paragraph 8 calls for an observatory to be established for price and profit margins in the agricultural sector. There is agreement on this, but to do so obviously requires prices to be compared – as stated in the second part. That is precisely what the PPE Group no longer wants. It causes me to wonder, Mrs Köstinger, whether there is a discrepancy between what you say and what you do.

The paragraph that the ALDE Group wants removed is even better. There is a general view that marketing products below production cost should be banned throughout the Union. That was something on which there was once a consensus. I believe that being against dumping practices is something that we demand from everyone – including our trading partners in the WTO. Why does the ALDE Group want to remove this particular paragraph? We find it incomprehensible.

In a further paragraph, we call on the Commission to propose legal provisions that will create instruments to limit price volatility, in order to reduce the producers’ high level of dependence. This, too, is to be deleted. There are therefore many questions to ask concerning why this consensus is now being undermined and why positions that were already in Mr Leinen’s report and thus also supported by the ALDE Group are now being questioned.

I therefore urge all agricultural politicians to adopt a common position, because farmers feel it is high time we came up with some answers as to how we can bring an end to this unsustainable state of affairs in which farmers are the losers in the food supply chain.

At present, we are experiencing another wave of speculation in the agricultural sector which, in the final event, serves nobody – neither farmers nor consumers. It is time to do something at last. Consumers, too, are demanding this of us, and I merely ask that what we say to farmers outside this House concurs with what we do in Parliament. I therefore hope that in the end, this report will be adopted exactly as it was tabled.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Mr Bové’s report is very topical, and I welcome the fact that we have an opportunity to explore these issues regarding the function of Europe’s food supply chain in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

There are undoubtedly certain problems in Europe’s food supply chain. The recent extreme commodity prices and volatility in the market have, in my opinion, undermined food chain stability. It must be acknowledged that farmers are experiencing consistently falling farm-gate prices coupled with ever-increasing operational costs, whilst retailers and consumers continue to enjoy handsome profits and low prices respectively. In this regard, I agree with Mr Bové that there are problems which have to be addressed in order to achieve a balance between fairness and profitability.

However, I do not entirely agree with the suggestions in Mr Bové’s report as to how to rectify this imbalance and, in this regard, I have tabled an alternative resolution on behalf of my group.

I certainly do not believe that the answer is to introduce yet more European Union legislation to enforce mandatory codes of conduct upon farmers. Existing EU competition laws are adequate and should be properly enforced. The food supply chain must be allowed to operate in the context of the free market and, as far as possible, be free of unnecessary burdensome regulation and red tape. Greater price transparency in the food supply chain is required, as is an end to unfair practices by retailers, such as stocking fees and unacceptably late payments to producers.

On the other hand, farmers need to be encouraged to organise themselves in a more effective manner so that they can increase their bargaining power in relation to large processors and retailers. In my opinion, the way forward is to tackle anti-competitive practices and promote voluntary codes of good practice.

Over the summer, we have seen grain prices shoot through the roof, which is only going to make even greater problems in the food supply chain. This volatility in the market is really destroying the market.

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the majority of farmers in the EU survive on a pittance and, what is more, they suffer constant stress caused by the financial markets’ irrational speculation. Most farmers are convinced that they no longer have a future. Theirs is a social group with one of the highest incidences of suicide.

If Europe continues to impoverish its farmers and its agricultural workers, they will disappear, with terrible consequences in terms of land management, quality of life and food self-sufficiency. This will fuel an environmental crisis with even more dreadful and swifter effects than those of the melting icecaps in Greenland.

This text is full of fine resolutions and it presents some interesting proposals, even if it artfully sidesteps the underlying causes that led to the current disaster and, therefore, the radical solutions to be implemented. The problem is not just one of ensuring that farmers and agricultural workers – the ones overlooked most by this resolution – earn a fair income; rather, it is about achieving a level of income and of remunerative prices that enables all those in the agricultural sector to finally make a living from their work.

We must point the finger at and, if necessary, penalise, the large-scale distribution sector and the financial resources behind it, for the ill-considered pressure they exert in order to lower prices, but also for the length of time it takes them to pay their dues; the funds which speculate on food commodities, exposing our populations to serious risks; and the role of the banks in the difficulties faced by farmers.

This report is along the right lines, but more progress still needs to be made.

  Anna Rosbach, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (DA) Madam President, Mr Bové’s proposal states that one of the key goals of the common agricultural policy was and is to guarantee fair revenues for farmers. I completely disagree with this. Agricultural policy claims 40% of the EU budget. In my country, almost everyone agrees that agricultural aid should be abolished, as we consider agriculture to be a free and competitive industry. This report goes in completely the opposite direction. It proposes more EU bodies, paid for by taxpayers, for unifying and controlling a whole industry, from producer to consumer. I simply cannot support this. It is well-known that the transport sector, intermediaries and retailers also make money from goods, but the price is ultimately controlled by consumers, in other words, all of us who ordinarily go shopping. The proposal also calls for an information campaign to be launched regarding the efforts made by agriculture in relation to the environment. It neither is, nor should it be, the EU’s job to conduct this type of campaign. If farmers feel the need to do this, they should do it via their own organisations. That is what they are there for, after all.

The need for agricultural policy reforms is also clear. However, what Mr Bové is proposing here has been tried once before and was found to be impossible and unserviceable. It was referred to as a centrally planned economy. Agriculture in the EU countries is extremely diverse, and I therefore consider this subject to be a national matter that should be managed close to the individual farmers and their problems.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I welcome the work undertaken by Mr Bové in formulating this report. I also welcome this debate highlighting the need for transparency throughout the food supply chain.

Transparency is a vital element, but the way in which we tackle large retail organisations whose sole motivation is meeting the needs of their shareholders is equally important. Their quest to increase market share and profits has had a negative impact on farmers and, in some cases, processors.

Currently, the market does not reward farmers for the time and money which they invest in farming to produce high quality, safe, sustainable food.

In Northern Ireland, the beef industry is under a lot of pressure, and many farms do not break even financially. Of course, any intervention must be seen in terms of the CAP. Without this, the industry would struggle to survive. We in this Parliament need to realise the importance of this policy and the benefit that it provides for our farming sectors.

The market has not delivered over a number of years for the dairy or beef sector. We have held many debates in this Chamber in relation to the dairy sector in particular.

If we want our farmers to compete in a free market, we must address the problems within the supply chain, third-country imports and the price consumers pay for food, taking into account falling farm-gate prices.

The role of speculators and the need to reduce volatility in the market must be addressed immediately. Import bans and scaremongering by speculators have fuelled a major hike in cereal prices across the world; this will have a knock-on effect on the food supply chain.

Europe has a duty to secure its food supply. The way to do this is not to put farmers out of business, or to increase regulation, but to ensure fair prices both at farm-gate and at consumer level.

  Albert Deß (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank all those who worked on this report. Overall, their work has resulted in a good report.

During the debate, it has become clear to me that the situation across Europe varies greatly. There are Member States in which a few large concerns dominate the market, and – thankfully – there are also Member States in which there are still many small retailers. There is just as much variation in the situation as regards food prices. There are Member States in which the price of food has risen substantially in recent times, and there are Member States – such as my home country of Germany – where there is merciless competition between enterprises and food prices are constantly being lowered, to the detriment of farmers.

Our main concern is to call on the Commission and the Member States to review the situation and to take appropriate measures to allow farmers to add value in the food supply chain. The report also contains some very specific demands, however. I only have time to mention a few here, such as the call in paragraph 30 for a specified payment period. It is not acceptable that farmers, small businesses and cooperatives are providing short-term financing for major concerns. That is the job of the banks; it is not a job for farming cooperatives.

Listing fees – as they are known – must also be investigated, Commissioner. We need a uniform regulation on this throughout Europe if we are to ensure competition. If we are to guarantee the food supply of 500 million people in the EU, then we must have fair competition for our farmers in Europe, as called for in the report.

There is one more thing I would like to mention, which is that members of my group have asked for certain paragraphs to be voted on separately. As democrats, we have to accept that, but I am assuming that the vast majority of my group will vote in favour of most paragraphs so that we can achieve fair conditions for our farmers.

  Stéphane Le Foll (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, I too would like to welcome the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Bové, to welcome the Commissioner, and also to welcome the speech by Mr Dess, who spoke before me, on the objectives of this report.

I feel it is very important to remember that, in this debate, we have to solve a problem linked to the volatility of agricultural prices and, above all, to the fact that, when prices rise, the increase is very quickly passed on to the distribution sector, but when they fall at production level, there is no knock-on effect for consumers.

Therefore, there is clearly a problem with the way in which the chain is organised; there is clearly a problem with the way in which so-called added value is distributed within it. I believe that Mr Bové’s report offers ideas, in several areas, that we must take further – and here I am really addressing the Commission – in order to try and emerge from this fundamentally negative spiral.

The first, of course, is to organise the chain and the balance of power within it. What proposals are we making to ensure that producers who work together and are organised carry more weight within the chain in order to negotiate? That is the question you asked, Commissioner, with regard to interprofessions, but it is also a question that relates to the contractual basis that is going to be implemented. I call for this contractual basis to have a European framework – a point made in the report. We cannot let each country solve this problem. There has to be a European framework. It must be flexible, but it must exist. This proposal, this course of action, is inextricably linked as far as I am concerned.

Secondly, of course, there is the issue of price transparency. Here, I am in favour of creating this observatory, which we absolutely must have so that consumers can be kept informed of price trends.

Those are the points I wished to make. I support the proposals that have been made and I hope, as Mr Dess said, that the rapporteur’s proposals receive the support of the majority.

IN THE CHAIR: Rainer WIELAND
Vice-President

  Marit Paulsen (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, my first response to Mr Bové is that I am capable of saying ‘no’ if a lobbyist attempts to influence me, but I have yet to see one.

If we want our rural communities to thrive, if we want to ensure an adequate food supply in Europe, if we want to manage our cultural heritage, ensure animal protection and cope with our demand for food and for farmers, farmers need to be better paid for their products.

There is no doubt that the major problem with the current situation and with our future agricultural policy is the low payment that farmers receive for their products. I think it is our social responsibility to pay, via our taxes, for what, in general, farmers produce that is of collective benefit, for the sake of our cultural heritage, among other things. We need greater openness and greater transparency – on this we fully agree – and we need to enhance the competitive situation in the large industries. First, the input industry, which comes before the farmers and is the world’s largest business, with most of the undertakings being fully globalised, and the major food supply chains. We need to look at competition and attain transparency.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – (PL) I congratulate you, Mr Bové. You have done very well. The report brilliantly develops the ideas that the European Parliament expressed back in 2008 in a written declaration which was adopted at the time. I was proud to be one of its authors. For the first time, we took a firm stance against the misuse by large commercial networks of their monopolistic position with regard to farmers and suppliers. This document develops those ideas.

Ladies and gentlemen, today, in Poland, we are celebrating the end of the harvest. This celebration is called dożynki and we share bread made from the newly-harvested crop. This shared bread generates less and less income for the farmer, less than 10%, and not so long ago, it was still 25%. This is what it is like in Poland and all over Europe.

Farmers are the weakest link in the market. Fellow Members who mention the need for greater market involvement seem to forget that the market will not solve problems of security, whether it is energy security or, as in this case, food security. Otherwise, it is a good thing if the market is free, but not if it is wild. Yet this market which involves agricultural production is very often wild: strong commercial networks and large companies dictate conditions for the weaker farmers, even those who are organised but still remain weaker. This needs to change. I truly believe that this report will not remain just a piece of paper this time, but that action will also be taken, at EU level. We have one common market in the European Union, and EU law should regulate how it works.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Instead of merely pointing out problems, which in this case are all too obvious, their causes must be identified and solutions sought that are effective, fair and lasting.

While, as the rapporteur recognises, the Commission’s communication falls far short of what is required in this area, the truth is that the report itself also falls short of what is needed. Concrete measures are needed to end manipulation of food prices and cartelisation by intermediary sectors in the supply chain, such as the big distributors that the liberalisation of agricultural markets has favoured.

The guarantee of minimum fair prices must be taken up again in order to ensure a living income for farmers that will enable them to sustain themselves in this strategically important sector, counteracting the abandonment of production and increase in food dependency in a number of countries and regions, as is the case with Portugal. The establishment of maximum marketing margins in relation to the prices paid to producers must be considered, not least for supermarkets, in order to ensure the fair distribution of added value throughout the food supply chain

Measures and policies are needed – especially budgetary ones – that invigorate and support the operation and modernisation of local and regional markets. The security of the food supply, the preservation of ecosystems and the strengthening of the economic and social fabric of the primary sector also make it necessary to organise international trade in such a way that producers and their products complement rather than compete against each other. It is necessary to question and break with a system that deals with food as if it were just another commodity and allows speculation on food; this leads to explosive situations from the point of view of food dependency and price volatility, as has been occurring.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, as we all know, food prices have been continually increasing in recent times – and apparently the price of wheat is about to rocket as a result of the capriciousness of the weather and agricultural speculation – yet prices in the shops bear no relation to what small farmers get for their hard work. Moreover, EU producers can scarcely compete on price in the world market because our social, quality, animal protection and environmental standards are so high – the very standards that we are unable or unwilling to check when importing foods.

If we are to put a stop to the resulting rapid decline in the farming population, particularly among small-scale farmers, and not lose the last vestiges of self-sufficiency, we naturally need to assist our farmers. If we do not want our rural areas to continue to decline and the numbers of farmers to continue to fall, then it is high time we stopped paying agricultural subsidies to the big agricultural concerns and give the money instead to those who really need it in order to survive – in other words, to small farmers. If that is not possible in the centralised EU then, as far as I am concerned, renationalising agricultural subsidies is the only way forward.

  Michel Dantin (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report entrusted to our fellow Member, Mr Bové, addresses what is, today, a crucial issue for society, from consumers to producers.

The Commission’s figures speak volumes, Commissioner: 20 years ago, milk producers received 31% of the chain’s turnover, which back then equated to just over EUR 450 million. Today, they receive only 24% of the turnover, or just under EUR 550 million. Other examples exist with regard to fruit, meat and so on.

Clarifying pricing is therefore today a prerequisite for reforming the common agricultural policy (CAP) because, if we do not clarify it, the CAP will, in future, seem like a bottomless pit in the eyes of the public and of farmers themselves. The CAP’s profits are today being siphoned off, but for the benefit of whom, of what? Ladies and gentlemen, it is our duty to understand what is going on.

Contrary to what I am hearing from certain quarters, producers are no less well organised today than they were 20 or 30 years ago. However, the other stakeholders have grown, and the number of producers has decreased even more rapidly than that of farmers. The chain has become longer, too. This situation requires us to adapt competition law and to supplement the market crisis management tools, which no longer seem suited to the new architecture of the chains linking producers to consumers. Lastly, there is the specific issue of quality products, in particular, with regard to imported imitations.

We need clarity. Commissioner, your services are examining the functioning of the French prices and margins observatory. There is room for improvement, but it already contains a wealth of information on consumer-level pricing and on the niches where margins are hidden. I should like to commend the work that has also been done by our shadow rapporteur, Mrs Köstinger.

Attacks have been made here and there today. One of the merits of our Parliament is that we respect different points of view. This is also the case with regard to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). Everyone remains free to vote as they wish. For my part, I shall not compromise my vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, the problems in the food chain have been the focus of the public’s attention in recent years.

As we did in the Batzeli report, we are calling on the Commission to distribute added value fairly and sustainably throughout the food chain. This can be done through a proportional balance of power between the parties concerned, which does not exist or is simply failing, to the detriment of the incomes of primary producers. The situation varies from sector to sector: in some cases, it is processing, and in others, mass distribution, but in all cases, it is producers that are suffering most due to their lack of negotiating power.

The Bové report identifies the issues that we need to keep working on, as this is a problem that requires joint action on different fronts, including the right to competition. Cooperatives and agricultural producers’ groups need to be expanded and consolidated, and there needs to be more integration between the different links in the food chain, both at European and national level, through inter-trade organisations.

I would like to express my support for the report and for the compromises reached in the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which must be respected in this plenary sitting.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the distribution of profits in the food supply chain has become unbalanced, and generally to the detriment of farmers. That is the correct conclusion drawn in this report.

Unfortunately, the rapporteur has focused on the old instruments of agricultural policy. He believes that farmers’ incomes can be improved by regulating supply in the manner of a planned economy. Experience tells us that planned economies go hand in hand with greater bureaucracy, but our farmers want to produce – they do not want more paperwork. Measures that are not based on the basic principles of a social market economy have failed in the past. A planned economy has not worked in the agricultural sector in recent decades.

A social market economy, on the other hand, offers farmers the opportunity to run a successful business. If we are to improve the situation of farmers, then we must ensure that the European farming sector is competitive in the long term. To achieve this, it is essential that we improve the bargaining position of farmers vis-à-vis the other actors in the food supply chain. This can be achieved by means of a fair and transparent market that is also capable of holding its own in the global market. At present, I have my doubts as to whether I can vote in favour of the report.

  Richard Ashworth (ECR). – Mr President, we have a dysfunctional market price chain. The imbalance of power between the players in the chain has resulted too often in the supply side not receiving a fair return for their produce and so, while I agree with and support the broad objectives of this report, I cannot agree with the proposals and solutions which the rapporteur suggests.

More regulation, mandatory powers and market intervention are not the solution, nor do they reflect the interests of all the stakeholders and, in particular, of 500 million consumers.

I do welcome, and believe there is a need for, greater transparency in the industry and I think, to that end, codes of practice and the appointment of ombudsmen would be helpful, but I urge the Commissioner here to approach this problem with a light touch.

By all means support voluntary initiatives; by all means encourage the supply side to organise themselves into cooperatives in order to get better presence in the market place; and by all means help them to promote and market their products and, overall, encourage all players in the marketplace to form mature, contractual arrangements. All those I welcome, and I suggest they are realistic proposals which the Commission can put forward.

At the end of the day, however, my message is that you interfere with the workings of the free market at your peril.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Bové’s report broadly outlines the obstacles farmers face in their primary role, which is to feed the world while, at the same time, earning a fair and decent income for themselves, their wives and their children, not only during their working lives, but also when they retire.

The global food crisis shows that the agricultural and agro-industrial sectors are functioning poorly. The facts are clear: because of speculation, producers are earning less and less money, and consumers are paying more and more for their products.

What is more, our farmers are subject to demanding standards, while Free Trade Agreements allow the entry into Europe of agricultural products that definitely do not meet similar standards.

Therefore, if the current market rules laid down by the WTO do not allow farmers to earn a decent living, or the peoples of the world to eat healthily, then these rules must be reformed, because they no longer comply with …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) This report gives emphasis to a matter that is of great importance in the area of agriculture, which requires intervention coordinated at European level given that, from 1996 to the present day, the average price of food products has increased by 3.3% per annum, with the cost of agricultural products increasing by 3.6% and the prices paid to farmers increasing by only 2.1%. We are therefore faced with a situation of serious imbalances in bargaining power in the food distribution chain, which urgently needs correcting.

In accordance with the objectives set out by the common agricultural policy, farmers and the agri-food sector observe very exacting quality standards and maintain prices accessible to consumers when producing foodstuffs. Nevertheless, a very small number of powerful retailers impose their prices on 13.4 million farmers and 310 000 agro-industry companies throughout the European Union, almost without negotiation.

In this context, I advocate asking the European Commission to present legislative proposals to solve the problem, including changes to the European competition rules, that go further than the mere recommendations and strategies drawn up by the high-level group on the food distribution chain; to organise a huge information campaign for farmers across Europe about their rights; to ban abusive practices that are being felt especially in the sector of rapidly perishable products such as fruit and vegetables; and to promote support for farmers’ organisations so that they have greater critical mass and are better able to negotiate.

It would be useful to bracket farmers’ organisations and cooperatives with small and medium-sized enterprises so that they are able to benefit from special exemptions.

We recognise that the balance between full respect for the rules of free competition in a market economy that we advocate and the urgently required intervention that is being demanded from the European Commission has not always been easy, but we believe that it has generally been achieved, which is why we approve of and welcome this report.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) We are facing a European problem that has remained unresolved for several decades. My father was a fruit and vegetable merchant, and I recall that 40 years ago, when I was a child, he saw the discrepancies between the prices paid to farmers and the prices charged to consumers in Budapest. Therefore, the problem was already present at that time, even in the framework of centralised economic planning. I agree with almost all the recommendations made by the rapporteur, including the extension of the Member State and EU price monitoring system and the establishment of the Ombudsman’s institution. I believe that the French practice of mandatory contracts is a good example. I hope that where the future of the common agricultural policy is concerned, Mr Cioloş will support both this and the provision of more support to producer organisations. Farmers have their own tasks and obligations, and it must be accepted that they have no chance of survival without forming organisations. This is particularly important in new Member States, because organisations are not the invention of the devil …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Esther de Lange (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, what we have heard here about the functioning of the food supply chain actually makes you want to cry. Allow me, therefore, to take just one example – that of onions; I think they nicely sum up the core of this debate. In the current market, a farmer receives 10 euro cents for a kilo net, while that same net is sold for EUR 1 in the shops. Between the farm and the supermarket checkout, the margins and power are distributed unevenly. That is why this House demanded an investigation into margin distribution as early as 2008. It is a disgrace, by the way, that the previous Commission refused to carry out such an investigation. However, it now appears that we will have a price observatory instead and this House should see to it that it really does happen and that it gets up and running.

The report by my fellow Member, Mr Bové, is a good report, because it really hits the nail on the head. The rapporteur may have been a little overenthusiastic on some points, but the basic points of this report deserve broad support tomorrow. I am addressing this, in particular, to the parties that are threatening to vote against it tomorrow. Do they, and here I am thinking particularly of the Liberals and the Conservatives, know, for example, how much it costs a farmer to produce a kilo of these apples? It costs 30 to 35 euro cents, while that same farmer receives 20 to 25 euro cents for that same kilo of apples. This means that he actually has to sell the apples at a loss while the consumer pays EUR 1.25. Once again, I am addressing these points to the people who want to vote against the report. That section of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, for example, that is always at the fore when it comes to imposing ever more environmental and biodiversity requirements and calling for fewer pesticides. While those requirements might be legitimate, you cannot expect the producer to make these investments without ensuring a stable and reasonable income for the farmer. Those who want to vote against this report tomorrow will destroy any credibility they might otherwise have had the next time they try to drive up those requirements. I hope they bear that in mind tomorrow when they press the ‘against’ button.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) This own-initiative report that we are debating today – for which Mr Bové, whom I congratulate on the way he undertook it and on its good final result, is responsible, and on which I had the privilege of being a shadow rapporteur and negotiating the 17 commitments obtained – is absolutely essential at a time when agricultural policies are increasingly market-oriented, European farmers are confronted with very low income levels, and millions of consumers find themselves in pressing need of keeping food at accessible prices as a result of the crisis affecting all of us.

Farmers’ incomes will increasingly depend on the values generated in the markets and the price of food on how well these markets are working; this means that making the food supply chain work better is absolutely necessary for a more equitable sharing of the value generated from agricultural producers to final consumers, ensuring fair incomes for the former and appropriate prices for the latter.

In order for this to happen, the relationships established throughout the food supply chain must be rebalanced and made transparent, ensuring the existence of a framework of fair and competitive best practices.

We therefore call on the Commission to pay heed to the proposals, which enjoy broad support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Langen has given me another minute because he will not be present here himself. I would first like to apologise to the rapporteur and to the Members that I have only just arrived for this debate, but as you know, the Bureau of Parliament is meeting at the same time and is currently discussing what to do about the half-baked proposal by the Conference of Presidents concerning Members’ attendance tomorrow during the address by President Barroso of the Commission on the state of the Union. I hope that we will see the back of this half-baked proposal.

Regarding the Bové report, I would like to say that it was good that the European Commission urged us to improve the way the food supply chain in Europe works in the communication on which this report was based. The aim must naturally be to secure the agricultural sector a fairer share of the value added in this chain. Unfortunately, this is not the case at present in some areas.

I also support the drafting of a list of the aggravating causes of this situation, such as the abuse of power, late payment, limited market access and many other factors. If the diagnosis is correct, then the treatment must be too. Unfortunately, the vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development did not succeed in removing from the Bové report all the inconsistencies in this respect.

We still live in the European Union, not in a Soviet Union – and we do not want to create such a thing in this area. As we all know, the Soviet Union’s system was not capable of feeding its population properly and did not allow farmers to go about their business freely. I therefore reject all of Mr Bové’s prescribed treatments that are incompatible with our system of a social market economy – which may not be perfect, but is certainly superior. Thankfully, we in Europe do not have to deal with the spectre of imperialist conspiracies.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. – Mrs Lulling, Mr Langen’s generosity is beyond question, but in this case you are overstating it. Mr Langen could not have given you a minute because he did not have one to give.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, if farmers are to have fair revenues, three conditions need to be met under present circumstances: firstly, they must be stable enough to allow producers to make long-term plans and investments; secondly, they must reflect the value and cost of production, as dictated by the free market in agricultural products and inflows, where there are no exogenous distorting factors which create instability and distorted price ratios, and, thirdly, they must mirror the real contribution of the value of agricultural products to the price paid by consumers.

If these three conditions are to be met, we need a different perception of farming and of the common agricultural policy and we need to plan drastic action on the part of the European Union to complement the CAP. This is the aim of the Bové report, which takes an integrated approach to the issue, with proposals on transparency, competition and action to combat abuse of power when contracts are executed, to stamp out speculation and to establish conditions that will safeguard viable production under current circumstances.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the little that we allow ourselves to eat must be wholesome and good. We have many laws to ensure that the agricultural sector lives up to our high standards. The farmers of Europe produce and supply food of excellent quality. Quality comes at a price, however. A fair income for farmers was enshrined in the founding treaties of the European Union and remains one of the main objectives of the common agricultural policy to this day. However, farmers are having to sell at rock-bottom prices – often below production cost. That is downright obscene, and it is this that we want to change.

However, with the Bové report, we run the risk of severely damaging what the social market economy has achieved. There is no future for regulated markets. The past has shown us that. So what is the ideal solution? It cannot be good for traders to have to regularly report their market share and sales. That only creates bureaucracy; it does not change anything. We need to have better, stricter control of the existing regulations in order to act against any abuse of market position. We need traders to be our partners, so we cannot afford to shackle them in ways that make it harder for them to trade.

The Bové report is a well-intentioned initiative, but substantial parts of it need to be pared down and made practicable. That will allow us to move closer to our common objective: healthy food, always available, so that everyone can be satisfied, and at reasonable prices that allow everyone to live. That also means strengthening the position of farmers, producer organisations and industry associations. Farmers will be in a better bargaining position in the markets if they can join forces to make appropriate offers. Farmers themselves need to realise that they will achieve more by acting together. Traders and producer groups need to move towards each other in this respect. That will result in a win-win situation.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) One particular problem which farmers face concerns the unfair distribution of profits throughout the food chain, which influences whether farmers receive adequate incomes.

There are a large number of semi-subsistence farm holdings which mainly produce for their own consumption, as well as a very small amount for the market. Lack of efficiency, the large proportion of personal consumption of these holdings’ produce and the self-employed status of workers in the agricultural sector are the main features of this type of agriculture. In these circumstances, there are farm holdings which will not be able to benefit effectively from the support provided by the common agricultural policy.

Bearing in mind that agriculture is one of the sectors which have been hardest hit by the economic crisis, the European Commission needs to provide for and guarantee measures aimed at encouraging farmers to achieve sustainable and ethical production, as well as to compensate for the investments made. This would create a balance, thereby helping the operation of the European food supply chain to improve.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 28 June on fair revenues for farmers is an important step in promoting a better functioning food supply chain in Europe.

This report is therefore an important move, in view of the severe crisis that has been affecting various parts of the agricultural sector for some time and has now left thousands of companies in difficulties.

Swift action is therefore needed, and the report puts forward a number of measures that can be adopted so as to ensure price transparency and fair competition in the markets, as well as strong intervention to stamp out the abuse of buyer power and contracting and global speculation on commodities.

I believe the sector needs to be reorganised, with the focus being placed on the farmers, who should be granted a suitable role in the innovation of new kinds of markets for agricultural produce. In addition, the food supply chain needs to be rationalised, so as to reduce the environmental impact of food transport and to raise awareness and promote the marketing of products with a strong local character.

I personally give my full support to everything that Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has approved, and in terms of the vote, I shall also vote for what the committee has decided, as some of my fellow Members have already announced in advance.

I would, however, like to emphasise two topics that the report has brought up, among others. The first concerns the review of the competition rules to benefit producers who make products with a strong local character.

The second is a call for the Commission to propose instruments to support and promote farmer-managed food supply chains in order to reduce the number of middlemen and enable producers to benefit more from the marketing of their produce.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am, philosophically speaking, a liberal. When it comes to the economy, I believe that the market and competition are a good thing.

However, to those in this House who believe that the same old market rules can be applied to agriculture, I say the following: can you name any other sector of such importance to the economy as agriculture that has such unpredictable and such potentially variable prices?

It is said that some European farmers have seen their income halved. Who here would accept seeing his or her income halved? Who can say that this is a dignified and fair situation? Furthermore, these prices – these crazy prices now – affect everyone. They prevent farmers from benefiting from increases, and they prevent consumers from benefiting from decreases.

So, yes, the real issue is that of price transparency; it is that of the added value of labour. As I see it, Mr President, agriculture is not about feeling nostalgic for a bygone era. Agriculture is the guarantee of the future. It is the guarantee, for Europe, of a regular and guaranteed supply for its 500 million inhabitants.

Who here knows of a single large country over the course of history that has not been concerned about its food supply? Ladies and gentlemen, we must do for agriculture what has been done for the financial sector. We must save it by making it transparent and by ensuring that its costs are clear. Europe needs its farmers, ladies and gentlemen. I wish to tell Mr Bové that he has my vote and, I am sure, the vote of many Members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for me, the most important aspect of this own-initiative report is the political signal that it sends out. It is a signal to the value chain that farmers too, and in particular, have a right to appropriate remuneration for their work. The current situation cannot continue. When we see foodstuffs being sold dirt cheap, being exploited as loss leaders and farmers not receiving payment for their produce until three months after delivery, it is a situation that bears absolutely no relation to fair competition and fair trade.

If competition is not working, then politics must step in. Market structures are not a matter of fate. It is up to politics to ensure that imbalances in the market are straightened out. We need numerous measures if we are to bring about a long-term improvement in the situation. These include transparent pricing, the strengthening of producer groups, the elimination of unfair trading practices and the introduction of guaranteed payment periods. We have a wide range of possible measures at our disposal. Let us use them.

The own-initiative report is a good and important start, which is why I will be voting in favour of it.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to commend the work of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, hence, of Mr Bové.

Food and commodity price volatility is causing major problems for our farmers. Their average income fell by more than 12% in the European Union in 2009, with peaks where some revenues fell by half. Our farmers have to be able to generate a fair income from their work, on the one hand, and to produce food products that meet demanding quality standards at prices that are affordable to consumers, on the other.

Our three challenges are therefore as follows: to ensure that farmers have fair volumes and prices so that they can carry out stable, secure and, above all, profitable production, and can do so with an idea of their future revenues; to improve the balance of the food chain and price transparency in the interests of consumers; and to ensure that policy finally benefits farmers and consumers and not other links in this chain, which at present make it more complex.

Thanks to the work done in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Bové’s report is balanced. It proposes some solutions to the challenges that I have just identified. In my view, it is necessary to implement a new form of market regulation, based, in particular, on better integration of the various links in the chain.

Strengthening producer organisations, offering standard contracts in certain sectors, and encouraging self-regulation initiatives: those, in my view, are good avenues to explore. Furthermore, it is essential to promote quality products and sustainable production; to do so, we need a credible European system, and quality labels and signs. The agricultural market does need to be regulated, but in a proportionate and intelligent way.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) I fully support Mr José Bové’s excellent report in which he demands that farmers be provided at last with reasonable and fair incomes. We have seen what happens when the issue of farmers’ income is left to be decided solely by the so-called free market. We have now reached a point where a farm goes out of business in the time it takes any of my fellow Members to give a short speech. As a result of the current approach, a farm goes out of business every three or four minutes, with the ensuing catastrophic societal, human and environmental consequences.

I plead with those who want to continue to leave farmers’ incomes to be decided solely by the free market to consider this aspect, as well, and acknowledge that we do need regulation. I would like to emphasise three areas. One is the regulation of retail networks’ share ratio. This is necessary. None of these should grow to the detriment of others, and there should be market opportunities for small store networks, cooperative stores and farmers’ trade. Minimum purchase prices need to be guaranteed. Even the most profit-oriented supermarket chains should be required to pay farmers the minimum purchase price. Farmers’ organisations should be given a great deal of support. Market access funds, EU market access funds, should be injected with capital and chain stores which place locally produced foods, the healthiest, fresh, local foods on the market, should be supported.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for this report. Normally, own-initiative reports are tame affairs and we do not get a chance to debate the issues, so I suppose it is positive that we are having a debate about what is now a very controversial and sensitive subject: the issue of fair prices and fair returns to farmers.

The very fact that we have this report means that there is a problem in the marketplace for food, and that we do need political action to address it. I am concerned that there is some rowing back from that position over the summer months, but I certainly am not rowing back from my support for the Bové report. While I have concerns about elements of it, I support the overall theme, which is that we need action to address concerns of producers and to ensure that they get fair prices.

It is a simple fact that producers are price takers: they do not set the price that they get for their produce. Would that they could, and if they were wise, perhaps they should keep food in short supply and we would all pay a dear price for that. But they are not price makers, they are price takers, and they need protection.

I want to respond to some comments from the ECR colleagues. Two words terrify me, and they are: light touch. The idea that light-touch regulation works for the food sector or for the banking sector – I am afraid it does not work. Light-touch regulation that is not monitored will fail, so let us get away from that idea. The same goes for the idea that the free market works. We have to ask: who does it work for? As colleagues have said, agriculture – the food production chain – is different. It is not like any other sector.

I would ask those who say that the market works because it provides the lowest possible consumer prices to answer the question: how long can that pertain? And is cheap food going to keep going in the long term? We need action. I support the Bové report with some slight reservations, and I hope colleagues do likewise.

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur for an excellent, balanced report.

For us, a functional system of agriculture and food production that applies to Europe as a whole is a big and important matter of safety. This is no conventional area of trade that we can allow to be subject to market forces, as has been said a number of times here. At present, the issue concerns the future of agriculture generally.

The investments that young farmers and others have to make today in agriculture, if they want to keep farming, are huge and of great importance. In order to continue to have the courage to invest and take risks in the future, we need stable levels of income for farmers and fair revenues for the work that they do.

At the moment, it is a fact that trade is more easily able to dictate its own terms in many cases. This is particularly taxing for the producer. The report mentions some very important elements in a solution for fairer levels of income for farmers, and I hope that they can also be put into practice.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Commission states in its communication that it is essential to act to eliminate dishonest practices among economic entities along the whole food supply chain. However, the Commission’s proposed measures for combating these practices are restricted to exchanging good practice, information campaigns and preparing voluntary standards for agreements. This approach will change little, if anything at all, and will not eliminate the abnormalities or put a stop to the constant tendency for the income of agricultural producers in Europe to be reduced.

We must not forget that the common agricultural policy also ensures a fair income for farmers and guarantees that prices of the highest-quality food are not extortionate, and that they are stable and transparent for consumers. This is what the report’s proposals offer and I will support them fully.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Mr President, I support many of the proposals in this excellent report. There is no doubt that supermarket chains use their position to squeeze small producers. However, I have one area of concern, and that is any proposal that would undermine own-brands.

In the UK, many less well-off consumers purchase these own-brands and remark that the quality is often very good. Also – and I saw this recently myself in Cross Hands Business Park in Wales – there are many small food processing and packaging companies which work for small and large chains producing own-brands. Therefore, while it is very important that we should do absolutely everything to ensure the food supply, we should not do anything which would damage less well-off consumers and small companies.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we support this report insofar as it contains proposals previously put forward by the Lega Nord, in particular, on price transparency linked to paying farmers a fair price for their products, creating zero-kilometre food supply chains and encouraging the maintenance of local product diversity and product quality, thus enhancing the development of local economies.

Indicating a product’s cost at source would make consumers aware of how much passing it through several sets of hands affects the final price and would lead them to choose a short supply chain, thus favouring local producers.

To combat volatility in the agricultural market, it is essential to ban the sale of agricultural products at prices below cost price and to increase checks on products entering the European market, because it often happens – unfortunately – that European farmers abide by EU rules while non-European farmers do not follow them at all. The burden of all that is always borne by our farmers.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) With a view to aiding recovery from the economic and financial crisis, achieving the most efficient functioning of the food supply chain is becoming a particularly important issue. Given the steady decline in citizens’ purchasing power, urgent improvements need to be made to prevent consumer food prices from rising.

I believe that the uneven response by food prices to the fluctuations in commodity prices is mainly linked to the number of intermediaries operating throughout the supply chain.

I am in favour of adopting instruments aimed at promoting and supporting short supply chains and markets where farmers can sell their own produce. This will help establish a direct link between consumers and farmers, enabling the latter to obtain a greater share of the value of the final price, while the general public will benefit from lower prices.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to add my voice to those congratulating the rapporteur and to those of Members supporting the positions taken in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which adopted this report by a large majority. I would also just like to call on the Commissioner to take inspiration from the good practices of some Member States, and would refer him to the very specific example of my country, Portugal, which last week adopted important and bold measures in this area, setting a 30 day deadline for paying farmers for perishable goods and one of 60 days for food products for human consumption. I believe that imposing this on the supermarkets constitutes a good example that could be copied at European level and I call on the Commission to take its inspiration from this Member State’s good practices.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the primary objective of the common agricultural policy has always been to guarantee fair revenues for farmers, and I believe we should stick to that path.

Following the review instituted by the Commission, a number of discrepancies from the initial principle have come to light which we all cannot overlook. Our farmers are convinced that their work is undervalued in economic terms. Their move from the first stage in the supply chain to become important players in the second stage today is no longer seen as a determining factor for stabilising the final price.

It is necessary to control the fluctuations in commodity prices, which only hurt the consumer. I think it would be useful to review how items move along the supply chain, so as to prevent an increase in the price of goods that is incompatible with a fair distribution of the cost according to the work done.

It is important to check whether the asymmetry in the cost of a product between the first and last stages of the supply chain is rising, thus hurting consumers. There would be a danger of placing products on the market at higher prices that would not reflect an increase in quality.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, following this lengthy debate, we have been able to conclude that there is more or less general agreement on the issue raised in Mr Bové’s report, in relation to diagnosis. One problem must be resolved in order to make farmers’ work more efficient, and from what we have been able to observe, opinions differ on the way in which to resolve it, on the scope of the reforms.

In any case, to my mind, one thing is clear: the fact that the common agricultural policy (CAP) has existed now for more than 40 years also proves that the agricultural market needs rules in order to be able to function. These rules do not prevent the market from functioning; on the contrary, they make it more effective and, ultimately, they help to achieve the agri-food sector’s ultimate objective, which is clearly defined in the Treaty of Lisbon: to ensure that markets are supplied with food products and, at the same time, to ensure a fair standard of living for agricultural producers.

In that sense, I do not think that considering the introduction of regulations necessarily means planning the economy and planning production. Rules are necessary, however, just as they are necessary in the agri-food production sectors. It is acknowledged that discussions should perhaps focus on the agri-food chain as a whole.

I am also well aware that, while there are some points that we will be able to address as part of the CAP reform, in order to respond to some of your questions, or indeed, perhaps, to incorporate some of your proposals, I must, of course, work in cooperation with my colleagues within the Commission so that this issue is addressed in a more general manner, particularly as regards those points that, strictly speaking, fall outside the scope of agricultural production.

This is a necessary exercise because, while we can be proud today of our agri-food sector, of our agri-food industry, which is one of the most important, if not the most important, industrial sectors in the European Union, accounting as it does for 13% of the jobs in the European industrial sector and 14% of its turnover, we also have an agricultural commodity production sector that is strong.

This relationship between agricultural production and the agri-food sector must be made clearer precisely so that the end result benefits consumers, but also producers, and so that production can continue.

I am not going to enter into the details of the issues that have been raised; I am simply going to assure you, and to assure Mrs Köstinger, who has now left, that the proposals that I am going to present on the reform of the CAP will follow shortly, in November. I am not a fan of secrecy: the consultation process is simply taking its course. Rest assured, however, that these consultations are along the lines of supporting European agriculture that is both competitive and sustainable, and that is spread across the whole of Europe. It is precisely in order to achieve this objective that agriculture should be seen not only in relation to its region, but also within the food chain.

I look forward to the final vote on this report and I can assure you that some of these proposals are included in the proposals that the Commission is due to present on the future of the CAP.

IN THE CHAIR: Silvana KOCH-MEHRIN
Vice-President

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to raise a point of order. Summer is over and here we are all together again in the autumn, but the procedure adopted by the chair still seems to be unclear. Madam President, you are the third chair that I have had the great pleasure of following this session; I notified the chair before your predecessor that I wished to speak in the ‘catch the eye’ procedure. That is not your own personal fault, but I feel it would be fairer if the decision as to who will have opportunity to take the floor could be made earlier. Committee meetings are going on in parallel with plenary and I had been attending a meeting of my Committee on Regional Development. I was not told that apparently I would stand no chance of speaking today. I left that meeting in order to speak here.

Please could it be noted that Members would find it a great help to know whether or not they will be able to take the floor. Had I known this, then – as interesting as the debate has been – I would have stayed at my meeting of the Committee on Regional Development and would not have spent the time waiting here without getting a chance to speak. I apologise, but I would like this to be clarified.

  President. – Your comments will certainly be recorded in the minutes of the session. There has been a great deal of interest in participating in the debate in the ‘catch the eye’ procedure, which is, of course, good and is also the point of the procedure. I regret that not everybody who wants to can take the floor. I am sorry that you were unlucky this time and did not have a chance to speak. I hope you have better luck next time.

  José Bové, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I am pleased with the debate that we have just had, in which a very large number of Members were able to speak. It is true that, at this time, on the first day of the part-session, there are rather too many of us for this debate, which shows just how interested all of the groups are in the work of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

The important thing for me is that the report that we have debated, the text that is going to be voted on tomorrow in this House, is a joint text. This has been mentioned by a number of speakers. I am the rapporteur, but this text has been drafted jointly within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and I think that that is very important. Everyone came with his or her own idea or story, and we came up with this proposal together. I feel it is important to emphasise this. It is my name that appears on this report, but it is a joint report, and I wanted to reiterate that.

Several speakers stressed the need to safeguard farmers’ incomes through the sale of their agricultural products. That is the very foundation of agriculture. Farmers are paid from the sale of their products, and so to say that, today, farmers cannot sell below production cost is an essential, indispensable condition if we are to continue to have farmers in Europe in the future.

Agricultural policy makes it possible to support, to maintain agricultural activity across regions, and to combat distortions linked to natural handicaps or to the regions. Therefore, the fact is that there will be no common agricultural policy if farmers cannot earn a living from their production in the first place. Farmers are the ones making the strongest calls in this regard, and Parliament has just successfully repeated their demands.

The second point that I feel emerged clearly from our debate just now is the need for transparency all along the food chain. All the speakers came back to this point at various levels, in particular, with regard to the processing sector in negotiations with producers, or with the large-scale distribution sector, which, often, for example in the case of fruit and vegetables, creams off unbelievable profits. Today, all that is acknowledged; this need is no longer in doubt.

Many speakers also focused on the issue of speculation; I am not going to go back over it.

Therefore, I would say that, once the vote has been held tomorrow in plenary – and I believe that all the speeches have demonstrated the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development’s collective will to table this report and to convince all of our fellow Members – once the text is adopted, once it is voted for tomorrow, the ball will be in the Commission’s court. Moreover, I should like to say to the Commissioner: it is now up to you to take action. This is an initiative that we are taking. We are making proposals to you.

Our expectation, of course, is that this work will now be taken up by the Commission and the Council, since it is clear that Parliament alone will be unable to do anything. On the other hand, by working together, we will be able to build a new common agricultural policy. Above all, however, we will be able to give hope to European farmers.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 at 12:30.

The next item is a statement by the Commission on human rights in Iran, in particular, the cases of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani and of Zahra Bahrami.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I congratulate the rapporteur and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on voting significantly in favour of this report as well as on the commitment and priority that Members have given to this issue. The recent situation of extreme price volatility has revealed a clear asymmetry between the prices for consumers and the prices paid to small producers, so providing evidence of clear inequalities in the food supply chain.

The abuse of bargaining power is strangling small producers in particular. I therefore call on this House to vote in favour by a large majority, so that this signal from the European Parliament can encourage the European Commission and national governments to adopt appropriate measures. Recently, for example, the Portuguese Government has bravely imposed on the supermarkets a 30 day deadline for paying farmers for perishable goods and one of 60 days for food products for human consumption; the aim is to achieve greater balance in contractual relationships between processors, distributors and producers within the food chain.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Guaranteeing fair incomes for our farmers is one of the main goals of the common agricultural policy. We are aware of the problematic situation in the food market. Farmers are at a disadvantage in negotiations with wholesalers and supermarket chains and forced to accept ever lower purchase prices for their foodstuffs, while citizens purchase basic foods at the same price or at ever increasing prices. Seller profit margins from the farmer to the purchaser are upwards of 200%. The report highlights a number of unfair contractual practices, limited market access and charges that are levied on producers for their inclusion in the supply of food products in the retail sector, late and delayed payments, unilateral changes to contracts, and the like. The situation in the food market needs to be addressed without delay and a legislative framework for the management of purchase and sales prices needs to be found. It would help to have price transparency in the food chain, which would increase competitiveness, limit price fluctuations and contribute to awareness among partners in the market regarding supply, demand, prices, and bargaining. In my view, however, the only effectively functioning instrument is to define the minimum prices that cover production costs. This would then guarantee an equitable income for farmers and would limit sales at a loss. This price could be the reference price in the framework of negotiations between producer organisations and downstream sectors of the food chain.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – This report won't automatically rectify the situation where farmers, as the primary producers, are, in many cases, exploited by processors and the retail chain sector. What it does is shine the light on unfair practices and the need for the Commission and Member State governments to act collectively to bridge the gap between the production cost of farmers and the cost when the product arrives in the shopping basket. When the report was debated in Committee, I highlighted the recent but now improved situation where milk producers were producing milk at a cost of 27 cents per litre while being paid 5 cents less than the production cost. What is important is that the report is not left gathering dust but that its recommendations are acted on.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Bové’s own-initiative report addresses the altogether crucial issue of farmers’ revenues. Food prices have risen by 3.3% per year since 1996, while the prices farmers receive have risen by only 2.1% and their operational costs have increased by 3.6%.

As an MEP, I fully understand the difficulties, which are at times insurmountable, faced by French and European farmers. European aid that is provided on a one-off basis, in the wake of specific sectoral crises, cannot improve the long-term situation of farmers. That is why the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development decided to draft this report on farmers’ revenues, which is intended as an appeal to the European Commission to undertake an in-depth analysis of the food supply chain.

The obscurity of practices curbs any efforts to resolve the considerable tensions between the various operators, and any attempts to correct the imbalances in order to have fairer distribution. Farmers actually want solutions to the inconsistencies observed by the institutions themselves.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report drafted by Mr Bové certainly touches on one of the most sensitive current issues. The economic crisis has hit farmers’ incomes particularly hard and measures need to be taken to help farms and rural households get back on their feet. However, measures are also required to support their modernisation because modernisation is the only way we can guarantee their competitiveness and a reasonable level of income for them. This is why I would like to express my own view by saying that I believe that the report ought to have dealt with the subject of rural development as well, which is one of the basic solutions to the problems in European farming, especially in the new Member States.

18. Human rights in Iran, in particular, the cases of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani and of Zahra Bahrami (debate)

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, since my colleague, the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission, Catherine Ashton, cannot be here, I shall take the liberty of presenting, in cooperation with her and on behalf of the Commission, the following statements.

The human rights situation in Iran is an issue of great concern. Over the last few months, the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, Catherine Ashton, and her services have, on several occasions, expressed an opinion on the human rights violations in that country.

Many of you have done the same. It is vital that we continue to denounce these inhumane, archaic practices, which, sadly, still exist in Iran.

A European Union declaration, published in June, called on Iran to respect freedom of expression, to respect the right to a fair trial and to stop all discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities, and towards women.

Capital punishment and the rights of minorities have been the subject of many other EU declarations this year. The European Union demands no more of Iran than it does of any other country. We are simply asking for its authorities, by means of both public statements and confidential moves by diplomatic representatives, to honour the commitment they made under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights treaties to respect citizens’ rights.

My colleague, the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, Catherine Ashton, and her official representatives in Brussels and Tehran have paid the utmost attention to the situation of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani.

On 6 July, the High Representative/Vice-President published a statement clearly calling on the Iranian authorities to re-examine the case of Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani and of several other people whose death sentences have been pronounced in flagrant breach of international rules, and this in a country in which capital punishment unfortunately remains legal.

The matter has already been raised with the Iranian authorities through diplomatic channels. The very idea of stoning is so barbaric that we must continue to completely and utterly condemn it and to reaffirm our condemnation in the strongest possible terms until such practices are finally abolished.

The European Union has also raised directly with the Iranian Government the case of Zahra Bahrami, whose arrest is linked to the disturbances that took place during the Ashura celebrations in December 2009. The European Union has stressed the fact that Mrs Bahrami, an Iranian-Dutch citizen, should have a fair, open and transparent trial. As a European citizen, Mrs Bahrami should also be able to have full access to consular and legal assistance. The High Representative will continue to monitor Mrs Bahrami’s case very closely, in cooperation with the European Union’s diplomatic representatives in Tehran.

May I assure you that the European Union and its Member States will continue to condemn human rights violations in Iran for as long as they are still committed, whether through bilateral contacts, public statements or within the framework of multilateral contacts.

  Roberta Angelilli, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, torture, flogging and stoning are aberrant, barbaric, inhumane practices that brutally violate the most fundamental human rights.

There are no better words to comment on such acts of violence than the words of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani herself. I will read from a letter of hers: ‘Often at night,’ Sakineh says, ‘before I go to sleep, I ask myself: how are they going to prepare to throw stones at me, to aim at my face and my hands?’ Then she appeals: ‘Tell everyone that I am afraid of dying; help me stay alive.’

Parliament must heed this cry of despair. Sakineh must not be left alone. She must become our banner, the banner of human rights in Iran. The international community must demand a stay of this summary execution. We need to have the courage to say that we are ready to cut off diplomatic relations, because there can be no compromise on human rights, and silence means consent.

By roundly condemning the execution, we women and men who enjoy freedom must offer strength and encouragement to that part of public opinion in Iran that disagrees with the regime and desperately needs our support and our intransigence. That regime is based on fear, repression and the violation of freedoms and fundamental rights, and we in this House must tell it loud and clear that we all identify with Sakineh.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Madam President, adultery, homosexuality and peaceful participation in demonstrations are three crimes for which three people have been given terrible sentences in Iran. They should not be considered as crimes in Iran – of course, they are not crimes in Europe – because Iran is bound by international instruments protecting human rights that establish that these are not crimes of which people can be convicted and that they certainly cannot be given such terrible sentences as the death penalty, especially when minors are involved.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament therefore firstly condemns the fact that people are deemed to have committed a crime because they have exercised their individual freedom in these ways, and we urgently call for Sakineh Ashtiani and Ebrahim Hamidi not to be executed and for their cases to be completely reviewed. We call for the sentence of stoning to be banned and for Iran to ratify the moratorium on the death sentence promoted by the United Nations. We ask for a United Nations mission to be established to monitor the human rights situation in Iran and for the Council to not only condemn these actions but to extend the travel ban and freezing of assets to individuals and organisations that suppress human rights and fundamental freedoms in Iran.

The S&D Group condemns the systematic repression suffered by activists and human rights defenders in Iran, and we therefore ask the Council and the Commission to put forward additional protection measures for human rights defenders.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, as Europeans, we are particularly moved by the human rights situation in Iran, not only because we consider the EU to be a community of values and believe in a world without the death penalty, but also because today, we are all too aware of the individuals behind the numbers. At least 388 people were executed in Iran in 2009 alone. These individual deaths are meant to deter a generation in their calls for freedom, but in fact, they inspire a multitude more.

In recent weeks, a lively discussion about human rights in Iran erupted in the Netherlands when a Dutch-Iranian citizen was imprisoned. The Iranian Government does not recognise the Dutch citizenship of dual nationals. Therefore, Dutch diplomats have not been able to speak with this person, and neither have her lawyers. The Dutch Government engages with citizens in prisons all over the world regardless of their cases. It is a constitutional obligation to provide for the well-being of its citizens.

This issue matters to all Member States and should be addressed EU-wide in relation to Iran, giving human rights a more prominent position on our agenda. Today, we are talking about people – women and individuals – whose lives are effectively over, even if they are still alive. Zahra and Sakineh are no exception to the thousands of prisoners in Iran who are less known and who may feel as though their voices are not heard. The Iranian Government should realise that tough language, military technology or resilience in times of sanctions will not end the country’s self-isolation or move it forward. Rather, the legitimacy derived from providing for the well-being of citizens earns respect and credibility in the international community. Justice and security are actually two sides of the same coin. There cannot be impunity for people who hang children, who systematically censor and rape, and who stone women.

When addressing Iran, let us revive the human rights dialogue so that the EU sends a strong signal, besides that of the euro and of sanctions, and engages Iran on its most sensitive and our most fundamental point – human rights and fundamental freedoms – and attaches consequences to their abuse.

  Barbara Lochbihler, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, the background to the pending executions of these two women has already been discussed. I would therefore now like to mention briefly that there is also a movement of activists in Iran itself that is working to prevent the stoning and to bring an end to this gruesome practice. Some movement has been made as a result of their actions.

The former head of justice in Iran, Ayatollah Shahroudi, ruled that stonings should end in 2002 and then again in 2008. However, Iranian law allows individual judges to pass judgment as they see fit. In June last year, the committee of the Iranian parliament on legal and judicial matters recommended that the article on stonings be repealed pending revision of the penal code, which is currently being debated in parliament. A draft has been submitted to the Guardian Council and requires the assent of this body. The Guardian Council examines whether the laws are compatible with the constitution and with the precepts of Islam. I cannot say for sure, but apparently, the draft contains no reference to the punishment of stoning. However, the Guardian Council could also bring the article on stoning back into force.

The EU must therefore do everything in its power to bring about a statutory prohibition of stoning, and here it is important to appeal to the responsibility of the Iranian parliament. There remains serious concern regarding the fate of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani. There is no certainty that she will not, in the end, be stoned. She could also be hanged as a result of her alleged involvement in the murder of her husband. Consequently we must call for an end to all executions in Iran, including hers. Moreover, a comprehensive independent legal review of her case must be initiated. This should already have started, and it is quite right that Baroness Ashton has called for precisely this.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, once again, this House finds itself discussing the brutal theocratic regime in Iran. The Iranian authorities mercilessly execute juveniles and young adults who committed crimes as children. Women who commit adultery are condemned under the Sharia law of Hud by stoning or lapidation under the category of so-called crimes of sexual misdemeanours.

Whereas most countries in the world which still impose the death penalty against adults do so exclusively for aggravated murder, Iran’s Islamic interpretation of capital crimes is extremely wide and includes homosexuality and adultery.

Today, I would like to raise the case of Ebrahim Hamidi, an 18-year-old facing execution for sodomy, even though his accuser has admitted to lying. According to supporters, the boy, who was 16 at the time, neither assaulted the other man, nor is he a homosexual – not that it should matter anyway. His lawyer, Mohammed Mostafaei, has had to go into hiding because of an arrest warrant.

I also raise the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, the topic of today’s debate. Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani has been accused of adultery, then corruption and indecency for appearing without a headscarf in a foreign journal, even though it was clearly a case of mistaken identity. To add insult to injury, she is now also accused of complicity in an alleged murder to which she was forced to confess when the case came under international scrutiny and pressure was applied on the Iranian regime.

We should be unswerving in our condemnation of Iran’s appalling human rights record, just as we are of its efforts to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and its determination to destroy the state of Israel and crush all democratic dissent. There is also the case of the dual Dutch-Iranian national, Mrs Bahrami, who was arrested for belonging to a monarchist organisation.

Here in this House tonight, we appeal to the Iranian President to show some clemency, but I have to say I am not very hopeful.

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, a huge wave of protests and concern is building up with regard to freedoms in Iran.

We want to offer our support to all those democrats who want the word justice to mean something. We strongly condemn the arrest and sentencing of Zahra Bahrami. We strongly condemn the arrest and sentencing to death by stoning of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani. We demand their discharge and release. We wish to emphasise the need for all Member States to adhere to the values and principles of secularism, to avoid any confusion between the state and religion resulting in an unacceptable and anti-freedom association of crime with sin.

We wish to reaffirm our support for the abolition of the death penalty in every single country, and so we call on Iran’s judicial authorities to introduce a moratorium on capital punishment, to unequivocally prohibit executions for adultery and to abolish the use of torture, in accordance with international law.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I add my voice to all those that are calling for this barbaric act of stoning for adultery not to be perpetrated and for human rights to be respected – not only for Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, but for all those women and also men who are in the same situation.

I would like to emphasise something that I heard the last speaker just touch on: much of what we are witnessing is the result of degeneracy, religious extremism and the fundamentalist application of Islamic law, which some people, unfortunately, would also like to introduce into our free and democratic Europe.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank this House for having voted almost unanimously to bring forward the debate on this important topic.

The request, which was put forward by me together with Mrs Angelilli and signed by a great many of our fellow Members, was based on the hope of saving a life. Every day for Sakineh could be her last, and we cannot afford to waste any more time. Her sentence must not be carried out, because it is unacceptable.

The request goes even beyond that, however, because this woman’s experience is emblematic of so many other stories of Iranian women, as well as men and young people. Our mobilisation over Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani must be just the start of a new phase in our relations with Iran. The Iranian regime violates fundamental rights, tramples over the freedoms of women in particular and, above all, ignores appeals from the international community.

This House has already adopted resolutions on this issue, including two in the last year alone. The Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy issued two statements in June and July this year. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted several resolutions demanding a moratorium on executions pending the abolition of the death penalty. Just think, Iran now sits on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The Iranian Government’s attitude seems to be saying: ‘If you want to deal with us, you must accept us as we are,’ and we cannot accept that.

The promotion of human rights is one of the pillars of the European Union’s foreign policy and it requires us to make a commitment. The stance we adopt towards this kind of affair may even jeopardise the integration process. All the national governments have mobilised and we must join them.

Young Iranians demonstrating in Italy said, ‘We do not believe we can achieve much; we may save a life, but we will not save Iran.’ By adopting severe sanctions, we must demonstrate that this mobilisation is just the first step and that we will press ahead and have no further relations with Iran, even to the extent of an embargo.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, through this debate – which frankly I was hoping would be rather better attended, because it deserves far greater participation – Parliament is seeking to add its voice to that of so many others around the world who have come out in recent days against the tragic death sentence by stoning for Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, after the appeal by her son Sajad, and to save all the other women sentenced to death or unjustly imprisoned, like Zahra Bahrami, in summary trials in Iran.

In this age of globalisation, it is even more obvious that human rights and women’s rights are inseparable. If a woman dies after being tortured by stoning, our consciences and our freedoms will be stoned with her.

In our resolution, we urge both the European Union’s High Representative, Catherine Ashton, and the Commissioner for Human Rights, Viviane Reding – two powerful women – without further delay, to take all necessary steps with the Iranian Government and in international forums for the death sentence for Sakineh to be rescinded, for Zahra to be released, for the barbaric practice of stoning to be abandoned, and for renewed efforts to be made in the battle to achieve a moratorium on the death sentence and also to support the democratic opposition in Iran.

We, the Italian female Members in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, together with all our fellow Members, are holding a candlelight vigil tomorrow evening here in the courtyard of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We are calling it ‘A light for Sakineh’s life’, and we ask all Members to take part so that darkness does not fall over this tragic, highly symbolic affair and so that the Iranian people and the Iranian opposition are not abandoned.

We are calling for more robust intervention from the Union because we believe that the defence of human rights, here and around the world, is an area where the European Union’s credibility and identity are at stake.

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, which obviously brings us together this evening, and which has mobilised many citizens in Europe, should also provide us with an opportunity to discuss the situation of a number of women.

I am thinking in particular of Zahra Bahrami, who is in the same situation. She is in danger of being executed following a trial that took place in similar conditions, that is to say, that she was subjected to pressure, isolation – total isolation – for several months, violence and torture in order to make confessions that subsequently, of course, are no longer recognised. The accusations are similar: waging war against God. She does not have access to either a lawyer or a defence counsel.

There is also the case mentioned just now of the young man, Ebrahim Hamidi, a minor who also has no lawyer, and the case of Shiva Nazar Ahari, a journalist and human rights defender. Amnesty International considers her a prisoner of conscience, and she is currently locked up in a cage in which she cannot move her arms or legs. She is also threatened with death.

I believe that it is to the credit of our Parliament that it is rallying in support of Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani’s case and of all these situations. We demand the abolition of the death penalty, a moratorium on all these executions, the immediate release of all those who have taken part in peaceful protests and, of course, the release of minors, because many minors are also sentenced to death in that country. We also urgently call for the International Committee of the Red Cross to be allowed to visit the prisoners.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a great many prominent members of civil society, political leaders, academics and representatives of non-governmental organisations and the Catholic Church have come out in favour of the release of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, a 42 year-old Iranian mother sentenced to death by stoning for alleged adultery. That sentence was handed down on the basis of a confession extracted after a punishment of 99 lashes.

The penalty of death by stoning may be considered a form of torture, in that the victim has to be buried so that only her head is left sticking out of the ground. The stones that can be thrown at her have to have sharp points and edges, but not such that they can kill her straight away, and her suffering while dying but still conscious must go on for not less than 20 minutes.

In recent years, hundreds of women of various ages have been stoned to death in Iran for the crime of adultery, and currently, at least 40 more women are in prison awaiting the same fate. In my view, it is absolutely essential for Parliament to speak out against this barbarism.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am addressing you on behalf of my colleague, Mrs Dati, who drafted this resolution on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) but who has, unfortunately, been held up in Paris today.

Mrs Dati wished to table this resolution for two reasons.

The first, of course, is that she wanted the European Parliament to join with the international organisations, governments and figures across the world that have taken a stand to defend Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani to call on the Iranian authorities to overturn her sentence of death by stoning.

An institution such as the European Parliament, which has always been at the forefront of human rights protection, cannot simply remain silent and must intervene in order to forcefully state its refusal to see Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani die. With this resolution, Parliament must say that it is not interference to point out all the universal values that constitute our common heritage.

The second rationale behind this resolution is that, quite apart from the specific case of Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani, Mrs Dati wanted to demonstrate the European Parliament’s strong commitment to combating all forms of violence towards women. It so happens that Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani has, in spite of herself, become a symbol of all these female victims of violence.

Our colleague, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, has also subsequently drawn our attention to the case of Zahra Bahrami, that Dutch national who was arrested in Iran and forced to make televised confessions in order to admit to the accusations made against her. That is why we have included her in this motion for a resolution.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be the voice of these two women, who can no longer defend themselves where they are. On behalf of Mrs Dati, I would simply ask you to vote overwhelmingly in favour, in order to offer your support while, at the same time, sending out a signal to those who impose such sentences.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Sakineh Ashtiani, Ebrahim Hamidi, Nasrin Sotoodeh, Zahra Bahrami and Mohammad Mostafaei are just a handful amongst the thousands of victims of brutal persecution by the regime in Tehran. If they execute Ebrahim Hamidi, a minor, or Sakineh Ashtiani, who is threatened with the barbarity of death by stoning, in addition to being in violation of their country’s obligations as a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the authorities in Tehran will be responsible for heinous crimes that bring shame on the great Iranian civilisation.

A few days ago, I was at a demonstration in Lisbon – one of the many across the world against Sakineh Ashtiani’s conviction – hoping that voices such as that of President Lula da Silva of Brazil would be heard by the authorities in Tehran with whatever is left of their rationality, compassion and humanity.

From the point of view of the European Union’s relations with Iran, Madam President, the most important aspects of the resolution that we will adopt in this Chamber tomorrow are those that relate to the need for all those responsible for repression and the suppression of freedoms in Iran to be banned from travelling within the European Union and have their assets frozen, as well as the demand for the Commission and the Council to take measures to effectively help and protect those who fight for democracy and human rights in Iran. This has to do not just with what Iran is at the moment but also, above all, with what we in Europe are: defenders of the values of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are not just European but universal.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, Sakineh Ashtiani is the face of the executions in Iran, and the symbol of the injustice of the country’s judicial proceedings and its violation of fundamental rights. I wish to add my voice to those of the international solidarity movements that are demanding that the sentence be quashed and Sakineh Ashtiani freed immediately: to demand her freedom is also to fight for equal rights for women, freedom of expression and freedom to actively participate in a free society.

I strongly support anti-discrimination causes and, in particular, the cause of Iranian women; I would stress their role in the struggle for democracy in Iran. The courage and determination of many Iranian women are an inspiration and we must support them in this struggle for democracy and for the future of Iran with peace, freedom and equal rights.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, condemnation of what is going on in Iran is extremely important as it is saving people’s lives, but it is also a signal which reaches the opposition and gives it the strength to act. We have to protect individuals. I think we need to have a detailed debate on what to do to be more effective. We announce various resolutions, hold debates, Mrs Ashton undertakes various measures, but there is no response. If we want to be seen by the world not only as defenders of certain values, if we want to ensure that human rights are not broken, and if we want to be seen not only as noble but also as effective in what we say, we have to have a separate debate on the types of action we should be involved in now and how we can be effective.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I propose stoning Iran. How can one accept this kind of barbaric treatment towards a human being?

Do you know that, during stoning, men are buried waist-high, and women up to their chests, for modesty’s sake probably? The Islamic Penal Code states that the projectiles must be chosen carefully. Average size is the rule. They must be neither too large, so that just one is not enough to kill, nor too small, so that they cannot be called stones. Moreover, the whole process must last a little under half an hour.

Also, what can we make of the reaction by Hani Ramadan, the director of the Islamic Centre of Geneva, who reassures us by saying that it is forbidden to insult the offenders and that prayers are said for them after their death? How cynical!

What can we in Europe do for the alleged criminal, Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani? I propose the right to asylum in Europe for Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani. I do not think that anyone has proposed this so far, and it is something that we could add to the resolution.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, the sentence passed by the Iranian regime against Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani is one of the multiple human rights violations that must be condemned by Parliament.

As her son has announced, she could be executed after Ramadan, which is coming to an end. We do not therefore have much time and our reaction must be strong and emphatic enough to cause the Iranian authorities to respond by not carrying out the sentence.

This week, we shall hold a demonstration outside Parliament calling for her release. We ask all Members to support us in this attempt to prevent a barbaric act from being committed in the 21st century. That is our duty as Members, as citizens and, above all, as human beings. I ask Baroness Ashton, the Council and the Commissioner for Human Rights to be more forceful in condemning the violation of human rights and in demanding that international agreements and conventions be complied with, and to adopt every possible political measure to increase the pressure and ensure that Iran respects human rights.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) I have been fighting against the phenomenon of violence against women for decades, for over twenty years, and in the past ten years as a lawyer involved in human rights and the rights of women. I have also written two books on the subject, so do not be mistaken: I am extremely opposed to all forms of violence against women. However, I would like to call Mrs Ashton’s attention to something different from the issues mentioned by others. I would like to invite her to come to Hungary, and let us finally clarify what types of human rights violations are taking place right here in Europe. They have no right to consistently disrupt the entire daily agenda – I do not know on how many occasions in the past year since I have been here in the European Parliament – to talk about the violation of human rights in Iran while eyes were shot out in Hungary in 2006 and innocent people were incarcerated for long periods of time during show trials, and the European Union did nothing at all. Today in Hungary, one of the opposition leaders has for one and a half …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, defending Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani means defending life, the right to life, and therefore the right to live.

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as all our countries’ constitutions include among their principles the inviolable rights of the individual, with the right to dignity and to life in the first place.

This fight of ours must not be for one individual, but for all human beings who are being deprived of their lives anywhere in the world and for any reason. No rationale, tradition, religion, law or authority can dispose – and I mean dispose – of an individual’s life.

Heartfelt yet decisive action is needed against countries that authorise and carry out the death penalty or any other serious breach of human rights. In this matter, Europe must be decisive, stand firm and impose respect for these rights in its diplomatic and trade relations. Sakineh would not be the first victim. Let us tell them enough is enough.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, firstly, on behalf of the Commission, I should like to thank Parliament for this debate, for the support that has been clearly shown here for respect for human rights.

I can assure you, on behalf of the Commission, that everything possible will be done to ensure that the Iranian authorities come to the negotiating table and that these issues can be clarified during diplomatic discussions.

I can also assure you, on behalf of Baroness Ashton, that we are not limiting ourselves to public statements alone, and, in this connection, I can tell you that a further meeting between the EU Presidency’s local representatives in Iran and the Iranian Government will be held on 29 August. The Commission and the High Representative will continue their efforts to obtain results.

  President. – The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is necessary today because this House, too, is joining the great international effort to halt executions in Iran, particularly the stoning of young Sakineh. Yet, as often happens, debates of this sort are always poised on the razor’s edge, with barely enough time to prevent executions or other cases involving gross violations of human rights. We should instead think of what kind of action we could take to eradicate the causes of human rights violations in the world: causes such as dictatorships, theocracies, Islamic radicalism and totalitarianism. As regards the specific case of Iran, I would like to hope that no one here is under the illusion that the action we take, the action that the European Parliament takes in the sphere of relations with Iran can stop at the resolutions we are voting on, however righteous and however much we may agree with them. It is not tolerable that the theocrats of Tehran and the fanatics who govern that country should come here to this Parliament, as happened a couple of months ago, and lecture us on democracy. The action that we take should provide the impulse for the EU to tackle the issue of relations with Tehran firmly, unambiguously and decisively.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – The crimes Ms Ashtiani is charged with are fictitious and obscure. She has been tortured and coerced during the judicial process. She has been deprived of all legal guarantees. Her lawyer has been harassed by the authorities. This is an outrageous process. She was convicted of adultery in the first place. It is unbelievable that such a case should even be heard! No human power has the right to enter people’s bedrooms as long as their private life is consensual and loving. Human life is not reproducible; each life is valuable in its singularity. It must be cherished and protected, even in criminal procedures. Therefore, the death penalty is, in itself, unacceptable. There is no moral or religious justification for the death penalty. Those who believe that ‘God created man in his own image’ should object to it on the grounds that no man has the right to destroy a likeness of God or take his greatest gift: life. I am delighted that European countries have raised their voices against this brutal prosecution. Ms Ashtiani was whipped two days ago, and her son fears she may be executed after Ramadan. I hope we won’t run out of time.

19. One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

  President. – The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance in accordance with Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, Article 3 of the Treaty of Lisbon gives the European Union responsibility for economic, social and territorial cohesion, and for solidarity between the Member States. That cohesion and, in particular, territorial cohesion, is therefore one of the Union’s main objectives in order to ensure harmonious development and remove regional disparities. The Treaty of Lisbon also mentions supporting the island regions.

I am speaking because the Spanish Government has announced a cut in the subsidy for discounting flights to the Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla for residents. In other words, it intends to cut into discounts for residents. Residents of these regions see air travel as essential. It is not optional, but rather they depend on it as it is their only means of contact with the outside world, and therefore maintaining discounts will ensure that those regions have equal opportunities and can compete.

I ask Parliament to support this territorial cohesion and I trust that it will make the Spanish Government reconsider removing these discounts.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D). – (LV) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we know that it is bad to lie. We know that when someone promises something, but then fails to carry out those promises, that constitutes deceit. Six years ago, when negotiations on Latvia’s accession to the European Union were taking place, the Latvian Government promised the EU Enlargement Commissioner that it would solve the non-citizen problem. To this day, this question has not been resolved. Latvia is long since part of the EU, but 300 000 people in Europe, who live in Latvia, remain without status today. It seems to me that lying at the European level has become fashionable. Perhaps I am mistaken. If I am mistaken, then this problem must be solved. It is very important. Thank you for your attention.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, we have, on many occasions, discussed the problem of Gaza and the economic blockade that is maintained by Israel and the misery it causes, but we do not often have a chance to celebrate some of the good things that are coming out of Gaza.

During the course of the summer, two world records were set by children there. Seven thousand children broke the world record for bouncing basketballs and a similar number of children broke the world record for flying kites. This is all thanks to UNRWA and the summer camp programme they have organised there for young children, giving them something to do in circumstances which are very dire indeed.

I hope the House will congratulate the children on an achievement and be reminded that half the population of Gaza is under 18. They have not voted for anyone. They are not responsible for any of the problems or the conflicts of that area. They are just looking for a normal life and for some hopes and aspirations for the future. I also thank UNRWA and its organisation, together with all the Palestinians who work for it, for making these summer camps possible.

  François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, the international press has given us some encouraging news from the Basque Country. One of the protagonists of the armed conflict, ETA, has just taken a public initiative in favour of a political and peaceful solution. Its statement mentions an end to military action, which goes further than the simple ceasefire reported by the media, and it involves the introduction of international monitoring, in which the European Union must play a full part.

The European Union already made a decisive contribution to the implementation, then consolidation, of the 1998 peace process in Northern Ireland. In the Basque Country, too, the European Union must face up to its responsibilities, which are great, so that today’s renewed hope is not undermined by all the prejudices constantly brought to the fore by conservatives. The European Parliament must ensure that it seizes every possible opportunity to spread peace, at last, in the Basque Country, which is at the very heart of the European Union.

Madam President, I would stress once again that the Basque conflict is taking place at the very heart of the European Union. It is a dangerous blight on democracy, and the Union therefore has everything to gain from actively working towards a peaceful solution.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Madam President, every Member State in the EU faces an age of austerity. Across Europe, radical cuts to public expenditure are being made, yet taxpayers are compelled to fund the increased expenditure of the European Union itself, year after year. We must ask ourselves why this Parliament’s highest priority is not to protect the taxpayers we represent and to reduce the EU’s expenditure.

It is absurd that while spending on law and order and education, and on other vital public services, are cut at home, no such discipline is shown by the EU. The salaries of many public sector workers have been frozen, or even cut – I wonder how much solidarity the Commissioner sitting there will show them. If Member States are cutting expenditure by 20% in real terms over the next five years, we should demand that the EU do the same. This Parliament should demand that the Commission reduce its expenditure and refund the unspent money to the Member States.

IN THE CHAIR: Dagmar ROTH-BEHRENDT
Vice-President

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, the borrowing crisis in the euro area, which has taken my country, Greece, to the International Monetary Fund, at the European Union’s insistence, has highlighted the serious social and democratic deficit in the European Union and, more importantly, in the Treaty of Lisbon.

Thus, apart from the social coups (for example, collective agreements have been cancelled in Greece), we also have political coups, with the elected government in Greece failing to pass decisions because all this has been set out in the memorandum signed with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, the European Parliament failing to pass a resolution approving or rejecting these decisions and all this being decided in presidential decrees.

However, what I wanted to point out is that we also have a political coup at European level, given that neither the people nor the European Parliament have been asked about the financing mechanism created in accordance with Article 122 in order to allow the countries of Europe to borrow.

In other words, there has been a change of institution, which is why I would like you, Madam President, to raise this matter and to see this issue debated in the European Parliament in accordance with Article 218 on the conclusion of international agreements.

  John Bufton (EFD). – Madam President, as an MEP for Wales, it was with great concern that I heard about Commissioner Lewandowski's plan to do away with the British rebate. According to Mr Lewandowski, the rebate is no longer justified as the EU budget has substantially changed and the rebate has lost its original justification.

Mr Lewandowski, you refer to yourself as an honest broker, so please explain to me why the British are constantly being asked to pay more. Where is the honesty here?

As you may be aware, British taxpayers will end up contributing some GBP 10 billion to prop up the euro as part of the International Monetary Fund. In addition, we are asked to financially support Greece, Latvia and Hungary, which are struggling with economic difficulties. It seems Britain will be forced to pay around GBP 23 billion to bolster the euro. What else? How much more will we have to pay? The EU is asking national governments to cut their public spending and yet perversely the EU budget for the next period is increasing. How long will we have to pay for the EU and the euro? What kind of benefit is there to British people for being part of this false Union?

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in Hungary, we celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Second Vienna Award last week. On the basis of this Award, Northern Transylvania was returned to Hungary to somewhat mitigate the unfairness Europe showed Hungary through the Treaty of Trianon following World War I. With this Award, with the Second Vienna Award, Europe acknowledged that the Treaty of Trianon was a bad treaty. Unfortunately, following World War II, Northern Transylvania was once again wrenched from the mother country. The Movement for a Better Hungary trusts that after 70 years, the Hungarian nation will be united again as soon as possible within the European Union, without borders. I call on the European Parliament to be open to the aspirations for autonomy of the Érmellék and Székely Land regions. I opened an office in Székely Land three months ago to hear the complaints of ethnic Hungarians across the border first hand. I call on my fellow Members, I recommend that they open in as many places as possible, in the Basque Country, in South Tirol …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I would like to raise the issue making the headlines at the moment, namely the integration of the Roma community in Europe. Tomorrow, a debate will be held with the Commission and the Council. I hope that it will be productive, that the Commission will assume its role of enforcing European legislation and that the controversy originating in France will not give rise to an endless amount of engineered, populist speeches.

What the Roma people need today is not partisan disputes. They need a real European strategy that proposes lasting solutions to their integration. With this in mind, we must focus on access to education, consider the introduction of appropriate training courses that form an integral part of the 2020 strategy, promote access to healthcare – consultations, treatment, medicines, family planning – and, above all, find solutions designed to integrate the Roma population permanently into the labour market.

Lastly, using the European funds earmarked for this integration will help make it a success. Therefore, we must ensure that the Member States use them wisely.

Let us not miss this opportunity to get to grips with the problem so that we can take an intelligent approach to the integration of the Roma population.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Schengen is a common area promoting the freedom of movement. I believe that Romania fulfils the requirements stipulated for the areas which have been the subject of the relevant assessments performed so far. This situation has been confirmed by all the assessment missions carried out so far, with the assessment procedure due to be completed by the end of this year.

Against this background, I firmly believe that Romania is capable of managing efficiently the flows of migrants at the Schengen area’s external border, according to the standards which are observed by the current Schengen Member States dealing with this issue at the moment.

However, this situation is not linked at all to the movement of European citizens throughout the European Union. As a result, the aim of EU-level coordination must be to improve the situation of the Roma across Europe and not to restrict the rights of citizens. I also find it unacceptable to make any link between the Roma issue and other matters such as Romania’s accession to the Schengen area.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, I wish to condemn the beating of pro-Saharan activists by Moroccan police in El Aaiún on 28 August.

As we quite correctly do for human rights violations in Cuba, Venezuela and Honduras, Israel, China and Morocco must be criticised; once again, we have not done so and our credibility in the world and in Europe is at stake.

While we are talking about fundamental rights, as a European and Basque citizen, I cannot ignore the fact that ETA announced a ceasefire yesterday, but it has not taken the step that we were hoping for. We want this cessation of its activities to be permanent and verifiable by independent third parties. We want to hear ETA renounce violence forever and acknowledge the harm that it has done.

The future of Euskadi lies only in the hands of Basque society and its democratically elected representatives. I ask that we in Parliament demand these minimum requirements of ETA and I will work on the relevant initiatives in order to achieve that.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) During the recess, there was yet another violation of human rights by our partner in the east, i.e. Russia. We noted the kidnappings in Ingushetia and Dagestan, and that demonstrations were not allowed to take place on several occasions. This happened on 31 July, 30 August and 31 August. Some of those arrested were Lev Ponomarev, Sergei Udaltsov, Mikhail Sznaider, Andrei Dmitrev, Aleksandr Gudimov and Andrei Pivarov. On 25 August, during a U2 concert in Moscow, the Amnesty International stand was closed down and destroyed. I think that regrettable incidents of this kind should always form an element of the discussions that all EU institutions have with our eastern partners.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) This summer, not even seasonal work managed to bring unemployment down: according to the latest Eurostat data, in the euro area, average unemployment stands at 10% of the active population, but this figure is in excess of 20% for young people in the European Union.

It is particularly serious that the European Commission, the Council and the national governments are not giving this problem greater priority and are insisting on the restricted application of the Stability and Growth Pact, together with austerity policies; in doing so, they are also dooming the future of a generation of young people. In some countries, such as France, they are even taking action to expel groups of Roma citizens en masse, or return them to their countries; this is promoting racism and xenophobia at the level of the state itself. These attitudes are unacceptable and deserve to be rejected by us; they also make it clear that, in the end, it is just capital and goods that have freedom of movement. A break with these policies is urgently required. It is essential for the European Union to defend human rights and create jobs with rights.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – (PT) In the European Union, unfortunately, several hundred thousand hectares of forest burn every year. Just this year, the area burned in Portugal is in excess of 100 000 hectares. Not even protected areas like Peneda-Gerês escaped: more than 8 000 hectares burned in that national park alone.

These recurrent disasters destroy natural and cultural heritage, lead to irreparable damage to biodiversity, destroy infrastructure, and exacerbate environmental problems. The European Union does not invest in fire prevention. Moreover, many of these fires are the result of desertification and of the lack of policies for the rural sector. I therefore argue that it is time, that it is urgent for the European Union to adopt a forest fire-prevention strategy and to intensify programmes of aid to the rural sector.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Three months have elapsed since László Tőkés became one of the European Parliament’s Vice-Presidents.

Since his controversial election, Mr Tőkés has, unfortunately, confirmed the fears of those who warned of the risks of electing a man who is a staunch advocate of separatism based on ethnic criteria and who sows hatred in an area where new EU Member States are endeavouring to close the wounds of the past and become reconciled in the spirit of a united Europe.

In his new post as Vice-President, Mr Tőkés has regrettably hardened the tone of his extremist, chauvinist messages, going as far as to initiate street actions in support of achieving ethnic territorial autonomy in certain areas in Romania. This move marks a serious attack against the integrity of a European Union Member State.

For this reason, given this attitude which runs contrary to European values and norms, I am calling for László Tőkés’s powers as a Vice-President of the European Parliament to be raised for discussion and revoked.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Madam President, as you may know, last week we finished the negotiations on the financial supervisory package that will be voted on at the next plenary session. I am glad to tell you that we defended to the end the proposal that the President of the European Central Bank automatically become President of the European Systemic Risk Board for the first five years.

In my opinion, this reform is very important. It means that the European Central Bank will be much more implicated in the financial supervision of the European financial markets and institutions. It also means that Mr Trichet, at his periodic hearings in this Parliament, will have to answer questions relating also to financial supervision, and not only to price stability.

As a liberal, I believe more in reform than in revolution. Thanks to this reform, doing business as usual will be more difficult for the financial institutions that have generated this crisis.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) A few days ago in Arouca, Portugal, the entire workforce of a footwear factory was made redundant simply by text message, without further explanation. I am bringing this case here because, unfortunately, it is a flagrant example of the abuse of collective dismissal in Europe. It goes against all European legislation, and is injurious to any shred of good sense, respect and dignity.

There are 8 million people newly jobless in Europe since the crisis began and total unemployment stands at 25 million; how many of these will have been made redundant in a way as shameful as this? I would say increasing numbers, unfortunately. The European Union says that it has a long tradition of safeguarding workers’ rights. Nevertheless, current legislation has not been effective. That being the case, what additional measures will the Commission take? That is why this issue is so relevant. There is no justification for redundancies like those in Arouca. Making people redundant by text message is an innovation, but not a good one: one of the worst, it is safe to say.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, the Anglo Irish Bank has become the rotting corpse of corporate banking. Its recklessness has led to a situation where it has received a bailout of EUR 25 billion, or that is what we were told. It is now predicted to be EUR 35 billion.

The reality is that the Irish Government does not know. It is simply guessing. But what we do know is that it is costing the Irish taxpayer EUR 210 million per week. What we do know is that it has posted losses for the first six months of this year of EUR 8.2 billion, and the situation is getting worse.

The Irish Minister of Finance is in Brussels this week seeking EU permission to continue the bailout. I urge the Commission, and the Competition Commissioner, to tell him as bluntly as possible that the bank should be wound up not in ten years, as the Irish Government wants, but in two or three years. It is an extravagance that we cannot afford.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, right now in Chile, there are 33 miners underground waiting to be rescued. They have the full support of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, as do the miners in the mineshafts and streets of Asturias, El Bierzo, Aragon and Palencia who are demanding the rescue of the European coal industry.

This rescue is in the hands of the European Commission, and when it decides on the viability of the Spanish Royal Decree and the European coal aid regulation, it will be deciding on the livelihoods of 40 000 families in Spain. It will be encouraging or discouraging investment in extraction and clean coal combustion technologies, and it will therefore be deciding on the future of many regions in Europe, including my own region of Asturias, as leaders in the industry, and on the survival of our only indigenous energy source.

The Commission must be aware of the social, economic and strategic consequences of taking a decision against coal, the mining industry and its workers.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, last year, the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries voted against the renewal of the fisheries partnership agreements with Guinea on account of a massacre that had taken place in the capital Conakry. This autumn and in August, we have been preparing for an election in Guinea. It is the first real democratic election since 1958. The EU has, fortunately, sent election observers, and one of our fellow Members is there now and is leading one of the operations that intend to follow the election and check that it is carried out in a democratic manner.

This part of the world needs the EU’s support. In the neighbouring country of Guinea-Bissau, we have been able to observe trading in drugs and other items, the final destination of which de facto is Europe, with the drugs originating from Latin America. The election in Guinea has proven to be so troublesome that the second round has had to be postponed until 19 September on account of widespread election fraud. It is important for us here in Parliament to take note of this and to focus our efforts on supporting the situation in West Africa.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) My speech concerns the referendum held yesterday in the Republic of Moldova where its citizens were invited to say whether they agreed with electing their president directly. This change would have ended the lengthy political deadlock in Chişinău.

Communists in Moldova called for a boycott of the referendum. Unfortunately, their strategy succeeded as the referendum could not be validated due to a low turnout.

The Communists’ opponents, the coalition of democratic parties in Chişinău, must overcome this failure and particularly swallow their pride. I believe they must then help this country to continue its European journey. The elections to be held in November are a crucial political test in terms of bringing Moldova closer to our European Union.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) As you have heard, the Republic of Moldova has been in political deadlock for well over a year. However, we are all aware that it has taken huge steps towards the European Union, given the short period of time it has had available.

Indeed, yesterday’s referendum might have ended the political deadlock in the Republic of Moldova and brought it closer to the European Union. However, this was not to be the case. Nevertheless, I do not think that this marks a victory for the Communists against the Alliance for European Integration, but merely a small obstacle on the Republic of Moldova’s path towards the European Union.

I believe that the Republic of Moldova must continue to be offered support and encouragement because it has fully demonstrated that its destiny lies with Europe.

  Metin Kazak (ALDE). – (BG) Madam President, the protest by the imams and muftis from all 1 200 Muslim boards in Bulgaria, which began in June, is spreading. On Saturday, the Chief Mufti’s Office in Sofia was besieged by security guards sent by the chair of the Supreme Muslim Council, Nedim Gendzhev, who has been imposed by the court against people’s wishes. These guards prevented employees from entering the building days before the holy Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr. The muftis presented 213 000 signatures in support of their legitimate leadership elected in 2009, which the court still refuses to register. This ridiculous situation highlights the state’s gross interference in religious communities’ self-administration based on the ‘divide and rule’ principle.

Muslims in Bulgaria are victims of illegal actions which are violating the rule of law due to the indolence of the judiciary and the government, which is unable to guarantee citizens freedom of association and religion. This is why I am calling for a special investigation to be conducted by the European Commission into the case.

Thank you.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to speak briefly about the EU agencies. I was in Vienna today launching a small paperback on the subject of EU agencies. My research for this book revealed that if you include the executive agencies, the decentralised agencies and the agencies of the Council, we will have more than forty agencies next year. This will cost us EUR 1.7 billion annually and around 7 000 EU officials will be employed in this secret second EU bureaucracy.

This mushrooming and the problems to which it has given rise are now well-known. What is urgently needed is solutions. In my book, I have formulated an eleven point plan for saving EUR 500 million of taxpayers’ money annually. All citizens are invited to obtain a copy from me free of charge via my website.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) The tragic event which played out last Monday in the Devinska Nova Ves district of Bratislava, and which claimed the lives of eight Slovak citizens, has shocked and saddened all of Slovakia. In addition to the lives lost to machine gun fire, a further 15 people were wounded. According to investigations so far, the motive for the shooting was bad relationships between neighbours, which most probably inflamed an unstable individual to commit this appalling deed. It was not racially motivated, however, as only one of the eight victims was of Roma origin.

The authorities responded quickly, the intervention of the specialised police unit was adequate, and the government is now closely monitoring the investigation of this brutal act and, through its policy, will support steps leading to greater security for citizens and the protection of their rights. Special attention will be paid to so-called high-risk areas and to reassessment. I only wanted to add, Madam President, that the Slovak Republic has honoured the memory of the victims with a day of national mourning.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Madam President, as Member States slash public spending, I want to stress the role the EU can play in helping us achieve economic recovery.

The EU has many important funds at its disposal, including FP7, rural development plan funding and the Structural Funds.

A recent example of how these funds are being put to good use is the announcement today of a GBP 107 million distributor road in Port Talbot in Wales. Over GBP 50 million of this funding comes from the ERDF. This important project will open up a whole new area of the town for future regeneration and I want particularly to congratulate Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and, of course, the Welsh Assembly.

We need to ensure that this type of funding continues through 2011 and into the new financial perspective, post-2013.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, security of energy supply is a very important part of the 2020 strategy. Indeed, without it, it is hard to see how any of the targets can be met.

Obviously, countries will be hoping to achieve the renewable targets as set out in this agenda, but even if they do, we will still be dependent on third country supplies. At the moment, most countries have unilateral arrangements. It is time to have a multilateral arrangement. This is facilitated under Article 194 of the Lisbon Treaty.

I would hope that we could reach a situation where, in the same way that we have a common agricultural policy and a common fisheries policy, we also have a common energy policy, especially in dealing with third countries – firstly to ensure security of supply, and secondly, to ensure that countries like Russia cannot exploit their advantage as they have done over the last year or two.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – (RO) Diet has a strong impact on our physical and mental development, as well as on our long-term health.

An unhealthy diet is a determining factor in the case of illnesses such as diabetes, cancer and heart conditions. This is why it is important that adequate nutritional education is available not only for adults, but especially for children. In fact, it is primarily schools which can play a key role in educating about a healthy diet.

I would also like to draw your attention to and sound the alarm on the adverse effects resulting from associating toys with junk food.

With this in mind, we must ensure that the European Commission will give the promptest possible attention to our children’s nutritional education and health.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, all of us have highlighted the need for investment in education and in the knowledge society and we have used every possible means to do so. At the same time, however, we need to register and condemn the poor texts in circulation in every country in Europe.

Let me give you an example from Greece: in Greece, students have to pass higher education entrance examinations. The pass mark previously adopted by the Greek Government was 10; in other words, students had to obtain 10 out of 20 in order to be able to enrol for higher education.

The Greek Government recently abolished this pass mark, for incomprehensible reasons. As a result, students can now obtain a place in Greek higher education with a grade of 0.91 out of 20. If nothing else, this needs to be changed. We must all condemn such moves to promote higher education throughout Europe.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) The good news is that the economic situation of the Central and Eastern European region also shows better results. We also see that although the economic prospects of Hungary have improved, the international evaluation of the country’s economic situation has somewhat deteriorated. Therefore, short-term interest rates cannot be expected to decrease in the next six months. This devaluates foreign currency loans contracted by approximately 1.5 million Hungarians and places these citizens in a position where they may face eviction. We respectfully call on the European administration to make every effort to ensure that trust in Hungary is restored and the trust of international investors strengthens the Hungarian forint. This has an enormous significance before the onset of winter for 1.5 million people struggling with foreign currency debts.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, La Macarena is not only a lively dance; it is also the name of a small town in the heart of Colombia that has achieved a sad notoriety. In 2009, local farmers there complained of contaminated water. La Macarena’s gravedigger now claims to have buried around 2 000 anonymous bodies.

Coordinated by the organisation Justice for Colombia, a delegation of politicians and trade unionists attended a hearing in La Macarena. Many of those participating marched for days through the jungle to tell their own personal stories of relatives who had been raped and threatened and who had finally disappeared. The organisers told us two days later that they had received death threats. We have seen the mass grave, which is guarded by soldiers who are themselves under suspicion of having been involved in the killings.

There is no country in the world in which more people forcibly disappear than in Colombia. Ninety percent of acts of violence go unpunished. The prompt conclusion of an EU Free Trade Agreement would only reward systematic human rights abuses in Colombia.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, a debate has just taken place, but I would like once again to call attention to the situation of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, who has been sentenced to death by the Iranian Government and who is threatened each day with execution by the utterly barbaric ritual of stoning.

Last weekend, she was sentenced to an additional 99 lashes for the publication in a British newspaper of a photograph of a woman with her head uncovered. However, the photograph was of a different woman, and the newspaper’s apologies have done nothing to change this new sentence. A large solidarity movement has come together to save Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani and to denounce these despicable practices.

What country, in the 21st century, can write in black and white in its penal code the size of the stones that should be thrown at a convicted prisoner in order to kill them? Iran is that country.

Only the involvement of the international and political community has been able to prevent stoning over the last few years, and it alone will be able to make the Iranian Government give way. We have a duty, as politicians, as citizens, as human beings, to prevent what is nothing less than a murder. I therefore call for the European Union to take action to save Mrs Mohammadi-Ashtiani.

  President. – The debate is closed.

20. Funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Portas, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2010/2072(INI)) (A7-0236/2010).

  Miguel Portas, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, the report that I am presenting is the result of a compromise between groups with very different viewpoints on employment policy and unemployment protection. I would therefore like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Budgets, for the cooperativeness they have shown towards reaching an agreement that can be useful to the victims of collective redundancies in the European Union.

This agreement is based on two premises: the first is that the social effects of the crisis will continue to be felt, even in the event of an economic recovery, which is far from guaranteed. Collective redundancies are therefore not a thing of the past and, unfortunately, they will continue to have an impact on the social lives of our countries. For this reason, the first choice is simple: do we or do we not wish to extend until 2020 the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which is the only instrument that Europe devotes to people affected by collective redundancy? This report’s answer is clear: yes, we want to send a strong message to the unemployed; yes, we think that they must be supported through programmes for reskilling and reintegration into employment; and yes, we think they deserve another chance and that we, the politicians in charge, owe them that.

The second premise is that there were many failings in the way that this fund functioned when it started out, but the changes introduced to its regulation have significantly increased the number of applications to make use of it. It is still too early to go ahead with an evaluation, but we can indicate and identify the main problem. From the time of the collective redundancy, it takes between 12 and 17 months for the money to arrive in the countries, and in some cases much more. We have a fund to respond to urgent social needs and it moves at a snail’s pace. It is the social consequences that concern me: because of this slowness, many workers end up not benefiting from the fund; moreover, it discourages the preparation of applications in the regions and countries with the greatest need.

Governments then do not implement the applications until they have been approved in Brussels, because that would force them to take the initiative with the national component of the financing at a time of budgetary austerity. That is why the report proposes a series of short-term measures to cut the delay by 50% and why it is being proposed to make the fund permanent from 2013.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the Member States that have been benefiting most from the fund are resisting its simplification: they fear that speeding it up will end up requiring more and more money. Let us be frank: this risk exists, whether the fund is slow or fast. The risk of a long period of mediocre growth exists because it depends on what impact austerity policies will have on the recovery of our economies.

However, we are talking about something else today: Europe’s attitude towards collective redundancies and whether we are sacrificing their victims at the altar of budgetary restrictions or are at least able to give these people at least as much attention as we gave to the financial system, which our taxes saved.

This report’s decision is born from ethics, from how we see our fellow human beings and from how we see Europe. I want a Europe that is unequivocally social.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) I would like to state a few facts about the funding and operation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

Nine Member States, including Romania, which is in a more vulnerable position with regard to the effects of globalisation, have not accessed this fund so far. One of the reasons for this is the restrictive nature of the eligibility criteria, even after they were reviewed in 2009.

The EGF is a useful instrument as long as it is flexible. However, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the responsible Romanian authorities have still not adopted the legislative framework required to access the EGF. All this is happening at a time when, during the last two years, Romania has seen a steady rise in the number of unemployed, while it announced this summer the highest number of restructuring activities throughout the EU.

I believe that access to the EGF along with better absorption of the structural and pre-accession funds could have softened the impact of the economic crisis in Romania.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Thank you, Madam President, for giving me the opportunity to briefly make a contribution. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is vitally important and should be supported and protected. The needs of working people who find themselves thrown out of work through no fault of their own require support.

I was recently contacted by a constituent who was interested in this particular fund, and it is a reflection on the new government in the United Kingdom that the Conservative-Liberal coalition is calling for an end to the fund. This reckless approach to a fund which actually helps working people is something that I hope they will go back and take another look at. The need for us to support and protect, and also to make adjustments where necessary, is vitally important.

I support this fund. I want to see it protected and supported, and I would also like to make sure that it is used in the most appropriate manner.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, first, I should like to thank Mr Portas for his work. Being involved in my constituency in two areas where the European Globalisation Fund has been applied, I must say that by and large, this is a very positive development. The Commission very kindly came over and explained it to the workers at Waterford Crystal. One of them described it as a gift from the European Union, and that is the way it was intended to be.

However, the application of the Fund has somewhat let people down in terms of their expectations. This is partly due to the state agencies, one of which – FÁS – is well known to the Commission, as in the past, it has appeared before the Commission for the misapplication of funds. This has undermined their position with the workers.

But we also tend to be too inflexible, particularly when people are trying to start their own business, and also on the matter of the time we give the fund. The start date is the date of application, when it should be the date on which funding is granted. Things like that need to be addressed. I hope the situation can be made more flexible.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the debates within the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Budgets have paved the way for a well-conceived draft report.

I welcome the contribution it makes to the discussion of the future of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. It addresses, for example, the necessary participation of the social partners in the compiling of dossiers and the attention that must be paid to the integration of SMEs acting as subcontractors at large sites in which redundancies are made.

Furthermore, I think that the option of an independent fund with its own payment and commitment appropriations should be seriously considered for the future. It is simply a matter of providing social Europe, which we so very much want, with adequate resources.

Some people will not hear of this, and so a split vote has been requested in order to delete this passage. It would be very detrimental to the debate if the report failed to mention all the possibilities for improving the financing of these funds. Ladies and gentlemen, I therefore appeal to your desire to continue to improve this tool without rejecting any possibility out of hand, by voting in favour of the whole of paragraph 16 on this issue.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, there are three further issues that I would stress here. The first refers to the prevention measures that must be taken to prevent multinationals from relocating, fight unemployment and increase levels of employment with rights. The second refers to the application of this fund, which must not, at any time, serve as a pretext or somehow provide cover for or facilitate redundancies motivated by company restructuring or the relocation of multinationals. The third refers to the need to increase EU cofinancing from 65% to at least 80% in order to make the fund available to the Member States with the greatest financial difficulties, so that the unemployed in the greatest need are rapidly and effectively supported, which has not been happening and is not happening now.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, on behalf of the Commission, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Portas, on the excellent work he has done in drafting this very comprehensive report and on his cooperation with the rapporteurs from the other committees tasked with issuing opinions.

This report is very timely, since it can easily be integrated into the work that the Commission is currently undertaking in order to meet two deadlines. Firstly, the so-called crisis derogation by which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) can provide support to workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis and can grant cofinancing at the rate of 65% expires at the end of 2011. We must examine whether it is necessary to extend that derogation or to revert to a 50% cofinancing rate for trade-related redundancies.

The second deadline is the end of 2013, the date when the EGF Regulation will have to be reviewed. In this respect, one of the key issues will be to decide whether or not this fund should be integrated into the next multiannual financial framework.

We are pleased to note that Mr Portas’s report supports the reasons behind the creation of this fund and that it stresses the need to keep this instrument. This report proposes, in fact, that a permanent instrument should be one of the options envisaged for the future and calls on the Commission to present a proposal along those lines.

Mr Portas proposes that the mid-term evaluation scheduled for 2011 should be brought forward and completed by 30 June 2011. This presents a problem with regard to the amended EGF Regulation, since the reports on the first cases approved after the adoption of the amended regulation will be available only in early November 2011. Of course, we do have a previous final report that we can use to review those criteria in the regulation that have not been amended, such as the success rate of the actions falling within the scope of the fund, a comparative analysis of these measures, the procedures for consulting the social partners, and an analysis of the impact of the fund on its beneficiaries.

The report notes that, to date, implementation has been rather modest. A financial contribution has been approved for only 27 cases, and very few sectors are represented. Nine Member States have failed to submit an application. Only EUR 80 million of the EUR 1.5 billion available have been used. In the case of the first 11 applications, the Commission has requested the reimbursement of nearly 40% of the amounts granted.

I should like to highlight, in line with the report, that these figures concern only those applications approved under the initial regulation and that, as the report rightly notes, the amendment of the regulation has led to a considerable increase in the number of applications for aid from this fund, in terms of targeted workers and budget.

The report rightly calls for improvements concerning, in particular, a reduction in the length of time between redundancies and the date when contributions from the fund are paid. The Commission is determined to speed up and simplify these procedures, but some of these improvements will require a greater degree of organisation on the part of all those involved: the Commission, the Member States and the budgetary authority.

Close coordination between the Commission and the European Parliament, in particular, with regard to timetabling issues, should enable us to reduce some of these delays. The Member States should be encouraged to submit applications as soon as redundancies are announced. The Commission, for its part, should provide more information and advice to the Member States and should set itself a three- to four-month deadline for its own evaluation.

We note the request for a proposal to be drafted to extend the crisis derogation until the end of the multiannual financial framework. I agree that, for the period after 2013, the EGF issue should be examined within the overall context of the negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework and that the creation of a permanent fund should be among the options to be considered.

The report is full of ideas and suggestions, and it will make a useful contribution to the drafting of the new regulation. The Commission has also scheduled a series of consultation meetings with the Member States and other stakeholders. I am sure that the rapporteur, and the other MEPs too, will contribute to these consultations, since the aim is to improve the fund and to make it even more effective in the future as an instrument that testifies to European solidarity towards workers who have been made redundant.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 at 12:30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I support this report on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) because I totally agree with the idea advocated by the rapporteur of quicker mobilisation of this fund. The EGF was created as a means of countering the adverse impact of globalisation on workers affected by collective redundancies, helping them to find new jobs by supporting personalised programmes to reintegrate redundant workers into the labour market. The EGF has a maximum annual amount of EUR 500 million, which has never been fully taken up by the Member States. Currently, 12 to 17 months still elapse between the time when a collective redundancy takes place and the time when EGF funding is provided to the requesting Member State. With the rapporteur’s proposals to make the procedure simpler and more flexible, we could reduce the time required to mobilise the EGF by half. In order to respond to the increase in unemployment resulting from the economic and financial crisis, it is essential for the EGF to become a permanent support instrument that is truly flexible and specific. That is the only way that the EGF can serve to promote new skills for new, sustainable, high quality jobs, thus helping to improve the competitiveness of the EU in the context of globalisation.

  Giovanni Collino (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Globalisation represents a major opportunity for us and our children, but at the same time, it frightens us by creating forms of wealth distribution that are more difficult to control and manage fairly.

Going beyond our borders and risking our identities means that we need to build more solid cultures in which mutual respect and sincere understanding can continue to flourish. Among the first things that deserve our understanding must be the interests of those families who suddenly find themselves with no income as a result of the increasingly difficult economic situation.

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund must be a solution for these families, as well as being an efficient instrument for the future economic development of the Union. In the middle of an economic crisis, we cannot allow our implementing measures to be too inflexible, as that would inevitably hurt our citizens rather than our policies.

The very fact that today, we still have a large number of dead projects that have been put forward but never implemented should lead us to think about the extent to which our programmes and permanent funds can be enough by themselves, and therefore seriously consider the value of placing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund alongside the European Social Fund as a stable instrument for European intervention in the employment field.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – The EGAF is a necessary tool to counter the trend of EU citizens losing their jobs due to globalisation and the financial crisis. I further support the view that the fund in its current form has still room for improvement. Although progress has been made since its inception to speed up and simplify the application procedure, I think that the severity of the financial crisis demands that we do more to optimise its functioning in order to achieve the goals for which it was created. Those who are truly in need of these funds should be able to get them in a timely manner to minimise the many negative effects of long-term unemployment. Thus, I urge the Commission to look into the possibility of allowing the application procedure to start as soon as plans for redundancies are announced, as opposed to when they are in effect, as it is currently. I would like however, to know more details about the implementation of the programme and especially its long-term effects. A priori the programme demonstrates the fund’s benefits versus costs; therefore, I support the proposal to make the EGAF an independent fund with its own payment and commitment appropriations under the new MFF.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by congratulating the rapporteur, Miguel Portas, on his report and Pervenche Berès on her important input on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. The continuing economic crisis and its very unfortunate consequences have thrown the added value of the EGF as an EU social policy tool into even greater relief. The targeted financial support which it provides under re-training and re-integration programmes for workers hit by mass redundancies are especially important. That is why, as the report says, the provisional changes extending the scope of the EGF, which were introduced in 2009 and expire in 2011, need to be maintained until 2013. Let us not forget that these changes allowed a real expression of solidarity with workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. However, an extensive evaluation of the European Globalisation Fund is also needed; this will provide a basis for the submission and examination of specific proposals to simplify it, so that it functions more quickly and more effectively.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The procedure still takes between 12 and 17 months before European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) funding is provided. This time could be reduced if the Member States acted as soon as there was an indication of collective redundancies. The Member States are called on to find and also to exploit all possible synergies in order to enable faster and more effective intervention at European level through the EGF in the event of collective redundancies. The Commission is called on to improve the information about, and the visibility of, the EGF among the Member States and the potential beneficiaries of the fund. In the interim report that the Commission presents to Parliament, the Commission is called on to include, among other things, the rate of success in reintegration, assessment of the upgrading of the skills of the beneficiaries and an analysis of coordination between the various European-financed programmes. The draft budget for 2011 includes payment appropriations for the EGF for the first time. EFG applications should not be financed exclusively through transfers from European Structural Fund lines; different budget lines are to be identified for this purpose. I would like to expressly emphasise that the EGF must not, under any circumstances, be seen as a back-up for the multinational companies, but should be used exclusively to support workers affected by collective redundancies.

21. Interconnection of business registers (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Lechner, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the interconnection of business registers (COM(2009)0614 – 2010/2055(INI)) (A7-0218/2010).

  Kurt Lechner, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the importance of business registers, trade registers or commercial registers – as they are also known – is evident from the large number of directives on companies that have dealt with this issue, the earliest dating back to 1968, and which have already brought about very worthwhile improvements.

A major change took place in 2003, when it was stipulated that such registers must be kept electronically with a view to bringing about substantial improvements in cross-border access. The registers are still kept at a national level, and only information that is permitted nationally to be entered in the register and for which there is competence at national level is recorded. We have no plans to change that.

There is no real need to emphasise the fact that cross-border access to register entries is important and could be improved; that much is obvious. The problems lie in two areas. Firstly, cross-border access for citizens needs to be improved, and that means citizens in its widest sense; in other words, anyone who is interested – whether he or she is a lawyer, a notary, a tax adviser, a trade union member, a worker, or anyone else.

The second issue is that interoperability – cooperation between the registers – needs to be improved. This applies, in particular, to cases in which an enterprise has its headquarters registered in one country and a branch registered in another country. In these cases, it can often take too long for entries relating to the headquarters to be copied into the register of the country in which it has its branch, and moreover, this is often not done quite correctly. This process might perhaps be automated.

The Commission’s efforts are to be welcomed and supported without qualification. Costs will be cut, time will be saved and the internal market will be advanced further. There are a few points on which I should like to comment. Firstly, information from a business register is not necessarily comparable with information that is otherwise accessible. It has, after all, a legal status, and this legal status varies from one Member State to another. This must be pointed out to users, so that they do not assume that register entries in another Member State can be used in the same way as those in their own country.

Nevertheless, it would be possible to simplify the formats used into standard formats, to establish a uniform access portal, and to improve the terminology used so that entries can be made available in several or even all the official languages. There have already been a number of such initiatives, the European Business Register (EBR) and Business Register Interoperability Throughout Europe (BRITE) to name but two; and there is general agreement among Members that cooperation in this area should be taken further. The drawbacks with these registers are firstly, that entries are made only on a voluntary basis, secondly, that not all Member States participate in them, and thirdly, that they are, in part, still at the trial stage.

Neither I nor Parliament has the technical expertise required, nor is it our job to have it. The vast majority of Members agree that this project should be advanced within the framework of these initiatives. This can only be truly successful if everyone takes part in it. We do not want to push for legislative proposals on this just yet. If everyone takes part on a voluntary basis and it works, then there will be no need for legislation. The aim in any case is for the whole thing to be advanced when this is technically and objectively appropriate, and for all the Member States to participate.

I would like to close by thanking those who worked on this with me and the committees that were consulted. I assume that this project will receive broad support and be voted through.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I regard the fact that the commercial registers are not interconnected to be a failure of the coordinating role of the Commission. Indeed, the Member States have already been required for three years to maintain commercial registers in electronic form. Nineteen states, including the last new state, the Czech Republic, are sharing their data within the framework of the European Commercial Register Project. Of course, the quality and corresponding value of data vary greatly. In many places, legal responsibility and the veracity of data are not specified, or only regional commercial registers exist instead of national ones.

I support the rapporteur and call on the Commission to devote proper attention to this. And also, that the appropriate assistance, including financial assistance, be granted to the remaining eight states which, with the exception of Portugal, consist solely of new members. Cross-border access to registers is important not only for creditors, business partners and consumers, but also for the enhancement of legal certainty and transparency in public procurement.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lechner, for such good cooperation. We were able to reach practicable compromises.

Very briefly, my group feels that the most important points are as follows: firstly, the mandatory participation of all the Member States, as mentioned previously; secondly, public access via a single official access portal; thirdly, the aspect of consumer protection – in other words, that the information is reliable and up-to-date. It is also particularly important for consumers to be informed here of the legal implications. Finally, the system must be user-friendly. It is up to the Commission to specify how this is to be achieved in technical terms.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Given that there are more than 20 million companies in the EU-27, 99% of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, I believe that interconnecting business registers is necessary to ensure the internal market’s efficient operation.

Since 1 January 2007, it has been mandatory for information contained in business registers to be stored electronically and accessible online in every Member State. However, register standards differ and stakeholders are faced with different languages, search conditions and structures.

This is why I believe that all Member States must participate in projects such as the Business Register Interoperability Throughout Europe and European Business Register projects. All Member States already participate in the Internal Market Information System.

Facilitating electronic access to information about commercial companies could generate possible annual savings of more than EUR 160 million. However, these savings could be even bigger if the e-Invoice initiative was implemented and became available via a single information access point.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) In view of the advantages offered by the single market, the increasing growth of cross-border trade opportunities and legal certainty, it is essential to harmonise the data contained in business registers and the method for obtaining and processing such data. If we manage to secure an effective interconnection of business registers, we will facilitate not only the administration of relationships and the acquisition of information for the parties involved, but we will also strengthen their position with regard to the need for transparency in commercial and legal relationships, as well as legal certainty.

For this reason, I consider it essential to harmonise the system of data provided in business registers in all Member States. Such an approach would ensure substantially greater transparency, and would be useful not only in terms of the relationships mentioned earlier, but also perhaps in preventing the occurrence of many adverse effects, for example, when changing the registered offices of businesses and other entities and setting up branches in other Member States, or in cross-border mergers and acquisitions.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the interconnection of business registers is a project that helps to make economic operators more transparent, to restore confidence and to promote access for SMEs to the single market. I congratulate Mr Lechner and the Committee on Legal Affairs on this report.

Our views are very much the same. The Commission will present by the beginning of 2011 at the latest some legislative proposals that will no doubt reflect your conclusions.

The financial and economic crisis has highlighted the importance of transparency on the financial markets and beyond. If citizens are to have confidence, they must have access to reliable and up-to-date official information on businesses. Business registers play a crucial role in this regard by recording company-related information and making it available to the public.

However, while it is easy to access this information in those Member States in which a company is registered, it is often very difficult, for technical or linguistic reasons, to access the same information from another Member State. The interconnection of business registers will therefore provide small and medium-sized enterprises, consumers and employees with an additional and necessary information tool.

I would now like to make a few comments about certain aspects of Mr Lechner’s report. I note your concern with regard to the additional administrative burdens that could possibly result from the interconnection of these registers. I can assure you right now that we have no plans to impose new costs, be they direct or indirect, on businesses.

I also share your desire to make the participation of all Member States in the cooperation mechanism mandatory. Indeed, such a mechanism will make sense only if it is supported by all the Member States.

As regards cooperation in connection with the regular updating of data in respect of foreign branches, the Commission intends to present a legislative proposal on such a mechanism in which the Member States will be obliged to participate. This is undoubtedly a missing link in the internal market.

You also recommend introducing a single information access point. We share the objective of making the information provided by national registers accessible. Consumers, employees, small and medium-sized enterprises, but also the national authorities of the other Member States, must be able to access these services unhindered.

Still on the subject of accessibility, we want to offer information in all the official languages of the European Union. This is a prerequisite for achieving our objective of bringing the internal market closer to the citizens.

Furthermore, users of the registers must be clearly informed of the scope and the various consequences of the national information contained in the register, which can vary considerably from one country to the next. As for the quality of the information, it is clear that the information provided as part of the interconnection must be reliable, up to date and accessible. This is a strong message on your part, and it has been duly received by the Commission.

Lastly, I can assure you that any initiative by the Commission will respect the protection of personal or commercial data.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Lechner report clearly demonstrates the level of Parliament’s commitment to help interconnect business registers more effectively for the benefit of consumers, businesses and their employees. This project will strengthen the internal market. The Commission welcomes this and looks forward to the adoption of the report in plenary.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 at 12:30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Interconnecting business registers is an essential prerequisite for promoting integration of the economic area within the EU and for improving legal certainty for businesses and consumers. Mr Lechner’s report picks out very clearly what are the priority measures that are indispensable for making the law more certain and for making cross-border economic transactions more transparent. Firstly, it is vital that interconnecting registers and access to data take place in a single framework. To this end, it will be necessary to strengthen and develop the potential offered by the BRITE interconnection project in order that a single portal can be established through which all our citizens can obtain information on European businesses. Secondly, it will be vital that it is adopted with a view to making integration of business registers compulsory for all Member States, so that all states take part as soon as possible. This is because the success of any project that aims to achieve a harmonious development of the internal market requires the participation of all interested parties so that it can be made compulsory as soon as the technical standards have been fully developed.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Interconnecting Member States’ business registers marks progress towards simplifying the business environment and lightening the administrative burdens on entrepreneurs. It is also a useful instrument which will lead to cooperation and the exchange of information or even to the creation of a common pan-European database and a single access point. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to mention that, in spite of the positive impact that this own-initiative report will have, which is to reduce costs, I believe that translating the information into all the official EU languages offers a solution whose cost far outweighs the benefits. I think that we must swallow our national pride about each Member State’s own language and promote only one or a maximum of two languages which are really widely spoken (English and French) as languages to be used in various administrative procedures, such as the one which is the subject of this report.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report on the interconnection of commercial registers is a reaction to the conclusions of the Council of 25 and 26 May 2010. This is an initiative which is part of a complex approach of the EU in the area of consumer protection. I believe that every initiative that leads to a transparent approach to information about commercial companies operating on the territory of the European Union deserves support. I would like to stress that I particularly support the Commission’s call for the creation of a single point of access to information from commercial registers, and especially the involvement of all EU Member States. Only in that way is it possible to achieve real and clear room for the protection of the citizen as a consumer, as well as legal certainty in the internal market of the Union as a whole.

22. Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Zwiefka, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the implementation and revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (COM(2009)0174 – 2009/2140(INI)) (A7-0219/2010).

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, rapporteur. – (PL) Madam President, the Brussels 1 Regulation describes specific provisions regulating court jurisdiction in civil and business matters and the recognition and enforcement of judgments by other Member States. It has been hailed, rightly, as a great success. It has facilitated the free movement of judgments; it has increased legal certainty and has made it possible to avoid simultaneous proceedings, although in certain circles, it has been criticised for being impracticable or anti-business. The judgments of the Court of Justice are also seen as inconsistent. Whilst the Brussels I Regulation was being approved, only one consultation took place in Parliament. Now Parliament will be busy with all future proposals concerning amendments to the regulation, according to normal legislative procedure, so it is a good thing that we are already working on the Commission’s Green Paper. Matters raised in the Green Paper include the possible abolition of the exequatur procedure, the functioning of the regulation in the wider international order, the functioning of the clauses relating to selection of courts, the functioning of the regulation in cases involving industrial and intellectual property and the possible reform of the lispendens procedure. I have tried to write a measured, future-facing report. I was touched by the reaction to two working documents in which I supported the concept of abolition of the exequatur procedure, which should bring concrete benefits to the citizens of the European Union. At the same time, I remain convinced that this step must be compensated for with a special procedure linked to appropriate safeguards for debtors. Independently of abolishing the exequatur procedure, I am convinced that government acts should not be implemented directly in the originating state without being inspected by the appropriate legal authorities of that state; and, furthermore, the principle that the enforcement clause may be rejected or amended only in cases where the ruling is not consistent with the public policy of the state which granted the enforcement clause should be changed. In certain circumstances, the government act may not conform to previous court rulings in the originating state.

I continue to be opposed to the abolition of arbitration within the scope of the regulation. However, I do believe that we should thoroughly rethink the connection between arbitration and court proceedings and that until we carry out a full review and wide-ranging consultations, we should not seek to realise a concept of basic protection of arbitral jurisdiction. In the future, I find the concept of granting full feedback on provisions of the regulation very attractive. It is currently too early for this, however. I urge wide-ranging consultation and political debate before any action is taken in this matter which goes beyond the suggestions presented in the draft report. I also support the idea of renewing negotiations on conventions relating to international judgments at the forum of the Hague conference. The report does touch on some very complex problems in the field of private international law. In spite of the fact that the question of libel has not been addressed in the Commission’s Green Paper, the problem of forum shopping, choosing the most beneficial jurisdiction in order to obtain the greatest amount of damages in libel cases, certainly does exist. The freedom of the word and the media must remain in balance with the rights of the individual who has been libelled, or whose right to privacy has been breached. As a result, I am against the exclusion of the question of libel from the general principles of the Brussels 1 Regulation. Of course, I am considering whether an instrument such as Brussels 1 is an appropriate instrument for regulating the principles of private international law. Maybe another legal instrument is necessary to regulate the conflict between the freedom of the media and basic individual rights. The Brussels 1 Regulation has not been brought into being to assess the quality of court judgments in Member States. The European Court of Justice, in its Lugano opinion, clearly stated that the Brussels 1 legal instrument was based on mutual trust.

I would like to thank my colleagues from the Committee on Legal Affairs, in particular, Mrs Diana Wallis and Mrs Evelyn Regner.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Brussels I is a very good regulation. It could be improved not only by the prudent abolition of exequatur, but genuine improvements could also be made on the grounds of worker and consumer protection. I therefore find it very regrettable that it was not possible to reach a compromise with Mr Zwiefka on this. Brussels I states that the weaker party can be placed in a better position than that set out in Brussels I as a result of regulations on competence that are more favourable to it than the general ruling.

Accordingly, it would be appropriate – in order to prevent forum shopping or law shopping – to introduce a separate legal venue for labour disputes. This is particularly important if we are to prevent in future cases such as the Viking case, which created quite a stir. Unfortunately I have no more time to address other topics.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE). – Madam President, this report is very important, yet very technical. Standardisation of private international law relationships represents the key point of the consolidation of the full single market, and the abolition of exequatur will surely be received with great enthusiasm both by the business community and by legal practitioners.

The cost of contract drafting will be lower, and the same will happen with debt recovery costs following lawsuits brought before Member State courts. Nevertheless, I hereby express regret that the effects of this report do not also extend to authenticated acts. I hope that this omission will be rectified, given the fact that such acts, if they are issued by notaries public empowered by the courts, are treated in all Member States – except the UK – in the same way as court decisions.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) In the field of international civil proceedings, the sensible functioning of the internal market is frustrated by certain differences in national rules regulating jurisdiction and the recognition of decisions. The eight-year existence of the Brussels I Regulation has shown the importance of and the need for such a measure which, together with the Brussels II Regulation, creates a comprehensive European measure in the area of civil and commercial procedural relationships.

From the moment this instrument came into being, disputes arising in relationships with an international dimension have had unified procedural rules applying to the jurisdiction, recognition and implementation of court decisions in the European Union.

The parties involved have therefore gained greater legal certainty, despite differing substantive law measures. Personally, I consider this to be one of the most important and most widely-used instruments in international private law, and I hope that use of the instrument will continue to be supported, that it will constantly evolve, and that it will also prove necessary for the decision-making work of the courts.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, we welcome Parliament's initiative to express its opinion on the future revision of the Brussels I Regulation. I would also like to particularly thank the rapporteur for this well-documented report which allows the European Parliament to reflect on the future revision.

This is the first time that Parliament will be colegislating in this file, which concerns the heart of civil judicial cooperation in Europe. We welcome the support of Parliament for the major objective of the upcoming revision, which is the realisation of a true free circulation of judgments in the Union. I would like to stress that the abolition of exequatur should constitute a real step forward in judicial integration; that the Commission does not see this as the mere removal of a superfluous formality, but as a step forward in the mutual trust in each other’s judicial systems; and that as a result, the existing refusal grounds should be reduced, subject to appropriate safeguards.

We welcome Parliament's agreement that choice of court and arbitration agreement should be protected efficiently in the Union. The Commission will study the most appropriate means to achieve this objective in the Union, taking into account international conventions on the matter. May I indicate, however, that the protection of arbitration agreements should not limit the free circulation of judgments in the Union.

I would also stress that the European Union should strengthen the judicial protection of its citizens at worldwide level, creating a legal environment promoting worldwide trade and offering our European companies a level playing field when doing business outside Europe.

The Commission invites Parliament in the upcoming revision to open its position on this matter, which really concerns access to justice in Europe and the enforcement of rights granted by European Union law.

The Commission welcomes Parliament’s support for improving provisional relief in litigation and indicates that it is exploring the best way forward, not only in the context of the Brussels I Regulation, but also with respect to the creation of a European bank attachment.

I see this report as a first step in the future revision of the Brussels I Regulation. Obviously, we will have the opportunity to debate this further in the future. The Commission intends to propose a revision of the regulation by the end of the year and it looks forward to cooperation with Parliament for the first time on this matter.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 at 12:30.

23. Social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Parvanova, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, on the social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups (2009/2041(INI)) (A7-0221/2010).

  Antonyia Parvanova, rapporteur. – Madam President, I very much welcome the opportunity to present today my report on the social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups, an issue of utmost importance which is too often undermined. This discussion is also very timely, especially when we look at the events which have taken place this summer in France.

Integration is very often discussed as a way to fight discrimination against minority groups. However, one fact rarely mentioned is that it is women who are the greatest victims of discrimination: once for belonging to an ethnic minority group, and again simply because they are female.

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits any discrimination based on membership of a national minority, but there are ethnic minority communities living in the Union which are still victims of discrimination, social exclusion and segregation.

This situation cannot be accepted. Are we saying that EU fundamental rights do not apply to all people living in the EU? The principle of gender equality is also one of the key principles of the Charter, but sometimes it feels as if this fact is forgotten, especially in the case of women from ethnic minorities.

There is no universally accepted definition of ‘ethnic minority’ and the use of this term itself has been debated. In my report, I use the term ‘ethnic minority’ to act as an umbrella definition to refer to those groups, including, for example, the Roma population, who do not benefit from EU fundamental rights.

I tried to produce a report which evaluated the issues surrounding the social integration policies in the EU, particularly for women belonging to ethnic minority groups, and to highlight what works, where there are problems, and to help identify solutions.

One of the most striking issues is the one of access to the labour market and to public services such as education, healthcare, including reproductive health, and social services – and when I speak about reproductive health, I am talking about the right to have a child, not only to have an abortion.

In the majority of cases, these women are more vulnerable to social exclusion, poverty and extreme human rights violations such as trafficking in human beings and courses of sterilisation.

I believe that measures to overcome the exclusion of women belonging to all ethnic minority groups need to be set within the wider framework of European equality, inclusion and growth policies. In order to ensure the development of a democratic, open-minded society which transmits the values of tolerance and equality, I would like to point out the crucial role of the Fundamental Rights Agency.

The Agency, together with national equality bodies, must include the transversal gender equality and women’s rights perspective in all aspects of their multiannual frameworks and subsequent activities.

I am fully aware that the challenge ahead involves the joint responsibility of the European Institutions and Member States by using all the instruments and policies at their disposal. However, on the other hand, the responsibility for effective inclusion becoming a reality lies both with ethnic minorities and with mainstream society.

To conclude, I would like to thank all my colleagues from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality for the fruitful discussions we have had on this dossier.

I have, however, been rather surprised that during the drafting process of this report, national considerations have been interfering with its overall objective, which is to work towards improved cooperation between European, national and international players, together with the respective ethnic minority communities, and to deliver positive changes.

The recent events in France, and France’s policies towards the Roma population, are actually a good example of how we are not looking at problems from the right perspective, and how we are not addressing the issue properly.

Only through an integrated and cooperative approach with targeted strategies for the most vulnerable, especially women, will we manage to make integration within our European society a reality for all citizens, for all women, regardless of their legal status, race, age, sexual orientation, ethnic origin and religion.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, equality is the principle behind Chapter III of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. After equality before the law, Article 21 is the clause that best clarifies the terms of that principle: equal treatment and equal opportunities, despite any differences in gender, race, colour or ethnic origin.

We have to ensure protection from discrimination on grounds of gender and origin at all levels and for all persons, particularly women, whether they are European citizens or not. For equality to exist, it must not create any subgroup with differential access to social life, but it must guarantee access for all.

Research has an important role to play. Research has become an instrument for the implementation of European gender policies which must involve the European Institute as well as the universities and national institutes, especially in the data gathering stage. I will conclude by pointing out the important role played by intercultural mediators.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) This subject is perhaps particularly opportune today, as we had the opportunity a few hours ago to discuss the catastrophic situation of women in Iran who are facing the death penalty, and I trust the European Parliament will send out a strong message regarding this matter.

The social integration of women belonging to ethnic minorities is a sensitive subject as, on the one hand, we have the European principle of gender equality and equal opportunity while, on the other, of course, there are the cultural differences of certain ethnic minorities. The priority should be for us – and I mean us as the majority or members of the majority group within society – to remain capable of looking not only for opportunities, but also for compromises, and to accept certain characteristic differences pertaining to members of ethnic minorities.

I therefore think that the key words for this subject should be responsiveness, understanding and willingness to help, and then we will really manage to integrate these women successfully into our society.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, in a united Europe, equal treatment should be seen as a basic right, not as a privilege. The role of women needs to be strengthened further in order that society understands that women have equal rights. Women belonging to ethnic minority groups, in particular, need to become more visible. Promoting this across Europe is therefore absolutely logical and essential. There needs to be greater focus on access to education and employment as well as to social services. It is the only way to bring about integration.

However, in this context, I would also like to mention the role of women in rural areas. Women on farms are a fundamental part of the rural set-up and part of the farming fabric. They work extremely hard in a wide variety of areas. Women often play a significant role in the marketing of farm produce in particular. They make an indispensable contribution in every region of Europe. We must continue our efforts to strengthen the image of the independent woman with equal rights at all levels.

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, Mrs Parvanova’s report on the social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups comes at just the right time, when the French Government is embarking on a huge operation to expel Roma men, women and children – the most disadvantaged and most discriminated-against citizens of Europe.

Roma women are the victims of double discrimination because of their origin and their gender. They are discriminated against with regard to the exercise of the fundamental rights that are the right to education, to employment and to healthcare. The violence they suffer as women constitutes another form of discrimination.

We must demand that all Member States respect the fundamental rights of the largest ethnic minority in Europe and, first and foremost, of these women. Forced labour, trafficking, forced sterilisation, child marriage and countless abortions characterise the lives of these women, and hounding them from town to town, moving them from one end of Europe to the other, will not improve their situation.

It is the duty of every Member State, including France, to guarantee the protection of these women and to guarantee the education of Roma children, both boys and girls. This is the key to their freedom and to their independence. To be free and independent, they need stability and support; expulsions are unacceptable.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) In our reports, we often speak about the difficult position of women in the European Union, and we are trying to better their situation and provide them with equality of opportunity. How much more difficult is it for women from ethnic minorities who are also a part of our society? This is why we should also help them to enter the employment market, and to have access to education and training. We should protect them from social exclusion and multi-faceted discrimination, by trying to engage them in various types of political and social activity. Only in this way will we avoid stereotyping, stigma, ethnic segregation and also, quite simply, violence and aggression. We should create chances and possibilities for these people so that differences in culture and tradition do not form a barrier to common functioning but instead provide added value. Events of the past few days have shown that some people, instead of facing up to the difficulties that may arise from a multicultural society, are trying to get rid of them, causing yet greater indignation and social disapproval.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, forced marriage, physical and sexual violence against women, death threats, complete subjugation, no opportunity for self-determination over one’s own body, archaic images of women – these are all things that are going on not just in far-off countries, but right here among us – even at the heart of Europe – in numerous migrant families. Some well-meaning politicians who like to think of themselves as great promoters of women’s rights trivialise these events as isolated cases. Serious abuses of human rights are justified and tolerated under the cloak of religious freedom.

If we want integration, however, we must speak out loudly against such abuses. I urge the EU to stand up for women here and now and to act against suppression in patriarchal parallel societies – whether that is in Muslim families or in Roma communities, where young girls are often deprived of any schooling.

Alongside integration and educational work, let us take some first concrete legal steps by introducing an EU-wide ban on the burkha and making forced marriage a criminal act in all the Member States. Let us stand up for our enlightened Western values!

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes Mrs Parvanova’s report on the social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups.

The Commission recognises that this group in particular experiences numerous disadvantages and countless forms of discrimination in nearly every area of life, especially where access to employment, education, healthcare and housing is concerned. The Commission has stressed the importance of combating the many forms of discrimination faced by women belonging to ethnic minority groups in its road map for equality between women and men 2006-2010.

We must use all the tools at our disposal to support their economic and social integration, because we must respect both the fundamental values and the fundamental rights of individuals, and also because demographic developments make this economically justifiable.

The aim, in practice, is to guarantee the full exercise of one’s rights through the application of all relevant EU legislation, notably the Race Directive; to ensure the best possible use of the EU Structural Funds; and to focus on minority groups in the workplace at EU level by promoting social inclusion and by combating poverty.

The Commission will continue to stress the importance of integrating women belonging to ethnic minority groups in its forthcoming strategy for equality between women and men, which it will adopt this month.

With reference also to what Mrs Köstinger said, I am well aware that, even in the common agricultural policy, the role of women in the rural community is an issue that ought to be addressed more clearly in the future.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 at 12:30.

24. Role of women in an ageing society (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Pietikäinen, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, on the role of women in an ageing society (2009/2205(INI)) (A7-0237/2010).

  Sirpa Pietikäinen, rapporteur. – (FI) Madam President, in studies in the European Union and Member States, ageing is all too often seen as a negative phenomenon, as a burden in terms of pensions, services or vital expenditure connected with healthcare and medicines.

In fact, though, ageing and the rights of older people are not only a component of fundamental rights but also something that enriches society enormously. Older people are responsible for a very large part of the informal care of their partners, spouses, relatives and children. They also have a good deal of expertise and tacit knowledge about the work and social environment, not to speak of the fact that they are a hugely important consumer resource, and certainly not just a burden on society.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the approach to ageing based on law require us not to take a negative view of ageing or older people, but adopt a respectfully positive attitude to it and them. This becomes a particular challenge in the case of women and older women. Ageing is also very much an issue to do with women and equality, because women live well into old age, they are more often involved in informal care in the home, and they often work in the social services and healthcare sectors, which are responsible for the private and public care services for older people.

Women also often experience double or triple discrimination. It is harder for an older woman at work to make progress in her career, or it is more difficult for her to find employment after being laid off. Moreover, that applies equally to healthcare or services, if an older woman belongs to an ethnic, sexual or religious minority or a particularly vulnerable group in terms of its socio­economic status.

Women are also at greater risk of living in poverty when they get older, and their occupational pensions are frequently smaller. Unfortunately, in most cases, the studies on ageing conducted in the European Union have not shown any form of gender sensitivity, nor have differences between women and men been mentioned very often in the context of healthcare, medical research or research into disease.

For that reason, the report calls on the Commission to draw up by the end of 2011 an action plan guaranteeing more resources for the research needed to understand ageing. Let us see what action is required to improve the quality of care of older people, especially women, and to improve levels of social security, and let us call for a directive on basic services. Let us insist on the recognition of gender­ and age­related diseases and their treatment, and let us in particular demand an annual report on age discrimination and the steps that have been and are being taken in the European Union and at national level to eliminate age discrimination.

In 2012, we will be requesting new measures for investigating how discrimination in the European Union can be eliminated. I would like to thank my colleagues for their excellent levels of cooperation and I am expecting effective action on the part of the Commission in dealing with the issues of older women and ageing.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) It is a poor reflection on our civilisation that women older than 65 years of age have a 5% higher risk of poverty than men do. And this is because they took care of their families, brought up children, and because their lifetime incomes are, on average, lower than incomes of men. This cannot continue. The time they dedicate to caring for young children must be regarded not as leave time but as work, for which they are entitled to a salary and also a contribution to their pension scheme. And this should also be the case for men if they care for a child in place of a mother. Of course, I do not agree that states should take into account the specific situation of older lesbian, bisexual and transsexual women. Does that mean that they should enjoy a more elevated status than other older women? I hope that such discriminatory articles do not pass in tomorrow’s voting.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, unfortunately this report is still very necessary. It is regrettable that women in an ageing society remain underprivileged members of that society, just as before. If we look at women’s employment histories, it is clear that the majority of the care work – not just bringing up and looking after children, but also other housework – still falls to women to perform; that, just as before, a large part of this work goes unrecognised both financially and otherwise. We have an increasing problem of poverty in old age.

However, I would also like to highlight a second issue. In the area of healthcare, we need to pay particular attention to women’s needs. We know that women are generally very good at looking after the health of members of their family, but pay too little attention to their own health. I would therefore urge the Commission to send out a very strong reminder to the individual Member States that women need to be provided for too.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) I seem to be one of the few men who take a stance on this subject. However, I would like to draw your attention in particular to some of the financial aspects.

This report, along with the Commission’s initiative to declare 2012 as the European Year of Active Ageing and Intergenerational Solidarity, can provide the framework required to develop new guidelines, including in cohesion policy and regional development.

We can carry out and use the studies and analyses mentioned in this report in order to establish new criteria for allocating and supporting regions facing the multi-faceted issue of elderly women.

The number of elderly women, the types of illness requiring a certain kind of medical or social intervention, family structure and the role of women in caring for the elderly may be factors which the Commission will include in the list of those defining the framework for drafting regional development plans at national level.

I particularly welcome this report and I strongly believe that it will also have an impact on the way in which we in other committees deal with this issue.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. I think she has drawn up an excellent report. As we all know, none of us in this room is getting any younger and the need for us to view ageing positively is vitally important. It is a miracle that we are living longer and healthier lives and we should be celebrating this. However, for many women, this is not the case, and this report addresses this.

In 2010, it is mostly women who bear the majority of caring responsibilities in a family, whether it be for children or for elderly relatives and, as we know from this report, this results in women living in poverty in their old age, at a time when they should have dignity and respect, as our rapporteur has said.

This report is also important because it introduces the issue of elder abuse, something which we in this House all condemn, and something which needs to be given a higher political priority.

We should also require best practice to be shared in connection with active ageing, the University of the Third Age, and the ways that we can use new technologies. I would like to thank the rapporteur and I hope we will all campaign to make ageing as active and as dignified as possible.

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur also. It has been said that the ageing population has a significant impact on social protection and public finance. Within the overall context of demographic change, women are traditionally at greater risk of poverty and limited pensions. Therefore, it is vital that we policy makers should be kept aware of the issue and the concerns of older people – especially women – in order to ensure that they are not marginalised.

In this regard, it is necessary to continue fostering our efforts, both at EU and national level, towards the full use of existing instruments and future measures in the areas of pensions policy, health and long-term care policy, employment policy, migration and integration policy, and infrastructure development.

This is an issue that we have to discuss more often in this House.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteur points out the double discrimination suffered by women who are also elderly. I would highlight how we should talk of triple discrimination: women who are old and alone.

This report addresses important issues, starting with the world of work and the re-employment of this workforce composed of the elderly, especially older women.

These women need to be seen as a positive workforce, laden with experience and able to train those younger than themselves. In short, they are a necessary resource for making the whole of Europe grow and achieve the targets it has set itself, a resource that we must ensure enjoys a dignified life with complete and effective social assistance and healthcare, a resource to be supported within our ageing society, which needs to learn how to age properly.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) I very much welcome the report on the role of women in an ageing society, particularly as it refuses to view old age as something negative. The economic view of old age, that is to say, very often dominates in social debates. In the reforms of the social state, old age is presented as a problem for the pension system or the health service.

Old people, however, fulfil various important roles. In view of their extensive professional experience, they also provide important social or family support. Even if they did not perform economically important roles, we ought still to view higher average life-spans as proof of improved quality of life in society, and to see older people not as a burden but as fully-fledged members of society who deserve a dignified life. This argument applies all the more to older women, who face a greater risk of poverty and are particularly dependent on public and private services, and also on public healthcare, which also means that ageing women are affected by insufficient or poor quality services.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) I believe that it is significant that so many people are interested in talking about these issues. The Commission should understand that as a need to find an answer to these problems, because gender inequality is particularly severe among older women, whether because of the low incomes of most women or because of difficulties in accessing quality public services, and health services in particular.

Wage discrimination in employment and discrimination in maternity are directly reflected in the majority of older women’s pensions. The result is that these pensions are low, which contributes to the very high risk of poverty among older women. All women have the right to grow old with dignity, so in the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, particular attention must be paid to older women in order for their dignity as women and as citizens to be respected.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) An ageing population is a phenomenon which requires particular attention on our part. Among the problems we must deal with is the problem of poverty, which, although covering many aspects, is, to a great extent, a consequence of high levels of unemployment. A significant fall in employment in the over-50 age group has already been noted and particularly affects women. As a result of their age, they do not feel they are attractive to employers. Some of them are deciding to take early retirement, and their low pensions sometimes leave them in extreme poverty. In order to increase employment levels in this age group, we should implement legal solutions at government level in individual states. Entrepreneurs need incentives to employ the over-50s. This could be in the form of tax relief, the creation of special solutions within the framework of the healthcare system, or free training, adapting such employees to the needs of the employers. Similar ideas would not only raise their standard of living but would also bring measurable benefits to the budgets of individual states.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) The European Union’s population is ageing, with people over the age of 65 accounting for more than 17% of the EU’s population in 2008. However, the rise in the population’s life expectancy is closely linked to the availability and accessibility of medical services and a decent standard of living.

Historically, women’s participation in the healthcare workforce has been significant and is still growing. Women account overall for approximately three quarters of the workforce at EU level. In some Member States, more than 50% of students in medical schools are women. Increasing the birth rate and creating jobs are also essential for ensuring that pension systems are sustainable.

The provision of childcare facilities for children aged 0-6 years is vital for young mothers to enable them to achieve a work-life balance. Every euro invested in childcare services returns a profit of six euros for society through the creation of new jobs and reintegration of young mothers into the labour market.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen – or should I say ‘ladies’, since unfortunately I see that there are relatively few men present for this debate on women – I should like to thank Mrs Pietikäinen for her draft report on the role of women in an ageing society. The report addresses what is a relevant issue in the context of today’s demographic challenges and provides a helpful analysis of that issue through the use of a multidisciplinary approach.

The Commission is aware that elderly women and men face major difficulties in trying to lead an active life, build up pension rights for their retirement and grow old with dignity when their physical capabilities are diminishing.

The fact remains that elderly women are particularly vulnerable because of the persistent stereotypes concerning the roles of each sex, and also because of the discrimination they suffer on the labour market.

The effect on a woman’s pension rights of taking career breaks or leave to look after close relatives, coupled with the pay gaps that persist between the sexes, exposes them, when they grow older, to a higher risk of poverty than men.

The Commission has taken several initiatives to draw attention to the needs of the European Union’s ageing societies, in which elderly women have an essential role to play. Only recently, the Commission emphasised, in its Green Paper on pensions, how important it is to reduce the gaps between women and men, particularly as regards the care of individuals, pay and the labour market.

The Commission will continue to stress the importance of the role of women in an ageing society within the context of its forthcoming strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015, which will be adopted this month.

The Commission will also ensure that the integration of gender equality issues features in its proposal to designate 2012 the European Year of Active Ageing.

As this is my last speech this evening, may I take this opportunity to also thank the interpreters and to apologise if I spoke too quickly at times.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 at 12:30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Europe is facing a serious problem. Its population is getting old and suitable measures are required to deal with this reality. Moreover, the potential offered by elderly people, which is ignored in most cases in Member States, should not be overlooked. The experience and skills they offer can be used to train young people, with the aim of handing over the torch to the younger generations in different areas and at different levels of expertise. Although discrimination on the grounds of age is banned by EU legislation, when it comes to the work environment, situations such as overt or disguised discrimination occur frequently in all Member States, especially against women. Consequently, I support the proposal to run Europe-wide awareness campaigns, with the aim of combating current discrimination on the grounds of age and maintaining solidarity between generations. I believe that it is beneficial to provide European funds in support of projects involving, for instance, socially disadvantaged single and older women. This would provide great support in combating age-related discrimination.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) It is a good thing that the EP report stressed the situation of women over 50 in the context of demographic changes happening throughout Europe. Reports issued to date have indicated a slow improvement in the employment prospects and public life of women. In the next few years, there could be a marked change – a deterioration in the situation of this group of women, especially in countries which have social and healthcare systems which are less developed or inefficient. In these countries, an ageing population will, in particular, burden women with responsibilities of care for ageing parents and relatives. Even now, women are burdened with this type of responsibility, and in the future, this will increase. In many cases, they will be replacing and bailing out inefficient institutions. We need to prepare now for the demographic time-bomb, which this time will take the form of huge numbers of elderly and infirm persons. The adaptation of institutions will be a long-term and difficult process, so we need to decide now how to help families in an ageing society. The European Commission and Parliament must begin to monitor the adaptation of institutions in Member States to the needs of an ageing society right now. The report correctly stresses the need to simplify access to public and private services, especially to healthcare services. It is important that these regulations should be reflected in everyday life and not just remain as defunct provisions in EU documents.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, in their report on the role of women in an ageing society, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality noted quite rightly that women of retirement age are more often exposed to living in poverty. The reason for this phenomenon is very often a lower accumulation of pension rights as a result of women’s lower salaries and temporary salary reductions, e.g. when looking after children. The draft mentions many factors which could improve the quality of life for women over 50, inter alia, taking on additional part-time work. Above all, however, we must decide what to do so that women approaching retirement age do not have to worry about losing their jobs, and thus their financial resources. The European Union should place particular emphasis on ensuring that salaries for men and women are equal. According to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty of Lisbon, discrimination on the grounds of gender is forbidden at the workplace, so there should be sections in the report which will ensure that women receive the same salaries as men. In addition, it is important that public opinion should emphasise any issues relating to discrimination against women in the workplace.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) All of us in the European Union must have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the life of society, as well as to work and be economically active, and to have standards of living and well-being that are considered normal in the society in which we live. Unfortunately, today’s global economic and social crisis has deepened poverty and exclusion for women in particular, especially for elderly women. Since women’s life expectancy is, on average, six years longer than men’s, gender is becoming a vitally important factor in ageing. I think that the fight against women’s poverty and exclusion must continue to be one of the important challenges in the EU, and accordingly the Member States should improve their social protection systems, lifelong learning and active policies of engagement in order to create opportunities for women at different stages of life to take an active part in the life of society and to protect them from the threat of exclusion. It is important to concentrate the joint efforts of the Member States on guaranteeing equal opportunities, because equal rights between men and women are not an objective in themselves, but a precondition for the EU’s overall objectives – growth, employment and achieving social cohesion.

25. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

26. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 22:50)