Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 7 September 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

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

4. State of the Union (debate)

  President. – I declare the sitting open.

The next item is the statement by the President of the European Commission on the state of the Union. As you remember, we talked yesterday about the problem of attendance at the most important plenary debates in Parliament. The Bureau considered this problem yesterday, and is of the same opinion as the Conference of Presidents concerning the necessity of increasing attendance at key debates. We also concluded that more time is needed, and that it is necessary to think about ways which might bring about higher attendances at the most important debates. Following yesterday evening’s consultations with the chairs of the political groups, I would like to inform you that the procedure for checking attendance will not be used this time. I would also like to welcome you to a special debate which, we profoundly believe, is of huge significance for the future of the European Union. I am pleased that the attendance is fairly high, because this puts the debate in the right setting. For the first time, we are holding a debate on the state of the Union. This is a step towards a parliamentary structure for Europe. The Treaty of Lisbon has given us special powers, but greater power means greater responsibility. We are responsible to the 500 million citizens who elected us. Once a year, we are going to discuss matters such as the current condition and state of the Union, political, economic and social priorities, how the Union should operate and how decisions are to be made in order to meet the expectations of our citizens. This is part of the democratic oversight of the European Union’s executive institution, the European Commission.

These reports will be presented to us by the President of the Commission. I would like to welcome Mr Barroso. I would also like to welcome all the Commissioners who have accompanied Mr Barroso and are with us in the Chamber. I would like to emphasise again that the European Parliament has already done a great deal to bring itself closer to the citizens and to set out the possibilities for democratic supervision and scrutiny of the executive institution. In July, Mr Barroso presented his manifesto, and in September last year, before we decided to elect him as President of the Commission, he held talks with all the political groups. European Parliament committees also held hearings of all the Commissioners. The European Parliament has entered into a new framework agreement with the Commission, and this, too, ensures operation of the Community method, which is something we strongly believe in here in the European Parliament. Finally, in the next few weeks, a presentation of the Commission’s legislative programme for 2011 will be made. So we are doing the work which has been entrusted to us by the citizens of Europe.

Mr Barroso, the times we live in are not easy and are full of challenges. We are confident that the European Commission will discharge its duties and fulfil its role as guardian of the treaties and as a source of legislative initiatives and projects in the Union. We are eager to hear your and the Commission’s opinion on the state of the Union, what can be done, and the many matters in the European Union which still have to be resolved.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, it is a great privilege to deliver the first State of the Union address before this House. From now on, the State of the Union address will be the occasion when we will chart our work for the next 12 months.

Many of the decisions we will take in the next year will have long-term implications. They will define the kind of Europe we want. They will define a Europe of opportunity where those that aspire are elevated and those in need are not neglected. A Europe that is open to the world and open to its people. A Europe that delivers economic, social and territorial cohesion.

Over the last year, the economic and financial crisis has caused our Union to face one of its greatest challenges ever. Our interdependence was highlighted and our solidarity was tested as never before.

As I look back at how we have reacted, I believe that we have withstood the test. We have provided many of the answers needed – on financial assistance to Member States facing exceptional circumstances, on economic governance, on financial regulation and on growth and jobs. We have been able to build a base camp from which to modernise our economies. Europe has shown that it will stand up and be counted. Those who predicted the demise of the European Union were proved wrong. The European institutions and the Member States have demonstrated leadership. My message to each and every European is that you can trust the European Union to do what it takes to secure your future.

The economic outlook in the European Union today is better than it was a year ago, not least as a result of our determined action. The recovery is gathering pace, albeit unevenly within the Union. Growth this year will be higher than initially forecast. The unemployment rate, whilst still much too high, has stopped increasing. Clearly, uncertainties and risks remain, not least outside the European Union.

We should be under no illusions. Our work is far from finished. There is no room for complacency. The unemployment problem is an extremely serious one. Budgetary expansion played its role to counter the decline in economic activity. But it is now time to exit. Without structural reforms, we will not create sustainable growth. We must use the next 12 months to accelerate our reform agenda. Now is the time to modernise our social market economy so that it can compete globally and respond to the challenge of demography. Now is the time to make the right investments for our future.

This is Europe's moment of truth. Europe must show that it is more than 27 different national solutions. We either swim together or sink separately. We will only succeed if, whether acting nationally, regionally or locally, we think European.

Today, I will set out what I see as the priorities for our work together over the coming year. I cannot cover here every issue of European policy or initiative we will take. Through President Buzek, I will send you a more complete programme document.

Essentially, I see five major challenges for the Union over the next year: dealing with the economic crisis and governance; restoring growth for jobs by accelerating the Europe 2020 reform agenda; building an area of freedom, justice and security; launching negotiations for a modern EU budget; and pulling our weight on the global stage.

Let me start with the economic crisis and governance. Earlier this year, we acted decisively when euro area members and the euro itself needed our help.

We have learned hard lessons. Now we are making important progress on economic governance. The Commission put its ideas on the table in May and in June. They have been well received by this Parliament and in the Task Force chaired by the President of the European Council. They are the basis around which a consensus is being developed. We will present the most urgent legislative proposals on 29 September so as not to lose momentum.

Unsustainable budgets make us vulnerable. Debt and deficit lead to boom and bust and they unravel the social safety net. Money that is spent on servicing debt is money that cannot be spent on the social good nor to prepare ourselves for the costs of an ageing population. A debt generation makes an unsustainable nation. Our proposals will strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact through increased surveillance and enforcement.

We need to tackle severe macro-economic imbalances, especially in the euro area. That is why we made proposals early on to detect asset bubbles, lack of competitiveness and other sources of imbalances.

I now see a willingness on the part of governments to accept stronger monitoring, backed up by incentives for compliance and earlier sanctions. The Commission will strengthen its role as an independent referee and enforcer of the new rules. We will match monetary union with true economic union.

If implemented as we propose, these reforms will also guarantee the long-term stability of the euro. It is key to our economic success.

For the economy to grow, we also need a strong and sound financial sector – a sector that serves the real economy and that prides itself on proper regulation and proper supervision.

We took action to increase bank transparency. Today, the situation is better than it was a year ago. With the publication of the stress test results, banks should now be able to lend to each other so that credit can flow to Europe’s citizens and companies.

We have proposed protecting people’s savings up to EUR 100 000. We will propose to ban abusive naked short selling. We will tackle credit default swaps. The days of betting on someone else’s house burning down are over. We continue to insist that banks, not taxpayers, must pay up front to cover the costs of their own risks of failure. We are legislating to outlaw bonuses for quick wins today that become big losses tomorrow. As part of this approach, I am also defending taxes on financial activities and we will come forward with proposals this autumn.

The political deal on the financial supervision package just concluded is very good news. The Commission proposals, based on the de Larosière report, will give us an effective European supervision system. I want to thank Parliament for the constructive role it has played and I hope it will give its final agreement this month.

We will also go further on regulation. Initiatives on derivatives, further measures on credit rating agencies and a framework for bank resolution and crisis management will soon be before you. Our goal is to have a reformed financial sector in place by the end of 2011.

Sound government finances and responsible financial markets give us the confidence and economic strength for sustainable growth. We need to move beyond the debate between fiscal consolidation and growth. We can have both.

Honourable Members, sound public finances are a means to an end: growth for jobs. Our goal is growth – sustainable and inclusive growth. This is our overarching priority. This is where we need to invest.

Europe 2020 starts now. We must frontload and accelerate the most growth-promoting reforms of our agenda. This could raise growth levels by over a third by 2020.

This means concentrating on three priorities: getting more people into jobs, boosting our companies’ competitiveness and deepening the single market.

Let me start with people and jobs. Over 6.3 million people have lost their jobs since 2008. Each one of them should have the chance to get back into employment. Europe’s employment rates are at 69% on average for those aged between 20 and 64. We have agreed that these should rise to 75% by 2020, bringing, in particular, more women and older workers into the workforce.

Most of the competences for employment policy remain with Member States. We know that. But we will not stand on the sidelines. I want a European Union that helps its people to seize new opportunities and that is social and inclusive. This is the Europe we will build if Member States, the European institutions and the social partners move ahead on our common reform agenda.

It should be centred on skills and jobs and investment in lifelong learning. It should focus on unlocking the growth potential of the single market, to build a stronger single market for jobs.

The opportunities exist. We have very high levels of unemployment, but Europe now has four million job vacancies. Later this year, the Commission will propose a ‘European Vacancy Monitor’ which will show people where the jobs are in Europe and which skills are needed. We will also put forward plans for a European skills passport.

We must also tackle problems of poverty and exclusion. We must make sure that the most vulnerable are not left behind. This is the focus of our ‘Platform Against Poverty’. It will bring together European action for vulnerable groups such as children and old people.

As more and more people travel, study or work abroad, we will also strengthen citizens’ rights as they move across borders. The Commission will address persistent obstacles as early as this autumn.

Growth must be based on our companies’ competitiveness. We should continue to make life easier for our small and medium-sized enterprises. They provide two out of every three private sector jobs. Among their main concerns are innovation and red tape. We are working on both.

Just before the summer, the Commission announced the biggest ever package from the Seventh Research Framework Programme, worth EUR 6.4 billion. This money will go to SMEs as well as to scientists.

Investing in innovation also means promoting world-class universities in Europe. I want to see them attracting the brightest and the best, from Europe and the rest of the world. We will take an initiative on the modernisation of European universities. I want to see a Europe that is strong in science, education and culture.

We need to improve Europe’s innovation performance not only in universities but along the whole chain, from research to retail, notably through innovation partnerships. We need an Innovation Union. Next month, the Commission will set out how to achieve this.

Another key test will be whether Member States are ready to make a breakthrough on a patent valid across the whole European Union. Our innovators often pay ten times the price faced by their competitors in the United States or in Japan. Our proposal is on the table. It would substantially reduce the cost and double the coverage. After decades of discussion, it is time to decide.

We will also act further on red tape. SMEs are being strangled in regulatory knots. 71% of CEOs say that the biggest barrier to their success is bureaucracy. The Commission has put proposals on the table to generate annual savings of EUR 38 billion for European companies.

Stimulating innovation, cutting red tape and developing a highly-skilled workforce: these are ways to ensure that European manufacturing continues to be world class. We want a strong, but modern, industrial base in Europe. A thriving industrial base in Europe is of paramount importance for our future. Next month, the Commission will present a new industrial policy for the globalisation era.

We have the people and we have the companies. What they both need is an open and modern single market.

The internal market is Europe’s greatest asset, and we are not using it enough. We urgently need to deepen it. Only 8% of Europe’s 20 million SMEs engage in cross-border trade, still fewer in investment. Even with the Internet, over a third of consumers lack the confidence to make cross-border purchases. At my request, Mario Monti presented an excellent report and has identified 150 missing links and bottlenecks in the internal market. Next month, we will set out how to deepen the Single Market in a comprehensive and ambitious Single Market Act.

Energy is a key driver for growth and a central priority for action. We need to complete the internal market for energy, build and interconnect energy grids, and ensure energy security and solidarity. We need to do for energy what we have done for mobile phones: give real choice for consumers in one European marketplace. This will give us a real energy community in Europe.

We need to make frontiers irrelevant for pipelines or power cables, to have the infrastructure for solar and wind energy, and to ensure that across the whole of Europe, we have a common standard so that charging electric car batteries becomes as natural as filling up the tank.

Over the next year, we will bring forward an energy action plan, an infrastructure package and an energy efficiency action plan to put this vision in place. I myself will travel to the Caspian region later this year to promote the Southern Corridor as a means of enhancing our security of supply.

To build a resource-efficient Europe, we need to look beyond energy. In the 20th century, the world enjoyed phenomenal resource-intensive growth. In the 20th century we saw, globally, a four-fold growth in population, accompanied by a 40-fold growth in economic output. But in the same period, we also increased our use of fossil fuels 16 times, our fishing catches 35 times and our water use 9 times. Our carbon emissions increased 17 times.

That means we have to deliver on our climate and energy package, as a core driver for change. This means integrating the different strands of policy on climate change, energy, transport and environment into a coherent approach on resource efficiency and a low carbon future.

A forward-looking agricultural sector will play a major role in European measures to address some of the biggest challenges ahead, such as global food security, biodiversity loss and the sustainable management of natural resources. So will our maritime policy.

All of this will not only strengthen our economy tomorrow, but will provide new openings today. Jobs in the eco-industry have been increasing by 7% a year since 2000. I want to see three million ‘green jobs’ by 2020 – three million green collar workers that complement our blue and white collar workers.

We need sustainable growth, and we also need smart growth. Half of European productivity growth over the last 15 years was driven by information and communication technologies. This trend is set to intensify. Our European Digital Agenda will deliver a single digital market worth 4% of EU GDP by 2020.

Mr President, everything we do is for the citizens of Europe. A fundamental dimension of our European project is building an area of freedom, security and justice. We are working hard to implement the Stockholm action plan. We will make a real push on asylum and migration.

Legal migrants will find Europe a place where human values are respected and enforced. At the same time, we will crack down on the exploitation of illegal immigrants within Europe and at our borders. The Commission will make new proposals on policing our external borders. We will bring forward an internal security strategy to tackle threats of organised crime and terrorism.

Europeans will find that their fundamental rights and obligations exist wherever they go. Everyone in Europe must respect the law and governments must respect human rights, including those of minorities. Racism and xenophobia have no place in Europe.

(Applause)

On such sensitive issues, and when a problem arises, we must all act with responsibility. I make a strong appeal not to re-awaken the ghosts of Europe’s past. An area of freedom, liberty and security will create a place where Europeans can prosper.

Honourable Members, another challenge for next year is sorting out the future budget of the European Union. Next month, we will put forward the Commission’s first ideas for the budget review. It will launch an open debate without taboos to prepare our legislative proposals that will be presented in the second quarter of next year.

We need to spend our money where we get most value for it. We should invest it where it leverages growth and delivers our European agenda. The quality of spending should be the yardstick for us all. It is important to discuss not only the quantity, but also the quality, of the spending and investment. I believe that Europe offers real added value. That is why I will be pushing for an ambitious post-2013 budget for Europe.

I believe we should pool our means to back our policy priorities. The issue is not about spending more or less, but spending more intelligently by looking at European and national budgets together. The EU budget is not for Brussels. It is for the people that you represent – for the unemployed workers being retrained by the Social Fund, for the students that participate in the Erasmus programme, and for the regions that benefit from the Cohesion Fund.

Energy interconnections, research, and development aid are obvious examples where a euro spent at European level gets you more than a euro spent at national level. As you know, some Member States are seeing this logic even in areas of core national competence, like defence. They recognise that huge savings could be made if they pooled some of their means and activities. Pooling money at European level allows Member States to cut their costs, avoid overlaps and get a better return on their investment.

That is why we should also explore new sources of financing for major European infrastructure projects. For instance, I will propose the establishment of European Union project bonds, together with the European Investment Bank.

(Applause)

We will also further develop Public-Private Partnerships.

As this Parliament has made clear, we must also address the issue of own resources. The present system is stretched to its limits – propped up by a byzantine set of corrections. Our citizens deserve a fairer and more efficient and more transparent system. Some will not agree with all the ideas we will raise. Indeed, I find it extraordinary that some are already rejecting them, without even knowing what they will be.

(Applause)

I know that one issue of interest to this Parliament is the duration of the next budget. Various options exist. I would like to look at a 10-year framework, with a mid-term review of the financial dimension after five years. Let us call it a ‘five plus five’ option. This will give us longer-term planning and a clearer link with the mandates of both our institutions.

Of course, part of a credible European budget is the rigorous pursuit of savings. I am looking at the administrative costs within the Commission and other Community bodies like agencies. We need to eliminate all pockets of inefficiency. We will build on recommendations from the Court of Auditors to improve financial management.

Honourable Members, the final challenge I want to address today is how we pull our weight on the global stage. When we deal with our everyday problems, we sometimes lose perspective and forget Europe’s achievements: a peaceful and successful transition to a European Union that has doubled in size and is negotiating further accessions; a sound currency – the euro – that is a major world currency; and a strong partnership with our neighbourhood that strengthens us all. If we act decisively, we have nothing to fear from the 21st century.

As the strategic partnerships of the 21st century emerge, Europe should seize the chance to define its future. I am impatient to see the Union play a role in global affairs that matches its economic weight. Our partners are watching and are expecting us to engage as Europe, not just as 27 individual countries. If we do not act together, Europe will not be a force in the world and they will move on without us – without the European Union but also without its Member States. This is why, in my political guidelines, I called for Europe to be a global player and a global leader – a key task and test for our generation.

Together with High Representative and Vice-President Ashton, I will present our vision of how we can maximise Europe’s role in the world. With the European External Action Service, we have the means to match our aspirations.

In our globalised world, the relationships we build with strategic partners determine our prosperity. To be effective on the international stage, we need the weight of the European Union. Size matters, now more than ever.

A good example is the fight against climate change. Copenhagen showed that, while others did not match our ambition, we did not help ourselves by not speaking with one voice. Negotiations may have stalled but climate change has not. I want us to intensify our engagement with international partners to turn their press releases into credible commitments to cut emissions and push forward with fast-start funding.

The next two months will see crucial summits with strategic partners. The more we are able to establish a common agenda, with a clearly defined European interest, the more we will achieve. For example, I see huge potential in developing a transatlantic agenda for growth and jobs.

Where we are already punching our weight is the G20, the forum where the key economic global players address common challenges. When President Van Rompuy and I go to Seoul in November, representing the European Union, we want to see concrete results – further progress in global economic coordination, more stable and responsible financial markets and agreement on reform of international financial institutions, more effective global financial safety nets, and more progress on a G20 development agenda. We will continue to show leadership in this forum and work closely with the French G8/G20 Presidency next year.

We also want to see support for the Doha Round. Trade boosts growth and prosperity. We will also pursue bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements. In October, the Commission will present a renewed trade policy to drive new benefits for Europe.

Being open to the world also means standing side by side with developing countries, especially with Africa. When I go to the Millennium Development Goals High-Level Event in New York in two weeks’ time, I intend to commit – with your support and on behalf of the European Union – an extra EUR 1 billion to the Millennium Development Goals.

Being a global player also means standing up for our values. Human rights are not negotiable. I am shocked at how the rights of women are being infringed in many countries. I am appalled when I hear that Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani has been sentenced to death by stoning. This is barbaric beyond words.

(Applause)

In Europe, we condemn such acts, which have no justification under any moral or religious code.

Our values also mean that we must come to the aid of those facing a crisis situation, anywhere around the world. Our humanitarian aid to Pakistan is the latest example of Europe’s solidarity in action. It is a striking example of the need to present the different contributions of the Commission and the Member States as a truly European aid package. The Member States have the helicopters and the civil protection teams. We now need to pool them to create a real European crisis response capacity. This is what the Commission will propose in October. I urge the Member States to show they are serious about the Union punching its weight in this area.

We are also making progress on a common foreign policy, but let us be under no illusions. We will not have the weight we need in the world without a common defence policy. I believe now is the moment to address this challenge.

(Applause)

Honourable Members, we are still bedding down the new institutional set-up of Europe created by the Lisbon Treaty. What really matters is what the institutions deliver to the people. What matters is the difference Europe makes in their daily lives.

The secret of Europe’s success is its unique Community model. More than ever, the Commission must drive the political agenda with its vision and proposals. I have called for a special relationship between the Commission and Parliament, the two Community institutions par excellence. I am intensifying my political cooperation with you.

Europe is not only Brussels or Strasbourg. It is also our regions. It is the cities, towns and villages you come from. When you walk round your constituencies, you can point to the European projects that are so important for their prosperity.

At the end of the day, we are all in the same boat – the European institutions, Member States and regions. The Union will not achieve its objectives in Europe without the Member States and the Member States will not achieve their objectives in the world without the European Union.

The citizens of Europe expect us to take the action needed to get out of this crisis. We must show them that the common efforts we are making today will lead to new jobs, new investments, and a Europe fit for the future.

I am confident that Europe has what it takes. We will get the results we are reaching for. One thing is certain – it is not through pessimism and constantly promoting defeat that we will win this battle; it is with confidence and with a strong common will.

Today, I have outlined how I see the European Union doing that. I have committed myself to delivering the proposals to build our economic union. I have made the case to fast-track our reform agenda. I have set out how to modernise our social market economy to deliver growth and jobs in a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy through our Europe 2020 flagship initiatives. I have set out how to achieve a common energy policy in Europe. I have defended the need for an area of freedom, security and justice, where Europeans will find that their fundamental rights and obligations exist wherever they go. I have made clear that the Commission will strive for an ambitious budget. I have proposed developing EU project bonds to finance major European projects. I have announced our reinforced commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. I have made the case clear as to why we need a common crisis response capacity, a common foreign policy and a common defence policy. I have urged European leaders to act together if they want Europe to be a global player and defend the European interest.

It is indeed a transformational, ambitious and challenging agenda. For Europe to succeed, the Commission needs your support for a stronger, fairer Europe for the benefit of our citizens.

(Applause)

  President. – President Barroso, thank you for your presentation on the State of the Union.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Presidents of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the chairs and the presidents are happy this morning, and you have demonstrated that you can be present without penalty. Well, that is indeed democracy. Thank you to all of you.

(Applause)

What is the state of the European Union? What have we done successfully together these past few years, and in what ways have we failed? What plans do we have? What political means and, in particular, what financial means will we make available for implementing them?

Mr President, this debate is welcome, and I am happy that Parliament and the Commission, the two Community institutions which represent and defend the general European interest, are this morning participating in this exercise, which the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) would like to be a forward-looking one.

Europeans sometimes – in fact, often – wonder what Europe is really doing to respond to their problems and their expectations. At the same time, as all the opinion polls have shown for years, they are asking not for less Europe, but for more Europe.

More Europe on the issue of migration: the Roma question, which requires a long-term European strategy, is a perfect illustration of the issue of respect for people.

More Europe to represent them in the world. How, for example, can we justify our absence from the negotiations between Israel and Palestine, when we are the primary donors in this region?

(Applause)

Europeans do not understand this, and they are right. Our fellow citizens are also aware that we need more Europe, not less, to safeguard our security, whether it is personal security, energy security or food security. They know that Europe must be better coordinated to create growth and jobs, as you described so well, to regulate the markets and to avoid renewed speculative attacks. They understand that we also need more Europe to reduce inequalities and to strengthen our European social model, our social market economy.

We therefore need more Europe, not to interfere in the details of everyday life, but to address our common challenges together in a much more efficient way, and – a question I will come back to – in a more profitable and less costly way.

As I was saying, our fellow citizens are wondering why Europe is not more efficient and more organised, and why it is not listened to more on the world stage. They quite rightly expect that the economic and financial efforts which they have been asked to make will bear fruit, and that we will bring everyone out of the difficulties together.

We need more European governance. It is for us, Parliament and Commission, to work towards this aim, to convince the Member States to work together and to invest together. This is not about attacking the sovereignty or the prestige of our Member States. On the contrary, it is the only way of seriously and effectively building a future for the 500 million European citizens and for future generations.

I therefore ask the Commission – I ask you, Mr Barroso, but every other Commissioner too – to take more initiatives to propose the measures and reforms that we need in Europe so that things function better, and to explain these projects to our fellow citizens.

Along with my group, I would like our Parliament to support these efforts by using its new prerogatives as a colegislator with the Council. This is not solely a question of power, it is a question of comprehension, and it is a question that we must discuss in order to make Europe progress.

President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, while we must be ambitious, we must also look back at the path that has been travelled. I believe that, on several important subjects, Europe has no cause to be ashamed of its actions during these past few months. It was Europe which took the initiative to reform the financial markets after the Wall Street crisis of autumn 2009. It was Europe which, after having suffered unprecedented speculative attacks in the previous spring, took measures which were also unprecedented to strengthen and stabilise its economy. The initial effects of this policy have already been felt, but we must go even further.

Europe has also played a pioneering role in the fight against global warming. It really needs to be said: the Copenhagen conference left a bitter taste in the mouth. Our ambitions are unchanged, and the cap is now fixed for good. We can be proud of that.

What do we have to do in the months and years to come to consolidate our actions, to strengthen the confidence of our fellow citizens in our joint actions? I will suggest three ways.

The first is to strengthen our economy, to reduce inequalities through a series of measures which will encourage returns on investments, the confidence of entrepreneurs and the possibility of developing new creative sources of wealth and jobs. Commissioners, Mr President, we must make the rules ‘jump’, as you have said, across borders. It is unacceptable that, in the 21st century, we still have draconian rules which no longer have anything to do with the reality of Europe.

The second is to take a more serious attitude in our common external policy and, as you have repeatedly said, to become a more respected actor in the world. We can no longer be content with saying that Europe is complicated, that it takes time and that we must be patient. We can also no longer be content with being the primary global donor without being able to guarantee that the aid that we send arrives at its destination along with Mr Putin’s and Mr Obama’s helicopters. On this as well, I believe that we must take a serious attitude.

Europe is one of the major global powers, and its main priority, in my opinion, must be to build relations as equals with its main partners, and, in particular, with the United States. I said this earlier here when talking about transatlantic relations.

However, this morning I also want to highlight the importance for Europe of building strategic and targeted relations, not only with Russia, but also with China, India and Brazil. I would like the European External Action Service to be an effective instrument from this point of view, and we can make sure that savings are made in our various Member States if we put this instrument in place.

The third way of making sure that the European structure is up to the challenges has to do with the key factor in all this: money. I know that we still need to discuss this in depth. Are we all going to continue to invest separately in innovation and research? In education and training? In security and defence? In our energy policy?

While the United States, China and India are able to push forward fundamental or applied research, positioning themselves in tomorrow’s markets, are we going to keep saying that we Europeans are too hesitant to pool our resources in order to achieve economies of scale and a leap forward in terms of efficiency? At the moment, we are forcing our researchers to leave Europe. We must absolutely make sure that our researchers want to come back and stay in Europe.

Mr Barroso, these are the real issues that we, Parliament and the Commission, must put on the table when we talk about negotiations on the financing of European projects for 2014-2020. These are the questions that our fellow citizens are asking themselves, and to which they are expecting serious answers.

The time has definitely come for Europe to use its own resources. Let us not be afraid of these words. In addition, the question of a European tax must not be taboo. This is not about creating a tax to be added to national taxes; on the contrary, it is about achieving economies of scale and making sure that public funds as a whole are spent in a better way, and thus, ultimately, reducing charges on households and businesses.

Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, the European and international dimension is evidence for the young generations, who are not expecting long speeches from us, but rather solutions to their problems and perspectives for their future. It must be our main objective to guarantee education and training for 15-25 year-olds. Stabilising our public finances and investing in innovation, opening new doors to allow them to make use of their talents in Europe, not necessarily in other countries – these are the priorities which must guide our actions and on which our fellow citizens will judge us.

Mr President, Commissioners, you must make proposals to us, and here I will repeat the words of a man that you all know, John Paul II: ‘Have no fear’. In order to make Europe progress, for our fellow citizens, for the PPE Group, we will be with you if you make good proposals.

As I have a few seconds left, I would like to say another thing to you: be provocative in the first instance; go far with your suggestions, and we will manage to come up with good proposals together for our fellow European citizens.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agenda item is entitled ‘Statement by the President of the Commission on the State of the Union’. Today, we have heard about a work programme, and an ambitious and committed one. We have heard little about a stocktake, about the actual state of the Union. What then is the state of the Union today? The state of the Union is not good. It would have been a good thing if, in your stocktake, you could have gone into why it is not good.

It is not good, partly because you, Mr Barroso, and your Commission, are not adequately performing the essential roles ascribed to you in the treaties. During the crisis, I have often asked myself ‘Where is the Commission?’, and then when I speak to you, you say: ‘Yes, I have made a statement on that and I have issued a press statement on this and Mr Šefčovič said something about that and Mrs Reding about this!’ When I go back and read it, then yes, it is true, the Commission has indeed made a statement. However, I have to ask myself: Why is the message not getting through? Why is the public not hearing it? That is a stocktake of the state of the Union! For during your period of office, you have been making concessions for far too long, particularly after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, concessions to a developing directorial government in Europe, in the Council, under German-French leadership.

(Applause)

It is your job to defend the Community method. Much of what you have said here in your address is right, and you can be assured of the support of three quarters of this House. This is the case. However, you will have three quarters of the members of the Council against you if you talk about own resources. I am now eager to see whether you follow what you have said today with action and take up the fight against the intergovernmentalisation of the European Union.

(Applause)

I will give you an example. I agree with you that Europe will only succeed if we defend our elementary values. The elementary values in Europe include no racism and no xenophobia. That is something that we all agree on. However, they also include the fact that a government that is subject to internal political pressure must not attempt to use a witch hunt against minorities as a solution. We can name names here. It is the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, François Fillon and Brice Hortefeux. I would have liked you to have mentioned the names, as then we would have seen that you, Mr Barroso, are taking up the fight.

(Applause and protests)

Above all, the basic values of the European Union – and much of what you said in this regard is right – include social justice. However, what is social justice in this Union? You described the dramatic growth in unemployment in Europe. This growth in unemployment will lead to a process of mass impoverishment and to a risk scenario for people. More and more people – including those still in work – are afraid: afraid for their jobs, afraid for their social stability and afraid for their future. This needs to be illustrated with figures. On the one hand, we have an increasing number of income millionaires – there are thousands more every year – and, on the other, we have millions of people who are being reduced to poverty. This social divide is the greatest threat to democracy in Europe.

(Applause)

In August, the Guardian published statistics which revealed that HSBC, Barclays Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland made more than EUR 20 billion in profit last year, EUR 9 billion of which they are putting aside as bonuses for their managers. This is happening at a time when the governments in the European Union are cutting pensions in Europe. I expect you to come up with proposals for how we can eliminate this social divide.

(Applause)

I therefore say to you that the financial transaction tax must be put in place. We must involve the banks, particularly the speculation sector, in the aftermath of the economic crisis. We have concluded an interinstitutional agreement, Mr Barroso, to the effect that, if this Parliament, with a legislative majority, calls on the Commission to submit a corresponding proposal for a directive, you have agreed that you will do so. You can be sure that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament will make such a request. We also expect you then to take the appropriate initiative.

Mr Šemeta said that we do not need, and we will not get, a financial transaction tax. You say: ‘I want the financial transaction tax’. We say that we will support Mr Barroso against Mr Šemeta; they will get this request. If you do not do this, we will utilise the instrument of the citizens’ initiative. Please believe that! Then we will bring these people that I am talking about onto the street, until the speculators have made their contribution to sorting out the finances in Europe.

(Applause)

Europe also needs education, qualifications and opportunities for advancement. Someone who is born poor in this Union must not remain in the ghetto in which he lives. We need opportunities for advancement. For these opportunities, it is important that Europe plays its part in contributing to education, qualifications and equal opportunities for young people in particular. I therefore think you are right: these uninspired European finance ministers who, because they need to reduce the excessive debt in their own countries and are therefore cutting the budgets, are saying that the EU budget must therefore also be cut, are wrong. The EU does not need to balance out an excessive deficit. With the investments that it makes, it needs to use regional policy, social policy, research and qualifications and investment in growth-stimulating measures to help to even out the social imbalance and to put the European Union in a position to be able to do that. For this, we need a strong EU budget. You said the same thing today. In this, you have our support. So now show your opposition to Mrs Lagarde, Mr Schäuble and the finance ministers of other countries! If you need help in this, Mr Barroso, please give us a call. We will come to help you.

(Applause)

Social justice also means that we must not leave the next generation a continent in which it is no longer worth living. You are right, therefore: for social justice, we also need a new, sustainable industrial policy that combines environmental and economic concerns. This is the right approach.

I am eager to see whether you manage to ensure that the disaster, the fiasco of Copenhagen is not repeated – a situation in which we saw that the European Union was not capable of negotiation. That is not the fault of the Commission, I will say that again. It is the fault of the 27 governments, which were simply not able to agree at an international level.

(Applause)

This shows that, in the situation that we are in today, there are two opposing schools: one advocating intergovernmentalism and one the Community method. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is a question of whether the Lisbon Europe is a Europe of the Heads of State or Government who discuss what they believe to be right for the continent behind closed doors. We saw this during the crisis in Greece. The final document was negotiated by just two people, Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy, and their approach was: Mr Van Rompuy, please wait outside, leave this to us! I do not know whether what has been said about this is true, but we can almost imagine that it is. Either this Europe is a Europe of intergovernmentalism, or it is a Europe of the Community method. The Europe of the Community method is the Europe of the Commission and of the European Parliament, working together.

I found your stocktake incomplete. I found most of your perspectives and the announcements to be good and proper. In a year’s time at the next report on the state of the Union, we will measure you by what you have announced today and by what, by then, you have managed to fight for. The speech that you gave was a conservative-liberal, green, radical socialist one. Something for everyone.

(Protests)

Thus, you can also gain support from everyone. If you fight against the insidious intergovernmentalisation and if you actively defend the Community approach, then you can count on us. If not, we will bring you to account at the time of the next report on the state of the Union.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Mr Schulz, for your speech.

Now Mr Verhofstadt will speak on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr Verhofstadt, as I understand it, you do not want to divide your speech into two parts, you just want one part of your speech to be slightly longer. Am I right?

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the State of the Union means, first of all, looking back and learning the lessons of the past, and then looking to the future. Let us be honest with ourselves and say that last year was a very difficult year for the Union.

It was a difficult year for the Union because there were big problems, but little unity to solve those problems. Greece was on the brink of collapse, the euro itself was under attack for months, and it took several months for the European governments to finally agree to save a Member State and to save our common currency. It is therefore no surprise to me, nor, I think, to others here in Parliament, that public confidence in Europe has dropped dramatically.

You can see this in the latest Eurobarometer, which shows that less than half of our citizens think that their country’s membership is a good thing. Trust in our institutions dropped last year to 42%. This is the State of the Union today. That is alarming but, at the same time, we have to recognise that it is not surprising. Parliament urged European leaders many times to end the standstill on Europe, to move forward, to quit protectionism and nationalism and to work on European solutions.

That is also what the European citizens are asking for because, if you look at the same Eurobarometer, you see that no less than 86% of the public want European economic governance. They believe that only the Union can provide solutions to the financial and economic crisis. However, they do not see this happening today, and that is the reason for their disappointment in our Union.

I know that for the Commission, too, it has been a difficult year, because in fact, it has only been half a year. That is how long it has taken our capitals to realise that there is a new treaty and a new way of working, and also a new balance of power in the Union. We can therefore say that today is the real start of the President of the Commission’s second term.

It is a second term that needs a new vision and also new answers. It is, in any case, time to change into a higher gear, and to realise important reforms now. From the point of view of our group, there are principally seven big, important reforms.

The first thing to do is to finalise our response to the financial crisis. We have already produced legislation on capital requirements and on bonuses. We have the stress test, and last week we also reached an agreement on financial supervision, which is a good agreement, not least because leadership by the President of the European Central Bank guarantees a European approach to supervision.

However, that does not mean that we are already there. Far from it, I should say. We are not even half way. We still need the Commission to come forward urgently with proposals on derivatives, on short-selling, on credit rating agencies, on banking resolution, on market abuse, on trading and on financial instruments.

The second big task is that we need genuine European economic governance. Last year showed that a common currency without a common economic policy simply does not make sense. That is a nonsensical situation – even worse, it is a dangerous situation. We cannot afford to be one Union and, at the same time, to have 27 different economic strategies, as we do today.

(Applause)

It is crystal clear that if we want the Stability and Growth Pact and the new economic strategy to be a success, we need a serious carrot and stick approach, with proper sanctions.

In my opinion – and I think in the opinion of the majority of this House – it is good that the Council is thinking about this in connection with a task force, but that cannot replace the right of initiative of the Commission, and the duty of the Commission to come forward as fast as possible with a global legislative proposal on economic governance.

(Applause)

I am pleased that you have announced that you will do this on 29 September. What happens in the Council as well is not important. It is your task and it is your duty to do this on 29 September.

That takes me to my third priority: the single market. We have an excellent report on this by Mario Monti, and our message is very simple: let us act on this report. Because it is incomprehensible, for example, that today it still takes more than 40 hours to travel by train from central and eastern European countries to Brussels, Paris or Amsterdam. How are these people supposed to feel connected to the European Union? How can these markets be fully integrated? Let us invest in trans-European networks.

The fourth important priority, and maybe the most important message for today, concerns the budget and the new financial framework. Let us be very clear about this. The aim of some national governments to reduce the budget by 20% or 30% is ridiculous at a time when what is needed is more European solutions.

(Applause)

I can fully understand that, when confronted with a huge fiscal deficit, they want to cut their direct contributions to the Union. That is a normal, spontaneous reaction. Hence, our proposal to replace these national contributions with European own resources.

That takes me to the fifth priority: our credibility in the world. We have the External Action Service, but what we need now, and what we have asked Lady Ashton, the Vice-President of the Commission (it would be better if she were here), is also to develop a new strategy for the Union. Our external policy strategy is still based on a paper by Javier Solana dating from 2003. The world has changed since 2003, and our strategic framework should also be adapted and modernised.

That brings me to climate change. In Copenhagen, we lost our leadership role, and the only way to make a difference in Cancún is to regain that leadership. To regain our leadership, one thing is necessary: to use one voice and promote one vision, and not 27 as we did in Copenhagen.

(FR) Finally, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that I am confused in relation to what is fundamentally – if you will allow me to use this word – the raison d'être of our Union, namely, the protection of civil liberties and human rights, outside the Union, of course, but, more important still, within the European Union as well.

I must therefore say, in all solemnity, that what is happening in France is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

(Applause)

Unfortunately, however, this is not an isolated case. Like many of you, I notice that several governments today, in facing the economic crisis, are succumbing more and more to the temptation, as it were, of populism, xenophobia and sometimes even racism.

(Applause)

They are exploiting people’s worries and the fear of the other. They are stigmatising minorities. I would even say that they are using dubious methods to confuse issues when it comes to migration. I would like to say most emphatically that I find this attitude to be incompatible with the principles and values that make our Union one of the most beautiful and one of the greatest political ideas to which the human spirit and heart have given birth.

(Applause)

Mr President, I intend to say it emphatically: the Roma are European citizens, fully-fledged citizens.

(Applause)

We can never accept their rights being violated – never – in a world racked with all manner of uncertainties. I believe that this Europe must remain a continent of freedom, tolerance and justice. Mr President, the Commission, the guardian of the treaties, must react uncompromisingly. This is not just its right; it is an institutional duty.

(Applause)

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I will do the same as Mr Verhofstadt: I will use all my speaking time at once.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that Mr Schulz and Mr Verhofstadt have pointed out the fundamental difficulty of our situation, and I regret that you have not had the clear-headedness or truthfulness to point it out.

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, there has been a battle concerning the interpretation of the treaty. I believe that most governments had not read it, and, once it was introduced, they discovered that the Treaty of Lisbon was actually a means and an instrument for the communitisation of European policies. In all the discussions, the battle which is taking place – we have seen it on foreign services, we have seen it on the situation of financial regulation – always gets to the same point. The question at issue is – and it has already been said – are we moving towards an intergovernmental Europe or a strengthening of the Community-based Europe? This is precisely the situation of the Union today.

What I dream of is that the Commission will make a public declaration. In the European institutions at the moment, there is a political battle, and this political battle is about the interpretation of the Treaty of Lisbon, and that has consequences for European policies. The European citizens must know what we know and what we feel in the interinstitutional debates. On that, Mr Barroso, you have said nothing.

With that, I come to my second point. This Commission, in its general statements, is the champion of Europe. They are very beautiful statements. However, when it comes to pointing the finger, describing a situation affecting a Member State, naming someone or a government by name, you are conspicuously silent. You do not exist. I can give you a whole host of examples.

Let me come back to Greece. Everyone knows that you were losing control of the situation in Greece; indeed, you knew two or three years before the crisis – you had reports on it in your filing cabinet. There was no official statement. You went to church and prayed, and you believed that if you prayed, everything in Greece would sort itself out. It has not sorted itself out. Afterwards, you supported – and we supported by a majority – applying unbelievable pressure on Greece, and on the Greek people, who made just as many mistakes as the Greek elites.

However, at the moment, Mr Barroso, while we are putting this pressure on the Greek people in order to resolve the problem, I have not heard you talk about the fact that now, in August, there have been negotiations between the Greek Government and the large French and German arms companies on continuing arms sales by European businesses to Greece.

(Applause)

We have all gone completely mad, as I have said three or four times, but will we act? Do you know how much money Greece has spent on arms these past ten years? What is the figure? EUR 50 billion in ten years! Mr Barroso, you knew this. One of the problems these countries have is precisely this structure, which is related to a European problem of nationalism and the battle or debate between Greece and Turkey.

Where is the Commission’s initiative and Europe’s initiative to intervene so that, through integrating Turkey, we put an end to this ridiculous debate which is costing the Greek people billions for absolutely nothing, because Greece is buying back arms which France and Germany do not need for their own armies. This is very intelligent! This is my example, Mr Barroso, of the non-intervention of your Commission.

I can give you a second example, which was provided by Mr Verhofstadt. Today, what is happening with the Roma is a test of the credibility of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which forms part of the Treaty of Lisbon. To put it in a moral and philosophical way, I quote Albert Camus: ‘Democracy is about defending minorities, not simply executing the will of majorities’.

(Applause)

Is the Commission waiting? Does it have a report in its filing cabinet? Say it publicly: what France is doing contravenes the European treaties. It really is simple to say it and to make it known.

(Applause)

I will give you another example of what you are not saying. You spoke of the economy, unemployment and growth. You did not say a word about the change that needs to be made to the nature of growth. You did not say that the ecological catastrophe and climate change obliged us to reinterpret our notion of growth. There was nothing on that.

You did not talk about Cancún. We have three months until Cancún. There was not a word on the fact that if we want to be credible on climate change, we must return to a 30% target for reduction in CO2, and we must be at the forefront of the debate on climate change. On that, Mr President, you are conspicuously silent.

As a result of this, I would like to say that you are the absent president of a Europe which needs a president. That is our problem, and that is the situation of the Union.

I would like to conclude by saying one thing to you. You spoke, for example, of European investment. You can look at the time; I have three more minutes. I know it is annoying, but that is life. I wanted to say one thing to you: take things seriously. Forty per cent of CO2 production in Europe is due to buildings. Use your European resources to create a European energy fund; give European cities the opportunity to renovate buildings throughout Europe by creating a European Keynes fund in Europe, because the national states are not capable of doing it.

(Applause)

That is basically my message. There is a great debate in Europe about whether we need public investment. I would say to you, Mr Barroso: put Keynes in Brussels. Public investment today must be European investment in the ecological transformation of our economy. Do you understand this, Mr Barroso? If so, I hope that, in the next discussion about Europe, you will show that you have understood that we are no longer in the 1970s, but today we face a financial crisis and an ecological crisis.

To conclude, I will give you a figure which we must all reflect on. The losses due to the crisis are reaching EUR 50 000 billion. This is equivalent to five centuries of public investment in development aid. That would build 10 billion schools in the African countries. That is the situation the world finds itself in, Mr Barroso.

(Applause)

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) I will begin with some good news for Mr Barroso, the kind of news on which he may even be congratulated. His appearance today has been valued higher than tickets to the next Sting concert in Prague, which cost less than EUR 150. However, I will begin with a story. Mr Barroso, in Poland there is a popular story which tells how a man climbs a tree and begins sawing off the branch on which he is sitting. Another man walks by below, and says to him, ‘If you saw off that branch, you will fall.’ The second man walks on, and the branch breaks. The first man falls out of the tree, gets up, looks at the second man and says, ‘Is he a prophet or something?’

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Conservatives, even before our political group was formed, were like the second man, who said to the man sitting on the branch of European bureaucracy: ‘You are sawing off the branch on which you are sitting.’ In your speech, today, I can see a chance that this process of sawing off the branch will end. You have set out many ideas which are most certainly worthy of support, and I think they have been put together in such a way as to please every group in this Parliament. However, we have to agree with Mr Schulz that it was a forward-looking plan, but that we did not hear – and I am not pleased with you about this – an analysis of the current situation in the Union. Why is the Union performing in the way that it is? Why is the Union not liked by such a large number of the citizens, and why is it not meeting their expectations? We come, here, to an important point. It is very good that you concentrated on economic development, on the need for this development in Europe and on the need for new jobs. I certainly do share the position that one of the greatest problems of the economy in Europe today is unemployment. However, let us be honest. One cannot have the right kind of concern about the fate of the unemployed and about the disappearance of jobs in Europe, on the one hand, while, on the other, proposing economic solutions which quite naturally lead to the export of jobs from Europe to other continents. These two things cannot be separated. We cannot say we want to increase the level of employment in Europe, on the one hand, while, on the other, imposing new burdens and a new sentence of death by bureaucracy on European firms and the European economy. This has to be stopped. In your speech, Mr Barroso, I can see you are thinking in the right direction. You spoke about how Europe must speak around the world with one voice. We say this, here, very often, but we can, after all, see easily that different governments in Europe have completely different approaches in fundamental areas of foreign policy. This is a fact which must not be ignored. How, therefore, can Europe speak with one voice on the global stage if different European governments speak with different voices? Ladies and gentlemen, let us not deceive ourselves – that is how it will be. You can, while sitting in this Chamber, close your eyes and pretend that those 27 governments do not exist, but they do. They are elected by the citizens of the European Union, and we are defending the rights of those governments to represent their citizens in the Union arena. We want a balance between Union affairs and national affairs in Europe, and this is why we are going to defend the idea of the nation-state, in the context, of course, of the European Union. However, in saying this, I would like to say that I agree with everything that has been said in this Chamber. I say this, now, from the bottom of my heart. We cannot accept situations in which one or other of the governments in Europe tries, for domestic purposes, to ignite what has, in Europe, been the powder keg of nationalism and chauvinism. There can be no consent to this, but this is what is happening in many European countries. This year, we have already had examples of countries bordering Poland where attempts have been made to make political capital out of matters related to minorities. One of the European Union’s greatest achievements is the fact that Europe has been an area of democracy and tolerance where war has been absent for 60 years. I willingly acknowledge this, although I am not a great enthusiast of the Union, but I do appreciate this. This is something which must be maintained. I would also like to say that we must be more open and credible in what we deliver to the European Union’s citizens. The greatest problem of our Community is that one thing is said in our declarations, while the facts and what the citizens see being done is something completely different. I believe in Europe, and we, the European Conservatives, believe in the Union. However, we believe in the Union in its diversity. We do not believe that there is one new united state which is supposed to fuse into a single nation. This plan will not be accepted. The citizens of Europe understand perfectly well that one can be a good Pole, a good European or a good German, and that we can live together, treating each other with respect and working together to build a common future. Mr President, I hope you succeed. However, the way to repairing the situation is not to repeat the old mistakes. I want to tell you very clearly that, in my opinion, Europe must not try to solve the problems which we have before us by repeating the mistakes of the past. Today, in your speech, I see a chance for a Europe of greater economic freedom and a Europe of closer integration, by which I mean the common market. I am very pleased that the idea of the Single Market Act came from this Parliament, from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. It came from the Monti report, which was written in the Committee whose chair is my colleague, Mr Herber, and we are proud of this. It is this kind of strengthening of the market which we want. We want a common market and greater freedom in the economy.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, you have provided an impressive insight into the tasks of the various policy areas. Nevertheless, you, and all of us here, have to admit that the trust of European citizens is fading. Mr Verhofstadt has drawn our attention to this and so I will not address the matter in any more detail. These are reliable studies.

Citizens have also seen rescue and economic recovery packages amounting to billions of euro flow to the so-called system-relevant banks, and they have seen dangerously high national debts pile up everywhere. Now they are asking themselves who is responsible for this, particularly when, despite a better economic outlook, they are being hit by the Member States’ austerity measures. These austerity measures will result in rising prices for public services, cuts in social benefits, cuts in education services, pay cuts, an extended working life in the face of uncertain pensions and often precarious employment situations.

The protest goes far beyond the states hit by the crisis. Today, the unions are striking in France and on 29 September, strike action will be taken in many towns and cities in Europe against the Member States’ austerity policies. Citizens were promised that the Treaty of Lisbon would make the European Union more social and more democratic. The EU, including the Commission and the Parliament, would simply lose credibility if it now said that the Member States are responsible for the austerity measures. Effective financial market reforms, for example, like a ban on hedge funds, or a ban on speculation on raw materials and food derivatives, or even a financial transaction tax, but also the move away from the flexicurity ideology, are now most definitely the responsibility of the European Union. This is something that we all need to involve ourselves with over the next few months.

The situation in the Union varies greatly for the different sections of the population and it is full of inconsistencies. The social division in the societies of the EU countries has, in any case, widened dangerously once again. In the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, a large amount of money, billions of euro, have gone to rescue or to stand as security for the banks. It has not reached the people with real social needs or been put into education.

No one would want to dispute or belittle the EU’s successes. However, papering over the very real inconsistencies in the European Union will not help anyone. I, too, would like to finish by saying something about the Roma in France. I believe that the European Union has a good tradition. However, anyone who wants to combat social anxieties at the expense of a social minority, and indeed using unfair means, is abusing his political powers. I want to make this very clear: the abuse of social anxieties is simply unacceptable for a Community that always makes a point of standing up for universal human rights and moral values. These moral values and human rights apply to French, Polish, English, Spanish or German people in the European Union, just as they do for all Sinti and Roma who live in Europe.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, this grand occasion, Mr Barroso’s State of the Union speech, does not quite put him on a par with President Obama. There is one fundamental difference, Mr Barroso: President Obama is elected, and you are not. Forty-eight million people watched his address, and here in the European Parliament we even have to beg MEPs to turn up to listen to you.

You completely ignored the state of the Union. You said how you felt things were going, you pointed your way forwards. However, Eurobarometer, the Commission’s own polling organisation, tells us the truth. It tells us that in the last six months, there has been a dramatic drop in confidence as regards people’s belief in even belonging to the Union: a 10% drop in Germany; a 17% drop in Greece and a 9% drop in Portugal. Less than half of EU citizens think that being a member of the club is worth it.

Even more revealing is that in your own country of Portugal, over the last six months, a further one in four people have lost total faith in EU institutions. That, Mr Barroso, is hardly an endorsement of success or belief, and yet from most people today, there seems to be such great self-satisfaction.

Well, do not be too satisfied, because the people have worked it out for themselves: the real state of the Union is that it is increasingly loathed and despised. And yet some claim that this is because they want more Europe! Mr Verhofstadt said that people want more common policies. No! The evidence is clear.

(Interjections from the floor)

Interesting, Mr President! When I barrack people, I get threatened with fines. But never mind.

(Applause from the EFD Group)

The evidence shows that the more common policies there are, the less people like it. People have recognised the devastation of the common fisheries policy; they have recognised the inequality of the common agricultural policy; the lost business opportunities of a common commercial policy; and, of course, now the big one: the common currency, this ill-conceived political attempt to force people into a monetary union without ever asking any of them whether they wanted to be there. Well, it is perfectly clear that this currency does not suit Germany and it does not suit Greece. One is now trapped inside an economic prison. You can pretend the crisis has gone away, but it has not, because the bond spreads are now 8% on five and ten-year bonds.

You can smile, Mr Schulz, but you know nothing of financial markets or how these things work. And, in your own country, well, why should the German taxpayer increasingly pick up the bill?

This form of government is not working, and yet what we heard today is that we are going to have a common defence policy and a common foreign policy.

The other reason why these polls are where they are is that people do not respect you because you cheated to get the Lisbon Treaty through. We were told it would simplify everything, that we would know where we stand. Well we do not. Who is in charge of this EU? Is it you, Mr Barroso? Is it my old friend, Herman Van Rompuy? Is it the Belgian Presidency? That really is good stuff! You still cannot form a government in your own country and yet you have the Presidency of the European Union! Whichever way you look at it, the whole thing is a bit of a dog’s dinner really.

The EU has never had so much power, and yet it has never been so unpopular. But not satisfied with the EUR 2.4 billion a year that is now being spent on EU propaganda, you want the overall budget to increase by 6%, and we understand that you personally are to have a full-time TV crew to traipse round with you, new press officers, new webmasters. You are not analysing why this is going wrong, Mr Barroso; you simply do not get it.

(Applause from the EFD Group)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, perhaps I might also be permitted to use both of my speaking times together to speak for three minutes.

The European project – if we are debating the state of the Union – seems to many people right across Europe to be in serious jeopardy in four respects. The prosperity and the social security of Europe seem to people to be at risk. The financial crisis and the – perhaps futile – help given to Greece have proven that to people, while the increasing mass unemployment and the mass immigration into our social systems also prove this to them. In this regard, the Union comes across to people as a toothless tiger that is not able to exercise control of the financial markets or to develop appropriate criteria.

Secondly, people feel that civil freedom is at risk. There is barely any direct democracy in the Union. It is treated with contempt, like, for example, in the first Irish referendum or in the referendums in France and the Netherlands. Data storage, for example, as manifested through the SWIFT agreement with the United States, gives people the feeling of being permanently spied on. Regulation in the context of a paternalistic system is spreading increasingly in the Union, giving citizens the impression that their personal freedom is being curtailed. The freedom of thought and speech is also increasingly being jeopardised through political correctness. In this context, I refer to the debate about Mr Sarrazin in Germany.

Thirdly, people feel that cultural diversity and the national identity of the European peoples are at risk. Cultural assimilation and spiritual globalisation will have this effect, as will mass immigration, and so will Islamification and abuse of the asylum system, of course. The national identity of the European peoples is probably in serious jeopardy.

Fourthly, respect for Europe in the world is in serious jeopardy. In terms of foreign policy, Europe has become a laughing stock. The example of the Middle East negotiations has been mentioned, where Europe was not even at the table, even though we are the big paymaster throughout the world. Europe barely has any recognition in the world and is, in reality, no great player in terms of foreign policy or global policy.

We have managed to bring this European Union to a current state of development where, internally, it is creating a system that its citizens find increasingly oppressive and stringent, that fails to take account of regionalism, cultural diversity and similar factors, and which appears weak to the outside world. Inwardly harsh and regimented towards its citizens, employing centralism and bureaucracy, and outwardly a Europe that is weak, has no place in the world, and is not capable of really securing European interests globally.

That is the state of the Union, a Union that is no longer really prepared to secure the interests of the European peoples and the interests of European citizens.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I have listened to you all very closely and with great interest. I have tried to see which, essentially, were the fundamental questions.

In substance, I believe that, at least, the majority of this Parliament clearly wants more Europe, wants the Community method and wants more ambition. No specific criticism was levelled at the Commission’s proposals.

Some people have said that they would have preferred a speech analysing the situation. Rather than commenting on the past and the present, I prefer to construct the future. I believe that the most important thing is not to comment – I leave that to the commentators, for whom I have a lot of respect, by the way – but I believe that our role, the role of the Commission, is to make proposals. For me, the speech on the state of the Union also concerns the state to which we want to lead the Union with our joint efforts. That is what I presented to you today, with specific and ambitious proposals.

I do not want to evade any questions, however. It is true that the Union is currently at a turning point. It is true that we have a new treaty. It is also true that some people at national level pursue a purely intergovernmental interpretation of these institutions.

We have already clearly defined our vision, and – as I said in my speech, by the way – I am in favour of the Community method and spirit. However, the best way of pursuing the latter is not to engage in endless discussions on the institutions, and still less to engage in institutional guerrilla warfare, which I do not want, and which I will not take part in. The best way is for the Commission to fulfil its initiative-taking role by presenting substantial, bold and high quality proposals, and for you yourselves – as you have done, incidentally – to be able to work with us in this spirit. We have made proposals on this, and it is here, I believe, that we will truly be able to test our commitment to a stronger Europe.

Some people provided results of opinion polls measuring support for or confidence in the European institutions. It is true that there are difficulties – serious difficulties – to which we should respond. However, if you had made a more complete analysis, you would have noticed that, while confidence in the European institutions sometimes poses problems, there is sometimes a much greater problem, which is confidence in national politicians and national governments, and the truth is that no one has mentioned this.

We are currently experiencing an extremely difficult time from an economical and social point of view, and this is a time when everyone must show responsibility. We know well that, at difficult economic times, the tendency is for public opinion to have little confidence in political institutions, either at national or European level. I believe that the best way of responding to these worries is with results and with proposals.

In essence, I believe that we are in agreement – at least, the pro-European majority in the European Parliament is. We are in favour of consolidating financial regulation. We have clearly declared that we will not abdicate the Commission’s right of initiative. We also want the banks and the financial institutions to contribute to solving the problem that they helped to create. That is why we are in favour of taxing financial activity. We want proposals for growth in Europe. This is what we will work towards.

Some of you mentioned a problem which, incidentally, will be discussed this afternoon during a parliamentary sitting: the issue of the Roma. I will not go into detail on this issue now, as it will be discussed this afternoon. Let me say to you, however, that the Commission has been interested in this problem for a long time.

At the start of this year, we even co-organised a ministerial meeting on the issue of the Roma. I believe that only two or three ministers, for the whole of Europe, were present at this ministerial meeting. Mrs Reding represented the Commission. We have important support programmes for providing help to the Roma and assisting their integration. We are in constructive and serious dialogue with all the governments in Europe, both with the governments of countries from which Roma originate and governments of countries in which Roma currently have a significant presence.

I believe I can ask you quite sincerely not to play politics with this question. This is an extremely sensitive issue and an extremely serious one. We Europeans will not be helping if we polarise discussion of such a sensitive issue.

We have said – I said it just now very clearly – that the principled position of the Commission and the European Union is to oppose all forms of discrimination. It is totally unacceptable. However, when it comes to responding to questions that are being asked in some of our countries, we must also say that all our citizens have rights and obligations. Furthermore, we must always stress the balance between freedom, particularly freedom of movement, and security.

If we do not respect this balance, we run the serious risk of this issue being instrumentalised by extremist forces which will be able to exploit, in a populist manner, the feeling of insecurity which exists in many of our societies. Therefore, let us provide a serious and responsible answer, and let us always avoid using an extremely serious and extremely sensitive issue for political purposes. The Commission will take this position of responsibility.

That is why I believe that we have an immense amount of work to do. If the criticism that some people have directed at me is that I am seeking consensus between the main European political forces, then that is a criticism that I am happy to accept. In fact, the Commission must represent the general European interest, and we must try to represent this same general interest by trying to obtain the contribution of different pro-European political forces. That is what we are doing.

There was discussion of the budget. I heard your speeches. It seems to me that most of you want an ambitious budget for Europe. However, ladies and gentlemen, let us also be extremely clear here: the Commission will bring forward an ambitious budget, but we must not simply hold this debate here, in the European Parliament – we must win over European public opinion. Therefore, I ask for your help and support so that we can explain, in our countries, to the political forces which form the governments in our capitals, why – as Mr Daul rightly said, by the way – very often the euros that we spend at European level in fact constitute a saving compared with the many euros that we might spend at national level.

This battle with public opinion is one that we must win, by having a democratic debate in our countries. This is why I ask for your support so that this debate can take place with the political forces that you represent, not just in Strasbourg or Brussels, but also in the capitals, because we must reach a consensus between Parliament and the Council. The various institutions must reach an agreement. The Commission will be there. The Commission will bring forward ambitious proposals, but always in a true spirit of partnership for a stronger Europe, a Europe of cooperation and not a Europe of division.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I will use my two minutes to try to go back to the questions and answer them. I will not make any personal attacks. You know me: I will not make them and I have never made them.

First, regarding the budget and what we have agreed together, the vast majority of Parliament agrees that we need our own budget so that we can reduce the resources used at national level. This is the first summary that I am making, but let us not forget that we are dealing with a unanimous decision. This is not about criticising our Heads of State or Government, or Mrs Lagarde or Mr Schäuble; this is about convincing our respective parties, as Mr Barroso said; this is about properly discussing and properly working with this subject at our respective levels, in our respective parties and in our respective countries, as these are unanimous decisions. This will be much more complicated than making grand speeches here, but we will fight, and I will fight to have our own resources at European level.

(Applause)

Second, regarding the Roma, let us call a spade a spade. Ladies and gentlemen, Presidents, we are responsible people, and we must find solutions. This is the mayor of the town speaking. We are encountering enormous problems when it comes to our fellow citizens, who are proper democrats, and who we are risking giving over to the populist camp. We have a duty here. Nevertheless, serious crime is to be deplored. I did not say that it was the Roma. Do not put words in my mouth. What we must fight against are banditry, crime and prostitution.

Eleven tractors have been stolen from farmers in my canton since 1 January. Do you believe that people are happy? Look what is happening, too, in our various towns. Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a very sensitive subject that we must handle with care for all our fellow citizens, and – I am not starting a national debate, I am starting a European debate – I agree with Mr Barroso on this point. We must work on this subject to propose solutions regarding the Roma that we have in this Parliament, and also with Romania and other countries concerned.

I believe that this subject is too important. If we succeed in allowing the children of these immigrants to benefit from education and training, we will win the battle within ten years. This is what I propose for the discussion.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to make a brief comment with regard to the two points mentioned by Mr Daul. Firstly, we are agreed that we need our own resources. We are fighting together for these resources of our own, but because unanimity is required and because we probably will not get a unanimous decision, there will therefore be no own resources, so consequently, it needs to be clarified that, if this is the case, there will also be no reduction in the EU budget. Hopefully, that is the conclusion that we will also then come to together.

Now I am speaking as a former mayor. For 11 years, I was mayor of a town that had a great deal to do with the Roma. My town is on the border that separates Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. We are a transit area for many Roma. I worked with this problem for 11 years and so there is one thing I would like to say to you, Mr Daul, and to my fellow Members. Yes, the Roma are a difficult minority. That is true, but even difficult minorities have a right to protection of their fundamental rights. That is the essential message. In this respect, Bernard Kouchner is right in what he said.

My second point is that states governed by the rule of law have an obligation to prosecute criminal acts. If something is stolen or if prostitution or fraud is going on, a state governed by the rule of law must enforce the law, no matter who is suspected of having committed the deed. That is the right of every state. However, it is also the obligation of every state to investigate each individual case and not to create the impression that whole population groups are suspect from the start. We find this unacceptable.

(Applause)

My final comment is that you must not take guerrilla action. You have already said that I am taking institutional guerrilla action. That is absolutely not the case. You should be carrying out institutional frontal attacks – that is what it comes down to, Mr Barroso. Our criticism of you does not relate to your very definite ability to find consensus. You are certainly capable of that. You have seen today that everyone is satisfied with you.

In your personal conversations, Mr Barroso, you are definitely capable of attack – something that your commissioners and I myself know very well. However, I would ask you for once to show the ability to go publicly on the offensive, specifically in relation to the Heads of State or Government, because that is what we need in Europe, an element that is willing to confront those who want to renationalise Europe.

To you, Mr Farage, I would say this: it may well be that I do not know how it works, that people are freely stuffing their pockets, but I know very well how to put an end to these people’s games.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr Barroso, if you thought I was criticising you because you try to take account of the needs of every group, let me assure you that my statement was not meant as criticism. I value your diplomatic abilities in this area, and I think that maintaining a balance between the various Member States is even more difficult. This, I am sure, requires even greater effort from you than keeping each political group happy. Since you talked about a pro-European majority and an anti-European minority, I would like to ask everyone, in the name of democratic and honest debate, not to lump together those who do not like what is being planned for Europe or who do not want the European Union – because I do not agree with these people – with those who say they want to change something in Europe and who are interested in these plans. We do not agree on many matters which have the support of the majority in this House, but we do sit in this Parliament so that Europe will be better and not worse, and we are always ready to talk about this. I do appreciate, Mr Barroso, that you are open to having this debate with us.

As for the matter of the Roma, which has been raised, here, I do not often agree with Mr Schulz, but I do agree with him on this. I think that if a country has a problem of a criminal nature, it should do everything possible to tackle that problem, because the citizens pay tax so that the state will fight criminals. This is obvious. However, we need to avoid a situation in which any ethnic group is, in any way, attributed with a particular predisposition to crime, because that is, in my opinion, very dangerous and verges on racial discrimination. These are matters which need to be treated tactfully, and they must not be politicised by either side in the dispute. What is needed is a constructive approach, and the problem needs to be resolved.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to come back to what Mr Barroso so rightly said against racism and xenophobia.

However, in this regard, I would like to say that I am still not satisfied with the debate about the Roma, which we will, of course, continue this afternoon. There are side issues being debated that are extremely dangerous. In Germany, for example, we currently have the Sarrazin debate, which is extremely problematic. In this regard, the fact is being overlooked that in Germany, there are poorly educated sections of the population – of Germans, immigrants and also of Roma and nationals of other countries – who are all relatively poorly catered for in schools and we have insufficient means and a lack of smart methods to be able to really help these children. This breeds racism. Finally, I would like to say that sometimes, racism can arise unintentionally.

I would not like to forget the debate about Greece. In this regard, I have seen things in my country, which is not particularly xenophobic, that I had not thought possible. We must remain sensitive to nationalistic, xenophobic and racist statements in the European Union.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the row over the Roma in France is, of course, caused directly by failing European Union policies.

It was a huge mistake to allow Bulgaria and Romania to join the European Union whilst there were millions of Roma in those countries being heavily discriminated against. It is no wonder that, now they are part of the Union, they are seeking to move elsewhere.

That goes for everything does it not? Every single one of the policies fails and leads to a problem – whether it is this or whether it is the euro – and all the way through, we see a fanatical political ambition to create a United States of Europe, regardless of the consequences. At no time has any of this been endorsed by the voting public. That, Mr Barroso, is the true state of the Union.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Presidency of the Council, I would also like to welcome the speech by the President of the Commission on the state of the Union.

This important speech has come at the right time. It allows us to put all the European subjects back on the table following a long institutional transition, and following the economic and financial crisis which has run right across the Union.

Mr President, I took careful note of the forward-looking, ambitious approach of the Commission, which aims to respond to current challenges, and also – as we said this morning – to defend the values of the Union.

The five themes identified by the President of the Commission – exiting the crisis and improving economic governance, rediscovering the path to growth through the structural reforms of the Europe 2020 strategy, implementing the Stockholm Programme to strengthen the area of freedom, justice and internal security, modernising the Union budget and, finally, allowing Europe to take its place on the international stage – are fully consistent with the priorities of the trio, but also, obviously, with the priorities of the Belgian Presidency, brought before this assembly by the Prime Minister last July.

However, realising these objectives will require time and therefore, several Presidencies will have to devote the necessary effort to this. The Presidency and the Council will study your speech in detail, Mr President, as well as the working document that accompanies it. At this stage, though, allow me to make two remarks.

The first is that what our fellow citizens expect from our institutions is to put our projects into concrete form, which will allow them to contemplate the future more calmly. Effective financial supervision and regulation, an affordable and competitive Community patent, and an operational European diplomatic service are among the urgent projects on which our three institutions will be judged.

Next, let me stress that only collective, Community-based work by our institutions – the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, the President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – will make these types of projects possible, and it will perhaps also allow us to combat the Euroscepticism which continues to gain ground in the Member States.

This is why the Belgian Presidency has proposed, Mr President, to strengthen cooperation with the European Parliament on implementing current priorities. We have planned regular meetings at an administrative as well as a political level in order to intensify our collaboration. It is in this spirit that the Presidency intends to pursue its work over the next four months.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, although the speeches by the group leaders this morning have differed greatly in tone, one thing is clear, and that is that many of the policy actions announced by the European Commission can count on broad support in this House, as all of us together advocate the Community method. Many more discussions will have to be held on the substance. This morning, I should like to call for special attention to youth, to our children. After all, they must be well equipped to generate prosperity for us in the future, so that good public services will remain and the growing group of older people can continue to receive a pension. That is why we have to solve the problem of high-level public debt now and take painful measures to this end, and that is why we cannot accept a 20% unemployment rate among young people. This percentage has now been laid down in the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, but this will mean that disadvantaged children and children from minorities continue to be marginalised. Therefore, the Council faces the challenge of increasing youth employment, in order to meet Parliament’s ambition of 90% of young people in either work or education and just 10% youth unemployment. Achieving this by 2020 is a very important objective for our European Union.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, since the international financial crisis and economic downturn, new divisions have emerged in the European Union. There are no longer any grounds for making distinctions between old and new Member States. President Barroso has not mentioned the reason why the gulf is beginning to deepen between the eastern and southern parts of the EU. Before accession, we in the new Member States saw Ireland, Spain and Portugal’s success in catching up with the rest of Europe as an inspiring example. Will this catching-up trend continue in these countries? Will a multi-speed Europe evolve? Will the new Central European and Baltic States have an opportunity to catch up? Will there be enough resources after 2014? Mr President, the new Member States would like a European Union marked by strength, solidarity and dynamism.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, you have presented us with a lot of fine words. I hear your words, but I ask myself: where is the action? The Roma, for example. It is not important to me that you criticise Mr Sarkozy in particularly strong terms. What I would like to know is, what are you going to do, what is the Commission going to do to enforce what is the common feeling of everyone here, namely that citizens’ rights are inviolable and must apply to everyone? To this question put to you by all sides of Parliament, you respond: ‘We will act in a responsible manner’. However, this response is, unfortunately, based on the idea that platitudes are the strongest weapons of European policy. That simply cannot be the case!

My second point is that there has been talk here of a loss of confidence by European citizens. Citizens had very little mention in your address. However, we also need the European institutions to show modesty towards citizens. Thus, the principle that ‘every European euro is better spent in Europe’ is wrong. Without the appropriate modesty towards citizens, even the loftiest of goals will come crashing down.

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR). – Mr President, as the President of the Commission acknowledges, belief that the EU is a good thing has fallen substantially, and many people believe their Member States have not benefited from membership. We should be worried, but I fear that the Commission is under pressure from those who believe that the solution to every crisis is more Europe. Indeed, some argue that polls demonstrate support for more European economic governance. However, the public does not want more Europe; it wants a better Europe and a Europe that adds value with a light touch.

The European Union has been delegated by its Member States with key functions that need to be achieved, such as completing the internal market and furthering international free trade. Those should be priorities, and that is why we support the principles of President Barroso’s centre-piece initiative – Europe 2020 – and the single market relaunch, which members of my own group have been so involved with.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubt that many governments spend the night taking apart what the Commission creates by day. It is therefore important for the Commission to add its own timely contribution to a correct interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity, so that it does not become an excuse for thwarting and limiting the progress made by the Treaty of Lisbon.

I would like to say this to my liberal and socialist colleagues: if you are so concerned to accuse democratic governments of racist policies and you really believe what you are saying and consider that the Commission is complicit in or has a weakness for these policies, why do you not call for Commissioners from liberal and socialist backgrounds to resign from their positions?

Lastly, a suggestion to President Buzek: we ought to apply to the absent MEPs the same sanctions that the European Commission will certainly apply with regard to the absence of Vice-President Ashton.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, the state of the Union for us today, in France, is that the citizens, the people, and also the streets are rumbling with discontent. Our fellow European citizens are experiencing an unprecedented crisis of confidence, and they have decided to march to the beat of refusal and demands, but also of hope. What is behind this is a failed proposal for reforming pensions, but not only this. What is at stake is getting older in a dignified manner. What is at stake is ensuring an intergenerational solidarity which allows the youngest people today also to live their working life, their professional life, with a pension from which they can benefit.

On this very subject, Mr Barroso, the Commission published a Green Paper on the reform of pension systems which unleashed a wave of anxiety from the trade unions before the summer. The proposal that you have made to increase the retirement age seems unrealistic to me. It would be more useful if the Commission told us how we can make sure that workers are able to keep their jobs up to the legal retirement age. I would like to hear your proposals, and I would also like to hear some details on what you called the fiscal consolidation rather than the economic coordination of our Member States, which I think must be oriented towards social solidarity.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, while I was listening to Mr Barroso’s speech, it was a speech about a work programme. I thought that perhaps it was a problem for the EU that no analysis of the state of the EU could be made within the EU.

There were a lot of excellent objectives mentioned in the speech but nothing very concrete. I am thinking, for example, of the promise that Mr Barroso made that the EU would stand by small and medium­sized enterprises. It sounded somehow familiar, but when I think back over the years, I see no proposals. I hope we will have some now.

Something else I would have liked to see in a more tangible form is foreign policy. The problem surely is that the Member States will not allow the representatives of the EU any room. Now that the next G20 is to take place, I heard that France is to chair it. What is the point of that? A representative of the EU, the EU itself, should be there. I think that this point should be raised, and if the EU wants to find a new voice, then a representative of the EU must deliver this speech. We have to have a debate about this.

  Eleni Theocharous (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, sometimes you do see us, up here, at the top of the Himalayas. President of the Commission, your vision of a Europe of justice, freedom, democracy, prosperity and a high standard of modern political morals is very important. I wish I had time to analyse what Mr Kaminski said, but time is too short. This vision is also our vision, which is why my small country, Cyprus, has given a great deal for freedom and democracy in Europe and in the world. It fought hard to join the European Union.

So why are you undermining and circumventing this vision, which is also your vision? Why are you allowing an attempt to be made to dismantle the basic principles and values on which the Union is based? I refer to the case of Cyprus, where your insistence on the application of Article 207 of the Treaty of Lisbon to the direct trade regulation infringes the Treaty of Accession and, in particular, Protocol 10 on the accession of the whole of Cyprus to the European Union, and deals a severe blow to the sovereignty of Cyprus and, at the same time, solidarity towards the Member States and the credibility of the Union.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). – Mr President, I should like to say this to Mr Barroso: you are wrong. You cannot have sound proposals without analysis and retrospection. You are also wrong in that you cannot have both the fiscal consolidation that we are currently implementing and growth with jobs.

We are failing to learn the lessons of history. The social buffers that were put in place following the 1929 crisis are being dismantled in virtually every Member State.

Your speech emphasised the social market economy and social cohesion, but your programme emphasises competition on the market and fiscal consolidation, which precludes a social market agenda.

I want to see you using Articles 3, 9, 14 and Protocol 26 to their fullest legal and policy extent in order to develop a new social pact for Europe. Otherwise, we will not rebuild the confidence of the people of Europe and their unity behind developing the union of this Europe.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I should have liked to have heard Mr Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council, also speak in this debate.

In my view, the state of the Union should also reflect the institutional reality of the Union. Indeed, since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, we have witnessed a kind of ‘presidentialisation’ embodied by the President of the European Council in several key areas of European policy.

In the management of the euro crisis, the task force set up by the European Council and chaired by Mr Van Rompuy could have been, I believe, the subject of a debate on the state of the Union. While no one is forcing the President of the European Council to come and address the European Parliament, no one is stopping him either.

I should like to hear you speak on this point, President Barroso, and to name those people for whom Mr Van Rompuy’s presence might be a nuisance.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr Barroso, there is no point in making speeches about the state of the Union if, at a time when one of the fundamental principles of the Union is under attack, the President of the Commission’s response is tepid, timid and weak. Mr Barroso, your first reference to what is happening to the Roma in France was more or less adequate; your second was, frankly, an embarrassment for the Commission. That is because what started with the Roma is already moving on to the poor: President Sarkozy said yesterday that Europeans without means of supporting themselves in France could not stay there more than three months. That means that, not only will this leave us on the brink of destroying the principle of freedom of movement, which is fundamental to the EU, but also that we will now be more vulnerable to the crisis, because, as we know very well, workforce mobility is one way in which countries respond to the crisis.

In the United States, if the automotive industry fails in Detroit, people go to Chicago; they will not be able to do this in Europe. If the Commission talks clearly about this now, it will be doing Europe a great service by standing up to the destruction of fundamental principles of the Union that is occurring. If the Commission does not speak up now, it will be doing Europe a great disservice.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, President Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, if we were in Italy, we would have described your speech as ‘Christian Democrat’; in other words, designed to appeal to everyone.

Are four million jobs available in Europe? If so, let us give them to our unemployed who, as you know, amount to tens of millions, to create a European labour market. We are emerging from the crisis? Good, so let us help companies and workers with subsidies for new economic growth and with proper salaries and pensions; let us create a European energy market. Europe is ageing? That is too bad, let us help traditional families made up of men and women to have children with contributions and services.

Step up the fight against climate change? Right, but it is not a one-way street; companies cannot shoulder all the financial sacrifices alone, to the benefit of their non-European competitors. Protect minority rights? It is the right thing to do, but when the members of those minorities do not respect our laws, it is right to send them back to their own countries. We cannot think of becoming a gathering point for the desperate people of the world; we must help them in their own countries.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, Mr Barroso has spoken of sustainable growth. In fact, we have seen negative growth. He spoke of increasing the proportion of people in employment, whereas that proportion has fallen. He speaks of increasing the competitiveness of European goods and services. However, the EU, like each of its Member States, is embracing globalism and voluntarily accepting a deluge of cheap goods that are emerging from low-wage countries in the third world.

The only way in which we can compete with such countries is to drive down our wage rates to their levels. Just in case our employers and employees are not getting the message, we are filling up our countries with third-world workers who are turning large areas of our countries into parts of the third world with below-minimum wage rates and unsatisfactory working conditions. We are making workers in the commercial services sector redundant and outsourcing their jobs to the third world.

The individual nation states of Europe, and the European Union on behalf of the continent as a whole, are committing identity, and economic, suicide.

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Most Member States are facing deficit- and debt-related problems.

Legislative proposals have been drawn up at European level. These proposals need to be finalised and implemented. Only a common financial policy and European economic governance can resolve the current situation. I hope that the new legislation will make the banking system share not only in the profits, but also in development and in assuming economic risk.

The future budget must take into account the current situation, but not with budget reduction in mind. Viable means need to be found to ensure that money is spent efficiently at national and European level. The value and distribution of the budget must be based on the requirements of the common agricultural, cohesion, energy and climate change policies.

You mentioned that there is a shortage of millions of jobs in Europe. The current budget has some unspent resources. These resources need to be reallocated to areas which create jobs.

On the other hand, Member States must have the option to transfer funds from areas where there is insufficient demand to areas where applications have exceeded the resources allocated.

Some time ago, I found my office cabinet broken into in this very Parliament. I did not think that this was a problem to do with a particular region or people. I thought it was down to someone who needed to be found and punished.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Your report set out a very ambitious and committed programme for the forthcoming period and the European Parliament will surely look forward with anticipation to the measures you mention in the report.

A minute is a very short time, and I would like to say only that the European Parliament – the Members of the European Parliament – may be your opponents, but we are constructive opponents and we want to help you implement what you have presented here. We could join forces against those who are the real brake on European Union integration, in other words, the European Council.

We would like to offer you the hand of friendship and our assistance in your struggle against governments who promote national egotism, and who delay the development and further integration of the European Union through such national egotism. I hope therefore that we will meet here soon and discuss concrete measures, and that together, we will also overcome the Council.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Madam President, the President of the Commission talked about sustainable growth and a target of 75% employment across the EU, a goal we would all agree with.

Yet across the EU, drastic cuts in public services are adding to the numbers of unemployed, taking money out of the economy and reducing essential services. How does this help the economy and avoid a job crisis? It really does not make sense. It puts the recovery at risk, a risk that is being taken, by the way, in my own country, the UK, by the Cameron Government.

Maintaining investment in areas the EU has a potential to lead in, such as renewable energies and high-speed rail, will help create the Europe we want, it will help create the Europe we need, and it will help secure the economy.

Finally, we need to guarantee overseas aid budgets, which are actually seen by some as an easy target. Those countries that fall short, far short, of their target pledges, should be strongly encouraged to rethink this disastrous policy.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, President of the Commission, you emphasised very strongly how important it is, with regard to the question of the Roma, to tread carefully and not to talk loudly and openly about what is happening in France. Mr Barroso, I expect you and your Commission to be much clearer on this matter.

Of course, it is right to tread carefully, but we should be doing that in our dealings with the people, with the Roma, who have now been expelled from France and sent home. As far as I can see, you have not acted quickly enough and you have not been clear enough in what you have said to the French Government. We will debate that this afternoon as well.

We need a common European policy that enables these population groups – not only in France, but in other states, too – to live in the countries they want to live in. As several speakers have already said, the Roma in Europe are Europeans. In France, I believe, 90% have French citizenship. Current policy in France is contrary to all European fundamental rights, and therefore I expect some clear speaking from you.

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) I have a message for President Barroso. The Dakota Indian tribe have a saying: ‘If you are sitting on a dead horse, dismount.’ Your recommended 20-20-20 policy (the 20-20-20 targets) is just such a dead horse. Putting this saying into a European Union context, our behaviour is the opposite to that of these Indians. We are setting up teams to improve the performance of a dead horse, to improve the diet of a dead horse and to improve the image of a dead horse. I would urge you to consider, Mr President, whether it is not time to dismount from the dead horse.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr Barroso, in your report on the state of the Union, you placed particular emphasis on the future economic management of Europe, perhaps because Europe is still not managing to keep pace with the dynamically developing economies of Asia and America.

You see a way out of this difficult situation in the measures described in the 2020 strategy. I do not wish to question your ambition to lead Europe out of these problems, but I see the greatest obstacle to economic growth in Europe in a problem that you have not mentioned at all. It is the European Union’s complicated business environment with its extraordinarily luxuriant bureaucracy which effectively stifles creativity and entrepreneurship, characteristics that are just as common here in Europe as they are in the US, Japan, China and India. A simple, transparent legal environment with a modest bureaucratic burden would certainly deliver a strong new impulse to Europe, further boosting economic growth. I would like to ask you, Mr Barroso, please, to give some thought to this matter.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, it has been an interesting debate. I should just like to point out, however, that there is a crisis of confidence, and perhaps the President of the Commission should acknowledge this very deeply. There is a crisis of confidence in democracy because the public believes that there has been a failure of elected representatives to regulate financial markets and all markets. I think we have to acknowledge our weakness in this respect.

There is a belief that the European Union can do better than individual Member States, and that is certainly a strong belief in the Member State I represent, Ireland, where we are in the depths of an economic and banking crisis which requires deep analysis and scrutiny. Unemployment is the biggest problem we face here, and if we now have strict enforcement of the Stability and Growth Pact, I worry about the impact it might have on employment, with increasing numbers of young people disillusioned and in a state of crisis because of the situation.

I welcome your comments on food security, biodiversity and sustainable growth, but be careful that Doha and bilateral trade agreements do not destroy those noble objectives.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, firstly, I must emphasise that many of the aspects that have now been brought into the debate are important ones in this context. We need a new dynamism. We must make a stand for the European Union, for our goals and for our values. The future begins today, not the day after tomorrow. Therefore, a good analysis, coupled with the correct consequences for the future, is necessary.

We are currently facing problems. There is a fight taking place between the future and a common Europe, on the one hand, and the strengthening of nationalism, on the other. We need to decide that, as in the past, we once again wish to utilise this crisis to take the next step towards integration. Continuing with the status quo is not an option. If we do not move forwards, we will fall backwards.

We therefore need to support the project aimed at creating an economic and social union in addition to the monetary union. In this regard, we need initiatives, timetables and specific sanction mechanisms, not just announcements. We need to make a stand for the prohibition of discrimination, for the principle of pacta sunt servanda and for solidarity. We need more acts of solidarity and we need these acts of solidarity to be regarded not as costs but as investments.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, Europe needs to convert its good intentions into actions, Mr Barroso. The role of the leadership provided by the permanent President of the Union must be acknowledged because he has played a decisive role in the agreement on financial supervision. This is the way forward for the Member States to agree on economic and foreign policy strategies, which are only effective if there is a common position. Otherwise, we will continue to lose positions and international visibility both in peace and security, and in economic and social matters.

Integration is therefore taking place from the top downwards, but we also need to integrate from the bottom upwards and create a real Europe of the Regions. We need to do this by applying the subsidiarity protocol established in the Treaty of Lisbon which, according to the Commission’s own data, has not been working over the past nine months, and by taking advantage of the experience and knowledge that the regions have in terms of innovation and competitiveness, because that will makes things better for Europe.

Moreover, how are we going to be more innovative if, according to your data, the majority of the Member States are going to reduce their budgets for innovation? You do not talk about citizens very much: we need to be useful to them and really count on them if we want to bring the Union project closer to the European public.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, President Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, the situation imposed on the Roma – their expulsion and the denial of their right to free movement in Europe – is unacceptable and goes against European values. However, this situation is but the symptom of a more serious and more general problem. It is merely the reflection of a disease in our so-called modern societies, where we are losing sight of what binds us together as human beings. No, human beings are not commodities that can be stocked and destocked.

The policy that we, as the European Union, follow on issues relating to the movement of persons within the Union and to entry and exit from third countries is unacceptable. We cannot pursue this policy of a besieged and timid Europe.

The free movement of persons is fundamental. It has always been so, and it is the foundation on which our present-day societies are built. Today, equality is no longer guaranteed where the movement of European and non-European citizens is concerned.

While European tourists and pensioners travel freely and in huge numbers to the South, especially to the Maghreb, the citizens of those same countries are unable to move around. The Schengen visas and their application by the EU Member States are inhuman. The considerable barriers to movement prevent citizens of the South from coming to the countries of the North as tourists, friends or family members.

President Barroso, what action – bold, concrete action – are you going to take to enable us to adhere to our values once again on this issue?

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, firstly, I should like to welcome the Belgian Presidency of the Council and to commend it on its speech.

I believe that Parliament’s aim in holding this debate on the state of the Union was also to launch our programming exercise. That is why we must also focus on legislative work. As you know, in Europe, the Commission has the right of initiative but, afterwards, of course, we need Parliament and the Council to intervene so that we can conclude the legislative process.

I should also like to highlight an aspect mentioned by the Belgian Presidency, which is the importance of obtaining concrete results. We have presented, both in my speech and in the document that I forwarded to you via President Buzek, a very ambitious draft programme that includes, for example, the Community patent, public services – which some of you have spoken about – and many other measures that are the real test not only of the Community method, but of our real ambition for Europe.

On the subject of ambition, I should like to mention a positive development. I have just learnt that the Ecofin Council has approved our proposal for a European Semester. That is one good example. As you will no doubt recall, when the Commission presented the idea, a few months ago, of having a European Semester, or a period at the start of the year when we work together to prepare our budgets, to see how we can actually coordinate economic policies, straight away, there was a great deal of reaction by certain well-known individuals, who were saying that this undermined national sovereignty and that it even undermined the national parliaments. This was completely untrue.

The truth is that, ultimately, thanks to the work that was also done by the task force chaired by Mr Van Rompuy, thanks to the proposals strongly supported by the Commission and the Council, and with the ongoing support of this House, we have succeeded. We are in the process of establishing this European economic governance. I have said it once and I shall say it again: it is not enough to have a money economy; we need to have a true European economic policy.

This is the direction we are going in. I announced it in my speech, and the Commission will fight for these proposals.

One of the Members of this House said: ‘You have presented some interesting proposals, but how can you be sure they will succeed?’ That is a good question. We must work together. We will make progress with this ambition. Ultimately, we need to have the clear support of this Parliament and also the support, sometimes the unanimous support, of our Member States. The Commission is shouldering its responsibilities, and I now call on the other institutions to follow suit.

On the Roma issue, there will be a special debate on this this afternoon. The Vice-President and Commissioner for Justice and Fundamental Rights, Mrs Reding, and the Commissioner for Social Affairs, Mr Andor, will be present. I think that will be the best opportunity to enlarge on the very important issues you have raised.

On the question of subsidiarity, I am keen to stress that we are in favour of subsidiarity and solidarity in Europe. I did not say that a euro is always better spent at European level than at national level. I did not say that. What I did say – and what I would say again – is that there are indeed many areas in which there are synergy effects and scale effects. Spending at European level is the only way of ensuring that Europe can act and can derive the maximum benefit for our fellow citizens.

We must hold this debate, and we must do so in a serious fashion, because I have seen the majority of MEPs come up with an ambitious idea for the forthcoming budget. We must win this debate in the eyes of the public in our Member States. It will clearly be a very complex debate, in an extremely difficult economic situation. If the Member States cannot increase their contribution, resources will have to be found so that the European Union can deliver results.

What we cannot do is ask Europe to deliver results without giving it the resources to do so. It would be impossible to do that, and so we must have an extremely serious debate on this issue of solidarity and subsidiarity.

Some of the policies that you have mentioned here are policies that must be developed at national level. The retirement issue, the social security issue – these are primarily national issues. There are different models. What the Commission says – and we have actually stated this in various documents – is that we obviously have to carry out reforms in this sector. If we want to guarantee the sustainability of our pensions – not just of our pensions but of our children’s, too – in the light of Europe’s demographic changes and ageing population, then there obviously have to be reforms. It is now up to each government to determine the pace of, consensus on, and scope for root and branch reform.

Yet, although we want to win the global competitiveness battle, we cannot do so if working hours are constantly being reduced, if the number of people in active employment is being reduced. We cannot do it, and we must have the courage to say that, if Europe wants to win the competitiveness battle, particularly when faced with certain emerging countries, we must work more and we must work longer. If anyone says otherwise, they are not telling the truth. More and better, that is the truth.

Similarly, it must be said very clearly that, without budgetary consolidation, we will not have confidence. If there is no confidence, there is no growth. If there is no growth, there is no employment. Therefore, budgetary consolidation is a crucial element.

At the same time, we need investment in areas that focus, of course, on the future, and we need it at European level and at national level alike. This presents a huge challenge – to us, in the European institutions, but also to those responsible for taking decisions at national level. How can we guarantee, in such a difficult period, that the investments we make are focused on the future? We in Europe are currently defining the areas in question. I have mentioned the areas in which we are going to make proposals for a more ambitious Europe.

In the case of SMEs, we have, of course, mentioned some specific ideas. I would also urge you to consider the document accompanying my speech, in particular, with regard to the Single Market Act, the legislation that we are going to propose with regard to electronic signatures, the numerous simplification measures, and the removal of certain obstacles which currently make the lives of our businesses, particularly our small and medium-sized enterprises, very difficult. The truth is that, for the vast majority of small and medium-sized enterprises, there is no integrated market as yet. They mainly operate in their national markets, but there are no real cross-border opportunities they can exploit as yet.

To conclude, I must tell you that we believe, like those of you who raised the point, that there is a confidence issue. A confidence issue not just at European level, but among political institutions in general. This means that all political decision makers are faced with a major challenge and a major responsibility. I believe that it is precisely by demonstrating strength of conviction that it is possible to have both serious responses and strong responses; not to take the weak middle ground, not to reach false consensus, but to have the courage to uphold, for Europe, this policy of balance, this policy of respect for the differences that exist in Europe.

There are differences in Europe. There are differences between our Member States; their national interests are sometimes at odds with each other. That is the truth, and it is only right that governments should defend their national interests. The question is: how can we show that they can achieve more at national level if Europe, too, is stronger? There are also, at times, ideological differences. They are justifiable. Looking beyond these ideological differences, however, can we or can we not have a strong consensus in favour of Europe?

I believe that we can. The Commission reaches consensus every day; my colleagues, from 27 countries, have different cultural and national backgrounds, and different ideologies. We work hard every day in the interests of Europe. I believe that, with you, the representatives directly elected by our fellow citizens, we can do more for a Europe that represents this spirit, a Europe of solidarity, a Europe of conviction, a Europe that is, at the same time, the Europe of the single market and the Europe of cohesion.

  President. – That concludes the debate on this item.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I really appreciated President Barroso’s address on the State of the Union, which looked forward to what is to come. However, it is a pity that the question of relations with the Member States was not addressed with a view to giving citizens the assurances they need that these strategies will really be implemented. Our citizens will end up confused by the different global, national, EU and intergovernmental elements. I am delighted with the proposed investment fund, which will allow us to move towards an EU investment strategy for the next 10 years. The fund offers the prospect of a planned EUR 1 000 billion over 10 years in a European Union which does not invest enough. It is time to consider the future of our continent, Europe, collectively: we have 27 armies and no enemies, a single customs union and 27 customs administrations – the list goes on. It is unfortunate that the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, was unable to attend the debate. I would propose creating a body, maybe known as the EU Congress, made up of the European Parliament together with delegations from the Member States’ parliaments and governments to which future State of the Union addresses could be made, thereby involving Member States more directly in the continent’s future.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Announcements like the one that the President of the European Commission made here again today, saying that the worst of the crisis has been overcome, are taking place just as often as the relentless denials of the reality that confronts us. The fact is that the European Union is still mired in a deep crisis, with no end yet in sight, as attested by the rising levels of unemployment and poverty in many countries. The President of the Commission is here today to talk to us about the future of the EU. Yet he did so by announcing the resumption of the practices and policies of the past – the very ones which have brought us to this bleak state of affairs: the Stability and Growth Pact; the ‘structural reforms,’ in other words, an attack on social and labour rights; the ‘consolidation of the internal market’, that is, the continuation of liberalisation and privatisation; liberalisation and deregulation of international trade; and escalation in the EU’s external interventions, including military ones. This route will only exacerbate the economic and social crisis at EU and global level. It is a route that the workers and the public reject, as is clear from the protests that have taken place in many countries, with millions of people demonstrating against the measures that Mr Barroso is proposing here.

  András Gyürk (PPE) , in writing. – (HU) In his speech just now, Mr Barroso also mentioned the main priorities for action in the area of energy policy. Please allow me to make three remarks in this regard. First, we agree that infrastructure projects are indispensable. However, we still do not see what level of Community resources the European Union will set aside for this purpose. Interconnecting the grids and building the Southern Gas Corridor are impressive goals, but they will remain a dead letter if, in addition to the efforts of the private sector, the Union does not make financial commitments. The significance of the negotiations on the next seven-year budget should not, therefore, be underestimated.

Secondly, we do not see in the EU’s documents on energy strategy any consideration given to job creation. Yet it is absolutely essential that priority be given to those projects which, in addition to fulfilling other criteria, also create new jobs. The almost EUR 4 billion stimulus plan did not meet this expectation on our part. While CCS technologies, with their modest potential for job creation, received generous support, most energy efficiency projects which do create jobs only appeared for the first time in the supplementary legislation.

Last but not least, there are fine words to the effect that charging electric car batteries will become as natural in the EU as filling up the tank is today. However, achieving this will require much effort on the part of legislators. The enormous legislative and standardisation obstacles to renewable technologies must be torn down, and research and development programmes need to be expanded.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) It is good news that the current economic situation of the eastern Central European region is now also receiving a more favourable assessment. However, it would be premature to believe that the crisis is now completely behind us. Hungary’s economic prospects have also improved. At the same time, the evaluation of the country’s current economic situation has somewhat deteriorated. Expectations of inflation over the next six months have increased. Correspondingly, Hungary is the only country in which short-term interest rates are not expected to fall for some time. This unfavourable tendency is further intensified by the rise in the value of the Swiss franc, since the majority of mortgages are denominated in this currency. Every state in the region is now introducing spending cuts which place heavy burdens on social conditions.

Expectations are that the Czech Republic has the best chance of success. Forecasts regarding Hungary, however, are cautious: evaluations show that the chances of Hungary’s cutback package succeeding are low. A thorough examination of the proposal submitted to the EU President by the nine Member States is an important issue for the region’s countries. The proposal submitted points out that national debt calculations should reflect accurately the costs of pension system reforms already adopted. The Commission’s Green Paper on pensions, taking as its starting point the unfavourable demographic trends in Europe, urges a pension system reform, and yet the current methodology places Central European countries which are already introducing such reforms at a disadvantage. I call on the European Parliament to follow closely the developments in this regard.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) Mr Barroso, the cost of ending the crisis should be divided fairly and an end to the crisis cannot be sought unilaterally by making cuts which will inevitably push up unemployment in certain Member States (thereby benefiting the economies of certain other Member States). On the contrary, what we need is equitable development which, in a period of public spending cuts, means finding new investment funds. In order to achieve the above objectives in full, the European Union should promote two very specific policies, both between the Member States and internationally at the next G20 summit, and should do so, at long last, with conviction and strength. Firstly, it must take decisive action against tax havens. At a time when workers and pensioners in our countries are suffering difficult cuts, it is unacceptable for a few private individuals and businesses to remove at least EUR 1 trillion from our economies through this form of ‘legal’ tax evasion. Secondly, we need a tax on credit transactions so that those who got us into the crisis ultimately pay their share. A 0.05% tax globally would bring in over EUR 400 billion a year in vital revenue needed for sustainable growth and employment in the Member States.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The main concern which citizens have at the moment is how to overcome the economic crisis and its adverse effects. This is why I am strongly in favour of European economic governance being established, which can help us exit the crisis. The EU’s institutions must have effective resources available for taking action. I therefore support the creation of the permanent structures required to manage crises, such as those proposed by the European Commission. The EU’s institutions must also monitor compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact, including fiscal discipline. Budgetary and economic decisions made by one state have a direct impact on the economic situation in all EU Member States (a fact demonstrated in practice also by the crisis in Greece and recognised by the Treaty of Lisbon). In future, economic analyses carried out in good time by the European Commission’s experts would be very useful in helping avert and overcome crises. The launch of the ‘European Semester’ will give Member States the opportunity to benefit in good time from professional evaluations and analyses carried out on the budgets and their macro-economic performance, thereby making the dialogue between the European Commission and Member States’ governments extremely useful. I wish to stress that establishing economic governance at European level should help states which are in a difficult situation. Any crisis tests the application of the principles of solidarity and responsibility, as well as the European Union’s consistency and efficiency.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) President of the Commission, your speech today was amazing. It reminds me of the ‘good old Soviet period’, when there was always a greater density of speeches when the economic situation got worse. We still hear ‘let us increase, let us grow, let us improve’. Instead of ‘Communist Party’, you are using the term ‘European Commission’. Your speech today was totally misleading and populist. You want to appeal to all political groups from the left wing to the extreme right. You talk about social justice and the social market economy and how the European Commission will ensure the creation of jobs. I do not think that you yourself even believe what you say. Since when has the European Commission created jobs; since when have the Member States’ governments created jobs? As far as I know, jobs are still created by entrepreneurs, who by the way you fail to mention in your speech! Why are you misleading European citizens by promising them social justice in a situation where our economy is hanging by a thread? Instead of giving people sweeteners and promising them a better life, you should tell them the truth: that they must mainly rely on themselves, work harder and make an effort to remain competitive on the labour market. I would also have expected you to say something to support European entrepreneurs through the intensifying global competition by providing for a lower tax burden and simpler legislation. I must say that I am disappointed with your speech.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The first ever State of the Union debate is behind us. There is no doubt that it was much needed, and it is to be hoped this initiative will be continued in future years. I do have reservations, however, concerning the progress and content of the debate itself. Firstly, I think Mr Barroso made very little reference to the present state of the Union. Instead, he said a lot about future challenges and, in my opinion, what he said was too general. His speech lacked reference to, among other things, the Treaty of Lisbon and its effect on the function of the Union and its institutions. Mr Barroso’s speech also lacked a thorough analysis of the current difficult economic situation in Europe, which has resulted from, among other things, the failure of the countries of the euro area to observe the Stability and Growth Pact. It should also be stressed that there was a lack of effective monitoring of its observance on the part of the European Commission. This is curious in light of the fact that Mr Barroso held office in the previous term, too, as did Mr Almunia, who was then Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and who is now Commissioner for Competition. Could the Commission, which has at its disposal a staff of hundreds of people, not notice the irregularities, for example, in Greece? This would seem doubtful, bearing in mind the lack of reaction, too, towards the largest of Member States which frequently violated the Pact’s recommendations and the convergence criteria.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – Whilst I welcome the President of the Commission addressing Parliament, I must criticise his stance on the plight of the Roma in France. Omitting to mention the French administration’s decision was wrong.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europeans are living through dramatic times, with an extremely high rate of unemployment, very weak economic growth and fragile public finances. Moreover, they do not really feel close to the European project and the work of the European institutions. This situation will only be turned around if our fellow Europeans can see once again that they are among the priorities of the European Union, as defined by those same institutions, and if they believe that these priorities are achievable.

This first speech on the state of the Union by the President of the European Commission demonstrates his commitment to restating these concerns in the orientations for short- and medium-term policy. I am convinced that if we are all committed, we can use these difficult times to our advantage and bring new hope to people. The Europe 2020 strategy is a unique opportunity to do that, but the strategy only makes sense if, as well as its ambitious goals, it has the means to achieve these.

Strong economic growth will be crucial to fulfilling the stability and growth plans, and can be stimulated with the reforms and investment that underlie the new strategy; these promote territorial cohesion by reducing the existing imbalances between Member States and between their regions, especially the most vulnerable ones such as the outermost regions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The EU operates a social market economy. The EU’s economic and social development equally depends on having a competitive open market, as well as on the number and quality of jobs capable of providing a decent living. The economic and financial crisis has had an enormous impact on EU jobs. Unemployment has risen at an alarming rate over the last two years, from 6.8% (in May 2008) to 10% (in July 2010). This is precisely the reason why European citizens’ main concern is about keeping their jobs. Job creation requires major investment in areas capable of boosting the EU’s competitiveness. I think that the EU’s priorities in terms of investment should be modernising and developing the energy and transport infrastructure, agriculture, education and health, economic and social cohesion and an eco-efficient, competitive industrial policy for ensuring sustainable development. However, these priorities should be reflected in both EU and national budgets. Furthermore, the EU should set as its objective improved energy efficiency and reduced energy dependence on traditional energy suppliers in order to boost the EU’s competitiveness and create jobs.

(The sitting was suspended at 11:55 and resumed at 12:05)

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

5. Formal sitting - Mali

  President. – Mr President, Mrs Touré, Your Excellencies, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I present to you, today, His Excellency Mr Amadou Toumiani Touré, President of the Republic of Mali, and his wife. This is not the first time Mr Touré has visited the European Parliament, but today will be the first time he has made a speech here. His previous visit was made one and a half years ago, in April 2009.

Today’s speech is of particular importance, as it comes just before the UN summit in New York in two weeks’ time. The objective of the summit is to review the Millennium Development Goals. We remember, too, the events of recent years and months related to terrorism. We are well aware that the Republic of Mali is playing a particularly important role in the fight against terrorism. We also remember that the Republic of Mali is a country where the process of democratisation has been a real success. It is an example of outstanding success on the road to democracy. I would like to stress this again. It was thanks to Mr Touré’s leadership that the events of the beginning of the 1990s took place. After 23 years of military dictatorship, a democratic system was introduced, along with a free-market economy. We know very well that much remains to be done on this road. We are all learning, and we are all in a time of change. We understand, too, that reform is a continuous process, as we ourselves find in the European Union. It has to be like this in the Republic of Mali, too. Therefore, we are certain that what you say to us, today, will be important not only from the point of view of what is happening in Africa and how your country can represent the whole continent on the road of democratic and free-market development, but it will also be important for us in Europe. We would like to be at the forefront of policy for countries which need support. We would also like to be at the forefront of countries which stand for the democratic system, protection of human rights and fundamental values, because we strongly believe in these things in Europe. I am certain that the aspirations of our citizens are similar to those of the citizens of the Republic of Mali. Mr President, please take the floor.

  Amadou Toumani Touré, President of the Republic of Mali. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Madam High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Commissioner for Development, honourable Members of the European Parliament, honourable Members of Mali, I should like to begin by congratulating you, Mr Buzek, on your appointment as President of the European Parliament but, above all, I should like sincerely to thank the chairs of the political groups and all the MEPs for having done me the honour of inviting me here today, firstly, to share with you my thoughts concerning some major challenges that my country and the whole of Africa face, and, secondly, and above all, to highlight the day-to-day efforts that my country is making to find appropriate solutions.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mali covers a surface area of 1 240 000 km2 and is situated at the heart of West Africa, sharing a 7 000 km border with seven other countries. A country with an age-old civilisation that is endowed with a rich and varied cultural heritage, Mali’s prestigious history may be told through a number of events, landmarks and symbols.

One that I would like to mention is the Charter of Kurukan Fuga. Adopted 776 years ago, when the Mali Empire was founded by Sundiata Keita in 1236, the Charter of ‘Kurukan Fuga’ had all the qualities of a constitution. It codified the organisation of power, restrictions and obligations, the defence of human rights and civil liberties, the protection of professional activities, and the protection of persons and their goods.

One of its articles was worded as follows, and I quote: ‘The human person is sacred and inviolable.’ It thus proclaimed, some centuries ahead of its time, what would go on to become one of the key principles of modern-day democratic constitutions. I felt it important to recall this in the great forum for democratic expression that is the European Parliament.

The history of Mali also includes Timbuktu: the mysterious city, the city of 333 saints, which, in the 16th century, already housed 25 000 students, who came from many countries to listen to scholars in the shadow of the ancient Sankore mosque and its university complex.

Mahmud Kati, author of the ‘Tarikh al-fattash’, gives the following account of the period, and I quote: ‘Timbuktu was recognised for the strength of its institutions, political freedoms, the safety of persons and goods, the mercy and compassion shown to the poor and to foreigners, the courtesy extended to students and to men of science and the assistance provided to those people.’

In 2006, Timbuktu was proclaimed the capital of Islamic culture.

Mali is also synonymous with the Dogon country, which is known throughout the world for its exceptional nature and its cultural richness, which make it our country’s number one tourist destination.

The history of Mali is also the history of its age-old relationship with Europe. As a reminder, Emperor Mansa Musa, more commonly known by the name Kanku Musa, established diplomatic relations with Portugal back in the 14th century.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as I stand here before you, the elected representatives of Europe, I should like to express the profound gratitude of the Malian people for the quality and level of cooperation between the European Union and Mali.

The European Union is Mali’s principal development partner. We receive the second-largest amount of aid from the European Development Fund (EDF) in sub-Saharan Africa.

I should like to express my satisfaction, above all, with the fine way in which our cooperation is applied in practice.

For example, the 9th EDF has been fully allocated, and implementation of the 10th EDF, which began almost two years ago, continues on a very strong footing.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the results of our cooperation have a direct impact on people’s quality of life; they also strengthen the foundations of our democratic system.

Initiated after the events that led to the coup d’état of 26 March 1991, the democratic process in Mali has been marked by certain key milestones, including the democratic transition from 26 March 1991 to 8 June 1992, which was completed within the time limits of, and in accordance with, the commitments made.

Following a 14-month transition period, free and democratic elections were held in 1992. Ten years later, in 2002, I took office at the end of a presidential election that marked Mali’s first ever peaceful and democratic changeover of political power.

Ladies and gentlemen, following my election, I proposed to the Malian political community a form of consensual leadership, the philosophy of which was essentially based on the following formula: to govern together, while respecting our differences.

What makes Mali’s experience unique is the fact that it did not result from any post-electoral crisis. A conscious and voluntary move is being made to address the need for joint efforts by political, social and community groups to further development in Mali.

In my view, power must be a force for cohesion rather than for division, and respect must be shown for fundamental freedoms as a whole.

I should point out that the political consensus that we reached – that I proposed – is not the same thing as unanimity. Consensus is more the notion of compromise.

The political consensus in Mali is an advanced attempt at building this new and constantly evolving political system in Africa, and here I am referring to broad government coalitions.

Mali’s experience has been one of uniting all the political groups around the vision of an independently elected president.

The political consensus has strengthened the foundations of reconciliation between the political community’s key players and the Republic’s institutions, on the one hand, and between the politicians themselves, on the other.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is in this same spirit of consensus that we have begun efforts to consolidate democracy in Mali, after 20 years’ practice.

The committee of experts responsible for overseeing this exercise has held meetings with the political community, civil society, religious groups, trade unions and traditional institutions.

The reforms proposed at the end of these consultations are primarily aimed at remedying the shortcomings and weaknesses revealed by institutional practice, at achieving a strong public turnout at elections and reducing the cost of elections, at strengthening the capacities of political parties, and at defining a statute for the opposition and for the leader of the opposition. They will be the subject of a constitutional referendum, which will, of course, be held following their adoption by the National Assembly of Mali.

This is a fitting moment for me to pay tribute here, before you, to Mali’s members of parliament, with whom I maintain the best possible relations, whether they are on the side of the presidential majority or of the opposition. May I express my sincere gratitude to those members of parliament for having agreed to accompany me here, to Strasbourg.

(Applause)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, decentralisation will always play a leading role in Mali’s political and institutional development. I would point out that our great empires – and we have had many of them since the 10th century – were all decentralised. In our country, therefore, decentralisation is a reality.

The original approaches to decentralisation developed and implemented by Mali were based on the following factors: firstly, the foundation of political will aligned with the belief that decentralisation cannot succeed without deconcentration, which has to be implemented in phases. It cannot succeed without the development and implementation of major reforms aimed at improving economic and social governance, especially at local level. It cannot succeed without the continued financial and, above all, technical support of the European Union.

The Administrative Reform Support Project (PARAD) and the Institutional Development Programme (PDI) have both benefited from European support. They help to improve the organisation of the state and to modernise the state administration by strengthening its capabilities.

Mali comprises 703 urban and rural communes, 49 circles, or territorial units comprising several communes, 8 regions and 1 district, which are governed by commune councils, circle councils and regional assemblies. A High Council of territorial communities ensures that our decentralised bodies are represented nationally. The creation of a senate is envisaged as part of the proposed political reforms to strengthen our decentralisation process.

In an effort to support local development, an original financial instrument, the National Agency for Territorial Community Investment (ANICT), has enabled us to implement a number of community facilities and, above all, to provide basic social services to our communities.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in taking the floor before this august assembly, I also wished to address the issue of immigration. Migration concerns us all, since it is a multifaceted issue for every one of us, for every one of our countries: demographic and economic issues, social and humanitarian considerations, and identity and security concerns all come under the umbrella of migration.

The task for us today is to find areas of shared interest and incentives that will help ensure that migration contributes to the overall growth and general well-being of our two continents. That is the challenge we face.

The brain drain constitutes the highest cost of migration for African countries, given the limited number of qualified personnel in many areas, such as education, but especially healthcare. According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), 40% of African countries have seen 35% or more of their university graduates move abroad.

Let us make no mistake, however: Africans migrate first and foremost within Africa. Of the estimated 1 billion Africans, barely 2 million from sub-Saharan Africa live in Europe.

The tragedy of these young people, of these women and girls, who try to cross deserts, seas and oceans to reach the paradise of Europe, at the mercy of every kind of danger – unscrupulous, pardon the term, smugglers – remains fresh in our minds. How many have died of thirst? How many have died at the bottom of the sea and disappeared?

No statistic could ever reflect the reality of the situation.

(Applause)

To take the example of my country, Mali, which has a high incidence of immigration and emigration, of the 4 million Malians worldwide, 3.5 million live on the African continent and roughly 200 000 throughout the whole of Europe and the rest of the world.

Economically speaking, the income transfers of the Malian diaspora are estimated at EUR 456 million per year, or 11% of GDP, according to a study by the African Development Bank carried out in 2005. According to the same sources, these transfers equate to 85% of the official development aid Mali receives each year.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an opportunity for me to praise the quality of the political dialogue between the European Union and Mali on migration issues.

Co-development is an asset. It enables a number of our partners to fund vocational training programmes for young people in various employment sectors and to support local entrepreneurship initiatives, without forgetting the programmes for reintegrating returning migrants.

The political dialogue on migration between the European Union and West Africa has enabled us to launch a pilot project, with the creation of the Migration Information and Management Centre (CIGEM) in Bamako. The centre’s remit is to improve knowledge in relation to migratory trends; to accommodate, advise, guide and support potential and returning migrants; to provide information on the legal conditions of migration; to raise awareness among the population with regard to the prevention of illegal migration; and to develop the human, financial and technical resources of Malians from abroad.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the security issue is an important aspect of our relations with the European Union. It is therefore appropriate to talk to you about the Sahel-Saharan strip, which is now a common threat, including for Europe.

Covering an area of 8 million km2, or one quarter of the African continent, and stretching from Mauritania to Sudan via Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Algeria, Libya and Chad, the Sahelian strip has a population density per km2 of almost zero, some of the most difficult terrain around, mountain ranges stretching over hundreds of kilometres and sand dunes covering hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. It is a very hostile area, with a particularly harsh climate.

The temperature can be just 1 degree in December and 50 degrees in the shade from February onwards.

The region’s sole activity remains intensive rearing in one of the most inhospitable environments there is. This year’s drought, for example, cost us 50% of our livestock in the Sahel-Saharan strip.

The local populations live in precarious conditions, and their young people have no alternative but to enlist as soldiers in all manner of criminal groups. Young people remain a key concern.

Mali is situated in the central-western part of the Sahel-Saharan strip, which covers an area of 650 000 km2, or 70% of the total surface area of our country.

Mali is a transit area, and I say forcefully today: my country, too, is both hostage and victim of the cross-border threats that come from elsewhere and are essentially bound for other regions and other continents. These threats are primarily cigarette smuggling, traffickers of illegal immigrants to Europe, drugs from South America, and Salafist groups from the Maghreb.

They take the form of hostage-takings and assassinations, but their main characteristic is their extreme mobility: they move along the borders between countries.

None of the threats that I have just mentioned originate in our country; none of them are bound directly for us. Mali is a secular country with, of course, a large Muslim majority. Islam has been practised since the ninth century. We have always practised Islam peacefully and, above all, with respect for the human person.

We therefore fail to understand the Islamic fundamentalist ideology preached in the Sahel-Saharan strip.

(Applause)

It is yet to have much of a religious impact, but for how long will that be the case? That is the question we have to answer.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the countries of the Sahel-Saharan region, which include Mali, have long been making efforts, both in human terms, and in material and financial terms, to curb the phenomenon of insecurity, the transnational nature of which, it must be said and acknowledged, is assuming increasingly worrying proportions. The scale of the phenomenon is such as to justify the development and adoption by Mali of a national policy to combat insecurity and terrorism in the Sahel-Saharan strip.

This policy will essentially be based, firstly, on support for the populations, to ensure that they take ownership of security policy; on assistance for vulnerable populations, by meeting their basic needs and, above all, by providing long-term access to basic social services; on the adoption of new measures for implementing this security policy; on the strengthening of small arms and light weapons recovery programmes, as part of the fight against their proliferation; and on the establishment of subregional cooperation, to enable us to take action at local level.

In order to demonstrate the great importance of these security issues, Mali has established a centre to conduct analyses and issue proposals on the fight against terrorism and the other threats, which reports to the President of the Republic. This initiative is supported by the European Union, which we congratulate and thank, and by certain Member States represented here.

What is more, we have also created a national office for the prevention of drugs trafficking, and strengthened our legal arsenal.

Ladies and gentlemen, in line with the strategic priorities of the insecurity and terrorism prevention programme, Mali has launched an emergency programme – which we have called PIRIN – to reduce insecurity and combat terrorism in the north of Mali during the period 2010 to 2012.

PIRIN’s overall objective is to significantly reduce, if not eliminate altogether, the causes of insecurity in the north of Mali, through the implementation of powerful measures in the area of security and above all, I would stress, in the area of community development.

The strategy to be developed will be based, firstly, on a responsible and, above all, rational occupation by the state administration; the increased mobility of troops engaged in prevention or intervention exercises; the creation of a relevant network in the target area with infrastructure for the armed forces and the security forces; and the mobilisation of society, in order to curb the influence of religious sects and criminal groups.

As far as funding for the emergency programme is concerned, the government of the Republic of Mali and the local authorities will meet, for our part, the costs of personnel, operations and administrative, social and community facilities.

The project will be managed by an ad hoc body in the shape of a task force that is able to receive sectoral budgetary support and coordinate several intervening parties and ministerial departments.

Ladies and gentlemen, managing the Sahel-Saharan strip is primarily about lucid and objective analysis within the scope of what is, above all, a common vision. That is why, in 2006, I personally proposed a conference on development and peace in the Sahel-Saharan strip.

We must share the responsibility today. No country in the Sahel-Saharan strip is spared, but no country can act alone against the various threats, either.

It is important, however, to highlight the significant lack of subregional cooperation in the face of the cross-border challenges.

It is also important to stress that this fight against terrorism is not just about security. We have seen the limits of that approach.

The fight against terrorism is primarily about elected representatives, local authorities and populations making a commitment and involving themselves. However, the backbone of this fight will be local development, so that we can offer alternatives to the communities of the North, and to young people in particular.

By training people, we can certainly strengthen our operational, logistical and information-gathering capabilities, but the fight against criminal networks is essentially the responsibility of the countries situated in the Sahel-Saharan strip.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, earlier on, I stressed the need to offer a better future to the inhabitants of the arid areas of the Sahel-Saharan strip. I would add, however, that this aspiration to social progress and well-being is shared by all our compatriots.

That is why development issues and especially the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals must be addressed at the highest level.

Mali has taken a number of initiatives to speed up its programme. These include the initiative of the 166 rural communes that face the most security problems, the ‘Millennium Villages’ initiative, and the initiative in the field of healthcare, which we have called COMPACT.

We are certain that not all of the objectives will be achieved, but we have made significant progress both in Mali and in Africa as a whole with regard to educational provision, the reduction in the AIDS prevalence rate and, above all, the provision of access to drinking water.

We have high hopes for the summit that is due to take place in a few days’ time in New York, where the aim will be to speed up implementation of the MDGs. Concentrating efforts on the countries and regions that are lagging behind, as the European Union emphasises in the spring package, is essential in our view.

Mr President, Mr Barroso, Madam High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Commissioner for Development, honourable Members of the European Parliament, honourable Members of Mali, Mali, which, in two weeks’ time, will celebrate the 50th anniversary of its independence – I should like to point out, as a matter of interest, that the Federal Republic of Germany was the first country to recognise Mali, two days after our independence, or on 24 September 1960 to be more precise – my country is grateful to the European Union for the significant part it has played in its development.

The honour you do us today by welcoming us to your Parliament’s plenary session fills me with great hope as to our desire and our ability to go even further, against a backdrop of trust and, above all, of friendship.

Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you for your very kind attention.

  President. – Mr President, thank you. You said that you welcome the political dialogue between the European Union and Mali. We say the same: we welcome political dialogue. You spoke about reforms in your country. These are necessary everywhere, including in our European Union. You referred to building political compromise for a better future for Africa. We welcome that, because it is what we are doing here in the European Union. It is something we have been doing for the past 60 years. We welcome you as a true representative of a democratic Africa. Thank you for coming and for delivering your speech to our plenary session.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: Gianni PITTELLA
Vice-President

6. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

6.1. Freedom of movement for workers within the Union - codified version (A7-0222/2010, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg) (vote)

6.2. Authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (A7-0212/2010, Slavi Binev) (vote)

6.3. Macro-financial assistance for the Republic of Moldova (A7-0242/2010, Iuliu Winkler) (vote)

6.4. Temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into Madeira and the Azores (A7-0232/2010, Danuta Maria Hübner) (vote)

6.5. Draft amending budget No 2/2010 BEREC (Office of the Body of the European Regulators for Electronic Communications) (A7-0240/2010, László Surján) (vote)

6.6. Request for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Viktor Uspaskich (A7-0244/2010, Bernhard Rapkay) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE). – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, I am under political attack. The rapporteur is lying that I did not provide evidence. The Committee on Legal Affairs prevented me from commenting on this report in the committee meeting. I am officially recognised as a victim of political persecution, officially, according to the European Convention.

The case was initiated not by the police, but by the corrupt and politicised State Security Department. This department attempted to abduct me illegally at night and during the election, the court prevented me from meeting with electors, but I was allowed to travel to Thailand and Indonesia during the election. The rapporteur is asking you to violate six previous European Parliament decisions. Never before has the European Parliament waived immunity for political leaders in such cases.

This is not what I said in the committee. I was not allowed to comment on this decision at all in the committee. I am blind. The decision was taken without me like in the Stalin era.

6.7. Agreement between the EU and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (A7-0209/2010, Salvatore Iacolino) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Salvatore Iacolino, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, I assure everyone that my speech will be brief.

Because this is the first agreement between the European Union and Japan, its symbolic value is not insignificant. It is an important activity that certainly constitutes a crucial juncture in our fight against organised crime. A balance point has been achieved between the most disparate needs that allow the product to be considered absolutely in line with expectations.

For this reason, it must clearly be approved because it certainly represents a specific step towards what both countries want: to modernise the justice system specifically through the application of bilateral agreements.

6.8. Interconnection of business registers (A7-0218/2010, Kurt Lechner) (vote)

6.9. Developing the job potential of a new sustainable economy (A7-0234/2010, Elisabeth Schroedter) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Elisabeth Schroedter, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to the historic nature of this vote. We, as Parliament, have taken the initiative here for green jobs and are now making the way clear for these jobs and creating new scope for sustainable jobs and good work.

In this, we are following the example of the Blue Green Alliance in the United States. Environmental change will create new jobs and retain existing ones. Six committees in this Parliament have worked on this report. I would like to thank all of the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs who have been actively involved in this, and I am pleased that the Belgian Presidency has already indicated that it will take up Parliament’s initiative and that the Council will consider the matter with a view to it being adopted at the summit in December and included in the conclusions. This is a European Parliament initiative for the future.

6.10. EEA-Switzerland: Obstacles with regard to the full implementation of the internal market (A7-0216/2010, Rafał Trzaskowski) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Rafał Trzaskowski, rapporteur. – Mr President, I just want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Malcolm Harbour, for taking the lead on this issue, and to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, with whom cooperation was exemplary.

6.11. Bilateral safeguard clause in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (A7-0210/2010, Pablo Zalba Bidegain) (vote)

- Before the vote on the legislative resolution:

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

All the political groups unanimously decided last week that the time had come for Parliament to take a position in plenary on the amendments adopted by 27 votes in favour and just one abstention in the Committee on International Trade in June, which are vital in order for the safeguard clause to be applicable and effective.

As you are aware, we are going to vote solely on the amendments and, in accordance with Rule 57, we will defer the vote on the legislative report to the second part-session in October.

At the same time, we unanimously decided not to close the door on a possible agreement at first reading, which we firmly believe will be possible. However, in order to do so, it is vitally important that we send a clear signal of unity and strength from all the political groups.

That is why it is important for Parliament as a whole to strongly support the whole package of amendments.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as Commissioner De Gucht recalled yesterday, the Commission welcomes the fruitful cooperation with Parliament on this file. Today’s vote is only on the amendments, and not on the whole legislative proposal, so as to bring the points of view closer and possibly reach an agreement at first reading. A first trialogue took place on 30 August and the next is foreseen for around 22 September.

At this stage, the Commission does not wish to express itself publicly, in order to allow the trialogues to fully play their role. The Commission will take its stand, express itself and make commitments, if necessary, at the time of the first reading vote.

(The proposal was accepted)

6.12. Fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe (A7-0225/2010, José Bové) (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 21:

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to ask for a few words to be added to paragraph 21. The English text would then read as follows:

Considers there is a need to prohibit selling below purchase price of agricultural produce at Community level.’

(The oral amendment was accepted)

6.13. Funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (A7-0236/2010, Miguel Portas) (vote)

6.14. Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (A7-0219/2010, Tadeusz Zwiefka) (vote)

6.15. Social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups (A7-0221/2010, Antonyia Parvanova) (vote)

6.16. Role of women in an ageing society (A7-0237/2010, Sirpa Pietikäinen) (vote)

6.17. Journalism and new media - creating a public sphere in Europe (A7-0223/2010, Morten Løkkegaard) (vote)

  President. – That concludes the vote.

7. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Kurt Lechner (A7-0218/2010)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Thank you very much, Mr President, I requested an explanation of vote on the Lechner own-initiative report because I think it is extremely important, and I assume that there will now follow an explanation of vote on the Lechner report, since you have addressed me. Thank you very much indeed.

Ladies and gentlemen, in brief: the Lechner own-initiative report which we debated here yesterday evening is, in my opinion, extremely important. This report proposes an interconnection of business registers or similar registers of legal and natural persons in the various Member States, with the aim of providing a trustworthy and reliable information source on a party for potential commercial partners, consumers or creditors, thereby achieving transparency and legal certainty in legal and commercial relationships.

A precondition for the functioning of the single market is the establishment of a basic set of data on every registered entity, and therefore also the interconnecting of business registers. I have supported this report also because it proposes integrating the system of European business registers into the so-called e-Justice project, which will ensure a better implementation of this measure.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, I am sure you will remember the wonderful scene in the film of Dr Zhivago, where the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats are enjoying champagne in the warm golden light of a restaurant, while outside in the surrounding murk, the people riot. Listening to our debate this morning, I was reminded not for the first time of that cinematic moment.

We have just had a Eurobarometer poll showing that confidence in the EU is at an all-time low. A minority of EU citizens now believe that the European Union is beneficial. But we heard from Mr Verhofstadt, Mr Daul and others that this is because we are not doing enough, because they want Europe to be doing more. We heard from the President of the Commission that it was all the fault of the nation states. Well, I suppose it is human nature not to seek to blame yourself for your own unpopularity, but it would have been nice to have had some indication that this crisis might have to do with the euro, with the bail-outs, with the sheer inequity of the shoving around of public money with the high-handedness with which we dismiss election results.

Allow me to close with the words of Edmund Burke, which seem unusually apt to our present discontents: ‘Because half a dozen grasshoppers concealed beneath a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, while thousands of great cattle take their repose beneath the shadow of a tree and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make all the noise are the only inhabitants of the field’.

Report: Pablo Zalba Bidegain (A7-0210/2010)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) The Achilles’ heel of the agreement with Korea is the reimbursement of customs tariffs or exemption from tariffs, particularly for products imported to Korea from China, which is difficult to monitor and is expected to harm European industry. This opens up the market in an unprecedented way, with no reciprocal advantage, moreover, for the EU. I therefore do not support the signing of such an agreement with Korea. The report of the Committee on International Trade tries to draw attention to these problems, and to facilitate the easier implementation of protective measures. The agreement should be modified in this regard before we ratify it. Otherwise, we will be sawing off the branch that European industry – and not just the car industry – is sitting on. I welcome the postponement of the vote; it is a sensible step.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I would like to know for sure that those who wish to speak during the explanations of vote on two reports will be able to do so.

I refer to the Binev report and the Winkler report. Since we began with subsequent reports, I wanted to make sure that I would be allowed to speak, otherwise …

(The President informed the speaker that, in accordance with Rule 170(3) of the Rules of Procedure, it would not be possible to give explanations of vote on the two reports mentioned)

So there will be no explanations of vote on these two reports, then.

Report: José Bové (A7-0225/2010)

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Thank you Mr President and excuse me. With my speech, I would like to highlight how the progressive erosion of European farmers’ incomes, despite growing profit margins for the agro-industrial sector, is causing a worrying economic marginalisation of agricultural workers, with the consequent abandonment of agricultural activities.

This requires, therefore, a change of course, which the European Commission itself recognises and which the report being examined and put to the vote in Parliament this morning – for which I would like to express my support – highlights with ample explanations and suggestions on a legislative and departmental level as well.

Indeed we must combat global speculation on commodities and guarantee the security of supply. Moreover, greater price transparency must also be guaranteed, not only to give farmers justice and dignity, but also to correct the serious imbalances that exist with regard to bargaining power and to prevent abusive practices between the various operators.

Agriculture must be confirmed as a sector of economic and social stability and it must regain power in the European and in the globalised commercial context.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I think that we have taken a good decision today, one that is good for farmers, good for consumers, but also good for the European economy as a whole. 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 indeed farmers in particular, have a right to appropriate remuneration for their work. The current situation cannot continue.

I have absolutely nothing against the provision and purchase of low-price, good value food, but the emphasis here is on good value. However, anyone who sells food below its energy value, in other words, if the thermal recovery of the food would bring in more money than its sale, then something is not right in the system. In this case, the competition will not be fair. If the competition is not fair, then politics must step in. That is precisely the content of the motion we have adopted today.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I also supported the Bové report and can echo the comments of my colleague, Mr Jahr.

This sends a very strong signal to everybody, both in politics and along the economic chain, that the Parliament here means business. We had a vigorous debate last night. Not everybody agrees with the entire contents of this report, but we are all in agreement that farmers cannot continue to be squeezed. The blood is literally being squeezed out of them at the moment. They are getting less and less of the final price that we all pay for our food in supermarkets and that situation has got to be stopped.

We have got to look at the role of dominant players. We need an ombudsman for the food sector and we need to look at what the global market is doing to our food producers. We need to examine competition law. I am happy that this report got the debate and the support it deserved here in Parliament. It is an important step to back up the rhetoric of recent times.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I backed the report on fair incomes for farmers and I am delighted that the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is taking an interest in the poorly functioning food chain and the contradiction between low purchase prices for farmers and high prices for consumers. However, I would like to emphasise again here that there is unacceptable discrimination and unequal competition for farmers from the EU 12 because of the higher subsidies enjoyed by the EU 15. It is difficult for Czech customers, for example, to get milk, vegetables, eggs and other commodities from Czech farmers, because the multinational chains prefer the more subsidised, and therefore cheaper, goods from the EU 15 countries. This must be changed as soon as possible.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I believe that this report, which talks of fair revenues for farmers, is absolutely essential, especially because farm production prices have risen far more steeply, costs have risen far more steeply, than the amount farmers receive for their produce. In this situation, it is the large retail chains who actually lose nothing through this process. I should like to say that the European Union’s objective has always been to improve farmers’ revenues, but we can see that it is impossible to meet these criteria for developing the countryside. The resources applied to farming continue to increase, but nothing is achieved. Farmers from several of the new EU Member States, including Latvia, are significant losers compared to industrial producers and their colleagues in the economically stronger European countries, which can afford to give them additional support. In this way, implementation of the European Union’s cohesion principle is also being significantly impeded. I also particularly welcome the statement in the report that there must be a clear disclosure of the profits accruing in the supply chains and the wholesalers at the farmers’ expense. Thank you.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I am delighted to support this report. The title ‘Fair revenues for farmers’ says it all, indicating that revenues, as of now and for a long time, have been unfair.

Thankfully, we are taking a step in the right direction. Profits have to be doled out fairly between producers, processors and retailers, which is not happening at the moment. This report will at least send out the proper signal and we can go forward from there.

When that is attained, I hope we will be able to get a strong and well-funded CAP in place to ensure the viability of the family farm and the security of food supply into the future. We have made a good start today. Hopefully, we can deliver in due course.

Report: Miguel Portas (A7-0236/2010)

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE). – (SL) I voted in favour of the Report on the funding and operation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. For many, European solidarity is an abstract concept, but it is a mechanism which should directly benefit individual European citizens, especially now when they are in a tight spot and a difficult situation.

However, the fund has proven not to be functioning properly and that is why I expect the Commission to take seriously the demand for a mid-term review of the Fund’s operation and a revision of the regulation.

I have a reservation regarding the independence of the Fund; it is related to its unlimited duration. I believe that the Fund is a political response to the current situation and that in the future, the European Union should promote employment through other instruments. It must ensure the competitiveness of the European economy. We must be careful not to establish a mechanism that would play into the hands of those who fail to adapt to changing global circumstances. That is the context in which I cast my vote.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on this own-initiative report, I would first like to thank the rapporteur for the important work he did at the start, particularly in conjunction with all the political groups.

I believe this report contains some important points for improving the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in the light of the mid-term evaluation. These implementation proposals are in line with my own findings in cases I have reviewed during 2010 within the Committee on Budgets, and they are consistent with the need to simplify and speed up procedures relating to the Fund.

In view of the particularly difficult economic situation for European businesses and the growing number of requests for support from Member States, I believed it was fundamental to highlight in the report that Fund coverage needs to be extended to 2013 for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the economic crisis.

To conclude, the European institutions are being asked to send out a strong signal to stimulate economic recovery, and the EGF represents an important message to our citizens.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. When we take into account the fact that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was established in order to reduce the threat of unemployment and increase new job opportunities available to people suffering from globalisation, it is still a concern that the EUR 500 million set aside for spending each year for the purposes of the Globalisation Fund is so little used, and that there are no less than nine countries that have not even submitted a single application. Clearly, this positive beginning, when the Commission decided after the crisis broke to make the mechanism for making payments from the fund easier and simpler, as well as to improve it, must be continued. However, this work must continue. I believe that this is especially the case with respect to the new Member States, which have many small and medium-size enterprises, where not many people lose their jobs within a single enterprise, but many people lose jobs in many enterprises. It is precisely this aspect that must be further improved, so that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund can really be applied to those countries whose gross domestic product is lower than the European Union average. Thank you.

Report: José Bové (A7-0225/2010)

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Today, we have adopted an important report on fair revenues for farmers and a better functioning food supply chain in Europe. The efficient functioning of the food supply chain is a product not only of the length of the route taken by agricultural products, from the field to processing, wholesale trade, retail trade and the consumer’s table, but also of its specific nature and complexity. Agricultural production is, to a large extent, dependent on natural and climatic conditions, over which farmers have very limited influence. The food processing industry dictates prices to farmers, while distributors do the same both to processors and consumers. This is why it is important to analyse prices and monitor their transparency. This does not mean violating the law of the free market, but it does restrict the monopolising effect of middlemen. Institutions of oversight and monitoring are currently being introduced in financial markets. Some people want oversight and monitoring to be removed from the agricultural market. Such people do not take into account the fact that the producers are small and independent, and that they are losing out to powerful trade interests and incurring huge losses.

Report: Tadeusz Zwiefka (A7-0219/2010)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Zwiefka’s report reflects a great deal of skill and a considerable amount of work in the researching of existing legislation, international conventions – particularly the Hague Convention – and case-law, of which certain aspects, it really must be said, are, at times, contradictory.

In reality, however, this report solves only part of the problem. If there is one area in which European legislation has complete legitimacy, it is the harmonisation not of substantive law, which would result in the standardisation of law across all the Member States, but of the rules governing conflicts of jurisdiction – primarily so as to know which court has jurisdiction – and, secondly, of the rules governing conflicts of laws; in other words, establishing which law applies.

Which law applies in the case of contracts, including when people are located in different places? In the case of property, whether immovable, movable or intangible – which is what industrial property is? In the case of contracts, even where the contracting parties are located in different places?

All this must be regulated, Mr President, by a European code. Until we have this European code of private international law, we will face considerable difficulties. This report has the merit of partially solving them where the exequatur is concerned.

Report: Antonyia Parvanova (A7-0221/2010)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I agree with the report’s author that women from ethnic minorities within the EU suffer from various forms of discrimination and that it is our duty to try and improve their conditions, especially in terms of access to education, to the labour market, to social security and to healthcare. However, the report also asks the Commission to collect statistical data categorised by ethnic group. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms explicitly prohibits the collection of data grouped by race.

I would therefore like to ask two questions: Is the Commission able to produce such an analysis without infringing international law, or is there an attempt here to amend the relevant article of the Charter so that it becomes possible to perform such analyses? Is the author or this entire assembly at all aware of this contradictory situation? Despite this, I have voted in favour of the report.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I voted against the Parvanova report on the social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups, as this report – in common with almost all politically correct initiatives of this kind – is counterproductive. For example, the lengths the rapporteur goes to in order to avoid using the term ‘Islam’ border on the ridiculous. Another example is the recognition that women from ethnic minorities are discriminated against by men from those same minorities. The report states that there is no justification for violence on the grounds of customs, traditions or religious considerations, but shies away from clearly putting its finger on it and telling it straight: that many of the principles held by Islam cannot be integrated into our European society. Until we, the European Parliament, emerge from this denial stage, all the measures aimed at the integration of women from Islamic countries will be doomed to failure from the outset.

Report: Sirpa Pietikäinen (A7-0237/2010)

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Elderly people today are too often wrongly regarded as inefficient and unfit for work, even though EU law opposes discrimination on the grounds of age. The huge added value they contribute to national economies, thanks to their many years of experience, is forgotten. In this context, because of continued discrimination based on sex, women find themselves in a particularly difficult situation in the labour market. In addition, according to statistics, women live longer than men, which means they are subject to a greater extent to the problem of poverty and to lower pension payments caused by their having received lower pay than men in the same positions. All of these problems are particularly in evidence in rural areas. In relation to the above, I am pleased that resolutions will be made which remind us of this problem and mobilise us to make continued efforts to improve the present situation.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I support this report and, in particular, want to draw attention to three paragraphs that I think are really important, given the rush to put older people into care rather than looking after them in the community or in their own homes. Paragraphs 17, 19 and 25 are particularly encouraging in this regard. We need to make sure that there is a rights-based approach to the care of older people. We need to ensure that older people can live independently in their own homes and that there is support for them to do so. We should not allow profit to be made from older people being moved into the private care sector.

I also want to draw attention to paragraph 13, reconciling work and care. Could I suggest to this House and to many parliaments across Europe – and indeed beyond – that we need to look at reconciling political work with care. I would love to do a survey on how many people in this Parliament have a caring role as well as a political one. Few and far between.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because it contains some very important statements of principle.

The first is that, whereas ageing is normally seen in negative terms, older people represent an economic and social resource that we draw upon but do not recognise; that the economic crisis has more serious consequences for women and especially for aged women; that age discrimination should not exist in relation to inclusion; and that women are at a greater risk of poverty and, above all, of limited pensions, despite being the pillars of welfare.

This report proposes an important way of helping to breathe life into the Europe of the nations and thus into the Europe of the peoples, of all the peoples. The method entails developing an approach for defining assessments, statistics and data based on the awareness of gender inequalities in older age, which result mainly from accumulated gender-based disadvantages during a whole lifetime. It also sees adopting a life course approach, in which the interconnections of ageing and gender are taken into account, as the way forward in ageing policies.

Three fundamental and important aspects are requested in this resolution: a mechanism to ensure the accumulation of pension rights even during those times when a person performs care duties; the taking into account of the gender dimension when reforming pension systems and adapting the retirement age; and the provision of remuneration for care duties.

This is a very important piece of information insofar as individual Member States, and Italy in particular, are adapting their national pension systems to meet European guidelines. These are the real European guidelines.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I voted against this report because of the adoption of the proposal that states should take into account the specific situation of older lesbian, bisexual and transsexual women. Does that mean that they should have a higher status than other older women? In yesterday’s debate, I emphasised that the greater risk of poverty for women of retirement age was due to the fact that they take care of the family and bring up children, and because their lifetime incomes are, on average, lower than those of men, and that this must change. However, this has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I was pleased to support this report. I was the only person who attended the debate last night who did not actually speak. The reason I did not speak was that I felt that in some ways, the title was a misnomer. Rather than talking about the role of women in an ageing society, we were really discussing the treatment of older women in a society that was ageing.

Obviously some of the points made were absolutely valid, particularly the disparity in pension payments between men and women, which is not acceptable in a democratic society. There is, however, a great and urgent need to have a further discussion on the role of both men and women in an ageing society. It needs to be factored in, particularly when it comes to budgeting. I do not think this has been done in the past. The economic implications of an ageing society have not been properly addressed. This must be done urgently if those plans are not to go askew.

Report: Morten Løkkegaard (A7-0223/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, you, I and a few others have stayed on. I voted in favour of this report because I believe it is important for the relationship between politicians, in their positions of responsibility, and the electorate, and all this may serve as a central element of our representative democracy. I believe that all this is an important requirement for ensuring the citizens’ full, conscious and democratic participation in the EU integration process.

Unfortunately, it must be observed that the last European elections, too, had a high rate of abstention, and this is quite common in all the European countries – and not only in Europe. It clearly demonstrates just how little information citizens receive about European policies and issues and, regrettably, how detached they feel from our institution.

In view of the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon introduces a new form of citizen participation in the European Union’s decision-making process, it is important that we make an effort to close that gap. The institution must, in fact, strive to guarantee unrestricted access free of charge to all public information issued by the European Commission.

Finally, I must point out how essential it is to ensure that the European institutions work in conjunction with the people and the responsible national authorities to improve communication. Moreover, all this must be achieved by encouraging the Member States to take a more active role in informing citizens about matters relating to our Europe.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE) . – (DA) Mr President, first of all, I am pleased that we have today adopted a report on better communication in the EU. I also voted in favour of the joint resolution with the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, as it is a report that provides us with a strong foundation. The report includes, by and large, all of the proposals that were adopted in March in the Committee on Cultural Affairs. However, I would like to say that in the meantime, more compromises were brought to the table, which, naturally, I had hoped to retain right up to the final vote. That was not possible, as strong lobbying forces weakened the resolve of certain parties involved at the last minute. However, I will take note of it and I can see and am pleased that these proposals have resulted in a good debate, such that we can now move forward with the 46 proposals towards better communication in the EU.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, as a former journalist, I was particularly happy to support this report. Knowing both sides of this argument –previously as a journalist and now as a politician – I think there is a danger in equating information with journalism. We need to be very careful about that.

My concern at the moment is that the economic crisis is putting a huge number of journalists out of work. It is happening in Ireland. Local newspapers and local radio stations are shedding staff and there is pressure to get rid of people. It means that the quality of journalism will suffer because people will not have the time and the resources to research stories and to give quality coverage to issues.

I am afraid that Europe tends to fall on the back foot because local stories are covered and European ones are not unless they have a relevance to the people in our Member States. That is the challenge for elected Members of this Parliament – to make the work we do relevant back home, because it is very relevant.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) The positive thing about this report is surely that it repeatedly recognises the increasing role of national parliaments and emphasises the principle of subsidiarity. It also includes various proposals, such as greater transparency, the publishing of information, easier accreditation for journalists and so on, which are definitely worthy of support. On the other hand, it includes ideas that are more than controversial. The report proposes creating a group of correspondents whose task would be to cover the topic of the European Union in a more edifying way. It also calls for every Member State to have a specialised office for EU affairs, the role of which would be to explain the impacts of EU policies. At the same time, it proposes increased appropriations for Parliament’s information office. In my opinion, a better result could be achieved through efficiency improvements and new methods, and not through budget increases. I have therefore rejected this report.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I particularly welcome the fact that this report reminds us of the mass media’s obligation to inform people of what is happening in the European Union, and that issues facing the European Union should be included in school curricula. In a situation in which there is altogether a vast amount of information about the European Union, the role of Parliament’s information offices in the Member States is becoming much greater. I should like to emphasise the necessity, also, of controlling what goes on in these offices, and how effectively the funds that the European Union provides to these offices are spent. The emphasis that the report places on the role of the Euronews TV channel is also particularly welcome. I should like to emphasise that this channel should broadcast exactly as the report states; broadcast in all the official languages of the European Union. For instance, in Latvia, we receive information from this channel in Russian, but there is no information available in Latvian, the official language. Independent journalism has a special role. I should also like to suggest we introduce umbrella European Union legislation that would allow us to identify the genuine mass media also in those states where the political capacity to introduce national legislation of this sort is simply lacking. Thank you.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, this report and resolution that we have voted on today on new media and journalism was supposed to look at the ways the new media are changing journalism. Instead, it has, in reality, become a wish list for MEPs wishing to improve their column inches and who desire to manipulate how much the EU is reported on. Proposals include European training programmes for journalists, more money for Parliament’s information offices and yet more money for EU communication policy.

I believe in freedom of speech. I also believe in independent credible journalism. Forcing and funding journalists and public independent broadcasters to cover EU matters in order to promote the European ideal is blatant propaganda, and this is why I voted against this report and resolution. In deference to a vanity exercise, an opportunity has been missed to look at ways to encourage democratic engagement through social media.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (A7-0222/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my Polish fellow Member, Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, on the proposal to codify the October 1968 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the European Union, which was amended in 1968, 1976, 1992 and twice in 2004. In April 1987, the Commission instructed its services to proceed with the codification of all legislative acts no later than after their tenth amendment while, at the same time, it emphasised that this was a minimum rule and that in the interests of clarity and proper understanding of the provisions, the Commission services were to make efforts to codify the texts for which they were responsible at still shorter intervals. Although an accelerated working method was established in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994, there have regrettably been delays in the codification of European legislation. These delays impact on both our citizens and the Member States, particularly public administrations, the legal professions, law students and professors, and so forth. There are far too many provisions that have been repeatedly amended and are now found dotted around in the original text and subsequent amending acts.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) In striving to support my intergovernmental and territorial outlook on EU policy, I always defend the principle of subsidiarity to the hilt and challenge the costly bureaucratic and administrative burdens that the EU often places on Member States, citizens and enterprises.

I can therefore only vote in favour of Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg’s report, which reminds us of the importance of ‘better lawmaking’. This can be partly achieved by assessing the impact of legal procedures more robustly before the draft of a given act is presented as an official legislative proposal by the Commission.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) This new proposal contains a codification of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. This proposal preserves the content of the codified acts and strives for clarification to apply legal standards on freedom of movement for workers. The European Union must achieve a long-term objective and ensure freedom of movement for workers in all Member States. All workers must be given the right to move freely and gain employment in the Member States.

The European Union must ensure that the mobility of the labour force is more transparent, must help workers improve their living conditions and gain a proper foothold in society, and therefore, discrimination on grounds of nationality and conditions of employment must be abolished without exception. There must be better cooperation among the Member States over the implementation of more flexible conditions of employment.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Freedom of movement constitutes a fundamental right and a means of increasing the possibilities of improving working and living conditions. This desire must be enjoyed by permanent, seasonal and frontier workers, and by those who pursue their activities for the purpose of providing services, in any Member State. I am voting in favour of this resolution because I recognise its contribution to the support provided by employment offices to nationals of other Member States, to equality of treatment, and to the right to general education, apprenticeships and training for the children of nationals of a Member State who are or have been employed in another Member State.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This regulation aims to replace the one of 1968 on the free movement of workers, as well as the various acts that were incorporated in it. This is, then, a codification process in which, in the terms of the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, no substantive changes were made. I unreservedly support this initiative that has the goal of simplifying and clarifying the Union’s legislation, which has been the object of frequent amendments and is spread across several acts. Only in this way will we be able to guarantee greater transparency in Union legislation, making it more accessible and easier to understand by ordinary Europeans, which will afford them new opportunities and the chance to benefit from the specific rights attributed to them, thus shaping a citizens’ Europe.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report to ensure that the citizens of one Member State working in the territory of another are treated the same as workers originating from that country as regards employment and working conditions, not least with regard to remuneration, redundancies and rejoining the labour market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This resolution restricts itself to purely and simply codifying the existing texts on workers’ freedom of movement in the Union without substantial amendments, so I voted for its adoption. However, I wish to mention that this freedom of movement implies increased political integration. Only a new concept of sociality in the European Union, that is able to guarantee each European minimum social rights, will enable the free movement of workers without social problems, not least social dumping.

I believe this freedom of movement makes the implementation of minimum standards necessary in the areas of healthcare, education and social pensions, which should be guaranteed at EU level. In terms of social rights, the establishment of these minimum standards increases the homogeneity of employment conditions, and acts to regulate the movements of manual-labour businesses.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I welcome this report, which correctly notes the importance of Switzerland and the EEA to EU trade matters. The report explicitly states that this House fully respects the causes of the specific nature of the relations between Switzerland and the EU. I would go further and urge full respect for the citizens of all four EFTA countries in deciding their own countries’ relationships with the EU.

An area of mutual interest to EU and EEA countries which falls outwith the scope of internal market agreements is fisheries. In recent months, Iceland has unilaterally set a quota for mackerel stocks which may threaten the very sustainability of that fishery. Whilst I strongly support the concept of national control of fisheries, this must operate on the basis of regional cooperation and international law. I urge the Icelandic Government to come to the table with their neighbours in order to achieve a mutually satisfactory and responsible resolution of this situation.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. − This procedure preserves the freedom of movement of workers within the Community, which has been one of the great achievements of the EU.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The free movement of workers within the Union is one of the main objectives of all the Member States and leads to the development of the economies of all EU countries. There cannot, therefore, be discrimination of any sort. This makes it very important that any regulations enabling the achievement of this goal be perfectly provided for and codified. The adoption of this regulation makes it possible to guide all the Member States towards coordinating their employment policies. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The European Commission attaches great importance to simplifying and enhancing the transparency of EU law in order to make it more readily and easily accessible to Member States’ citizens. However, this goal cannot be achieved as long as numerous considerably amended regulations are widely scattered. As it is, in some cases, it takes serious research to determine which legislation is in force. Since the Council Decision on employment within the European Union has also been amended several times, this text also needs to be codified. I believe it is important that we codify this and similar EU laws as soon as possible. This is why I voted in favour of this regulation.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union too early. The major socio-economic differences between the old and the new Member States, in particular Bulgaria and Romania, are leading to a huge labour migration from east to west within the EU. Justifying this on the grounds of the free movement of workers is not a valid argument in this case, because the differences are so great that they are giving rise to cheap labour and integration problems in the labour markets in the old Member States. Therefore, I have voted against this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour because this is a subject of the greatest importance, particularly at a time when the mobility of Roma citizens within the EU is being debated.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE) , in writing. – (CS) I have voted in favour of the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the free movement of workers in the EU, in the version which takes account of the legal objections of the European Parliament. Adoption at first reading will speed up the introduction of this regulation, which is important. Nevertheless, I have to say that some Member States are still placing various obstacles in the way of the free movement of persons in the EU and are doing so at various levels and under various pretexts, and thereby violating the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I would like to draw attention at this point to the current, unjustified harassment of Czech drivers by German police in the border regions. Yesterday’s working meeting between senior police officers of both countries did little to resolve the matter, and even ended in a war of words, which the media also picked up. I would urge the Commission to begin addressing this matter in all seriousness.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This was a fairly technical, but uncontroversial report. This is why we Greens supported it.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which will protect the freedom of movement for workers within the EU. The internal market relies upon skilled workers being able to transfer between Member States without hindrance, which is why I supported this report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The simplification and clarification of European legislation is of the highest importance in order for laws to become more comprehensible and accessible to the public. Having easily understood laws can give people a better knowledge of the rights from which they benefit and which, therefore, generate new opportunities.

The codification of provisions that are scattered and subject to frequent amendments is necessary in order to be able to ensure that European legislation is clear and transparent and bring it closer to the public.

This is even more important in the area of free movement of workers: an issue that has become one of the most important arenas for building European integration and has afforded the citizens of the Member States new opportunities because they have the right to work freely in another Member State, with equal treatment and with all discrimination banned.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freedom of movement for workers within the Union because I believe that freedom of movement is a fundamental principle of the EU and internal market. I call on the European Commission and Council to use this opportunity of adopting this regulation and ask Member States to lift the current barriers facing Romanian and Bulgarian workers. The current barriers preventing the free movement of workers from Member States which joined the EU after 1 May 2004 impose restrictions on the rights of citizens in these countries. They can also lead to illegal work and social dumping. Lifting these barriers will protect both migrant and local workers equally. Achieving this objective also ensures protection and respect for the EU’s fundamental principles. I hope that both the Commission and Member States will demonstrate the necessary political will.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, free movement is a fundamental right of workers and their families. This report aptly observes that the movement of the labour force in the European Union should be one of the means whereby EU citizens can improve their lives and working conditions. It is a matter of both freedom and dignity. In this respect, EU accession had a huge impact on my country of Lithuania. With the exception of a few countries, in theory, we can work freely in any EU Member States.

Now we are experiencing the golden age of the budget airline Ryanair, which makes it easier to travel. People can fly from Lithuania’s three largest airports to more than 40 European cities. This is both a blessing and a curse. There is much concern that because of constant migration, Lithuania is experiencing a brain drain. Almost 60 000 Lithuanians live in the United Kingdom, whereas in 2001, there were less than 5 000.

Approximately 90 000 Lithuanians live in Ireland. We are a small nation, and having provided their education and invested in their studies, we are now losing our most active people in their twenties and thirties. We, Lithuania and some EU Member States, must make more of an effort if we want to stop this dangerous tendency.

Report: Slavi Binev (A7-0212/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As the report in question clearly states, counterfeiting of the euro is a real and significant threat.

It is precisely for this reason that the adoption of a specific regulation could help significantly reduce the circulation of counterfeit coins, through the application of common procedures to authenticate the coins in circulation, and of mechanisms for the control of those procedures by the authorities. I therefore voted in favour of the report by Mr Binev, and I would like to thank him for the work he has done.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This proposal for a regulation defines the measures required to protect the euro against counterfeiting. Among other things, it requires credit institutions and certain other economic operators, such as cash transporters, to verify the authenticity of euro notes and coins that they receive and intend to release back into circulation. It also requires them to identify counterfeits. However, the lack of a binding common standard for authenticating the coins has resulted in different practices being used from one Member State to the next, which means that we are unable to provide consistent protection for the currency throughout the Union. As the rapporteur for my group, I worked very closely with Mr Binev on this proposal for a regulation. Like Mr Binev, I support the European Commission’s proposal and have voted accordingly.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The existence of mechanisms and a legislative framework that ensure that any currency in circulation is verified by the necessary authorities is crucial in protecting financial institutions and the markets against fraud. Guaranteeing the validity of the currency and its circulation also requires appropriate treatment that will have to be ensured at national level. In view of this, it is important to introduce binding rules which streamline the implementation of the euro authentication process with the control of these procedures. Such issues should be handled by suitably qualified professionals who are skilled in these matters, so as to ensure that the procedures are effective. Moreover, I believe that this streamlining is vital if there is to be greater confidence in the euro area on the part of consumers and the market as a whole.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Counterfeiting of euro coins is a significant threat, particularly for the highest coin denominations. The lack of a mandatory common framework for coin authentication may constitute an impediment for the protection of metal coins. The regulation that has just been adopted constitutes a legally binding instrument enabling the establishment of a common method for euro coin authentication.

One of the primary objectives of the regulation is to ensure that the institutions guarantee that euro coins returning to circulation are subject to an authenticity screening process. The authentication should be carried out by means of the coin processing machines included in the list referred to in Article 5 paragraph 3, or by duly trained staff in accordance with methods designated by the Member States. Furthermore, due to the fact that the authentication of euro coins inevitably incurs expenses to the institutions involved in this process, such as credit institutions, and a number of other institutions, such as cash transporters, I suggest including the right of the institutions to retain a handling fee.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Combating the counterfeiting of euro notes and coins, as well as the procedures for the authentication of euro coins, are the reason for adopting this regulation, so that a mandatory common framework for coin authentication can be put in place. That is why I voted as I did.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report addresses the problem of the circulation of counterfeit coins.

Until now, Member States have had different practices for withdrawing counterfeit coins from circulation. In this context, the proposal aims to guarantee the effective implementation, throughout the euro area, of common procedures for authentication of the circulating euro coins and of control mechanisms for those procedures by the authorities. I voted in favour because I believe that uniform procedures throughout Europe are essential.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I actively participated in and followed the legislative process of this report, which I endorsed.

Broad uniformity of the systems used in Europe to combat the counterfeiting of coins is something that we strongly desire, particularly after we have obtained excellent levels of safeguards in the fight against counterfeit banknotes. Under the proposal that we are about to adopt, it will be possible to control and monitor the circulation and quantity of counterfeit coins in the individual Member States which currently do not have standardised, sufficiently secure systems for this purpose. Indeed, we must forcefully combat the counterfeiting problem with effective, state-of-the-art instruments in order to prevent heavy burdens from being placed on our citizens, our commercial operators and, ultimately, our own national budgets.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Counterfeiting of euro coins is a significant threat, particularly for the highest coin denominations.

The lack of a mandatory common framework for coin authentication may, in some Member States, constitute an impediment for the institutions concerned to actively look for counterfeits; this creates differences, across the EU, in the degree of protection afforded the currency.

The proposed regulation constitutes the legally binding instrument now necessary for the establishment of a common method for euro coin authentication to be applied by the institutions concerned and of the necessary controls by Member States. In this context, the present proposal aims to ensure the effective implementation, throughout the euro area, of common procedures to improve control and eradicate the counterfeiting of coins.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) All counterfeit coins and coins unfit for circulation must be withdrawn from circulation and sent to the appropriate national authorities so that they can be destroyed.

We voted in favour of this text despite the fact that it does not contain measures to protect citizens who possess counterfeit money in good faith and who have to stand by and watch as their bank withdraws it when they make their deposit. It is often elderly people who are cheated by those who put counterfeit currency into circulation, and that is why we need a system to be introduced that will reimburse at least part of the money that is withdrawn from them. Harsher measures also need to be introduced for counterfeiters and those who put false coins into circulation.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which proposes the establishment of common measures to ensure effective action against counterfeiting in the eurozone countries. There are currently no harmonising rules for the authentication and withdrawal of euro coins not fit for circulation. Such rules would help to protect consumers from counterfeit coins, which is why I have given this report my support.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Binev’s report, which aims to introduce common procedures both for the authentication of false coins and for handling coins unfit for circulation.

Banks and institutions responsible for money delivery are currently obliged to carry out authenticity checks on the bank notes and coins they receive before putting them back into circulation. When counterfeit coins are identified, these must be withdrawn from circulation. Practices for tracing false coins nevertheless differ from one European Union country to another: I accordingly believe it to be right to support this initiative, which sets out to guarantee uniform protection of the currency throughout the euro area.

Report: Iuliu Winkler (A7-0242/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of providing macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova because it is one of the countries that has been most severely affected by the consequences of the global economic crisis. As is stated in the report, this measure should, in fact, help to cover the country’s external financing needs in 2010 and 2011, but, above all, to strengthen the reform momentum in supporting the government’s economic programme and its efforts towards integration with the EU. Thank you.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I support this proposal on providing macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova. Moldova is one of the Eastern Partnership countries most heavily affected by the global crisis with dramatically declining output, a deteriorating fiscal position and rising external financing needs. Thus, I believe that, if provided in time, the assistance will help the country address the consequences of the financial crisis more quickly and effectively and will alleviate its balance of payments and budgetary needs.

The conditions will also be created to strengthen the reforms being implemented in the country, by supporting the government's economic stabilisation programme and its efforts towards integration with the EU. However, in order to ensure the effectiveness and transparency of the assistance provided, it is necessary to strengthen the supervision and control role of the European Commission in this area.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The global economic crisis has had a severe impact on the Republic of Moldova’s economy. This country has one of the lowest per capita incomes among the countries of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership. Bearing in mind that the EU has taken on the support of the countries in the Eastern Partnership and that the new government in the Republic of Moldova has shown a clear receptiveness towards the European Union, I believe that providing macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova in the form of a grant worth up to EUR 90 million is an initiative which is more than necessary.

I must mention that the assistance being proposed is especially beneficial as the Republic of Moldova’s precarious economic situation has also been exacerbated by the severe flooding which it faced this summer. It is important to mention that the intergovernmental agreement was signed in April, on which basis Romania has offered to give the Republic of Moldova non-refundable financial assistance worth EUR 100 million, earmarked for supporting the Republic of Moldova’s infrastructure. I wish to conclude by saying that financial support from the EU will be used to help the Republic of Moldova along the path of political and economic integration into the EU.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am voting against this report, mainly due to reasons of realism and practicality. The idea of offering assistance to the Republic of Moldova may, as a general principle, seem a good idea, in the sense that supporting countries near to Europe can also help us to avoid problems due to poverty and the consequent immigration that affects our continent. I nevertheless voted against the proposal for two reasons. Firstly, I have strong doubts over the substantial and serious use of funds that should be allocated to the EU. Despite the words and reassurances we have received from the Moldovan authorities, we know that this country is afflicted by widespread corruption and its economic and financial system is still very antiquated. There is therefore no sufficient guarantee that the European funds will be handled rationally and conscientiously. Furthermore, even if we had sufficient guarantees over the effective use of the funds, the proposed sum would still appear to be insufficient: I fail to see how the EUR 90 million discussed in the report can really help a country to set out on the path to internal modernisation and economic and political recovery.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Republic of Moldova is one of the European states which has been hardest hit by the economic crisis. Furthermore, the authorities in Chişinău have been facing political uncertainty for well over a year, which cannot but exacerbate the effects of the economic crisis, not only on the population, but also on the government’s finances. Providing Moldova with a grant of approximately EUR 90 million, whose use, which will be monitored, is intended exclusively to cover the balance of payments and finance the state budget, will help Moldova achieve the macro-economic targets set by the IMF, while boosting, in the medium and long term, the country’s credibility on the global financial markets.

I welcome the fact that Parliament and the Commission are going to impose control mechanisms to ensure that the EU grant reaches its intended destination. Moldova is in a difficult political situation and the temptation may arise to make some populist political gestures with the prospect of the approaching early elections. I also welcome the assurances from Prime Minister Filat and his determination to honour his commitments, which would have nothing but a positive impact on Moldova’s economy. Moldova needs a show of good will from the international community because it is going through difficult times. It is in the European Union’s interest to extend its hand to Moldova so that it has an economically and politically stable state at its eastern border.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I abstained on this report on financial assistance for Moldova, despite the fact that I believe that the EU should provide financial assistance so that Moldova can honour its economic obligations. Unfortunately, however, funding is contingent upon compliance with the conditions laid down for this country by the IMF. The fact that the EU has linked the provision of financial assistance to the need for the country to comply with policies dictated by the IMF is morally and politically unacceptable. The disastrous consequences of the IMF are visible in Greece and in other countries through which it has passed, or in which it is still present, and we oppose that.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the Draft European Parliament Legislative Resolution on granting macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova. As shadow rapporteur for my political group, I have called for financial aid of up to EUR 90 million to be granted as quickly as possible. The Republic of Moldova, a country involved in the Eastern Partnership, has been hit hard by the financial and economic crisis. At the same time, it has undertaken important political reforms which need to be consolidated and accompanied by the practical application of European standards. This is why I regard granting this financial support as a means of boosting the pace of the reform process.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the impact that the current economic and financial crisis has had on Moldova and the path towards integration with the EU that the country has been seeking to tread, I think it would be wise for the EU to opt to grant it macro-financial assistance. Solidarity with those who come under the European Neighbourhood Policy should not be used as a way of jettisoning the need for the EU to exert proper control over the way in which its aid is used, as well as expecting accountability from the local authorities which receive the aid.

Unless the aid is strictly monitored, it will not do any good, and could even have a detrimental effect in countries like Moldova, which are seeking to stabilise their institutions and strengthen democracy and the rule of law.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The macro-financial assistance to Moldova that is currently being proposed does not constitute a form of genuinely disinterested aid. Quite the contrary: this assistance is conditional on the requirements of and supervision by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies, in particular: redundancies and a job freeze in the public sector; the introduction of measures to further weaken labour relationships, reducing workers’ rights; a rise in the retirement age; higher energy prices; privatisations; a public-sector wage freeze; reduced aid to farmers; increased direct and indirect taxation; school closures and subordination of universities to private finance; and deregulation and further liberalisation of internal and external investments.

These reasons are more than sufficient for us not to support providing macro-financial assistance to Moldova. This package of measures will even further accentuate the impoverishment of a country that is today already one of the region’s poorest. With the EU and the IMF promoting this brutal assault on the Moldovan people’s rights, it will be a case of saying that, with ‘friends’ like these, who needs enemies?

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report on providing macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova. Assistance for Moldova is an important matter, because it may have a significant influence on that country’s future as part of Europe. During a visit to the European Parliament last week, the President of Poland, Bronisław Komorowski, said that cooperation with Moldova should be made a priority of our foreign policy.

Many Members were a little surprised by this declaration, but Moldova is, after all, a European state, and it may one day become a Member State of the European Union. This is precisely why we should cooperate with Moldova and give serious thought to ideas about its future. I hope the current constitutional crisis in Moldova will soon be overcome and that new elections will usher in a parliament capable of making historic changes.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The European Union enjoys good political and economic relations with the Republic of Moldova and it is important that these relations should be maintained and expanded. For this reason, supporting macro-financial assistance for the Republic of Moldova, which was hit hard by the economic crisis, is clearly something to be endorsed. The money promised by the EU is linked to clear conditions and will reach the right areas. This financial assistance, together with the funding from the IMF, will help stabilise the national budget of the Republic of Moldova and will have a positive effect on the negotiations for an association agreement with the country. I support the macro-financial assistance package, which will help strengthen political and economic ties and which will eventually benefit not just Moldova, but also the entire EU.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Republic of Moldova’s economy has been severely hit by the global financial crisis, as highlighted by the deterioration in its budgetary position and its growing need for external financing. Due to the decline in the economic situation, the Republic of Moldova has requested macro-financial assistance from the European Union. I voted in favour of granting this assistance as I believe that the European Union must be involved, along with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other international institutions, in alleviating the difficult situation which the Republic of Moldova is in. This aid will provide proper support to the government in Chişinău in terms of funding the balance of payments deficit and other budgetary needs. At the same time, this measure will strengthen bilateral relations between this state and the European Union and enable the EU to show its solidarity to a state which is a signatory of the Eastern Partnership.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report presented by our fellow Member, Iuliu Winkler, as I am in favour of granting macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova to help it combat the economic crisis. The European Commission is proposing to grant EUR 90 million in at least three tranches. The EU funding will supplement the financial support from the IMF and World Bank which this country has called on. European macro-financial assistance is intended to reinforce the pace of the reform process in the Republic of Moldova by supporting the government’s economic programme and its efforts aimed at joining the EU.

The Alliance for European Integration, headed by Acting President, Mihai Ghimpu, and Prime Minister, Vlad Filat, has reaffirmed its commitment to promoting democratic reforms and implementing European standards. As a member of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly and a Romanian, I firmly believe that it is in the entire European Union’s interest to have stable, prosperous, friendly countries as its eastern neighbours.

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

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The economy of the Republic of Moldova has been severely affected by the international financial crisis with dramatically declining output, a deteriorating fiscal position and rising external financing needs. Since this country is an immediate neighbour of the EU and has strong connections with the EU Member State of Romania, it is also very much in the interests of the EU to stabilise the situation in the region and to put a swift end to the large-scale migration on economic grounds.

Economic stabilisation and recovery in the Republic of Moldova are also supported by financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The European Commission must ensure that the Union’s macro-financial assistance is legally and substantially in line with the measures taken within the different areas of external action and other relevant Union policies. The Union’s macro-financial assistance should be managed by the Commission. In order to ensure that the European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee are able to follow the implementation of this decision, the Commission should regularly inform them of developments relating to the assistance and provide them with relevant documents. This should ensure the correct implementation of the decision and the careful handling of taxpayers’ money. For that reason, I have voted in favour of the decision.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) It is with great satisfaction that I note the adoption, today, of the Winkler report on macro-financial assistance for the Republic of Moldova. One of our fundamental roles as Member States of the European Union is to support, using all possible means, those countries which need this help from us. This matter is important in that it would appear essential to pay more careful attention to our partners in the east, including Moldova.

A strong Europe is a Europe which speaks with one voice, where solidarity, understood in a broad sense and including economic solidarity, is a fundamental principle. In my opinion, a stable economy in Moldova will certainly be an important factor which will help to improve political relations there.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Green policy so far with regard to MFA is to check whether there are actual political reasons why MFA should not be granted. Since there are no particular problems currently with regard to the Republic of Moldova, there is no reason to withhold the MFA. Greens therefore voted in favour in committee, and have done the same today in plenary. Greens, however, continue to stress that we expect the Commission to finally set out a framework for its MFA policy.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are very sceptical about Europe assuming the burden of financial contributions to countries outside the EU.

It is one thing to take action along the lines of the much-loved motto of the Lega Nord – ‘Let’s help people in their own home’ – with projects that are designed to help populations through the use of humanitarian measures, to combat poverty and to finance schemes for the protection of children; however, it is quite another to provide macro-financial assistance to a nation state. It is clear that action of this kind does not provide direct aid to the poor but to a state system that has been unable to manage its own finances. We therefore voted against.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Support for a policy of rapprochement between the EU Member States and Moldova requires the effort of the entire Union. The Union should force Russia to allow Moldova to make an independent decision concerning Transnistria, which is an integral part of the Republic of Moldova. Conditions should be created so that European Union assistance can be used effectively in the region.

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE), in writing. – In my capacity as EPP shadow rapporteur on the report on the association agreement with the Republic of Moldova, I welcome the adoption by an overwhelming majority of the package on EU macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova. The pro-European government of the Republic of Moldova is in urgent need of this assistance, while the European Parliament vote on it is a strong signal of EU support for the current Moldovan authorities and their efforts to mitigate the negative consequences of multiple crises.

I hope that, by this means, EU support for the European forces and path of the Republic of Moldova will become more visible to its people and will reiterate the message that the Republic of Moldova will keep enjoying concrete EU support in all its endeavours to approximate with EU standards and values such as good governance and the strengthening of democratic institutions.

Finally, I reiterate my regret at the unacceptably lengthy EU decision-making process for the granting of macro-financial assistance to the Republic of Moldova, and urge the EU institutions to build upon the experiences of this year in order to avoid any such delays in the future.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE), in writing. – As rapporteur of the micro-financial assistance proposal for the Republic of Moldova, I welcome the smooth adoption in the plenary sitting, with a relevant majority reflecting the unanimous support of the political group in the EP. The Republic of Moldova is one of the Eastern Partnership countries most heavily affected by the global crisis. The assistance contributes to the crisis-recovery efforts and upholds the country’s external financing needs. Furthermore, I’m convinced that contributes to the strengthening of the Moldovan reforms and the neighbouring country's efforts towards EU integration. In accordance with the EPP Group key principles and objectives, I tabled amendments in order to strengthen the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the assistance, including, in particular, public finance management systems in the Republic of Moldova.

The report stipulates the duty of the European Commission to inform the EP regularly on developments in the management of the assistance and to provide us with relevant documents. The vote in the EP plenary is characterised by a profound European spirit; I would like to emphasise the unanimous vote obtained on this report in the INTA Committee. I also wish to thank the AFET Committee for its support for the fast adoption of this report.

Report: Danuta Maria Hübner (A7-0232/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, which is aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of economic operators in the Azores so as to ensure more stable employment and thereby overcome the economic disadvantages that arise from their geographical location.

This temporary suspension of duties will allow local economic operators in the Azores and Madeira to import a certain amount of raw materials, parts, components and finished products duty-free, and will cover areas such as fishing, agriculture, industry and services. In an unfavourable economy, this will allow for an increase in competitiveness and, in the long term, a more favourable framework for investors.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has a real role to play in the European legislative process. Now that this report has been adopted, the European Parliament will be notified whenever there is a proposal to amend the status of the delegated acts (Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). This is an important feature because Parliament must be in a position to contribute to the debate on what are at times necessary technical modifications to the list of goods covered by a temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting enthusiastically in favour of the content of this report. Taking the necessary measures to respond to the specific problems of the outermost regions of the Union becomes particularly important at a time of economic crisis. The geographic isolation of the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores imposes marked trade disadvantages on the economic agents that operate there. These disadvantages have a negative impact on demographic trends, on employment, and on economic and social development.

The regional economies of Madeira and the Azores are conspicuously dependent on tourism, a fairly volatile economic resource, which is conditional on many factors beyond the ability of the respective local authorities and of the Portuguese Government to control and invigorate it. The economic development of Madeira and the Azores therefore suffers from the resulting limitations.

Under these circumstances, it is clearly important to support economic sectors that are less dependent on the tourism industry, in order to compensate for its fluctuations and, in this way, stabilise the region’s employment. Specifically, support is needed for local small and medium-sized businesses and farmers to invest and create stable employment in the region.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores’ because it is becoming urgent in the context of the international crisis to strengthen the competitiveness of local economic operators and ensure stable employment in these outermost regions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As I said in January on the same matter, I believe that the temporary suspension of autonomous customs duties is essential in order to strengthen the competitiveness of economic operators in the Portuguese autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores, and thereby ensure more stable employment on these islands.

The adoption of this exception is crucial for the development of these Portuguese autonomous regions, both of which rely heavily on the tourism industry and are consequently highly vulnerable to the volatility of this sector. This means that their full economic development is limited by the characteristics of their local economy and geographical position. In the light of this, any incentive for local industry definitely provides the necessary support for the improvement of the living conditions for local people, and opens the way for the creation of jobs on the islands, which is essential for retaining people and creating conditions for development.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) At the request of the regional authorities in Madeira and the Azores in August and December 2007, on bringing in a temporary suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019, Parliament is adopting the Council regulation, while introducing the need to notify and inform this House if a delegated act is adopted or if the Council intends to object.

We agree with the suspension that these two regions have requested, as it represents an important measure for the regions’ development, as well as for the regions’ small and medium-sized businesses and local farmers and producers; it is recognition of the constraints that result from being one of the outermost regions. That is why we voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of this report, which is geared to the realities of the outermost regions. These regions have fragile economies due to their very nature, and very specific characteristics which require particular responses that are adapted to these characteristics. The measures that have now been approved are aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of local economic operators, which should help small and medium-sized enterprises and local farmers to invest and create jobs. This will promote more stable employment in the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores. In the context of the widespread economic crisis, this is a specific measure to stimulate economic activity and employment in the medium term, and an important contribution to cohesion and convergence in Europe. The suspension of customs duties will last ten years, covering a wide range of products such as finished products for industrial use, raw materials, parts and components for use in agriculture, processing or industrial maintenance. Although it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of the impact of these measures, since they are part of a series of other measures tailored to the specific problems of these autonomous regions, the European Commission forecasts that these agreed measures will have an impact on its own resources and revenues of around 0.12% per year over the period 2010-2019.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because the vital interests of two Portuguese regions are at stake.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE) , in writing. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Commission has forgotten in its draft regulation that, in the wake of the Treaty of Lisbon, it cannot circumvent the European Parliament as far as cooperation in the transfer of powers to adopt acts of this kind is concerned. It appears to have forgotten that the Treaty of Lisbon is now in force. I would like to thank the rapporteurs for amending the essential articles such that the Commission must inform the European Parliament prior to the adoption of acts on transferred powers in the customs arena, and take account of our views. I believe that this will also be a lesson to the Commission in other cases.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The regional authorities in Madeira and the Azores requested the temporary suspension of Common Customs tariff duties in order to strengthen the competitive position of local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the Union. The effects of this proposed suspension will be limited to the regions concerned and will assist local SMEs and farmers to invest and to generate jobs in these outermost regions. In the initial report, the Committee on Regional Affairs supported the proposal. Amendments were tabled (simplified procedure – Rule 46(2) of the Rules of Procedure) and adopted which suggested: the inclusion of products additional to the initial proposal (new CN Code added) and a new start date for entry into force of the regulation (1 February 2010 instead of 1 January 2010) and for it to apply until 31 December 2019. In today’s vote, we Greens voted in favour as we support re-consultation and inclusion of the duty to inform the European Parliament.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The temporary suspension of autonomous duties on certain industrial products imported into Madeira and the Azores is a measure that aims to strengthen the competitiveness of the local economies and, therefore, ensure employment in these two of the European Union’s outermost regions. The suspension depends on the final use for the products and only benefits the economic operators of these regions, aiming to attract investment by providing a long-term perspective that will allow a stable economic and social environment to be achieved in these regions.

The proposal will not just make it possible for the suspension to apply to industries located in the free trade areas, but will enable all types of economic operator located in these regions to benefit. The range of products has also been expanded to include finished products for industrial use, raw materials and other materials, as well as parts and components for use in agriculture, processing or industrial maintenance.

The economies of the outermost regions are fragile economies with very specific characteristics, requiring particular responses that are adapted to the regions’ specificities. Although it is regrettable that the document does not target a larger number of products, it gives a positive incentive to the economies of the outermost regions and I am therefore voting in favour.

Report: László Surján (A7-0240/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since this proposal does not entail any additional expenses, but only clarification of the appropriations for administrative and operational expenses, making section III of the budget more specific and accurate, I echo the rapporteur in voicing my approval of the Council’s decision.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon has given Parliament new responsibilities. This situation means additional administrative work, with the result that Members need qualified staff to act as advisors. This new situation leads to two problems: the increased costs inherent to the need for more assistants, and the additional space required in order for them to carry out their duties in good working conditions. This situation leads to increased costs. That is difficult to explain during this time of crisis, but if Parliament’s work is to be excellent it needs to have the necessary financial and human resources.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0244/2010)

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Defending the independence of the mandate of Members of this House is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. In this case, as the Member is faced with accusations of offences of false accounting in relation to the financing of a political party during a period prior to his election to the European Parliament, they are unrelated to his activities as a Member of this House. In this case, therefore, we will have to go ahead with waiving his immunity. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I abstained on the vote on immunity for our fellow Member, Viktor Uspaskich, because I do not regard immunity as a sort of ‘small change’. You either have immunity or you do not. Immunity gives Members the opportunity to do their job and protects them from possible pressure. I consider that immunity cannot be lifted without a judgment of the European Court.

I am not convinced that the court in Lithuania behaved fairly, because the government and president of Lithuania have frequently alluded to the high level of corruption in Lithuania. What guarantee do we have that the judgment was reached objectively? If we decide to lift the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich today, then we must remove the concept of immunity from Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) I voted against the waiver of Mr Uspaskich’s immunity because, on closer inspection of the documents, it is clear that action is being taken against Mr Uspaskich with party political motivation. As a member of the Russian minority, he and his party in Lithuania have been subjected to repeated public attacks by the government. He is now accused of having incorrectly calculated the party finances over a period of three years. Interestingly, no case is being brought against the paymaster. In addition, Mr Uspaskich was the coordinator for the party, and therefore also responsible, in the first year only. The incorrect way in which the matter was dealt with in the European Parliament, where Mr Uspaskich was even denied a chance to present his opinion or a statement in the Committee on Legal Affairs, completes the picture. The socialist rapporteur therefore appears to be clearly involved in this political process. This should be rejected, as each case must be dealt with according to the criteria of the rule of law, which, in this matter at least, has not been the case.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This topic was added to the agenda for the September I part-session at the last minute. Last week, the JURI Committee decided to waive Uspaskich’s immunity. Our group was in favour of the JURI decision as it is a case related to false accounting in relation to financing of a political group and not related to opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament. We expressed this view today in plenary by voting in favour of the report.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The report by Mr Rapkay is illegal. The European Parliament has violated my right of defence. I provided the rapporteur with significant evidence of political persecution, but he maliciously refused to pass my evidence to other members of the Committee on Legal Affairs.

I was not allowed access to the draft decision or to comment on it during the committee meeting. I was not allowed to talk about the fact that I am officially recognised as a victim of political persecution in Russia, or to comment on European Parliament precedents. In the draft decision, the rapporteur provided a false version and interpretation of the constitution of Lithuania – Members of the Seimas (Lithuanian Parliament) also have immunity over actions carried out before elections. I was not allowed to talk about the matter during the meeting.

Furthermore, the European Parliament has violated its compulsory precedent law. Never in the history of the EU has immunity been waived in a situation like mine: firstly, I have the official status of a victim of political persecution; secondly, as the Seimas itself recognised, the State Security Department, which began the attack, is politicised – as one of the heads of the department testified, the Speaker of the Seimas gave the order to begin the attack; thirdly, prosecutors are forbidding me from meeting with electors – to travel to another town in Lithuania, but during the elections themselves, they allow me to go on holiday, attend sports events and visit places of religious significance; fourthly, according to the precedents set by Herkotz, Blumenfeld, Venelzi, Amadei, Gaibisso, Marchiani, a political leader cannot be held responsible for accounting.

I will complain to the European Court of Justice about this illegal decision and it will be overturned.

Recommendation: Salvatore Iacolino (A7-0209/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At this particular juncture in history, globalisation is manifest in all areas of daily life, and that unfortunately also applies to criminality. As the report ably explains, the statistics on criminal judicial cooperation between individual Member States and Japan show that the European and Japanese authorities need to cooperate with one another even in the absence of a legal framework.

To this end, I considered it my duty to vote in favour of this report and I welcome this opportunity to thank Mr Iacolino for his excellent work.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) International cooperation in criminal matters is nowadays a goal that the EU should pursue with the greatest possible commitment. The current increase in organised crime acting on an international scale stretches state, national and international organisations to the point that they need to establish agreements that smooth bureaucratic and administrative formalities and facilitate crime investigation and prosecution procedures. The agreement between Europe and Japan that we are called to vote on offers sufficient guarantees of respecting the law and individual rights. Above all, it is an historic opportunity because it legally sanctions the will of the two entities to reach forms of cooperation in criminal and crime-fighting matters for the first time. I therefore voted in favour of the Iacolino report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This agreement aims to establish more effective cooperation at the level of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the EU Member States and Japan. I believe that the signing of this agreement is important, not just because it enables a clear and coherent legal framework to be created to regulate this cooperation, but also because, before now, there have not even been bilateral agreements between Member States and Japan in this area. The challenges currently arising from globalisation are leading increasingly to the need for transnational responses to be created: fighting criminality is a clear example of this, in which cooperation and assistance between the various states of the international community play an essential role.

Under this agreement, a formal request may be submitted or there may be cause simply for a spontaneous exchange of information, for example, testimonies and statements, records, bank statements, or locating and identifying persons. The requested state always has the chance to reject this request on one of the ‘traditional’ grounds for refusal, but the states concerned must consult with each other before refusing assistance.

I therefore support this agreement, which enables more effective legal assistance, while safeguarding an appropriate level of guarantees.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Organised crime has long spread beyond the borders of individual countries, and now extends over many areas of the world. This situation, which is a reality of our times, demands a concerted, uniform response from the international organisations, countries and peoples who are the victims of criminal acts. The agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters is another step in this direction. States under the rule of law have an obligation to ensure that the borders that separate them in terms of international law are not used by criminals as a way of escaping justice, avoiding sentencing and denying their victims fair compensation.

The more effective the police and the judicial authorities of individual countries, the more exchange of information and the adoption of best practices will bear fruit for everyone, and the more we will all benefit from mutual legal aid. I hope that this will come about.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In February 2009, the Council authorised the opening of negotiations in order to create an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the European Union and Japan. The Council authorised the signing of this agreement by the decision of 30 November 2009, on the basis of Articles 24 and 38 of the Treaty on European Union. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has been asked to adopt the Council’s decision, as provided for in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The agreements are modelled on other legal cooperation agreements previously concluded and concern, in particular, cooperation on conducting enquiries or acquiring evidence, as well as other activities, such as the notification of communications in the requested country. The Agreement’s most important provisions include taking testimony or statements, enabling hearings to be held by video-conference; obtaining records, documents or bank statements; and even locating or identifying persons; or producing items in the possession of the legislative, administrative or judicial authorities of the requested state or its local authorities.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Regulation of legal cooperation in criminal matters to make enquiries easier, in order to combat cross-border crime effectively: these are the goals and the purpose of international agreements on mutual legal assistance and, in the case in point, of this agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. It is easy to imagine the difficulties that a European investigator (a legal, police or customs authority) would have in gathering evidence in a third country and, nowadays, globalisation and cross-border criminality mean that cooperation between states, a legal framework and an operational interface between the European Union and third countries are vital in criminal matters. The added value of this agreement is beyond question: conducting enquiries, acquiring evidence, taking testimony, obtaining bank documents and identifying or locating persons are all areas where, from now on, formally established cooperation between the European Union and Japan is planned for greater effectiveness and swiftness. Parliament therefore readily approved the conclusion of this international agreement and I very much welcome that.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Iacolino on his excellent work.

I voted in favour of the report because I believe that the large number of legal cooperation procedures in criminal matters between the individual Member States and Japan in recent years reflects the need for a single legal and legislative framework, above all, because of the incomprehensible lack of bilateral treaties between the EU Member States and Japan.

The agreement is modelled on other legal cooperation agreements previously concluded and concerns, in particular, cooperation in the conduct of enquiries or the acquisition of evidence, as well as other activities, such as the notification of communications in the requested country. The provisions contained in the agreement are designed to provide legal assistance that is as effective as possible and capable of addressing the daily challenges which may arise, while ensuring appropriate safeguards.

With regard to grounds for refusal, I would like to note the importance of the provision protecting the Member States from possible use of the agreement in the case of proceedings for offences punishable by the death penalty. This is all fully in line with the position frequently stated by the European Union calling for abolition of the death penalty or at least a moratorium on its use.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The globalisation that characterises our times is occurring not just in economic terms, but also now extends to other areas, not least crime. That is why judicial cooperation between states on criminal matters is always on the agenda. In the case of Japan, despite the lack of a legal framework, the European and Japanese legal authorities have been cooperating with each other. It is therefore extremely important to open negotiations on creating an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the European Union and Japan. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to thank Mr Iacolino for the excellent work he has put into this report. The judicial and procedural basis of the report is excellent and it represents a decisive step forward in legal cooperation – not merely with Japan – and I hope it will be used as a model for future reports on assistance with other third countries.

European citizens often find themselves committing a crime when abroad, sometimes unaware that they are infringing the laws of their host country. In any case, it is essential to guarantee legal and judicial assistance, beginning with translation, the opportunity to express yourself in your own language and the opportunity to obtain aid and assistance in your own language. We must clearly take into account certain difficulties relating to the different legal systems, but I believe certain guarantees must be observed and respected in all cases.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The globalisation which characterises the times in which we live is apparent in all sectors of daily life, including crime.

The statistics on legal cooperation procedures in criminal matters between the individual Member States and Japan show that despite the absence of a legal framework, the European and Japanese legal authorities are obliged to cooperate with each other.

In February 2009, noting the absence of bilateral treaties between the Member States of the European Union and Japan, and realising the benefits of a harmonious and coherent legal framework, the Council authorised the opening of negotiations on the conclusion of an agreement on legal assistance in criminal matters between the European Union and Japan.

In conclusion, the standards of protection provided by this agreement appear to be higher than those provided in similar agreements, including some concluded recently. In the light of the above, there are no specific grounds for opposing the adoption of the agreement.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This is another crucial step forward in the establishment of broad-based legal cooperation with third countries.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) It is right to seek cooperation between the European Union and non-EU countries in the fight against crime, because globalisation leads to the extension of national crime networks; one need only consider the mafia or the triads.

Strengthening and extending these agreements to countries with high crime rates, too, could lead to a reduction in the spread of crime throughout the European Union. We have therefore voted in favour.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) According to a 2008 report by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), ‘Japan continues to condemn criminals to death, and incarcerate them for decades, in prisons where secrecy and isolation are commonplace.’ The rate of executions has increased in recent years, and particularly in 2008. There has not been a single retrial of a death penalty case since 1986. The agreement that the EU is about to conclude does not provide for extradition procedures.

It does, however, allow for the acquisition of various pieces of evidence for use in handing down possible sentences. This includes the temporary transfer of a person in custody for testimony. Article 11 permits EU Member States to refuse a request for assistance under certain conditions but it does not prohibit the execution of requests when the outcome of a trial might be the death penalty.

I am in favour of legal cooperation in criminal matters when respect is shown for the rights of the defence, procedural guarantees and human rights. In the case of Japan, the situation is confusing, to say the least. That is why I cannot give my support to this new treaty.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text tabled by Mr Iacolino because it represents a very important legal cooperation agreement and a real step towards modernising the international legal system, the aim of which is to combat organised crime.

European and Japanese authorities are often obliged to cooperate in the fight against organised crime, and this international agreement without doubt guarantees the benefits of developing a harmonious and coherent legal framework on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the European Union and Japan.

I would point out that the agreement between the European Union and Japan guarantees higher standards of protection than those provided in similar agreements that have been signed concerning judicial cooperation.

Report: Kurt Lechner (A7-0218/2010)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report. Interconnecting business registers is an appropriate way of fostering further integration of the economic area within the EU and of improving legal certainty for businesses and consumers. Business registers are usually administered at national and regional level. However, the increase in cross-border economic activities makes a better interconnection of business registers necessary for reasons of legal certainty and transparency; it would also save time and money.

The onset of the current financial crisis revealed once again the importance of transparency in all financial markets. Considering the measures for the recovery of financial status, by increasing opportunities to take advantage of the latest official information on companies, it would be possible to help restore confidence in all European markets.

In this regard, business registers are very important; they register, examine and store company information about such matters as a company’s legal form, seat, capital and legal representatives and make this information available to the public. Therefore, conditions will be created for creditors, business partners and consumers to obtain official and reliable company information on a cross-border basis, in order to ensure the necessary transparency and legal certainty in all EU markets.

  António Fernando Correia De Campos (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The interconnection of business registers is essential, given that the currently existing fragmentation not only damages the world of business, but also leads to a lack of consumer confidence. Of particular significance are the problems that this fragmentation creates for small and medium-sized businesses, which are part of the backbone of the European economy, of job creation, of economic growth, and of social cohesion in the EU and in cross-border relationships; these cause the EU’s single market obvious problems.

I am in full agreement with the creation of a single access point for information, which must be made available in all the languages of the EU and duly publicised, in order to ensure access to high quality, reliable and up-to-date information regarding the EU business register.

In the current context, in which far-reaching measures are being adopted to escape from the crisis, this instrument can be an added value in strengthening the confidence of 500 million Europeans in the single market and for improving cross-border trade relations. That is why I welcome the report being voted on today in this Chamber.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) When we talk about the internal market, we have to understand that one of its consequences is increased cross-border trade. This is desirable and should be encouraged, but it brings with it the need to provide the public with official and reliable information on the companies that are active within the EU. A lack of uniformity between the data included on different business registers means that there is also legal uncertainty. This benefits neither businesses nor consumers in the EU. It is therefore necessary to create a centralised European portal which holds the data records for all the Member States in a standardised way.

This will increase transparency, efficiency and legal certainty, and reinforce the trust of the 500 million European consumers, which is vital if Europe is to recover from the crisis. Finally, and closely following the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I would like to reiterate the need for the new system or portal to avoid becoming an extra administrative burden on European businesses. This system should ease the lives of all market players, not represent one more bureaucratic hurdle to jump over.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The increase in cross-border economic activities makes a better interconnection of business registers necessary for reasons of legal certainty and transparency. It would also cut costs and increase efficiency. Interconnecting business registers is an appropriate way of fostering further integration of the economic area within the EU and of improving legal certainty for businesses and consumers.

Registers are administered at national and regional level, and store only information about companies which are registered in the area – country or region – for which they are responsible. Currently, various mechanisms interconnecting business registers already exist: the European Business Register (EBR) initiative and the Business Register Interoperability Throughout Europe (BRITE) project. The EBR and the BRITE are voluntary and the BRITE is only a research project. A single access point to business information relating to all European companies would save time and cost. Therefore, all Member States’ participation should be considered mandatory.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I support the European Commission’s initiative on the interconnection of business registers. I believe that the possibility of communicating information across borders is a way of not only reviving the internal market, but especially of boosting the credibility of the market and strengthening legal certainty for all parties operating on the internal market. We should also not forget the dramatic effect in terms of reducing the administrative burden on businesses. According to the administrative burden reduction group led by Edmund Stoiber, the possibility of cross-border electronic access to business information would save businesses administrative costs of up to EUR 160 million a year.

I would, nevertheless, urge the Commission to pay close attention to the interoperability and technical neutrality of the overall solution when implementing this plan. I would not be happy if, on the one hand, EUR 160 million is saved on the administrative burden, while, on the other, an equal amount is spent on technical solutions and the implementation of the interconnection of business registers.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) There is no doubt that economic globalisation leads to the need for the interconnection of business registers. At the moment, all the information about businesses is only administered at national and regional level, so the increasing demand for access to information about companies in a cross-border context makes it necessary for it to be expanded to all Member States. It is very important to interconnect business registers in order to put a stop to economic losses and problems that affect all stakeholders, whether they be the companies themselves, their employees, consumers or the general public. -<BRK>

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the business world in particular, it is essential for certain data to be publicly accessible. In this respect, it makes sense to administer business registers at national and regional level – on the one hand so as to ensure legal certainty and, on the other, to comply with the principle of subsidiarity – but to make cross-border access to the data possible. Interoperability must be ensured, especially for companies working across borders, as a result of the transfer of a company’s registered office or a merger, for example. Administrative cooperation must not, under any circumstances, result in bureaucratic barriers, and problems relating to language and quality must also be considered. This should pave the way in this regard for the Services Directive. However, with regard to vocational prerequisites in particular, cross-border cooperation is not entirely satisfactory.

For example, in Austria, intensive training and examinations are required in order to work as a commercial tourist guide, but in other countries, this is not the case. The equivalences and checks promised for resolving this type of problem are very inadequate. In view of the high quality of vocational training in Austria, I have abstained from the vote.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report under consideration.

Interconnecting business registers is an appropriate way of fostering further integration of the economic area within the EU and of improving legal certainty for businesses and consumers. The information provided by a business register cannot be compared with other information available in the economy. Their meaningfulness and legal significance vary between Member States, and users must categorically be made aware of this when accessing the data.

Given this special state of affairs, the interconnection of registers and access to data should take place in a specific context that is simple to use and easy to access. Finally, making the project a genuine success requires the participation of all Member States, which should therefore be made compulsory as soon as the technical standards have been fully developed.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the report on the interconnection of business registers because, as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I was able to reach a good compromise with the rapporteur, Mr Lechner. My main concerns are as follows -

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Lechner report is a non-controversial initiative report that we found easy to support.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The idea of interconnecting business registers so that interested parties can access them is in line with the requests for transparency put forward by trade associations.

Globalisation results in businesses constantly moving within and outside the EU, and the fact that any interested party can freely consult these registers is a good thing. Too often, ghost companies have committed fraud precisely by taking advantage of the possibility that they may not be identified with certainty as a company, and therefore we can only view this initiative favourably.

  Catherine Soullie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on this very sound text, which has been adopted by a large majority in this House. As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs on business registers, I should like to stress the importance of this report. The data on commerce within the European Union are crucial to the positive development and the growth of our single market, and I look forward to the Commission’s legislative proposals on this issue.

Mandatory participation of all Member States in a common business register would benefit the entire Union. However, this is possible only if care is taken not to impose additional administrative burdens on our businesses and if private data are kept private, in order to maintain a climate of confidence.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of this report because I am convinced that the interconnection of business registers can help improve transparency in legal and business transactions. The general aim of this project was to make it easier for market operators to access information. It was intended to enable anyone to find out who was actually behind a particular company, whatever legal form it might take. Accordingly, this interconnection would also be in the interest of consumer and creditor protection.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Portas’s report on the interconnection of business registers because it is a good idea to consider the compulsory integration of European business registers for all European states with the aim of removing current obstacles to the mobility of enterprises within the EU.

Introducing a single European portal as a gateway to business registers; a valid and accessible portal in the 27 European Member States that allows all citizens access to information on European enterprises, is definitely a good way of streamlining company development within the Union.

Report: Elisabeth Schroedter (A7-0234/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour as I believe that the new sustainable economy must be based on the availability of skilled employment that encourages innovation in sectors that are strategically advantageous for Europe’s future, particularly energy and research. The greater value of these areas of knowledge, the possibilities for relocation that they offer, and the way in which they can be based in both the peripheral and the central regions of Europe, offer huge potential with regard to new technologies and their ability to adapt to the new environmental and human situation.

It will be crucial to invest in sectors that promote the prevention and mitigation of the effects of climate change. The maritime regions will have a significant role to play here, along with alternative means of energy production, making use of the natural resources found in each region of Europe.

Knowledge associated with environmental innovation is the future of the new economy, as there needs to be a strong focus on the application of knowledge to new economic uses. That is, knowledge can provide added value, but it can only create employment through synergies between centres of research, production and distribution, providing employment in the most diverse areas, from research to services and trade.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Job insecurity in the labour market at present is having a significant impact on the work situation of young people in the Union. I welcome the emphasis in the report on access to the labour market, on improving employment opportunities for young people, and on improving training programmes at this end.

Young people must be able to benefit from the labour market and I particularly welcome the improvements in the relationships between training centres, universities and the business sector. These relationships will help young people entering the labour market for the first time and will create employment opportunities for graduates and skilled young people.

Secondly, I support what the report says about establishing multi-level coordination between European, national and regional funding schemes.

However, I do not support its provision for a change from direct support mechanisms to rural development and the development of environmentally sustainable agriculture, because direct mechanisms are the best way of providing income support for farmers.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report. In order to achieve a sustainable economy for the EU, we must ensure balanced economic and social development. It is essential to make economic growth less dependent on the consumption of resources and energy, reduce climate-damaging emissions and thus to act against global warming. We must also aim to exploit the potential for creating green jobs in the service and social economy sectors. In order to achieve this, the Commission should draw up a strategy for creating green jobs to be followed by regional authorities when adopting regional development strategies. The implementation of this strategy should be financed from EU, national and regional funds, the distribution of which should be carefully coordinated. The aid would be used to carry out research and development, adapt innovations and infrastructure and create new technologies in the areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency, for example.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The financial crisis continues to plunge Europe and many regions of the world into stagnation, without politicians asking themselves how it can be solved. What is more, many of them even think that simply riding out the storm for a while is enough for the situation to return to what it was before September 2008.

I do not share that view. If we exclude the environment from our discussions, the same causes will produce the same effects. The environment represents an opportunity to create a new development model. The potential for new jobs is considerable, provided that we equip ourselves with the means to lead the sustainable economy.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this report, because it promotes the creation of sustainable jobs, in other words, jobs that take the needs of the current generation into account in such a way that the opportunities of future generations are not endangered. It is also stressed that these jobs must create social welfare, so they must serve man and nature. The objective of a new sustainable economy should be common ecological and social sustainability, creating long-term prospects for increasing competitiveness, social welfare and better environmental protection. With the increase in precarious employment contracts in the lower qualification band, the issue of job quality is also particularly relevant, so this report also promotes the creation of good jobs.

These jobs must ensure stable and socially oriented work, paying special attention to employees’ health and safety, decent work and skills requirements. Therefore, I call on Member States not just to create jobs in the upper training bands, but to enhance the status of jobs in the middle and lower training bands by creating good working conditions. I also agree with the initiative to adapt lifelong learning strategies to the requirements of older employees, in order to ensure high participation rates for workers over 55 years of age as well.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) EU cohesion policy plays a crucial role in developing the job potential of a sustainable economy, as it helps eliminate regional differences and boost the economy. From this perspective, the regional and local levels should make greater use of the European Structural Funds to take initiatives to create new, sustainable and lasting jobs. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) helps create regional clusters by bringing together research, innovation and infrastructure locally in the context of new technologies.

Regional and local authorities are the best positioned and most capable of creating the conditions necessary for the growth of these clusters, which can act as a decisive spur to local economic development and can create new jobs in the regions. SMEs also play a key role in promoting innovation in Europe. They should be encouraged to use the European Social Fund as a means of promoting entrepreneurial attitudes and skills.

However, the lack of coordination between EU, national and regional funding schemes is an obstacle to the achievement of these objectives. Hence, there is a need for better multilevel coordination to achieve more synergy between different common policies.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I recognise the importance represented by the creation of ‘green jobs’ for an economy aiming for sustainability. A ‘green job’ should also be one that contributes by saving energy and natural resources, by using renewable energy, by preserving ecosystems, and by reducing the impact caused by production of waste and air pollution. In fact, the positive side effect of the promotion of these sectors is considerable and should be developed. At the same time, adequate working conditions must be guaranteed, along with people’s vocational education and training.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report because it criticises the EU 2020 strategy, which does nothing to address unemployment and social cohesion, and because it calls for changes to the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, so that they really do promote employment and equitable social integration. The report also aims to start a debate on and adopt specific measures to create quality jobs, with full pay and social insurance, by promoting environmentally and socially sustainable growth.

Within this framework, the report argues in favour of a strong role for the public sector, by promoting its sustainable development with public services and infrastructures which meet environmental and social standards. It argues in favour of a new industrial, education and skills policy which will create a viable economy by promoting equality of the sexes and a strong role for workers’ representatives.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. − I support this report which states that while optimising the job potential, special attention needs to be paid to decent work and employees’ health and safety. In order to anticipate change and avoid unemployment, it is essential to promote social dialogue and collective agreements (often not existing in the new sectors) together with the strengthening of social security, income support systems and proactive sectoral training initiatives, gender equality, and a socially inclusive labour market. The report builds on the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition of green jobs according to which all jobs which promote sustainable development are green jobs. To ensure a socially just transition, workers should have a participative partnership role to play in the process. The report calls for the involvement of employees’ representatives in charge of greening the workplace - as defined by the ILO - to make workplaces, companies and industries more sustainable. As one of the promoted objectives, increased sustainability should be inserted into the financial perspective of various funds, including the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. We need to put the creation of sustainable jobs at the top of the EU’s agenda with a progressive transition towards, and investment in, quality and environment-friendly jobs

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘developing the job potential of a new sustainable economy’ because it argues that the creation of green jobs must not just be considered numerically. It is also important to know how to ensure good working conditions and how the change towards a sustainable economy can be implemented in a socially fair manner

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The number of parliamentary committees that have been involved in drafting the report – six – shows the great importance of the issue of employment today, and the way in which the concept of sustainability is now an unavoidable term in political discourse. The sustainability of the economy and its potential for job creation are problems shared by workers, businesspeople and politicians, technical workers and laypeople, environmentalists and industrialists, and many more. One of the main problems here is precisely the cost of sustainability and how it is allotted.

We wonder to what extent this need, which is not always noticeable or sufficiently achievable, is not adversely affecting the markets’ capacity for initiative and organisation, or introducing further difficulties to an economy which has already been battered by the crisis and uncertainty. Today, there is a growing need for sustainability to be more than an umbrella term and thus, something difficult to achieve. Rather, it should be a feasible presupposition for changing human action in the world, including in economic terms, so that it can benefit everyone, not just a few radicals.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Development is sustainable when the satisfaction of the needs of the current generation does not threaten the satisfaction of the needs of future generations. We need an approach that combines consideration of economic, social and ecological interests, more intense social dialogue, greater social responsibility for companies, and the adoption of prevention and polluter-pays principles. The thinking must be long-term, with the goals of competitiveness, and of social, economic, territorial and environmental cohesion. We therefore advocate investment in human, social and environmental capital, technological innovation, and new ecological services.

With this commitment, we are taking part in combating climate change. The EU has committed itself to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020, to covering 20% of its energy needs with renewable energies, and to increasing energy efficiency by 20%. According to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change study, global warming can only be limited to 2°C if industrialised countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90% of the 1990 level by 2050. We therefore advocate the creation of ‘green jobs’ that contribute to sustainable growth based on social justice and eco-efficiency, as well as the promotion of employment in the rural world so as to prevent desertification.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report has positive aspects in various areas and has taken up part of the opinion for which I was responsible in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, although it does not stress, as it should, the need for greater attention to the specificities of each Member State. I will highlight a few positive aspects:

- It considers that a new sustainable economy for the EU must ensure balanced economic and social development, insisting on the importance of the public sector.

- It calls for an ambitious sustainable industrial policy, with an emphasis on resource efficiency, and stresses that the green economy needs to offer prospects for decent, well paid jobs that are committed to energy efficiency, or that also themselves contribute to industrial diversification.

- It points out that the transition to a new sustainable economy is very complex, and therefore calls for particular attention to be paid to those areas affected by deindustrialisation by introducing appropriate financial support mechanisms, as well as integrated interventions that are geared to sustainable development and a more innovation-based economy, which is capable of creating decent, well paid jobs with rights while reducing social inequalities and regional asymmetries, in consultation with the social partners, with support for small and medium-sized businesses being particularly important.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – It is appropriate that we are voting on this report today, the day that the Scottish Government announced that Scotland is halfway to reaching its 2020 targets for greenhouse gas emissions. A recent report highlighted that offshore wind power alone could provide some 48 000 jobs in Scotland, and the Scottish Government is committed to being at the forefront of EU efforts to create new jobs in a sustainable economy. It is unfortunate that the government in Westminster continues to discriminate against Scottish energy suppliers through punitive grid charges, thereby holding back development of EU-wide significance. I voted in favour of the calls made in this report, and urge the UK Government to take heed.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The increase in the number of short-term contracts with poorer conditions of employment is, today, particularly in evidence among young people. This is a serious barrier standing in the way of a stable life for citizens, and, as a result, of a sustainable economy. Ecological trends in development and industrial innovations are intended to help achieve growth in employment while also contributing to protection of the environment.

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety suggests that environmentally-friendly technologies imposed as a requirement in agriculture will contribute to a growth in employment and in farmers’ revenues. This is an interesting thesis, which certainly merits discussion and deeper analysis. The proposal to run information campaigns to make the citizens aware of the importance of ecology is also worthy of support.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. − Sustainability of energy is one of the main issues that societies in Europe face today and it also has the potential to become one of the main sources of employment in the years to come. I support this initiative because it promotes job creation and protects the rights of workers.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The slowly receding economic crisis should encourage the European Union to manage resources more prudently and competitively. This is only possible with a sustainable approach to business, which brings with it a wide range of positive fringe benefits for the environment and for our citizens. We need to create stable general conditions in which the potential for employment in the EU’s green economy can flourish, ensuring sustained development for business. I am voting in favour of this report because economic growth, environmental protection and social cohesion go hand in hand and complement one another. The aim should be not only to create new, sustainable ‘green’ jobs, but also to encourage the business community and society as a whole to play a role in this new way of doing business. We must fully utilise the potential of the ‘green’ economy, while also contributing to Europe’s global image as a role model in terms of a progressive, sustainable and environmentally aware economic union.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) As a result of the crisis, economic growth and employment have become an immediate priority in the European Union. I voted for this report as I believe that it is vital for well-targeted efforts to be made to raise the level of employment through policies for promoting active ageing and for integrating young people, people with disabilities, legal migrants and other vulnerable groups into the labour market. These policies, along with good quality education and professional training, must be supplemented with effective incentives supporting lifelong learning and providing opportunities for improving qualifications.

Another segment which we cannot overlook is young graduates. We must promote a strong partnership between Member States and social partners which will help these young people in finding their first job or in being offered new opportunities for additional training, including apprenticeships. In this regard, Member States must mobilise and take full advantage of the EU funds made available, especially the European Social Fund.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) We need measures designed to create new jobs, especially now when Member States are facing a severe economic and social crisis. Against this background, the EU’s cohesion policy has a crucial role to play in developing the potential for creating new jobs in a sustainable economy by reducing regional differences and creating a society with full employment. We must encourage regions to utilise the Structural Funds for financing national, local and regional projects, as well as the European Social Fund in order create better educational and employment opportunities.

The European Social Fund is the solution available to Member States which want to invest in enhancing skills, providing employment and training activities, professional retraining and careers advice for the unemployed, with the aim of creating more and better jobs. In order to support the communities and regions in Member States, I asked the European Commission to fund a pilot project aimed at providing training and facilitating the exchange of models of best practice for those directly involved in managing and implementing European funds at local and regional level.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have today voted in favour of Mrs Schroedter’s own-initiative report on developing the job potential of a new sustainable economy. At the centre of the report are the ‘green jobs’. These are jobs in almost all relevant industrial and service sectors which contribute to a sustainable economy. Environmental protection can become an economic driving force if we create predictable, investment-friendly framework conditions at a sufficiently early stage. The introduction of numerous additional procurement criteria runs counter to the EU’s stated goal of reducing red tape forthwith. I am pleased that we were able to agree to limit the increase in criteria to minimum social standards. Most European companies are, without doubt, global pioneers of a successful environmental protection policy. In order to guarantee them fair competition, we must prevent production being relocated out of the EU in third countries with low environmental protection standards. The European Commission and the Member States must take swift and forceful measures to combat this tendency. My amendment to that effect received the support of the majority today.

Anti-discrimination and equal treatment must be promoted in the workplace. Sanction mechanisms and quotas are the wrong way to go about this. A mandatory 40% of women on the board of directors of companies is an unrealistic requirement, and therefore this proposal did not receive any support. Women do not need quotas. They need better opportunities to follow their careers. For this, it is necessary to remove the obstacles that hinder women’s professional development.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The concept of employment in a new sustainable economy has been creating a new paradigm regarding economic budgets, which have, until now, been seen as fundamental to economic development and job creation. A sustainable economy presupposes great changes with regard to employment potential, as companies from the energy efficiency sector will play a fundamental role in creating new jobs worldwide. The German example in this respect is very illustrative of the success of this sector’s companies in creating new jobs. It is therefore essential that other EU countries follow the German example in order for there to be a multiplier effect on employment in a sustainable economy across Europe.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Once again, we see fine words in an EU report. For example, it talks about optimum job potential for men and women in the new, sustainable economy, decent work, a socially fair transformation and covering qualification requirements. At the same time, however, the EU must be aware that, precisely because of the enlargement to the east, pressure on the labour market has risen significantly in some sectors, with no sign of any improvement. Moreover, in the last few years in particular, uncertain work conditions such as temporary agency work, part time work, ‘MacJobs’ and ostensible self-employment have increased considerably. These days, even high quality training no longer provides the guarantee of a job.

As long as the talk of green cards for workers from third countries continues in order to supply trade and industry with cheap labour, instead of trying to provide resident workers with the appropriate qualifications, all this will probably remain empty words. The requirements sound alright, but you can say what you like on paper. As it cannot be assumed that this will be followed by appropriate measures that are actually capable of implementing this, I have abstained from the vote.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Schroedter because I agree with its message and approach.

Sustainable development takes the needs of the current generation into account in such a way that the capability of future generations to satisfy their needs is not endangered. In addition to considering economic and ecological interests, the Council conclusions provide for investments in human and social capital as well as innovation with the aim of creating the conditions for competitiveness, wealth and social cohesion.

Moreover, another very important point in the document relates to the definition of green jobs. These jobs are not restricted to employment sectors which are directly connected with environmental protection. They include all those that contribute to change towards sustainable management by helping to save energy, using renewable energy and avoiding the production of waste.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Sustainable growth must be based on social justice and eco-efficiency. The transformation of European economies into eco-efficient economies at every level – local, national, regional and European – will lead to profound changes in production, distribution and consumption. I support the efforts to organise public information and awareness campaigns to highlight that our strategy for shifting to a green, sustainable economy is socially fair and that it will help boost the level of employment.

I wish to stress the need to focus particular attention on biodiversity in the context of creating new green jobs throughout Europe, especially in the implementation of the Natura 2000 networks. I call on the Commission to propose by 2011 a strategy including both legislative and non-legislative measures to promote the creation of green jobs which provide a source of growth and prosperity for all.

I ask the Commission and Member States to include policies aimed at reskilling workers for green jobs in all the other EU policies.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The development of green jobs in Europe is vital. On the one hand, these jobs make it possible to support sustainable growth and, on the other, they play a part in achieving the ambitious quantified objectives the EU has set itself with regard to the fight against climate change. I voted for the report by my fellow Member, Mrs Schroedter, which advocates the implementation of measures aimed at promoting them. In order to increase the number of green jobs, enterprises should, in particular, be encouraged to invest in clean technologies; I am thinking in particular of the implementation of tax relief for SMEs. The regions should also be encouraged to use the European Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to create new, sustainable and lasting jobs. However, we must ensure that national training and education systems are suited to meeting the demand for qualified workers, as well as ensuring that those whose jobs are threatened by these structural changes in the economy are retrained.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE) , in writing – (CS) I abstained from the vote on the report on developing the job potential of a new sustainable economy because I do not share the view of the rapporteur that we will solve unemployment by reducing emissions by 90% over 40 years. The report certainly backs the introduction of new technologies, but that does not necessarily mean jobs for European citizens. We are part of a liberalised global market place which also offers businesses, communities and consumers new technology from Asia, which competes against European technology mainly through low prices. This does not mean that we should not introduce standards on improving the environment, but let us not pretend that it will be a cure for unemployment.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I celebrate the fact that the European Parliament has today adopted a report on the job potential of the sustainable economy led by my German Green colleague, Elisabeth Schroedter. As she said after the vote, the Greens have long advocated that Europe commit to a true Green New Deal, speeding up the transition to the green economy as the only viable response to the current economic crisis. It is therefore very welcome that a large majority of MEPs from different political groups have supported this report, which highlights the huge potential for creating new green jobs and transforming existing jobs into green jobs across Europe, and which sets out recommendations to this end.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Although we support certain principles contained in this report, we voted against it.

The development of new jobs in green sectors, the use of renewable sources, restoring the ecosystem and saving energy are desirable and need to be supported. However, we cannot allow the costs of the transition to sustainable jobs to be passed on to our businesses, particularly in these times of crisis.

Sources of financing should be made available for companies that are interested in completely or partially converting to an ecologically sustainable sector. The procedures for replacing systems that produce high levels of pollution with systems that have a low environmental impact also need to be simplified because, as often occurs in Italy, they are opposed by the people.

  Edward Scicluna (S&D), in writing. – I am happy to support this report. It is important that the economic and social crisis does not deter Member States from moving towards a more sustainable, low carbon, resource-efficient economy. This will make our economies more resilient, competitive and less dependent on increasingly expensive imports. The Commission should place special emphasis on green jobs, especially since the OECD has demonstrated that the environmental goods and services sector has the potential to provide jobs for a wide range of skills and abilities, including low-skilled workers. I would also like to see Member States establish funding systems and fiscal incentives to steer SMEs towards green employment policies. While a new European employment strategy will define ‘green jobs’ in broad terms, distinctions should be made between the likes of pollution control, recycling, water resource management, nature conservation, the production of environmental and renewable energy technologies, and environmental R&D. A ‘green’ economy has the potential to deliver economic growth and tackle the increasing job insecurity that has developed in the EU in recent decades, particularly amongst young people. To achieve this, we need appropriate training and education programmes. Only then will we be able to develop the job potential of a new sustainable economy.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The European Council has defined development as sustainable if it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the report, much is said about the creation of green jobs. An extremely important fact is that great potential exists for the creation of new jobs in the field of renewable energy sources. In Europe, Germany is a good example of the responsible pursuit of such a policy. In the transition to a sustainable economy, we must also give attention to social justice, because this will ensure that citizens will accept the change. Suitable training and the systematic improvement of workers’ qualifications are also important in this regard. Sustainable development requires respect, not only for environmental standards, but also for standards in employment.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) The report on developing the job potential of a new sustainable economy has my full support. Mrs Schroedter refers to the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) definition, which states that a job is green if it contributes to sustainable management and a social Europe, and thus, this definition covers more than the high-tech jobs in the energy and environmental management sector to which the Commission refers. One objective, for example, is an ambitious, sustainable industrial policy with an emphasis on resource efficiency, and also decent, well paid jobs. It is recommended that industry’s involvement be increased, that regional authorities be encouraged to align legal framework conditions, market economy control instruments, subsidies and public procurement with that objective, and that a better targeted response be provided not only to the need for new skills but also to the establishment of social dialogue or collective labour agreements in the new sectors.

There is very high pressure for productivity in the new sectors and little inclination to guarantee good working conditions. As a result, it is not easy to convince workers in traditional industries with a tradition of solid social protection to change industry. The Union has an obligation to combat global warming, and therefore a good strategy is needed for a socially fair transformation into a greener economy.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which calls for the development of a European job strategy for a sustainable economy. It also backs calls within the Council for a review of subsidies that have an adverse environmental impact, and stresses the need for decent work.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on developing the job potential of a new sustainable economy as I believe that Member States must move towards a competitive, efficient low carbon economy. This is why I am calling on the EU to develop a sustainable industrial policy and involve the industrial sector in eco-innovation in order to make economic growth less dependent on the consumption of resources and energy and to reduce polluting emissions. I think that to be able to create jobs in an eco-efficient economy, we need to invest in energy efficiency and in the use of renewable energy sources and green technologies in buildings, the transport sector and agriculture. I urge the development of a European employment strategy for achieving a sustainable economy as part of the EU 2020 strategy, while highlighting the role of the regional authorities in this.

In addition, I call for the development of efficient funding systems and fiscal incentives to help SMEs provide green innovations and production processes. Finally, I believe that employment policy can play an essential role in combating poverty and social exclusion and I urge Member States to use the EGF to promote the new skills required for eco-efficient economic development.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, the pursuit of a sustainable economy is not simply an ecological necessity; it is also one of the fundamental pillars of our strategy on Social Europe. However, such changes will only bear fruit if they are socially just and eventually increase employment, improve working conditions and increase social insurance.

Therefore, a sustainable economy must include not just social and ecological, but also technological and economic, sustainability. That should not be a contradiction. We need more creative measures.

Take energy efficiency, for example. In Lithuania, the building sector was one of those worst affected by the economic crisis. The majority of old buildings in Lithuania are very uneconomical – imported energy is used inefficiently, as shown by residents’ huge heating bills.

It is likely that national projects to provide insulation and increase energy efficiency in buildings will bring money back to the market through construction sector wages and investment. At the same time, this will allow Lithuania to be less dependent on imported energy.

Of course, this is only one example and is not necessarily applicable to all Member States. However, it shows that especially during the crisis, we must think more creatively and join forces where we need to lay the foundations for a sustainable future.

Report: Rafal Trzaskowski (A7-0216/2010)

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I supported the report on EEA-Switzerland: Obstacles with regard to the full implementation of the internal market, mainly because it highlights and encourages the European Commission in respect of a whole raft of measures aimed at facilitating and deepening economic cooperation between the European Union and Switzerland. Above all, the report notes, quite correctly, the unnecessarily complicated system of 120 bilateral agreements in individual economic sectors between Switzerland and the EU. The drive to do our best to simplify and approximate legislation is correct, especially in terms of eliminating the obstacles blocking access to the Swiss market for EU businesses and vice-versa. For example, the report points out the totally unnecessary legal requirement for businesses entering the Swiss market to provide a financial guarantee. In my view, this is a superfluous obstacle which should be dismantled, and which the report is right to mention.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of this report because the full implementation of the internal market and its efficient functioning are as important for the EU as they are for its trade partners, in particular, the Member States of the European Free Trade Association. Switzerland – the fourth most important EU trade partner by volume – has its model of economic integration without accession based on bilateral sectoral agreements. This fact creates additional problems for it since, unlike the Agreement on the European Economic Area, there is no provision in these bilateral agreements for automatic mechanisms to adapt their content to changes to the relevant EU acquis communautaire.

Despite the positive developments as regards the Free Movement of Persons Agreement (FMPA) between the EU Member States and Switzerland, there are issues about the implementation of the FMPA that merit further attention. I therefore believe that all the possibilities that aim to improve the implementation of the FMPA must be set out, not least, greater harmonisation in its implementation, and greater convergence between Union legislation and Swiss legislation regarding the internal market.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Switzerland has a history and a particular range of characteristics which are reflected not only in the way in governs itself internally, but also in the way it has chosen to relate to other states and in the caveats and reservations it imposes on those relationships. The Swiss reluctance to integrate into large international organisations or enter into often perennially binding treaties which affect its domestic legal system is long-standing, nor is there anything new about its preferential treatment of its citizens and companies domiciled within the country to the detriment of foreign competition, which often suffers unreasonably from legal or administrative barriers as a result.

Nevertheless, Switzerland has been an important partner of the European Union and has already signed more than a hundred bilateral agreements governing the relationship between them. While the Swiss decision to stay outside the European Economic Area did not help accelerate and facilitate the EU’s economic relations with this country, neither has it prevented these from being achieved in an overall positive way. I hope that these relations will strengthen and grow.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The four European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Members States (Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) constitute major trade partners of the European Union, with Switzerland and Norway respectively being the fourth and the fifth most important EU trade partners by volume, and belong to a common cultural area in terms of sharing core values, and a cultural and historical heritage.

Given that the new regulations of the Treaty of Lisbon could lead to slower implementation of internal-market legislation in the states of the European Economic Area (EEA) and EFTA, I agree that the Commission needs to formalise the notification process of new EU rules and legislation that fall within the scope of the EEA Agreement in order to decrease the gap between the adoption of new legislation and potential take-up by EEA/EFTA states.

I also agree that parliaments in the EEA/EFTA states should be more closely associated with the EU legislative process as regards EEA-relevant proposals. I therefore propose that the Commission should provide the national parliaments of the EEA/EFTA States with the legislative proposals that are sent to the national parliaments in the EU Member States for consultation.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) As chair of the European Parliamentary delegation for relations with Switzerland and the EEA, I have a good understanding of the issues raised in this report. There are four Member States in the European Free Trade Association: Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. In 1994, with the signing of the EEA Agreement, three of those four countries became part of the internal market. In a referendum, Switzerland choose not to participate in the EEA with 50.3% being against and 49.7% in favour. Switzerland, therefore, has decided to have a separate relationship with the rest of Europe. Switzerland has concluded approximately 120 bilateral agreements with the EU.

These agreements relate to the free movement of persons, road transport, civil aviation, scientific research, technical barriers to trade, public procurement markets and agricultural affairs. Switzerland is the second most important economic partner of the EU and Swiss companies employ over one million people throughout the EU.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report as I welcome the progress which has been made in liberalising cross-border service provision between the EU and Switzerland and, in particular, the positive effects of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement. The constant rise in the number of posted workers and self-employed service providers from the EU operating in Switzerland from 2005 to 2009 (according to the statistics, there are approximately 200 000 cross-border workers from EU or EFTA countries who go to Switzerland every day to work) has proven to be mutually beneficial. I believe that during the period ahead, the Swiss Government and cantonal authorities need to draw on the EU’s and EEA’s experience with service sector deregulation through the transposition of the Services Directive.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Switzerland, along with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, is part of the European Free Trade Association and an important trade partner of the EU. However, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein consolidated their trade relationships with the EU even further when they adopted the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). As Switzerland is the fourth most important EU trade partner by volume, the adoption of the EEA Agreement is extremely important. That is why I voted as I did.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) This report does not pay sufficient attention to the sovereignty of Switzerland. For this reason, I have voted against the report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is absolutely essential to create a true European Economic Area, as set out in the Treaty of Porto.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We, the Greens, have supported this report, which includes a series of remarks on the obstacles to the implementation of the internal market rules by Switzerland and EEA States. In particular, it formulates the following ideas: following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission should provide the national parliaments of all EEA EFTA States with legislative proposals which are sent to EU national parliaments for consultation. EEA EFTA States should allocate adequate resources for the implementation of the Services Directive, in particular, for setting up national single points of contact, and EEA EFTA States should increase their involvement in the discussions on the Consumers’ Rights Directive, among other proposals.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We voted for this report because it removes obstacles to free trade between EU countries and important European trade partners.

We believe that, where Italy in particular is concerned, greater implementation of internal market rules by Switzerland could have a positive impact on our companies and our workers. We must welcome the decision that Switzerland has already taken to significantly reduce bank secrecy, in order to meet the need for transparency as called for in the European Union.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which recommends greater cooperation and sharing of best practice, along with advice on changes which must be made post-Lisbon. The report provides promising reading, reporting the average transposition deficit at 0.7%, which is roughly on a par with the EU Member States.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am very pleased that this report has been adopted by Parliament with such a large majority. I hope your votes in favour of its adoption also mean that you support, as I do, the report’s two basic objectives. Firstly, I and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection wanted to include the non-EU states of the European Economic Area and Switzerland on the committee’s agenda, which deals with the heart of the EU – the internal market. I hope these partners, and they are, after all, the Union’s biggest economic partners, will stay there permanently. The second objective was to address, at last, specific barriers to achieving this cooperation, particularly those which exist between Brussels and Bern. I hope Parliament’s vote on this matter will persuade both sides – both the European Commission and the authorities of the Swiss Confederation – to revise the mechanisms which currently regulate their cooperation.

Report: Pablo Zalba Bidegain (A7-0210/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Free trade agreements allow the signatory countries to benefit from trading a wide variety of products and to build on their relative strengths. I am therefore delighted that the European Union will soon be signing a free trade agreement with South Korea. We do, however, always need to be extremely vigilant with regard to the terms of proposed trade agreements. In this case, we need to avoid rapid changes which could potentially destabilise trade flows. Hence the need for safeguard clauses, not least to protect our automobile industry. In practical terms, I am pleased that the report has been adopted, as it contains a call from MEPs to allow an investigation into an influx of imports to be initiated upon request by a Member State, the European Parliament, the Domestic Advisory Group, a legal person, an association acting on behalf of the Union industry and representing at least 25% of it, or on the Commission’s own initiative. If it appears that European producers are seriously affected by a dramatic increase in imports of a particular product, safeguard measures may then be introduced in the form of protective customs duties.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. The safeguard clause will protect European industries and jobs from any harm caused by Korean imports. Close monitoring of the export flow and prompt rectification of any irregularities in the observation of the principle of fair competition are particularly important aspects. Consequently, I think that Parliament must indicate to the Council and Commission that it wishes to adopt this regulation as quickly as possible.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has approved the amendments to the safeguard clause to be included in the free trade agreement with South Korea. However, this is just the first vote: the final vote has been postponed until the part-session of 18-21 October so as to leave ourselves scope for reaching agreement with the Council at first reading. All of the European Commission’s impact assessments have shown that the trade benefits will be greater for South Korea than for the EU. The least the Commission could do is to provide us with a credible safeguard clause. We do feel that our demand for regional safeguard measures is legitimate, as the impact of opening the EU market to South Korean products may vary considerably from one Member State to the next. It is far easier to predict the impact of European exports in a country with 50 million inhabitants (as opposed to 500 million). It is also vital that Parliament and the relevant industrial sectors have the right to initiate an investigation for safeguard purposes, and that Parliament has a greater say in approving or rejecting safeguard measures.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I hope that the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and South Korea will be mutually beneficial and that the restrictions on free trade may be minimal for both parties. The safeguard measures aim to tackle serious damage to EU industries. Comprising the agreement signed with South Korea in October, the bilateral safeguard clause should be given greater detail, so that the various aspects of its implementation are set out properly and so that it complies with a transparent process and involves the counterparty.

As impediments to free trade, these clauses should be limited to what is necessary in order to avoid greater damage, and they should be appropriate and proportional to the situations for which they were devised. I hope that European industry will prove to be increasingly robust and creative so that we will not have to have recourse to this eventuality.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council constitutes the legal instrument required for implementation of the safeguard clause in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). On 15 October 2009 an FTA was concluded between the EU and the Republic of Korea. The agreement incorporates a bilateral safeguard clause that provides for the possibility of re-imposing the most-favoured-nation rate when, as a result of trade liberalisation, imports increase to such an extent and take place under such conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to the EU industry producing a similar or directly competing product. For such measures to become operational, the safeguard clause must be incorporated into EU law, as it is necessary to specify not only the procedural aspects of the imposition of safeguard measures, but also the rights of interested parties.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this safeguard clause, which is a recognition of the tragic consequences of the liberalisation and deregulation of world trade, does not remove the dangers and concerns that free trade between the EU and South Korea brings with it as regards the future of various sectors of economic activity. This is particularly true in some Member States, such as Portugal, and the regions that are most dependent on those sectors.

Let us remember the textile and clothing industry, which is particularly targeted under this agreement; let us remember the study by the Directorate General for Employment and the Eurofund, which presents scenarios involving a decrease of 20 to 25% of Union jobs in this sector by 2020, while even raising a scenario in which 50% of jobs currently existing in the European Union would be lost. Let us also remember sectors such as electronics and the motor vehicle components industry.

The EU’s neoliberal fundamentalism continues to sacrifice jobs and productive capacity at the altar of free trade for the sake of the profits of its multinationals; it continues to make deficits worse and to promote external dependence on foreign markets, as well as chronic and growing imbalances in trade. This ideology continues to justify attacks on workers’ rights, social dumping, and the ruination of millions of small producers and of many small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This agreement is the first trade agreement reached after the Treaty of Lisbon, the first agreement which the European Parliament will approve, so it is important that Parliament makes its voice heard. To affirm Parliament’s new powers in defining EU trade policy, we therefore voted in favour of the amendments tabled by the parliamentary Committee on International Trade (INTA), but we decided not to vote in favour of the text of the resolution as a whole, so as to try to reach a better agreement with the Council. A better agreement for which several main points should be reviewed: we want a real safeguard clause, an effective clause that will make it possible to cover regional distortions between the various EU Member States and which will, above all, make it possible to prevent situations where ‘serious injury’ to European Union producers could occur. Then comes the issue of Parliament’s right of initiative to launch an enquiry under the safeguard clause.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The free trade agreement between the EU and South Korea is of great importance for EU Member States’ economic development. However, in order for there to be no distortions and for there to be balance between the imports and exports of both parties, there need to be bilateral safeguard clauses. These clauses make it possible to prevent serious damage that could potentially be caused to EU industry in the case of an exaggerated increase in imports of certain products. The aforementioned safeguard therefore needs to be incorporated into EU legislation in order for these measures to become operational.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In comparison with other countries with which the European Union has negotiated or has already concluded free trade agreements, the former Japanese colony of South Korea has higher social and labour law standards. It is important, and indeed proportionate, for it to be possible to introduce safeguard clauses for a limited period at regional level in the individual EU Member States. Past experience has shown that it is important, particularly in connection with the import and export of goods, to be able to intervene so that any necessary structural adjustments or similar measures can be taken.

It is also vital that the exports and imports in those areas in which there is the greatest potential impact are monitored in order to avoid considerable damage to branches of industry in the Union. In principle, the conclusion of trade agreements promotes economic growth within the EU and therefore, I have voted in favour of the report.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully support the text of the resolution establishing a regulation that offers the possibility of implementing a safeguard clause in cases where South Korean imports threaten to cause serious injury to European manufacturers and the manufacturing industry following application of the FTA.

Regional application of this clause is essential for enabling not only Member States but also industry and Parliament to request the start of investigations to safeguard European exports within a short time frame. Voting in favour of the Zalba resolution allows us to adopt a clear and decisive stance vis-à-vis the Council to confirm the role of Parliament, which is a stakeholder in and not merely an executor of European trade policies.

We are very surprised that the Belgian Presidency has put the proposal for a decision on the signing and provisional application of the treaty on the agenda of the next Foreign Affairs Council before Parliament has started discussion of the treaty and before finding out the outcome of Parliament’s vote on the safeguard clause, without an official trialogue, even though it is aware of the unknowns surrounding the final content. There is therefore an evident need to call on all the institutions to observe greater mutual respect as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union is the most demanding productive area in the world and the most permeable market in the world. This situation creates extremely serious problems, above all, for our producers who, as they are obliged to comply with a broad range of laws that weigh heavily upon them, sometimes have higher production costs than those of their competitors in other parts of the world. If these competitors obtain free access to our markets, it creates a system of unfair competition that cannot be borne by producers, or by processors, industry or traders either; this will be very harmful to European society in the medium term.

In this context, I enthusiastically welcome this report on trade between the European Union and South Korea. As it includes provision for a bilateral safeguard clause to prevent significant damage to European industry in the event of a high volume of imports, the report recognises this chronic problem and is starting to take appropriate measures to minimise it.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, on 23 April 2007, the Council authorised the Commission to start negotiations with the Republic of Korea with the aim of concluding an EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

The agreement was signed on 15 October 2009. It contains a bilateral safeguard clause that provides for the possibility of re-imposing the most favoured nation (MFN) rate when, as a result of trade liberalisation, imports increase to such an extent – in absolute terms or in relation to domestic production – and take place under such conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to the EU industry producing a similar or directly competing product.

For such measures to become operational, the safeguard clause must be incorporated into EU law, not least because the procedural aspects of the imposition of safeguard measures, as well as the rights of interested parties, need to be specified. The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council that is before us constitutes the legal instrument required for implementation of the safeguard clause in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

  Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) The EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement is a very important agreement for the EU. As Liberals, we have a very positive view of free trade agreements, and we believe in their positive effects on the European economy and trade. We are therefore very sceptical about the regional safeguard clauses that the European Parliament wants to include in the agreement as a way of restricting free trade. Instead, we would like to stress the importance of free trade for the development of the EU. In order to enable the EU to be a competitive player within the area of global trade, the European Parliament ought to take action to facilitate, and create opportunities for, trade with the rest of the world through free trade agreements without restrictions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Greens did not table amendments to the draft report since we depart from the proposal that we will vote against the Korea FTA as such in the upcoming assent procedure for the reason that we object to a situation in which the EU industrial landscape is being determined arbitrarily by a single FTA. Moreover, we object to the EU negotiated carve-out in the FTA permitting the export to Korea of big gas guzzlers not meeting Korea’s more stringent CO2-emissions limits and timelines. Additionally, we perceive the EU 2020 strategy to be an attempt to spur an EU-wide industrial policy, which should be accompanied by a temporary moratorium on pending FTAs potentially conflicting with the setting of such policy.

However, we support in this situation the formulation of stringent safeguards, and this particular safeguard will become the blueprint for other FTAs. We also supported the rapporteur in resisting a situation in which the Korea safeguard is designed solely in the interests of the automotive industry, and in ensuring consideration of the entire range of trade relations and possible needs for trade defence mechanisms.

Report: José Bové (A7-0225/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, for which I was responsible on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament because I believe that it is necessary in order to rebalance the relationships established throughout the food supply chain, and to make them transparent, safeguarding a fair and competitive framework of good practice and a supervisory system to ensure that it runs smoothly. I now hope that the Commission will take into account the guidelines that Parliament has adopted here today, and that these will be reflected in the legislative proposal that it will present to us before the end of the year.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report confines itself to statements about the tragic situation in the food chain, which is worsening by the day, and criticises the Commission for the shortcomings in its communication. However, it accepts the commercialisation of food and proposes solutions within the framework of improved competitiveness, transparency and information in the food market, without touching on the basic cause of the problem, which lies in the capitalist method of production, which robs small and medium-sized farms of the fruits of their labour and working consumers of their incomes. In Greece, the anti-grassroots policy of the EU and of the PASOK and New Democracy governments has supported the hold exerted by the monopolies over the food market and the creation of cartels in food products such as dairy products and flour. As a result, retail prices have gone through the roof, thereby further increasing the massive profits of the food industry, and working and grassroots families simply cannot afford them.

The people’s food needs will only be satisfied if the working classes, small and medium-sized farm owners and the grassroots classes jointly fight the monopolies, by fighting to break and overturn the anti-grassroots policy and the agents of it, put power in the hands of the people, make the means of production social property and organise planned agricultural production on the basis of the needs of working and grassroots families within the framework of a people’s economy.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because, as point 3 of the report ably states, all the agriculture-related objectives referred to in the Treaty of Rome (increased productivity, adequate food supply, reasonable consumer prices, market stabilisation) have been attained, with the exception of the objective of a fair income for farmers. The Commission should therefore take proper account of this in all budgetary proposals.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Our farmers ought to be able to earn a decent income for their labour whilst also producing foodstuffs that meet strict quality standards and are affordable for consumers. Thanks to the work done in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Bové’s report is balanced and proposes a number of solutions to these challenges. Strengthening producer organisations, offering standard contracts in certain sectors, and encouraging self-regulation: those, in my view, are good avenues to explore. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Farmers’ incomes declined by 12% on average during 2009 and operating costs increased by 3.6%. As matters stand, farmers will not be able to continue operating within the food supply chain for much longer – where prices paid by consumers have increased by 3.3% per year since 1996.

The food chain is a complex structure which is not functioning effectively at present. Farmers are not getting proper recompense for the time and investment they put into quality food production. If we are to rely on farmers to ensure the security of food supply in Europe, we must address the volatility of the market and the distortions in the food supply chain. A fair income for farmers must be ensured.

Fair prices for farmers, proper market transparency and fair retail prices for consumers must be guaranteed. The Commission must investigate the food chain, and I particularly support those who want the distribution of profit margins to be scrutinised so that the precise point in the food chain where distortion is adversely affecting competition can be identified.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I supported this report and the concern it expresses over the situation faced by EU farmers. The global economic and financial crisis and food and commodity price volatility have caused considerable hardship for agricultural producers and therefore consumers are also not getting a fair deal. Although food prices have risen by 3.3% per year since 1996, the prices farmers receive have only risen by 2.1% whilst operational costs have increased by 3.6%, proving that the food supply chain is not functioning properly. Furthermore, the average farmer’s income decreased by more than 12% in the EU-27 in 2009, meaning that farmers can no longer generate the necessary income from their work. However, despite this, farmers and the agri-food sector still have to produce food products that meet extremely demanding quality standards at prices that are affordable to consumers. I agree that there is a need for more transparency in the agricultural sector and that the European Commission must play a leading role and propose mandatory annual reporting by the top European traders, processors, wholesalers and retailers on their market shares.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) With each agricultural crisis, farmers and consumers make the following insistent demand: make prices and farmers’ revenues transparent once and for all throughout the agricultural production chains. This report is along these very lines, and we therefore have every reason to welcome it. I regret, however, the rejection, by just a few votes, of the proposal to grant preferential treatment to cooperatives, SMEs and producer organisations when awarding public procurement contracts.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Transparency, competition and supply are only some of the aspects tackled by Mr Bové, who calls on the Commission and the Council to intervene to improve the functioning of the food supply chain in Europe.

I decided to vote in favour of the Bové report because I firmly believe that the steps to improving food supply chain efficiency must include removal of unfair commercial practices, price monitoring and greater involvement of producers and consumers in the elaboration of quality criteria and local economic development.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I voted in favour of the report ‘Fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe’ because I believe that more attention should be paid to this issue in an EU context. However, I also have one reservation about the report. I consider it an error that it does not pay more attention to the unequal bargaining power of farmers compared to processors. While the food processing industry is integrated and economically powerful, farmers are often fragmented and in an inevitably weaker position when it comes to commercial negotiations. The Commission nonetheless wants to support greater integration of the food processing industry on the internal market, within the framework of boosting competition in the European food chain.

The report says almost nothing about how to make farmers equal partners with the food industry and the commercial chains. I was also intrigued by the request to halt the development of national and regional regimes of origin labelling, which are to be replaced by the new framework for geographical indications under the quality policy. In my opinion, the regional labelling regimes may be an appropriate addition to the European system of labelling, provided they do not restrict the free movement of goods on the internal market.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report on food prices and farmers’ revenues in Europe has been adopted by the European Parliament today, Tuesday, 7 September. This report is the result of extensive cooperation between all the political groups, with a significant contribution by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

I welcome the proposals made to the European Commission in order to strengthen the position of producers in their negotiations with distributors. I join with the rapporteur in calling for European competition law to be adapted in order to prevent abuses of dominant position.

The proposal to create standard contracts incorporating volume and price clauses, which will enable farmers to receive fair revenues, is a relevant one in my view. We need a new market regulation that will provide the common agricultural policy with instruments by which to combat crises better.

As in the case of fishery and aquaculture products, I attach great importance to the promotion of quality products and to sustainable production. That is why it is crucial for products imported from third countries to meet the same requirements as European products in order to prevent any unfair competition.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Since problems with the food supply chain have been detected at European and global level, solutions need to be found urgently. This report tables some solutions, of which I would stress the need to promote an increase in the added value of European agri-food production; the importance of considering measures to discourage abusive practices, such as the introduction of penalties and the ‘naming and shaming’ of companies failing to comply; and the creation of a European farm prices and margins observatory. I also consider it essential to promote the rationalisation of the food supply chain in order to reduce the environmental impact of food transportation, to promote the marketing of local foodstuffs, and to sustainably develop the rural economy.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Bové report, not only because it is on the right track and contains very important information, but also because it makes numerous important changes to the Commission’s very poor original text. The report promotes product diversity, the cultural heritage in agriculture, retail outlets and the facility for the direct sale of products by farmers and jobs and financing for small and medium-sized farms and cooperatives in ways that will guarantee food self-sufficiency and environmental protection. It stresses the need to safeguard a fair income for farmers and therefore calls on the Commission to take account of all budgetary proposals. The report presses for improvements to the legal framework for private quality labels so as to avoid their multiplication and in order to provide consumers with greater transparency and easier market access for producers.

The report also considers it necessary to prohibit selling below purchase price at Community level and urges the Commission to revise the criteria currently used to assess anti-competitive behaviour, because although the Herfindahl index may be useful in assessing the risks of monopoly, it is unable to get the true measure of anti-competitive practices of a collusive or oligopolistic nature, as are apparently occurring in large-scale retailing.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The primary objective of the common agricultural policy (CAP) has always been to guarantee fair revenues for farmers. Following the review instituted by the Commission, a number of discrepancies from the initial principle have come to light that 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 becoming important players in the second stage today is no longer seen as a determining factor for stabilising the final price to be paid by consumers. It is necessary to control the fluctuations in commodity prices, which only hurt the consumer. I believe it is 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. Consumers must play a leading role in order to guarantee fair revenues for all operators in the supply chain.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Bearing in mind that agriculture is one of the sectors which have been hardest hit by the economic crisis, I believe that 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, helping the operation of the European food supply chain to improve.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The food crisis and the resulting instability of prices of food and basic products have laid bare existing concerns about the way in which food supply chains work at European and world levels. They also alluded to the difference between the 3.3% annual increase in food prices and the 2.1% increase in the prices that farmers receive, against a 3.6% increase in their outgoings; this is a reflection of the lack of transparency in prices throughout the supply chain. Since I believe that balanced trade relationships would not only make food supply work better but would also benefit the farmers themselves, I voted in favour of the content of this report.

I therefore say again that the fundamental objective of the common agricultural policy should be to maintain the competitiveness of European agriculture and support for farming in the EU, so as to ensure food production at local level and balanced territorial development. However, this must be realised without neglecting the capacity to ensure fair incomes in the agricultural sector. Therefore, it is only possible to stimulate productive systems that are sustainable and ethical if farmers are duly compensated for the investments and commitments that they make in these areas.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has called for fairer incomes for farmers in the context of a better functioning food chain. It is not acceptable that farmers’ revenues should be consistently falling while the profits of the food industry, multinational wholesalers and retailers are on the rise. We are therefore calling on the European Commission to introduce some practical measures (to combat dominant positions, abusive commercial and contractual practices, delayed payments, and so on) in order to create a transparent, efficient economy in which goods are sold at a fair price and farmers can earn a living.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because it addresses the problem of unfair distribution of profits within the food chain, especially with regard to fair incomes for farmers.

The average farmer’s income decreased by more than 12% in the EU-27 in 2009, while consumers are facing constant or increasing prices for the end products they buy, which illustrates the lack of price transparency along the food chain, as well as growing commodity price volatility. Greater transparency must therefore be sought in the food chain to stop the abusive practices of large supermarkets and of the processing industry.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – I support this report in principle, because I believe it takes issue with the most important problems within the food supply chain. We must deal with the reality that currently within the system, we have a distortion of power. Retailers have too much power, resulting in primary producers acting as price takers and not price makers. While I agree with the principles of this report, I have severe reservations with the solutions put forward by the rapporteur. I do not believe in over-regulation. Yet more red tape will only serve to put added pressure and cause extra expense within the current system. I also disagree with an EU-wide body to monitor all market transactions. The cost associated with such a body would be prohibitive.

A supermarket ombudsman at Member State level can carry out this role. While I agree with some of the ECR amendments, I am wary that a rapid move to a freer market would be detrimental to producers in my constituency. Their reluctance to tackle the power of retailers in the supply chain will do nothing to ensure continued food supply from primary producers.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘fair revenues for farmers: a better functioning food supply chain in Europe’, because measures are necessary to guarantee fairer revenues for farmers, better price transparency for consumers and better functioning of the food chain, specifically through legislative proposals to correct the unfair distribution of profits within the food chain, and in order to respond to price volatility and reduce the vulnerability of farmers.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We all agree that farmers are particularly exposed to price volatility due to the particular characteristics of their work. The report suggests some good ideas to protect them, but others only raise doubts. Firstly, the mandatory reporting of market shares runs the risk of being merely a bureaucratic measure. I also have some doubts about the emphasis on the occurrence of abuses of dominant position and unfair practices in the food supply chain, because if abuses and unfair practice actually take place, the current competition laws should be implemented to punish the transgressors.

For this very reason, I do not see any real need for a new relationship between the rules on competitiveness and the common agricultural policy. With respect to private brands, we already know that these allow greater freedom of choice for consumers, and studies show that they come to prefer these products. This is the way the market works. There are, therefore, many issues in this report which merit further consideration.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Farmers should have fair revenues. It is unacceptable that since 1996 the prices farmers receive have only risen by 2.1% whilst operational costs have increased by 3.6%. However, food prices have risen by 3.3% per year, meaning that it is farmers who have been penalised. It is notable that the average farmer’s income decreased by more than 12% in the EU-27 in 2009.

All the agriculture-related objectives referred to in the Treaty of Rome – increased productivity, adequate food supply, reasonable consumer prices, market stabilisation – have been attained, with the exception of the objective of fair income in agriculture. We therefore call on the Commission to improve the European food price monitoring tool with the aim of meeting consumers’ and farmers’ need for more transparency on food price building. I also call on the Commission to swiftly carry out the pilot project on the creation of a European farm prices and margins observatory supplemented by data on prices, margins and volumes, for which Parliament and Council adopted a EUR 1.5 million appropriation under the 2010 budget.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report does not live up to the ambition that its title might suggest. The text ends up proposing little – almost nothing – specific on how to achieve fair revenues for farmers, stopping at vague and even ambiguous expressions; it leaves it to the Commission to present proposals that it is the European Parliament’s obligation to present.

To begin with, what is needed to achieve fair revenues for farmers is a clear break with the policies of liberalisation of agricultural markets decided on as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy, as well as the removal of agriculture from the World Trade Organisation and ‘free-trade agreements’, whose processes have been positive for some big corporations involved in the chain and disastrous for small and medium-sized farmers. A pricing policy is needed that takes into account the sensitive nature of this activity and that, amongst other measures, sets fair minimum amounts to be paid to farmers.

Quantitative monitoring of imports is needed; preference for EU products must be implemented by prioritising each country’s own production and its food sovereignty. The supermarkets must be obliged to sell a significant quota of each country’s national production, with particular attention being paid to levels of agri-food dependency, as well as to its balance of trade and its agri-food balance.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Mr Bové’s report on a better functioning food supply chain in Europe constitutes a first important step for a fairer redistribution of revenues and a recognition of the true worth of producers, who have been hardest hit in recent years by unfair commercial practices. I believe it is necessary to intervene in the sector to introduce measures aimed at increasing the bargaining power of producers.

As with most European producers, the producers in my region have also been hard hit by the imbalance of revenue in the food supply chain and the fall in prices of agricultural products, which has affected many crops and herds. The in excess of 91 000 holdings registered in Veneto in 2005 have declined by 14% and, in practice, this reduction mainly involved small producers; those with less relevance on the market. I will therefore vote in favour of the own-initiative report, hoping that it is followed by a Council proposal that is equally attuned to the emergency situation affecting many producers.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I welcome this report – which was adopted today – on improving the functioning of the food chain.

There is no doubt that there are problems in the food supply chain and it is farmers who suffer the most as a result. The prices being received by farmers must be set out clearly and openly. I ask the European Commission to incorporate this report’s recommendations in the Communication on the common agricultural policy post-2013, a communication to be published later this year.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, the problem is age-old and the situation is getting worse with the increased power and concentration of the supply chain.

Small and medium-sized agricultural producers struggle to achieve a dignified income and consumers have to face continual price hikes. There can be no doubt that the rules of the supply chain are dictated by large-scale retailing, the partner with all the bargaining power. It is therefore important to implement direct measures to combat unfair trading practices and introduce the price transparency mechanisms laid down in this directive, for which I voted wholeheartedly. This is not yet enough, however, to guarantee farmers the fair profit margins that the CAP is aiming for.

We need to fine-tune the price control mechanism still further; provide incentives for setting up producers’ organisations with the aim of stepping up the bargaining power of individual farms and improve organisation of the food supply chain taking into account the size diversity of farms and the specific features of the various markets.

To sum up, to guarantee fair incomes for each link in the supply chain, particularly if we wish to guarantee quality and protect consumers, we must tackle the matter more effectively and in a global manner.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The objective of an agricultural policy must not simply be to guarantee affordable or cheap prices for consumers. It should also be to guarantee a fair income for farmers’ work, to promote short supply chains, to encourage consumers, producers, processors and distributors to think ‘local and seasonal’ – quality products and so on – and to put a stop to certain practices engaged in by the large-scale distribution sector or intermediaries.

As we have said several times in this House, agriculture, because it feeds people, because it maintains the landscape, because it is the foundation of civilisations, is different from all other economic activities.

As such, it should not be subject to competition rules, and definitely not to international competition rules. It is scandalous to see agricultural commodities, on which human beings’ lives depend, treated like financial products on highly speculative markets. Mr Bové’s report is along the right lines. It is a pity that, because of the pro-European majority in this House, it still falls broadly within the flawed conceptual framework of the European Union and its dogmas.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted resolutely in favour of this text, which calls on the European Commission to take specific measures so that farmers can benefit from fair revenues and so that the food supply chain can function better in Europe. This is an important vote because farmers do not receive fair remuneration for what they produce and are often the first victims of sometimes abusive trade practices. This text represents progress because it states that the negotiating position of all parties must be balanced and that fair competition must be established throughout foodstuff markets, so as to guarantee fair revenues for farmers and to ensure price transparency for consumers. I therefore welcome the adoption of this text, which is a major step forward for farmers and consumers. If we want to maintain a dynamic agriculture and if we want to have a quality food supply chain in Europe that benefits consumers, farmers must obtain more for what they produce.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text because the effects of ‘contract’ farming imposed by buyers could weaken the bargaining position of farmers.

New legislation is therefore needed to integrate primary producers more closely with the other links of the chain and to guarantee price transparency for consumers.

The proposal to create standard contracts incorporating volume and price clauses would enable producers to strengthen their bargaining position with downstream sectors. These standard contracts could serve as instruments to help prevent practices such as the alteration of contract terms, the delaying of payments, and resale at loss. In some sectors, these contracts should even become mandatory.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Bové’s report on food prices because we do need to ensure stable incomes for farmers whilst also protecting consumer prices. A number of recent fluctuations in prices for food commodities, as in the case of milk, have focused attention on the dire situation that very many farmers are currently facing. Selling prices are sinking and producers can no longer earn a decent living. At the other end of the chain, consumers never benefit from price falls if and when they occur. Yet at the same time, when prices rise, not least as a result of speculator activity, the hikes are immediately passed on in the end price. There is an urgent need for more transparency with regard to the role of intermediaries, particularly large-scale distributors.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report as it is sickening to see farmers being ripped off wholesale by larger multiples. Wealth should be re-distributed fairly along the food supply chain. I hope the Commission acts swiftly and proposes a mechanism to deal with the issues it raises. This initiative, if enforced, would greatly help the livelihood of the farming community in Ireland and it is why I support it.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I support the Bové report on a better functioning food supply chain. The report deals with key issues for the future development of the agricultural sector and, therefore, with securing the supervised supply of healthy, fresh food for the European population. The central concerns of farmers include price transparency, fair competition, restricting buyer power abuse, improving contracts, enhancing the status of producer groups and limiting speculation in agricultural raw materials. This report sends out a clear signal from Parliament to small family farms at a time of global economic crisis. The report is also directed against all the players in the food chain who contribute to pricing problems. We must resolve the issue of high profit margins being made only in the downstream areas of the food chain. We must not allow farmers to be paid producer prices which are below their production costs.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The EU will only manage to have a strong agricultural sector that enables it to be self-sufficient if farmers are able to have fair revenues and if what they produce is sold at a fair price. However, the great pressure exerted by the main food supply chains has led to a decrease in the prices paid to farmers and to an increase in the cost of products to consumers. It is necessary for the increase in prices to the consumer to be reflected in the price paid to farmers, as only in this way will balanced commercial relationships be achieved. That is why I voted as I did.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) While, on the one hand, I welcome the conclusion reached in this report on the disastrous situation of European agriculture, on the other, I regret that the only proposal made to us is to have more and more Europe, more European laws and more pro-European, bureaucratic interventionism.

Given our different local, regional and national identities and traditions, and given the profound differences in terms of the practices and needs of the different economic and sociological worlds of EU farmers, that which has been done by the pro-Europeans must be urgently called into question. We have a policy that has failed and which has exacerbated rural desertification, the quasi-monopoly and the unfair practices of large-scale distributors and buyers, along with the various forms of speculation that are destroying our farmers.

While farmers absolutely must be given support so that they can receive fair revenues within a secure, better functioning and quality food supply chain, common sense would also dictate that this is done at national level. We must renationalise the common agricultural policy (CAP) and not add weight to the liberal, internationalist arguments of the European Commission.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Due to the fact that I was prevented from speaking during the debate on the Bové report and I could not state the reasons why I am not voting for this report, I would like once again to make it clear here that, for the time being, we are still living in the European Union and not in a soviet union.

I therefore reject all of Mr Bové’s solutions that are not compatible with our social market economy system.

I agree with the identification of the serious causes of the problems, such as abuse of dominant buyer power, late payments, restricted market access and many others that lie behind the defective functioning of the food supply chain.

We therefore need to act and we are indeed prepared to do so. We need to ensure a fair income for farmers without disparaging the processing industry or commerce worldwide. In contrast to the national authorities, the processing industry and commerce have to deal with the real economy. However, if the aid to which farmers are entitled, and on which they are definitely counting, is paid more than 12 months late, this reprehensible practice will have just as negative an effect on farmers’ income as certain practices employed by the processing industry and commerce which are awaiting review.

Therefore, I will not vote for the report if the inconsistencies that run counter to the system are not successfully eliminated.

  Marisa Matias and Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for this resolution because it includes numerous proposals to balance the power relationships between the various actors involved in the food production and supply chain. Small and medium-sized farmers are the weak link in this chain today and without fair revenues, it will be impossible to successfully fight the human desertification of rural areas and, at the same time, reorganise small-scale agriculture and the associated processing industry in environmental terms.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I agree with all the points made by Mr Bové’s report. The European Commission’s unproductive attitude towards farmers and its constant wish to increase taxes on production and supply, sale and storage can lead to a situation where the proportion of agricultural production in Europe could fall by 30% to 50% compared to today’s level.

Europeans would then be wholly dependent on supplies from China, India, South America and Russia, where the costs in this sector are considerably lower. Mr Bové’s report makes it clear to the European Commission that the Members of the European Parliament will not allow Mr Barroso and his commissioners to apply pressure on farmers and deprive them of revenue in favour of the EU’s public finances. We must give all those who want to make farmers’ lives harder and more complicated ‘six strokes on the hand’.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Something is going awry in the food supply chain. For one thing, the shop price bears no relation to what smallholders receive for their hard work. Again and again, we see abuse of dominant buyer power and unfair practices. Distributors have to reach into their own pockets when supermarket chains have anniversary celebrations or implement restructuring plans, for example. Small businesses are mercilessly squeezed and then companies employ despicable fraudulent labelling practices for out-of-date products, culminating in the case of Gammelfleisch & Co.

If we do not want our agricultural regions 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 multinational agricultural concerns and the millionaires and instead give it to those who need it in order to survive. If that is not possible amid EU centralism and the Brussels blame deflection mechanism, the renationalisation of agricultural subsidies will remain the only viable solution. This report is not capable of making any real improvement to the situation, although some of the approaches it contains are the right ones. Consequently, I have abstained from voting.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report because I consider it to be positive for the Italian food industry.

In particular, I think it essential to adopt tools to support the development of short supply chains and markets managed directly by farmers, thereby reducing the number of intermediaries. This will benefit consumers because they will be able to buy products at a fairer price. I also call on the Commission to take serious measures against unfair competition, which is having a negative impact on small producers.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Confronted by both the economic recession and the whims of the climate, European farmers face unavoidable difficulties. Significant problems are arising in relation to the fluctuating prices of basic agricultural and food sector products. The European Commission’s communication mentions price transparency, competition and improved product quality, but some important elements are missing, hence, the huge importance of the resolution adopted today in which the European Parliament, expressing its opinion, draws attention to farmers’ very unequal bargaining power, which has led various agricultural market participants to abuse the existing situation, distorting farmers’ income and concluding unfair contracts and cartel agreements. I voted for this resolution because I believe that we must ensure better functioning of the food supply chain and push for fair revenues for farmers, the promotion of price transparency throughout the food supply chain, competition, the combating of price volatility and improved information exchange between market partners, in view of the new challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Bové report, which deals with a severe current problem and suggests helpful measures for alleviating it. However, I voted against the articles proposing measures which do anything but encourage economic freedom and competitiveness. We must never forget that there is no alternative to a fair economic policy. This principle must be observed in agriculture as well, in spite of the particular nature of this sector. Once again, I would like to express my dismay that no reference is made in this report to rural development policies. However, I hope that the fair, helpful measures will find their rightful place in the Commission’s future legislative proposals.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) The report contains some very positive and important elements, such as the attempt to combat monopolies in the agricultural sector, in order to guarantee a secure income for small farmers. However, I am opposed to the approach in the report which involves solving the problems in the agricultural sector by introducing more EU regulations. This is the wrong route to take. What we need is a wide-ranging shift of power back to national and regional level, where the challenges being faced are most imediate. Therefore, I have abstained from voting.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the EU report on fair revenues for farmers, because one of the key goals of the EU’s common agricultural policy – to guarantee adequate revenues for farmers – has yet to be achieved. Although food prices in the EU have risen by 3.3% per year since 1996, the prices offered to farmers have only risen by 2.1% whilst operational costs have increased by 3.6%, which proves the imbalance in the food supply chain, due to the dominant position of agri-business traders, input companies, processors and retailers. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to promote the development of economic organisations of farmers and the formation of cooperatives because they increase farmers’ influence and negotiating power. I agree with the proposals put forward in the report to ensure greater price transparency in the food sector, in particular, those aiming to combat global speculation on food commodities, control their price volatility and ensure a better flow of information on prices and contracting among the market partners. It is especially important to prevent buyer power abuse in the food chain. I strongly agree with the proposal adopted by the Committee on Agriculture to introduce programmes to encourage the sale of products on local markets and ensure that preferential treatment is granted to producer organisations, farmers’ cooperatives and SMEs when awarding public procurement contracts in the food supply chain. It is regrettable that Parliament has rejected this proposal.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report for the reasons expressed in its title: to guarantee fair revenues for farmers. Even though this is one of the goals of the common agricultural policy, it has always attracted less attention than other goals such as greater productivity and the global competitiveness of the European food industry. I am aware of the factors that affect the proper functioning of the food supply chain in Europe. These have become evident due to the great volatility of commodity prices in the agri-food sector.

These problems seem to be closely linked to increased concentration in the sectors of processing industries, wholesalers, retailers and supermarket chains, their growing market power and various practices of abuse of dominant buyer power in the food supply chain. I concur with the rapporteur when he states that the best way to respond to these problems is to make prices more transparent all along the food supply chain with the aim of increasing competition and combating volatility, and also to improve the flow of supply and demand information between market partners.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as it includes concrete proposals for improving the functioning of the food chain and ensuring fair incomes for farmers.

Improving the functioning of food chains should include the following elements: differentiating and revising hygiene regulations; decentralising and simplifying certification and control systems; promoting direct producer-consumer relations and short food supply chains; involving producers and consumers in establishing quality and fair trade criteria, as well as environmental sustainability criteria for public food procurement practices (catering services) as a means of enhancing food quality and local economic development, while also reducing ‘food miles’ and agrichemical dependence; huge losses of food throughout the food chain which, in most Member States, account for up to 30% of produced and marketed food; the importance of the European Food Aid Programme on the food supply chain, which feeds 43 million poor people in Europe and should be reviewed in order to establish a closer link between local producers and consumers.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I salute the adoption of the Bové report which, although it welcomes the Commission’s proposals to encourage the creation of agricultural producer organisations, also says that the committee nevertheless stresses that a revision of competition laws should reflect the different levels of competitiveness in relation to the markets and supply chains. The size of independent local retailers, markets, local food chains and semi-subsistence food supply systems should therefore be taken into account. European competition rules should improve producers’ organisations’ bargaining power so as to allow them to achieve a fair price for their production.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Bové report because greater transparency is required in the European food market. Indeed, the supply chain does not operate properly, and it is speculators who stand to gain most from this failure. European farmers need fair and secure incomes. This is why we must ensure that they will not always lose out in the food chain. To successfully achieve this, we need to guarantee them fair competition.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D), in writing. – (DA) On behalf of the Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen). The Danish Social Democrats believe that it is necessary to provide clarity and transparency with regard to food prices in the EU. However, we are of the opinion that this report has a different aim, which could result in an increase in current agricultural aid and further centralised control of food prices. We therefore voted against the final resolution, even though we support the need for transparency with regard to food prices and the distribution of income within the food sector.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I welcome this report as an initiative that will finally open up the issue of what is really happening in terms of the functioning of the food chain in Europe. Farmers have to confront a relentless decline in agricultural prices in most product sectors, while consumers, on the other hand, pay either the same or even higher end-user prices for the final products in the retail network. It is undoubtedly necessary to strengthen the bargaining position of producers and consumers, and generally to eliminate the imbalance in bargaining power between individual elements of the food chain. This topic should also form part of the discussions over a new common agricultural policy. I voted for the adoption of this report.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) I endorsed with enthusiasm the report by Mr Bové on fair revenues for farmers and a better functioning food supply chain. There is a huge difference between the price that farmers obtain for their products and what consumers ultimately pay for them. What happens to the difference is anybody’s guess. That is why it is good to advocate greater transparency, for both farmers and consumers, in the way food prices are set. The report calls on the Commission to identify farmers’ real costs of production and the price they obtain for their products, in the interests of transparency of the profit margins of all the links in the food chain. Farmers must not be the victims of non-transparent price fixing among supermarket chains.

Clarity as regards the amount of profit middlemen and supermarket chains make on a certain product will give farmers a stronger negotiating position. In addition, greater transparency in the system will make it possible to curb supermarket chains’ abuse of their power to set prices. Transparency and fair competition will also make for a more sustainable food chain. We are currently seeing Flanders importing tomatoes from Spain and Spain importing tomatoes from Flanders. Greater transparency of prices and profit margins will make it possible to prevent these inefficient, environmentally damaging practices.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of Mr Bové’s excellent report, in which we call for fairer revenues for our farmers and a more transparent and better functioning food chain in Europe. However, I regret the majority position adopted by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which, by going back on the compromise amendments negotiated several months ago, have rejected certain fundamental paragraphs of this report. Indeed, the rejection of, among others, paragraph 52 calling for preferential treatment to be granted to producer organisations, farmers’ cooperatives and SMEs when awarding public procurement contracts leaves no room for doubt; it is now clear that priority has been given to the interests of the distribution and processing sectors, to the detriment of our producers.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I was pleased to hear the results of today’s vote. From the economic point of view, voluntary associations of producers are the most effective ways for farmers to work together. Such organisations increase farmers’ bargaining power in the market, even out their chances in negotiations with the food processing industry and allow production to be optimised without the need for excessive external support. In order to overcome competition, farmers must work together to a greater degree. Cooperation and coordination as an organisation of producers allows a range of initiatives to be taken, such as the promotion of regional products and running an information campaign for consumers, while also ensuring diversity of production in the EU market.

In addition, groups are best able to determine needs in the areas of strategic planning, rationalisation of costs, improvements in farming efficiency and organisation of the sale of agricultural products. Money spent on producers’ groups will have a beneficial effect on the use of human and investment potential, and thereby also on revenues and the market position of farms.

Report: Miguel Portas (A7-0236/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the financing and operation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) as I completely support the view that this fund needs to be mobilised more quickly. This is especially true at a time when it is necessary to respond to rising unemployment as a result of the economic and financial crisis, making the EGF a flexible and permanent means of support.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The EGF has proved itself an effective tool for tackling the consequences of the financial crisis at EU level, particularly as far as employment is concerned. The increase in the number of applications for aid and the difficulties in applying its activation and execution procedure demand rapid changes in its procedural and budgetary provisions. I voted in favour of this report in the hope that the changes will take place quickly and promptly.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) aims at supporting workers, particularly those in regions and sectors disadvantaged by the new globalised economy. It receives potential annual funding of EUR 500 million intended for getting people back into work. It is imperative that the funding and the operation of the EGF be improved: they must be simplified so that the EGF can be mobilised more quickly and more easily. That is what lay behind the amendments that I tabled in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on this report. The EGF must be an effective instrument of a European social policy which is on occasions flawed. Therefore I believe that it should be retained, albeit in simplified form, and that it why I supported Mr Portas’s report.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I fully endorse what this report says about shortening the time it takes for financial assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be paid to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of globalisation or the economic crisis. Assistance from this fund must be provided promptly and effectively to benefit these workers.

Clearly, the delay in applying this fund ought to be significantly reduced. The report clearly describes how the delay between the submission of an application and the payment of the money can be reduced, something that would enhance the performance of the fund.

In addition, I welcome what it says about establishing a communication and administration structure for the fund at national level, something that would keep those involved better informed about the status and outcome of applications and about the process that ensues after the money has been granted.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I supported this report. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was initially intended solely as a means of countering the adverse impact of globalisation on the most vulnerable and least qualified workers in certain sectors who lose their jobs as a result of major changes in world trade patterns that cause severe economic disruption. On 1 June 2009, its scope was extended to include workers who lose their jobs as a direct result of the economic and financial crisis, in respect of whom applications may be made for support between 1 May 2009 and 31 December 2011. Although there has been a recent increase in the number of applications, use of the EGF remains limited in the EU's poorest regions, where aid is most needed by redundant workers. Such uneven use of the EGF is linked to the Member States’ different strategies. I support the provisions set out in the document that EGF financial support should be provided as swiftly and effectively as possible, so that it can support as many workers as possible. It is necessary to prepare and approve new measures so that Member States can draw up applications for mobilisation of the EGF as soon as a collective redundancy has been announced, and not after it has taken place, and shorten the time taken to reach an award decision.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because the negative impact of the economic and financial crisis on employment and the labour market in Europe is still enormous and there continue to be mass redundancies in various economic sectors, so that the number of EU Member States submitting applications for financial support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is also increasing dramatically. However, the current financial support procedures are too complex and it takes too long to obtain funding. Currently, the provision of financial support from the EGF to a Member State takes from 12 to 17 months and this means that the majority of redundant workers do not receive financial support on time and become hostages of the consequences of globalisation and the crisis. Therefore, we urgently need to simplify this fund’s procedures, because only then will it be possible to reduce the period it takes to receive financial support by half. Furthermore, it is very important for the EU institutions to ensure the smooth and speedy adoption of decisions on issues concerning the provision of financial support, because delaying such decisions can only aggravate the current difficult situation faced by workers.

I also call on the Member States to exchange examples of good practice and, in particular, to learn from those Member States which have already introduced national EGF information networks, involving social partners and stakeholders at local level, so that there is a suitable aid system should mass job losses occur.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is to counter the adverse impact of globalisation on the most vulnerable and least qualified workers who have lost their jobs for economic reasons. This is all the more necessary in the current context of economic crisis. The EGF’s added value lies in the fact that it provides visible, specific and temporary financial support for personalised programmes for reintegrating workers into employment.

It is crucial for the derogation inserted in June 2009 with a view to assisting workers who lose their jobs as a result of the economic and financial crisis to be extended until the end of the current Multiannual Financial Framework. In order to speed up and simplify procedures, more effective coordination between the Commission and the European Parliament must be ensured, so that the time limit for decision making can be reduced.

The Commission should therefore take account of Parliament’s calendar and inform Parliament in due time of difficulties encountered while assessing the Member States’ applications. Lastly, it is to be hoped that the Commission will improve its reporting on the use of the EGF by regularly forwarding to Parliament information on Member States’ implementation of financial contributions.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the resolution because I agree with its calls on the European Commission to make the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) more efficient, including, amongst other things, an analysis of the contributions granted that takes into account the EGF’s impact on its beneficiaries’ network, and on the small and medium-sized enterprises potentially affected by redundancy plans whose employees could profit from it. I also agree with the Commission’s proposals aimed at reducing by half the time required for mobilisation of the EGF, specifically that the Commission should have the necessary human and technical capacities, while still respecting the principles of budgetary neutrality, to effectively and swiftly process the applications submitted by Member States.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In the context of the mid-term review of the Union’s financial instruments, I voted in favour of this resolution because the Committee on Budgets has drafted a report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), a measure intended to support the retraining and reintegration into the labour market of workers for whom the link between redundancy and globalisation or the economic crisis is clearly established.

For us socialists, studying this report has revealed that the right and the left see things very differently. According to the socialists, it is vital to continue with this fund, since aside from the crisis, globalisation has an adverse impact for our industrial fabric as a whole. Conversely, the right believes that this fund should have a time limit, 2013, because it believes globalisation can only be a good thing in an economic climate that has restabilised.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report by Miguel Portas, an MEP from the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, who has made a correct appraisal of the importance and role of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and, at the same time, has suggested and proposed ways of making full use of it, so as to provide support to the dismissed ‘victims’ of neoliberal globalisation and the economic crisis, which is having a particularly harsh effect on workers in Europe.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The increase in the number of requests to apply this fund and the difficulties in implementing the mobilisation and deployment procedure call for rapid modifications to be made to its procedural and budgetary arrangements. Given the disparity between cases, the European Commission should draw up a proposal seeking greater flexibility in the intervention criteria applying to each Member State to avoid inequalities in access to this instrument.

  Göran Färm (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have today chosen to vote in favour of the report on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The Globalisation Adjustment Fund supports individual workers who are affected by redundancies on account of the effects of globalisation, and provides financial assistance for retraining and further training so that workers can be reintegrated into the labour market more easily.

The report contains specific proposals for halving the time required to mobilise the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, both at a national and at a European level. It is also proposed that the social partners be involved, both during the application process and in connection with the implementation of the measures funded. In addition, the report proposes extending the period of validity of the derogation that enables workers who lose their jobs as a result of the financial crisis to receive assistance too. We regard this as a very important instrument for combating the effects of the financial crisis and preventing workers from being permanently excluded from the labour market.

Paragraph 16 of the report also proposes that the Commission investigate the possibility of creating a permanent Globalisation Adjustment Fund. However, we would like to emphasise that the wording does not indicate any definitive position on this matter. It merely states that the Commission should investigate and evaluate the benefit of a permanent fund. We would also like to point out that labour market policy is the responsibility of the Member States. Thus, the Globalisation Adjustment Fund must never become a substitute for measures at national level, but should be seen as complementary to the measures taken in the Member States.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The vicissitudes of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) reveal both the disparateness and the relatively small number of applications for EGF assistance, along with the shortcomings of this tool to support the reintegration of workers who have been made redundant into the labour market. It is important to examine in detail what has prompted the insufficient implementation of the fund, along with identifying ways of streamlining its use by the Member States, particularly those most affected by unemployment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) With a view to countering the adverse impact of globalisation on workers affected by collective redundancies and to showing its solidarity towards such workers, the European Union set up a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to provide financial support for personalised programmes to reintegrate redundant workers into the labour market. The EGF has a maximum annual amount of EUR 500 million.

Given the economic and social crisis, it is surprising how little use has been made of the EGF. In fact, from 2007 to the first six months of 2009, only EUR 80 million in funding was mobilised, out of a total of EUR 1.5 billion available, for 18 applications submitted on behalf of 24,431 workers by eight Member States. Starting from the changes made to the EGF in May 2009, the number of applications submitted rose from 18 to 46, the total contributions requested from EUR 80 million to EUR 197 million, and the number of Member States submitting applications from 8 to 18. However, 9 Member States have still not resorted to the EGF.

Furthermore, it is the EU regions with the highest gross domestic product that have benefitted most from the EGF. An evaluation of the reasons for these facts is needed, in order for the EGF to be mobilised more quickly and more often, and for it to be transformed into an independent fund with its own commitment and payment appropriations.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The application of this fund has demonstrated that we were right when, in its first stage, we immediately criticised several aspects of its regulation, which we then took up again partially during the subsequent review that the Commission had to propose, acknowledging some of the criticisms that we had made of the original version.

That is why we agree that the Commission should be asked to bring the submission of its mid-term evaluation forward to 30 June 2011 and to submit at the same time a proposal for the revision of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund Regulation, in order to remedy the fund’s ‘clearest shortcomings’.

However, as I said in my speech in the Chamber, it is essential not to forget the preventative measures that must be taken to prevent multinationals from relocating, combat unemployment and increase levels of employment with rights. It is also essential to ensure that this fund is not used to somehow provide cover for or facilitate redundancies motivated by company restructuring or the relocation of multinationals.

Finally, we insist on 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.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is succeeding well in its efforts to address the effects of large-scale unemployment in Ireland and Europe. The EGF was established in 2007 in response to the problems and challenges of globalisation.

This initiative is equivalent to EUR 500 million a year. It provides aid and assistance to regions where there has been more than 1 000 redundancies as a result of companies relocating because of changes in global circumstances. Once again, the European Union is tackling the problem of unemployment in Ireland. Both the EGF and the European Social Fund are crucial in this regard.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Portas Report. I support its main aim, which is to continue with the EGF, since, aside from the crisis we are going through, globalisation has a long-term adverse impact for our industrial jobs, which the European right refuses to accept. Furthermore, I helped amend this text so that SMEs and sub-contractors are taken into consideration when the EGF is allocated. Their employees are particularly vulnerable due to their dependence on multinationals, so it is vital that the EGF gives them real prospects for vocational retraining in the event of redundancy. I am also pleased that it has been recognised that studies need to be performed on the state bodies responsible for producing dossiers, so as to optimise utilisation of the EGF, which is often little-known and underused, particularly in France. Given that the European right has refused to continue the EGF after 2013, I will therefore fight in the debate on the next EU financial perspective for it to be kept permanently.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Since funding for workers who have lost their jobs due to globalisation or the financial crisis should be mobilised quicker, I voted for a set of recommendations aimed at improving the procedural and budgetary provisions of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This fund was established in 2006 but few applications have been submitted, partly because of the complexity of interventions and of cofinancing criteria. That is why my colleagues and I wanted to make amendments to this mechanism. This text therefore represents considerable progress since it calls on the Commission to simplify further the procedure in order to remedy the most obvious weak points and calls for the times to be reduced. Moreover, the financing of this fund has, hitherto, come from different budget lines. The text proposes a separate line for this in the 2011 budget, which is a significant development. I therefore welcome the adoption of these recommendations, which are vital at a time when our fellow citizens are being affected by the economic crisis.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. − With the recent upheavals that have occurred in the financial world and the job losses that were as a result of this, the area of re-skilling and re-integration into the workforce is of vital importance to the area of job creation and I welcome the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund revaluation as a EU social policy instrument. I would however call for more flexibility in the process once the application form is complete and for more consultation with the workers themselves when EGF plans are being formed. What has happened in Ireland regarding Dell and Waterford Crystal workers should not be repeated.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The Globalisation Adjustment Fund is not just an important instrument for helping those who have been unable to adjust to the opening up of the markets. It is also a way of strengthening confidence in the European Union, a point I believe it is very important to emphasise. It enables us to show that, in the face of economic change, we have not lost sight of those who are unable to respond quickly enough to the new situation. However, I also consider it important that trust should be based on the principle of mutuality. Funds earmarked for people who, despite their best efforts, fall victim to market changes, must actually reach their intended recipients. It is important that the allocation of funds should be transparent and understandable and that these are not simply apportioned following a scatter-gun approach. The situation of these people requires a cross-border, region-specific approach, which is why allocation must take place quickly. This is the only way that the Globalisation Adjustment Fund can meet its brief and strengthen confidence in the EU through swift aid. I therefore endorse this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I supported the report on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) because I believe this tool to be an effective resource for supporting workers in difficulty as a result of the financial crisis.

The fund was set up to offer real support to workers who have been made redundant due to causes linked to the relocation of their companies or as a result of the crisis, with the aim of helping them back into the job market. The initiative report we voted on today reveals certain critical areas in the functioning of the fund and addresses certain proposals, both to the Commission and to Member States, with the aim of revising the functioning of the fund to help streamline and speed up procedures for access to it.

One fundamental point that I would like to bring to your attention concerns the proposal for extending the derogation introduced in 2009 – which made it possible to extend the fund’s area of activity by including the economic crisis among the requirements – up to the end of 2013.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The role of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is to offer support to workers made redundant as a result of the transformations taking place at global economy level. Furthermore, since 2009, this fund has also been involved in supporting those hit by the economic crisis, with a view to reducing the unemployment rate. I personally think that it is appropriate for the fund to be converted into a permanent instrument for supporting job-seekers and supplementing Member States’ social policies.

This measure would shift the focus onto utilising the potential of every worker, providing a counterweight to the measures implemented to support companies. We must not forget either that, at the moment, difficulties persist regarding the procedures for mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the implementation periods.

Bearing in mind that the main issues experienced by redundant workers are professional retraining and temporary assistance, measures for simplifying the fund’s procedures are an absolute must in order to mobilise the aid as quickly and efficiently as possible.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been a very important instrument in helping millions of unemployed people in the EU, who are in this situation because of the relocation of industries to other continents. In the context of this crisis that we are experiencing and because of the increased number of collective redundancies, it is necessary to both improve this instrument and find new sources of financing. That is why I voted as I did.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are seeing a structural increase in unemployment in Europe due to the economic meltdown and relocation policies.

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a useful tool that the EU can use to offer support and solidarity to workers who have lost their jobs. Up to 2009, little use was made of the fund for bureaucratic reasons, and I believe the Commission’s request to introduce measures for reducing the length of the fund mobilisation procedure is fundamentally important. If flexibility and accessibility increase, the EGF will become an essential tool for the social policies of Member States.

For these reasons, I voted in favour.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I would like to express my support for Mr Portas’s report. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an essential tool for providing additional support to workers who have been made redundant as a consequence of the relocation of their companies. It has proved itself to be an even more important tool for workers, helping them to re-enter the job market during the recent crisis.

Mr Portas’s report is a crucial point and a point that aims to improve and simplify an important resource for European citizens. It is also tangible evidence of the way the EU is striving to help tackle the gloomy financial situation, combat unemployment and support its citizens.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the resolution as I agree with the requests made to the European Commission to streamline the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). These include an assessment of the contributions made, taking account of the success rate of reintegration and the increase in professional qualifications among the beneficiaries, a comparative analysis of the measures funded in response to each application for the EGF, and the reintegration-based results, and the impact of the EGF on its network of beneficiaries and the small and medium-sized enterprises potentially affected by redundancy plans, whose employees could benefit from the fund.

I also agree with the Commission’s request to provide a series of guidelines for the design and implementation of applications for EGF funding for the Member States. These would be aimed at a swift application procedure and a broad consensus among the parties involved in matters relating to application steps and measures to take towards effective reintegration for workers into the labour market.

Lastly, I agree with the request to the Member States to introduce a communication and administration structure for the EGF at national level, in liaison with all the parties involved, including social partners, and to exchange best practice at a European level.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The assistance granted by the EGF must be dynamic and adaptable to the ever-changing, often unexpected situations which arise on the market. The purpose of this fund is to offer specific, prompt aid to facilitate professional retraining for workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the severe economic upheaval on the labour market.

I call on Member States to get social partners involved and promote dialogue with social partners and entrepreneurs right at the start when drafting applications for a contribution from the EGF. At the same time, I urge Member States to utilise this fund to promote new skills for making existing jobs green and creating new green jobs, as well as to encourage lifelong learning so as to enable workers to develop a personal career path and help boost the EU’s competitiveness in a globalised environment.

I also support the operation of this fund after 2013 as an independent fund with its own budget. The Commission and Member States must work together closely to monitor effectively the support provided to multinational companies and to make a firm commitment to creating jobs supporting workers’ rights in order to discourage social dumping.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the resolution because I agree with its calls on the European Commission to make the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) more efficient, including an analysis of the contributions granted that takes into account the rate of success in reintegration and assessment of the upgrading of the skills of the beneficiaries. I also agree with the Commission’s proposals aimed at reducing by half the time required for mobilisation of the EGF, specifically that all means should be made available to ensure swift and enhanced communication with the Member State concerned in this process.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The debate on this issue was not at all easy. Over the last few months, questions have been raised on: the ‘reactiveness’ of the fund (without more focus at the same time on remedying the causes by improving general strategies for innovation and education in a globalised world, better targeting and use of ESF in and by Member States); the limited number of sectors aided (especially at that time), in particular, the automotive and textile sectors (respectively 15 and 13 applications), where questions could be raised as to, for example, whether the redundancies are a result of ‘globalisation’ or lack of innovation of the sector; whether / to what extent the measures take/took the place of national aid; the paradox that, on the one hand, (only) EUR 500 million is made available for the fund each year (from unspent commitments in the EU budget), whereas in principle, unlimited applications could be made if the application criteria are fulfilled (first served); the fact that it is more difficult for SMEs to profit from such a fund; the link with State aid/taxes. Finally, a consensus position was adopted, however, and the report was passed, including by us as greens.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the resolution on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). It is essential to improve the rules governing the functioning of the EGF so that it can be used more effectively. I hope the Commission will make use of Parliament’s proposals, which will enable the procedure for granting assistance to be shortened by as much as half. The rise in unemployment caused by the crisis has meant that financial resources from the EGF have taken on particular importance, because they ensure individual support for people who have been made redundant and for their return to employment. The rigorous criteria for assistance and the protracted nature of the procedures involved mean that Member States are not making full use of the opportunities available to them for receiving EGF support. For example, in my country of Poland, only three applications for financial support from the EGF have been made. The main reason for this low interest is precisely the lengthiness of the procedures involved.

As well as improving the rules governing the functioning of the fund, it is necessary to extend, at least until the end of the current Financial Framework, the effect of the criterion of support for workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the current crisis and to maintain the cofinancing rate at a level of 65%. We are going to feel the effects of the crisis on the labour market for many more years, so this assistance is, and will be, necessary. I would also like to draw the attention of the Commission and the Member States to the coordination of exchange of best practices at European level, which will enable rapid and effective intervention from the EGF in cases of mass redundancies.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The structural funds have been showing themselves to be tools of inestimable value in reducing the imbalances within Europe, not least by supporting the most vulnerable of the outermost regions. The creation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund represents the European Union’s acknowledgement that the phenomenon of globalisation has brought great and not always positive changes, and that it has had an uneven impact in Europe, since there have been regions that have benefited from the process and others that have lost out considerably.

Nevertheless, this fund has not enjoyed the visibility that it deserves, which I believe is a result of the enormous amount of time which lapses between the Member State’s request for aid and its actual receipt of the funds. This delay has serious consequences for the affected families and is related to the underlying complexity of the process of applying for, mobilising and implementing the funds; it is therefore urgent and an absolute priority to simplify it. Only in this way will it be possible to achieve this fund’s objectives by effectively reintegrating any workers that are made redundant in the wake of the significant changes to the patterns of international trade. The report on which we voted today represents an effort at compromise between the various political groups and for this reason, I supported it.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) According to recent EU statistics, the number of unemployed in the EU-27 has risen by 1.1 million in the last year, due to the economic and financial crisis. This explains why the number of requests to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has increased from 18 to 46 in the period between May 2009 and April 2010. In addition, although the number of Member States applying for aid has risen from 8 to 18, there are, nevertheless, nine Member States which have not yet resorted to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

Bearing all this in mind, I voted for the motion for a European Parliament Resolution on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as the economic crisis may continue to have an impact on jobs. It is precisely for this reason that it is important for us to ask the Commission to bring forward its mid-term financial evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund’s use and the review of the relevant regulation in order to reduce considerably the duration of the procedure for mobilising the fund.

I would also like to draw the Commission’s attention to public sector redundancies, which do not benefit from the availability of a similar instrument, even though these redundancies are a direct consequence of public budget cuts resulting from the current economic and financial crisis.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I fully support Mr Portas’ report on the funding and functioning of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. It deals with many issues which include improving the efficiency of the application process as well as mobilising the fund faster to provide aid for those who have lost their jobs. Although the UK does not currently bid for money from the fund (due to its rebate), we can see how useful this fund has been for other Member States during difficult economic times.

I am in favour of creating a permanent fund post-2013 in order to help those who have been affected by the changes brought about by globalisation or the financial and economic crisis, and believe that it is vital for the Commission to examine the possibility of establishing the EGF as an independent fund, with its own payment and commitment appropriations, under the new Multiannual Financial Framework (2013-2020).

Report: Tadeusz Zwiefka (A7-0219/2010)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I supported this report. The basis of the Regulation we voted on today is the Brussels Convention, one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation which laid the foundations for a European judicial area. The application of uniform European rules based on case-law promotes greater legal certainty and predictability of decisions, avoiding parallel proceedings. One of the fundamental conditions for the functioning of a European judicial area is the free movement of judicial decisions. I therefore agree with the position expressed in the document that it is necessary to review this Regulation in order to guarantee the effective movement of judicial decisions.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Brussels I Regulation serves as a basis for European judicial cooperation on civil and commercial matters. This is one of the EU’s most successful legislative acts, having laid the foundations for a European judicial area. It has shown itself to be very effective at facilitating the resolution of cross-border litigation, through a system of judicial cooperation based on global rules on jurisdiction, as well as at coordinating parallel proceedings and the movement of judgments. I agree with the need to introduce improvements, such as the abolition of the exequatur procedure in all areas covered by the regulation, making it possible to speed up the free movement of judgments, provided that all the necessary guarantees are safeguarded.

I also believe that it is important to create a European judicial culture through training and recourse to networks such as the European Judicial Training Network and the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters, which should help improve communication between judges. It is essential to create a legal framework that is consistently structured and easily accessible and which must undergo a review by the Commission of the interrelationship between the different regulations addressing jurisdiction, enforcement and applicable law.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark, Anna Ibrisagic and Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We have voted in favour of facilitating court proceedings for the increasingly mobile citizens of Europe. This does not mean that we agree with all the details of, and unreservedly support, the reforms that may arise from the Zwiefka report in the long term. For example, we remain critical of ambitions to introduce collective redress, and we would also like to emphasise the point that no changes to the civil cooperation that is under discussion may be such as to affect the freedom of the press in Sweden.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As I am aware of the huge importance of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on private international law and the need for an adequate legal framework which allows for the recognition and enforcement of legal rulings in civil and commercial matters, I, like the rapporteur, recognise that revision of this regulation raises extremely important technical and legal questions. I am inclined to agree with the abolition of the exequatur, as proposed in the report, and I find many of the proposals contained therein interesting and pragmatic. This will be a discussion worth following closely.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The resolution is on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, of 22 December 2000, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I) in the light of the Commission’s Green Paper. This regulation is, with its predecessor the Brussels Convention, one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation, as it has laid the foundations for a European judicial area, and has served citizens and business well. It has promoted legal certainty and predictability of decisions through uniform European rules.

However, it needs updating. I agree with the abolition of exequatur (order for enforcement), as this would expedite the free movement of judicial decisions and form a key milestone in the building of a European judicial area. However, this abolition must be balanced by appropriate safeguards designed to protect the rights of the party against whom enforcement is sought. I believe that the Commission should review the interrelationship between the different regulations addressing jurisdiction, enforcement and applicable law, and that the general aim should be a legal framework which is consistently structured and easily accessible.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The Zwiefka report, which was voted on today, relates to the Commission’s Green Paper on the review of the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Discussion of the Green Paper allows us, to some extent, to prepare for the real review of the regulation, which we expect shortly. This will be an enormous challenge for Parliament because of the exceptionally complicated, technical nature of the regulation. Furthermore, Parliament will make a decision together with the Council, for the first time under the ordinary legislative procedure, on this difficult and sensitive material. At the present stage, there are various differences of opinion between the political groups concerning the proposed amendments, for example, concerning exequatur and particular jurisdiction in matters connected with employment.

For this reason, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has decided not to endorse the report in its present form. I do believe, however, that in the future, all political groups will engage in constructive cooperation on this matter, because Brussels I is a regulation which is of fundamental significance to the common market. An efficient review of Brussels I will show how Parliament uses its new competences, for which it strove, after all, for so long.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The report that we adopted yesterday, in the European Parliament sitting, despite being quite technical, is very important in the ever-greater integration of a European area of freedom, security and justice, of a European judicial area, and therefore in the consolidation of the European internal market. The Brussels I Regulation introduced considerable progress in the judicial field: it determines the competent judiciaries in civil and commercial matters, in the case of cross-border legal disputes, and governs the recognition and execution of court decisions in civil and commercial matters from other Member States. It is now a question of revising this regulation to modernise its provisions and to ‘improve’ certain procedures: communication between judges, the issue of authentic acts, the issue of arbitration and, most particularly, the issue of the exequatur. Without going into detail about these complex legal issues, I keenly await the amendment of this regulation, an amendment which will provide European citizens with better legal protection: better ‘free movement’ of judgments and legal decisions, greater ‘mutual confidence’ between the jurisdictions and legal systems of the various Member States, namely a strengthening of legal certainty in Europe and of the rights of European citizens.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. − This initiative was instrumental in setting up a judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I supported this report because I feel it represents a step forward in the private international law sector. This branch of law needs updating because of the greater level of interconnection between legal systems.

In detail, I endorse the idea of abolishing exequatur, but nevertheless believe that this step will have to be set off by an exceptional procedure, coupled with appropriate safeguards for judgment debtors. I am also opposed to the abolition of the exclusion of arbitration from the scope of the Regulation, but consider that much more thought needs to be given to the relationship between arbitral and judicial proceedings and that until such time as a full review and thorough consultations have been carried out, the idea of an exclusive head of jurisdiction for court proceedings supporting arbitration in the civil courts of the Member States should not be pursued.

I also agree with the rapporteur when he presses for wide consultations and political debate before any action is taken in this matter above and beyond the suggestions made in his draft report.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I have voted against the report on the Brussels I Regulation because I believe there are certain important points missing from the resolution. I believe it is important to take an holistic approach to improving the regulation. This involves protecting the weaker party through regulations on competence in the process that are more favourable to them. This applies both to workers and consumers, as is the explicit intention of the regulation. None of my amendments aimed at strengthening the position of the weaker party have made their way into the report. I believe it is important to establish a separate legal venue for labour disputes in order to achieve coherence in the Brussels I and Rome II Regulations. Rome II already lays down which law should be applied to damages with a cross-border impact in relation to strikes. I cannot understand why a case cannot proceed in the Member State where the strike took place. This would still leave the door open for forum shopping. My aim is to close off this avenue in the broader legislative process.

I am also against the introduction of the ‘forum non conveniens’ and ‘anti-suit injunctions’, as these are common law legal instruments that have already been found to be irreconcilable with the European distribution of powers in several rulings by the European Court of Justice.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – On Mr Zwiefka’s report on the implementation and review of ‘Brussels I’, the PSE Group tabled an alternative resolution that we Greens decided not to support, because the report is an implementation report which has been extensively discussed among all shadows within the JURI Committee. The alternative motion for resolution highlights fair points which, nevertheless, are not of direct relevance to this report. This is why we simply voted today in favour of the resolution as adopted in the JURI Committee.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The regulation we have approved is balanced and designed to offer certainty, for example, in identifying which judge within the European judiciary has competence when civil and commercial disputes arise during cross-border conflicts.

The European Parliament will act as colegislator for any future amendments to the regulation. Amendments will, in fact, be made under the ordinary legislative procedure.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which recommends that the validity of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) be extended until 2013 and strongly suggests that it be made permanent after that. The EGF provides financial support for the re-training of workers affected by redundancy. This is particularly necessary now because of the deep economic crisis facing Europe, which is why I supported this report – unlike my Conservative and Liberal colleagues who want to withdraw this funding.

Report: Antonyia Parvanova (A7-0221/2010)

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) By voting today, Tuesday, 7 September 2010, for the own-initiative report on the social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups, the European Parliament is going to the heart of current political debate. The integration of minority groups into the Member States is, in fact, a crucial issue and deserves the support of the European institutions, all the more so given that we still have a few months left of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Therefore, I welcome the adoption of this report, which serves to enliven debate at EU level and which has the virtue of combining the issues of the integration of minorities and the fight for equality between men and women.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Numerous minority communities living in the EU, in particular, women and girls among them, face multiple discrimination and are therefore more vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty than local women. To be a woman of a particular ethnic group is not a handicap in a democratic society. Therefore, the European Union is aiming to provide women with more and more rights and to increase innovative ways to raise awareness about women’s rights. Both the Commission and the Member States must ensure that existing gender equality and anti-discrimination legislation is fully implemented, so that ethnic minorities have access to support services and can participate in various education programmes. However, issues concerning the social integration of women from ethnic minority groups in the European Union remain unresolved.

A consistent EU policy on the integration of migrants has not yet been found and therefore, I call on the Commission to urgently draft EU guidelines to help the Member States to provide women from ethnic minorities with better and quicker access to the education system, employment, the healthcare system, social benefits and financial assistance. I agree with Parliament’s position that gender equality legislation must also be fully implemented in ethnic minority groups.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report analyses the social integration of women in the area of European Union policy. It also analyses the role of women in ethnic minorities. This knowledge base is essential to understanding the difficulties faced by these women in integrating, including settled or traditional minorities and newly established ones, such as immigrants.

I voted for this report, because I think that it is essential to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of women belonging to minority groups. Specific measures need to be taken at EU level, not least when adopting policies aimed at social inclusion. Moreover, as the rapporteur argues, it is essential to encourage the political and social participation of these women in areas such as political leadership, education and culture. This will contribute to combating the current underrepresentation. .

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because it pinpoints the importance of examining EU social integration policies for women belonging to ethnic minority groups and of identifying areas where it works and areas where trying to define solutions is problematic.

We live in a multicultural society made up of various cultural, ethnic and religious communities. To that end, it is appropriate that integration policies for third-country nationals include a broader sex-specific perspective, which is necessary to ensure that the specific needs of women belonging to ethnic minority groups are taken into consideration.

A targeted approach to the social inclusion of women belonging to ethnic minority groups is necessary to avoid multiple discrimination, stereotypes, stigmatisation and ethnic segregation.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, because I think that women belonging to ethnic minority groups face multiple types of discrimination. It is therefore necessary to raise awareness about women’s rights, to empower women, and to inspire them to take on leadership roles in their communities; this is also a way to promote human rights. Despite social integration being the exclusive responsibility of the Member States, the European Commission must take the gender issue into account when deciding on policies and measures geared towards social inclusion.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In an increasingly multicultural society, policies for integrating minority groups are particularly applicable as a way of combating discrimination, racism, violence and the exclusion and marginalisation of minority groups, pushing them to the fringes of society. We know that the stigmatisation and exclusion of minority groups only creates discontent and revolt, which ultimately sow the seeds for transgression and violence.

It is up to our society to know how to be able to integrate without discriminating, to accept without excluding. This does not mean, however, that we should accept all aspects of the culture, tradition or beliefs of ethnic minorities without question. This is particularly relevant for customs relating to women. We should therefore firmly combat all cultural practices based on sexual discrimination and all forms of violence that are still committed against women belonging to certain ethnic groups. Integrating also means protecting, and in this case, protecting women, especially female children, who are so often the silent victims of practices and traditions which we simply cannot accept.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This resolution covers the European Union’s social-inclusion policies for women belonging to ethnic minority groups. In this area, I would stress the need to promote schooling, education and training amongst these women, as well as to support their access to the labour market, so as to prevent social exclusion and discrimination.

Only through inclusion can we tackle the stigma and preconceptions caused by ethnic segregation. It is notable that there is no legally binding policy on social integration in the European Union, mainly because the integration is the responsibility of the Member States. However, integration policy has become increasingly important at EU level and integration is becoming even more important, as the underlying economic and social aspects of demographic ageing are becoming more significant. The EU’s rules and principles are applied, in the majority of cases, only to EU citizens who are simultaneously citizens of the Member States. Members of minorities who are settled and have acquired the legal status of citizen are protected by the rules and principles of the European Union. However, this protection should be extended to migrants who are not yet citizens of a Member State.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups is an important issue, since these women are more vulnerable to social exclusion; as a matter of fact, the current situation, with the unacceptable collective expulsion of the Roma people by France, is a good example of this.

It is essential for the struggle against all types of discrimination to be the focus of attention and of Union policy, whether it be based on sex, ethnic origin or skin colour.

It is therefore time to break with the macro-economic policies that are making unemployment, social inequalities and discrimination worse. It is necessary, as the report says, to fight for true social integration, making a commitment to quality public services that are universal and accessible to all people of both sexes, including the families of immigrants and children, specifically: education, health, housing and social protection.

We have had enough hollow declarations and empty words: measures are urgently needed that promote dignity and equality, that give clear responses to social problems, and that do not develop into xenophobic and discriminatory actions; these are even more reprehensible when they come from the government itself.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) One cannot advocate ‘the acceptance of different cultures’ and communication by minorities, female or otherwise, in their mother tongue and, in the same breath, claim to want to promote the social inclusion of those minorities.

There is a fundamental contradiction there, because the minimum requirement for such ‘inclusion’ is to share a minimum common foundation with the host society, which is to say, a common language and basic codes of ‘coexistence’, starting with respect for the social laws and practices of the host country.

The only exception you make to this report’s profoundly pro-European logic is to recognise in a half-hearted, roundabout way that there can be no justification of violence or discrimination on the grounds of customs, traditions or religious considerations.

Open your eyes: Europeans are not responsible for the most violent and discriminatory practices. Polygamy, excision, infibulation, the treatment of women as inferior beings and so on are the practices of communities that refuse to respect our laws and our customs and which even intend to impose their own laws and customs on us. This is the result of the mass immigration policies you have been imposing on our fellow citizens for decades. It is time to put a stop to all that.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Parvanova report on the social integration of women belonging to ethnic minority groups. Discrimination is unfortunately a cumulative process, and women belonging to ethnic minority groups are affected by it all the more. The text asks for Union policies to scrutinise more closely gender discrimination against these women. They should be able to participate actively in society, and in order to do so must have access to education and to the labour market, as these are the keys to their emancipation.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – As one of the shadow rapporteurs of the report, I would like to congratulate Dr Parvanova on the acceptance of her report, which aims to offer solutions in order to minimise the disadvantage of minority women induced by ethnicity and reinforced by gender-specific structures. Although gender equality is far from being achieved in mainstream society, Roma women, compared to their non-Roma counterparts, have lower life expectancy rates, lower education levels, significantly lower rates of employment and higher rates of poverty. In order to achieve full inclusion, gender statistics, indicators and benchmarks, as well as statistics broken down, inter alia, by gender and ethnicity, are crucial tools, and necessary if progress is to be properly measured.

The collection of disaggregated data is a prerequisite for protecting and promoting the rights of ethnic minorities and must comply with Member States’ rules on the protection of personal data. There is a very strong link between the level of education, the extent of economic activity and the probabilities of avoiding poverty for the whole family. That is why, in the first place, targeted policy actions are required to improve the access of Roma women to education and registered employment.

  Marisa Matias and Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for this resolution because, amongst other things, we think that there is a need for more structured coordination of European policies in this area, with the aim of improving the social inclusion of ethnic minority women and insisting on the importance of educating the host community to accept different cultures, while warning it of the impact of racism and prejudice. We also voted for this report because it calls for women belonging to ethnic minority groups to play an active political and social role in all areas of society, including political leadership, education and culture, so as to combat their current under-representation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Europe is an area of integration and there can be no form of discrimination, especially when it is practiced on ethnic minority groups and is strongest towards women belonging to these groups. The goal of gender-equality policy in the EU is to promote equality between men and women, and this has increasingly been achieved in mainstream society. However, women from certain ethnic minorities have been suffering all types of discrimination. It is therefore necessary to raise public awareness of these practices so that women belonging to ethnic minority groups can be fully integrated. That is why I voted as I did.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I consider the social inclusion of women belonging to ethnic minorities to be an enormously important and sensitive area in which the Member States of the European Union should demonstrate maturity and a real determination to spread the values of tolerance and equality in everyday life.

I regard it as unacceptable that members of ethnic minorities are exposed to discrimination, social exclusion, stigmatisation and even segregation. I therefore back the call for the Commission and, above all, the Member States, who bear full responsibility for the policy of social inclusion, to ensure the full implementation of existing legislation in the area of gender equality and non-discrimination.

The legal instruments should be supplemented with administrative measures, as well as cultural campaigns aimed at eliminating stereotypes and providing alternatives to social exclusion and poverty.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is of decisive importance for social peace in all countries that ethnic minorities should integrate into public life. However, contrary to this report, I believe that the onus lies with those who seek integration. On account of the difficult budgetary situation throughout Europe, I am unable to endorse a report that appears to propose cost-intensive and inefficient measures. For these reasons, I have voted against this report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report highlights an issue of which the European public is showing itself to be increasingly aware, not just because of tragic situations occurring outside of the European Union that speak to our moral conscience, but because of the recognition that problems at this level also occur among us and require our political and civic intervention.

Women belonging to ethnic minority groups frequently suffer pressure from family members with greater authority who prefer to maintain traditions that enslave women. As a rule, they have low levels of education and little information about possible means of asserting themselves against the family authority and within the societies into which they are integrating and/or the host society. At this level, they may also face xenophobic attitudes.

The development and implementation of European gender equality policy should help to minimise, once and for all, the serious injustices to which these women are subjected across the world and in the European Union.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) It is well-known that anti-Roma attitudes are still widespread in Europe, with Roma being a regular target for racist attacks, hate speeches, illegal evacuations and expulsions carried out by local and central authorities. I must mention, in particular, the recent actions of the French authorities in expelling the Roma population.

Given that the EU has numerous mechanisms and instruments available which can be used to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of European citizens of Roma origin, to improve their access to good quality education within the conventional education system, as well as to jobs, housing, healthcare services and social and public services, thereby improving their social inclusion, I call on Member States to:

- eliminate stereotypical attitudes to and discrimination against Roma women and girls who have been victims of numerous forms of discrimination based on ethnic origin and gender, particularly as regards their right to education, employment and healthcare services;

- apply in full the EU directives on combating discrimination and freedom of movement, and promote measures and proactive programmes for supporting the Roma population’s inclusion in the social, political, economic and educational spheres.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I am very happy with the adoption of this report, which specifically calls for: the Member States to respect the fundamental rights of ethnic minorities and immigrant women, whether or not their status is regular (P. 11); the Member States to ensure access to support services aimed at preventing gender-based violence and protecting women from such violence, regardless of their legal status (P. 17); the Fundamental Rights Agency to include a transversal gender equality and women’s rights perspective in all aspects, including those on ethnic discrimination and on the fundamental rights of Roma (P. 22); the European Institute for Gender Equality to collect data disaggregated by gender and ethnicity; national equality bodies to develop tools and training in relation to multiple discrimination; and, finally, a targeted approach to avoid multiple discrimination, stereotyping, stigmatisation and ethnic segregation.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are greatly perplexed by this report and are therefore voting against it, because, while it is right to make women from non-EU countries aware of their rights within their families, where they often live in a segregated manner, on the other hand, we cannot conceive of treating those who live as guests in our country better than our own citizens, who have always lived and paid taxes in the Member States.

Even today, when we consider the percentage of non-EU residents compared to European citizens who enjoy free social services such as healthcare, education and housing, it is clearly skewed in favour of the former. This means that people who live, work and pay taxes in their own countries are lower down the list than those who have recently arrived in Europe.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report which aims to evaluate social integration policies within the EU for women belonging to ethnic minority groups. This would allow for specific measures to be taken to target gender equality among ethnic minorities and ensure that existing anti-discrimination legislation is fully implemented in Member States.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) This report raises the question of whether women who are members of ethnic minorities are, in fact, excluded from the EU measures aimed at gender equality, due to their lack of social integration. Women from ethnic minorities have been largely invisible for many years, even though most of them are disadvantaged in two ways, both socially and economically.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – The ECR Group is wholeheartedly supportive of the principle of equal treatment for all and this, of course, includes women who belong to an ethnic minority group. However, we are opposed to this report for several, very specific reasons.

Firstly, we are opposed to any further widening of EU funding for social affairs. Across Europe, national governments are making public sector cuts and the ECR Group believes that the EU should do the same. Secondly, we are fundamentally opposed to any move in the direction of a common immigration and asylum policy and we feel that parts of this report address immigration and asylum policies which are best made and executed at national level. Thirdly, issues such as childcare, education and healthcare, including sexual and reproductive healthcare, remain the competences of the Member State and not the EU.

Report: Sirpa Pietikäinen (A7-0237/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the role of women in an ageing society because I believe that it is time to increase public awareness of gender inequalities in the older generations, which mainly result from gender-based disadvantages accumulated over a lifetime. Today, it is clear to everyone that elderly women are at greater risk of poverty as they receive smaller pensions because of the pay gap between men and women, or often because they stopped or interrupted their careers to dedicate themselves to their families, without any remuneration or eligibility for social security. At a time of economic recession, women are at an even greater risk of falling into poverty.

It is high time that our institutions adopted a more positive attitude towards ageing. Therefore, I warmly welcome the Commission’s initiative for 2012 to be a year for active ageing and intergenerational solidarity. Adopting an approach based on interconnection between age and gender should become an indispensable tool for formulating policies in all the relevant areas: economic and social matters, public health, consumer rights, the digital programme, rural and urban development, etc.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In this report, Mrs Pietikäinen reminds us that women are traditionally at greater risk of poverty and limited pensions, for various reasons such as the wide gender pay gap, the fact that they have taken a break from or stopped work to take on family responsibilities, or the fact that they have worked in their husband’s undertaking, mainly in the business and agriculture sectors, without remuneration and without social security affiliation. I can only agree with this observation. As Chair of the Femmes au Centre (Women at the Centre) Association, I regularly fight to draw attention to social inequalities which are sometimes overlooked, and this, in my opinion, is one of them. At a time when we are debating the reform of our pension systems, it is vital to take into account differences in treatment between men and women.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the ban on discrimination on any grounds became part of the European Union’s legislative competence. Therefore, it is important to spread a positive view of old age and create opportunities for older people to lead a full life.

I am delighted that Parliament has presented a report that promotes taking action for the ageing society. Above all, it is important to devote significant attention to older women living in poverty, because usually their pensions are smaller due to the lower wages in the sectors where women are employed. In addition, older people represent a large consumer group and therefore, the demand for services for the elderly is growing very rapidly and will continue to do so in the future. However, there are obstacles to obtaining easily accessible, good quality and affordable public and private services.

It is therefore important for the Commission to take action to regulate accessibility to many basic services and to ensure quality of life in order to avoid physical, psychological and economic abuse. The ageing of society is often viewed negatively in terms of challenges to the age structure of the labour force and the sustainability of social protection and healthcare. Older people really are an asset and they offer key community and family support, so we must ensure their right to lead a life of dignity and independence.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In comparison with men, women face greater difficulties in the world of work. We urgently need to eradicate the discrimination to which they are subjected when obtaining work, in the progression of their careers and in the right to fair remuneration. Healthcare and social services must also be directed towards the specific needs of women. All these difficulties are exacerbated with age, demonstrating the importance of this report. In particular, I would argue that use should be made of the knowledge and experience of older women. Finally, the monitoring mechanisms provided for in the report justify my vote in favour. .

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark, Anna Ibrisagic and Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) Yesterday, 7 September 2010, we voted against the report (A7-0237/2010) on the role of women in an ageing society (2009/2205(INI)). The main reason for this is the fact that we do not support the proposal for a system where all citizens in the EU are granted the right to a basic income or the report’s call for positive discrimination measures in favour of women. There is also a proposal for the European Parliament to call on Member States to introduce new types of leave that make it possible to take paid leave for caring duties other than parental leave. In this regard, we wish to uphold the principle of subsidiarity. At the same time, however, we would like to emphasise that there are parts of the report with which we are in agreement.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because the ageing of our societies is too often seen in negative terms, although older people also represent an economic resource and a fund of crucial experience. Furthermore, elderly people face a higher risk of poverty than the general population: in 2008, the at-risk-of-poverty rate of those aged 65 years and over was around 19% in the EU-27, while in 2000, the figure was 17%.

I agree that a global and multidisciplinary approach should be taken to ageing as well as to creating opportunities, especially in the field of markets for products and services geared to the needs of older people and to the needs of the informal carers of dependent people. That is why the Commission should be asked to propose, by the end of 2011, an action plan containing these various measures.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Much has already been said about the unequal position of women in society. Women are constantly discriminated against in the workplace through lower pay for the same work, and are forced by circumstances to interrupt their careers or choose lower-paid employment in closer proximity to the family home. The reasons for this are firstly childbirth and caring for children, and then caring for ageing parents or ailing family members. In most cases, it is women who ‘sacrifice’ themselves in caring for the family and children at the expense of their work and careers. It has to be said that society typically expects this of them. The consequence is financial dependency on partners, with little or no social security and pension provision for old age. For these reasons, women are much more at risk in old age than men, and are the most at risk group in society in terms of poverty.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that women often still care for their parents and also their grandchildren in old age, for which they receive no pay and on which they spend all of their income or savings. The potential of older people is unused. The pattern of social living contributes to this, as young and old people live separately. In the ‘extended families’ of the past, everyone had their own function and role, and older people were not excluded and condemned to live in poverty. I support the report of Mrs Pietikäinen and I will vote in favour of its adoption.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the role of women in an ageing society. There is a difference of more than 17% between men’s and women’s salaries in the European Union. Partly because of this, and partly because women often stay at home during their active lives to take care of children or other dependent family members, often opting to work part time, the income gap between women and men increases at retirement age. The Member States urgently need to adopt measures to take account of the gender dimension when reforming pension systems and adapting the retirement age, considering the differences between women and men in work patterns and the higher risk of discrimination against older women in the labour market.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the fact that, as the report states, ‘gender is a significant factor in ageing as life expectancy is about six years longer for women than for men’, and that Europe has an ageing society, the fact is that we are set to have an increasing number of elderly women in our society. We will have to ensure that these women have adequate living conditions and, in many cases, an active life.

We must not forget, as the report rightly reminds us, that elderly women are the most vulnerable to poverty, and therefore need to be given particular attention. However, more than solutions based on welfare or the social state, I believe that these women should be given an active role in society. Many of them are professionals with vast experience that can be used to the benefit of younger people. Others are grandmothers and great-grandmothers, and can take up key caring roles within the family, allowing young mothers a better opportunity to reconcile family and professional life. These roles are invaluable and will help us to encourage and protect them, creating a society of real solidarity between generations.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This resolution tackles the vulnerability of older women in the context of the phenomenon of an ageing population in the EU, which is seen as a future burden for national economies, and where the potential of the elderly is often ignored as they are more often seen as passive objects than active subjects. I would stress the particular risk of poverty to which older women are subject, so I agree with incentives to employ older people, for example by compensating employers. However, I do not agree with specific arrangements for older LBT women.

With the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, prohibition of discrimination for whatever reason has come under the European Union’s legislative jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 21 of the Charter, ‘Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited’; meanwhile, Article 25 establishes that ‘The Union recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life’. I believe that the implementation of these directives will serve to combat any form of discrimination.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Although this report is generally positive, it could have gone further in many areas, specifically regarding the analysis of the causes of the double discrimination of which millions of women in the European Union are the victims, which gets worse when they are older: migrant women, women with disabilities, women who belong to minorities and women with few qualifications.

Working women who have been victims of the discrimination of low wages and the devaluation of their work, to which, in many cases, has been added the discrimination of motherhood, receive smaller pensions and live below the poverty line. It is time to bring an end to this situation by changing the European Union’s policies and breaking with neoliberal policies, and by committing to enhancing the value of labour, to complying with human rights, and to guaranteeing access to quality public services, specifically healthcare and social protection, and to pensions that enable women to live with dignity.

We will therefore continue to fight for policies that value the role of women and fully respect their rights.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Pietikäinen report on the role of women in an ageing society because, while life expectancy is greater for woman than for men, women are at greater risk of insecurity as they get older. We can see this in France at the moment with the debate on pensions, the pay gap, and women taking a break from or stopping work to take on family responsibilities, with a corresponding reduction in their pensions. The text reminds us that a wide-ranging anti-discrimination directive is needed more than ever before.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) With the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009 and the spring of 2010 respectively, the European Union has undertaken to prohibit discrimination of any kind within the EU, whether on the basis of social class, race, skin colour or gender. However, EU citizens, particularly older women, are still the victims of discrimination. I endorse this report because I think it is particularly necessary to place women from all age groups on an equal footing with younger people. Older women are disadvantaged in many areas of public life. One serious example of this is their dependence on public services because there is a direct impact on women if these services are poorly structured. In addition, the low pension entitlements associated with salary levels is a further disadvantage because men generally have a higher income. Older women should not be perceived as a burden, but rather as active participants in our society and should be recognised as such in the European Union.

  Marisa Matias and Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted in favour of this resolution because we agree with its rights-based approach to ageing, specifically its view of older people as empowered subjects. Women continue to see their careers hindered, leading to men’s over-representation in better jobs with higher pay; this is particularly visible among older women and men. Added to that, older women run into insuperable obstacles when looking for a new job, as they are completely devalued in the eyes of employers.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The ageing of the population and reduced demographic growth that have been occurring in the EU have been causes for concern regarding the sustainability of social security and healthcare systems. However, the above is even truer for women, as older women feel gender inequality with far greater intensity. This situation is of particular concern because women play a very significant role in society, especially as regards essential community and family support as carers for dependent people. Therefore, it is very important to combat the age-based discrimination, which affects women the most. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I voted for this resolution, namely so as to draw society’s particular attention to elderly women. Their pensions are usually considerably lower than men’s pensions. Normally, women live longer than men and are left solitary in old age. Not many politicians give a thought to the fact that, outside work, where they earn their pensions, practically all women have worked in the family, raising children and grandchildren, and that their work in this sphere of life is much greater than the contribution of men.

Bearing in mind that women are physically frailer than men, we must treat elderly, solitary women with particular care. It is our duty to initiate a discussion on this question so that society’s attention can be drawn to the unfair and sometimes indifferent attitude towards the ‘weaker sex’. I voted in favour of paying attention to our mothers and grandmothers – to women who have dedicated all of their lives to children and grandchildren. We must not leave them in their solitude; we must not forget them.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The report on the role of women in an ageing society deals with many important issues that should not, I believe, be considered on a gender-specific basis. Framework conditions must be drawn up for the population as a whole that will allow employees to work for longer if they wish and to live an independent life for as long as possible. However, I am more than a little sceptical about the use of positive discrimination. For that reason, I have abstained from voting.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – From a humanitarian perspective, we should improve services and healthcare for and increasingly empower a rapidly growing sector of our population – elderly women –since they, like any other Europeans, have the right to lead a healthy, dignified and independent life. From an economic perspective, we should strive for higher employment levels and more flexible and part-time work opportunities for ageing women. Tapping into this often neglected source of potential and experience will prompt economic growth, reduce old age poverty, improve the overall living standard of pensioners, and enhance societal cohesion. I voted for this resolution in the hope that tackling these issues with a two-pronged approach would open a path to addressing the more rudimentary but not less eminent problems of gender and age inequality in workplace, undervalued and undercompensated caretakers, and ultimately, our society’s ingrained preference for style over substance when solving gender and age related issues. Age, gender and ageing loved ones should always be treated as assets, never as liabilities.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support Mrs Pietikäinen’s report for a set of reasons. The population of the European Union is ageing. According to the statistics, women live longer than men. Discrimination based on age is prohibited in EU-legislation when it comes to working life. The legislation in place, however, does not directly lead to a situation where age discrimination no longer exists in the workplace.

In general, women still face difficulties to ascend in their careers, leading to a situation of strong imbalance where men are overrepresented in upper management functions, especially among older women and men. In addition, women more often face difficulties when seeking re-employment, and the older a woman gets the less added value she usually has in the eyes of an employer. Alongside the protection in the workplace, aged women must, however, be protected in all areas of life as discrimination on the basis of age and sex contravenes fundamental rights.

In order to combat the double discrimination older women often face, the aspects set out in the report need to be recognised and action taken.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report highlights an issue that is increasingly important in Western countries, considering the additional work that women have traditionally done in society and the fact that this could get worse in the context of an inverted demographic pyramid. As well as these issues, it is also important to consider that women’s life expectancy is higher than that of men and continues to increase. While this, in itself, is a positive, it often means an increasing number of women have to look after themselves later in life.

It is common today for an adult woman to care for her children, parents and in-laws; later, she cares for her grandchildren, her mother and her mother-in-law; and later still she is alone, widowed and with children who are distant because of the extreme mobility that characterises contemporary societies, with no one to look after the woman who looked after everyone else.

I voted in favour of this report because it calls attention to this issue, because it points out means of monitoring the situation, and because it advocates intervention in this area.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) An ageing population is regarded as a future burden for national economies. Indeed, the potential offered by older people is often ignored. As the population ages, women, who live longer than men in Romania as well (the average life expectancy in 2008 was 76 years for women and 69 years for men), are more vulnerable, especially with the drop in incomes of extended families. Greater opportunities for part-time work would help boost the income of elderly women.

Elderly women are dependent to a greater extent on public and private services, as well as on the healthcare system. I call on Member States to develop services which facilitate long-term care at home as this would have an impact not only on the women providing the care, but also on the persons being cared for.

The quality of care can be ensured through adequate resources and training in the healthcare sector. I urge Member States to promote public policies which will focus particular attention on these issues and provide adequate resources which will reduce the long-term impact. Political initiatives should be followed up by devising effective programmes and implementing them.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Given the ageing European population, the balance of national retirement systems and taking responsibility for dependency are considerable challenges for the EU. Europe must act quickly and decisively to avoid rapid weakening of its social model and increasing impoverishment of its elderly population, particularly women, since women are more likely, according to statistics, to live in poverty than men.

I support Mrs Pietikäinen’s report, which, in particular, calls for measures to be taken to tackle age discrimination more effectively at work, particularly against women. Moreover, I am in favour of supporting intergenerational solidarity with, for example, plans to support women who care for grandchildren while the parents are absent due to employment reasons. Lastly, I support the idea of increasing coherence in the area of social security, including pension schemes, care leave and part-time working arrangements.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I salute the adoption of this report, which includes specific Green proposals such as: measures to take into account the gender dimension when reforming pension systems; measures to promote a more equal division of unpaid care between women and men; paying more attention to diseases particularly affecting older women, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and mainstreaming the perspective of older migrants and LGBT people, among many other aspects.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The adopted report touches on an important topic that is nevertheless often overlooked.

European citizens are living longer and longer, sometimes extending the ‘third age’ by many years more than in the past. This stage of life is nevertheless all too often seen in negative terms, affected as it is by the preconceptions of a society that ignores the fund of experience of older people and regards ageing as a real burden that transforms active individuals into passive objects.

This dangerous phenomenon mainly affects women, who live longer than men on average, and who have been hard hit by the current economic crisis, which has drastically reduced the services dedicated to them. Many are still at risk of poverty and are condemned to living on an inadequate pension. In the interests of all European women, young and old, I hope that today’s vote will go some way toward highlighting their fundamental role in present day society.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Although I fully support the call for equal employment and equal pay between men and women, I believe we should have placed greater emphasis on family services because, in the vast majority of cases, women are the ones who take on greater responsibilities when there are children and elderly invalids in a family.

Improving services, both economic and structural services, to assist families – for example, nursery schools for children, efficient public transport, home care for the elderly and the sick – would relieve women, particularly working women, of many of the responsibilities they are normally forced to bear. We are against this report because it calls for an action plan that specifically includes the integration of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorse the Pietikäinen report because it shows the ageing of society in a new light. Usually, this process is unfairly presented in an exclusively pessimistic light. Discussions concentrate on costs and burdens. The consequence is discrimination against older people, and especially women, who live longer, are more at risk from poverty, receive lower pension payments and have difficulties with access to public and private services. According to the statistics, the proportion of the population in the European Union aged 65 and over will rise from 17.1% in 2008 to 30% in 2060, and the proportion of people aged 80 and over will rise from 4.4% to 12.1%. In Poland, according to the Central Statistical Office, the elderly will make up 26% of the population in 2030, which is 10 million people.

It is high time for a change in the way the elderly are treated. They represent a huge potential waiting to be used. This potential includes, among other things, vast experience, intellectual capital, knowledge and social skills. The sooner we become aware of these qualities and start to use them, the better it will be for us, our economies and EU strategies. Therefore, I welcome the Commission’s initiative to launch 2012 as a year for active ageing and intergenerational solidarity. Let us promote the silver economy, let us invest in elderly people, let us fight the stereotypes. It should be important to us that elderly people want to work. The standard, social culture and wisdom of a society can be judged by its attitude to the elderly.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) During an economic crisis, women are one of the groups which are worst hit by the effects of the crisis. It falls mainly to them to make ends meet in the family budget in a difficult situation. The working population is getting smaller, and the ratio of the number of working people to each pensioner is falling. Pro-family policy should become a priority for EU Member States. It is difficult for women to reconcile raising children and family life with having a working life. We often hear of discrimination against women because they have duties related to raising children – this discrimination is experienced both during the recruitment process for a particular job and when there is an opportunity for promotion. The majority of people in senior positions in the workplace are men. Later, this difference also affects the level of pension payments, which, in turn, affects quality of life. Another important matter is also retirement age. In working for a shorter time, women automatically accumulate fewer social benefits, and this is reflected in the standard of their life and can lead to poverty.

The difference in retirement age has a disadvantageous effect on their chances in the labour market – women and men of the same age are viewed differently by employers, because employers do not want to take on women who will reach retirement age in the near future. Differences in pension payments also arise because of the difference in the level of earnings and this, too, should be eliminated.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report which seeks to protect the fundamental rights of elderly women within the EU. Older women face a greater risk of ending up in poverty as a result of lower accumulations of pensions and of time taken out of work for caring duties. This is why I have given this report my support.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) In general the term ‘ageing society’ is equated with an unforeseeable future burden on national economies. This debate only ever focuses on pension and care systems. As this report shows, because of their family commitments, women have lower pension entitlements, placing them at a higher risk of poverty in old age. This is a spiral that must be broken by tackling this ongoing change in our society with a comprehensive approach that will involve education and labour market policy in particular.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – Whilst this report from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality draws attention to the practical difficulties facing women who care for Europe’s ageing population, the ECR Group cannot support the report as we believe it tackles matters which are not the responsibility of the EU but of our own national parliaments. In particular, we are opposed to any EU intervention in matters concerning healthcare, education and training, pensions, the retirement age and nursing homes.

Report: Morten Løkkegaard (A7-0223/2010)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament is taking initiatives, at a time when the capitalist crisis is getting worse, to manipulate the conscience of the workers and organise EU propaganda in the private and public media, in order to muzzle any voice in opposition to the interests of capital and create the image of artificial consent to imperialist plans. The report promotes the objectives of full subjugation of public media agencies to euro-unifying propaganda and their interconnection with private media monopolies. In order to achieve this, the proposals involve increasing Community resources to public and private media, creating and strengthening central control structures and ‘filtering’ the news. It promotes the education of journalists to serve the interests of capital, intervention in media activities in the Member States via the European Audiovisual Observatory and support for EU plans by strengthening information – and propaganda – offices and stepping up ideological/political intervention for the benefit of the EU and the rotten exploitative system, proving once again that the independence of the media, like its pluralism and diversity, are a blatant attempt to mislead the workers which cannot, however, eliminate the only way forward for grassroots interests: the fight to overturn and break it in order to ensure that contemporary grassroots needs are served.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Creating a public sphere in Europe is, in my view, crucial. This is by no means a purely theoretical debate but rather an issue of democracy, one in which the legitimacy of the European Union is at stake. The media, and also the new social networks, are the keys to a flourishing European public sphere: we MEPs must brief the European public on our work, through journalists and also through our websites, Facebook and Twitter accounts, and so on. Better communication on Europe is a priority today, and I wholeheartedly support this report, which draws attention to the responsibility of the media in this area and also that of the European institutions, which must do their utmost to facilitate access to their work and to disseminate it through the media.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament is more important in the daily life of the people of Europe now more than ever before. Therefore, it is vital to improve the existing relationships between the Parliament, the Members of the European Parliament, the European Institutions and the people of the Union. A succession of Eurobarometer surveys has shown that the people of the EU want to learn more about EU affairs, and to be better informed about Europe.

As the report says, if European citizens are to be more actively involved in European affairs, clear, relevant information must be provided through the media and the communication centres. I particularly welcome what the report says about restricting the use of ‘EU jargon’ and overly technical language.

The information that the institutions make available to EU citizens must be clear, understandable and relevant. To this end, I support the demand in the report that the Commission continue with the ‘local’ approach it currently adopts, an approach aimed at improving EU visibility at local level.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) To explain how Europe works means deconstructing the simplistic and systematic process of the favourite pastime that entails repeating the eternal words: ‘It is Brussels’ fault.’ At this level, efforts to explain matters will be most helpful. Governments, political parties, teaching establishments and public service broadcasters must become involved and hence make a greater contribution to explaining European issues to the public. New communication media have the potential to revolutionise European democracy. Let us set to work!

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) European issues fail to find their way into the national press, being more prevalent in the international media which is followed by only a limited section of the general public. This indifference to what is going on in Brussels and Strasbourg has also become evident in the lower turnout rates for the European elections.

This is occurring at a time when there is no overriding opinion against the European Union. Europeans’ attitude towards the European Union could probably be described at best as indifferent. We are in a paradoxical situation where all the decisions being made in Brussels and Strasbourg directly affect the lives of every European citizen.

The Treaty of Lisbon has placed European citizens at the heart of the EU and decided to involve them in the decision-making process at EU level, albeit through granting increased powers to Parliament, the only directly elected body. In addition to the proposals tabled in the report debated by the legislative part-session, every MEP, and every national politician for that matter, is obviously entitled to support in a clearly understandable way and explain the impact of the decisions made at EU level in our countries of origin.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the alternative motion for a resolution because, firstly, it recognises the lack of transparency and democracy in the European institutions and, therefore, the need to develop new forms of online media and journalism so that citizens have better information on the EU and, secondly, it recognises the importance of guaranteeing independence of the media and freedom of expression.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union has acquired broader powers, particularly at legislative level.

Eighty per cent of national laws stem from decisions taken by the European Parliament, but citizens are not aware of this influence on their daily lives. Local media do not make the change any easier, giving too much space to national events. It is important to improve the exchange of European information between journalists, and to increase the range of Euronews languages and communication between MEPs and the electorate.

New technologies, if used correctly and wisely, are of great help in spreading news. The Internet has helped disseminate news, particularly among young people, who consequently feel that they are more involved in social life. Many of them create blogs, chatrooms and websites on the European Union, which sparks a constructive debate. Criticism is a right and duty of citizens, provided it is based on hard facts and not gossip.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Public access to information and communication between the electorate and political decision-makers are important factors in any democratic society, and are a fundamental condition of citizens exercising their right to participation in public life. Aware of the importance of creating bases for a European public sphere as ‘an increase [of the presence in the Member States’ social media] of European issues in national spheres’, I am voting broadly in favour of this report (alternative, with the amendments proposed by my group and other groups in Parliament). Transparent and independent ‘public sphere’ which should not be confused with ‘manipulation of social media’ or ‘disguised’ monitoring, such as I believe is happening repeatedly in my country: I would remind you of the ‘TVI case’ that I brought before this House.

From this report, I would stress the monitoring of and subsequent reporting to Parliament of the content of Member States’ public and private broadcasts by the European Audiovisual Observatory, as well as the proposal to more effectively integrate EuroParlTV with the European Parliament’s Internet communication strategy. The first because it is an excellent input to political action and the second as an important element of communication.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on journalism and new media – creating a public sphere in Europe, because I believe that it is essential to set out strategies to bring the European public closer to the decision makers in the European Union. It is necessary to improve the European institutions’ communication in order to promote greater transparency and increased public involvement in political debate, since decisions taken at European level have a direct impact on the lives of the public.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although it is generally positive and much needed, the creation of a European public sphere has slipped into public indifference and disinterest on the part of national public opinion, which does not seem to have gone along with the massive investment in information and disclosure made by the institutions, and is instead becoming worryingly distanced from the European project. As the rapporteur says, a similar public sphere of information will have to start from the ground up, from a genuine individual and public commitment to building the reality that we all share. Despite this belief, the resolution should be more concerned with strengthening the means with which to do this, rather than an effective understanding of what underlies the disaffection and disinterest on the part of the public.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report tables a series of proposals to increase the European public’s involvement in matters relating to the European Union. It is important to promote public participation in the process of European integration, and to seek to communicate with them instead of purely and simply informing them. Informing by merely making content available is no guarantee of creating interest among citizens in Member States. It is therefore imperative that the ‘sender’ follow the principles of communication in order to create dialogue with citizens.

There are programmes, funds and aid available to EU citizens, the majority of whom are unaware of them. I would therefore stress the need to guarantee the presence of correspondents from the Member States who could build a bridge between what is done in Brussels and its impact on their countries and regions. On its own, the EU is a complex entity that is not easy to explain. There is no single, simple solution for creating a public sphere in Europe. Nevertheless, the institutional and technological framework now is better than ever. The Treaty of Lisbon is an important step in democratising the EU, and the new social media present the public with new possibilities for participating in the process of European integration.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The downward trend in the turnout rate at the last European elections showed, once again, how urgent it is to redouble efforts to bridge the gap between the EU and its citizens. The economic crisis, currently faced by the countries of the Union, similarly demands genuine support and abiding confidence in the European institutions from its citizens. Against this backdrop, the Treaty of Lisbon, particularly with the launch of the citizens’ initiative, encourages a more democratic Union, but this cannot be contemplated without the introduction of a comprehensive communication policy. I therefore voted for this resolution, which promotes the creation of a public sphere in Europe. This is clearly the responsibility of all of us: MEPs, members of national parliaments, political parties, teaching establishments and public service broadcasters. However, there should be a word of caution, for communicating more really means communicating better. The creation of a European public sphere must be founded on information that is reliable, factual and independent. In addition to this quality criterion, a pedagogical approach must also be taken to imparting information, so as to make the functioning of the European institutions more understandable and consequently more appealing.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Although Morten Løkkegaard’s report is just an own-initiative report, it has cast a new perspective on the role of journalism and the mass media in an ever-changing society.

Our group, supported by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, tabled an alternative resolution which removed certain provisions included in the initial report, such as monitoring by the European Audiovisual Observatory of EU news broadcasting by public and private channels in Member States or the setting up of a group of ‘independent’ journalists in Brussels. The final version of the report, albeit less ambitious than the initial draft, is realistic and balanced, which is why I supported it along with my other fellow Members.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I would like to congratulate Mr Løkkegaard for producing this conclusive report. Communication within the European Union is currently a vital aspect of an integrated European policy. However, it unfortunately remains a challenge for European institutions. Indeed, Europe’s citizens must be aware directly of the real impact of the decisions made by European institutions. However, to be able to do this, they need to have access to sufficient information about the implications of European decisions at national, regional and local level, which is where public media broadcasters play an extremely important role.

In addition, European institutions’ local information offices must adopt a much more active, better coordinated approach for promoting communication. This is why I believe that it is vital for the European Commission to support and encourage, at institutional level, forms of European communication which already exist at national level. Furthermore, the Commission must establish a close link with public media broadcasters to ensure a more efficient use of the resources committed through the European communication strategy. We are all aware that Member States are responsible for communication. However, more involvement and coordination are required from European institutions in this respect.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The advance in technology in recent years is making professionals in many fields adapt to the situation in terms of their aptitudes and skills and also of the work they do. Mass communication is one of the areas strongly affected by technical innovations. This means that the boundary between journalists and their readership is no longer as clearly defined, as their roles have become interchangeable. This is exactly why I welcome the draft report on journalism and new media.

Furthermore, this highlights the European Parliament’s desire to contribute to creating a public sphere at European level and to encourage the spirit of participation. It is my own firm belief that we need to encourage journalists to provide information on a regular basis about the EU’s institutions and, at the same time, we need to assess regularly how the new media are supporting the creation of this European public sphere. With the emergence of new communication tools and technologies, a European code of ethics for journalism also needs to be drawn up.

At the same time, greater emphasis is needed in the school curriculum on courses which can prepare for this new kind of journalism. Indeed, as a token of recognition from the European Parliament, I support the inclusion of new media in the categories for the European Parliament Prize for Journalism which we award every year.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) It is hard for the EU institutions to communicate with the European public, as the majority of them do not understand the usefulness of the various institutions which comprise the EU. It is therefore time to present ways in which to increase the European public’s involvement in matters relating to the EU. We need to find ways of communicating that manage to initiate, encourage and further European debate and the flow of information, whether this is done through increased discussion of European matters in national media or through a European public sphere. Therefore, creating a public sphere in Europe is an essential step towards better understanding of European events by the entire population of the Member States.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR), in writing. – (PL) In my opinion, the Løkkegaard report on journalism and new media – creating a public sphere in Europe, contains many disturbing provisions which restrict media freedoms. In particular, I consider paragraphs 8, 14, 20, 23, 31 and 39 and recitals N and O unacceptable. In my opinion, the Løkkegaard report interferes with journalistic freedom. The report emphasises, amongst other things, that public broadcasters have an obligation to provide information about the European Union. I would also like to call attention to the fact that this report places new financial obligations on the European Union, proposing, among other things, increasing the budget lines for Parliament’s information offices.

The journalism and new media report also proposes including the EU as a subject in school curricula. In my opinion, EU institutions should not be involved with shaping educational curricula, because this should be the responsibility of Member States. I do not agree with the rapporteur on the role of the media in the European Union, neither do I agree with the imposition of additional financial burdens on the Union and the Member States, which is why I decided to vote against the report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on more effective distribution of information about the European Union to the public. The people of Latvia do not appreciate the difference between the EU Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament. Ninety-nine per cent of people in Latvia do not understand the functions and significance of European Union institutions. We have to explain the point of the EU’s activity to every EU citizen. If we fail to do this very soon, the turnout at European elections will become minimal, and people will come to mistrust the decisions and laws made by EU institutions.

I voted in favour of paying greater attention to the EU’s communications policy; in favour, therefore, of informing people as much as possible how and for what purpose funds from the EU budget are spent. If we succeed in making the best progress we can in this direction, then we may just inspire greater confidence in people, so that the people of the EU will adopt a more considered attitude to EU elections. If that were to come to pass, the membership of the European Parliament would be a great deal more professional.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) On 7 September, I voted for the proposal to adopt the European Parliament draft resolution on journalism and new media – creating a public sphere in Europe (A7-0223/2010). According to the results of various Eurobarometer polls, citizens are under-informed on EU policies and issues. However, those same polls demonstrate that this information is relevant to society. Participants in the polls also maintain that this lack of information is one of the main reasons for people deciding not to vote and being reluctant to trust the EU institutions. I believe that in order to be effective, communication must make it clear that political decisions taken at EU level are of direct relevance to the daily lives of EU citizens, who see the EU as still being too distant and having too little influence in terms of solving their real problems. Furthermore, I agree that in order to improve people’s knowledge of the EU, EU studies need to be incorporated into the school curricula.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because it offers ways for EU citizens and society to be able to participate more actively in national and public life throughout the EU. Hitherto it has not been made clear enough to EU citizens that political decisions taken at EU level are of direct relevance to their daily lives. There is a lack of reasoned and in-depth information about the EU in Member States’ media. I agree with the rapporteur that Member States should increase the number of accredited journalists in the EU institutions. Lithuania, for instance, does not currently have a single accredited journalist in the EU institutions. We should continue to train journalists and develop their knowledge of the complex EU decision-making process. The Euronews television channel could begin broadcasts in the languages of most of the EU Member States and the EU institutions could prepare reports in the social media which is becoming increasingly popular among young people. In particular, I support the rapporteur’s call to respect the freedom and editorial independence of the media, especially the right of public service radio and television broadcasters to schedule their programmes as they see fit. However, the governments of some EU Member States limit the funding of public service broadcasters and by so doing, aim to influence the selection of staff and the content of programmes.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Communication is absolutely essential in politics. Therefore, if politics are not properly communicated, we have a problem. It is in this connection that the European Union is faced with an arduous and difficult challenge. It is time to find new systems by which European citizens can become more involved in EU matters.

The report considers the means by which communication can activate and stimulate European debate and the flow of information, both by means of a more broad-ranging discussion of European matters in the national media and through the European public sphere. Although I support the spirit of the report, I find some of the points and some of the demands perhaps excessive.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Since the introduction of the euro, a cohesive set of measures has been introduced to protect the single currency against counterfeiting, which includes legislative initiatives, technical tools and institutional changes, with the emphasis on close cooperation between all the agencies involved at national and European level. According to its recent reply (E-0107/10) to my question, the Commission notes that the number of counterfeit coins is still extremely low, accounting for no more than 0.2 per thousand of all coins in circulation. Moreover, Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 states that technical and statistical data relating to counterfeit notes and counterfeit coins discovered in the Member States shall be gathered and indexed by the competent national authorities. Despite all this, the present proposal for a regulation further strengthens the tools to combat counterfeiting by clarifying the procedures for establishing the authenticity of and managing euro coins which are unsuitable for circulation.

At the same time, provision is made for the application of joint procedures to establish authenticity and control mechanisms for those procedures by the national authorities. The proposals in question strengthen action against counterfeiting and that is why I voted in favour of the relevant provisions and the report as a whole.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Løkkegaard report on the role of journalism and new media in the creation of a true ‘European public sphere’. As we say again and again, the gap between the European institutions and the public must be closed as a matter of urgency. Let us remember at this point the depressingly low turnout rate during the European elections. Let us note, too, that all the indicators of Europeans’ level of confidence in European integration seem to be flashing red at the moment. The latest Eurobarometer poll is particularly eloquent in this regard, with more than half of the people questioned taking a negative view of their country’s membership of the EU. What is interesting is that, at the same time, expectations are great, since more than 80% of them say that the EU is the – and I emphasise ‘the’ – solution to the problems that exist.

In order to better explain what Europe does, and how and by what means it does it, and thus to create less disappointment, the priority must be better communication and more coverage of European news. However, I insist that, as is emphasised in the text that we have adopted, this exercise must be carried out in a climate of confidence, with respect shown for editorial independence and journalistic freedom.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The majority of amendments tabled by the Greens/EFA were adopted in the Committee on Culture and Education, where the report was adopted with 24 votes in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention.

Most of the Greens/EFA amendments were included in the compromise amendments. This was the case in paragraph 33, which states that the EU institutions should decentralise EU communication policy in order to give it a local and regional dimension, and in paragraph 36, which stresses that solutions should be examined in order to create interparliamentary relationships between national or regional parliaments and the European Parliament.

Today, we had to vote on an alternative resolution proposed by S&D and supported by EPP and ALDE. The Greens/EFA supported the modifications that have been made, so in the end, we supported the report.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) It is right to seek to explain to European citizens what the European Union and all its bodies do and what purpose they serve.

In particular, we should aim to ensure that citizens play a central role, which also means allowing them to choose who represents them. Even today, the most important positions such as High Representative for Foreign Affairs, President of the Commission and President of the Council are assigned without any input from the citizens. The national media should be encouraged to publish news about the activities carried out by MEPs, who are directly elected by Europeans and who therefore represent them.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report which proposes ways to increase citizens´ awareness of EU policies and decision making through use of the various media tools available. As an elected representative, I believe that it is important for members of the public to be able to see how EU politics affects their daily lives, which is why I have supported this report.

Report: Slavi Binev (A7-0212/2010, László Surján (A7-0240/2010), Salvatore Iacolino (A7-0209/2010)

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This was a technical and non-controversial report and we, the Greens, have supported it.

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13:50 and resumed at 15:05)

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

9. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

  President. – I declare the sitting resumed.

The minutes of yesterday’s sitting are now available. I would like to ask if there are any comments on the minutes. I do not see any. The minutes are approved.

10. The case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

11. Situation of the Roma people in Europe (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Council and the Commission on the situation of the Roma people in Europe. I would like to welcome to our sitting the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Chastel, the Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs Reding, and the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Mr Andor. The first to take the floor, on behalf of the Council, will be Mr Chastel.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the values and principles of the European Union are clearly laid down in the treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which became binding with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Respect for the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the right of persons belonging to a minority, feature prominently in those texts. The Council therefore confirms its commitment to those values.

The Council has, on many occasions, expressed its support for measures to advance Roma inclusion. In fact, our Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, have also recognised the very specific situation of the Roma people in the Union and have called on the Member States and the EU to do everything in their power to advance their inclusion.

It is now 10 years since the Council adopted a comprehensive directive prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin in a number of areas, including the conditions governing access to employment; vocational training; social protection, including social security and healthcare; education; and the supply of goods and services, including housing. All ethnic groups, and therefore obviously the Roma, are protected by this directive. Lastly, the directive includes a positive action clause, which permits the Member States to maintain or adopt specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to racial or ethnic origin.

Some of you attended the second European Roma Summit, which was held in Córdoba in April. The Council very much welcomed this important event, which brought the main stakeholders together. Following the summit, in June, the Council unanimously adopted some conclusions entitled ‘Advancing Roma Inclusion’.

The ministers unanimously acknowledged that a significant proportion of Roma experience situations of extreme poverty, discrimination and exclusion, which also entails low educational levels, inadequate housing conditions, lack of access to employment and precarious health. Roma women and girls face particular difficulties, including the risk of multiple discrimination. In many cases, the aforementioned conditions have been worsening markedly in the past years, and anti-Gypsyism and violent attacks against Roma are intensifying.

We must bear in mind the fact that, while the Member States have the primary responsibility for advancing the social and economic integration of Roma, cooperation at the EU level brings significant added value. Consequently, the Council invited the Commission and the Member States to advance the social and economic integration of Roma within the framework of the decisions and recommendations made by the EU institutions, by ensuring the more effective use of existing policies and instruments.

Responsibility in this area is shared: it is up to all those involved to advance the inclusion of Roma, in accordance with their respective competences, and the Council shall play its part in this. The Council also emphasised the importance of ensuring the active involvement of civil society, local authorities and the Roma themselves.

I should also like to point out the specific measures that have recently been taken by both the European Parliament and the Council to facilitate the social inclusion of less-advantaged citizens. We recently came to an agreement at first reading to amend the provisions governing the European Regional Development Fund. Under these provisions, it will now be possible to grant assistance for housing improvements within the most marginalised communities in Europe, which include many Roma.

The two institutions crucially agreed that these measures should always be applied as part of an integrated approach. This approach includes, in particular, actions in the fields of education, health, social affairs, employment and security, and desegregation measures.

Lastly, I would point out that, under the European Social Fund, it is also possible to fund actions against discrimination in general.

The EU must provide a safe environment where differences are respected and the most vulnerable protected. This is laid down in the Stockholm Programme, which the European Council adopted in December 2009. Measures to tackle discrimination and xenophobia must be vigorously pursued. The Roma community is expressly mentioned in the Stockholm Programme, under which the Member States must make a concerted effort to fully integrate vulnerable groups.

Like all EU citizens, Roma must enjoy freedom of movement and the right to protection, and must not suffer discrimination of any kind.

At a time when our societies are in the grip of economic crisis, let us take care not to make scapegoats of those among our fellow citizens who are excluded the most. To this end, it is important to have a clear and honest grasp of the causes, effects and cost of social exclusion. What can a population deprived of education, housing, healthcare and, even worse, employment, do? In order to facilitate the integration of the Roma, we must develop an integrated approach that is in line with European legislation and values and in which the interested parties are actively involved.

The situation of the Roma people features in the Trio Presidency’s working programme adopted by the Council in December 2009, and the Belgian Presidency has made a point of addressing the issue of Roma integration on several occasions.

Firstly, at the conference on child poverty, which took place on 2 September; at the Equality Summit, scheduled for 14-16 November, and, in particular, where that summit will address the issue of equality and diversity in employment; at the conference on homelessness, scheduled for 9-10 December; and at the meeting of the Integrated Platform for Roma Inclusion, to be held shortly, from 7-17 September. Lastly, as announced at the General Affairs Council on 26 July, the Council of the European Union will continue to monitor the issue of Roma inclusion.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, let me start by thanking my co-Commissioners, László Andor and Cecilia Malmström, because there has been very close cooperation between our teams on the Roma issue in recent last weeks. This allowed the Commission to reach a clear and balanced position on the matter over the summer, and this has received the full backing of the college of Commissioners today.

I would also like to thank President Barroso, with whom I have been working closely on this matter over the summer, in parallel with the evolving situation in France. It was in full agreement with the President that, on 25 August, I took a public position on the situation of the Roma in France and on the need to uphold European law and the rights and the principles laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The line taken by the Commission – which, as politicians, you know perfectly well must always be aware of the dangers of being instrumentalised by national party political debates – has been consistent over the past weeks.

Firstly, Member States are in charge of public order and of the safety of their citizens on their national territory. This means that, in spite of the important right of free movement, Member States have to take measures against EU citizens who break the law. There can be no impunity under the umbrella of European free movement principles. Under certain conditions, Member States can even send EU citizens who have broken the law back home, provided that they observe the principles of proportionality and the procedural safeguards which are written into the EU Free Movement Directive of 2004.

Secondly, in our European Union, no citizen must become the target of repressive action just for belonging to an ethnic minority or to a certain nationality. This is clearly set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality or ethnic origin and which specifically prohibits collective expulsions. So there must be no collective punishment in Europe and no stigmatisation of any ethnic group. Every human being has their own rights and also their own obligations.

Thirdly, the social and economic integration of the Roma – and you all know that, with 10 to 12 million members, this is the biggest ethnic minority in Europe – is a challenge for all 27 Member States, both for the countries of origin and for Roma host countries. Under the subsidiarity rule, it is the responsibility of Member States to ensure access to housing, education, health and employment but, at the same time, the EU institutions – for more than a decade now – have developed strategies and policies to support national efforts financially, notably via the European Social Fund, the pre-accession instrument, and the European Regional Development Fund, which has recently been modified so that housing for Roma can be covered by the fund.

It is very important to stress that, for the Commission, the social and economic integration of the Roma is not an issue just for the month of August. It is an issue for every day and for every year. Commissioner Andor and I presented earlier this year, on 7 April, a strategic Roma communication – the first ever in the European Union. On the basis of that, we had a ministerial meeting in Córdoba, together with the Roma associations. As President Barroso said this morning, there were only three Ministers present at that meeting.

The main legal and political issues raised by the measures taken by France this summer have been well summarised in a detailed note which Commissioner Andor, Commissioner Malmström and I presented to the college of Commissioners last week and which was endorsed today.

Allow me to update you on where we stand today. First of all, thanks to a very intense dialogue between the Commission and the French authorities over the past weeks, I see an important development. I viewed it as crucial that it was made clear in France that there was no intention to target actions against the Roma community, because such targeted action would have been incompatible with the fundamental values and rights on which the European Union is founded.

That is why it was so important that Minister Éric Besson came to a meeting in Brussels with Cecilia Malmström and myself last week. He assured us publicly that the French authorities would treat all citizens in the same way, that there was no targeted action against the Roma or any other group, and that the French authorities would do their best to act scrupulously in line with EU law. I see this assurance given by a French Minister as a very positive development.

In the meantime, the Commission’s services – DG Justice and the Legal Service – have continued to check at a technical level with the French authorities since last Friday to see if what has been said reflects the legal reality on the ground.

The Commission services have identified a number of issues where the French authorities will need to give supplementary information, and where they will need active assistance by the Commission services to ensure that their action now, and in the future, is fully in line with EU law.

Since 2008, the Commission has insisted to France that the EU Free Movement Directive must be fully implemented, including the procedural and substantive safeguards in that directive which had not been fully implemented in French legislation.

Even though these safeguards are partly a reality in France because of the case-law which the courts use – and you have seen lately that the courts have decided on the basis of the EU directive although this EU directive has not been implemented in French law – we have been very clear with the French authorities in saying that legislative implementation will enhance legal certainty in free movement situations similar to the ones experienced this summer.

That is why, after the meeting of the college today, I sent a letter to the French authorities insisting on those aspects. It goes without saying that other Member States which are in a similar situation will also get similar assistance.

An important lesson to draw from the developments of this summer is that Roma integration is a challenge that must be kept on the political agenda of all Member States. That is why, with Cecilia Malmström and László Andor, I have agreed on five actions, which the college of Commissioners has just approved.

Firstly, in order ensure the conformity of all Member State measures taken regarding the Roma with EU law on free movement, non-discrimination and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we will monitor and assess the progress made on these questions.

Secondly, we will establish a Roma task force at senior level which will analyse the follow-up given by Member States to the Commission’s strategic Roma communication of 7 April. This will, in particular, streamline, assess and benchmark the use and effectiveness of EU funding for Roma integration in all Member States and identify underpinning deficiencies in the use of those funds. We are we doing this simply because we want to know and to have proof of instances where these funds are (a) not being used and (b) if they are being used, are not being properly implemented.

The first findings of this task force will be submitted to the college before the end of the year, and I will keep Parliament and the Council informed on these findings.

Thirdly, I am calling on the Presidency to hold a jumbo JHA, Security and Social Affairs Council as soon as possible in order to identify a more targeted use of national and complementary EU funding to promote social and economic integration of the Roma. That Council meeting should be followed by yearly meetings at ministerial level because we have had cold experience of Member States not taking responsibility for changing things on their territory for themselves. We have to bring them together, officially and publicly, and we have to push them in the right direction.

Fourthly, I will call on future presidencies of the Council to address the priorities identified in the roadmap agreed last June by the European Platform on Roma Inclusion. In that context, dialogue with representatives of the Roma community should be intensified. The next platform will take place under the Hungarian Presidency.

Fifthly, we will also call on the Member States to look into the issue of human trafficking, to which Roma are particularly vulnerable, with the assistance of the Commission and, if necessary, with Europol and Eurojust where appropriate.

I will now pass the floor to László Andor to speak on the important subject of the use of the European Social Fund for Roma integration.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as Vice-President Reding has just pointed out, the European Union is based on fundamental rights and values, and the Commission is fully committed to protecting the fundamental rights of the Roma and their full social and economic integration into our societies.

The second point I want to stress is that Roma inclusion is a joint responsibility of the European Union and the Member States. Successful social and economic integration of the Roma calls for a sustained commitment, based on cooperation between all concerned: the Commission, the Member States, local governments, NGOs and international organisations.

The Commission did not wait for the recent, very unfortunate, events to spur it into action. On 7 April this year, the Commission outlined a strategic and comprehensive approach in its first ever policy communication on the social and economic integration of the Roma in Europe. This sets priorities for action by the Commission and the Member States in a wide range of areas of relevance to Roma integration.

The Commission is committed to improving the effectiveness of instruments and policies in terms of both content and process, and stresses the importance of closer cooperation between EU, national and international players and Roma communities.

The communication also reaffirms the Commission’s commitment to encouraging and assisting the Member States to make full use of the potential of the Structural Funds to support the social and economic integration of the Roma.

EU Structural Funds offer a very useful financial lever for supporting national efforts to improve the situation of the Roma. Of the 27 Member States, 12 Member States – including old and relatively new Member States – have support programmes in place targeting the Roma, among other vulnerable groups, for a total of EUR 17.5 billion, including EUR 13.3 billion from the European Social Fund.

Examples of projects include grassroots interventions to promote employment of the Roma and the development of a new curriculum of Roma studies in schools.

In addition, as the Vice-President also said, the ERDF was amended in May this year and that fund can now be used to support the renovation of housing in rural areas where many Roma live.

Inclusion of the Roma is also an important political criterion for membership of the European Union, and the EU supports candidate countries and potential candidates in this connection through the pre-accession instruments.

The Commission is currently implementing or planning projects worth EUR 50 million which target the Roma exclusively or in part.

The Commission has convened high-level events in Member States with large Roma minorities to promote better use of EU funds for integration of the Roma. In Hungary, this set in motion a dialogue between the national authorities and the Roma under the auspices of the Commission.

A second series of high-level events involving Commissioner Cioloş and myself will take place in Romania in October.

Lastly, at this House’s request, the Commission is implementing a pilot project entitled ‘Pan-European coordination of Roma integration methods – Roma inclusion’. This comprises three components, relating to early childhood education and care, self-employment and micro-loans, and information and awareness-raising activities. Related actions began in May 2010.

There are EU funds and instruments available to help resolve the delicate legal, human and practical issues involved in Roma integration. We in the Commission are ready to do our utmost to resolve these. I strongly believe that Europe 2020 is the right framework to fight poverty, and thus also to improve the conditions of the Roma people in Europe.

Let us stand by our principles, resist easy but false solutions, and tackle this issue together in the spirit of solidarity.

  Lívia Járóka, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I am glad that the EU institutions appear so sensitive to the plight of the Roma today. For that very reason, it is a pity that policy makers on all sides of the political spectrum seem to use the Roma issue as a weapon against their counterparts.

We all agree that freedom of movement is one of the fundamental principles of Community law, and accept that this right is not unconditional. As the Commission has confirmed, all EU countries have the right to take security measures regarding foreigners residing on their territory. The core values of the European Union, such as non-discrimination, tolerance and solidarity, must be fully respected, and the expulsion of any EU citizens must be implemented on a case-by-case basis on the grounds of proper judicial decisions, or with the free, complete and informed consent of all the individuals concerned. To quote the Commission again, ‘nobody should face expulsion just for being a Roma’.

Political opinions and legal judgments are separate issues. We might find these expulsions distasteful or far-fetched, and we must draw attention to the safeguards and principles to be acted upon, but judging the legitimacy of the measures taken by France is the sole responsibility of the Commission. Large-scale repatriations might be repulsive, but are even more repulsive given the empty human rights lip-service of recent decades when technically, nothing was done to alleviate the terrible poverty of the Roma, except for the chanting of a few cold words about anti-discrimination and tolerance when it became politically handy.

We, the European Roma, reject the political misuse and misinterpretation of our issues. The Roma must set the discourse about themselves to reveal the problems and to articulate what actions and measures have to be taken. As proclaimed several times by this Parliament, and more specifically by the European People’s Party, the poverty and social exclusion of the Roma is a European issue and requires a strategy of its own; a common European solution is needed for a common European problem.

That strategy must tackle the economic features of the social exclusion of Roma and non-Roma alike, such as structural unemployment, low qualifications, dwelling in seriously disadvantaged micro-regions and barriers to self-employment – all the issues which our people are escaping from when they migrate.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I am deeply disappointed – and so is my group – to hear what the Commission has said today.

First, Mr Barroso: Mr Barroso has been less critical of the actions taken than many ministers in the French Government. That is scandalous. Mrs Reding, what you said does not provide a clear answer. I, and many citizens of Europe, want to know: Has the French Government contravened the law or not? Weeks after the measures have been taken, you cannot say ‘we will look into it’. Say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but please give us a clear answer.

You believe everything that the French ministers said after they had already taken the action. They did not come to us beforehand. They expelled the people first and then they say to you ‘we are fair and we will not discriminate against anyone’. I think it is scandalous for a Commissioner to stand here today and say that. It is not in line with your actual convictions or the performance of your duties thus far. I am therefore deeply disappointed that, as far as this issue is concerned, you want to deceive your way out of this so acquiescently.

(Applause)

You are completely unaware of the responsibility you are taking on, because in a few weeks’ time, the next country – Italy perhaps, or possibly Hungary or another country – will say: ‘We will withdraw these people’s citizenship. Then, if they are stateless, they will be accommodated in camps somewhere’. The ground has been prepared for this and the Commission is saying nothing about it. I think it is scandalous, and as far as my group is concerned, it is unacceptable.

(Applause)

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after the Second World War, international legislation banned mass expulsions and deportation. The human race had already suffered enough because of such barbaric policies.

In 2010, France, the country that gave birth to human rights, is using trickery. It is taking advantage of the ignorance of the Roma people, Europe’s most vulnerable population, paying them EUR 300 per adult and EUR 100 per child if they leave the country. The French Government claims that this is voluntary repatriation, cynically portraying this disgraceful buying of the Roma people’s consciences as humanitarian aid.

No fuss has been made about the fact that the authorities have taken fingerprints from the adults and even from the children, or that many of them did not give their free consent in full awareness of the consequences, as the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also stated, which constitutes a clear breach of European and international law.

Italy, however, followed this same pattern two years ago, although the European Commission has preferred to keep quiet about the affair and therefore, the Commission bears some of the responsibility for this new wave of deportations of Roma peoples within Europe.

The Commission must now demonstrate that it is truly the guardian of principles and fundamental rights within the European Union and the upholder of its laws.

(Applause)

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mrs Reding, I must say that I fully share the consternation of Mr Swoboda and Mrs Weber. It is quite astounding that, after the various meetings you have been able to have and the documents you have received, you are still at this stage in acknowledging, or rather failing to acknowledge, the clear breaches that the French Government has committed in expelling the Roma. And this is not a new topic: a year ago, a group of voluntary organisations petitioned you on matters that are being raised again today, such as the failure to abide by the one month’s notice period before sending back European citizens that is enshrined in the Free Movement Directive.

As regards the right to a personal examination of circumstances, I do not think you need any further expert opinions to conclude that when ‘escort to the border’ orders are handed out en masse in a camp, all identically addressed, this goes against the consideration of personal situations. Are six-year-old children a threat to public order? Do you really need additional proof, when justice and the French courts have judged this case and the French Government is using an extremely broad and illegitimate interpretation of a public order threat?

If you need judges, experts or NGOs, we can provide you with them. However, please stop this denial of reality and this failure to fulfil your duties!

The debate that took place this morning was a disgrace. We heard the leader of the European Parliament’s largest political group talking about the Roma people in connection with thefts of tractors in his local area. We heard José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, speaking during the debate on the Roma people about the security needs of European citizens. In other words, at the highest level of Europe’s political leaders, the tendency to automatically associate the Roma with crime, prostitution and trafficking is being boosted and fed.

In doing so, they are placing fundamental rights and the whole point of Europe itself at stake. As Mr Cohn-Bendit said this morning: this is a test of you, Mrs Reding; this is a test of the Treaty of Lisbon, a test of your relevance. Will you be capable of proving, in this situation, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is anything other than a sham? It is down to you, it is your duty, and now is the time to proclaim this.

(Applause from the left)

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, as a former UK immigration minister, I and my group are wholeheartedly supportive of providing equal rights and equal opportunities for all people. I agree with my group’s chairman, Michał Kamiński, who this morning said that this continent must never revive the ghosts of past nationalism, and that the EU is a zone of freedom and tolerance is its greatest achievement. We should be proud of that but we must never fool ourselves into believing that we do not still have massive problems.

Undoubtedly, this issue requires debate, consideration and action on how we treat minority groups, how we can better integrate the Roma people, and proportionality between the rights and the powers of national governments and the EU. However, I also believe that our Union is built on the rule of law.

Whilst it is a parliamentarian’s right to raise justified concerns in this debate, I would also ask us to wait until the Commission, as the guardian of the treaties, actually makes a formal ruling on this issue. Then we can make informed judgments based on all of the facts and decide how to focus on better integration of the Roma people within Europe, rather than pre-emptively condemning a fellow Member State.

  Cornelia Ernst, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the so-called voluntary exodus of the Roma from France is a clear case of expulsion – and indeed of the largest and oldest population group that constitutes a minority in Europe. This will encourage those on the political right, the extreme right. We must reject this – including here in the European Parliament. This is vital.

The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left therefore demands an end to these deportations. Mrs Reding, I would have liked you, too, to call for us first to demand an end to these deportations and then everything else that follows on from that. President Sarkozy’s government is contravening EU law, because it is carrying out the wholesale deportation of Roma, who originate from EU Member States, without consideration of individual cases, because it is invalidating the principle of free movement, it is violating the Charter of Fundamental Rights and it is violating the Charter with regard to equal treatment.

I say to you in all sincerity that it is finally time for action. We have already discussed this problem numerous times. We now need to take real measures that will bring about a change.

The Roma are at home in Europe. They are part of the European Community and should also remain so. We must make sure of it. We are therefore also critical of the deportation of Roma from Germany, Austria, Sweden, Italy, Belgium and other countries in the Western Balkans. We need an integrated European strategy, and one for all Roma, not only some of them. We must fight for this.

My final point is that the European idea of solidarity and self-determination must be evident in our dealings with the Roma minority, otherwise it does not exist.

  Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened to the attacks against the French Government, like those against the Italian Government previously, and also to some very strong attacks against the Commission. These accusations are completely spurious in actual fact.

I have not heard any reference to the statistics supplied by the French police authorities showing that, in the 18 months following the exodus of Roma from Bulgaria and Romania, the number of thefts rose by more than 250%. In this connection, perhaps Romania and Bulgaria should be forced to answer some questions, after they were very irresponsibly allowed to enter the European Union without this problem having first been resolved.

We must speak frankly to those people, too, who come over as guests of other states. We must tell them to respect the citizens of their host states and not enter their homes illegally and perform acts unbecoming of a guest. They must be respected and they must be protected – in the words of those who speak of high principles – but we must also consider the victims of their crimes: the other honest citizens of the European Union who, perhaps with good reason, do not always enjoy having the Roma as their neighbours.

These are the uncomfortable facts that the majority of citizens and people think and that certain do-gooders do not have the courage to admit, because, the truth is, sometimes you also have to have the political courage to say ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, I do not defend the French Government. Mr Sarkozy and Mr Hortefeux were both members of the European Parliament. They ought to have known that the treaties which they supported – the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam the ratification treaty and the Treaty of Lisbon, which Nicolas Sarkozy boasts to have played a major part in shaping – would effectively open our borders to anyone who wanted to come and settle in our country.

In spite of this, however, I am surprised and astounded, first by my fellow Members’ misinterpretation of the legal situation, as they have forgotten that European Union citizens from Central and Eastern Europe do not yet have the definitive right to settle in our country, which they will not acquire until 2013.

Secondly, people are talking about an oppressed minority, but ladies and gentlemen, do you seriously believe that for six centuries, the Roma people have not become integrated in the Central and Eastern European countries they are living in simply because the Romanians, Bulgarians and Hungarians are wicked, or because they have been persecuted by the Slovakians, the Czechs, the Slovenians or the Serbs?

Your saintly attitude is effectively another form of racism, against native inhabitants, who, like the residents in my country I am sorry to say, do not want 12 million Roma coming to live there. The only solution, as you have suggested yourselves, is to leave this Europe.

(Applause)

  Manfred Weber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was no coincidence that we, as the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), allowed our colleague, Mrs Járóka, who is the only representative of the Roma minority in this Parliament, to speak first today. This is because the PPE Group would much prefer to talk about the people’s problems today. We do not want to make a political show – we do not care about Mr Sarkozy – we want to discuss the problems we are facing with the Roma minority and how we can help them.

This is also the basis of our resolution. Mr Swoboda, you said that it is scandalous that the Commission has drawn this conclusion. All I can say to that is that it is clearly scandalous to you because the Commission is not joining in with the political show that you want to make of this and has made a serious comment on the situation.

Secondly, as regards the freedom of movement, everything has been said already. We have clear ground rules in the European Union. The freedom of movement is not without limit; it can be restricted on an individual basis and that is also what has been done in France.

My third point is actually the important one. In the political debate on this issue, it is a question of how we can integrate the minorities in Europe into our societies. If we all accept the fact that we are open-minded and tolerant, then we are on common ground. If, as a second step, we also all accept that around 90% move towards the majority society, that we really join together and take integration seriously, then we are also still in agreement. We are divided on the question of how we should deal with migrants – regardless of what sort of migrants – who just do not accept what the majority society has to offer, who refuse to cooperate, and will not accept the ground rules.

The Left in this House repeatedly presents the argument that we need to offer these people something. We in the PPE Group say that the migrants also need to accept the offers. If you do not add this requirement and stipulate it in strong terms, if you do not have a state that calls for this, then you destroy the willingness of citizens to integrate people, and you do the handiwork of the Right in this House if you do not permit the state to use this toughness. It is also permissible to say that.

(Applause)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I thank my colleague, Manfred Weber, for accepting this question.

You said that freedom of movement is not limitless in Europe – and you are juridically right – but that it can be restricted on an individual basis.

What evidence do you have that this kind of deportation is being performed on an individual basis and how can you contradict the information that we have, both from the press and from the NGOs that have been following this, that the main criterion for deportation, indeed the sole criterion, is an ethnic criterion?

  Manfred Weber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, thank you for the question. The answer is also quite simple. The question of whether a law has been transposed is not decided in Europe by politicians, or by journalists. In the European Union, it is the courts that decide. In the European Union – and in France, too – we have a situation in which people belonging to the Roma groups concerned can turn to the courts and file a complaint against this on an individual basis. That has already been done.

The Commissioner has pointed out that French judges also use European law as the basis for their decisions. Thus, it is not journalists who decide whether or not laws have been implemented in this European Union, it is the courts, and according to the Commission’s statement, that is clearly the way it works in France just as it does in the other Member States of the European Union.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) On 24 June this year, you confirmed in a reply to a parliamentary question that the report from the Agency for Fundamental Rights paints a gloomy picture for the European Union’s 12 million Roma.

If the Commission is not going to speak out strongly against the crisis triggered by the ethnic expulsions carried out by the French authorities, the framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia has every chance of remaining nothing more than fine intentions. The same applies as well to the Stockholm Programme action plan, which you mentioned in your speech.

After claiming an alleged resurgence of ethnic-based crime which is impossible to verify, as well as figures of hundreds of thousands of Roma allegedly threatening the peace in the cities of the West, the French authorities have failed to present any argument other than a few hundred citizens removed from the wretched conditions in make-shift camps, whom they persuaded to repatriate voluntarily to their countries of origin in return for payment.

We must accept that in addition to the Roma in France, there are a few more hundred thousand Roma in Romania ignored by their own government, but who cannot be ignored by any strategy aimed at integrating them and improving their situation in the context of a united Europe.

Both situations must be tackled with a specific, interdependent approach. The question is not whether Roma belong just to Romania or to the whole of Europe, but how the integration measures taken at European level can be correlated with those intended to improve their situations nationally. The Commission must shift from words, strategies and facts …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, in Europe, we have an internal market which is a great success. One of the main reasons for that is that the Commission is very tough in enforcing the market rules. I wish, however, that the Commission were equally tough when it comes to enforcing fundamental rights in Europe.

(Applause)

That is why, Commissioner, my group insisted so much on having a special European Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. That is you. And we expect you to stand up, not for European governments, but for European citizens, and if you do not like what you see, then you should not close your eyes to what is happening in Europe, you should act.

We do not want words in this Chamber, not from Mr Barroso, not from you. We could do without this debate if we were sure that the European Commission would enforce the rules – not only rules on immigration and free movement, but fundamental rights as well – because that is the only way that we can make the European Union a community of values that is as successful as the internal market.

(Applause)

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, it is very good and very important to talk about the integration of Roma people and I wonder why the Commission has only now noticed that some money has not been well spent. It is also important to talk about how the realities in the Member States can be adjusted so that they fit the needs of the Roma people, but I think that is not the topic at issue today. Today, we are talking about the mass deportations carried out by France against the Roma, and even a lack of integration is not a justification for mass deportation.

It is very clear that the Roma in France are not being expelled on an individual basis – and I wonder how you can fail to see that. It is very scary that the Commission, the guardian of the treaties, does not dare to say this aloud, does not dare to guard the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We cannot allow collective punishment. I ask you to take a strong stand and not turn a blind eye to the discrimination against Roma in France and also in other Member States, because this is a disgrace for the European Union.

(Applause)

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, when I worked as a correspondent in Eastern Europe, I witnessed the problem of the Roma. It was a colossal social problem, and the socialist regimes at the time were unable to find a solution. Now it is a problem facing Europe. It is all too easy to view the situation of Roma solely through the prism of racism or xenophobia, as the left is currently doing. Groups of people travelling through Europe with their caravans, with no regular income, cause inconvenience in the long term. This is inevitable, as what are these people to live off? Europe provides free movement of persons, and that is a major benefit. Yet anyone who relies on this right also has obligations, of which there is too little discussion in Parliament. First among these is refraining from causing inconvenience. Men send Roma women out onto the streets to beg. What is the situation regarding women’s rights in the Roma community? I have seen children out begging when they should be at school; what is the situation regarding compulsory school attendance? If crimes are committed, it is ordinary citizens who are the victims and not, as a rule, left-wing political leaders, living in their ivory towers. In order to get to the bottom of the problems, I would call on them to be hospitable and take a Roma family into their households.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, there is a good deal of prejudice surrounding the Roma. Much has already been said. I share the indignation of some of my fellow Members, but I would just like to give you some background facts to set the record straight.

In the first place, not a single Roma was involved in the events that triggered this summer’s xenophobic, fear-mongering polemic in France. This was simply a diversion. This has nothing to do with sending back to their own country people who committed or were suspected of having committed criminal acts. All the individuals who were sent back had clean criminal records. It has everything to do with targeting an ethnic group and making scapegoats out of them.

How do they go about these expulsions? They are carried out systematically by means of evacuation operations in the makeshift camps. The police come in, usually in the early morning and ID the individuals. This is then used to draw up en masse orders to leave the country, using a standard template. This means no case-by-case examination. The camps are then demolished and the evacuated people are not even allowed to retrieve their personal belongings. There are eye-witness accounts of this.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Mr President, France has decided that it does not want vast numbers of uninvited Roma turning up on its doorstep, but they were invited. This whole problem is a direct result of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to free movement of EU citizens.

Any EU citizen has the right to live in another EU state. Like so much EU legislation, it has turned out to be an absurdity in practice. We do not just get highly educated and skilled people with a strong work ethic coming from another Member State. It means we have no protection against the entry of socially undesirable and criminal elements.

French governments have always been enthusiastic about the European Union. They are now finding out the hard way that they cannot have the EU without the Roma. The French now want to join the Italians and say ‘arrivederci Roma’. Well, they cannot. It is better to join with the UK Independence Party and say ‘goodbye European Union’.

  Corneliu Vadim Tudor (NI). – (RO) If Europe’s states have a common denominator, it is not currency, the economy or even civilisation; their common denominator is the gypsies.

As a historian and sociologist, I am going to use the word ‘gypsy’, which does not have any derogatory or degrading overtones, especially as the term ‘Roma’ is artificial and contrived. After all, exactly 125 years ago, Johann Strauss composed the operetta ‘The Gypsy Baron’, not ‘The Roma Baron’.

It is unfortunate that the lack of distinction between Roma and Romanians persists. I have found that where gypsies are concerned, racial prejudice, as well as false stereotypes and untrue accounts, still abound all over the world. There are people who call them Roma and hate them, while I call them gypsies and love them.

Neither the gypsies nor my country, Romania, are to blame for what is happening at the moment. The largest wave of gypsy migration to Europe took place in 1241, during the time of the great Mongol invasion. They were brought to Europe as skilled craftsmen serving in the auxiliary troops.

The fact that, after such a long time, there are more gypsies in Romania than in the rest of Europe is due to successive waves of expulsions and persecution, which took place over 500 years, in most of the countries of the ‘Old Continent’. Romania is now being pilloried because it has been too tolerant and hospitable.

The mass expulsion of gypsies is not a solution. It is, of course, not a pleasant experience to have your comfortable life disrupted, but when crimes are committed, the law must be enforced on a case-by-case basis rather than opting for collective sanctions.

Why does the government in Paris not expel them directly to India, their country of origin?

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Doubtlessly, the awful situation in which much of the Roma community finds itself in is an embarrassing one for Europe. Many of these people are living in a poverty trap and need to be released from it without delay. However, if there is one thing that is even more embarrassing than this, it is the political manipulation and opportunism that is being used by those who are turning this issue into a shameless political game. I believe that this is scandalous and embarrassing for Europe too, as this type of political manipulation distorts the entire issue. The real issue concerns the situation of the Roma community and how to help it get out of it. This is why the European People’s Party is working fully to ensure the drawing up of an effective strategy to help these people; one that brings the institutions and the Member States together and that directly involves the Roma. There is also the law on the freedom of movement to consider. This law confers rights as well as obligations and these must both be applied fully. Consequently, if somebody breaks the law, that person may be deported. If we, especially coming from the mainstream parties, fail to apply this law by adhering to human rights, then people, our electors, will vote for extremist and populist parties, and ask them to apply it.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to express my utter condemnation of the conduct of the French Government, which took advantage of the Roma people’s situation to turn them into scapegoats, as other governments in the European Union have previously done and are continuing to do.

Forcing people to leave the country, dawn raids in the camps, separating families, threats, destruction of people’s few possessions and expulsions: this is how the French Government used the Roma this summer, seeking to lay the blame for a climate of insecurity on them, whilst covering up its own difficulty in dealing with the country’s economic and social problems.

These assertions and this conduct are despicable and reprehensible. However, they must now provide an impetus for a decisive reaction by all those who consider that the duty to uphold rights is not simply a matter for declarations but an intangible reality that obliges us to act.

Therefore, if the European Commission really believes that it has the duty to pass judgment, it must let us know promptly, without sidetracking, whether or not the French Government has infringed EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I think I have an inkling what the answer might be.

The European Commission must implement all aspects of the action plan for integration of the Roma, as part of a cohesive approach that looks, in particular, at education, employment, welfare and health. To do this, the Commission must be committed in its policy coordination. The fight against discrimination is one of our common goals and the Commission must demonstrate strong political will on this subject. I believe this is a fit challenge for 2010 which, I would remind everybody, is the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, Vice-President Reding has certainly convinced me that she will take this question seriously, and that she is working hard on it with her colleagues.

However, like others, I am impatient to hear what the Commission’s judgment is on whether France has broken EU law or not. I hope we will hear that very soon, and whether the Commission intends to take infringement proceedings against France – and indeed any other Member States that deserve it – for breach of the Free Movement Directive.

As others have said, I accept that there are restrictions on residence rights under the Free Movement Directive, and indeed under the – regrettable – transitional arrangements for accession, but we want to hear from the Commission precisely whether these have been breached.

One aspect that has not been mentioned elsewhere – and this is a very sensitive question, and which allows the French Government to wriggle out of the question of ethnic discrimination – is that France does not collect ethnic data. So when Minister Lalouche said at a meeting I attended that one in four young people arrested in France were of Romanian nationality, he was absolving himself from saying that they were Roma.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Yes, it is the turn of France to experience an age of expulsions. These are mass expulsions based on ethnic group, which is completely contrary to EU law. In this era of ‘social-Sarkozyism’, the only question on the lips of my fellow French citizens is, ‘Today the Roma: whose turn tomorrow?’ If we are to ‘think European’, as Mr Barroso reminded us to do this morning, then the time has come to show that our European thinking is not confined to the sphere of economics.

Europe must soon face up to its past and acknowledge the genocide of gypsies. It gives me goose bumps to hear some of our members on the extreme right. At this time, if we want to ensure that our minorities are treated with respect, uphold our values and abide by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is included in the Treaty of Lisbon, there is only one choice open to you, and that is to condemn France.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) The Roma problem is huge in Bulgaria. The hundreds of thousands of Roma who live in Bulgaria are deliberately kept in a state of poverty by the gypsy barons. These barons have the opportunity to become heads of huge organised criminal gangs at the expense of other Roma’s misery. Any Bulgarian citizen who becomes a victim of Roma crime suffers from this.

Prior to Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, much criticism was levelled at our fairly meagre opportunities for integration, dictated by the weak economy. However, what do we see today? Mighty France, a founding country and leading economy in the EU, is unable to cope with integrating even a few hundred Roma, let alone the destitute economy of Bulgaria, where hundreds of thousands of them live. The French Government’s actions benefit no one, especially not the European Union. The expulsions highlight the application of double standards not only to Roma, but to all Bulgarian citizens, which also causes deep disappointment. Bulgarians and Attack, as a conservative party, expect a show of solidarity when resolving these problems. The pan-European action plan announced by Mr Barroso is essential because the problem is already pan-European.

Thank you.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – (RO) Discrimination and collective expulsions are prohibited. This is the law we all support, no matter which political group we belong to. The Commission must present immediately, in a clear and public manner, a review of each case and indicate who bears responsibility and the measures to be taken.

Any general association between the Roma ethnic group and crime leads to racism and discrimination. Criminal liability is individual and is confirmed on the basis of evidence and procedures.

However, I would like us to highlight honestly everyone’s responsibility, including the responsibility of the Romanian authorities and of politicians from every political party for what they have done, and failed to do, during the last 20 years for this ethnic minority. Incidentally, for those of you who are unaware, I am a Romanian citizen.

We must join forces now, as Member States and European institutions, and implement the Roma strategy, no matter where these people are.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). – Mr President, the critical issues for this Parliament are the core issues of poverty and social exclusion of the Roma, and we will take our responsibilities seriously. But no one is in any doubt that the reason we are here today in this Chamber, and that the Commissioners are here present with the Council, is to find out what the Commission, the guardian of the treaties, thinks of the French collective action – as Mrs Reding said – against the Roma.

Now if it is the case that she wishes to delay and tell us at a later stage, that is fine. But we are here to understand, Commissioner, not just whether you will enforce your decision, but what that decision is. If there is a weak and confused response as to whether there has been collective punishment – the words that you used – or whether there has been action on a case-by-case basis, which is required under the EU free movement directives, then we need to know this. We look to you for that answer.

When we have that answer, we will be in a position where we understand that other countries may not use as a precedent the collective punishment of an ethnic minority, one of the biggest in the European Union. This is a critical factor for us today and I ask you to be more specific, to be a guardian of the treaties. Only then can we move on to the Roma strategy, which everyone in this Parliament seems to want to have, which is to cure the core problems that lead to the export of poverty and social exclusion issues across the EU.

But today, we are talking about expulsions. We believe they are illegal and we believe you have delivered a weak and confused response. Be more specific. Be a guardian of the treaties.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) I think this debate can be of use on two conditions: one, if it leads to improvements in a population’s living conditions, in other words, those of 10 million Roma who are currently in an extremely vulnerable situation, and two, if it leads us all to face up to our responsibilities. Personally, I believe we all need to put our own houses in order, starting with the countries of origin. They need to implement more effective integration policies, as the Roma are all too often rejected and marginalised in these countries. This has to change. The host countries also – and I am thinking about Italy in the past or my own country, France, now – where political leaders have too often given the impression of pointing the finger, stigmatising an entire community and using the Roma as easy scapegoats for fears and mistrust in general. This is unacceptable. The European Union cannot tolerate any discriminatory policy – the European Union which failed to gauge the scale of this issue at the time of enlargement. The billions that have been spent have done nothing to improve the day-to-day situation of the Roma. We need to make up for lost time and introduce a wide-reaching integration action plan involving the Commission, the Member States and local authorities, which all too often take on the job of central government in welcoming the Roma. Thank you.

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – (BG) First of all, I wish to call on fellow Members to resist the temptation to use the debate on the topic ‘Situation of the Roma people in Europe’ to achieve short-term political objectives and target attacks against any particular government in Europe. It is not appropriate to oppose this topic on party grounds. I have not heard any concrete proposals, only attacks from the left. A long-term strategy is what we need for integrating this minority. I expect, of course, Member States to observe European legislation and guarantee the full application of free movement of the European Union’s citizens by complying with the statutory regulations and administrative requirements which are valid in every Member State. This also includes equal rights and obligations – let me strongly emphasise the word ‘obligations’ – for every single EU citizen.

An individual approach is required. It cannot be generic and allow whole peoples or groups to be censured or stigmatised because of their ethnic origin or any other minority trait. Roma integration is not an issue which concerns only one Member State on whose territory this minority has become settled over the years. This is a pan-European issue to which we need, as such, a pan-European solution.

We need a strategy drawn up by the European institutions and European Union Member States, representatives of the Roma community and civil society. However, to ensure that this strategy does not remain just words on a piece of paper, it must be successfully put into practice, which also requires a desire for this on both sides: from both the minority and majority. We must unite on the basis of our common values of tolerance, freedom, security and solidarity so that we can find a balanced response to this huge challenge facing the continent.

Finally, I do not want the link with Schengen to be included directly or indirectly ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) The expulsion of the Roma from France raises questions of fundamental rights as well as of fundamental values. A great deal has been said about these today. Politically, what may be even more important is that a vulnerable, particularly poor ethnic group has been labelled and criminalised. This violates the right to freedom from discrimination and may also give rise to dangerous tendencies. President Sarkozy has already found followers. In Hungary, the extreme right-wing party, Jobbik, is already talking about revoking the citizenship of Hungarian Roma and locking the Roma up in camps. The Jobbik MEP is talking about public security settlements and forced integration.

Over the summer, the Commission took slow and uncertain, ineffectual steps. I now have a few questions. What does the Commission intend to do about the spread of this hate speech, about this intensification of exclusion on ethnic grounds which is increasingly poisoning Europe? When will we have an all-encompassing European Roma strategy, which could prevent countries from passing the problem on to each other, and what does the Commission plan to do to monitor the expenditure of EU funds in order to ensure that they are effectively improving the situation of the Roma?

  Luigi de Magistris (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I find President Sarkozy’s decision to be very serious: once again, in an effort to conceal internal political problems – as has already happened in Italy – he is attempting to regain support by criminalising outsiders and migrants, playing on people’s anxieties over social safety.

Before Europe becomes the Europe of markets, it must be the Europe of rights, the Europe of solidarity and the Europe of inclusion. This is why President Sarkozy’s statement was immediately followed by the very serious statement by the Italian Minister for the Interior, who wishes to adopt the Sarkozy method and extend it to EU citizens, expelling them without incomes or homes.

Therefore, rather than promoting inclusion policies, policies that reduce social inequalities and seek to unite people, the aim is once again to criminalise people. This is very serious because migrants, outsiders, those who are considered to be on the fringes of society are useful when they are needed, for example, for illegal work; in other words, when they have duties to perform but no rights. If an outsider, a Roma or a migrant commits a crime, he is punished, but this must not be a pretext for justifying very serious expulsions.

The Commission must react if it wants a Europe of solidarity, equality and freedom.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as I have already said this morning in another debate, I would like us to help one another to take the things we are saying seriously.

If it is true – as claimed by our socialist and liberal colleagues – that the behaviour of the French Government is anti-democratic, and if it is true that the Commission – in the words of Mr Swoboda – is weak or even colludes with this behaviour, why was Mr Swoboda backed by Commission Members from the socialist and liberal families? Furthermore, why do these Commissioners not resign, forcing the Commission and the governments to face up to their responsibilities?

If, on the other hand, it is all propaganda, then it is propaganda carried out with the very aim of not tackling the heart of the problem, because the heart of the problem and primary strategy is that people are at the centre of everything. Citizens from the Roma ethnic group are people, our poor are people, because integration difficulties are focused in marginal quarters and affect the poorest strata of the population; all these people need firm rules.

What should we call for, what did the French Government call for? To apply the European Union directives that we voted for in Parliament, to provide firm rules so that our people have a good future.

  Rita Borsellino (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the French Government’s decision to expel more than one thousand Roma is an extremely serious matter, above all, when we consider that this measure was taken for propagandist and populist reasons at a time when the French Government is far from enjoying favourable public opinion, and this is true political manipulation.

This measure undermines the principle of European citizenship first and foremost. Under Directive 2004/38/EC on freedom of movement, this principle must be restricted only in specific cases and the restriction assessed on a case-by-case basis. I do not believe that this is what happened.

As guardian of the treaties, the Commission’s job is to intervene quickly and to carefully assess conduct by Member States that is xenophobic and does not comply with EU law. I would also like to remind you that when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, the Charter of Fundamental Rights became binding and prohibits any kind of discrimination based on ethnic origin or nationality.

Today, this debate gives us the opportunity to find out what the Commission and the Council think about these measures and what action they will take in this regard, not least because, quite sincerely, I believe that the Commission’s response was a little late in coming.

I shall conclude by asking the Commission and the Council what became of the action plan for the development of a European strategy for the Roma and their integration, and how France and the other Member States are using the European money earmarked for the integration of ethnic minorities.

IN THE CHAIR: László TŐKÉS
Vice-President

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Madam Vice-President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am staggered at the hypocrisy of a number of the speeches I have just heard, and I want to say that the rule of law holds good in France. We do not have a policy of discrimination; we do not, moreover, even recognise minorities. The republic is one and indivisible. We take decisions in individual cases under the supervision of a judge, and the decisions demonstrate this. Thank you, Commissioner, for having reminded us of this. However, the French people have chosen security. France is generous with people who reside there legally. We take action against people who reside illegally, and the French people do not tolerate illegal situations. Of course, freedom of movement exists. Obviously, this freedom of movement applies on condition that individuals do not commit a breach of the peace, and that, after a period of three months, they have sufficient means at their disposal. Freedoms, however – this is Chapter II of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – cannot be understood in the absence of security. Freedom cannot exist without order, because freedom without order amounts to anarchy. Besides, in these circumstances, all the responsible local politicians call for the forces of law and order to intervene. What we must do now is to draw up a major Europe-wide programme for integration – something, moreover, that President Băsescu has called for – to combat mafia organisations and human trafficking, resolve problems in education, improve access to welfare, and ensure that the Roma are politically represented. We should warmly welcome a common solution. It would be a pity if we were not to have a common solution, merely in order to condemn France. We are missing a political opportunity, and I hope that, by Thursday, we shall have the means to find this common solution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Minister, Commissioner, thank you very much for your speeches. It is entirely clear from these speeches, however, that you have no idea what is happening in Roma settlements in the European Union and in EU Member States.

What happened in France is only the tip of the iceberg, and the decision taken by Mr Sarkozy is not the first such decision of a European statesman. Such decisions have been taken before in other countries as well. They have been taken in Great Britain and in Italy, and they will surely be taken again in the future. It is abundantly clear that the Commission has failed to respond adequately, and it is not we socialists who are making a political issue of it but actually your group, which is incapable of acknowledging that this sort of thing is unacceptable in the European Union.

Commissioner, if we really want to solve the Roma issue, we must stop uttering the empty words and phrases that we have been exchanging here for some years now. It is necessary to carry out a genuinely thorough analysis and to resolve this situation in cooperation with the Roma, and not just with the Roma intellectuals, who often have very different views on how the Roma actually live, but directly with representatives from these settlements I have been talking about.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what a lot of popular misconception about the assessments we have heard today! Assessments that are more transparent if we look at the rights: at the right not to be repatriated – on which we all agree – but also at the right of children to live and study in dignified surroundings.

If I forced my child to stay for days in his pushchair at a crossroads, exposed to the sun and rain, and I made him eat amongst the exhaust fumes of official cars, if I did this, the court would take my son away from me. If a Member State took action to address a similar situation, brought about by ethnic minority communities, a cry of racism would go up.

Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC states that anyone who is enrolled at a school to follow a course of study shall have the right of residence for a period of longer than three months. However, we cannot take children’s fingerprints. This means that we cannot identify them if one child turns up at school on one day and responds to the register and on the next day another turns up saying, ‘No, it’s me.’ At school, the register must not be taken with names but with sounds because you cannot identify them or you are racist.

The rule whereby we should respect the right not to repatriate people but not the right to a dignified life is a somewhat curious one, which we should undertake to guarantee also for the EU ethnic minorities present in our Europe.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, this morning in the debate on the state of the Union, the growing distance between European institutions and the public was highlighted. This is a political problem and, moreover, a European problem. It is therefore a demonstration that Europe is not built on the internal market and a single currency, but on the public, fundamental rights and an area of freedom, security and justice.

This means that the lack of social integration of a minority that is objectively excluded is not the problem of the country concerned, or the problem of those countries that have a high level of integration of the Roma population, such as Spain.

It is a European problem and therefore, irrespective of the legal response – which is the responsibility firstly of the Commission and ultimately of the courts of justice – there is a political procedure that is Parliament’s responsibility. Parliament must firstly say quite clearly that an expulsion targeted on an ethnic basis goes against the required European integration of citizens. Secondly, it must say that populist gestures that claim to overcome the problems of the governments of the Member States in response to opinion polls in pursuit of scapegoats go against the European Union and against the required European integration of citizens. Finally, it must say that every time there is a gesture of contempt sending the message that there are governments that do not care what the European institutions say because they believe the polls, they will have to confront Parliament, the Commission and the European institutions as a whole.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, nearly all the speakers have said that the law must be administered equally throughout the European Union, and the Commission has said that France still has some questions to answer in the case of the expulsion of Roma. My question to the Commission is as follows. Has a deadline been set for France to answer those questions; when will the Commission be saying, ‘Now is the time to give us a clear answer’? Also, following on from this, when will the Commission be able to adopt a clear position?

Then there is the aspect of the large amount of funds being spent on Roma integration. The Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion gave a number of examples, one of which was, if I understood correctly, a successful dialogue with the Roma in Hungary. As I see it, a dialogue need not cost so much money. Are there no better examples of successful integration projects than the dialogue that has been started in Hungary?

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Reding, in the year that I have been an MEP, I have got to know you as a Commissioner who takes action against discrimination in many areas and, up to now, I had thought that it was right for you to be Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. However, your speech today, your statements over the last few weeks and the hesitant way that you are dealing with what has happened in France – the mass deportation of Roma – have disappointed me greatly. In this regard, I agree with many people who consider this to be scandalous.

On the one hand, you state that the French Government has told you that there was no targeted action in which fundamental rights were violated, then, on the other hand, you later say that you want to make sure that France is also complying with European law. That means then that France has contravened European law in this regard. Why do you not say that plainly and simply?

I expect you to use the same clarity that the Commission always uses to defend market freedom – as has already been said – to also defend the freedom of establishment and the freedom of movement of all European citizens and not simply to take this lying down.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) The countries of Eastern Europe, in which there are large Roma minorities, are often criticised for their inadequate care of the Roma. However, this general criticism is not followed up with any concrete proposals describing possible ways to integrate the Roma into the majority society in a civilised and cultured way.

The current deportation of hundreds of Roma from France to their countries of origin shows that the way of life of the immigrant Roma families, their scale of values, and their relationship with the majority society, are not understood even in a country which has a wealth of experience in integrating immigrants from virtually the whole world.

I do not want to pass judgment on the decision of the French Government. However, I know that it will not solve the problem of the Roma. It might be a starting mechanism, though, for a new common process in the European Union and the Member States towards a comprehensive and intensive solution to this problem. The European Union should take a leading role in this, however, as the individual states are more or less approaching this problem with a certain dose of egotism.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, attempts are being made to accuse President Sarkozy of political actionism in order to deflect attention away from French problems, but this unfortunate deportation of Roma is evidence of major problems. In hundreds of settlements, the Roma live shut away in a parallel world and they often descend into crime. That, of course, creates anxiety and fear for the people living in the surrounding area.

We must not forget the incident that led to the current situation. The cause was, after all, an attack on French police officers by 50 masked Roma people. The freedom of movement enjoyed by EU citizens must not be used as an excuse. I would also like consideration to be given to the fact that Romania, in particular, has a generous naturalisation policy and the Roma, in particular, but also members of the Moldovan mafia, are very generously supplied with passports.

It is, of course, unacceptable for us, on the one hand, to want unrestricted freedom of movement within the EU – a mobility that has been called for many times today – while, on the other, passports and citizenships are given away liberally, so encouraging an uncontrolled influx into Europe.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is not the first time that we have held debates about the Roma. There are many good intentions, but the results are frankly unsatisfactory. We are, of course, all largely responsible; we can say in this case that he who is without sin should cast the first stone as far as the integration of the Roma is concerned.

I would nevertheless like to thank the Commission for the new policies it has outlined today; I would have liked an in-depth debate on these topics, but this was not possible. We have witnessed the usual performance, and what annoys me most is the fact that the Roma are being used as ideological pawns for political purposes, as the Left is using them today; the same Left that has governed for years at national and local level and allowed the Roma to carry on living in indecent shanty towns where the children are forced to beg and not go to school, and so on.

Therefore, Mr Swoboda, when the Left was in power, there was no sense of outrage; I did not hear any words of indignation when these things happened. I would like to appeal to the President: next time, let us hold a real debate on policies, programmes and facts.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) I have seen the actions and statements used to stigmatise an ethnic group. I have also seen the statements that create a negative image of a state or people, something which runs contrary to the European spirit and principles and creates populist and xenophobic attitudes that undermine EU principles.

We cannot allow prejudice to be used against Roma for political ends. We cannot accept the presence of first-class and second-class citizens in the European Union. The aim of EU-level coordination must be to improve the Roma’s situation and not to restrict the rights of citizens.

The 12 million Roma, gypsies, travellers or Romanies, as they are called in their countries of origin, are a common problem requiring common solutions. I find it unacceptable to make any connection between the Roma issue and matters relating to the Schengen visa or accession for Romania and Bulgaria.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – (PT) It was a little embarrassing to see the President of the Commission ducking the issue this morning, but I must say that this afternoon, it has become ridiculous. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights comes to see us and the first thing that she talks about is crime? Mrs Lulling, your portfolio is ‘Fundamental Rights’ and I have been a great advocate of its existence and of the energy with which you have dedicated yourself to it, but I do not recognise you in this role at the moment, Commissioner.

However, while we are talking here, the fundamental rights of European citizens – the right to freedom of movement, and also the right to non-discrimination – are being violated. It is the spirit of the treaties that is being violated and the very history of this Union that is being disrespected; not just the distant history of the Second World War, but also that of the 1990s.

Let us recall what we all told Romania and Bulgaria when they wanted to join the European Union. We said that if they did not persecute minorities, if they did not carry out ethnic cleansing, if they behaved themselves in human rights terms, they could join the European Union. They joined, only to then see that the more powerful countries at the centre of the European Union can, without any problems and without the Commission taking any notice, do the things that we told Romania and Bulgaria that they could not do before joining the European Union.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, a lot has been said and there have been a lot of polemics. I shall not answer in the same way, because we have to calm down and look at what we are here for – namely to solve the problems and not to create more problems. One concrete question which was asked was: Who was at the Córdoba Summit with the representatives of the Roma? The answer is László Andor and myself, two Spanish Ministers, a French State Secretary and a Finnish Minister. That was all, from the 27 governments.

If you look at the papers that are available on who spends what for the Roma population, then you will understand that, in the main, our governments are not utilising funds to invest in a better life for the Roma population, though I will leave my colleague, László Andor, to speak on this.

I will take up on the intervention by Mr Swoboda, because its tone was the same as that used by many Members of the European Parliament. I am astonished, because we share the same values and the same principles, and when I look at the resolution by the Socialist Party, it copies word for word what I said in the name of the Commission in August. I will quote what I said then: ‘I regret that ... the rhetoric that has been used in some Member States in the past weeks has been openly discriminatory and partly inflammatory. The situation of the Roma is a serious matter. It should be on the agenda not just in August, but throughout the year, and it should be treated carefully and responsibly by policy makers. National decision makers have an important role to play to ensure both public order and the social integration of all Europeans who choose to live within their territory. Because Europe is not just a common market – it is, at the same time, a Community of values and fundamental rights. The European Commission will watch over this.’

So that was the official declaration by the Commission. However, the Commission refuses to look at the Roma question in black and white, and to make a party political issue of this.

Like you, I condemned very clearly the rhetoric which has been utilised, not only in France, but in many other Member States too. Like you, I believe that freedom of movement is one of the basic freedoms of our European Union. The whole Commission supports this.

However, there are not only rights. There are also obligations, and the Commission has the obligation to balance those rights and obligations, which were not put on the table by us, but which this House decided on in 2004, expressing the interests of the voters. In order to have this balance between rights and obligations put into practice, we have been in contact on a daily basis with the French authorities. We have made this clear, and that is why the Ministers came to Brussels to have a very frank and very clear discussion with the Commission. I have told you what the ministers told the Commission.

At the same time, our legal services are continuing to analyse what the facts are on the ground, because we cannot just declare war on a Member State. There are rules for analysing what a Member State has done, and I told you very clearly that this analysis has not yet finished and that we do not yet have all the proof of whether there was discrimination or not or whether the procedural guarantees were applied, following a case-by-case assessment, with a justified decision in writing and a one month period in which to leave.

All this is still under analysis. We know – and these are hard facts – that France has not implemented the 2004 directive on free movement as regards procedural guarantees, and it is precisely those procedural guarantees that we are speaking about, so the Commission has taken the dossier in hand. That is why today, I sent a letter in the name of the Commission to the French authorities on this exact question. You can be assured that if there is legal evidence concerning France or any country – and you know from the past that ‘big’ countries too can receive accusations from me and that I normally win these before the Court – I will act. But in order to win before the Court, one has to have serious grounds; you cannot just make party political declarations. The Commission is a serious organisation which has to stick to the rules and that is exactly what the Commission does and what it continues to do.

I regret one thing. Let us forget about the party political excitement, as that is normal in politics. I regret that we have actually spoken very little about the fate of the Roma, when that is what we are here for.

We have had the communication and the action plan. We have the Roma platforms. We have all the measures in our hands. Why are those measures not applied? There is the poverty trap and the issue of discrimination. You should help the Commission to push the Member States to apply those measures. The money is available, but is not being used to solve the problem.

Why is this? Well, in my personal opinion, it might be because it is not very popular in our Member States to take EU money and invest it in the Roma community. I hope I am wrong, and that with the five actions I have proposed, things will change in the future. I count on Parliament to help me move in this direction because alone, with the help of Mr Andor, I will not manage to get that done.

I need your help, but not for party polemics. I need your help to take concrete action to solve and overcome the problems.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, we have just been debating a very important subject. Yet, more than 20 fellow Members have not been given the opportunity to have their say on this issue. I therefore propose that, in the near future, the President should have an opportunity to change the order of business and extend the debates, so that all fellow Members have an opportunity to take part in such an important debate as this.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – Mr President, I will be very brief. First, Commissioner, we had a debate on Roma issues some months ago. Parliament had been pushing for that debate.

Secondly, I am not fully satisfied, but what you said in your response just now was much stronger and clearer than what you said at the beginning of the debate.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as in the past, I will also always be available in the future for discussing Roma issues.

Let me concentrate my part of the answer on a few key points. At the beginning of this year, soon after this Commission entered office, my first official visit was to Paris at the opening conference of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. I was really impressed with the atmosphere and with the very sincere intention of NGOs and government officials to tackle poverty and work together for what we later formulated as Europe 2020 objectives.

It should go without saying that the events of the last two months were not what we envisaged or encouraged in February in Paris. This is a disappointment for many of us and I understand that part of this House which is very critical of these developments.

However, even if we understand the very complex nature of these issues, I think we should turn our attention to the much more scandalous situation that exists in the countries of origin of the Roma people who now face very difficult situations since France and other countries have decided to expel them. We are speaking about ten million people, many of them living in impossible situations.

It is not true, as I heard in one of the statements today, that these people were never integrated. It is not true that the Roma are culturally – or for any other reason – unable to integrate with mainstream societies. I have to state here that, although again it is a complex issue, before 1989, most of the Roma people had jobs. They were very often poor and held unskilled jobs, but they were integrated to a certain degree in the labour market and had a basic level of livelihood.

We have to make it very clear that the economic transition was also a disruption. The Roma clearly became the main victims of this transitional period. If we do not appreciate, this we will fail to understand the origin of the problem today and fail to appreciate how great the efforts needed are. These have to be European efforts because the countries affected do not have sufficient resources, energy and commitment to tackle the problems alone.

I would like to reject categorically the assumption – or accusation – that the Commission has only noticed now that some of this money – the Social Fund and the structural funds – does not reach the targets and does not deliver.

We discussed this very frankly in Córdoba with the involvement of George Soros. We discussed it in the parliamentary conference chaired by Mr Swoboda; and there are other meetings which are destined to tackle this. The two-day ESF conference in June also gave attention to this matter, as has the conference currently taking place in Budapest. Similar conferences are scheduled for Bulgaria and Slovakia next year. The main one, in which President Băsescu is also expected to participate, will take place in October in Bucharest and it will exclusively focus on how the European funds could be better used to tackle these problems.

We have been very active, together with Parliament, in establishing the new micro-finance facility. One of the key arguments for the micro-finance facility was the fact that marginalised communities – and particularly the Roma – are not reached sufficiently and assisted by the mainstream financial sector or even by the European funding facilities.

But we need to have a long-term strategy. Nobody should believe that there is a silver bullet – some kind of quick fix to this problem – and that it is just a matter of finding a quick solution. We have to have a long-term strategy. We have a long-term strategy, namely Europe 2020 with a strong commitment to combating poverty and numerical targets. The Member States are working on their own reform programmes. It will simply not be acceptable if, in the countries where Roma live in high numbers, a strong commitment is not made in the poverty reduction programme for the Roma communities in terms of employment and, equally importantly, education.

Early childhood education is key. Commissioner Vassiliou is with us in spirit in all these discussions, and will also participate in the taskforce suggested by Viviane Reding when it comes into force. It starts with early childhood education and continues with a proper preparation for participating in the labour market. But it really is an uphill struggle and it will take a lot of energy.

However, I would agree with all those who emphasise that we should also take the immediate situation seriously and not only speak about the long-term plans for integration. Indeed, there is a risk of rising racism and xenophobia. As the President said in his speech this morning, these have absolutely no place in the European Union.

  President. – Finally, allow me to announce a subjective comment. Since I am chairing this session, I have been unable to contribute to the discussion of this topic, but I submitted my own comment in writing, as I consider this matter to be of great importance.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, just a few quick words to conclude this debate, which has certainly been extremely interesting. I should like to say that this debate will have been useful if, in the future, it helps us to make progress on the Roma integration issue. I think that it is this, above all, that we must take away from this early afternoon session. As I have just said, this issue regularly features in the conclusions reached by the various Council configurations, including the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO); all of these conclusions are aimed at promoting the integration of the Roma people in the Member States. Reading through the various Council papers, one can gauge how often the Council regularly addresses this issue and speaks out against the stigmatisation of an ethnic group. The Belgian Presidency has, moreover, made the point recently that integration remains one of the founding principles of the European Union and that this issue deserves to be debated in the appropriate forums. To be sure, this debate must involve all the countries concerned, and with the equanimity that is essential. We have obviously taken good note of the Commission’s recent decisions and of the request for a joint EPSCO-Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) to be convened. That said, I shall make no further comment on the appropriateness of this request. I should like simply to say that the EPSCO Council has anyway partly anticipated this request, as the Roma integration issue has been put on the agenda for its next meeting, which will take place on 21 October.

  President. – I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 9 September 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I firmly believe that the problems facing the Roma cannot be resolved using drastic measures. We need to take action responsibly and involve all European states in this process, no matter how hard this effort might seem. Roma are European citizens and must enjoy all the fundamental rights guaranteed by European legislation: the right to establish a residence and the freedom of movement. The violation of these rights in France creates a dangerous precedent and may have adverse long-term effects. I believe that it is our duty to avoid incriminating and, especially, criminalising a particular group of immigrants, especially as the Roma repatriated voluntarily did not have criminal records. I also believe that the solution is not to expel Roma citizens from one region of Europe to another or, even worse, to carry out collective expulsions. We need to take joint European action to integrate this minority and devise a European Roma strategy. The priority areas of this strategy will have to be education, health and facilitating access to the labour market. It is vital for us to find together concrete solutions supporting social inclusion for Roma and not to allow, in any way, the representatives of this community to feel marginalised.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I wish to stress that the expulsions of Roma citizens carried out by the French authorities do not necessarily contravene the treaty. The issue must be examined on a case-by-case basis because European citizens do not have an unconditional right to freedom of movement, but exercise this right in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2004/38, which clearly sets out the conditions for their stay. Moreover, EU citizens can be expelled for reasons of security, public order and public health. The issue of whether these measures are unlawful only arises if Roma who are resident legally have been expelled. On the other hand, Roma, like other European citizens, have both rights and obligations. The solution is to devise an effective, coherent European strategy supporting Roma social inclusion to enable them to fulfil their obligations as citizens. Another key aspect is to eradicate discrimination by changing people’s perception about Roma. Neither France nor the other Member States should leave Romania to shoulder the entire responsibility for sorting out the Roma’s situation. The media distortion in France and the attempt to capitalise on the expulsions for electoral purposes are totally unhelpful. We need to demonstrate solidarity and responsibility in dealing with this sensitive issue. Indeed, our ability to achieve this is a test for the values declared by the EU over the years.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I utterly condemn the human rights violation committed by the French Government by the collective expulsion of Roma. Unfortunately, this model of extremist populist behaviour promoted by Silvio Berlusconi also operates in a country which likes to declare that it is the home of human rights. At the same time, I must point out to the European Commission that its passive stance towards France’s violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 27 and 30 of Directive 2004/38 indicate its complicity in perpetuating and exacerbating the discrimination against Europe’s largest minority. The Roma’s situation is getting worse, due both to a lack of a coordinated European integration policy and to extremist exploits which compromise European values. Consequently, I call for firm intervention from the Commission to put an end to the collective expulsions, in accordance with the powers granted to it under Article 258 of the consolidated EU Treaty. Otherwise, we run the risk of this undemocratic, shameful behaviour spreading, as indicated by the statements made by representatives of the Finnish Government and by feedback from yesterday’s informal ministerial meeting in Paris.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) It is clear to everyone that the freedom of movement within the EU is a fundamental right guaranteed to European citizens. Another crucial right is not to be the target of actions triggered by being of a particular gender or racial, ethnic or social group, or by speaking a particular language, professing a religion or having certain political convictions. This is why I would like to emphasise that the attempt to associate the issue of social integration of certain EU citizens with Romania’s or Bulgaria’s process of accession to the Schengen area is unjustified and unfair. Responsibility for the Roma’s social integration does not only lie with Romania, Bulgaria or France, but with Europe. For this reason, I believe that the Roma’s integration must be a priority for the EU and that common solutions need to be identified by Member States along with the European Commission.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Parliament resolution on the Roma expulsions from France is a necessary act in the battle against the abuses committed by right-wing governments. This is a resolution which we are using to call for respect for a fundamental right enjoyed by the European Union’s citizens, the right of free movement and access to the labour market.

While the French authorities claim that the Roma repatriation was carried out voluntarily, there are countless statements available to prove the contrary. The decisions made by the French Government demonstrate its inability to handle such a situation. From a political perspective, the current French Government is creating a scapegoat on the back of which it is hoping to grab some political capital. France needs to rethink its attitude towards immigrants, regardless of their nationality or ethnic origin.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The situation of Roma citizens who commit crimes in EU states must be dealt with without any generalised prejudice and stereotypes, especially based on unacceptable criteria, such as ethnic origin, or without a collective approach. In relation to the situation of the Roma communities, the European Commission must ask Member States to provide specific measures for helping to resolve their problems, as identified at national level in each state, in partnership with their representative structures. Moreover, the Commission can encourage such approaches by allocating additional resources from budget lines which have remained unused. The issue of social integration of European Union citizens has nothing to do with and does not come under the remit of the Schengen acquis. Schengen is a common area of free movement and Romania meets the requirements of the Community acquis applicable to areas such as police cooperation, personal data protection, visas and maritime and land border control, which has been confirmed by every expert evaluation. Consequently, Romania has already proven that it 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.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) All European citizens must abide by national and European laws. Roma are European citizens. All Member States must abide by their own and EU laws. The EU has 27 Member States. The reality is that Roma pose a specific problem. This is not down to circumstances where they face discrimination, but to their social circumstances. It is a situation dictated by the economic situation in general, but especially by aspects of their own tradition: nomadism and a low education level, resulting in a lack of professional qualifications. If we really want to resolve this specific problem, we need to devise and enforce a European policy which is implemented by all Member States. This policy must be based primarily on education. Education can offer job opportunities, which will make a significant contribution to Roma social integration.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, the situation of the Roma minority in Europe is really critical. Members of this group are often victims of attacks and even ethnic cleansing. I would like to add my voice to criticism of the recent steps taken by the French Government, which has expelled several hundred of these citizens of the Union, and threatened them with various breaches of the law. However, the fact of the matter is that we do not know of any other mass expulsion of people who were accused of similar breaches of the law. The events in France may therefore be characterised as ethnic cleansing. My question is: who next? Will it be citizens from other minorities or immigrants? We are standing on very thin ice in the EU. We have tolerated such measures in the past in the case of other Member States, namely Great Britain and Italy, and here they are again. We must unequivocally distance ourselves from such measures, and severely punish countries which pursue them. Through measures of this sort, we will create two tiers of equality, and the Roma will end up on the lower level. We must find solutions to the current situation. In my opinion, we should invest more in education for this community, as that is the only way. It may be too late to save the current generation, but perhaps we can save future generations.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We need to start a serious debate with the aim of finding a European solution for a problem that affects many of our States. Yet this debate must be tackled in a constructive manner, avoiding pretentious posturing or crowd-pleasing.

Yet again, the European Left has shown itself to be blind in the face of an emergency such as that of the Roma, which it has not wished to and not known how to tackle. It is using this problem to fan the flames, turning the emergency into a tool purely for propaganda purposes.

I have always promoted a society of inclusion and acceptance, and this is precisely why all those who wish to form part of and integrate into a society, a nation, must respect certain rules. The socialist, Tony Blair, stated that immigration and fusion of cultures have always represented a form of enrichment, but people who arrive in another State are faced with a system of values. And those values must be observed by all. That is why, leaving aside any cultural or religious differences, there are certain shared principles of the rule of law that are part of our collective legacy and must be accepted by all.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – (FI) The European Union’s fundamental values include a respect for human dignity, tolerance and openness. Furthermore, the free movement of persons is one of its supporting pillars. With the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding, adding weight to the Union’s human rights dimension. The situation regarding Europe’s Roma shows that matters of equality on an everyday basis and the implementation of fundamental rights still leave a lot to be desired. As far as the legal instruments available at European level are concerned, the problem is that, apart from anything else and despite the legally binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Commission is unable to interfere in issues that do not, at least for now, fall within its competence. The Equality Directive, which prohibits any kind of discrimination, and progress on which is being held up by the Council, is, I think, one of the most important tools to combat discrimination against the Roma and many other Europeans. There are many vulnerable groups, including older people and sexual minorities. It is important to ensure that the directive has horizontal coverage, to ban both active and passive discrimination on all grounds, with no loopholes or exceptions. There is no place for discrimination in civilised European society, with its respect for human rights and equality, and each of us should have an equal chance to participate in it. Fundamental rights need to be implemented right away, and not in five or ten years’ time.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Roma are not only the largest minority, but also the most marginalised community in the European Union. Their lot will not be improved if the dispute between left and right is going to shift from national to European level and if it is going to generate greater social intolerance, rather than more political responsibility. Roma need inclusion policies at national level, no matter which country they live in, and European intervention when the national level is inadequate, as is the case when dealing with migrant communities. On the other hand, the expertise of certain NGOs in Romania or Bulgaria, in France or in Spain, should provide models of best practice for government or EU agencies.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I wish to add my voice to those which have condemned the unacceptable measures taken by the French Government against Roma. The Roma population is the largest ethnic minority in the European Union. We are talking about 10 or 12 million people, more than the population of Belgium. Roma’s problems are not the problems of any particular state: they are the European Union’s problems. As long as we fail to understand and take this point on board, any measure adopted will end in failure. The issue of Roma integration is not resolved either through forced expulsions or through violence, EUR 300 bonuses or symposiums on cultural diversity. If we continue with such methods, we will waste time and resources and the problem will get worse, while the Roma population becomes increasingly poorer, more excluded and inclined towards crime. We must stop brutal approaches and look seriously at the causes of their behaviour, which means at their precarious circumstances in terms of education and healthcare, blocked access to the labour market, discrimination and ineffective crime control. A clear strategy for integrating these people into society must strive to achieve concrete long-term results. We must take these measures together, without passing the buck indefinitely from one state to another.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Roma, or Gypsies, as they were once called, are as worthy of respect as all other ethnic groups. They are a people who have been present in Europe for centuries. The Roma have brought the riches of their culture, too, to European culture, and this is how they should be perceived – with their poetry, song and music, with their knowledge of crafts and with their tradition of travelling and endless wandering. Attempts have been made to exterminate them, while others have tried to force them to settle down, to teach them to give up their customs and to make them renounce their traditions and values. They have not yielded – the Roma are still with us. However, the world is changing. Today, their own world is radically different from the one which surrounds them – a world of a career at all costs, of consumption, getting rich and success. This situation is a challenge for all of us, for all of Europe. The European Union must develop an effective programme of support for the people in this community, so that while respecting their traditions, we allow them to break out of their isolation and exclusion. The European Union was not founded just for people to live in peace and get rich. It also has to deal with the most difficult challenges. I do not believe, either, that any Member State of the European Union is not able to bring the real perpetrators of crimes to justice instead of being satisfied merely with a general suspicion of any group that they have criminal tendencies.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The situation of the Roma in Europe is a problem that especially concerns me, not as a French MEP, but as a European citizen. The great majority of Roma are European citizens. As such, they fully benefit from the freedom of movement and the right of residence provided under the treaties and Directive 2004/38/EC.

This right, however, like all rights, is linked to obligations. Moreover, the law, in all its dimensions, must be respected by everyone. There are currently estimated to be 11 million Roma in Europe. This is clearly an issue for the whole of Europe, and my group is the only one, yet again, to show that it has really given some thought to this issue, by contributing to this debate in a constructive manner.

We must, for example, consider how best to mobilise European funds so as to improve the conditions for integrating Roma into their country of origin. We must equally put a real strategy for the Roma into action at European level, and involve the Roma community in its development, implementation and follow-up.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) In the past few weeks, events in France have shown, on the one hand, that an oversimplification of the problem cannot lead to a lasting solution that improves the situation of those concerned. The Roma are a special minority group in so far as they have a double minority status. They form an ethnic community, and most of them belong to the socially disadvantaged groups of society. Today, the Roma are still victims of discrimination, marginalisation and segregation in numerous areas of public and private life. The Roma community is still not a recognised national or ethnic minority group in every Member State, and thus it does not enjoy the rights pertaining to this status in all of the countries concerned. As a result, their ability to participate fully in public life is limited and, in many cases, can only be realised on a voluntary basis. The majority society and the Roma share the social responsibility for the integration of Roma communities in an asymmetrical measure The majority society must accept the Roma without assimilation, and support them as a disadvantaged social group. On the other hand, the Roma must accept the rules governing society as a whole, and should take more initiative in solving their own problems. Another lesson from the events in France is that social integration of Roma communities cannot be carried out solely at a national level. In addition to the local, regional and national level, Member States must cooperate at EU level as well. Substantial resources should be made available for this task in the post-2013 budget cycle from the EU’s Structural and Cohesion Funds.

  László Tőkés (PPE) , in writing. – (HU) Day after day, we are witnessing sharp attacks on France’s policies and strict measures against the Romanian and Bulgarian Roma. Among the Socialists and Liberals, some are calling President Nicolas Sarkozy a populist, a xenophobe and a racist, using for their own party political ends, the misfortune of the gypsies streaming into Western Europe. Unfortunately, the problem of the expelled Roma has been excessively politicised. Overemphasising the principle of free movement within the European Union in a one-sided manner, many people tend to forget that the issue of the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe cannot be resolved through emigration or a continent-wide ‘nomadisation’; rather, their situation can only be satisfactorily settled in their home countries, by the Member States, and with the collaboration of the EU.

Some people, moved by purely propagandistic goals, also forget that the freedom of movement cannot be an end in itself. On the contrary: the right to remain in one’s home country and have a decent human life is a fundamental universal and European value, to which Europe’s largest ethnic and social minority is also entitled. We must therefore strive to ensure that all citizens of the European Union feel at home in their own country and – as a result – are not forced to seek their fortune abroad. The best response to the falsely democratic defenders of the Roma, whose behaviour borders on the politically cynical, may be with the words of the Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel: After all, the Roma are not being sent to Auschwitz, but only to Romania.

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE), in writing. – There are two ways to deal with the Roma question. One is to join our socialist and liberal colleagues in saying: We are all racists now! But this would only benefit the moral posturing of the left. It would not be of any help to the Roma people.

The other way is to deal honestly with the real problem. We should admit that the right to safety and the right to free movement are of equal importance. Furthermore, instead of linking the Roma problem with Romania’s accession to Schengen, we should understand that Romania did a lot to facilitate Roma education and integration. The Romanian experience should be built upon – in cooperation with other European states – because the Roma problem is not a national problem, but a pan-European reality that requires a pan-European policy.

(1) See Minutes

12. Humanitarian situation after the floods in Pakistan (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission’s statement on the humanitarian situation in Pakistan since the floods.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank you for putting Pakistan on the agenda. More importantly, I would also like to thank Parliament for its active contribution so far to the EU response by organising very useful meetings at committee level and for having exercised your right of scrutiny very rapidly, in fact in one day, this summer. That allowed us to adopt financing decisions swiftly to ensure help could be on its way.

My aim today is to convey the impressions gained from my recent mission to Pakistan, identify the next steps in our efforts, and conclude with some lessons we can draw for the European Union.

So let me start with my impressions of Pakistan, which were dominated by the fact that this is an incredibly complex situation which is actually two disasters in one.

Up in the North, there are 3 million internally displaced people and refugees, who have had to flee from armed conflicts only to see their camps and their newly-built houses washed away and their newly-built lives destroyed. Downstream, in the fertile plains of South Pakistan, rural communities have lost not only their homes, but also their livelihoods and a large part of the economy of Pakistan on which the country relies.

Since I briefed the Development Committee, the numbers indicating the impact of this disaster have actually gone up. All in all, more than 20 million Pakistanis have been affected by the floods across the whole country. More than 12 million people are in need of immediate assistance.

(The President asked some Members to be quiet)

I know that the issue that was discussed before is a very important one for European values. As indeed is the one I am addressing now, so thank you.

In terms of numbers, just a week ago, we were talking about 8 million people being in need of immediate assistance. Now the numbers have been revised upwards to 12 million. More than 1.8 million houses have been destroyed or damaged; this number has been revised up from 1.2 million. More than 3.4 million hectares of agricultural land are under water. There are reports of diarrhoea and cholera outbreaks. In these conditions, our aid is focusing on the obvious immediate priorities: food, clean water, sanitation, health assistance and shelter. In the face of a disaster of such massive proportions, massive international relief assistance is necessary. So let me move straight to the next point. What has the EU done, and what do we intend to do next?

Our humanitarian response has been significant. The EU, that is, the Member States and the Commission, has contributed so far a total of EUR 231 million for immediate relief assistance, with EUR 70 million coming from the Commission and the remaining EUR 161 million from the Member States. Twelve Member States have also mobilised in-kind assistance through the Union’s civil protection mechanism. This makes us the largest donor. Our contribution should be measured against the UN call for USD 460 million for immediately relief, but I must also stress that this call is going to be revised upwards and we will probably get a new appeal from the UN within a week.

Our assistance was also swift. On 30 July, it became clear that the floods were going to be devastating and our first financial decision for EUR 30 million was taken on the next day, 31 July.

We activated the European Civil Protection Mechanism, on receiving a request from the Pakistani authorities, immediately on 6 August, and we deployed a team of 18 experts to coordinate our assistance with the UN and the Pakistani authorities so it could be most effective.

This is the fist time that in-kind aid from Member States has been delivered using civil strategic airlift capacity in coordination with the EU military staff. It allowed us to provide much-needed water purification units, mobile hospitals, medicine, shelter and tents. But I am not going to hide the fact that, despite this tremendous effort, there are big challenges ahead of us.

So let me highlight four main challenges. First, the humanitarian crisis is far from over. We may not yet have even reached the peak of this crisis. We know from relief workers that, as of today, they expect in the month of September to have reached 6 million people out of the 12 million who are in need of assistance. So, in a way, the crisis is expanding faster than help can be mobilised to catch up with it. The situation may get worse before it gets better, especially in terms of epidemics.

Secondly, it is critically important, as we strive to reach as many people as possible, to target those that are most vulnerable. These include poor communities, women, especially women-led households, children, the elderly and the handicapped, because they are likely to be left out if they are not targeted consciously. So this is exactly what the Commission aims to do, working with our 26 partners.

Thirdly, bringing aid speedily is not only a matter of people’s survival. It is also a matter of preserving the stability of a country which faces significant security challenges. Popular discontent can easily grow out of desperation and therefore, we have to be absolutely determined to try to help people as quickly as possible, as much as possible.

Fourthly, important as it is to save lives today, we also need to think of recovery starting now. In terms of early recovery, there are two very important tasks. To ensure agricultural recovery when the water recedes, we have to be ready with tools and seeds and with help to farmers so they can catch up this planting season. At the same time, there is a need to rebuild the critical infrastructure that connects farmers to markets and also allows us to reach out to remote communities.

In the long term, obviously, the country is facing a major challenge of recovery. An assessment led by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, with the Commission and the UNDP, is currently ongoing to determine the long-term recovery needs. We have been working throughout very closely with High Representative and Vice-President Ashton, Commissioner Piebalgs and Commissioner De Gucht so that the European Union can come up with a comprehensive and holistic proposal as to how we can support the country’s development.

Pakistan will be on the agenda in the next Gymnich meeting and at the Friends of Democratic Pakistan meeting in Brussels on 14 and 15 October.

So let me draw some lessons for the EU. I see three. First, the Pakistani floods are only one of many reminders that the impact of climate change is profound. Looking at the resulting cost, it is very important to focus on disaster preparedness and also on rebuilding a highly vulnerable country devastated by a disaster in a way that is resilient to the risk of climate change.

Taking a cautious approach, I cannot claim that these floods are caused by climate change. I certainly know, however, that scientific opinion is very clear that the increased frequency and intensity of disasters is due to climate change. Secondly, in a year which saw an earthquake in Haiti, a drought in the Sahel, conflict in Sudan and now floods of major proportions in Pakistan, once again, our budgetary situation is precarious, as our own budget and the emergency aid reserve are almost depleted. Yet it is still only the beginning of September.

Because of the upward trend in the number and intensity of disasters, there is a widening gap in our humanitarian budget which must be taken into account as we prepare for the next Financial Perspective so we can match our resources to our citizens’ commitment to helping people in need.

My third point is that the EU has been on the front line since the outset of the crisis and yet, in the early days, our presence was not widely reported in the media. We have to focus very strongly, therefore, on improving not only the efficiency but also the visibility of EU disaster response instruments, as was indicated this morning in the session that you had with President Barroso. We will come up with a proposal in the next month.

Let me conclude by stating with pride, on behalf of our citizens, that Pakistan has shown that EU solidarity is not just words; it is deeds and action. We can take pride in that, because our work is not only saving lives but also upholding principles and values that are at the heart of the European project.

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Madam President, Mrs Georgieva, the floods in Pakistan are a very serious humanitarian disaster which has affected tens of millions of people. We should not try to outdo each other by reporting the numbers of victims and comparing their suffering, so I am not going to compare this disaster with others. It was an enormous tragedy. I would like to thank Mrs Georgieva for the rapid and appropriate action of the Commission. It is a pity that we did not manage to organise an extraordinary sitting of our Parliament’s Committee on Development during the summer recess. We have to remember that millions of people still need help, support and cooperation. Your priorities, Mrs Georgieva, apart from immediate aid, agriculture and transport, are, indeed, crucial. If it does not prove possible to salvage Pakistan’s agriculture, then next year, the country will suffer another humanitarian disaster – a famine. Paradoxically, there is a chance that the floods will have certain beneficial effects. For example, they might hinder the activities of extremists or make it easier to solve the refugee problem.

I welcome the fact that you plan to present an initiative to increase the effectiveness of our instruments for reacting to humanitarian disasters. I am pleased, too, that the Belgian Presidency is ready to adopt the initiative as a priority for its own Presidency. The European Parliament will certainly support such initiatives.

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, allow me to congratulate you on your commitment. You have certainly been equal to your task.

That said, there is so much still to be done, and there has been a sort of divorce between Pakistan and public opinion. The picture is confused, people do not want to donate, and this is a real problem. Attendance is very sparse today, and people sometimes say to me: ‘Oh, you know, there is no issue in Pakistan now; the water is receding.’ Well, yes, the water is receding, but we are still faced with a disaster of the highest order, just as serious as the tsunami.

There are two points that I am conscious of. The first is an improvement in our rapid response mechanism. You have done as much as you could, in terms of coordination and so on, and with the funds at your disposal. This is not at all a criticism. Nevertheless, I think that Europe has every interest in strengthening its rapid response mechanism, along similar lines to the Belgian B-Fast, and I call on the Belgian Presidency to work on this issue together with the Commission.

The second point is the problem of women. As I have already told you, Commissioner, women are frequently forgotten in conflicts and disasters. We know what the fate of Pakistani women is. We know that today, at this very moment, there are 300 000 women who will be going into labour in the coming weeks. We know that 30 000 of them will need surgical intervention, and I beg you to take targeted action on this problem.

There are local NGOs with access almost everywhere on the ground – those linked with the International Planned Parenthood Federation, for example. Look for local agreements and keep us informed. What we ask of you, Commissioner, is not accounts, but news of those women. I hope that you will be able to give us that news.

  Charles Goerens, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, at the present time, the largest lake in the world can be found in Pakistan, to quote the Oxfam representative for that country.

In fact, in view of the suffering and the misery caused by these floods, which are of a rare severity, I feel it is already appropriate to talk of an ocean of problems, sorrow, suffering and despair.

It is our collective responsibility to act. Why?

First, because the 20 million direct victims of this disaster cannot recover from it unaided. Next, our responsibility is a European Union responsibility, but it is also the responsibility of the Member States, which amounts to the same thing. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the moment has come to put an end to this artificial distinction, the reason for which no longer exists.

Europe is indeed assuming its responsibilities, and you, Commissioner, are an example of this. Europe is even doing this in an exemplary fashion. Is it not the European Union that, generally speaking, turns out to be the first provider of funds for humanitarian action? Others would be greatly inspired to increase their contribution to aiding Pakistan to emerge from the misery caused by the current floods. I am thinking in particular of the wealthy states and of the oil-rich powers in that part of the world.

Does this mean that we Europeans are perfect? No. I believe we could do even better without having to spend more. First, there is the Barnier report, which calls for the resources and instruments that the 27 could apply in a disaster to be pooled. What are we waiting for in order finally to implement the conclusions of this report?

Then there is the lack of visibility of the European Union. It is certainly not the most important aspect, but it must be put right, but not in a fit of boasting or a show of generosity. What matters, in this case, is that the European Union does everything it can to stand out in what it knows how to do best, which is to clearly assert itself as the world’s leading humanitarian actor and to excel in what is beginning to be seen as its true vocation – namely, to become a truly powerful agent of peace.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, as has been said, what is happening in Pakistan at the moment is a real tragedy and will require long-term commitment on behalf of the people of Pakistan and its democratically-elected government for some time to come.

I very much welcome the Commissioner’s response, and indeed her longer-term perspective, not least the link to climate resilience. I share the concerns she has voiced about long-term funding for such disasters. I think we would all urge the international community to intensify its response. We would certainly like to welcome India’s increased contribution to the UN fund, because that sends an important political signal.

In our view, the international community could go further. It could release more of Pakistan’s own money by taking action to relieve Pakistan’s international debt, much of which was incurred under military regimes. In 2008, Pakistan spent USD 3 billion on debt repayment: this dwarfs the international aid effort. France and Germany are important bilateral donors. I think we should look with some concern at the repayment terms that may be on offer for the loans that are currently being put forward.

I would also like to mention that I think it is important to have a similar response from within Pakistan, not least from rich landowners who could, for example, offer some sort of rent relief for poor tenant farmers who are not going to be able to pay their rent for some time to come.

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, can I first of all welcome the remarks that the Commissioner made in committee and also here today. Our response – led by the Commissioner – has indeed been commendable, both at an EU level and from the Member States acting on a bilateral basis. The UK certainly did all that it could.

It is very saddening to note that, whilst the people of Pakistan were facing this catastrophe, their President was enjoying the best and finest that Europe had to offer. Whilst he was doing that, we started to mobilise and stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Pakistan. I am very proud that we did that.

As the civil infrastructure crumbled, it was the military that had to step in. The fact that we have been working to provide the emergency relief required is very commendable. However, the emergency is still under way as we meet here today. Whilst it is ongoing, we are doing what we can, but we must start to plan our response for the medium to long term.

The unprecedented scale of the floods warrants an unprecedented international response. We must start to rebuild Pakistan, but we must do this in such a way that the people of Pakistan can be seen to be doing it, or truly unimaginable consequences might unfold. We have a development agenda, but we must also tie into this a trade-related agenda to allow the people of Pakistan to rebuild their country themselves as well.

Colleagues, I am asking really for us to be ambitious and to come forward with an EU plan – rather like the Marshal Plan which helped to rebuild parts of Europe. That is what is required. That is the scale of the challenge. Please rise to it.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the humanitarian situation in Pakistan is tragic; it is worse than the tsunami that struck Asia.

I applaud the European Commission’s decision to increase to EUR 70 million the total amount of humanitarian aid for helping the flood victims, and I welcome Mrs Georgieva’s response which, once again, was immediate.

One of the major problems is that of access to the victims, as the infrastructure has been destroyed, the victims are surrounded by water, and the security situation is very unstable. It is absolutely essential to respect the humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, independence and humanity when dispatching the aid, which must be based solely on the needs of the population.

Even if the European Union’s disaster response mechanism has worked well, the crisis in Pakistan has demonstrated anew the need to strengthen our effectiveness in terms of speed, coordination and visibility. This disaster has once again highlighted the need to create a European rapid response capability. I therefore repeat my desire to see the creation of a European civil protection force.

Commissioner, in November you are going to present a paper on reinforcing the European Union’s capacity to respond to disasters, to be followed by proposals for legislation. You therefore have the opportunity to propose ambitious solutions, and I am confident that you will do so.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). – (NL) Madam President, the EU has taken on an ample share of the aid, but its pledges – EUR 230 million from the EU and its Member States – do now need to be honoured. Pakistan must not fall victim to an unspoken distrust. Humanitarian aid is a duty, detached from politics and free from discrimination. The EU is one of the main donors, and so it is essential that we, in particular, coordinate our efforts effectively. I have a question for Commissioner Georgieva. What aspects of our coordination can be improved, and what is required – what do you require – in order to do this?

The people must be given sustained access to clean drinking water, medical care and food. Whilst the threat of renewed flooding remains, the construction of the affected regions will be fraught with difficulty. As soon as this is possible, the international community must also help the government and people of Pakistan alleviate the effects of this disaster in the long term; and, if this requires a bigger budget, we must find the scope for this.

  Louis Michel (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I should, of course, like to congratulate you, Commissioner, on the considerable work that you have done.

Thanks to you, the countries of the European Union have released EUR 230 million of emergency aid, EUR 70 million of which are European funds. As others have said, this is remarkable; it is magnificent. Your presence over there is also testament to the fact that you have genuinely tackled the problem head on.

First of all, I should like to support what has already been said here concerning the problem of women, the problem of healthcare, and the political problem, too, because the risk of driving that country into the arms of the extremists also exists. I should like to repeat – this too has been said, but unfortunately there is no other option but to say it once more – that we must swiftly put into place a European civil protection capacity. I have already had the opportunity to say this on several occasions, notably at the time of the Haiti earthquake.

The Barnier report is a perfect source of inspiration for putting such a mechanism in place. I should like to question you more specifically about your intentions concerning this matter.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Madam President, we in the Netherlands are no strangers to the fight against the water, and so I feel a strong sense of unity with the Pakistani people so severely affected by the disastrous floods. I would call on the European Union, the Member States and the international community to stand by the Pakistani people and not abandon them to the will of the Taliban.

As a Christian, I also feel a sense of unity with the Pakistani Christians. I have heard from organisations such as Open Doors International and Compass Direct News that, in several areas, Christians are being discriminated against when it comes to the distribution of food and medical assistance. I found that report shocking, and I wish to ask the Commissioner to devote attention to this too. An even more serious report was that, apparently, three foreign aid workers from a Christian organisation have now been murdered by the Pakistani Taliban. I should like to ask the Commissioner to devote particular attention to this as well and also to support the Pakistani Government, as it is that government’s job to protect domestic and foreign aid workers, and aid must never be subject to discrimination.

I should also like to hear a response to this from the Commissioner.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – Madam President, firstly, I would like to convey my sympathy to the people of Pakistan over the tragic loss of lives. I would also like to thank Commissioner Georgieva for her devoted work in making Pakistan an urgent priority on her agenda.

It took the world and the EU some time to comprehend the full scale of the disaster. Now, as we understand better the needs of the affected people, our response should be urgent and match those needs. We need to provide more financial and material assistance while ensuring that help will reach everyone, including minorities, according to their needs.

We must also not forget that Pakistan is a frontline country in the international war on extremism and terrorism. If we fail to assist them, then poverty and despair may strengthen militancy. A one-off humanitarian assistance effort will not do. It should be combined with help to rebuild the country’s infrastructure – roads, bridges, schools, etc.

We also need to take urgent measures to help Pakistan in reviving its economy and trade. Enhanced market access for Pakistani exports and new debt arrangements could turn the tide. EU Member States should seriously reconsider debt trade-off as a way to offer help in this tragedy.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D) – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, the general perception among the global public and also among ourselves is that the international community’s reaction to the humanitarian disaster in Pakistan was slow and poor. We arrived too late and with less intensity than in other humanitarian disasters of a similar magnitude.

It was also perceived that there was a degree of resistance to covering the needs established by the United Nations. Some fellow Members have referred to the resistance that there might be in our societies due to the type of political regime or the problems that there might be in Pakistan. Nevertheless, I think we have to make an effort as Members and in our societies to explain that we are helping people – human beings – who are in difficulties, rather than a particular political regime. The humanitarian action should be based on neutrality, impartiality and independence and those should be the values that guide what we do.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) An unprecedented disaster is the assessment of the floods in Pakistan.

Twenty million people have been affected. Two thousand have lost their lives, more than 1 million homes have been destroyed, while sections of the infrastructure and a large part of the agricultural land are unusable.

The European Union could not remain indifferent to this tragedy, especially as some of its Member States, including Romania, experienced the violence of the floods this summer.

I welcome the firm commitment made by the European Commission and Member States, which have released relief funds amounting to EUR 230 million. This has made the EU the biggest external donor to Pakistan.

Nevertheless, the humanitarian situation remains particularly serious, with long-term implications.

I believe that sustainable redevelopment can only be achieved through growth of this country’s economy. In this respect, the EU can contribute by opening up its markets to Pakistan.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Indeed, the European Union responded promptly to the tragedy in Pakistan, although, as you have said, this does not always have a high profile. However, your visit to the areas affected by the floods has highlighted the solidarity being shown by the European Union in response to this humanitarian disaster.

The victims of the disaster – we are talking about roughly 18 million people – are now exposed to major risks of illness. Unfortunately, the UN has received only a third of the resources requested, which is also due to the reservations shown by Member States with regard to the widespread corruption in Pakistan.

I believe that a mechanism is required to control the way in which humanitarian aid is channelled directly to the victims of the floods and not misappropriated by local feudal lords, while stepping up the humanitarian missions at the same time.

I also think that we should make concern about security measures for humanitarian workers one of our priorities, given the Islamist threats.

  Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, in Pakistan, we have witnessed devastating floods, and we must help the suffering, destitute people of this country. In this regard, what saddens me, in particular, is the fact that there are regions in Pakistan that the central government is not allowing any proper aid to reach.

Thus, for example, the region of Gilgit-Baltistan, north of Jammu and Kashmir within the Pakistani border region, has also been badly hit by heavy rainfall and its effects. According to information I have received, in Gilgit-Baltistan alone, 500 people have died and 50 000 people have been made homeless. Four bridges have been washed away and many areas of land have been completely cut off from the outside world. So far, however, aid equivalent to only around EUR 10 000 has reached Gilgit-Baltistan.

Therefore, the European Union should not just hand over its aid to the Pakistani central government but provide direct support to the non-governmental organisations that are also looking after the interests of the remote regions of Pakistan.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, when this gigantic humanitarian disaster struck Pakistan, the European Union’s reaction was more effective than on other occasions. I think all of us, here, feel a good deal of satisfaction when we look at the progress made in comparison, for example, with the help given to Haiti. I would like to call attention to two very important matters. The first concerns increasing what the Union really can do – and here I emphasise the words ‘what the Union really can do’ – in giving humanitarian aid. For example, we need to solve questions related to air transport. If such transport is not available, it is difficult to give aid effectively. The second matter is related to improving coordination of operations at EU level. The Union is making a very great effort, but the point is that the efforts made by the Union itself and by the Member States should be coordinated to a greater degree.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank Members for their very useful comments. I shall try to group my response around three sets of issues. Firstly, short-term and long-term priorities, and how we can integrate the advice you have given us here. Secondly, the political environment and how we can protect the neutrality and independence of humanitarian work as well as the safety of humanitarian workers. Thirdly, the EU’s disaster response capacity and what we are currently doing to make sure that it is stronger in the future.

On the first set of issues, I am very much aligned with the comments that have been made in this House about ensuring that we focus on those at risk of being excluded. This especially concerns the more conservative areas of Pakistan, women, and, of course, children in women-led households, who are at very high risk, and minorities, including religious minorities, to which reference has been made here.

In any country, including in this case Pakistan, those communities that are simply hard to reach are at particularly high risk. They are cut off either by nature or because of conflicts. I can assure you that we screen proposals from our partners very carefully to make sure that our funding, to a very large degree, targets those at risk of being excluded.

I will follow up with my staff in more detail the specific question that I was asked on the treatment of religious minorities. I do know that we consider minorities very carefully and I am sure we have more specific information on that, as well as on the situation in Kashmir. I can say that we have been working with NGO partners there to be able to reach out to people.

The point was strongly made here that agriculture is the foundation of a large part of Pakistani society and the Pakistani economy. As the water recedes, it may leave more fertile land, but that will only be an opportunity if we are there fast to help farmers recover their capacity to plant. As always in the case of a disaster, if the response is put together well, especially as regards longer-term rehabilitation, it can also bring improvements in terms of security.

That brings me to the point that was made about the need to look at raising funds from others. In other words, we should use our moral authority to urge others in the neighbourhood, the Gulf nations, to contribute to Pakistan. They have been doing that and it is true that the EU, having acted quickly and massively, does now have a capacity to call on others. We will continue to do so as we prepare for the Friends of Democratic Pakistan meeting here on 14 and 15 October. The High Representative, Vice-President Catherine Ashton, together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Minister Qureshi, are going to co-chair this meeting, and we have already agreed to have a special expanded session to try to raise attention, support the efforts of others and urge others to contribute.

As far as our Member States and our own resources are concerned, I can say the following. As regards the Commission’s resources, EUR 70 million has already been committed and a large part of it has already been disbursed. The week I was in Pakistan, we ran out of money for the urgent relief projects that we are supporting with very credible organisations and very competent people who operate on the ground. Our staff there have already made it clear that we will need to provide additional resources.

As regards the Member States, I want to pay tribute to the UK, Germany and Sweden. They are the biggest donors. In many cases, they have already delivered their assistance. The Commission and the Member States have a shared competence in this area. Of course, we are cooperating and we would like to see all our commitments fully deployed.

As far as the priorities for our longer-term response are concerned, it is very clear that the economic forecast for Pakistan will have to be revised downwards. In other words, the growth forecast for next year will drop from 4.5% before the floods to maybe 1%, or even to below zero. There has been massive destruction that has yet to be assessed, but it will be in the order of billions. Therefore, it will be necessary to mobilise support for Pakistan in a holistic way. That means that all possible options as to how the support can be provided will be looked into.

Obviously, the Commission has no lending capacity, so debt relief is not something that I can take a stand on from the point of view of what the Commission can do, but one of the options would be to look at Pakistan’s capabilities. We will make sure that your voice is heard as these options are discussed.

Similarly, there will be questions about trade and what can be done. I can tell you that Commissioner De Gucht is already very seriously looking into what we can offer through this holistic way of responding to the country’s problems.

Let me add one more point. We also have to work with Pakistan to support the government in the reforms they are undertaking in order to get the economy on to a more solid footing – including reforming how they organise their public finances and their budgets – so that the floods do not end up distracting the government from doing the right thing for its own people in the long term. That is also something we are discussing.

Of course, helping Pakistan is also a matter of political stability in a country that is so very important for its own region and for the rest of the world. In this sense, we very much hope that our collective action will not only save lives but also prevent chaos from erupting in this very sensitive place. In doing so, for those of us who care about the humanitarian side, it is also very important to always stress to the authorities – as I did when I was there – that the security of humanitarian workers is crucial.

The other side of that is for us to ensure neutrality. Who we help cannot be based on factors such as religion, gender, or rural or urban location. This matter of the neutrality and safety of humanitarian workers is profoundly important. 19 August was the day of humanitarian workers. On that day, sadly, we noted that last year, we lost more humanitarian workers than peacekeepers. 102 humanitarian workers died. In the context of Pakistan, every day I wake up with great anxiety as to whether a life will be lost in responding to this disaster. I just want to confirm that we take this very seriously.

Let me finish with the point about strengthening the EU’s disaster response. I am very grateful to those of you who spoke positively of what we have been doing with a view to being better organised and better coordinated. I am also grateful to those who say we need to do more, and I agree with that.

Let me give you just one example of what coordination means in the case of Pakistan. As I said, we deployed our civil protection coordination team in Pakistan. We got 12 Member States to provide in-kind assistance. We organised ten flights as an EU air bridge to Pakistan – two by the Czech Republic, one financed by Finland and seven co-financed by the Commission. We actually brought assistance on behalf of multiple countries in a coordinated fashion and then, in a coordinated fashion, we distributed it on the ground.

So progress is being made but, to those who say that more needs to be done, my response is ‘all power to your voice’. Hopefully, you will see from the Commission a very determined and ambitious way of approaching what it means to have a strong EU disaster response capacity.

Since this is a discussion we will be having in the future, I would sum it up very briefly in four points.

With regard to scenario planning, we need to be much better prepared in anticipating the types of disasters that are to come.

Secondly, we need pre-determined and committed assets from Member States on which we can rely when a disaster strikes. Whenever we have a disaster and I make a call for assistance, I do not know at the moment of the call whether or not I will get what is necessary. Luckily for me, so far, every time we have called on them, the Member States have come through, but it would be much more prudent if we could predict upfront what the commitment of the Member States is and what assets we have in hand.

My third point concerns strengthening coordination. I am not going to say more about that. Obviously, we need to get our 27 plus one to act as one.

Fourthly, we need a holistic approach to crisis response that incorporates prevention, preparedness, response and rehabilitation feedback.

These four points are the foundation of the proposal I would present to you.

Madam President and honourable Members, thank you again for your advice to me and my team.

  President. – The debate is closed.

13. Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Csaba Őry, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States [COM(2010)0193 - C7-0111/2010 - 2010/0115(NLE)] (A7-0235/2010).

  Csaba Őry, rapporteur. – (HU) Thank you for the floor, Madam President. I will therefore try to be brief. It would, indeed, be good if we could wrap up the debate quickly. This debate was off to a relatively difficult start, since this is not just a normal consultation process, given that the Commission and the Council, and we here in Parliament as well, consider the current drafting of the employment directives to be part of a joint reflection, of our joint reflection on the 2020 strategy.

Ultimately, it seems that the time available to us enriched the debate, although I must say that we had found, right at the outset, a number of useful and good recommendations in the Commission’s proposal. Nevertheless, we have made changes on a few points.

First of all, I would like to draw your attention to a structural change. It seems to us that, although both schooling and training are important, we do not see the need for this to be stated in two different directives, especially since we have reduced the 24 earlier employment directives to a total of four. It is for this reason that we combined these two areas, although we introduced a new element.

We would like to emphasise the importance of the cohesion policy as an instrument serving employment and its environment, since if we are making decisions about developments and launching initiatives in the European Union aimed at reducing the gaps between Member States, these will bring closer together countries that are far from each other in many respects. These policies must be linked together from the perspective of employment. We support developments that also contribute to job creation, since we are all agreed that the first priority is to create new jobs.

This is justified, in particular, by the economic crisis, which I believe, despite encouraging signs, is not yet completely over. We are even less clear as to what this actually means for employment. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of unemployed people may have risen from 16 million to 23 million, which is an enormous number, but unfortunately, I must say that the situation of young people is even worse, since among them, the number of unemployed has increased to around 20.5%. I think that these figures suggest an ailment; they suggest problems which must open our eyes to the task facing us. In my view, we can support a good number of the recommendations contained in the Council’s and the Commission’s proposals. We can support the goal of a 75% employment rate, that is, the employment of 75% of citizens of working age, although we would like this figure to be higher among young people. Among those between the ages of 15 and 24 who are either studying or working, this proportion should be at least 90%. There should be no loitering youths. Similarly, where poverty is concerned, we would like to give special attention to addressing child poverty as a key element, and although I do not want to repeat here the entire set of guidelines or guideline 10 in full, I am delighted that both the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies are treating this as a priority. I hope, therefore, that the Council will also resolve to give particular emphasis to this topic.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank first of all the rapporteur, Mr Őry, for his report and his constructive approach to the Commission proposal on the employment guidelines and I very much agree with him on the need to put these new employment guidelines into the context of the crisis.

It is just two years ago since the fall of Lehman Brothers and 2008 was an annus horribilis in the financial sector; 2009 was an annus horribilis for the economy with an unprecedented recession; and 2010 is an annus horribilis for employment in Europe, with an average unemployment rate of 10% and 20% among young people. We really have to take these matters seriously, and that is why I very much appreciate the way in which we have been working with Parliament in the recent months – in the spring period in particular – on both the guidelines and the EU 2020 strategy.

The Commission has followed the work on this report very closely. The debate has been extensive and fruitful. The debate has also shown that priorities have to be made and compromises have to be struck. I welcome the excellent cooperation between the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Commission over the last four months. As I have stressed on several occasions, it is of vital importance for the Commission to have all the main EU institutions on board and, in particular, the European Parliament, in order to establish the necessary political ownership of the new Europe 2020 strategy and to ensure that Europe 2020 becomes a success.

I can assure you that the Commission will be keen to involve Parliament as closely as possible in the implementation of the strategy in the coming years. I am pleased to note that a large part of the proposals and amendments put forward in the draft report have been introduced by the Council and are included in the text which was given political endorsement by the European Council in June. There are a number of outstanding points which will have to be discussed with the Council.

The Commission would not be in favour of the amendments which aim to alter the structure of the guidelines by adding new guidelines. This would undermine the clarity and the coherence of the Commission’s proposal. The Commission is also against the idea of adding more headline targets to the five already agreed at political level. For the Commission, the fundamental principle in designing the new strategy has been to limit the number of targets and objectives in order to better focus the new strategy.

This being so, the Commission agrees that some issues may need further strengthening in the text, for example, in relation to childcare, decent work or SMEs. The Commission is ready to work with Parliament and with the Council in order to find a mutually suitable compromise text.

  Eva-Britt Svensson, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – (SV) Madam President, it is no exaggeration to say that the Lisbon strategy failed. We therefore need to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them in the new strategy. Some of the major mistakes in the strategy were not to prioritise equality in the workplace, not to give women the opportunity and conditions necessary to be able to participate fully in the labour market, and not to prioritise efforts to eliminate the wage differences between men and women.

We need to increase the participation of women in the labour market and, in so doing, also increase the participation of men in the care of children and related tasks. Therefore, please support the improvements to this strategy that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality has proposed. In addition, please remove the wording stating that public sector wages should be cut. The public sector is already where many of our low-paid women are to be found today. Please do not increase the wage differences further.

  Pascale Gruny, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, we need long-term legislation to improve employment in Europe and reduce poverty. We need to address the problem of unemployment with a view to sustainable growth. I should like to make three points.

First of all, the Council proposes that the guidelines for employment policies in the Member States be established every 10 years. I agree, because we need a long-term perspective, but then we also need real milestones every three years to ensure that we do not lose sight of developments on the labour market.

Secondly, I tabled an amendment, which was not adopted, in which I proposed that an employment observatory be established to conduct a specific analysis of future jobs. Many young people leave school or university without any training that meets the needs of the labour market. We need to anticipate future jobs. Our young people should be able to move forward and specialise by completing training which will ensure that they keep up with the employment market.

Finally, the fight against unemployment not only entails doing everything to improve the employment situation in Europe, but also in combating poverty. The professional integration of people who have been out of work for a long time is vital in the fight against poverty. The European Social Fund is the instrument which can help bring these people back to the labour market. Let us start by giving these people their dignity back, by giving them jobs, and let us avoid helping them with no prospect of social integration. I would stress this point.

  Jutta Steinruck, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to begin my speech with a criticism of the procedure. Parliament’s work has been greatly impaired by the late tabling of this report. It was only really able to present its position because exceptions were made and the Council is not now going to debate this matter until the autumn summit.

In the end, a workable compromise was found. The cooperation between the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs was excellent. That can also be seen by the fact that we received a clear majority for our position in committee. As Social Democrats, we were able to include very many of our key concerns, although we are not happy with every point. However, I am grateful for the assurance from the Belgian Presidency that it will support Parliament’s position.

In order to facilitate this procedure, we have tabled four amendments, for which we request support in tomorrow’s vote. It was important to us that the guidelines for employment policies contain social components, in other words, a definition of good work, the stipulation that good work must also be well paid, and that testable interim goals are also laid down. However, the guidelines will only be taken seriously in the Member States if the Commission and the Council take them seriously. We therefore ask the Commission to ensure that appropriate measures are implemented and that the results are also examined.

I am pleased that the Commissioner has assured us that our positions will be included, because Parliament has added a very socially-orientated and worker-friendly component which will benefit the people of Europe. That is also what people expect of this Parliament and this represents an improvement in social conditions.

  Siiri Oviir, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ET) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing employment guidelines in the midst of the economic crisis. Undoubtedly, this will strongly influence the labour market for a number of years. It is important to agree on an effective strategy at European Union level which would really help to resolve the problems. It was not possible to achieve the objectives set out in the Lisbon strategy, mainly because of problems related to their implementation, not because the objectives were wrong.

The success of the new strategy depends, to a large extent, on whether we can learn from previous mistakes. Creating jobs and increasing employment must remain at the heart of the new strategy. It is therefore a priority to create high quality jobs which are necessary in a longer-term perspective and which will create high added value. Employment policy must guarantee that changeovers are as smooth as possible for employees, both between economic sectors and between different statuses of the labour market. For this reason, it is necessary to extend the long-term objectives further and to concentrate more on coordinated action in business, education and employment policy.

The fight against poverty and exclusion is particularly relevant today. Therefore, we should create opportunities for participating in the labour market, or for returning to it, for all groups in society, regardless of their age and gender, paying particular attention to all those groups which are in need.

As the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I am pleased that, in cooperation with Members of Parliament, we have also now found in the report an indication that equal gender rights will be ensured. Finally, in adopting the report, we expect the Commission and the Member States to adopt the relevant legal framework in a timely manner, and not only do we expect this, but we also expect close cooperation between the Commission and Parliament, as well as between the Member States themselves. Otherwise, the European Union’s talk of a single market will only be partly true, to say the least. I would also like to thank Mr Őry for his efforts and his high level of cooperation.

  Emilie Turunen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Őry, a lot has been said about the content and process in connection with these employment guidelines. There is no doubt that this Parliament significantly improved the guidelines during its work on the tabled draft. I would like to highlight two points today on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. The first is that we have succeeded in securing support for an ambitious employment initiative for particularly vulnerable groups, including young people. Parliament is calling for youth unemployment to be cut by half, in other words, that no more than 10% of young people between the ages of 15 and 25 should be unemployed, as opposed to the current figure of more than 20%. It is an ambitious goal, but a necessary one if we are to safeguard a workforce for the future and to ensure prosperity and social cohesion.

Secondly, the majority in this Parliament are calling for greater commitment to a social Europe. Specifically, this means that we should not simply fight poverty by means of increased employment, but that, in guideline 10, we require the work to be of decent quality and provide a living wage. Equal access to prosperity and social services is another key requirement. In this Parliament today, we are sending out a clear message that we will fight to eliminate the concept of the ‘working poor’ and that we refuse to allow Europe to have an American-style labour market. These two aspects, youth employment and social guidelines, are two significant improvements that I do not think the Council or the Commission can ignore.

  Milan Cabrnoch, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the unemployment situation in European Union Member States is critical. Unemployment is at its highest since the introduction of the euro in 1999, standing at 10.1%. More than 23 million people are without work, 16 million of whom are in the euro area. All of us here probably agree on the urgency of the need to find a solution to the problem, but the submitted report offers no way out of the crisis. We do not believe that implementing the right to full employment can be a solution in itself. We are setting artificial targets, even though we do not know how to achieve them. Why have administrative prescriptions in terms of percentage participation on the labour market, the increased employment of women or young people and reductions in the proportion of students quitting their studies early, when we do not know who will measure and compare the achievement of these targets or how. We take the view that achieving a deep and efficient single market is a key instrument for ensuring the EU’s overall macro-economic performance, and a flexible labour market is the best way to create new jobs.

  Thomas Händel, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal for integrated guidelines for more and better jobs has been significantly improved by the work of Parliament.

Despite a number of improvements, we are still a long way from achieving our goals. We do not deny the fact that improvements have been made with regard to the equality of men and women, but it would have been better to integrate a separate guideline into this set of guidelines. We will request this very forcefully in plenary tomorrow.

Secondly, it is important that the evaluation of the results and the reporting obligations are firmly established within Parliament’s sphere of competence and that there are now more exacting objectives and sub-goals with regard to labour market participation and active labour market policy in the report. However, it would be important for Parliament to confirm tomorrow that the ILO principles relating to good and decent work as well as the question of a minimum income that is clearly above the poverty line are taken into consideration in the report.

I am, however, of the opinion that this report still has a number of shortcomings. It is far too reminiscent of the old Lisbon strategy. The failed flexicurity principles have been repeated like a mantra and much of the wording smacks of the old deregulation policy.

Secondly, if principles such as the compatibility of work and family life, social cohesion, sustainable economic management, investments and education are mentioned but there are no specific measures to follow this, it represents a weakness in the report. For more and better employment, it would be necessary to place the focus on reducing the precariousness of the current situation and to emphasise the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work in the same place’, to make the model of full-time employment the central focus once again, to limit the maximum working week and consider reducing working hours and, above all, with regard to cohesion, to incorporate social progress as a mandatory element and not permit any backward steps.

  Mara Bizzotto, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, inertia and short-sightedness: this is my diagnosis of the disease that is affecting the EU-27 today.

Inertia, because even though one in four young people in Italy is unemployed and there are 16 million people out of work in the euro area, it still has not taken any truly effective action to follow up the rumblings of European propaganda in recent months.

Short-sightedness, because Europe has not only come up with the same old formula for emerging from the crisis, but has completely lost sight of the more authentically regional dimension of economic and social cohesion policy. Only by placing the regions at the centre of political action, only by respecting their specific cultural aims, will it be possible to revive European development and employment policies, fuelled by the natural energies exerted by each geographical area: districts, small and medium-sized enterprises and crafts.

To resolve the employment problem, we must think small in the beginning, invest in local authorities and prioritise subsidiarity, safeguarding a heritage made up of linguistic and cultural diversity.

If the needle of the European compass does not steer European policies towards the regions, the European project is bound to founder.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, on 2 September, an Austrian newspaper wrote that ‘trainees lack education’. Unfortunately, that is true. There are now more trainee positions available than there are suitable candidates to fill them and 30% of our commercial undertakings are not able to fill their apprenticeship positions. Undertakings are complaining more and more about the poor education of school leavers. One in five companies takes care of the general education of its trainees itself.

However, as a measure to counter this situation, Europe wants to import well-trained skilled workers from third countries. That is the miracle cure: more immigration, because our young people no longer receive an adequate education in school. This is surely unacceptable, because it would be as good as a declaration of the bankruptcy of our education system, a declaration of the bankruptcy of Europe. We therefore urgently need a change of course in the training sector. Without good qualifications, there is no access to the labour market, for this is about our young people and, ultimately, also the future of Europe.

  Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, Europe needs a strategy that will enable it to emerge stronger from the economic and financial crisis and tackle the long-term challenges that it has to face, such as, for example, the ageing population.

In the strategy for the next decade, the Europe 2020 strategy, employment policy has to play a very important role. Its objectives must be sustainable growth, job creation and seeking greater social cohesion, and combating poverty is a new priority for the Union to which my group is committed.

The strategy demonstrates the need to undertake structural reforms in order to improve the way that labour markets operate, while also improving competitiveness and productivity. We would not be consistent if we only thought about job creation in the future and allowed existing jobs to be destroyed, as is occurring in some sectors such as the coal sector at the moment, where a large number of jobs could be lost across Europe. Mining needs to be maintained as a strategic reserve and to complement renewable energy sources.

If you will allow me, I will talk about my country, Spain, and my region, Aragon. For one of the provinces, Teruel – where the population density is around 12 inhabitants per square metre – the loss of around 5 000 jobs would mean the desertification of a whole area of land. We therefore need to focus, on the one hand, on consolidating and maintaining the jobs that we have at the moment and, on the other, on undertaking the reforms set out in this report.

  Alejandro Cercas (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, this debate is very important to the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament because it is very important to give hope to the millions of Europeans who have lost their jobs, who fear losing their jobs or who want to work and have still not found an opening in our labour market.

It is important that we place employment at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy and, to some extent, we are saying that it is not enough to correct the economic imbalances. Rather, we need to incorporate a social dimension into our strategy, because the economy alone with no soul will not provide a response to economic problems.

It is also important that we set ourselves targets, because although it is true that by setting targets we may not achieve our goal, if we do not know where we are going, we will definitely never reach our goal. I therefore thank Mr Őry for building a majority around these principles. I also thank Commissioner Andor and the Spanish and Belgian Presidencies for allowing Parliament to be heard according to Article 148 of the treaty, not only because that is good for Parliament as a body, but also because it connects the European public and, in future, the national parliaments, with the common task that is incumbent upon everyone.

Now you need to listen to us, and not only listen to us but implement all of our recommendations. It does not matter how you implement them, but for the first time, you must incorporate the work of Parliament, which will be very positive for the Commission, the Council, Parliament and, above all, for the European public.

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, a large group of people in this Parliament have worked extremely hard on this report. We have compromised and broadly agreed on five priorities to improve the Commission text: better governance, good work and equal pay for equal work, sub-targets for vulnerable groups, gender equality and cohesion policy.

All our hard work will have been in vain, though, if the Council decides to simply disregard it. They can if they choose to.

Mr Chastel, I would like to ask you whether you will do your very best for our priorities. Also, I would like to know whether it is true that our priorities stand a better chance of being adopted in the recitals, as Mrs Milquet has indicated. This is vital to know for our vote tomorrow.

Of my colleagues, I want to ask that we all stick to our compromises. We are no match for Council if we stand divided. The Greens will certainly stand by our commitment, and we count on all of you to do the same.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) The single market and the free movement of workers are among the greatest benefits of European integration. The guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States under the Europe 2020 strategy are the subject of our discussion while we are still feeling the effects of the crisis which has hit European economies and labour markets. This is why the fight against unemployment should become a priority for EU policy, and funds for this must be found in the common budget. From this point of view, it is essential that there be close cooperation at EU level and a balance in the current objectives resulting from the crisis and in objectives of a more strategic nature. For Europe is faced by long-term challenges, such as demographic change and globalisation. Both at European level and in the Member States, we must ensure that we have the potential for the creation of new jobs and that we help people to integrate into the labour market. These priorities cannot, however, be pursued at the cost of an increased administrative burden and more legal regulations. We must take care over the cohesion of measures taken by the Member States in such areas as the economy, employment and social affairs. However, guidelines and common objectives at EU level must not, under any circumstances, undermine the competences of Member States.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Words, however interesting, are not enough to alter the tragic social situation being experienced in various countries of the European Union. A break is needed with the current economic and financial policies: an end needs to be brought to the Stability and Growth Pact, with its irrational criteria that truly strangle countries in economic and financial difficulties; regrettably, that is not happening here.

While there is continued insistence on reform plans that fit with the Stability and Growth Pact and flexicurity, we will not escape the austerity plans that some countries are implementing, such as Greece, Portugal and Spain. Such plans will have tragic consequences, increasing unemployment, poverty, social inequality and the well-known protests of the workers.

We therefore insist on proposals that will change the existing macro-economic policies, by suspending the Stability and Growth Pact; by bringing an end to privatisation and liberalisation processes; by prioritising quality employment with rights and living wages, and without discrimination of women; and by promoting the dignity of labour through a pact that truly fosters employment and social progress.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD). – Madam President, the only guideline is for the EU to stop interfering. The Working Time Directive is a disincentive to work. Why cannot you let people work overtime when they want to? Please do not tell me that this is to protect workers from exploitation, when the EU’s puppet court, the ECJ, has ruled in favour of companies exploiting groups of workers by paying them less than a minimum wage in no less than four countries.

Are you aware that more than a fifth of newly qualified junior doctors in the UK are turned down because the WTD means they lack experience and that more are dropping out of training for the same reason?

This House passed a report on independent truck drivers recently which will result in many of them packing it in. In voting today, MEPs have approved a paragraph in the Bové report – which will add a massive reporting burden to SMEs – hours after President Barroso had complained that SMEs were being strangled by red tape.

The EU is the problem, not the answer, as the people of Europe are beginning to realise.

  Edit Bauer (PPE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Madam President. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his efforts to reinforce the links between the 2020 strategy and employment policy guidelines. I believe this is extremely important. I would like to address two issues briefly. The first is increasing the employment rate among women to 75%. Although it seems that 75% is not too far from 60%, in practical terms, this would increase women’s employment by a quarter. I would like to say in this respect that unless we lay down the foundations for this policy in the public service sector, it will probably be impossible to achieve this goal.

The other matter I would like to emphasise here, which the rapporteur has also stressed, is child poverty. I believe that in spite of the fact that the Council designated this a priority years ago, not much has actually happened, and if we do not monitor this issue closely, if we cannot persuade Member States to address this seriously and to set and achieve serious goals in this regard, we are wasting our own future. We must not treat our own human resources with such negligence.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, as you know, this debate is a vital debate for the European Parliament.

It is the specific tool at our disposal to say how the EU 2020 strategy needs to be implemented. Given the vague debates that we have had on this strategy, defining these employment guidelines is, for us, absolutely vital; that is why we were so insistent that they should not be adopted by the Council before this debate and before tomorrow’s vote. That is already a very important point for us.

Obviously, however, beyond this timetabling arrangement, we should also like to be heard on the substance of the issue. From contacts which we have had with the Belgian Presidency, we have cause to hope that, when faced with what appear to be useful proposals, such as the added value which the European Parliament’s position may bring, the Council will not deprive itself of this added value and will agree to review the text that it adopted in order to integrate these valid proposals.

Having discussed this with the Belgian Presidency, all the groups involved in the exchange agreed that we need to adopt, in the form of recitals, elements included in the body of our text and, from this point of view, there is broad agreement between us to do so. That is why I hope that the four amendments tabled along these lines will be adopted tomorrow.

The first – and the one on which there will, I imagine, no doubt be the greatest consensus between us – is that, in order for these employment guidelines to be useful, they must be subject to what is the order of the day: good governance. In this instance, good governance means that national and European parliamentarians and the social partners must be consulted at all stages during the drafting and implementation of these guidelines.

As regards the substance, there are two amendments which, politically, are vital as far as I am concerned. They have to do with reiterating what we mean by decent work. How can the European Union vote on all these conventions without itself applying these notions of decent work and implementing these guidelines which will, at long last, address the situation of the most vulnerable people, be they young people and their level of education or disadvantaged populations, in order to combat poverty?

These are the proposals we have made to you and I trust that you will support these amendments if, as I hope, they are passed by a majority in this House tomorrow.

  Timo Soini (EFD). – (FI) Madam President, costs cannot be allowed to increase in the Member States as a result of government or EU measures. There are no green taxes, there are no blue taxes, there are no red taxes: there are only taxes, which the people pay.

A rise in costs is lethal for employment. Each rise in costs eats up jobs. The European Union and the European Central Bank have no independent policy on interest rates at present. This makes it difficult for the Member States to manage their finances, as they are unable to practise a financial policy.

Despite these regrettable factors, we still need policy on growth and employment. Both Finnish and European labour succeeds with individual products and the quality of those products.

The rules on competitive bidding must be fair, honest and transparent. It is crucial for us to have work in Finland done by Finnish labour, and that is the case in every other Member State. National labour for export and for one’s own country: that is the recipe for success.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur and also congratulating him on the report before us now. We now have specific objectives at long last, and we must seek to meet these in the next few years. The problems we face are not easy ones to solve. Every effort must be made towards a sustainable recovery. In addition, we must take account of demographic change. In order to emerge stronger from the crisis and achieve sound European labour markets, we need to take up new challenges. I believe our attention to education is of paramount importance, therefore, as this is the only way of increasing opportunities for all.

Madam President, the emphasis being placed on reducing poverty, particularly child poverty, is also very important. In this report, we in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs have drawn up specific recommendations and reached a good consensus on these, and I consider this very important, not least because we shall have to evaluate each other on the basis of these recommendations. This means not only setting to work at European level but also that the governments in the Member States must join with the social partners to work on these objectives.

An idea I had a very long time ago was that we should avert a situation in which young people are unable to find a position when entering the labour market. This is simply unacceptable. One good aspect of the present report is that it advocates that every young person not at school be provided with a place in training or further education, or an alternative, within four months.

  Olle Ludvigsson (S&D). – (SV) Madam President, I would like to highlight a few aspects that are particularly important to emphasise when guidelines are laid down.

Firstly, the level of employment needs to rise in order for the economy to develop in a positive way. There is a tendency to close our eyes to the enormity of the problems of sky high unemployment that we are actually facing. Only if we actively work to reduce unemployment can we stimulate growth and rectify the public finance imbalances.

Secondly, investments in employment have a positive effect on national budgets. Lower unemployment results both in tax revenue and in reduced social expenditure. It therefore pays to invest in employment policy.

Thirdly, employment policy can only work if it has the firm support of the social partners and scope is provided for effective cooperation. Furthermore, we need to transform our words into action.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the new guidelines to promote employment constitute a fundamental step towards economic recovery and growth in Europe.

The meltdown has triggered a significant rise in the unemployment rate. In 2010, this figure reached 9.6%, and 20.3% for youth unemployment; in other words, millions and millions of people are unemployed. Yet unemployment is only part of the problem. Indeed, the task is not simply to create new jobs but to improve and preserve the ones that already exist.

To achieve the goals set out in the report, we also need a structural change in the economy. In this respect, despite the considerable efforts expended by the rapporteur, Mr Őry, Parliament’s response to the statistics I have just mentioned remains general and unfocused, and this is to the detriment of the European strategy. Indicators and key targets are not enough. It is not enough to use terms such as ‘coordinate’, ‘dialogue’ and ‘collaborate’. A pact between generations is not enough. We need a European policy that meets the needs of its citizens.

The limits imposed by budget policies must be overturned by more specific, development-oriented public planning. We must direct the actions we take today towards helping young people and future generations; we need training and education policies that allow for investment in human capital in order to improve its quality and to connect it to the labour market. We need to make choices that will help the production system. To sum up: we need less paperwork, more investment and clearer economic choices.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, it is a particularly important concern of mine that we do not just create any old jobs, but that we create high quality, sustainable and good jobs.

In the employment policy guidelines as they currently stand, the aspect of the quality of the work seems to me to have been given far too little attention. If the EU sets itself the goal of increasing the European average labour market participation of 20 to 64-year-olds to 75% by 2020, then in my opinion, there is a high risk of a fixation on numbers, a measurable quantity-based ideology like we saw long ago in Soviet times. Thus, it must not simply be about achieving quantitative goals; the quality of the jobs is also important. Not all precarious, poorly paid, miserable, temporary jobs should be included in this calculation. Secure employment contracts and good contractual employment should be the primary objective.

  Thomas Mann (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, we have set ourselves high goals. In Mr Őry’s excellent report, we want Member States to undertake to increase the labour market participation to 75% of the active population by 2020. Mrs Bauer has just detailed how important that is. Particular attention is given to young people. The European Youth Guarantee is intended to enable all young people to find a job or further training within four months of completing their training, and ultimately, the school dropout rate is to be reduced to less than 10%.

As the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, 2010 is also reflected in these guidelines. The number of those living below the poverty line is to be reduced by 25%. This is a major undertaking, as 20 million people will benefit from this. At the same time, we are stepping up the fight against the exclusion of the long-term unemployed. At least 25% of them require active labour market measures in the form of advanced training, education and an occupational redeployment.

Another point of focus is the new forms of employment, such as fixed-contract and temporary work. However, atypical employment contracts must not become typical for everyone. These forms of employment make sense if they create transitions to permanent, protected and high quality jobs, but only if they do so.

Another of the demands of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is capable of receiving majority support, namely to fully use resources from the European Social Fund to increase employability and job quality. That is an important signal to our European Union Member States.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, there is a high risk of ‘jobless recovery’ or ‘jobless growth’ and Europe cannot afford that to happen.

Firstly, we must focus our employment strategy on the Union’s comparative advantages – which are education, research and green technology. Secondly, we must avoid a trade-off between innovation and job creation; such a trade-off can be avoided if innovation is inclusive.

Thirdly, we must strike a sustainable balance between support for existing jobs and the creation of new ones. Investing in a highly-skilled labour force will go hand in hand with innovation. Of course, there will be jobs that are not sufficiently rewarded by the markets, and we must have policy instruments to cope with this.

Fourthly, there is a need to activate both labour demand and supply policy measures. There are plenty of employment policy instruments available, but they must be put together in a good and comprehensive policy framework.

Fifthly, we must successfully orchestrate efforts and responsibilities and policy instruments between all levels of governance – European, national, regional and local. Last but not least, the internal market must provide for full mobility of the labour force, particularly in terms of career and lifelong learning; and it must do so horizontally geography-wise.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, may I start by offering my congratulations to Mr Őry on this very complicated piece of work at a time of crisis, when employment guidelines up to 2020 are not exactly a statement of the obvious. The work carried out in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, to complement the Commission proposal, is absolutely fundamental.

I should like to emphasise three points. The first is the need for a firm policy on the integration of young people into work. In order to achieve this, apart from what my friend Mr Mann said earlier, we also need to fight against people leaving education with no qualifications. In fact, leaving education with no qualifications takes young people straight into professional exclusion and social exclusion. We all need to do a great deal of work here in order to combat unemployment among young people.

The second group on which we need to focus our efforts are women. We need to make a considerable effort here on two fronts: firstly, we need to fight for their jobs and for equal pay and for equal careers between men and women and, secondly, we need to help reconcile family life with professional life, because it is only by achieving this that we shall achieve real equality between men and women.

Finally, we need to make sure we break the vicious circle of early retirement, to ensure that greater life expectancy does not translate into a shorter working life, thereby depriving us of skills which are indispensable to us.

I am counting on the Council.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to the rapporteur. He has tabled a sound report. I would particularly like to praise the fact that the guidelines have been clearly subdivided and will serve as a good guide to the Council and Commission for future legislation. I especially welcome the fact that these guidelines and the subject of employment have been brought together with cohesion policy, so that from 2014, cohesion policy is to be utilised in particular to reduce unemployment.

However, I must also express some criticism. A phrase was deleted from recital 6 and I simply cannot understand why. If it states that ‘the euro was a stabilising factor in limiting the effects of the economic and financial crisis’, then that is a true reflection of reality. I cannot simply delete this for the sake of a compromise. In this regard, I think that we have made a mistake. The additional wording that follows on from this is right, but in this form, I cannot support it.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, I really must congratulate Mr Őry on his excellent report. This is a report based on assent. This gives the report a much stronger voice and the Commission and Council need to take serious account of it.

We socialists are delighted that the report includes our non-negotiable basic position, which we believe will resolve the problems of unemployment and human dignity. We are talking about equal pay for equal work in the same workplace. However, I would add the question of dignity to this. Jobs must be sustainable and work must be decent.

The Council appears to be willing to take account of all this; however, I would say that it is not enough to take account of this in the recitals alone and it should be included in the main body of the text.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, in European debates on employment policy, we usually speak about the fight against unemployment and about appropriate social protection, but, unfortunately, we devote much less time to subjects related to getting people back into work or supporting people with the enterprise to create new jobs. The guidelines have included support for labour market participation as a priority. Let us remember, however, that once priorities have been established, it is extremely important to put them into effect. It is disturbing to read the communication from the Commission, which shows that educated people and those already in employment have used 70% of the Social Fund for increasing labour market participation, while only 30% of it has been used by those who are unemployed. I hope implementation of the 2020 strategy will reverse those proportions and that we will achieve a real increase in the effectiveness of the Social Fund and, at the same time, contribute to a rise in employment, and also that we will, at last, become competitive in the global labour market.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this report. I think there is much to commend it. As a strong believer in cohesion policy and Structural Funds, I particularly welcome the comments about how crucial these funds are in helping people back to work.

In South Wales, for example, I have seen the European Social Fund going to provide schemes for skills training and many other schemes to help people back into work. Mr Andor might not like my saying this, but that is one of the reasons why I believe that the European Social Fund should remain with regional development and not go to employment. That is a discussion we will no doubt have sometime in the future.

I also welcome the recognition in the report of the importance of social partners. Of course, when I say social partners, I mean trade unions, but I also mean local authorities and regional government as well. These are big deliverers of services, but they are also big employers, and therefore should be included in any social dialogue on employment policies.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Őry, on drafting an excellent report. The guidelines should be clear and simple, and reducing their number is a step in the right direction. Achieving a rise in employment levels is a key challenge. Simply reducing structural unemployment will not suffice. It is important to anticipate and prevent problems, and to cultivate and develop enterprise and flexibility. It is not enough just to increase the number of people entering higher education. Higher education must educate at the right level and in those areas where there is a need for employees. The best way to escape from poverty is employment. Often, however, individual support programmes are necessary. It is also essential to monitor the effectiveness of work in this area. A condition for the success of the Europe 2020 strategy is that it be closely tied to cohesion policy. Simplification of the Structural Funds and a reduction in the associated bureaucracy should serve the objectives of the strategy.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, once all the opinions required under the treaty have been received, the Council’s general approach will be reviewed. Therefore, following the vote in plenary, the Council and its preparatory groups will examine Parliament’s amendments. The first meeting of the Working Party on Social Questions is planned for 14 September, the aim being to adopt these guidelines in the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) on 21 October.

In our eyes, there are no serious differences in substance between the Council’s general approach and Parliament’s position. Moreover, the Council has already amended the Commission’s initial proposal by including a number of important points for Parliament, especially gender equality, protection for disabled persons, the climate challenge, the development of entrepreneurship, stimulating the demand for work and protection for poor workers. Furthermore, all the Member States want a concise text in order to improve its efficacy.

The Belgian Presidency may therefore suggest to the Council that it take account of a number of Parliament’s amendments in the recitals, especially in terms of governance of the European Employment strategy and, in part, in relation to the definition of the objectives which the Member States are setting themselves, in terms of the quality of work and of decent work, in terms of the link with productivity and stimulation of SMEs and, finally, in terms of gender.

Furthermore, discussions – especially at the request of the Belgian delegation – have been held in the working group set up to define sub-objectives in terms of employment, especially for certain target groups. Ultimately, as you know, the Member States discounted this option. As it will be very difficult to include quantified sub-objectives in the guidelines, the Belgian Presidency may suggest that this question be linked to the new context of socio-economic governance, the EU 2020 strategy and economic governance.

The Presidency may therefore suggest to the Council that it should ensure that there is efficient monitoring of the guidelines. This monitoring would involve the annual adoption of employment recommendations for each country by the EPSCO Council, which might then recommend sub-objectives for each country, depending on their national circumstances.

Furthermore, as the Employment Committee (EMCO) has already emphasised in its contribution to the EU 2020 strategy, the Member States are encouraged to set national sub-objectives for target groups in keeping with their national circumstances.

I should like, by way of conclusion, to thank Parliament for its work on these guidelines and to assure it that this work will be taken into account.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I feel there is time pressure, so will try to be relatively concise. I would like to make a few points concerning the procedure, and also the substantial parts of these discussions, because this is a key discussion for the present and the future of the European Union.

Indeed, we had a rush in the spring period, and it is well known that the Commission came to office itself with a delay because of the delayed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in many countries. Some documents had to be produced to short deadlines, including, eminently, Europe 2020. This also affected the timetable for the employment guidelines, and rapid work had to be done on economic governance.

However, the challenges justified this rush, and I appreciate that in these challenges, we had good cooperation with the rapporteur and with Parliament in general. Now I, too, have to answer in a rush, but I have a few very substantial points.

First of all, a few comments drew a comparison with the Lisbon Agenda. We have much more structured objectives and a much better proposal for governance of the strategy, and that gives us hope that success will be guaranteed, as opposed to the Lisbon strategy which was only partially successful. Some criticism is justified, but it is not true that up to 2008 and the financial crisis, the Lisbon strategy was totally unsuccessful.

Some further issues: with the employment guidelines, we intend to boost both the quantity and the quality of jobs. The quantity has a numerical target in Europe 2020 as well and, in my view, this is an ambitious target given the fact that we are now at a low point and unemployment is very high and we are in a jobless recovery. It is not coming. It is here.

Unfortunately, there are only very few Member States where the number of employed people is increasing at this moment, but the good news is that Germany is one of them. With job growth in Germany, we now have hope that this could be sustained and will spread through other countries. The fact that now we have a better trend at the centre of the European economy highlights the importance of cohesion.

I would be the last one to deny the importance of cohesion policy, but would like to say that, if I needed to connect cohesion with the integrated guidelines, then I would have preferred to put it into the economic guidelines as opposed to the employment guidelines, because there are disparities within Europe, but there are much bigger disparities in terms of economic performance between the core and the periphery than in terms of unemployment rates.

However, I am happy, as ever, to work with you on issues of cohesion and its connection with employment policies. We have the ambitious target of 75% but I would like to make a correction which is that the 75% does not apply to every sub-group individually. For example, the implication is not that women also would have a 75% average. That is a figure we gave for men and women combined. That is important when Member States come to develop their own programmes for employment and to connect to the flagship initiative in the coming months.

We have ambitious work on subgroups like youth, and I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that next week, we launch the Youth on the Move flagship initiative. This is again something which is an inherent and strong part of our overall work on employment. If you look at the content of the Youth on the Move document, you will see that it is 50% education and 50% employment, because the Commission understands the importance of the employment challenges for young people in Europe.

A few more bullet points, owing to time pressure. We cannot promise maintenance of employment in every single sector, such as the coal industry which was mentioned. The Commission appreciates the importance of maintaining jobs in declining industries. We have extended the possibility of government subsidies to the coal industry for the next few years, but not endlessly.

We have to prepare for change and we have to prioritise the shift towards green jobs in the future. That is why we are working on green jobs in order to facilitate this transition, and in order better to anticipate what jobs will accompany this inevitable structural change in the economy and to help people prepare better for a different structure in terms of energy production, energy use, the construction industry, automotive industry, agriculture and so on and so forth.

I fully agree with what was said in terms of child poverty. We have just coordinated with the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies that one would initiate a recommendation and the other would complete the work on a new recommendation on child poverty, which will be in full coordination with our work for the European platform.

I also agree that we have to look beyond the narrow set of instruments – the toolkit of employment policies – when aiming high to increase employment rates and going for full employment eventually. It is not only about working on skills, although skill development is central. We have to participate in the broader macro-economic discussions – in the discussion on exit strategies for example – and we have to make sure that a premature exit from supportive measures would not endanger the recovery and a return to job creation in Europe.

However, I would refrain from any kind of overtures in this context that would call into question the structure of the economic and monetary union and the newly-established structures of economic governance, because the lesson has to be learned. We have to pull together and that also means closer macro-economic coordination. The point is to take into account unemployment, which is one of the great imbalances of the economy, when we try to tackle the overall imbalances under the new structures of economic governance.

The European Social Fund will continue to be a major instrument to boost employment, especially to improve the quality of supply to help unemployed people to return to jobs, new jobs, better and more competitive jobs, and potentially to self-employment. I am in direct contact with the authorities in Wales who have explained to me with great satisfaction on how the ESF is working in Wales. I would like to maintain the ESF within the cohesion framework, but it is also true that, given the challenges of unemployment and poverty, we have to give the ESF better visibility. I would like to see a greater role, and greater involvement of Parliament in designing the future of the Social Fund and as concerns, for example, a new regulation for the future.

I am sure we can work on this together very well. I could comment on many other issues, but time is very short and I have had bilateral committee-level meetings and discussions with many of those now present.

Finally, I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency for the cooperation we have had with the deputy prime minister and with all the others responsible for employment issues and social affairs in the Belgian Government.

  Csaba Őry, rapporteur. – (HU) Mr President, what I would like to say to Mr Andor is that we did not create new objectives, but rather new sub-objectives. This means that we were not trying to add new objectives but to make the objectives more precise. I do hope it is acceptable in this form. What I see in connection with the debate is that we all agree that in order to survive the crisis and withstand competition from the emerging regions of the world, more of us must work more and better, and that in accomplishing this objective, the elderly, women, people with disabilities, as well as people who are low-skilled, are not a burden nor a liability but rather an opportunity and a reserve and, naturally, policies must be readjusted in this regard. There was also general agreement, and I am glad that the representatives of the Belgian Presidency emphasised this, that special attention should be paid to small and medium-sized enterprises and to their fiscal tax environment, as this is the area that can generate new jobs, and new jobs in large numbers. Obviously, we must focus on this area.

It is important that we discussed new forms of employment. They exist, they are here and they often give rise to misunderstandings. It is clear that better regulations are needed with regard to the International Labour Organisation's description of fair work and related expectations and requirements. Similarly, I am optimistic as regards what Mr Chastel said, that when we think about good governance, we also mean that we must monitor and check, that is, hold every one of us, ourselves, accountable as to whether we can actually achieve what we have jointly agreed, promised and decided to do.

So I would like to thank everybody for their cooperation. Our cooperation was indeed excellent, between the Commission, the Council, the fellow Members and the shadow rapporteurs. I do hope that eventually, this common joint effort will be reflected in the Council’s resolution, decision, and in any subsequent consultation process. I would like to point out that we are asking you that if you feel that a lot of changes are needed, then we should come back to it in a joint consultation. We, on our behalf and on behalf of the European Parliament, are, of course, ready for consultation. Thank you very much for your cooperation and I hope we managed to do a good job.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I actually wanted to respond to the speech by Mr Clark, who claimed that we have a puppet court in the European Union. I would like to disagree with that statement. I am sure that Mr Clark is not a puppet MEP, he has been elected, and I believe that he should also preserve a sense of decency in this House. We live in a democracy, and therefore we should not describe a court as a puppet court.

  President. – Thank you for the observation. Mr Clark is not here, but I am sure he will pick up your remarks.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Wednesday, 8 September 2010).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As the International Monetary Fund recently emphasised in its half-yearly report, unemployment represents the greatest problem that advanced economies must face, and the situation will remain the same for years to come.

The situation for young people entering the job market for the first time is particularly difficult: according to recent Eurostat data, youth unemployment is growing throughout Europe, partly due to the recent economic and financial crisis. In April, the Commission submitted its proposed ‘Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines’, which set out a framework for the new strategy and suggest reforms that Member States must implement.

With reference to the report we are discussing today, which examines the employment-related part of the integrated guidelines, in particular, I agree with the assertion that the number of guidelines should be limited in order to give greater focus to European action to combat the problem of growing unemployment.

I would like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of investment in human capital: we need to promote investments in human resources and prioritise lifelong vocational training while also providing incentives for innovation within small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the driving force behind the European economy.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Due to the economic and financial crisis, the situation in the European labour market will continue to be very tense over the coming years. Given these circumstances, combating unemployment must be one of the most important policy tasks of the EU and Member States and therefore, this should be better reflected in the guidelines proposed by the Commission.

I would like to stress that in these employment guidelines in general, too little attention is paid to gender equality policy and the promotion of women’s entrepreneurship. In order to really reduce the dangers of poverty in Europe, we must set binding targets to be able to remove gender stereotypes, the current discrimination in the labour market and the structural causes which result in men and women receiving unequal pay, as well as remove the barriers preventing women from carrying out certain professions and limiting women’s opportunities to start businesses.

The guidelines also fail to advance the goal of the reduction of illegal or shadow economy work, because at this difficult time in many countries, people are working illegally, as they are simply unable to find another way out of the current situation. The guidelines do not promote any ambitious objectives to combat poverty, and in combating poverty, employment and education policy measures must be taken, aimed at the most vulnerable groups who face extreme poverty, for example, single mothers, older people receiving small pensions and disabled people.

Therefore, I call on the Member States and the Commission to strive for maximum implementation of guideline goals, because otherwise, Europe will not achieve the results set out in the guidelines.

  Martin Kastler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the report on the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States prepared by Mr Őry. Why is that? In this report, the European Parliament has made it very clear what we Europeans can expect in the coming years in the area of work and employment. In addition to the questions of migration and demographic change, the potential for employment in Europe in the area of the so-called ‘green economy’ is a very important issue. This potential can only be exploited successfully if there are sufficient qualified jobs available. This offers a unique opportunity for women at management level in particular. Both men and women have equal opportunities in this dynamic and still relatively new area of business, something that is sometimes more difficult in other areas. It is necessary to ensure that it is possible to balance work and family life, for example, by creating family-friendly jobs and by providing childcare facilities. It must be possible to establish individual models for working hours, as well as part-time arrangements, particularly for those in management positions. Unfortunately, this is not yet possible in all parts of Europe’s labour market.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – As Mr Daul said this morning, we need more Europe. More Europe does not mean interfering more in the activities of our citizens or Member States. It means becoming more efficient and proficient as a Union. The integrated guidelines will largely serve this understanding.

Unemployment rates are at their highest levels for ten years, with youth unemployment at an alarming level. This risks undermining attempts to restore economic growth in the foreseeable future.

At the same time, any solutions should incorporate a quality dimension. President Barroso pointed today to four million job vacancies. Mostly, these vacant jobs require a skilled labour force. I urge the Commission to introduce without delay the proposed European vacancy monitoring system that will include also a European skills passport.

However, the most immediate challenge is to provide a quality education for young people that matches much more closely the practical needs of the labour markets. Educational programmes should be reformed with this goal in mind, and Member States need to commit to reducing school drop-outs.

The all-European target should be to provide our continent with a skilled workforce.

Finally, we need determination and courage to drastically reduce the administrative and non-tariff barriers for SMEs.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE), in writing. – (HU) My fellow Member, Csaba Őry, has done an excellent job for which he deserves nothing but praise. As a Member of the European Parliament who is also a person with a disability, I am convinced that without his work and his openness, the European People’s Party, the largest political group in Europe, would not be supporting the involvement of people with disabilities in the European Parliament’s work as much as it does now. Mr Őry’s novel approach and his focus on simplification may bring enduring results in both the selection of appropriate topics and their adequate implementation. Not only did my fellow Member choose his main topic effectively but, thanks to his professional coordination efforts, the objectives of the European Parliament and of the European People’s Party in particular can be accomplished more extensively through the fine tuning of apparent interfaces. The most important of these objectives is investing in people as capital. We need an increasing number of sustainable jobs. In addition to creating quality workplaces, I also find the employment of people with disabilities a vital goal, as their unemployment rate ranges between 60 and 70%, reaching even 90% in certain Member States. In addition to innovation and green workplaces, Europe must also provide work for groups which are difficult to train. This may even result in the reconsideration of globalisation by contrasting the exploitation of socially deprived workers coming from outside the European Union and undercutting prices with the increasing unemployment among people with disabilities.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The EU economy is slowly being rebuilt after the crisis which began in 2008. The level of employment in most EU Member States is, however, still disturbingly low – lower than before the crisis. Young people are one of the social groups which have been worst hit by the problem of the rise in unemployment during the economic crisis. Since 2008, the number of young people who are without work has risen dramatically, and currently in many Member States, the level of unemployment among people between the ages of 15 and 25 is higher than the overall level. These data are disturbing, particularly in view of the phenomenon of the ageing of society in the European Union, which means that the number of people of productive age is falling in relation to the number of retired people. It is particularly important, therefore, to help young people to get their first job and to find stable employment. The report on guidelines for employment policies for Europe 2020 is a useful step towards improving the situation of young people in the labour market. However, to ensure a marked improvement, it is necessary to put additional measures in place at the level of the Member States. Particular emphasis should be given to supporting young people in finding their first job and to combating unemployment among graduates. Providing a qualified workforce which possesses the skills needed by the market, and also preparing graduates to enter the labour market, are just some of the tasks which should be tackled at the level of educational establishments.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The creation of new jobs in the European Union is also dependent upon the labour market’s complete deregulation. It is our duty, as MEPs, to take action on this. Let us ask those Member States which still maintain restrictions on the free movement of labour from certain Member States to act on this. Let us ask all Member States, the European Commission and the Council to adopt the measures required to make the labour market more flexible, as it is still fragmented nowadays by too many national restrictions. Without this greater flexibility, the labour market’s adjustment to the economic cycle is delayed and difficult, resulting in far greater losses for people.

14. Presentation by the Council of its position on the draft general budget - 2011 financial year

  President. – The next item is the presentation by the Council of its position on the draft general budget – 2011 financial year. This constitutes a series of statements. There is no catch-the-eye procedure.

I would like to apologise to colleagues who have been waiting for this item for some time. There were some very long speeches this afternoon.

  Melchior Wathelet, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour for me to be here in Parliament. It is true that this Chamber personifies the European construct and it is therefore not without some emotion that I take the floor today on a subject as important as the preparation of the budget for 2011; and all the more so given that this is a brand new procedure in which Parliament’s role has been very clearly enhanced. Together, therefore, we are going to inaugurate the procedure set out in the Treaty of Lisbon in terms of preparing the budget for 2011. That is why it is even more important to me to be present today and to make this speech in this House.

I should like to reiterate that, within the framework of this collaboration, of these discussions that we need to hold in keeping with the new procedure set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, we have had a number of good initial contacts. The initial trialogues went quite well and that augurs well for the future.

The Council is aware that Parliament regrets the absence of political discussion during the preparation and drafting of the Council position. It is true that the work was carried out within the Committee on Budgets, but I must stress that it was carried out within the framework of political guidelines which were very clearly defined by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) on 16 March 2010 and it is only so as to comply with the first protocol on the role of the national parliaments that the Council formally adopted its position under a written procedure on 12 August of this year. This therefore has nothing to do with the political scope of the Council position. The budgetary procedure for 2011 is a first for all of us, with its new rules, and we will obviously need to learn lessons from it in future.

Obviously, the Council has prepared this budget on the basis of a number of principles: the need to respect the financial perspective 2007-2013 and guarantee sound financial management and – and this is a second important principle – the need to guarantee sufficient margins so as to be able to extract the various political positions of the European Union and make them real and credible.

The preparation of this budget should be re-placed within the framework of the budgetary prudence which has been needed in each of the Member States of the European Union. We had a particularly difficult year in 2009, and this budgetary prudence also needs to be reflected in the 2011 budget.

I should like, if you will allow, to go over the various guidelines for the 2011 budget in greater detail and then to run through some of the headings which I think it is important to highlight here today.

We are proposing a budget of EUR 142 billion in commitment appropriations; this represents a reduction of EUR 788 million compared with the Commission proposal. As for payment appropriations, the Council has adjusted them by EUR 3.6 billion compared with the appropriations proposed by the Commission in its draft, which represents a reduction of 2.8%.

In this context, the Council has also taken account of the Commission’s indications in terms of payments for the 2007 and 2013 cohesion policy programmes and, above all, of the latest information on the start-up and cruising speed planned for major projects. As we have in fact seen, there has been a delay in implementing a number of them.

May I also emphasise that, following the reduction applied by the Council, total payment appropriations have still increased substantially, by 2.91% compared with 2010. That represents nearly 1% above zero growth, or the inflation target set in the Multiannual Financial Framework.

I would also draw your attention to the methodology adopted by the Council, which is perfectly in line with the most recent budget estimates; total commitment and payment appropriations are clearly rising, both in absolute values and as a percentage.

I do not intend to go over all the elements of the budget heading by heading. I should simply like to remind you that, under heading 1A, we know that, for Parliament, policy on young people is a priority. This was in all Parliament’s documents. It is true that we fall slightly short of the Commission proposal, but these budgets are still clearly higher than in 2010.

As far as heading 1B is concerned, all the amounts entered in this budget have indeed been determined on the basis of their current implementation, by adhering carefully to how they are implemented today.

Let us not forget that, under heading 4, the Council is very anxious to maintain the European Union’s ability to react efficiently to political, economic and social challenges, especially at international level, and we are well aware that new budget requirements may emerge during the current budgetary procedure.

I should also point out that, under heading 5, we have obviously not changed the demands made by the European Parliament in terms of its administrative budget, but we do feel that it is important for each of our institutions to make an effort to stay within the financial framework and abide by our current roadmap.

To conclude, I think that it was very important to make you party to this presentation, that it was vital for the Council to be present today and to show what our thinking was within the framework of the preparation of the budget. I realise that Parliament’s perception may differ from the position adopted by the Council, but I expect negotiations with Parliament to be constructive and fruitful and I also thank the Commission for its support during the procedure, which looks set to be brimming with challenges.

My speech would not be complete without a reference to the budget review which the Commission will publish at the end of this month. In fact, the priorities for the 2011 budget, especially the EU 2020 strategy, will, without doubt, be the priorities for future years. With this in mind, the Council and Parliament must start looking more deeply, as of now, at the future architecture of the European budget and at how it is to be financed. I can assure you that the Belgian Presidency will make sure that the Council attaches particular importance to the budget review.

Finally, to come back to the 2011 budget itself, I assure you that the Belgian Presidency will do everything it can to overcome the obstacles in the path to this budget, which will be the first to be negotiated under the Treaty of Lisbon. I truly hope that we shall be able to show that this development, in terms of procedure, will have been a success. The Council will spare no pains to ensure that the budget benefits the maximum number of European citizens, who are the taxpayers who ultimately finance our budget.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, with the Council’s reading we are now in the decisive phase of the annual procedure but this is by no means the routine procedure as we are, for the first time, under the Lisbon Treaty and the hot budgetary season is arriving.

At our last trialogue, not much was agreed, not much has moved forward, but at least what was agreed were the dates and modalities for the functioning of the conciliation committee in 2010. So now the calendar is set, Council’s reading is over, Parliament is to take its position by 20 October and the Commission will continue to attentively follow the emerging views and sensitivities of both arms of the budgetary authority.

But, next to the budget – and this is very important – on the agenda, we still have a whole package of adjustments to the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore, it requires real good will from both sides to agree, because this time there is a wide range of difficult things to solve on the negotiating table for November, so the November conciliation will be multidimensional.

On the substance, as mentioned by the Minister, there are cuts in payments by EUR 3.6 billion. The Commission, when presenting the draft budget, was fully aware of the constraints and austerity that exist in the Member States and the measure of our responsibilities, such that we have drafted the budget EUR 4 billion below the ceiling of the Financial Perspective and, what is more, we have concentrated all the increases on heading 1. That is conducive to growth and jobs and it should be seen as small anti-crisis packages locally or sectorally placed.

This is 96% of the increases that have been concentrated in heading 1, as a measure of our responsibility. It is quite usual for cohesion to move at a cruising speed in the middle of a financial perspective, after a slow start.

As for commitments, we welcome the fact that the Council will not be cutting operational expenditure but also cutting pre-accession programmes, which could be a signal to the candidate countries and could provoke a measure of reopening of the programming process and the revision of the allocation of funds between countries.

A small comment on administration: I am going to be very tough on this issue and I am not going to be very popular with my colleagues. But what is being cut are the so-called administrative support lines and the main victim is heading 4. This is about managing programmes, including emergency reactions to natural disasters, which is becoming a real challenge for the European Union.

The European Union was the first to react very quickly to the Pakistan disaster. As for the humanitarian aid and also for emergency aid reserves, I launched this procedure last week, but that needs management. This is about management administration lines for operational programmes.

Another area that was cut was the increase for research executive agencies, which are phasing in, and research executive agencies are managing the Seventh Framework Programme, which is growing by EUR 1 billion in 2010 and should grow and will grow by EUR 1 billion in 2011.

As for the conclusions, I would ask both arms of the budgetary authority to take carefully into consideration the concerns I expressed in negotiating the final multidimensional agreement and not to only consider the figures for 2011.

As usual, we in the Commission are ready to serve as an honest broker seeking, as an intermediary, to play a constructive role to achieve a good conclusion for 2011.

  Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, rapporteur. – (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, the 2011 budget is not only the first budget which will be put into effect under the Treaty of Lisbon, as the previous speakers have rightly noted, but it is also the first budget which will be used as the basis for acting upon the new political ideas brought in by Lisbon. It is also the fifth budget to be prepared based on the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2007-2013, and because it is the fifth budget, we should already know a good deal about its strengths and weaknesses.

I appreciate the efforts made by the Belgian Presidency to prepare it for reading in the Council, but I am very worried by the fact that as many as seven Member States voted against the Council’s reading. Sometimes, I have the irresistible and unpleasant feeling that when the Finance Ministers of particular Member States look at their national budgets and see the entry ‘contribution to the European Union budget’, they start to think about how they can reduce this or even get rid of it, and that they do not think about what in fact happens to that contribution or what it is used for, nor do they think about or want to discuss the consequences of such a reduction. I deplore the fact that this debate does not take place, and it was lacking, in my opinion, when the Council met to vote on the proposal. I also feel that the explanatory remarks in the Council’s proposal do not contain enough detail. Why, exactly, were some budget lines reduced and not others? Why were they reduced by the amount decided, and not by more or less? I hope that at the next stage of our work, we will be able to be more precise and clear up the lack of detail. All the greater is our obligation to ensure that the subsequent process of establishing the 2011 budget is detailed and precise and that we give careful consideration to every budget line in a responsible manner, which means not only thinking about percentages, but also about what is important, what we want to spend more on and what we want to sacrifice as part of savings.

I would like to underscore the European Parliament’s priority, which is no longer a surprise to anyone, and is not the only priority. It is a priority related to young people, mobility and education. If the Council proposes cuts of EUR 25 million in the main budget line for this priority, namely the line related to lifelong learning, it is difficult to speak of dialogue here. I hope, however, that we will return to serious dialogue in the conciliation procedure, because we express our priorities so clearly that more use could have been made of them than proposing such cuts. In the European Parliament, we are currently at the phase of preparation for the reading. We are already at a very advanced stage, and I hope that our reading will be accepted by the Committee on Budgets by the end of the month and that at the plenary sitting at the beginning of October, we will show we can adopt a good and constructive budget under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. I am counting on good cooperation, both with the Belgian Presidency and with the Commission.

  Helga Trüpel, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wathelet, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, I am very well aware – as all European citizens probably are, and hopefully the politicians too – that we are living in times of austerity policies and that we cannot avoid the necessary debt reduction policies in the Member States.

I am of the opinion that it is essential to fight for balanced budgets. It is not least a question of intergenerational equity and the possibility of us still being able to make real policies in the coming years and decades. Otherwise, we would be forced to put all our money into paying interest and, as a result, we would choke ourselves politically.

Of course, the European Union is not outside the situation in the Member States. However, I would like to mention the following as food for thought as to why we, too, are not in an identical position. The European Union has not incurred any debts, because our rules do not allow for that to happen. Moreover, the European Union – and this is something that the Member States wanted – has gained new tasks as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon, in energy policy, foreign policy and other areas that also need to be carried out. We must, of course, put ourselves in a position to be able to duly carry out these new tasks that have been bestowed upon us by the treaty.

As rapporteur for the budget for Parliament and the other institutions, I have to say that we still have not found the right balance between the new tasks and a responsible budgetary policy, including an austerity policy. The Council has rejected all of the new administrative positions, although not for the European Council and Parliament, but for the other, mainly smaller institutions, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Court of Auditors and the European Court of Justice. I consider that to be unfair and unjust. Smaller institutions in particular, like the European Data Protection Supervisor, which we want to be able to function, need to be in a position to do their job. If we want proper control by the Court of Auditors, its officials must be able to travel and to carry out checks. For this, they need more staff. I believe that finding the correct balance is a political task and it is also an important message to the Member States and to our citizens.

Something else that I am not certain about is the question of enlargement costs. The funding has been reduced by the Council. The date of accession has not changed, however. Please explain how this is supposed to work.

The next problem is the salary increase of 1.85%. It is true that we do not yet have the court ruling. However, if we want to produce a sound budget plan, we absolutely must be prepared, at least, for this eventuality. From an environmental point of view, there are definitely opportunities for savings, namely the massive ITER project involving the nuclear fusion reactor. Perhaps we ought to have the political courage to fight over this sort of expenditure.

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wathelet, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our two rapporteurs have already provided an evaluation of the Council’s position, and now it is my turn to speak on behalf of the Committee. I would like to say right at the start that I am certain that the Belgian Presidency will do as good a job as it possibly can. However, it can only do its job as well as it is permitted to do by the Council as a whole. Unfortunately, we have to admit that, in this regard, the result is poor. The Council has, as usual – and I cannot remember things ever being any different – gone round busily deleting and cutting parts of the Commission’s draft, in terms of both the commitments and the payments. It has done this all over the place at random – and that is also the usual procedure. It has not looked to see where this could possibly make sense and where not. The result is more than EUR 780 million less in commitments and EUR 3.6 billion less in payments.

If we look at who this affects in particular, we see that once again, it is the decentralised agencies. We established these agencies together by means of legislation. Both Parliament and the Council were involved, otherwise there would be no agencies. However, if we do not make available to them the funds they need to enable them to do exactly what we have tasked them with doing, we ought to shut them down. Otherwise, every euro we give them really is money down the drain.

The same thing applies to the executive agencies. The Commission has already mentioned this. If we bleed dry the executive agencies that are supposed to implement the multiannual programmes that have been decided by law, these programmes are finished. Do we really want that to happen?

Elements in the Council hold pious speeches about how Europe must make greater efforts to be, or to become, competitive. In the budget procedure, however, it is precisely those parts of the budget that are intended to promote growth and competitiveness that are being cut, in other words, category Ia.

The structural policy figures are being affected in a similar way. Where there are now real requirements for funds from the regions, funding is being reduced by EUR 1 billion. That can hardly be regarded as logical, and it is certainly not wise.

We would really like those with the political responsibility to look closely at the content of our budget – the content! – and, in so doing, to have Europe and its added value for citizens in mind and in sight. Then they will indeed find a suitable partner for discussion in us.

  Melchior Wathelet, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, I should simply like to reply to a number of questions raised.

Firstly, as regards the fact that it was not possible to debate all the budget lines proposed by the Council, I presume that these discussions will take place. I think that these debates are necessary and that we need to discuss what the priorities should be within the framework of the 2011 budget. Indeed, reaching agreement within the Council was no easy matter. Suffice it to say that this budget, at Council level, was subject to a vote which was not a foregone conclusion. However, that is also due to the budgetary situation in each country. These are difficult times.

I should like, nonetheless, to remind you that, despite the difficult context, despite the difficulties we are each experiencing at home, the European budget has increased compared with 2010. There has been a 2.91% increase. In conclusion, as I said, some people wanted more, but it is still a significant increase compared with 2010.

Mrs Haug raised the question earlier of heading 1B. I would simply remind you that this heading has increased by 14% compared with 2010. It is therefore not accurate to say that the Council does not recognise the specific circumstances of heading 1B, when it has been increased by 14% compared with 2010. I think that there has been an increase in awareness in the Council which has not perhaps been sufficiently described or commented on.

I would also like to say to the rapporteur for the 2011 budget that, in the speech which I made here, we also wanted to draw attention to the work done by Parliament; you referred to a heading 1A in the budget that Parliament wanted to advance. I wanted to emphasise in my speech that the Council took note and was at pains to show, during the course of its work, that it was open to discussion, especially with regard to policy on young people. Of course, the discussion was opened on this policy because Parliament clearly defined it as one of its priorities.

I would also remind you that, as regards heading 5 and the institutional aspect as such, it is true that all the institutions need to make an effort, but it is equally true that, within the framework of the budget presented by the Council, we did not touch Parliament’s budget as such. However, I think that it is important for each institution to make savings and for us all to set an example, as it were, in what is a difficult year from a budgetary point of view.

To conclude, we shall, without doubt, have more fruitful meetings and discussions over coming weeks. I trust that they will be sufficiently fruitful to reach agreement on the 2011 budget and I would simply like to remind you that this will not be an easy budget, because we need to apply a new procedure, because there are all these new policies to implement – as you said – and also because we cannot disregard the difficult financial and budgetary situation in our Member States, each of which has budgetary targets to meet.

I also hope that, by being aware of all these difficulties, challenges and constraints, we shall, together, find a budget for 2011 which is acceptable to everyone and we shall, together, show that this new procedure in the Treaty of Lisbon may be brought to a successful conclusion, by which I mean with a budget adopted for 2011.

  President. – That concludes the item.

15. Question Time (Commission)

  President. – The next item is Question Time (B7-0454/2010).

The following questions are addressed to the Commission. I apologise in advance. Once again, we are running late, but we are going to have to bring this to a close at 20:30. I expect to do the priority questions starting with the question from Mr Paleckis, then Mr Aylward, Ms McGuinness, and then the questions to Mr Andor, Mr Piebalgs and Ms Hedegaard. One, at least, may be only one question each. I am sorry about this.

Part one

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, my point of order is that Question Time was supposed to start at seven o’clock. Am I to take it that my question to the Commissioner for Development will not be reached?

  President. – We may get there. When I took the chair an hour ago, we were running one hour late, and we are now running half an hour late. I am trying to speed things up, I am hoping to get to your question, but it is No 2 to the Commissioner, that is all I am saying.

  President. – Question 16 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0356/10)

Subject: Legislation on radioactive waste management and storage

Although 15 of the 27 European Union Member States have nuclear power plants, there are currently very few projects to set up long-term repositories for radioactive waste. While the EU recognises that the structure of energy supply is a matter for Member States, it is creating the most advanced legal framework for nuclear safety, security and the management of radioactive waste. This law is being proposed under the Euratom Treaty, in line with which the EU establishes and regulates basic safety standards.

It has been announced that the Commission will propose European legislation on radioactive waste management in the second half of 2010. A public consultation on such a legislative proposal is currently being carried out.

What stage have these consultations reached, and what results have been achieved? What specific environmental requirements will this directive seek to provide? Will there be specific requirements for those countries that have already closed their nuclear power plants – and have chosen different ways of managing waste – to build their own repositories or to repay suppliers in line with existing agreements?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – This is a question I am taking over from Commissioner Oettinger and his reply is as follows.

The public consultation published on the website ‘Your voice in Europe’ was carried out between 31 March 2010 and 31 May 2010. In total, 510 responses were received. In addition, several stakeholders sent written comments to the public consultation in the form of e-mails, letters or reports. In general terms, a large majority of European citizens is in favour of binding, Community legislation from which many expect enhancements as regards safety, legal certainty, public involvement and national decision making. The report is about to be published on the Commission webpage.

The legislative proposal would be based on Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty which deals with health and safety protection. It would aim at creating a Community framework for Member States to ensure the safe and sustainable management of spent fuel and radioactive waste for all types of waste and at all stages from generation to disposal, avoiding undue burdens on future generations.

As the technical assessment is still ongoing, it is too early to describe what environmental requirements there will be. All Member States would continue to be responsible for managing their spent fuel and radioactive waste.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D). – (LT) Thank you for your answer, but it was rather general and not very specific, and I feel that the European Union should still advance greater environmental requirements in this area. Although I understand that the relevant Commissioner is not here, I still would like to ask how the Commission plans to finance such things and whether sufficient funds will be allocated to ensure decisions which benefit nature.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Radioactive waste must be managed and stored under conditions of maximum safety.

Cooperation between European, national, regional and local authorities is vital in this process.

I would like to ask the Commission what role it sees for local authorities in this process.

  President. – Mr De Gucht is covering for Mr Oettinger. You may reply to those supplementaries if you are able to.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I will at least try not to say anything stupid!

Firstly, in answer to the additional question by Mr Paleckis, the financing, as far as I can see, will be a national matter, because responsibility will remain with the Member States. It is the legal framework that the European Union is going to put into place. My assumption would be that the financing will remain with the Member States unless, in the legislation and together with the budgetary authority, a different decision is taken.

Regarding the local authorities, I would think that this has to do with the distribution of power in the Member States concerned. If authorisations have to be delivered by the local authorities then, to a certain extent, they will be part of the decision-making process. However, it could also be that in a Member State, there is a provision by which the authorisations in this respect – for building activities for example – would be at a national level. That all remains to be seen, within the legislation that we are soon to propose to you.

  President. – Question 17 by Liam Aylward (H-0374/10)

Subject: European SMEs, international trade and child labour

What can the Commission do to ensure that European SMEs are not involved in child labour practices, either directly or indirectly, when purchasing products from developing nations? Does the Commission have any mechanism in place in order to monitor European trade and products that are linked to child labour in developing nations? What provisions are in place in order to tackle this issue?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – The Commission takes the issue of child labour very seriously. In June, the ILO indicated that some 200 million children work. Although there is a downward trend, which is encouraging, that is still 200 million too many children who are working when they should be receiving an education.

It is important to realise, however, that only around 5% of these children work in export-oriented sectors. According to ILO data, the vast majority work in subsistence farming or as domestic workers.

That is why the EU tackles child labour through a comprehensive policy approach that focuses on its root causes: poverty and a lack of access to quality education.

This approach was set out in this January’s Commission Staff Working Document on Combating Child Labour, which was endorsed by the Council on 14 June. I refer you to both documents for more specific details about that policy approach and its future development.

Taken together, these actions contribute to the internationally agreed goal of eliminating the worst forms of child labour by 2016 and eventually ending all forms of child labour.

Many EU companies, including SMEs, subscribe to corporate social responsibility schemes, through which they undertake to ensure that child and forced labour are not used in their supply chain. The Commission is currently exploring ways of better integrating human rights issues into EU corporate social responsibility policy.

In addition, SMEs can make use of a number of private sustainability assurance schemes operating within the EU, which, depending on the criteria utilised by the scheme in question, may require that child and forced labour are not used in the production of goods and services bearing the label associated with that scheme.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). – Commissioner, for some time, child labour activists and NGOs have been calling for the issue of child labour to be mainstreamed into all development policies rather than to be treated as a distinct issue, as is the case at the moment. What progress is the Commission making in this regard? Does the Commission have any specific policy in place to introduce, or to reintroduce, working children into the education system?

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, could you initiate talks in the WTO negotiations regarding the introduction of a quality label in relation to international trade – in particular, with small and medium-sized enterprises – which would provide consumers in Europe with a guarantee from a recognised and registered organisation that these products were manufactured without the use of child labour? I believe that this would be a voluntary measure that could help the situation very quickly.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – With regard to the additional question by Mr Aylward, I might add that respect for the eight core ILO Conventions, which encapsulate the fundamental rights of workers, forms an integral part of EU trade policy, be it in the ambit of the unilateral GSP+ scheme or of bilateral and regional arrangements.

These include Convention 138 on minimum age and Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour. More recent agreements include provision for an overview of the implementation and monitoring of compliance involving intergovernmental bodies, social actors, dialogue and, if necessary, an independent review resulting in public reports and recommendations.

Our policy is not to withdraw trade preferences. These can be withdrawn, and we can take action, but we believe – especially given the fact that only a very minor percentage of children are working in export-oriented businesses – that we should work pre-emptively. For example, we have several schemes with countries such as India, whereby we take care of the children and make sure that they have an education.

With respect to the additional question on SMEs, I agree that those schemes, even if voluntary, can add a lot. However, as I indicated in my initial answer, we have also seen that a lot of SMEs are ready to subscribe to schemes under which child labour cannot be part of the supply chain, and to put this into practice.

  President. – Question 18 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0376/10)

Subject: Possible impact of enhanced economic policy coordination

Can the Commission provide information and clarification on the possible implications of corrective action, namely sanctions, as outlined in the Communication on enhancing economic policy coordination for stability, growth and jobs and tools for stronger EU economic governance (COM(2010)0367)?

Should Member States exceed the requirements laid out in the Stability and Growth Pact, payments from the EU to national governments could be suspended. How can the Commission ensure that this action would not adversely affect citizens, for example, farmers, if such sanctions are imposed?

How can the Commission ensure that national governments will be in a position to respect their commitment to farmers and other recipients of EU supports, especially at a time when many Member State finances are under significant strain in the current economic climate?

In the event that Member States are unable to meet this need, what does the Commission propose should happen?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the 30 June communication on enhancing economic policy coordination for stability, growth and jobs is a follow-up to the Communication we released on 12 May and presents concrete tools for enhanced economic policy coordination.

We propose a more effective surveillance framework with improved fiscal surveillance, stronger surveillance of macro-economic imbalances and a more rigorous ex-ante coordination of economic policies under the ‘European Semester’. Our proposals have been well received in the Council, by the Herman Van Rompuy taskforce and by Parliament, as well as in the media. The conclusions of the European Council of 17 June gave a clear endorsement to our suggestions and encouraged us to go ahead with making better economic governance in Europe a reality as soon as possible.

The Commission will adopt the necessary formal legal proposals in the course of this month. It will count on the Council’s and the European Parliament’s support to adopt the necessary legislation and make these proposals operational as soon as possible. As part of the legislative package, we will propose a new toolbox of sanctions and incentives for compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. Strengthened enforcement mechanisms for fiscal rules are a central element of our proposals, key to the credibility of our fiscal framework, and an important topic under discussion in the taskforce.

As outlined in the 30 June communication, we will propose in the first stage a new system of sanctions for the 16 euro area Member States on the basis of Article 136 TFEU and for, firstly, the preventive and corrective arms of the Stability and Growth Pact and, secondly, the corrective arm of the surveillance of harmful macro-economic imbalances. This reflects the greater interdependence and stronger constraints in the monetary union. The sanctions will be complementary to those already foreseen by the Stability and Growth Pact but intervene at an earlier stage of the excessive deficit procedure and more automatically.

To improve compliance in all 27 Member States, we plan, in the second stage, to introduce the possibility of suspension and cancellation of current and future financial appropriations from the EU budget. This would concern expenditure related to cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy and the fisheries fund. Hence, the objective will be to use the EU budget as complementary leverage to strengthen incentives for compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact requirements.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Thank you Commissioner for your rather broad answer. I did read all of those details in the communication.

My question was more specific. Citizens have read of this possibility of sanctions. How can you penalise Member States and their governments without penalising their citizens? I think that is the core of my question. If you are going to stop the EU budget flowing to Member States, to the CAP or to cohesion, the question is: who will suffer from that decision? You need to clarify that point in the Chamber this evening.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Commissioner, I agree you need rules when you are part of a common currency, but the Stability and Growth Pact was put in place at a very different time. We have come to the verge of a global collapse, and while some countries are recovering better than others, certain countries – like my own – are still struggling.

It seems to me here, that we have all stick and no carrot. You are talking about a toolbox of sanctions, but as my colleague, Mrs McGuinness, said, these will impact on citizens. I do not believe it is the way for the Commission to proceed when some countries are still on the verge of economic collapse.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – This is a very important, but also a rather technical, question. In the case of multiannual programmes, the suspension of budget commitments would not have an immediate impact as payments can be made against related commitments within a period of usually two years. This should protect ongoing projects under multiannual programmes and provide sufficient time for the Member State concerned to take corrective action in line with the Council recommendations within the EDP.

The funds would be rebudgeted as soon as the Member State meets the Council’s recommendations. A definitive loss of payment would only occur if the Member State fails to comply with the Council’s recommendations. Moreover, in line with the communication of 30 June, the new sanction mechanisms should exclude a situation where the reduction of EU spending would lead to a reduction of farmers’ and fishermen’s income. The concrete proposals on the range of relevant expenditure categories and the design of the sanction mechanisms will ensure that this condition is met.

Part two

President. – As I said earlier, we are under a lot of pressure this evening for time and I am trying to get through as many questions as possible. I would be grateful to you all for your brevity.

Question 19 by Vilija Blinkeviciute (H-0360/10)

Subject: Implementation of pension reforms under the Europe 2020 strategy

The Europe 2020 strategy endorsed by the European Council states that, by pursuing long-term reforms, including reforming pension systems, long-term economic growth and promotion of employment can be expected throughout the European Union.

By what means does the Commission intend to carry out monitoring of pension reforms and to assess and disseminate the results achieved? How is the Commission planning to assess the adequacy and sustainability of social protection and pension systems? What efforts will be made to avoid negative consequences and to ensure that the reforms are not carried out solely at the expense of EU citizens, in particular, the elderly and the most socially vulnerable? Does the Commission have sufficient powers in this area?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – The last decade has seen major reforms of pension systems and these are continuing in most Member States.

The Commission supports, monitors and assesses the impact and implementation of national reforms through the open method of coordination with a view to developing pension systems that are adequate, sustainable, as well as modern and transparent.

Current work to monitor and assess pension systems in the EU includes the Joint Review on Pensions by the Economic Policy Committee and the Social Protection Committee.

The Joint Review on Pensions takes stock of the results of the last decade of pension reform and assesses progress made in the light of the setbacks due to the crisis and the bigger challenge to deliver pensions against a background of lower employment, lower growth, faster ageing and a much worse fiscal situation.

The Council adopted an interim report in June and a final report with country profiles should be adopted at the end of the year.

The Commission also works closely with Member States on a wide range of issues relating to pension systems and pension reform. For instance, annual joint reports and peer reviews offer advice and recommendations tailored to the situation in individual Member States.

To measure progress towards achieving adequate and sustainable pensions, the Member States, together with the Commission, have developed a set of indicators within the Social Protection Committee. These will also be used under Europe 2020 to assess the adequacy and sustainability of Member States’ social protection and pension systems.

Pension reform needs to be based on solutions that preserve the adequacy – and sustainability – of pensions, and which are not carried out at the expense of the elderly and the socially most vulnerable.

In his political guidelines last September, President Barroso said ‘we need to ensure that pensions do the job intended to provide the maximum support to current and future pensioners, including for vulnerable groups’.

Adequate pensions therefore means ensuring that older people are not placed at risk of poverty and that they can maintain their standard of living to a reasonable degree after retirement.

Given the current pressure on pension systems and the problems with alternatives – such as higher taxes on pension contributions or poorer pensioners – the Member States need to consider the role that more people working more and longer can play in ensuring pensions are both adequate and sustainable.

The Commission has always stressed that pension reform is essential but cannot suffice on its own. Workers must have both the opportunity and the capacity to work more and somewhat longer in order to acquire adequate pension rights.

This means fighting labour market discrimination against older workers, opening job markets for them, providing training and skill updates throughout their careers, adapting working conditions to the needs of people at different stages of life and ensuring that workers’ health and safety conditions improve.

Much greater efforts are needed here, and Europe 2020 provides a framework for such efforts. I hope the Member States will set their sights high in their first national reform programmes.

The current European framework for pensions – which spans everything from policy coordination to regulation – should be updated in the light of population change, the setbacks and lessons stemming from the crisis and changes in national pension systems.

With our Green Paper on Pensions published on 7 July, the Commission has opened a Europe-wide debate on whether and how the European Framework for Pensions should be developed to ensure our pensions are adequate, sustainable and safe.

The Green Paper does not dispute the fact that the design of pension systems is largely a Member State responsibility. Instead, it seeks to contribute to the debate on the EU’s added value for pensions.

It looks at how the EU can support the Member States in their efforts to adjust their policy and make pensions adequate for the future. And it discusses the options for a more robust European Framework for Pensions.

The Green Paper is an opportunity to canvass the views of all those with an interest in pensions – not just the Member States, but also employers and trade unions who play a key role in some pension schemes and, of course, the European Parliament. This will ensure that any measures we propose are based on solid evidence, are effective and proportionate, and fully respect the principle of subsidiarity.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Thank you for your answer, but I would really like you to provide a more detailed reply. What specific measures will the European Commission take regarding the employment of older people? The Green Paper you presented specifically refers to the fact that the extension of the pension age will inevitably become something negative given the current demographic situation in European Union Member States.

However, without specific measures relating to the employment of older people, extending the pension age would be damaging because older people will fall into the poverty trap.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – One of the main follow-ups of this work on pensions in the Green Paper will be the initiative to hold the European Year on Active Ageing in 2012. This is now in the process of being prepared and will soon be announced.

There will be some related work on demography in between. We would like to build this European Year on Active Ageing to support the employment opportunities of older workers, in combination with looking at what needs to be done in order to develop lifelong learning schemes and to preserve health, because all these are factors that influence the employment opportunities of this age group.

  President. – Question 20 by Georgios Papanikolaou (H-0363/10)

Subject: Impact on young people of new conditions of employment

The changes in conditions of employment promoted by the Greek Government will make it possible to hire entrants to the job market up to 21 years of age at 80%, and young people between 21 and 25 years of age, at 85% of the minimum wage, as set in each case by the General National Collective Employment Convention.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

In the context of the negotiations on the support mechanism for Greece and the relevant memorandum, has it asked the Greek Government, either officially or unofficially, to cut the wage entitlements of entrants to the job market?

Does it consider that practices of this kind by Member States are in line with the strategic objectives of Europe 2020 which seek to combat poverty and social inequality?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Greek authorities with the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund provides that the Greek Government is to adopt legislation for minimum entry-level wages for groups at risk, such as young people and the long-term unemployed. The goal is to promote job creation for groups who face a higher risk of unemployment and, therefore, of social exclusion.

Young people are commonly paid sub-minimum wages in other Member States, such as Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Portugal and the United Kingdom. While the main argument for introducing a minimum wage is to minimise in-work poverty, high minimum wages may increase labour costs, and that may constitute a barrier to young people’s entry into the labour market and thus contribute to higher unemployment.

The very high rate of unemployment among young people in Greece is evidence of the difficulty they face in getting into the labour market. The national figure for unemployment among those aged 15 to 29 for April this year was 30.8%, compared to an average of 19.8% across the European Union. That figure is expected to rise further this year and next.

Long-term unemployment figures are also higher in Greece, which highlights how hard it is for the long-term unemployed to get back into the labour market. Some measures in the Memorandum of Understanding provide an emergency response to a critical situation. They involve the setting of minimum wages in nominal terms for a period of three years and are targeted at those facing difficulty in entering the labour market, such as the young and the long-term unemployed.

Quality of jobs and decent employment conditions remain a top priority for the Union, as is shown by the Integrated Guidelines – which were discussed this afternoon – which provide the framework for the Europe 2020 strategy.

The Commission constantly advocates a set of measures to address labour market segmentation, to ensure the unemployed and other vulnerable groups have adequate support and to foster sustainable employment and social cohesion.

These measures are also tangibly supported by EU Funds and the European Social Fund, in particular. In Greece, the European Social Fund finances a number of measures to boost access to the labour market, with priority for young people, women, the long-term unemployed and other vulnerable groups. It does this through a range of measures, such as personalised services for the unemployed, work experience programmes for new entrants to the labour market, the promotion of employability or reskilling, support to professional mobility and so on.

The Memorandum of Understanding also sets targets for Greece to increase its absorption of Structural and Cohesion Fund resources channelled into high investment and growth projects.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Thank you, Commissioner, for your reply. However, I did not understand if the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding are Commission proposals and/or the thoughts of the Greek Government, which ultimately arrived at these conclusions in terms of reduced pay for young workers. The Memorandum of Understanding also states – and you mentioned some figures – that unemployment will gradually rise across all social groups up to 2012 and that the group which will be worse hit will be people between 20 and 25 years of age.

My question is: how will we manage, in 2020, to come even close to our strategic targets at European level if we move away from them?

  Brian Crowley (ALDE). – The new challenges which are now being faced by young people in accessing training and employment require new initiatives to target that particular group. One thing which I do not see in any of the proposals coming from the Commission is the use of the Internet and social networking sites as a way of trying to attract people to apply for training or to put their ideas forward. Are there any new initiatives coming from the Commission with regard to that?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I would just like to refer to this morning’s speech by the President, in which he outlined some new ideas for enhancing skills development and mobility within the European Union, especially to the benefit of the young.

We have a variety of schemes in that area, and I would like to refer to next week’s Youth on the Move proposal which will not only focus on mobility, but also on a variety of combined initiatives to improve the employment opportunities of young people – not specifically in Greece, though I am sure Greece will also benefit from it.

  President. – Mr Crowley, your question will be answered in writing in full.

As the author is not present, Question 22 lapses.

Question 23 by Gay Mitchell (H-0387/10)

Subject: Millennium Development Goals Summit

The primary goal of the upcoming summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in New York is the acceleration of progress towards the achievement of all MDGs by 2015.

As the EU’s representative at the summit, what are the specific aims of the Commission and is the Commission confident that the UN can agree to reaffirm the commitments made in 2000?

Furthermore, will the Commission assure the United Nations that the European Union remains committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance by 2015?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – With only five years left to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by the agreed deadline of 2015, the Commission firmly believes that they are still achievable if all partners in the international community demonstrate strong political commitment, implement the necessary policies, and take concrete action based on lessons learned. Many developing countries have made considerable progress towards the achievement of the Goals and are likely to achieve them, but a number of countries could have difficulty in achieving them

The United Nations High-Level Plenary Meeting in September 2010 certainly represents a challenge, but the Commission aims not only for a confirmation of the commitments made in 2000, but also for a concrete and action-oriented outcome which will pave the way for the next five years and help reach the 2015 objectives.

The achievement of the Millennium Development Goals is, first and foremost, the responsibility of each country involved. As regards international support through Official Development Assistance, the European Union, as the world’s biggest donor, assumes leadership and sets an example for other partners. Based on the proposals made by the Commission, EU Member States have agreed on a set of ambitious and concrete actions and policies to be implemented between now and 2015. They constitute the EU’s common position in view of the UN summit and beyond, and confirm the EU’s firm commitment to supporting the achievement of MDGs globally by 2015.

The European Council conclusions of June 2010 reaffirm the EU’s commitment to achieve development aid targets, and EU Member States agreed to assess progress annually on the basis of the report by the Council. A follow-up to these actions will also be carried out annually by the Commission. At the UN summit in September, the EU can therefore strongly reiterate its commitment to the MDGs, not least to achieving the aid target of 0.7% of GNI for Development Assistance by 2015.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – May I thank the Commissioner for his response. In these stringent times, would the Commissioner agree with me that it is necessary to communicate to the public what is successful in terms of the development budget we are spending so that we can ensure continued support for this?

Secondly, would he agree that, with GNI going down, it is inevitable that contributions will go down, but that they should not go down as a percentage of reduced GNI in such a way that the developing world is penalised twice?

Will the Commissioner highlight this matter in New York?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – Public support is definitely extremely important, so communication and accountability as regards all development assistance is crucial. The Commission is engaged in a number of projects, such as the European development days which I have just mentioned, where we try to communicate what we have achieved. We will put every effort into this.

Concerning GNI, with GNI coming down, the amount of money – at least in some countries – will definitely be lower. We are now around 0.4% GNI, so we need to work hard to achieve 0.7% GNI. The Commission will certainly stress that we should not decrease the amount of money either in absolute or in relative figures, because we are below what we have ourselves pledged. Our credibility very much depends on the level of commitment and delivery on the Millennium Development Goals and Official Development Assistance.

  President. – Mr Gallagher has now arrived. Commissioner, would you mind answering Question 22 by Mr Gallagher on the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit?

Question 22 by Pat the Cope Gallagher (H-0385/10)

Subject: The forthcoming EU-Africa Summit

Can the Commission make a statement outlining the key political issues that will be discussed at the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit and what does the Commission expect to be achieved at this political summit?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – The political issues to be addressed at the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit are being prepared in close cooperation with the other institutional EU actors involved, in line with the new institutional set-up under the Lisbon Treaty. The Commission, as one of the motors of the Joint Africa-EU strategy, will play a key role in defining the agenda of that summit.

The European Commission expects that the third EU-Africa Summit, to be held in Libya at the end of November 2010, will define in more concrete terms the scope and ambition of political and technical cooperation between the European Union and Africa in the coming years. In particular, the summit should agree on the substance and working methods of the new Joint Africa-EU strategy and the Action Plan for 2011-2013.

It is important to remember that the Lisbon Summit in 2007 was essentially about upgrading Africa-EU relations, building on a partnership of equals. The 2010 summit should be oriented towards action and achieving very concrete results.

As regards the substance in detail, the Commission would like to see the following issues addressed at the summit:

– an over-arching theme of growth, job creation and investment, which is crucial for both the EU and Africa. This theme will allow leaders to discuss enablers for economic growth in areas like energy efficiency, private sector development and trade, agriculture and food security;

– environmental protection, particularly focusing on climate change and biodiversity protection;

– peace and security, which is an important issue, including addressing crisis situations, the combating of terrorism, piracy and transnational crime, and the links to governance and human rights.

The Commission expects a number of leaders from both continents to attend this meeting and to agree upon concrete deliverables, reaching out to all African and European stakeholders, media and citizens. In the margins of the summit, Heads of State or Government will be able to share their views with representatives of the two parliaments, the private sector and civil society.

In addition, the Commission plans to engage other representatives of African stakeholders, universities and researchers, youth organisations and local authorities. As with previous summits, these side events will culminate in the adoption of political declarations and/or joint statements by the Heads of State or Government.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Thank you, Commissioner for facilitating my question.

This is a very important summit, and I was pleased to learn about the issues that will be addressed, whether it is growth, jobs, investment, energy, the environment or peace and security, but it is important also, as you have said, that there will be concrete deliverables.

This is an opportunity for me to ask you, Commissioner, to use your good offices to impress upon all the EU Member States the importance of overseas development aid, and to impress upon them that now, at a time of recession, it is very simple to reduce the level of aid, but that they should not do that.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – My job is to encourage Member States to supply development aid, and I am fully engaged in that exercise.

I believe we can be proud of what we have achieved. Without our aid – and we are the biggest aid supplier – there would be a lot more instability in the world and there would be much more poverty. This means that our support and our development aid matters, as the President of Mali stated in this auditorium today.

  President. – Question 26 by Silvia-Adriana Ticau (H-0354/10)

Subject: Measures to fight drought and desertification

Climate change is affecting the Member States in dramatic fashion, with many of them now having to handle long heatwaves, prolonged drought and large-scale desertification. This seriously affects agriculture and economic development in the regions concerned. The EU needs its southern and eastern Member States to develop comprehensive irrigation systems and reforestation programmes if desertification and drought are to be fought effectively.

Can the Commission state what measures for adaptation to climate change it will propose in order to support the EU's southern and eastern Member States in their fight against drought and desertification? Can the Commission also provide information on the funding sources for each measure proposed by it?

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – In 2006 and early 2007, the Commission carried out an in-depth assessment of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union. Following this assessment, the Commission presented an initial set of policy options to increase water efficiency and water savings in a communication from the Commission on ‘Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union’. That was published in July 2007.

Seven policy options were identified for tackling water scarcity and drought issues: putting the right price tag on water, allocating water and water-related funding more efficiently, improving drought risk management, considering additional water supply infrastructures, fostering water-efficient technologies and practices, fostering the emergence of a water-saving culture in Europe, and how to improve knowledge and data collection. These were the seven elements.

Based on information from Member States and on its own research, the Commission prepares annual follow-up reports that assess the implementation of these policy options throughout the European Union. The Commission is also implementing the White Paper ‘Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action’. A further communication on mainstreaming adaptation and mitigation into the key EU policies is foreseen next year.

Furthermore, the Commission intends to launch by 2012 a blueprint for Europe’s waters which will be based on a review of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, a review of the water scarcity and droughts policy and a review of the vulnerability of water resources to climate change.

In order to prepare this blueprint, the Commission is launching a number of activities, including a pilot project on the development of prevention activities to halt desertification in Europe and an integrated assessment study of the vulnerability of European water resources to climate change and adaptation measures.

Droughts and desertification are also addressed by measures through sectoral policies such as rural development under the common agricultural policy and through cohesion policy.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) The fight against climate change is a priority for the European Union. The effects of climate change are increasingly plain to see. This is why I would like to ask you what the Commission is going to do to ensure that the European Union’s budget reflects this priority. How will you use the mid-term review and the future Multiannual Financial Framework to achieve these objectives?

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – One of the ideas we have, and I mentioned this during my hearing back in January, is that in the new financial perspective, we will try to have a system of climate proofing of projects. In other words, if the European Union contributes to financing say, an infrastructure project – a huge construction project of some kind – it would be practical for us to take into consideration, at the construction stage, what we know about rising water levels and about the impact of climate change.

In other words, one of our priorities is to see if we could have climate proofing of the way that we spend money, so that we only provide EU financial support for projects for which we are sure that all the knowledge we have on adaptation requirements for the area in question is being taken into consideration. This is just one example.

  President. – As they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together:

Question 27 by Karl-Heinz Florenz (H-0364/10)

Subject: Preparation of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 16)

The next Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change takes place in Mexico from 29 November to 10 December 2010.

How does the Commission assess the chances of reaching a comprehensive climate agreement?

What outcome is the Commission seeking, specifically with regard to issues such as financing, deforestation, the further development of emissions trading and adaptation?

What specific preparations are being made by the Commission, not least in its exchanges with key players such as the USA and China?

How will the Commission ensure that representatives of the European Parliament are also involved in an appropriate manner?

and Question 28 by Andres Perello Rodriguez (H-0371/10)

Subject: EU contribution to the success of the Cancún Summit

Yvo de Boer, the former UN climate change chief, stated in Bonn that it was ‘extremely unlikely’ that the forthcoming Cancún Summit would produce a binding agreement regulating greenhouse gas emissions from 2012 onwards, when the Kyoto Protocol expires. Other political figures also attending the Bonn meeting, such as the Mexican Deputy Environment Minister, Fernando Tudela, warned that the negotiation process had to be modernised and revitalised if Cancún was to be a success.

Does the Commission think that we still have time to ensure that the Cancún Summit is not merely an interim step, but produces a genuine, binding agreement? How can the EU contribute to making the negotiations currently taking place more flexible, practical and efficient with a view to reaching as final a compromise text as possible for the COP 16?

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – I will try to answer two questions at the one time as they are both on the strategy for Cancún. I think it is very well known to those of you who are here that the EU’s objective on climate change is a comprehensive, legally-binding agreement that allows us to limit temperature increase to below 2 °C.

Such an agreement should be reached as soon as possible. That was our line up to Copenhagen. It is still our line. The EU is ready to adopt such an agreement at the Cancún conference in November/December 2010, but we have to recognise that, once again, others – and I say this having attended a ministerial meeting as recently as last week – will probably not be ready. We must therefore be realistic. I think it is fair to say that the step-by-step approach the Commission suggested back in March has got a lot of backing internationally. That is what is being pursued now. Therefore, of course, the big issue is what that then means for Cancún and what kind of package can be agreed in Cancún.

As we see it, we should aim at solving key architectural issues and launching concrete action through a set of decisions. The Cancún package could contain the following elements. First, we will have to cash in on the new elements that we actually agreed upon in the Copenhagen Accord. That will have to be reflected in the formal negotiations through decisions in Cancún.

It is also crucial that we make substantial progress when it comes to measuring, reporting and verification of emission reductions and to financial support. This is another key element.

Deforestation – formally establishing the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation mechanisms as foreseen in the Copenhagen Accord – should also be one of the deliverables from a package agreed in Cancún. We were so close in Copenhagen. We must be able to make an ambitious decision on forestry.

The same could be said on agreement on a framework for action on adaptation and also on technology cooperation. We are pursuing a strategy where we will try to see if we could have that as part of a decision in Cancún.

We should also have substantial progress on the financial architecture. Needless to say, when it comes to ‘fast start’ financing, one of the defining issues for Cancún will be whether the rest of the world can see that the developed countries live up to their financial pledges given in Copenhagen for fast start financing.

But we should also now try to discuss the architecture of the longer term, including how to establish a ‘green climate fund’. Preferably, we would also like to see decisions on new carbon market mechanisms to continue the development of the global carbon market for emission trading – in other words, modernisation of the CDM.

Finally, it is also on our wish list that we should see progress when it comes to emissions from aviation and maritime transport.

In addition, we are looking to anchor mitigation commitments made so far as a basis for their further discussion and strengthening. With such a result, Cancún would lay a solid foundation for an action-driven international framework and we would have proved that, if we can agree on substance, then it might be easier next year to agree on the future legal form.

However, we have to be clear that the outcome in Cancún must be balanced. What do I mean by balanced? The Kyoto Protocol, in its current structure, cannot deliver the objective to remain below 2 °C alone.

The EU position on a second commitment period under Kyoto is therefore clear. We are open to a second commitment period, but let us make it very clear to everybody that, in itself, that does not change a lot. We must have some conditions attached to this, or else we will make it more difficult for ourselves to pressure others to give commitments in the future. We must see comparable commitments by developed countries that are not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, such as the United States, and we must see actions by major emerging economies such as China.

But there are also other conditions that we will have to have fulfilled in order to accept a second commitment period. That is about environmental integrity, because there are today some weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol that undermine its environmental integrity. These weaknesses must be addressed – in particular, in relation to the accounting methods for developed countries’ forestry and the banking of surplus emission budgets, the so-called AAUs, also called ‘hot air’. Otherwise, there is no chance that the world can stay below the 2 ºC.

Finally, we must improve the current rulebook, as we call it. Today, for instance, Kyoto rules prohibit the EU accounting for its coverage of the aviation sector. It prohibits us from new sectoral mechanisms. Also, we must have a modernisation of the CDM system. These kinds of obstacles must be changed in a future set-up, and we should take care that we do not just take a second commitment period without making this very clear and having it corrected.

At this point, there is a strong imbalance in the negotiations. Negotiations on the continuation of Kyoto are much more advanced than negotiations on new action from the US and emerging economies. We urgently need to make significant progress on the latter if Cancún is to succeed and if we are going to make real progress.

An important way for the EU to contribute to success in Cancún is to continue to lead by example. We are the world leader on climate action. We are on track to meet our Kyoto target. We have inscribed our 20% reduction commitment into law and we are willing to increase our target to 30%, if the conditions are right. In other words, we are delivering. We are also delivering on the fast start finance so, again, we are not the problem.

Last but not least – I was also asked about this in the questions – we are conducting a very active outreach to a number of other countries, and the Commission is also working with the Member States’ diplomatic services now with a view to launching a specific EU Green Diplomacy Network demarche in the run-up to Cancún, to sensitise political decision makers in selected third countries to our views.

In parallel, we have intensified the day-to-day outreach on climate carried out through the EU’s network of delegations. Needless to say, we would very much like to work with Parliament on these outreach activities. I had a fruitful exchange with your Conference of Delegation chairs today on the issue. I think Parliament has an excellent opportunity to reach out to different parliamentarians. If we cooperate and exchange the views we get, then we will also have a stronger position overall.

  Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you very much for your diplomatic reply. We are, in fact, preparing the resolution for Cancún and, ultimately, if we ever want to conclude a firm agreement, we must, of course, specify exactly what we want. You said that we have offered 20%. If the figures are right, you want to offer 30%. What do you mean by ‘if the figures are right’? Could you explain that to us and is that really the will of the entire Commission?

  Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, if the clarification of the Commissioner’s answer is that we are going to be the vanguard that the world is waiting for, that we are going to keep up our efforts and that we are going to call on the rest without waiting for them to call on us, and be at the forefront, then I agree with that. If, moreover, the Commissioner manages to ensure that our single position has a single voice rather than 27, as may have been the case in Copenhagen, that would also be perfect.

I also join Mr Florenz in requesting clarification, because I have the same question.

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – ‘If conditions are right’ was the way I put it to Mr Florenz. I think that what is now very important is for the Member States of the European Union to reflect back on the very thorough communication that we sent out in May. I, of course, was very happy to see that the French, German and British Ministers of the Environment so clearly spoke out in the middle of July, and I only hope that other Member States will do the same.

I think they showed, in the way they argued, that this is not just a question of international negotiations; it is also about what actually serves Europeans’ interests properly. That is what we are going to continue to discuss –including with the Belgians under the Belgian Presidency – and, of course, it is also very significant what kind of message comes to us from the European Parliament. So you also have quite an influence there.

I must say to Mr Perello Rodriguez that I very much agree with the necessity of speaking with one voice. As I have said before, that does not mean that only one voice can be that voice. What is important is that, whenever other parties in the world listen to what European representatives tell them, they can be more or less sure that it is the same kind of message coming out, the same line that we are advocating.

That is what is important, and that is what we are working to secure with the Belgian Presidency, including in the way that we formulate the mandates, because we cannot continue to signal to the whole world where our red lines are. If we do not want them to know exactly where all our red lines are, we must make some more flexible mandates, and then we must have confidence in one another and be sure that we then have some leverage to negotiate. I think that is also crucial for the way we will come out of Cancún.

  President. – Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 20:30 and resumed at 21:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Roberta ANGELILLI
Vice-President

16. Freedom of expression and press freedom in the European Union (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on freedom of expression and press freedom in the European Union.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, freedom of expression and media pluralism constitute one of the essential foundations of our democratic societies, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, Article 2 of the Treaty on the EU settles the common values shared by the Member States and includes pluralism as one additional element to be considered when assessing the implementation of those values.

Respect for media pluralism, protection of journalists’ sources, freedom to criticise private and government powers, independent media and independent regulatory bodies are all essential for the full exercise of freedom of expression, and the Commission is fully committed to the defence of fundamental rights.

Allow me to recall what is already in place, in particular, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. This refers to the importance of promoting media pluralism in the application of its provisions in six recitals. Moreover, three important elements in the directive strengthen media pluralism.

Number one: the promotion of independent TV productions; number two: the right of journalists and news organisations to access short extracts across the EU for the purpose of short reporting; and number three: reference to the need to have independent media authorities at national level, a reference that could only be adopted thanks to the strong support of the European Parliament.

The transposition period has recently lapsed, and the Commission is now examining the implementing measures that Member States have already notified. It is only after this examination that the Commission will be able to assess the compatibility of those laws with EU law and fundamental rights and to say if any criticism of national legislation is well-founded or not.

The Commission has already launched infringement proceedings against 12 Member States that have failed to meet the transposition deadline. More will be revealed in the first application report, due to appear by 19 December 2011. In the meantime, however, if other infringements are detected, the Commission will not hesitate to take the necessary steps, including citing the Court of Justice of the EU.

No gardener pulls up his best young plants just to inspect the roots. The Commission does not intend to propose the revision of a recently amended directive, the real impact of which has yet to be assessed.

Furthermore, spectrum policy is a clear example where the EU can act within its field of competence to enhance competition for the resources on which broadcasters depend, and thereby to strengthen media pluralism. The Commission, as you are aware, is about to adopt a major radio spectrum policy programme to enhance the fair distribution of spectrum across Europe and allow the development of new forms of media to the benefit of media pluralism.

More generally, going beyond the specific case of audiovisual media, there are several questions that need to be tackled before any new substantial action is taken in this field. For example, is new EU legislation the real answer to the questions raised by certain national proposals? From the point of view of EU competence, is it possible to identify the internal market problem to be tackled? Is there broad support in Parliament for the substantive approach to be taken, going beyond the specificities of individual national cases?

All this being said, you are aware that the Commission has organised a study to develop a set of objective indicators to assess media pluralism, related not only to the audiovisual media but also to the written press. We have published that study on our website.

The question has arisen about what should be the next step with respect to a study, and in that connection, I wanted to let you know that I was waiting to have a proper discussion with you about that matter. The views expressed across the House today will therefore be key input into those reflections, and I will make sure that the College of Commissioners is fully informed and ready to discuss these.

As regards fundamental rights, the Commission has no general powers – as you are aware – to intervene in cases of violations of fundamental rights. However, it would be able to examine respect for freedom of expression and media pluralism in specific cases where a link with EU law could be established. At this stage, and without prejudice to further legal analysis, no such systemic link can be established from the situations in a number of Member States with which I understand certain honourable Members are concerned.

In addition, the question has arisen as to whether Article 7 of the TEU should be applied to the various Member States in question. As explained in our communication of 15 October 2003 to Parliament and to the Council, Article 7 aims to cover situations which either constitute a serious and persistent breach of values laid down in Article 2 of the TEU or create a clear risk of a serious breach of the latter. In the Commission’s opinion, the situation regarding the media in the various Member States does not fulfil the conditions necessary to trigger the Article 7 procedure.

Member States have constitutional traditions which protect fundamental rights. Europe, therefore, cannot replace Member States when it comes to enforcing fundamental rights. However, the Commission will never shy away from dealing with national decisions which infringe EU laws and the common values of the EU and will fully exercise its competences and its role of guardian of the treaties.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to talk about freedom of expression in the European Union is to cover a broad subject area. I thank the Commission for the broad approach to this matter.

This is a debate about principles. From my own country, Germany, I can report that one political party, a political power, namely the Social Democrats, owns newspapers and publishing houses, in other words, it has large newspapers under its control. We citizens repeatedly ask ourselves whether it is good for parties to own parts of the media or whether it would actually be better for these two to be separate. Thus, there is a great deal to discuss with regard to this issue.

However, I would like to use today’s debate to talk instead about principles. The media are part of the foundation of our democracy. They inform people of factual circumstances and they scrutinise those who hold power. Of course, this task performed by the media also brings with it a large responsibility to use this power in a responsible manner. In this regard, it is important to protect peoples’ privacy and it is important that news is not reported in order to create a sensation, but to provide reliable information. In that respect, the media are part of the foundation of our civil democracy.

Independence is what is most important here. Publishers must grant their journalists independence. In the national structures that we have – we as the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) view this as positive, because the media are also part of our culture – we need independence from political influence, and neither must advertising customers influence the work of editorial staff.

If we take a look at the reality of journalism today, one of the greatest challenges for independent journalism is probably the subject of the Internet, in other words, the ability to access information on the Internet free of charge without knowing whether this information is correct or incorrect. That is a major challenge. In order to maintain high quality journalism, which we need to ensure, even in the age of the Internet, we must uphold the copyright of the journalists who supply high quality work. This is a key challenge for the future.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SK) According to the classification of the Freedom House organisation, certain Member States such as Italy, Bulgaria and Romania are, from the perspective of press freedom, only partially free.

It has to be said that the Union as a whole has so far done little in this area. Less than a year ago, for example, the European Parliament rejected a resolution on inadequate press freedom in Italy, designating it a national matter. However, how can freedom of expression be a national matter when, according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, everyone has a right to freedom of expression and the freedom and plurality of the media must be respected.

The Charter is a legally-binding component of the Treaty of Lisbon, and I therefore firmly believe that it is desirable for the Union to act against national interference in freedom of expression and press freedom, whether in the form of attempts to restrict freedom under the pretext of the fight against terrorism, or protecting journalists and the anonymity of sources. A certain level of legislative harmonisation will be essential in this area if we want the Union to promote freedom of expression and press freedom effectively.

The situation is alarming at the moment in Romania, where the security cabinet led by the President of Romania has adopted a political programme document expressing a national strategy in which the media is defined as one of the possible threats to the security of the country. It is important to emphasise that the situation in Romania is in complete conflict with the treaty, with the Copenhagen criteria, and with the Convention on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms.

It is unacceptable in the present day for the executive power of the state to interfere in such a way with freedom of expression and press freedom. We must unequivocally reject this approach of Romania, and call on Romanian Government representatives to amend the national legislation and harmonise it with the fundamental and principle legal documents on which the Union is based.

Finally, I would like to mention one example as an inspiration. Only recently, Iceland passed a very progressive law on the protection of news sources and on support for investigative journalists. I see no reason why the European Union should postpone taking similar initiatives for itself.

  Sonia Alfano, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all unfortunately aware of the information situation in Italy. We are classified as a partly free country by Freedom House and occupy 71st place along with the islands of Tonga, ranking only just above East Timor. The ‘gagging law’ is only the latest development in an overall situation in which the country’s democratic defences are being greatly weakened, in particular, due to the lack of free information.

As the OECD indicates in its most recent report, the disintegration of democracy and of the vested rights to information and free expression is unfortunately spreading throughout Europe. We need only think of France, with its government-appointed top public television service executive, or Hungary, Estonia and Romania, which, after taking tough legal action to limit freedom of expression, are making it impossible for information to play its essential democratic role as government watchdog.

For this reason, I believe it is the Commission’s duty to make a strong, consistent commitment to defending media and information freedom, in line with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I therefore ask the Commission what action it intends to take to promote genuine media pluralism in the EU Member States and, in particular, when it will issue the communication on indicators for media pluralism, which was promised for 2010, together with the associated legislative proposal.

I would not like to think that, as with the expulsion of the Roma in France, the Commission is tempted to give up its defence of freedom and democracy in Europe in order to cover up the work of Member State governments, which are increasingly concerned with hiding their wrongdoings from the press and the public.

I hope that you, and also Commissioner Reding, will be able to reassure me on this point.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Madam President, this House regularly discusses freedom of the press both within and outside Europe and, like you, I remember a heated debate in the autumn of 2009 on freedom of the press in Italy, among other countries. Was it legitimate for us Europeans to point the finger at Italy and its prime minister Mr Berlusconi, or was it a domestic matter in which the rest of Europe should not have been interfering? In July, the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) published her report. She did dare to point the finger. The OSCE has done the rounds in Europe and drawn our attention to the following countries. The murder of a blogger, Socrates Giolias, in Greece, the murder of a journalist, Grigorijs Nemcovs, in Latvia, the new media law in Hungary that encroaches on the autonomy of public TV channels and decreases the available media, and the presidential supervision of public channels in France by President Sarkozy. I have just heard something about Romania, and then, of course, there are the latest developments in Italy whereby a law prohibits investigative journalists from reproducing wire tapped materials.

Turkey, Serbia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina, too – countries with the prospect of joining the European Union – receive reprimands from the OSCE, and rightly so. A big stick remains for these countries, however: membership of the European Union. Freedom of the press is one of our Copenhagen criteria. Therefore, benchmarking is used for accession countries, and it is distressing to see that the European Council does not consider these benchmarks applicable to itself. If it were up to the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Italy would indeed lose its voting rights in the Council whilst it persisted in the repression of journalists and whilst everything continued to be in the hands of a single businessman and prime minister.

To return to the subject of media concentration, however, the fact that commercial and public media in Italy are in the same hands is well known, but let us not forget that there are also Axel Springer, Bertelsmann, Rupert Murdoch and, in the Netherlands and Belgium, Christian van Thillo, who owns a very large number of newspapers. A free press is crucial to our democracy, and it is up to the European Commission to present us with a proposal to combat media concentration, precisely because we have to take the OSCE seriously.

  Zbigniew Ziobro, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, there can be no free and democratic society without free and pluralist media which guarantee that people are provided with reliable information and a variety of points of view and opinions. Media are for democracy what the bloodstream is for the body. I think this metaphor, taken from the world of medicine, has clear application here. If the circulatory system fails or the bloodstream encounters any obstructions, the body is inevitably weakened and begins to be ill. It is no different with the relationship between pluralism in the media and democracy. If the reliable flow of information fails or encounters obstructions, democracy begins to have problems. This may seem obvious, but perhaps, despite appearances, it is not obvious, since we do not devote as much attention to the problem as it deserves – and this is also true in the Member States.

It is high time the European Union institutions began to devote much more time to this fundamental problem, and I stress what Mrs Kroes said: ‘this fundamental problem’. We should ask ourselves if we are doing enough, and if the EU institutions are doing enough, to guarantee that the greater part of the media is not concentrated in only a few hands. It is also important that no individual entity be able to control different media operating in different areas, such as television, newspapers, Internet and radio. I think the European Union should do much more to introduce regulations which ensure deconcentration in every area of the media market, and not just television. It should be stressed that the boundaries of free speech in commercial media are often set by the interests of their owners and advertisers. A further danger is that the owners of media who are sympathetic to certain political groupings may favour these groups’ point of view.

A problem in Poland is that there is a closed media system, as some commentators call it. All the main mass media speak the same way. Journalists who depart from this main trend, who present a different point of view, are given critical write-ups and are sometimes met with smear campaigns and downright attempts to discredit them. There is, therefore, a problem and a great imbalance in the provision of information and opinion – and the provision of information is a foundation of democratic society. I can mention journalists such as Tomasz Sakiewicz, Jan Pospieszalski, Ewa Stankiewicz and Janina Jankowska, because it can be said they have been facing harassment recently in Poland, even though harassment is a strong word. These people have a fine record in the fight for a free and independent Poland, for a free and democratic society, and for free and democratic media. Now, in Europe, we must remember this and do everything possible to achieve real pluralism in the media market.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, I come from journalism and I think that I know very well to what degree there is freedom of speech in Europe today. I consider that there is freedom of speech, but that it belongs to the owners of the media, it belongs to the owners of radio and television stations. It also belongs, to a degree, to those who have a secure income or a secure job. Thereafter, freedom of speech is lost for many thousands or perhaps many millions of people.

I should like to say to the Commission that there is a way of increasing the power of journalism. Will a journalist have a job if he disagrees in his report with the owner? Can he take recourse to an agency and seek to exercise his right to freedom of speech, regardless of whether what he says conflicts with what the owner believes? Can we, as the European Union, create such an agency to which a journalist can take recourse, knowing that he will have a job the next day? Obviously, freedom of speech should not depend on a journalist’s ‘bravery’, because there are such brave journalists and well done to them. They are fighters. However, we should work to ensure that all journalists enjoy this freedom.

I should like to close with a reference to the Internet, which goes to the other extreme. Here, freedom of speech often borders on unaccountability. How can we control who says what, who insults whom, who threatens whom on the Internet, without some sort of control on the ‘freedom’ of the Internet?

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) I would like to mention, by way of introduction, that in today’s world, we can no longer make such a close link between freedom of expression and press or media freedom. Media freedom is more a question of respecting the rights of owners, who determine the content and character of their media, and accordingly also appoint the staff, from chief editor to graphic designer. They deliver the content they think will interest the reader and they produce it at their own discretion. In many cases, today’s media have therefore come to resemble a kind of interest group, which consciously and deliberately attempts to shape public opinion.

Of course, we cannot expect that the so-called free media will automatically satisfy the right to objective information in respect of the citizen who is a recipient of their targeted output, whether as reader, listener or viewer. It is therefore more important, when it comes to the consistent application of freedom of expression and the unrestricted publication of ideas, to expand the freedom to transmit unaltered information as much as possible, as this contributes towards eliminating the deliberate selection and alteration of information by these free enterprise media.

In my opinion, we should no longer be too worried about misuse of the media by actual government authorities in today’s European Union. Instead, I see a greater risk of potential misuse of information in the media in the excessive concentration of media in the hands of powerful interest groups, and in the media manipulation of public opinion by these groups. I have no great illusions about the freedom of journalists. There is a saying that applies to most of them: he who pays the piper calls the tune.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, freedom of expression is under great pressure in Europe and the Netherlands. The multicultural elite is putting pressure to bear so that people quite rightly pointing out the threat posed by religions and ideologies are being persecuted. Criticism of religions and ideology is always legitimate. People’s choice to believe in something is taken of their own free will and must not inconvenience others. People are not born into a faith or ideology but embrace it because, for them, it is the truth. Yet it is their own truth; they should keep it to themselves and not inconvenience others with it. As soon as that truth professes to be a universal truth and, what is more, seeks to amend constitutional law, criminal law, civil law and so on, it becomes highly dangerous.

Criticism of a person’s ideology or faith must not be subject to persecution in any shape or form. Individual decisions and experiences cannot be above the law. Everyone has the right to cause hurt or offence; it is not always as nice to be on the receiving end, but it is the basis of freedom of expression, as caresses and words of praise do not need safeguarding. Causing hurt or offence is both possible and legitimate. The truth sometimes hurts.

At the end of the day, freedom of expression arose in order to protect citizens against oppression by tyrannical rulers. This freedom functions as a way of criticising and making adjustments to the ruling power. It represents an opportunity for ordinary citizens to make their views known to a social elite seeking to impose its particular standards and values on them.

In the Netherlands, politicians, cartoonists and columnists are being arrested, questioned or charged precisely because they have exercised this right – the right to express their views. The most noteworthy example of this is the absurd political trial against my party leader Geert Wilders. He is being prosecuted because we, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), rightly point out the dangers of the political ideology that is Islam. Islam bears greater responsibility than any other movement or ideology for the loss of freedom of expression in our times. It threatens and intimidates anyone critical of its own socially disruptive nature.

The fight for freedom of expression is far from over. The remnants of the tyrannical rulers are still at large in Europe. The PVV would like to see a kind of ‘First Amendment’ in Europe. What is the Commission’s opinion on this? I should like to hear a response from Commissioner Kroes.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) I believe that freedom of expression and the protection of the media in European Union countries are far from perfect and if we each look at our own country, we will doubtless find things we would object to. There is nothing wrong with that. However, to maintain that there is a blatant breach of the freedom of expression in the European Union countries is, in my opinion, taking this debate a bit too far. I would like to recall last October’s Parliamentary debate on a resolution which did not get this Parliament’s vote. The resolution’s aim in that particular case was to condemn the Italian Government. In my opinion, the message that this Chamber sent when the resolution was rejected was clear: the only place for these debates is within the national parliaments and they should not be brought before the European Parliament. It is simple; this was the message passed on by this Chamber last October and therefore, I believe that meddling in affairs which do not fall under our competence will diminish, rather than strengthen, the respect that our citizens and electors have for us. Therefore, I very much appreciate the clear way in which the Commission has expressed itself today, in saying that there is no doubt as to the fact that there is no evidence that can suggest any case of a breach of the freedom of expression and of the expression of the media in any European Union country, and I believe that this should suffice to end this debate.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Thank you very much, Madam President. Fellow Members, just imagine that the electoral system of this Parliament allows a two-thirds majority to be adopted by a simple majority of votes. And the largest group, that is, the group leader, nominates the President of the European Parliament and then the group elects this nominee through its comfortable majority. Then the group leader nominates and then elects the European Commissioners, the President of the Commission, the President of the Court of Auditors, and the members and President of the European Court of Justice. The Community administration has replaced its leaders without justification. The group leader implements decisions that make it impossible for smaller parties to win an election or even stand for election. And then the group leader – proclaiming revolutionary changes – nominates a loyal cadre to lead the Press Service of the European Parliament and this loyal cadre makes sure that a reliable person is selected to be in charge of each media section. As a result, the public will only hear favourable, positive news about the activities of the group and the group leader.

This, of course, could not happen in this Parliament. European democracy is built on a system of checks and balances with the media as the ‘watchdog’. Even the existence of a two-thirds majority in Parliament cannot justify the elimination of this system or the restriction of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression. However, this is what has been going on for three months now in Hungary. Since the system of democratic checks and balances is practically gone in Hungary, the watchdog has been poisoned and the poison is starting to do its job; any feedback can only come from European institutions. This is what we expect. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has already expressed his deep concerns.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Madam President, thank you, Commissioner, for your introduction. I know your personal commitment to freedom and democracy, so I am sure that our press freedom is in good hands with you.

However, you say that the European Commission has no general powers to protect freedom of the press, but I would say that that is a rather narrow interpretation of your powers, because first of all, protecting democracy and freedom and civil liberties is enshrined in the treaties, and you are the custodian of the treaties.

Secondly, if we as a European Union demand from candidate Member States that they meet certain standards, then we may assume that the Commission will protect those standards within the European Union as well.

Another element is that media ownership is increasingly a cross-border issue, and we could even imagine that there are non-EU companies who own European media. Would you still say that if, for example, Russian or Chinese owners interfere with European media, it is not our business? I do not think so.

The second issue at stake here is whether we should name and shame, whether we should single out individual Member States. Yes, I think we should. It may be unpleasant, and I would certainly not like my Member State to be criticised, but if we are no longer capable of self-criticism, then how can we protect fundamental rights? I would like to remind Mr Busuttil, my esteemed colleague, that this Parliament, in a previous mandate, adopted a resolution on the Berlusconi Government and freedom of the media that went way beyond the one that was rejected last year. So we do have a precedent.

This House has repeatedly called for legislation – specific legislation – to give the European Commission the tools to intervene and protect freedom throughout the European Union.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) I welcome the fact that the question of freedom of expression is the subject of today’s debate, because in June this year, I initiated, together with other Members of the European Parliament, a Reflection Group with an interest in this matter. The journalists we invited to Strasbourg talked about forms of ostracism used against representatives of the media. The participants of this meeting showed us how freedom of expression is restricted by huge fines imposed by courts for raising uncomfortable historical subjects or defending traditional values, by preventing the distribution of films on uncomfortable subjects such as the causes of the Smolensk air disaster, and by harassment in the form of constant scrutiny of Catholic broadcasters who do not sympathise with those in power. I would like, however, to mention a very spectacular case of the intimidation of an investigative journalist in Poland, who broke down as a result of false accusations made against him. In desperation, he tried to take his life. In a final letter to his children, he wrote that they should not believe the libellous things that were being written about him. This is just one of numerous instances which we noted at the meeting in June. The next meeting of the Reflection Group on Protection of Freedom of Expression will take place on 22 September during the Strasbourg part-session.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, freedom of expression and of the press are not some medal that was won years ago and can be hung up in a display case: they are something that must be fought for and won every day, and we in Europe often forget this.

The freedom of the press is currently under threat in Europe: it is threatened by the crisis, by media concentration, and by the opportunism of some political leaders. In Italy, any journalist who publishes wire taps can be fined up to EUR 10 000. Mr Berlusconi, who controls five out of six television channels, wants to introduce a law that obliges websites to request government authorisation to reproduce video or audio reports, expanding his control to the new media. In Hungary, attempts are being made to create a media authority controlled by the prime minister. In Romania, the Supreme Council of National Defence – the military – is demanding that the local parliament turn its attention to the phenomenon of defamatory campaigns organised by the media, and so on.

At the same time, it is not just a problem of states: it is a problem of companies too. Media concentration is on the increase, as is editorial interference by media owners and proprietors. Commissioner, you said that the Member States have constitutional traditions that protect fundamental rights. However, we in Europe are also building our own constitutional tradition, and we must – for reasons that, as a matter of fact, Mrs in ’t Veld has already mentioned – expand the defence of the freedom of the media to the European level.

I have some suggestions. We must create means of supporting independent journalists and freelancers: journalists who are currently impoverished and easy prey to pressure from the state or companies. We must expand anti-concentration legislation and we must also, probably, create a fund to support the press that will ensure independence and quality, until a new, Internet-based business model is found in this transitional phase.

  John Bufton (EFD). – Madam President, the difficulty we have with press freedom is largely a financial one. Where it is felt the press is controlled, it is often due to who owns and funds the media. The digital age has seen profits fall rapidly and many companies thrown into financial turmoil, but how can any political body fund the industry without crossing the line of impartiality?

A leaked letter to President Barroso from the new Commissioner for communications, Viviane Reding, revealed that in order to boost his image, the President will have a photographer and a TV producer on hand 24 hours a day. Not only that, but journalists will be paid to follow the Commission President on foreign trips. Eight staff will even be hired to monitor the blogosphere for criticism and quash whatever unwelcome opinions are found.

In 2009, over EUR 8 million was spent on entertaining and training journalists, including EUR 350 000 on coercing Irish journalists during the referendum using so-called Lisbon Treaty seminars. EUR 700 000 has been spent on journalism competitions and at least EUR 7 000 on cocktail parties.

There is clearly a very fine line between funding the information industry and bribing it. What is not acceptable is for the Commission to launch an attack on state-owned publications when they themselves throw taxpayers’ money at engineering the media to spin us all a web of lies.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, perhaps I can make my point by using some very personal examples. I have experience of the media from two perspectives: the first was as a professional journalist, a foreign correspondent for der Spiegel magazine, and the second is as a non-attached MEP. In these roles, I have experienced two completely different worlds: one viewed from the outside was comparatively independent, the other, now I am involved in politics, is with huge amazement.

I can prove to you that political reporting in the public media in Germany and Austria is, to a very large extent, controlled by just a few people. For the same ideas that I was at first allowed to support, I was asked to leave the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) as a result of political pressure exerted, for example, on Reinhold Beckmann or Elmar Oberhauser. Where freedom of expression is concerned, we have a much greater problem to deal with than many of us realise. I would ask you also to take a look at the allegedly independent public media, which – when it comes to political matters – is dominated in an extremely one-sided fashion by the two main parties.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I greatly appreciated the Commissioner’s approach to this discussion, because she stated that there are essentially no real infringements in Europe and also because she reassured us about the Commission’s role as guardian of the treaties and therefore also of press freedom and freedom of expression in Europe.

Certain dangers nevertheless still remain. The Commissioner noted that almost half of the countries belonging to the European Union are subject to infringement proceedings to find out whether press freedom and freedom of expression are really guaranteed there. She also highlighted the preventive measures that must be implemented in these areas, emphasising however, that the problem is not specific to one State or to individual States. It is obviously not an Italian problem – Parliament expressed itself on this subject a few months ago by taking a democratic vote – and neither is it a political party problem, because we have just heard that in Germany, it is the socialist group that controls certain media outlets.

The problem we must face in this Chamber is more general. Tomorrow, we will vote on a report on journalism and new media – creating a public sphere in Europe. This report contains certain guidelines on which our Parliament is beginning to express its opinion.

We must talk about how to combine truth and freedom in the new media, but also in the more traditional media, because while it is one’s right to tell all, it is also one’s duty to tell the truth when writing or expressing oneself through a media outlet. We must also understand how to combine information with the right of citizens – of all citizens – to privacy.

These are the issues we must tackle and to which Parliament must confine itself, not ideologies or certain matters concerning things that do not exist in any European country.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – (RO) I am going to make my speech in Romanian as I hope that this will allow me to get my message across as clearly as possible to Bucharest as well, both to the country’s president and the right-wing government.

I am so shocked that, after the speech made this morning by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso, on the state of the Union and our European projects, we are now debating the state of the media in the EU, and in a number of states in particular: Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Italy. In Italy, granted, there is an incompatible situation between the President of the Council and his position as owner of a media empire which holds a monopoly in this country.

Commissioner, since you are the guardian of the treaties, I am going to quote to you the following passage from a document. It says: ‘Deliberate press campaigns aimed at denigrating state institutions by spreading false information about their activities pose a vulnerability to the Romanian state.’

This passage is not part of any Hitlerite or Stalinist policy. It features in a text which will become law if it is adopted by the Romanian Parliament, and has been drafted with the title ‘Romanian National Security Strategy’ on the orders of President Traian Băsescu. I am referring explicitly to Article 6, paragraph 2, point 10, ‘Vulnerabilities’.

This document, which refers to the challenges facing national security, considers, in fact, that freedom of the press and freedom of opinion, which are otherwise fundamental rights in every EU Member State, actually pose a threat to national security. The wording of this article leaves scope for arbitration and abuse, and damages the reputation of this activity.

Finally, I wish to inform you, Commissioner, that two petitions have already been submitted to the European Parliament, and the largest trade union of Romanian journalists, MediaSind, has submitted a petition. You are aware, as I am, that the decision made by the European Court of Justice in 1978, in the Handyside case, is part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is actually part of the corpus of EU treaties.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). – (RO) Regimes which flout the rules of democracy always regard freedom of expression and the press as a greater enemy than political opposition, and attempt to gag it in every way they can.

The trends which have been observed recently in Europe are worrying. In my own country, Romania, the press is no longer regarded as a watchdog monitoring the actions of government and society, but as a vulnerability. A president and government which despise voices of criticism have decided that the press and campaigns which could cause public institutions to lose credibility pose a vulnerability to national security.

Therefore, if some journalists were to reveal that at the Ministry of Sport or Tourism, for instance, the minister abused public money by spending it irresponsibly or even in a criminal way, this could undermine the ministry’s credibility and, by extension, the government and the country’s national security.

To avoid any accusations, the press should never criticise a public institution again, but keep silent. Does the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights still count for anything? Does the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights still count for anything? Of course they still count, and it is time to put an end to such practices for intimidating the press. Indeed, the European Commission needs to act as a proper guardian of the rights and principles on which the European Union is founded.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) I would like to speak about the pressure on freedom of expression being exerted by media concerns. A month ago, a lawsuit which had been instigated by a powerful media concern resulted in the first auction in a free Poland, and perhaps in the European Union, of a politician’s assets because of his views. The politician concerned is myself, Jacek Kurski, Member of the European Parliament. For making a statement which the Agora concern did not like, a court executive officer auctioned assets of mine for EUR 24 000, which is the equivalent of the annual income of a Member of the Polish Parliament, a position which I held four years ago. It is generally felt that my statement fell within the broadly understood boundaries of political criticism and debate, the sole judge of which should be public opinion and not a court. I have lodged an appeal in this case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but the Agora concern has already sued dozens of prominent Poles for expressing critical opinions about Agora. The particularly scandalous nature of these violations of civil rights stems from the fact that the Agora concern has grown from a party in litigation to become a ‘supercourt’. For it is granted the right to print certain announcements in its newspaper which can ruin anyone if it so decides. Confiscation or auctioning of assets are the norm in Belarus, and were used under Communist rule in Poland. I think the Commission should include this in the position it adopts on this matter. We do not want to live in a Europe where your assets are seized for saying what you think.

  Vladimír Remek (GUE/NGL). – (CS) First and foremost, I applaud the fact that this debate is happening at all. As the situation stands in many countries of the European Union, there may be freedom of expression and press freedom, but in reality, there are many shortcomings. This is because power has a tendency to make itself felt in this area.

In the Czech Republic, we have the so-called muzzling act, which makes it impossible to publish information that is disagreeable to politicians, and threatens journalists with harsh punishments, including imprisonment. No other country in Europe has a similar pseudo-democratic legal measure, even though a number of them share the same tendencies. Freedom of expression is also considerably affected by the financial situation of those who work in the media. Whoever has money has power and also influence in the media. The views of the dispossessed are often deliberately ignored. I am not an idealist, and one debate will not put everything right, but the more often we return to this topic, the closer we will get to genuine democracy.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am very pleased that you are the guardian of the treaties.

In actual fact, the Commission also guards the Commission’s own secrets so well that it is very difficult for us MEPs, for example, to obtain extensive and, above all, in-depth information about what takes place behind closed doors in your meetings, despite the fact that the Commissioners have not been elected by our peoples and should therefore feel all the more bound to observe their duty of communication and transparency.

For example, I am still waiting for an answer – and not the ironic answer I have been given – to my question so that I can circulate the truth in the newspapers. Is or was President Barroso a member of the Bilderberg Club or not? Does he frequent it or not? The answer I was given, and which I published in my press releases, in other words, was as follows: ‘Mr Borghezio, you know more than us about the Bilderberg Group’ is a little odd, and I would therefore like more information on the subject.

For example, what information has the international press given on the background to the financial crisis? The Lisbon strategy was quoted; that is very interesting. It is like looking at a set of Chinese boxes when you come to establish the true owners of the large financial groups to which the leading newspapers and mass media belong; they could be based in tax havens for all we know.

I believe that you would do very well to champion an initiative aimed at really disclosing what goes on behind the scenes of politics, finance and the economy. These are very interesting subjects and have widespread relevance to citizens, who have a right to be kept fully informed. I note, and would emphasise, the silence of the left wing with regard to the Bilderberg Club and the Trilateral Commission.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Madam President, I shall try to keep to the time. I am pleased that the Commission acknowledges the important role of a free press in maintaining democratic integrity. However, all too often, the political elite adopt an attitude that words mean what they say they mean. This is one of those cases.

Today in this Parliament, an article in the Løkkegaard report called for correspondence from the Brussels press corps to be organised in order to cover EU news in a more instructive manner. Journalists are there to inform, not to instruct. More than anything else, journalists value their independence. If they do not have independence, they cannot be considered free.

The Commission already exerts too much control over the media in Brussels through financial incentive and through coercion. Europarl TV is talked about here as if it had some news value: it does not. Its content is nothing more than press releases with moving pictures. This is why nobody watches it.

The Løkkegaard report was actually voted through this Parliament today, requiring EU studies to be incorporated into school curricula. Any journalist would tell you there is no place for propaganda in free and independent media. The NGO, Reporters Without Frontiers, has already identified Italy, Bulgaria and Slovakia as having notable problems with their press freedoms. France and Spain also failed to meet the standards that free citizens should have the right to expect. In the UK, we already have a press that can be considered to be free, even if they use ‘allegedly’ a lot. As we have seen here today, the EU seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – (RO) I share the sentiments of those who support freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Democracy does not exist without freedom of expression. I also want to remind you, on this point, of the sacred rule which has provided the foundation for the press, again in a democracy: opinions are free, facts are sacred.

In Romania’s case, I am pleased to tell you that neither casting insults nor slander are offences any longer since 2006 as they were removed from the Criminal Code by a right-wing government. This means that no criminal sanction of any kind is imposed on any journalist, not even in the unfortunate situation where false information is being spread in bad faith. Indeed, I think that the situation is great as it is since journalists should not have to live in fear of criminal sanctions. We now have only civil proceedings in Romania.

Private press organisations fully exercise their freedom to criticise and challenge those in power, of course, because anyone in power is always criticised. This is only natural.

Romania, too, has its share of press associations belonging to politicians and funded by politicians and/or businessmen. As we have heard this evening, this happens in many other EU countries.

First and foremost, this affiliation and funding must be transparent. We must also ensure that the editorial independence of journalists who work for such organisations is guaranteed if we want to have a free press.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – (BG) Madam President, Commissioner, media freedom is an integral part of the human rights system and cannot be considered outside of the general context of democracy. In Bulgaria, like everywhere else, the media work under intense market pressure. Sales are falling, advertising is dwindling and new media are making the boundary between professional journalism and social media increasingly blurred. Other journalists have ever fewer opportunities to practise and carry out their profession normally. Traditional media and their audience are disappearing. For example, it was announced today that one of Bulgaria’s good, quality newspapers, Klasa, is stopping printing. In this situation, the media become heavily dependent not on their readers but on their benefactors, whether business or government, which are faced with the temptation of swapping media freedom for their own comfort in the media spotlight.

Unfortunately, a large proportion of publishers in Bulgaria have their main interest in other areas. This creates the prerequisites for pressure and the abuse of editorial policy in return for concessions and good treatment from the government. For its part, the government systematically shows its disregard for the principle of institutions’ independence, including those involved in media regulation. The situation has reached the point where it is deliberately seeking forgiveness in writing from the media after asking them whether pressure was being exerted on them. This, in itself, is a form of exerting pressure.

The problems in Bulgaria are not unique. They are encountered in other countries too. I would not tar all media with the same brush and would not criticise for a moment either the good journalists who are often forced into working without permanent contracts or, in general, into looking for a change of career. The problem is a structural one. It is basically linked to self-censorship, which is often applied. We must also add to this the concentration in terms of media distribution, whether digital or printed.

Recently, the previous team at the European Commission envisaged measures for maintaining and monitoring media pluralism. We particularly need this to happen now. Populism and aggression are very tempting but they have never led to real solutions. I am expecting the European Commission to take an active role at the moment and propose a solution. I am aware that this is a sensitive issue and is often not subject to formal measurement, even though there are such indicators for doing this. In spite of this, the European Parliament must set very high expectations and criteria. The importance of guaranteeing, preserving and developing democracy in Europe is just as high.

  Luigi de Magistris (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, when building a Europe of rights, an essential part is played by freedom of information, pluralism of information and independence of information.

Is the Commissioner aware that there is one country in the European Union – which is incidentally a founder member of the European Union under the Treaty of Rome – where there is no media pluralism, where a prime minister directly or indirectly controls the public and private TV and print media? What democratic electoral competition can exist in a country where a prime minister – a political party – controls the media? What democracy can exist in a country where a law that bans journalists from publishing judicial news is about to be approved in a matter of days? Forget about Watergate and the press upholding a regime! We are talking lapdogs here!

What sort of democratic country wants to control the Internet? What sort of democratic country sidelines anyone who strays from the party line and fails to guarantee free speech and the right to dissent?

We are not describing Sudan under Bokassa or Romania under Ceauşescu: this is Italy under Berlusconi, where such things are unfortunately allowed to happen, not least because the European Commission does not have the courage to adopt an independent and free stance with regard to the Member States.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, Mrs Kroes, it is distressing to hear of all the violations of freedom of expression in Europe. I do not know if you are aware of this, but you, too, are adopting a law which limits this freedom. The Løkkegaard report, which has been endorsed, I think, by all the political groups in this Chamber, with the commendable exception of my group, contains bizarre provisions which restrict freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I recommend you read paragraphs 14, 20, 23 and 39 and, in particular, paragraphs 8 and 31. Paragraph 8 says that an EU body is to monitor public media in Europe, and paragraph 31 says that these media have to provide information about our work. We ought to earn the attention of the media and of people by our hard work, not by forcing someone to spread information about our work. The media are not under an obligation to provide information about NATO or the UN and, by the same token, they do not have to tell anyone about the work of Parliament.

  Ivo Belet (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by saying that the need for a debate in this House on fundamental values such as freedom of the press and freedom of opinion is indeed greater than ever. I propose – and I hope we can agree on this – that this debate be held on the basis of objective criteria and objective analyses.

Commissioner, you yourself proposed such an instrument with objective indicators – the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) – which has been developed by the European Commission. The aim now is for the European Commission, among others, to implement this MPM, and indeed we expect you to do so.

The second instrument is the recommendations of the Council of Europe. These recommendations concern standards of press freedom, the independent management of public broadcasters, and stable financing. All 27 Member States of the European Union have subscribed to these standards, and so it is a good idea to remind Member States of the need to meet their commitments on that score.

It is also our responsibility – as the European Parliament – to draw their attention to this. We shall be doing so shortly, among other things, in the form of a new resolution, which concerns the future of public broadcasters in the digital age and which will be presented to this Chamber either next month or the month after. In this, we shall be expressly asking the Commission and also the Member States to look into this in specific terms.

Finally, we cannot accept freedom of the press coming under threat anywhere in Europe, and hence vigilance is called for, vigilance on the part of this House. That is why I think it a good idea that the Commission and Parliament issue the appropriate reminder to the Member States in due course.

  David-Maria Sassoli (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for the second time during this parliamentary term and in this House, we find ourselves discussing the problem of press freedom. This shows, Commissioner, that it is a keenly-felt problem; it is a major problem in the eyes of the European public.

I would remind you that, in May 2004, Parliament issued a resolution calling upon the Commission to take action to protect media pluralism and press freedom, but we have not heard the Commission speak up in all these years. As you know, the problem is now growing. The issues concerning Italy, Romania and Hungary are different but their background is the same.

As you are well aware, Italy continues to experience a serious conflict of interest that is exacerbated by government occupation of the public broadcasting service. In Romania, the press is actually considered a threat to the nation. In Hungary, the government wishes to put journalism under scrutiny. The European institutions naturally cannot condone any government influence over the media. Freedom of information is not a commodity that can be evaluated only in accordance with market criteria. Rather, it is the public’s right to form its own opinions about politics, the quality of governments, and public life.

There can be no more excuses for the European institutions; the Commission must take decisive action to reinforce common European standards. Your intervention, Commissioner, could offer European citizens the certainty that Europe is an area of rights and freedom.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, at this late hour, let us remind ourselves that freedom of expression had its beginnings in Europe once upon a time. In my country, Sweden, we have upheld it since 1766, when it became Swedish law, and it is now enshrined in the constitution. Nevertheless, this has not prevented journalists and writers from being subjected to terrible things such as attempts on their lives, fire bombs and threats. This is not unique to Sweden; exactly the same violence occurs elsewhere in Europe.

If we want Europe to continue to be a model for freedom of the press and freedom of expression, it is unacceptable for three countries in the EU to be identified as only having partial freedom of expression according to the latest report by Freedom House, namely Italy, Bulgaria and Romania. Greece is also reported to have problems. Who does not clearly remember the blank newspaper pages that we saw a while ago in Italy after pressure was exerted on journalists and newspaper editors?

We must stand up for freedom of speech. We must never forget that freedom of the arts and freedom of expression first saw the light of day in the young European democracies. In any democracy, citizens are free to criticise and form their own opinions about articles and books, and we must never accept a situation in which people are frightened into silence. Freedom of expression forms the very backbone of the union that we are all charged with serving and whose ideals we must stand up and defend, particularly at times when they are challenged.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the need to protect the rights of freedom of expression and press freedom is extremely important and has acquired new aspects, especially in our times, for two main reasons.

Firstly, technological progress, as we have already heard, has created new means of communication. We now have the Internet, we have blogs, we have social networking, we have Internet radio and we have Internet television. These are new media which have made a great impression. I should like to say at this point that a journalist and active blogger was murdered in Greece about two and a half months ago.

Although these new media make a great impression, their operating framework has not yet been regulated in an integrated manner, either legislatively or in terms of a code of conduct. Frequently, our Commission itself replies that we all are relying on self-regulation by these media. It is becoming obvious that, often, as a result of the freedom granted to these media, especially under conditions of anonymity, we end up with abuse and, ultimately, misleading information for the public.

The second reason is that, nowadays, publishing and broadcasting are concentrated in the hands of a few, strong, business giants, as an ultimate result of which, businessmen, politicians and often entire governments must bow to the wishes of these giants. To close, it is obvious that often, in the name of freedom of expression, we end up muzzling the political world and muzzling working journalists, who are objectively unable to work and inform their public.

To close, we know that our powers at European level are limited. Of course, we too are able, for our part, to exert pressure, within a framework and in an environment of broad assent by all the agencies involved, in an environment which will provide immediate solutions for the Member States of the EU coming out of the biggest crisis in the last eighty years.

  Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, it is true that this is a global debate and that it would be exaggerating to say that there is not freedom of expression in the European Union, but it is just as true that there are cases of the right to information and the right to freedom of expression being curtailed, which we must condemn.

I support and agree with those who say that we need to focus on Member States that infringe freedom of expression and freedom of the press. If we have to talk about Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria, we must do so, but if we have to talk about the scandalous case of Romania, we must also do so. We might say that there is no judicial evidence, but there is sufficient information that we must act in response to these scandalous cases because this is not a court but a political parliament.

I also want to point out that there are democratic countries that have public television channels which have succeeded in gaining the highest number of viewers due their pluralism – as is the case in Spain – but which coexist with public television channels of autonomous communities – such as Madrid and Valencia, which have a larger combined territory and population than some Member States – that have been taken over by the respective regional governments and are being significantly manipulated. This manipulation has been reported by associations, parties and unions and involves blackouts and disconnections by the works committees in response to their fears of mobbing. They have shown themselves to be capable – for example Canal Nou – of censoring the greatest corruption scandal in Spain – the Gürtel case – because it affects the government that runs the channel, while the public television channels were running the story as the top headline on that day, and they scandalously violate the rights of journalists and viewers.

This is happening in the European Union – in the Community of Valencia and the Community of Madrid – and it is happening at Telemadrid and Canal Nou (Canal 9, in Spanish).

There are therefore two television channels – and I promise to provide evidence of this – that are acting outside the Treaty of Lisbon and circumventing the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights because they are constantly infringing Article 11, and I ask you to take this into consideration.

I am speaking out to condemn this and I ask the Commissioner and the Commission to ask for information, because a democratic Member State and a democratic Union cannot sustain this type of bad conduct.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – Madam President, it is absolutely vital that our voters are well informed on current affairs. Information encourages citizens’ interest in public matters and their participation. We, as politicians, need a level playing field if our various messages are to get a fair public hearing. Unfortunately today, the commercial media are increasingly choosing only to entertain our voters. As a result, they have limited their coverage of current affairs. Thus, it falls to our public media to do more and more in the field of information and education.

Dangerously, there are some parties and politicians who continue to try to gain control over the public media. This is happening in many Member States – Italy, Hungary, Romania and France, to name just a few. We must resist this trend. Since 1989, the Council of Europe, which has already been mentioned in our debate, has played a magnificent role in setting standards for free and unbiased public media in Europe. These Council of Europe standards must be enforced in all Member States, both in the former Communist East and in Western Europe.

We as a parliament should work more closely with our neighbours here in Strasbourg on this issue. Our Member State governments are responsible for ensuring that public media retain their independence and their ability to provide unbiased information, and we, the European Parliament, should continue to monitor how well they fulfil this public duty.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Commissioner, it is extremely worrying that, as stated this evening, the most frequently mentioned EU Member States violating the freedom of opinion and of the press, one of the fundamental values of the European Union, were Romania, Italy, Bulgaria and, unfortunately, my country, Hungary. Commissioner, the Commission will not be able to avoid the task of checking whether Member States respect this fundamental right of the European Union. The Commission must make sure that this right is respected, it must monitor the situation to ensure that no monopoly of ownership is created in Member States, like in Italy with the Berlusconi media empire, an example which is being followed in Hungary with the acquisition of RTL Klub, and it should not be possible to appoint cadres to lead public media organisations. The Commission must speak out about these cases and monitor them.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her balanced report.

We await the definition of the objective indicators for media pluralism with great interest. We await it both as MEPs and as Italians, since we are well aware of the extent to which the pluralism, freedom and independence of the media is guaranteed in Italy. The icing on the cake, therefore, would be indicators that convince the Italian left wing, too, of this, because every four or five months, they put up the same argument, always obtaining a vote that I would suggest is none too favourable to their cause.

Most of the newspapers in Italy are left wing and they continuously attack the government, producing propaganda for the opposition. For 30 years in Italy, the left wing has occupied and militarily shared out public service jobs in publicly funded state TV, which is a cosy club for centre-left parties. Every day, every week in Italy, public service broadcasts slander the government and the Prime Minister. If, however, some political exponent of the centre-right should occasionally make the mistake of questioning the newspapers, a cry goes up that freedom of information is under threat.

Something else also happens in Italy: telephone wire taps obtained during legal investigations are regularly published, even when they have nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation. This practice spreads information and infringes citizens’ privacy to such an extent that, a few years ago, the ladies and gentleman of the left protested against this practice. In June 2007, Massimo D’Alema said: ‘The sight of solicitors copying down what has been said and then going to the journalists is indecent, it is like an Arab souk.’ In March 2007, Antonio Di Pietro said: ‘The use of wire taps should be regulated, and penalties imposed to safeguard privacy.’ In February 2008, Walter Veltroni said: ‘The Democratic Party supports an absolute ban on the publication of wire taps until the preliminary hearing is over.’

If, however, the Italian Government today dared to propose a law to parliament that also regulates the right to privacy and imposes penalties on those who infringe the law on the publication of wire taps, the entire left-wing press would be up in arms shouting that it is a scandal, and this would be strongly echoed by the usual ultra-left-wing voices in Europe.

Some left-wing newspapers have been published like this; they have left the front page blank to protest against the gagging law. Only the first and second pages have been left blank, however, because they have published adverts, as usual, on the back page. We therefore advise this left wing, which cannot make up its mind and tells us every six months that freedom of information does not exist, to put its mind at rest and find something more serious to talk about.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for the floor, and I am also grateful that the Commission considers the issue of the freedom of speech and the related freedom of the press, which are fundamental human rights, to be such a vital issue and that it deals with this issue in a balanced manner. So far this evening, I have heard confused accounts, veiled allusions and, unfortunately, accusations.

Commissioner, allow me to provide you with reliable information about the new Hungarian Media Act. All political parties agreed that the 1996 Act was very much outdated. The new government submitted its draft media law package to the Hungarian Parliament in order to create a clear structure and transparent financial foundations for media regulations. How is the government trying to achieve this? For instance, by preventing wasteful expenditure of state funds. By solving structural issues. By making the media system transparent. By what means? By reducing the number of party-appointed members to one-fifth. Or even by making the national media and telecommunications authority accountable to Parliament. Or by declaring the freedom of the press and protecting the independence of journalists. Or even by ensuring the confidentiality of sources used by investigative journalists, while protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

Commissioner, in the meantime, it may happen that the interests of the previous government will suffer. Some may even start malicious rumours. The truth is that the submission of the act was preceded by a lengthy process. Also, the act is not final yet, as the parliamentary debate on it will only start next week. The European Commission has a great responsibility. This issue must be taken seriously and it is also true that, as was mentioned, a uniform, transparent and reliable assessment is necessary. Unclear accounts and allusions are dangerous and have a detrimental effect on nation states.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, the virtues of freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, no longer need to be demonstrated.

The right to information, and access to information, accompanied by a multiplicity of sources, are at the heart of the democratic process. This allows citizens to form their opinions freely, and allows the media to make sure that they can play the role of partners in the dialogue which takes place between citizens and those in power.

What characterises the media, then, is their neutrality, objectivity and precision. Yet in my country, Bulgaria, it was not long ago that the media and the press served the aims of an ideological regime which we all condemned in 1989. Twenty years later, the legacy is here, advances have been made, and it is important that there are warnings to allow us to remain vigilant and not to turn our attention away from the essentials.

I would like to address three points here. First, making sure that freedom of expression and freedom of the media are guaranteed. However, this is a process with a double meaning. Freedom must not damage the freedom of others. Building and working on a framework of mutual confidence and respect seems to me to be an important element of relations between the media and individuals.

Next, in their role as the ‘fourth power’, the media ensure democratic control. However, this control must be accompanied by verification of sources and by transparency, which will avoid the exploitation of the media for corporate, commercial, economic or political ends. Reliability of sources, transparency with respect to the income of media proprietors, and objective dissemination of information can only lead to progress for our societies.

Finally, we must bear in mind the role of journalists. Respect for professional ethics, independence and respect for fundamental freedoms are valuable indicators for all journalists who see themselves as professionals. Preventing standardisation and combating over-information, which often has regrettable consequences, are objectives which today’s media must pursue.

Finally, freedom does not include submission. This is why submission to the laws of audience ratings, large monopolies, depoliticisation of important subjects and over-politicisation of subjects concerning society are contrary to the role of the media as vectors of free information, liberated from all interests other than the common interest.

  Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) We all acknowledge that freedom of the press is one of the fundamental rights which a democratic society grants to citizens. We have also included freedom of expression among the democratic criteria which any Member State or future member of the EU needs to adopt, precisely to guarantee respect for press freedom.

As I have stated on other occasions as well, I give my unreserved support to absolute freedom of the press. However, this freedom comes with the utmost responsibility for editorial teams to provide the public with correct information. As we are also debating today the case of countries in Eastern Europe, I am able to outline to you the situation in Romania.

The large press organisations belong to the opposition or to businessmen who support the opposition. The most blatant example of this is the recent presidential election campaign when the candidate in office, Traian Băsescu, was attacked in the large majority of the press.

This is continuing even now, on a daily basis. This situation is only acceptable if veracity is respected, as deliberate campaigns, media blackmail, defamation of image ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) In Romania, the press, the fourth estate in any democratic state, is in the throes of a crisis. It has set a record that is almost unbeatable. Roughly 6 000 journalists have been made redundant in the Romanian press so far, with many publications closing down.

How has this managed to happen? It is a result of intimidatory actions by those in power, such as press campaigns declared as posing a vulnerability to national security, and of the action of the Romanian Government to make all media employees, who are badly paid, to pay additional taxes. There is also another aspect, also noted by the General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, Aidan White, and I quote: ‘Romanian journalism is under siege from the country’s economic woes and employers’ greed.’

The future of this profession is in serious peril. Employers and the authorities must adopt measures immediately to save professional journalism. Only action taken at EU level can still save the press in Romania.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, there was a curious lack of passion, I thought, about the Commissioner’s opening remarks. Of course, the Commission is the guardian of the treaty and all its principles, but frankly, you would hardly have guessed that from what she said.

In this debate, we have heard examples from across Europe of bad practice. In my country, the UK, we have excessive media ownership by News International, by Rupert Murdoch. If a politician seeks power, they do not tend to rock the boat by challenging that too much.

And as for Italy: when a prime minister owns a substantial part of the media, if that is not abuse of the principles of the treaty, then what is?

How can we condemn bad practice elsewhere if we do not ensure that our own practices are as good as they possibly can be?

Now, of course, there are limits to the Commission’s powers, to its legal competence. But, Commissioner, you are not a bureaucrat; you are a leader; you have a voice, and this is a time when that voice can be raised to embarrass people, to force change, to act for freedom.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Two miraculous little words have become established in our society. The phrase ‘politically correct’ is closely connected with freedom of expression. It is a sign of a certain kind of self-regulation in the expression of opinions. It applies not only to journalists but also to politicians, artists and even ordinary citizens.

In our society, ‘politically correct’ does not mean respecting the opinion of the other person, but sharing the majority opinion. This is a great danger for our democracy and our culture.

One more comment: I believe in respecting freedom of expression, but freedom of expression does mean spreading misinformation, lies and defamatory statements, as often happens. I have personal experience of this. Citizens have the right not only to information, but to information that is true.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Madam President, I will continue the criticism of the Commission. We have now heard here today a string of examples of how power and legislation have been brought to bear against those sections of the press that are critical of those who hold power. This, in any case, must be something that affects the Commission. I am a member of the Committee on Petitions, and in this Committee, we have actually heard the Commission say that it was not responsible for violations of basic rights in the Member States. It was of no concern to the Commission. This has been strongly criticised both by the Committee and when resolutions have been adopted here in Parliament.

I would simply like to make the Commissioner aware of the fact that the Copenhagen criteria are not reserved for countries that are intending to accede to the EU. That was also said to us in the Committee on Petitions by a member of the Commission. The Copenhagen criteria apply to everyone – including the EU Member States. We would ask the Commission, in future, to pay more attention and to be more forceful in these situations.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubt that today’s debate is a replay, albeit a toned-down replay, of what took place in October 2009.

Press freedom: although we are hiding behind a report that talks about the possibility of creating a public sphere in Europe, we are essentially continuing to go on and on ad infinitum about what is happening in Italy.

The Commissioner stated very clearly and distinctly that press freedom has not been infringed by the Member States. She also stated that specific and objective indicators will be used to measure the performance of the press in this respect, but what must be borne in mind most is the fact that the report – and this is its only positive aspect – specifically and openly involves the local media.

If we can find one positive aspect in this report, it is probably this. Otherwise, it amounts to sterile chitchat, discussions that are not worth much in a situation that requires a different type of response from Parliament.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the more mature a society is, the greater the freedom of expression and the greater the freedom of the press, but the Utopian ideal of total freedom will never be realised as long as human nature remains as it is.

Firstly, governments will, as far as they can get away with it, try and control the messages that the media are delivering. There have been plenty of examples given of that here this evening. That will not change in the future.

Secondly, media owners and individual editors will also try to reflect their agenda in the communications that they publish, and individual journalists will have no choice but to comply, or be out of a job.

Then we have the other side of the coin, where unscrupulous journalists operate on the basis of never letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

This is a multifaceted problem. It is a problem that will never go away. It is a battle that must constantly be fought. That battle must be fought forever or it will never be won.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to recall and speak out firmly against the abuse suffered by the newspaper Egunkaria in the Basque Country. In 2003, entirely infringing the laws and constitution of Spain, a newspaper was illegally shut down due to the persecution of a linguistic and cultural minority and an attempt to confuse the Basque language with terrorism, which is something that the majority of Basques reject. Professionals and readers were deprived of their most basic rights. Seven years later, this has been acknowledged in a judicial sentence.

During that time and following the sentence, all the Commission and Europe have done is remain silent. This behaviour makes it easy for arbitrary acts to be repeated. Therefore, Commissioner, your action needs to be more proactive and bold so that Europe is credible in its role as guardian of the treaties.

The treaty and the law are being systematically infringed in Europe, as we have seen today. I therefore ask you to be more proactive.

  Hella Ranner (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, all of the speeches today have shown that press freedom and freedom of expression are vital in our society here in Europe, as I am sure they are worldwide, too.

However, there is, I believe, an obligation that runs counter to these freedoms, namely the obligation also to protect the rights of the individuals who are written about. The media today have unbelievable power, particularly as a result of modern technology. It is our duty also to consider those who are the subject of media reports.

It is a tricky balance to find and a challenge, but we must face this challenge and we must face it by providing appropriate legal certainty, which we in the European Parliament and the European institutions can provide and which can then be passed on to the Member States.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, expressing one’s own ideas and opinions without injuring the rights and dignity of others is one of the fundamental freedoms of democracies.

Unfortunately, however, the supposedly free media does not always treat political parties and politicians in the same way. We know something about this ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, because very little of what we do in Parliament is reported by the media.

Despite the accusations of an illiberal and closed left wing, press freedom is guaranteed in Italy by an incredible plethora of local and national media. Those who say that the prime minister controls the media owned by his family as he wishes are lying and they know they are lying. I am amazed that MEPs who are legal experts can accuse the Italian Government of infringing the Treaty of Rome, and perhaps even the Treaty of Lisbon, but then do not use the main instrument against such infringements, which is recourse to the judicial bodies of the European Union.

I believe that the European Union should set up an independent ethics committee to establish the level of press freedom in all 27 Member States, thus shutting up those who peddle non-existent truths once and for all.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I have been criticised for quite a lot of things during my long life, but never ever for having no passion, so that is the first time.

Still, I am grateful for all your interventions: I am aware that, on that score, I have beaten the President with his State of the Union speech this morning. There have been so many interventions tonight, and again I am grateful for that.

I have listened to your interventions. This is indeed freedom of expression, and I am grateful to be in a Parliament that not only tolerates freedom of expression outside, but also defends it in its own House.

Having said that, we do have a lot in common. We are both – and not only the Commission – the guardians of the treaty, so it is right that we are having the debate here and that we should be quite frank with each other in inferring what should be at stake.

And yet, with many of the Members of Parliament who took the floor tonight, I could not resist wondering which most of your countries are, those that you claim to know best. Indeed, one of the issues that I am touched by is that quite a number of Members of Parliament are from young democracies, and I think that is a warning.

You have been fighting for freedom of expression and you have been fighting for media pluralism, and we should all take that lesson into account, which is that you do not take something like that for granted but that you have to defend it, and if that is not passion, then I would love to have a drink with you after this session and find out what your definition of passion is.

Having said that, I would also like to underline that what Sofia in ’t Veld was mentioning is indeed true. I am really an open book on this matter and I am proud to be an open book. That does not mean that it is always possible to do it 100% your way, for we are indeed finding out what is the best in Europe and what is the best way we could take.

In order to conclude tonight’s debate, the Commission would like to recall that the new Article 2 of the Treaty on the EU enumerates in its first sentence the values upon which the Union is founded, which Member States must respect and which Member States must promote. These are: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

The EU and the Member States are obliged to respect those values. I am absolutely certain that no one at this plenary session is against that line, for otherwise you would not be a Member of this Parliament, and the list contained in the first sentence of that article is not only declaratory but also assumes two concrete aspects.

First, respect for those values and the commitment to promote them in common at EU level are two conditions for accession to the EU as provided for in Article 49 of the TEU and, exactly as some of you mentioned, when we are just judging if a would-be Member State is able to join the family, that is also a matter for those who have already joined the family.

Second, the violation of those values can trigger the warning and sanction procedure provided for in Article 7.

The operational nature of the list of values explains its brevity. Only the most important underlying values with a well-defined legal content have been listed. Conversely, in the second sentence, Article 2 explains the characteristics of the European model: pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men; and those characteristics help the application and the interpretation of those values.

It would be difficult at this stage if the values stated in Article 2 were to be in imminent danger as a result of the events evoked today. I do not think that these situations have any cross-border dimension which could justify any intervention from our side at this stage.

The Commission, and myself, in particular, as vice-president in charge of the digital agenda and the media, will remain vigilant and will defend press freedom, media pluralism, the right of journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources and the capacity of the media to investigate corruption and the abuse of power.

I consider quality and investigative journalism, written press and news media to be an important feature of European political culture and democracy.

Finally, let me just say that I really am looking forward to the report by your rapporteur, which was mentioned by Ivo Belet. I am well aware of the developments concerning your report, and I welcome it very much and look forward to the results.

Having said that, finally let me assure you that I have listened carefully to all of you, and as I reflect on the next steps with my colleagues, I am ready to continue this debate with you, so I am looking forward to coming back and continuing this debate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

This concludes the item.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Carlo Casini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Freedom of the media is beyond discussion, and no one in any democratic system can dispute the need for the media to be independent and pluralistic.

In an information society such as ours, however, it is becoming increasingly evident that independence does not mean the absence of any rules and that pluralism is not a sufficient value. The power of the media in an information society is really a public power which Montesquieu, were he alive today, would have tried to balance against the other powers: legislative, executive and judicial. These three traditional powers must also be independent, but a reciprocal limit is established between them. As far as I can see, this problem has not been examined in depth.

I will restrict myself to making two remarks. Journalists’ right to freedom is a human right that is at least equal to the right to dignity and privacy of every citizen. A duty of checks and balances therefore also exists. Judicial power must be transparent, but certain investigations must be absolutely secret during the initial stages if the truth is to be uncovered in the interests of justice and, therefore, ultimately of the public. I believe that these two aspects are always neglected in our debates. By making this speech, I have attempted to leave some record of them.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) I believe there is not a single Member of the European Parliament who would question the need for freedom of expression and a free press. At the end of the day, this is a fundamental right, codified in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 11). I would also like to say that, since last year, there has been an unofficial European Charter of Press Freedom, welcomed by the Commission, in which journalists demand that governments of European countries abide by principles protecting them and their work, ranging from the prohibition on censorship to ensuring the personal protection of journalists. In my opinion, however, that is only one side of the overall problem. The other side is the ever-growing brute power of the media, the wholesale flouting of basic ethical standards by journalists, their lack of responsibility for the freely spoken word and their pseudo-independence which is determined by the financial and political interests of the media barons. Virtually the entire press in the Czech Republic, from regional to central, is owned by foreign concerns which meddle in the politics of the country in an unscrupulous manner through their media. Does this interest any of the competent persons in the EU? I doubt it. We will just carry on coining fancy slogans and phrases while reality takes its own course.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) Altogether too much has been spoken and written about freedom of expression and press freedom. The majority of Members support democratic values and the opportunity for everyone to have their say about problems and the people who cause those problems. However, there are occasions when journalists chasing after cheap sensations forget about professional ethics. Then there are instances when, in return for pay, journalists are ready to commit libel and grossly interfere in other people’s personal lives. We must discuss not only occasions of coercion of the press but also the responsibility of every individual for libel and defamation. There is a Russian proverb: ‘The only thing worse than death is loss of one’s good name’. That remains the basic principle for many people even today. That is why I offer the following approach to the concept of a ‘journalist’: 1) the name of ‘journalist’ should be reserved for those who have not besmirched this high calling by using untruthful materials paid for by third parties; 2) to arrive at a definition for those people who engage in black PR; 3) to stress that freedom of expression does not include freedom to defame and freedom to libel; 4) journalists must be worthy of the high calling of ‘member of the fourth estate’. Otherwise, all resolutions and all reports on press freedom are a mere farce.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the European Union, it is usual for a great deal to be said about freedom. However, reality – unfortunately – is rather different. Freedom of expression, and press freedom in particular, are under threat and will soon only exist on paper.

In Germany, for example, the statements by the German Bundesbank board member, Thilo Sarrazin, regarding the failure of Muslim immigrants to integrate have led to a campaign by the politically correct guardians of virtue, although the majority of what the German, Mr Sarrazin, said is true and is confirmed by statistics and by everyday observations. People are even going as far as calling for the Social Democrat to be relieved of his office. Thus, anyone who expresses an undesirable opinion will have his civil existence annihilated – a form of behaviour that we are actually used to seeing in dictatorships.

There are also other dangerous threats to freedom of expression and press freedom in the European Union, led by the so-called Fundamental Rights Agency: only positive reports are to be made about immigrants, and problems such as abuse of the asylum procedure or crime committed by non-nationals should – because they contradict the publicised multicultural idyll – be kept quiet as far as possible. If, as in Sweden, a private television broadcaster refuses to broadcast an advertisement for a right-wing democratic party during an election period on account of an alleged anti-Muslim sentiment, then this is not only an act of self-censorship, but it is also the manipulation of an election.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) A free, pluralist and independent press is a key element of a democratic society. In 2010, the Romanian media are subject to the constraints imposed by an unfavourable economic climate, in a country where hostile attitudes towards journalists and inaccuracies which have been deliberately fuelled have been elevated to government policies.

As a result of the current economic crisis, more than 4 000 media workers have been made redundant, dozens of publications have been closed down and advertising revenues have slumped. All these factors have made the media susceptible to political and economic pressure. Bias and lack of impartiality have lowered the public’s confidence in the press. Given that all the media regulations in Europe which stipulate respect for the right to freedom of expression and information are not being applied appropriately, I call on Member States and the Commission to monitor this aspect closely.

  Emil Stoyanov (PPE), in writing. – (BG) I would like to thank the rapporteur for the good work he has done on this report which raises extremely important issues relating to the work of European institutions and the media. Relations between the European Parliament and the media have always been very complicated and it is of paramount importance to find a balance in these relations so that both sides can carry out their job effectively. I would like to thank Mr Løkkegaard and his colleagues from the Committee on Culture and Education for accepting my two proposals on facilitating the accreditation procedure for journalists in Brussels (paragraph 24), as well as my second proposal concerning the importance of private radio and TV broadcasters which, along with public radio and TV broadcasters, are a key resource for EU news coverage and can assist in the development of information flow in Europe (paragraph 26), making it more accessible to citizens. I believe that European institutions have work to do in order to facilitate accreditation for journalists in Brussels and to contribute to better cooperation between public and private radio and TV broadcasters. This will allow us to increase the awareness on the part of European citizens about the European institutions’ work and policies. Thank you for your attention.

17. Discrimination of same-sex married or in civil-partnership couples (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on:

- the oral question to the Commission on discrimination against same-sex married or in civil-partnerships couples, by Cornelis de Jong and Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, by Marije Cornelissen, Raül Romeva i Rueda and Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, and by Michael Cashman, Britta Thomsen, Sophia in ’t Veld and Sirpa Pietikäinen (O-0081/2010 – B7-0451/2010),

- the oral question to the Commission on mutual recognition of marriages and civil partnerships contracted by same-sex couples, by Claude Moraes, Michael Cashman and Monika Flašíková Beňová, on behalf of the S&D Group (O-0117/2010 – B7-0459/2010),

- the oral question to the Commission on discrimination against same-sex couples, freedom of movement, LGBT rights and the EU Roadmap by Sophia in ’t Veld, Renate Weber, Niccolò Rinaldi, Sarah Ludford, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström, Alexander Alvaro and Gianni Vattimo, on behalf of the ALDE Group (O-0118/2010 – B7-0460/2010).

  Cornelis de Jong, author. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, my partner and I have been living together for over 21 years. Recently, we took advantage of the possibility that exists in the Netherlands to have our partnership officially registered. This means that, in the Netherlands, we enjoy exactly the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Incidentally, we could have chosen marriage instead, as that option is open to same-sex couples in the Netherlands.

Let us suppose that I decide to go and work in Poland and that my partner comes with me. In that case, we would no longer be seen as a couple, as Poland is yet to recognise same-sex partnerships. In other words, exercising the EU right of free movement of workers would mean us losing a number of fundamental rights, for example, in the field of social security and pensions. Whilst married heterosexual couples can simply retain their status, therefore, same-sex couples cannot. Thus, the right of free movement is restricted. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left is not advocating that the Commission present proposals for harmonisation of family law in this field. This remains a matter for the Member States. What we are doing, however, is asking the Commission to present proposals ensuring that the rights enjoyed by employed and self-employed workers in connection with freedom of movement are the same for everyone.

At the moment, the Commission seems to be hesitant, to say the least, when it comes to developing such proposals. That was why my fellow Members and I requested this evening’s debate. I sincerely hope that the Commissioner is able to assure us that something will be done about this quickly and that, in the field of social security and pensions, for example, couples taking up residence in another Member State will enjoy the same rights irrespective of whether they are a homosexual or heterosexual couple.

  Marije Cornelissen, author. – (NL) Madam President, free movement of European citizens is a fundamental value of the European Union. It is unacceptable for a large group of people to be excluded from exercising this value: people in a same-sex marriage or partnership, whose relationship is not recognised in a number of EU countries. This is not a small technical problem, but rather touches the most important things in the life of a human being. Can I take my beloved with me, and my young children, if I go and work in another country? Would my beloved be entitled to a pension or benefit in the event of my sudden death? It goes even deeper than this.

Commissioner Reding, imagine you have been very happily married to a woman for years. You go together to Italy or Greece, where you have found the job of a lifetime. Everything goes very well for a few years, but then disaster strikes. Your beloved partner is involved in a road accident and ends up in intensive care. It could be that you are unable to take any decisions regarding your life partner, that you cannot even be at her side to hold her hand, because as far as Italy is concerned, you are no one and have nothing to do with her.

Madam President, I am delighted that more and more countries are allowing same-sex couples to marry or enter into civil partnerships, and tens of thousands of people have already taken advantage of this, with numbers increasing steadily. Sadly, some Member States are lagging behind. I find this regrettable, but we, Parliament, cannot force them to catch up. What we can call for, however, is recognition, so that all EU citizens really can enjoy their right to freedom of movement.

I should like Commissioner Reding to tell us how she intends to work with us to make this a reality.

  Michael Cashman, author. – Madam President, Commissioner Reding’s record on non-discrimination is exemplary, and the two testimonies she has heard tonight are intensely interesting.

Like Mr de Jong, I am a gay man in a civil partnership, in a relationship of 27 years that has only been recognised by the state for five years.

As was said earlier, if I were to have an accident whilst on holiday in Italy, my partner would not even be given the basic right to decide whether, in such a case, I should be on a life support machine or not.

It is these basic elements that are so private and personal of which we are deprived on the sole basis of prejudice. There are those who say that mutual recognition and respect for civil laws and civil rights acquired in another country, and recognised and enforced in another Member State, would undermine a Member State’s competence on marriage.

That is absolute nonsense. I am afraid it is an argument proposed by those who wish to have any excuse not to achieve equality.

There are five Member States that recognise same-sex marriage. There are 12 that recognise civil partnerships. Ten of the 27 remain outside that brilliant ring of tolerance, equality and understanding.

Commissioner, it is your role – and I know it is a role you will take up – to push them into that ring of tolerance and understanding. Then we really will have an area of freedom, security and justice, not just for some, but for all, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, gender or gender identity.

In politics, it is so easy to follow public opinion. The hardest and most difficult thing to do is to lead it and to face down prejudice. If this House does the right thing and you, Commissioner, do the right thing, then we really can change the Union and change people’s lives for the better, not only for ourselves, but for generations to come.

The record of your hearing is unequivocal. You said that you believed that rights acquired in one country should be respected in another. I have the quote here, but I know I do not need to remind you of it because you are a woman of principle who will stand up against persecution and discrimination.

  Sophia in 't Veld, author. – Madam President, Commissioner, just a couple of days ago, I was watching a documentary on BBC World about some countries in the Caucasus where it is customary for men to ride out and steal a bride. When their eye catches a nice girl, they abduct her, take her home, rape her and then she is the man’s wife. Of course, the families of the girls vigorously protest against this, because they feel it is not up to the men to decide to take the girl – it is up to her father to decide to give her away.

It was a heartbreaking documentary. It was shocking, and why? Because we feel that the choice of a partner, the choice of a husband or a wife is the most personal and intimate choice you can make in life. It is not for the man, not for your father, not for your brother – and certainly not for the state – to determine who will or will not be your partner.

We have seen in history, and we still see today, countries where the state bans marriage between black and white people. In my country, not very long ago – this was something my grandparents were confronted with – Catholics were not allowed to marry Protestants even if they loved each other. There are still conservative Muslims who feel their daughters should not marry non-Muslims. There are many examples like that and we feel that is very shocking. But we still have countries in the European Union that ban marriage between consenting adults of the same sex.

I know that for some people, it is very shocking that people of the same sex can love each other, but that is not really relevant. What is relevant here is that every single EU citizen should have the same rights. It is not for the European Union or for the Member State governments to judge a personal relationship.

The European Union has no competence in family law, but as Michael Cashman has just pointed out, there are five countries already which have opened their marriage laws to same-sex couples. There are a number of other countries which have some form of recognised partnership. The very least we should be doing in the European Union is apply the principle of mutual recognition. We do it for jam and wine and beer: why do we not do it for marriage and for relationships?

I would like to ask the Commission to take the initiative for mutual recognition between those Member States which already have marriage or some form of registered partnership and give us a roadmap on how we will get to a situation where those relationships will be recognised everywhere.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, it is clear that the right to free movement and residence of EU citizens and their family members is one of the cornerstones of the EU. It is not only a fundamental right but also a personal right.

Article 21 of the treaty is very clear and gives effect to that right. The ban on discrimination, including discrimination at the level of sexual orientation, is a cornerstone of the EU and is also recognised in another Article 21, but this time of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The directive has brought a very significant improvement for same-sex couples. I would like to thank Parliament, because it was Parliament which really pushed this through. EU law has provided, for the first time, for the right of both same-sex and different sex couples to move and reside freely within the European Union.

That said, it is implicit that if you are allowed to move freely and to reside freely, then you must also have the same rights at your second place of residence as you do at your first place of residence. It is for the Member States, as has been said, to decide whether or not they provide for registered partnerships or for a legal order, but what we are gradually seeing is more and more Member States moving in the direction of either recognising or allowing same-sex marriages.

The directive is very modern in that respect because it does not distinguish between same-sex couples and couples of the opposite sex. Actually, the directive is neutral on this. It allows such situations to happen and for couples to express themselves and to have this right. In that sense, it is not necessary to amend the directive.

How this directive is implemented in practical terms is another matter. The directive in itself is not the problem, but rather the interpretation of the directive. For the Commission, it is very clear that the directive must be applied with full respect for the principle of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The Commission has to ensure the correct application of EU law. This means the Commission has to monitor whether, in applying the directive, Member States respect fundamental rights, including the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation – the well-known Article 21 of the Charter.

The Commission attaches great importance to eliminating any obstacle restricting the right of free movement and residence, and will continue to work with Member States to make sure that the directive is applied correctly.

You will know that the Commission has adopted guidelines on better transposition of the directive. The guidelines are from July 2009, so we are now looking at the way Member States are applying those guidelines in practical terms.

The Commission welcomes the report on homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation issued by the Fundamental Rights Agency. That report (which was drawn up at Parliament’s request) provides comprehensive and important data on the human rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and trans-gender persons.

This data is needed, and I have asked the Agency to deepen research in this area – as I declared publicly during the International Day against Homophobia on 18 May – because we need to know what is going on in practice in the Member States. The forthcoming annual report on the application of the Charter, which is due in November, will deal with discrimination and homophobia. You can count on my determination to act within the framework of the powers that the treaty has entrusted to the Commission.

I am sure you understand that this is, for some Member States, a very delicate political and social question, because the way of looking at things is not the same all across Europe. However, the fact that more and more Member States are either recognising or applying marriages, irrespective of the sexual orientation of the partners, is a very good sign.

We have to advance step by step. We must, most of all on the basis of our guidelines, bring the Member States to accept these rules. For many, this is very new and very unusual. For some, it is very shocking. We have to advance cautiously, because what we do not want – and I believe all those who have spoken here of their experiences, from their hearts, understand this too – is not to be too harsh.

In saying this, I am not speaking about the basic values, which are not in question, but we have to bring resisting Member States, step by step, to accept the general rules. What we do not want is to have people starting to oppose same-sex marriages, the recognition of rights and non-discrimination.

Let us see, in the report, the details of how, in the different Member States and in different regions of the Member States, things are being applied. I do not want there to be any doubts about the fundamentals, about the rights of free movement, irrespective of sexual orientation or ethnicity. These we are going to apply step by step. We will come back to this.

Some Members have given a very personal insight, and I wish to thank them. It is very important for me to grasp the sensitive nature of this issue, which is not only a matter of principle but also a matter of human beings living their personal lives. Thank you for that. I am sure that together, we will manage to change the situation in the coming months and years.

  Salvatore Iacolino, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I listened with interest to those who spoke on a topic, a matter that is certainly distinctive and specific.

Unlike the debate that took place earlier, when we spent a long time on a topic that has been over-discussed and has little substance – that of freedom of expression in Europe – this is, without doubt, a topical and real issue.

I would point out that, some time ago, when the resolution on the Stockholm Programme was being approved, an amendment with characteristics essentially similar to the question we are discussing today was not approved in committee. This was probably because, with specific reference to the text of that resolution – in other words, that the national identity and sensibility of each Member State should be respected – the Commission’s viewpoint was the same as the one that recently informed the European Court of Justice, which stated, with reference to a specific case, that it is not an infringement of a right to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

I personally feel that certain fundamental positions should be guaranteed, because everything concerned with a person’s private and personal life should, in fact, be respected, but, at the same time, we must pay due attention to what Commissioner Reding said just now, namely that there must be a gradual shift, consisting of small concrete steps, towards recognition over time.

Much progress has been made, but we cannot ignore the concept of a family that is, in our view, a natural one, consisting of a man and a woman and the procreation of children, as opposed to another model, which we take due account of but which is not the one that, even today, most of the European Community think of as a family.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SK) I listened to your speech very closely and I really would like to applaud your sensitive choice of words and to say, perhaps only for the enlightenment of Mr Iacolino: we are not talking here about the European Parliament wanting to introduce or to order nation states to introduce registered partnerships. We are talking here about a completely different topic, we are talking about tolerance and about the fact that most host Member States do not recognise a marriage or a registered partnership which has been established legally – and I emphasise, legally – between citizens of the same gender. However, all the indications are that this amounts to a breach of the directive on the right to freedom of movement.

At first glance, this is a technical-legal problem, because the directive defines a family member of a citizen of the European Union as a spouse or partner with whom the citizen has established a registered partnership.

The first problem is that the free movement of registered partners is determined by whether the legislation of the host state considers the registered partnership to be equivalent to a marriage. If not, the directive will not be implemented in full, and their basic human rights are thereby restricted.

The second problem is that there is no consistency over whether the term ‘spouse’ or ‘partner’ also includes partners of the same gender. Despite the efforts of the European Parliament, the Commission has not resolved this uncertainty in the directive. Here we get to the essence of the matter. What appears to be a problem of a legal and administrative nature is in reality, as you yourself stated, a matter of political will.

I would like to believe that the Commission will interpret correctly the clear signal from most of the political groupings, because we have already squandered an opportunity with the action plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme, or rather the Commission has squandered it, but I hope that it will seize the earliest opportunity to implement the steps essential to eliminating all the potential uncertainties that are currently producing discrimination and a failure to fulfil the spirit of European human rights legislation.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, some of the same features are in this debate as were in our earlier debate today on the expulsion of the Roma from France and, previously, from Italy. We have splendid principles in the treaties and legal instruments of the EU – non-discrimination, equality, rights of minorities, human dignity, the right to family life and the right of free movement – but their implementation in the Member States leaves much to be desired and falls short of these values and commitments. The problem is that the Commission, which is the watchdog and guardian of the treaties, all too often hesitates to pursue Member States for even quite serious and very serious breaches.

I am privileged to represent London, and therefore – I would say – one of the most progressive regions in Europe when it comes to gay rights. I am not claiming that my city, or even my country, is free of homophobic prejudice or discrimination – we do not yet have gay marriage – but we have made a lot of progress. But when my constituents with civil partnerships travel or move abroad within the EU, they lose their rights and legal status, as others have mentioned: inheritance, tax, social benefits, even the right to be treated as a partner are lost.

But the whole programme in an area that I work in a lot, which is European criminal justice, is rooted in the principle of cross-border mutual recognition – recognising and implementing legal decisions made in other EU Member States. So why not legal decisions on partnership or marriage, which is even more precise than the area of jam and widgets that my friend Sophie was talking about?

I therefore do not agree with Vice-President Reding, with respect, that the Free Movement Directive does not need amending. It does need amending, to remove the semi-discretion that Member States have to discriminate against couples where they are same-sex partners or spouses moving from another Member State. It therefore seems to me that we need action from the Commission. We have got to a sort of critical mass, even if one accepts this argument that you have to wait for social change. We have a critical mass of Member States which legally recognise same-sex couples.

It is time to introduce uniform treatment of those same-sex partners moving to another European country. In fact, a recent interesting judgment of the European Court of Human Rights suggested it might not be too long before that Court – the Court of the Council of Europe – insists that marriage be open to same-sex couples. It would be richly ironic if the EU had failed to act and we found ourselves upstaged by the Council of Europe when we claim to be the gold standard in our own self-definition compared to the Council of Europe.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I truly believe every word the Commissioner has said and that she personally believes in implementing the rights of movement of every European citizen, be they gay, lesbian, heterosexual or whatever, be they married or in a registered partnership or whatever.

The problem I have, as do all of us who have spoken, or at least most of us, is when you say that we need to go forward step by step, and that we need to make Member States understand, and convince them, and to work against prejudice. I know that is the case, but I also think that, in all EU countries, citizens are a lot further ahead than their governments.

Let me tell you about Warsaw EuroPride this year, which I went to. I walked with around 20 000 people – lesbian, gay, heterosexual, bisexual, transgender – through the main streets of Warsaw, with extremist demonstrators being pushed away by the police to the margins where they belong, and with lots of heterosexual citizens – such as women with their dogs watching from buildings – greeting us and saying that we, as lesbians and gays, were at the centre of society, in the mainstream. Those equal rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights that you have been rightly quoting are for all of us.

As Ms Ludford and so many others have said, we need the Commission to push forward and not to wait for Member States to slowly, maybe one day, do what they have to do for their citizens, for each and every one of us.

Let me give you my own example. For 17 years, it was not possible in my country for me to have a registered partnership with my partner, but it has now been possible for a couple of months. If I have to go and live in another country like Italy or Greece, I do not want to have to wait again until we can be recognised and, in difficult situations, be able to say that we are partners, we belong to each other and we want to care for each other. So please, push. There are many in this Parliament who want to push with you.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Member States apply the directive which has often been mentioned here in accordance with the principles of their own family law. It is hard to see how it could be any different. Otherwise, they would undermine their own sovereignty in the area of family law, and their sovereignty is confirmed by the treaties. I think the Commission can confirm this. Member States which do not allow same-sex partnerships cannot recognise such partnerships which have been registered in another Member State, and there is nothing unusual in this. I might as well demand, in this Chamber, that Polish or Irish abortion law be applied to Polish citizens when they are in Sweden or Great Britain. We do not feel, I think, that there is any reciprocity in such matters, and I do not suppose anyone here is calling for it. In addition, reference to the European system for protecting human rights is an exceptionally inappropriate argument. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the lack of legal recognition of a same-sex partnership, and even more so of a same-sex marriage, does not constitute discrimination. For these reasons, this whole debate is, once again, a complete waste of time.

  Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Madam President, to Mr Szymański, I would like to say that it is a question of discrimination. Commissioner Reding highlighted the cornerstones of the EU, namely free movement and fundamental rights. As far as Parliament is concerned, I am certain that the majority supports any work that is aimed at combating discrimination. That is worth our support.

Is it not also high time that the Commission took action to stop discrimination against people in same-sex marriages and civil partnerships? The question is relevant because it is emphasised in the Stockholm Programme that free movement is to apply to all citizens. All forms of discrimination must be avoided. Please note that this also includes discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

So far so good, but in the Commission’s Action Plan for the Stockholm Programme, we can find no measures for guaranteeing the same rights for people in same-sex marriages. Citizens who have entered into same-sex marriages in those countries in which it is permitted cannot wait any longer. They must have the same right to move to other Member States without being discriminated against in relation to a host of different civil rights.

We in Parliament and our citizens want an answer from the Commission, and I hope that it will be an answer that involves action being taken for the equal rights of all people, irrespective of sexual orientation.

  Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe cannot take the place of the sovereign people and force others to do what it does or does not want, because in case you are not aware, Europe has a motto: ‘Unity in diversity’; in other words, everyone is master of his own home.

The parliamentary questions being discussed today are very similar, and their aim is to ensure that the Commission imposes on Member States the obligation to recognise marriages between same-sex couples and prevent any form of discrimination with regard to adoption. The Lega Nord group cannot agree to the European Union taking over people’s right to safeguard their own cultures, traditions and roots.

Traditional marriage, in other words, between a man and a woman who perhaps bring children into the world, is the only form that can and must be recognised. Any other form of union between people of the same sex may exist but certainly cannot and must not be considered a marriage.

We are even more alarmed by the call from those who tabled questions for children to be adopted by same-sex couples. What upbringing could they receive? No one wishes to prevent homosexual couples from helping, for example, orphans or poor children by long-distance adoption, but, while it is one thing to help them grow up in their birth families or in their own countries, it is quite another to ask to adopt them.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, fellow Member, can you explain to me in what way it is detrimental to a couple made up of a man and a woman for a couple made up of two men or two women to have the same rights as them? In what way is it detrimental to a heterosexual couple for same-sex couples to have rights? Where is the threat? Where is the danger?

  Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is not a danger, it is something that, in the opinion of most Italians – and I speak for Italy – is unacceptable: it is different. For a couple to exist, live their lives peacefully and not ask for anything more, in the same way as a couple made up of a man and a woman – which, if possible, also has children, given that Europe continues to age – well, that is something different.

I have said this before: we believe that a couple that is entitled to a formal, official marriage must be made up of a man and a woman because they can procreate, and the ultimate aim of an ageing Europe is to produce children.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate lies at the basis of the European Community: the union of various communities, of various sensibilities and of different opinions. The ability to unite these different sensibilities lies at the basis of Europe and of the European Parliament, and so this debate, although difficult, is one we must have.

My attention was caught by something that Commissioner Reding said when she suggested that we must proceed with caution to prevent popular uprisings.

It is correct to give rights to all European citizens so that they can fight any discrimination and defend their freedom, but freedom belongs to everyone, including communities that have historically, for thousands of years, shared a concept of society that is based on the family, on the traditional family made up of a man and a woman. There must therefore be freedom to express the opinion that a family is a union between a man and a woman.

Everyone is clearly able to enter into different unions, but we cannot equate a family made up of a man and a woman, which ensures the continuation of the species, with other unions, however respectable they may be.

The debate must, of course, continue, because in a Europe that must be united in showing respect for all sensibilities, even such difficult, complicated and incendiary debates must seek a solution, but one that respects all communities. Because – and I am addressing Commissioner Reding here – we absolutely must not allow that phrase, ‘popular uprisings’, to undermine European unity.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). – (NL) Madam President, civil partnerships and marriages between same-sex partners are not legally recognised in all host Member States. This leads to multiple discrimination in the field of not only family matters such as custody and the right to inherit but also taxation affairs and social rights – as if these marriages and partnerships were less genuine or less important. The Action Plan proposed in the Stockholm Programme does not contain a proposal to solve this. There are no specific new initiatives for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights. Yet you have just spoken some fine words, saying that you intend to take action. This fills me with great pleasure. You spoke of specific steps – well, specific small steps – and of the need to proceed very cautiously when persuading certain Member States who have problems in this regard.

My first question is whether this will be happening before the end of your term of office. My second question is whether this kind of awkward situation also applies to other discrimination grounds, for example, race, disability and age. I believe that courage is needed in the case of all grounds, as they are all equal, and discrimination on all grounds must be fought effectively at the same time.

Allow me to make a suggestion. You said you were expecting a report by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights in November which also concerns homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. May I ask you whether, further to that report, which is to provide a reality check on the situation, you will be presenting a report to Parliament on your assessment of the situation and the specific steps, or preferably great strides, you mean to take?

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, I am lucky enough to come from a country that has made major progress in recent years on the issue of gay rights. It was also thought that Spain needed to move slowly and that its society was not yet ready to take that step. Nevertheless, we took it, and nothing has happened. Nothing has happened: and moreover, there is a much greater level of happiness because people have lost their fear.

Guaranteeing the right of people of the same sex to get married and make plans together does not force you to do it if you do not wish to. The fact that I can marry a man does not mean that you have to do so, but it gives me the right to do so. This is what gives us all the freedom to be able to clearly be a European Union that guarantees these principles and rights.

I am lucky enough to be able to do so, like other fellow Members. However, there are countries in the European Union where it is not possible, which is something that cannot be accepted in the European Union of today. We are asking the European Commission to show the same leadership that was shown in Spain when needed, and we ask you to promote this project in the European Union today as we do not see it in the Stockholm Programme Action Plan. We are asking you for a specific plan and for guarantees that this discrimination that we are seeing and talking about will never happen again.

As was demonstrated in Spain, this is only possible if there is political will. If you have that political will, we will be standing with you, but if you do no have it, we will be opposing you.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I refer to my fellow Member’s speech and ask: if this possibility of being able to change were offered in Spain, and if the Spanish people accepted this change, why not respect the sensibilities of other countries that wish to adopt a different approach? Why impose your decisions on other countries, and offend the historical sensibility of other communities?

Europe is a set of communities, and if one of those does not understand the values of another, it can never really become Europe. Therefore, if we respect the choices that have been made in Spain, why can we not respect the choices of other communities?

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) The answer is because we are and we want to be European citizens. We must be able to move freely through the European Union with the same rights because it says so in the treaties. This is the basic principle, and the second element is also very simple: what we are saying is that there is no need to be afraid, because the societies that have historically been based on couples made up of a man and a woman are not being eroded. Do not worry, the world is still turning, and what is more, it is much happier.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D). – (PL) It is unacceptable that there are countries in Europe in which the rights of people who are married or are in a partnership differ depending on their sexual orientation. In some Member States, homosexual people cannot legalise their partnerships, and partnerships legally registered in other countries are not recognised. In Poland, even in the event of a tragedy such as the death of the person closest to you, a homosexual partner is treated as a second-class citizen. How can this consent to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation be brought to an end, since even in this Chamber, we sometimes hear scandalous, homophobic statements? Those who make them clearly are not aware that homophobia is an embarrassing disease which ought to be treated. Let us stop putting the citizens into categories of ‘worse’ and ‘better’. We all deserve equal rights to enter into legal partnerships, adopt children, work in our profession, have a fair education and not to have to hide our sexual preferences, and we are also entitled to love, pride and happiness.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, this debate demonstrates the way in which the argument of non-discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation is lumped together with the argument for free movement of workers, with a single aim: to force the Member States to make fundamental changes to their national traditions in the field of civil law, which governs the definition of the family.

The national parliaments respect the opinion of their citizens. For 80% of citizens, the family represents, first and foremost, a stable union between a man and a woman. This figure was published by Eurostat, but no one talks about it. If we talked openly about the fact that the vast majority of citizens today still support the family model based on marriage between a man and a woman, this debate would proceed differently.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Madam President, I would just like to ask Mrs Záborská whether she can accept that we are not talking about forcing Member States to change their marriage laws, but about obliging them to recognise the product of other countries’ laws on partnership and marriage. There is a fundamental difference.

This is about implementing the principle of mutual recognition. I would ask other speakers who have expressed somewhat similar sentiments to accept that we do now have a well-developed mutual recognition principle in many areas of EU life and competence.

That is the route we should take in the area of non-discrimination and free movement. It is not about forcing Member States to change their own marriage laws, but simply to recognise other countries’ marriage laws.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I will happily respond.

This may not be about changing the family code or family law in the Member States, but it is about changing the civil code. It is civil law which is to be changed in the Member States. Some changes are introduced by major laws, others by government regulations. However, the government and the parliament must respect the opinion of citizens, including when they adopt legislative acts which do not entirely relate to family law.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Madam President, I was not expecting to speak tonight. I had no intention of speaking and I do not have a prepared speech, but I thought I would say a few words.

As an openly gay person, I think it is the right of everyone to love who they want to love and to live the life they wish to live, whoever that may be with. What has been confirmed here tonight is how right I was to leave the EFD Group and their Fascistic views – for example, the 19th century views of their Italian group. I remind this Chamber that their mayor of Treviso said that homosexuals should be ethnically cleansed from their city.

As an openly gay person and as an openly gay politician, I have sometimes been a bit afraid to campaign for what I believe in with regard to equal rights for gay people. This is because I do not wish to be typecast. I wish to campaign for what I believe in. That surely is a discrimination that still affects our Member States.

Of course, if people join the European Union – there have been many referenda where people have acceded to the European Union – they have therefore acceded to these rights. Everyone knows that I am a believer in the Member State but – as Ms in ’t Veld said – this is beyond the Member State. This is about fundamental human rights. I think if you allow a country to join the European Union – much as I am opposed to it – they must accede to its rights. So when will you enforce these rights? Are we equal or are we not?

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Madam President, very briefly, I would like to put a question to my Italian colleague – I apologise for not knowing his name – who asked that other Member States accept the sensitivities of his country.

This debate is not about accepting the sensitivities of other countries; it is about accepting laws of other countries. And I would like to ask that colleague if he is willing to recognise the laws of other EU Member States?

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). – (IT) It is sufficient to respond by citing the 2008 decision of the Court of Justice, which is absolutely at odds with what you have claimed and which offered Member States the possibility, in such situations, of legislating and not having to respect debates such as this.

I therefore refer back to the 2008 Court of Justice decision.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, for me it is easy, because the law is very clear. It is about non-discrimination, the right to free movement and mutual recognition.

Let me stress this. If you live in a legally-recognised same-sex partnership, or marriage, in country A, you have the right – and this is a fundamental right – to take this status and that of your partner to country B. If not, it is a violation of EU law, so there is no discussion about this. This is absolutely clear, and we do not have to hesitate on this.

This is the law today, and you can count on me to help you to enforce this. But wait, that is the law. The reality sur le terrain – in real terms – might be different, and we have to change this reality. This is the reason why I have said that we have these bilateral meetings at technical level with Member States in order to see how we can change their way of applying something which is very clear in legal terms. Permit me here to disagree with Baroness Ludford. We normally do agree in our analysis, but here, we do not.

The Free Movement Directive does not give the Member States discretion to discriminate – no EU directive does. We should not allow a mythology to be developed saying that, actually, it is possible to discriminate. We have to be very firm on the principles. I think here we agree again, do we not?

So for me there can be no discussion about the basis of what our legal system is and how it has to be interpreted. We will try to have this applied everywhere in the same way as it is written down, and here you find me on your side.

There was a question: when is this going to happen? Now! Not in five or 10 years. I do not know about a change of mentality in the different Member States. I can just tell you about the experience which I have as a politician over so many decades. Sometimes, governments are more cautious than their populations, and this has been said from personal experience in this Chamber. Sometimes, the population react in a very natural, relaxed way, and the government thinks that there is a very big problem.

What I try to do is to bring the governments to understand this. If there is no understanding, then more harsh measures have to be applied.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) No one can deny that non-discrimination is a core value. And no one can deny that the choice of your partner comes within the sphere of personal freedom, but in this case, Europe is interfering where it has no business to be. For us, as sanctioned by the Italian constitution, the family is based on marriage between a man and a woman. This is the underlying principle of our legal system, which reflects the culture, traditions and sensibilities of the Italian people. We must also remember that according to the principle of subsidiarity – reinforced by the Treaty of Lisbon – the European Union cannot intervene in matters that fall within the remit of Member States, such as family law. Article 9 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights indeed states that ‘the right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights’. The individual States are therefore responsible for this matter. Every nation is entitled to safeguard its national identity and convictions in respect of all other nations in the international community. This very sentiment is expressed by the European Union motto, unity in diversity.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The legal framework on same-sex couples within the European Union is very diverse and radical differences exist between different Member States. Episodes of discrimination against same-sex couples occur virtually on a daily basis, hence the need to ensure respect for Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC on combating discrimination based on religion, disability and sexual orientation. The European Union must make more effort to guarantee same-sex couples the same rights granted to heterosexual couples when they move to another Member State in the European Union to study or work, by virtue of the directive on the free movement of European citizens.

18. Long-term care for older people (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Elizabeth Lynne and Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on long-term care for older people (O-0102/2010 – B7-0457/2010).

  Elizabeth Lynne, author. – Madam President, the reason for putting this oral question and resolution on the agenda is to try to achieve an EU-wide code of conduct on long-term care for older people. I am not talking about legislation here, but an exchange of best practice between Member States.

For too long, the treatment of older people has been inadequate in many areas. We need to know, first and foremost, what data the Commission already has on the provision of care in Member States. Does the Commission see itself playing a role in the dissemination of best practice?

A key area I have been concerned with for a number of years is elder abuse. It can take many forms – physical, mental, emotional and financial. Take the case of a 93-year-old woman who went into a care home for respite care for one week, one week only, only for her to return home completely dehydrated; obviously, no attempt had been made to help her to drink at all.

This is not an isolated case. There are many cases of malnutrition and dehydration, but it would be useful if we could have facts and figures. Has the Commission got any data on the number of deaths attributable to dehydration or malnutrition?

Just as worrying, of course, is the more frequent use of Do Not Resuscitate orders. It should be up to the medical practitioner, in consultation with the patient, to decide on whether DNR should be on someone’s notes. I know of cases where either the nursing home itself decides which person is to be resuscitated or not, or the relatives are told that they must sign up to the document, which is a complete abuse of the person’s right to choose.

What is the Commission doing to look at the use of so-called Do Not Resuscitate orders? I am not talking about living wills here, I am talking about Do Not Resuscitate orders. Does the Commission agree that it violates the right to life under Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

I am pleased that the World Health Organisation has adopted a broad definition of elder abuse. We need now at EU level to clarify the extent of that abuse. I hope that the Commission will bring forward a Green Paper on elder abuse; I know that the Commissioner has talked about that himself.

Over-prescription of medication, particularly anti-psychotic drugs, is also abuse. Quite often, they are used for the benefit of the staff, not for the resident in a care home. Also, conversely, older people are denied medical treatment on the grounds of age alone. This is another reason why I believe pressure should be put on the Council for a decision on the equal treatment directive to outlaw discrimination in access to goods and services, and that would include healthcare.

More must be done as well by each Member State to make sure that older people can be supported in their own homes if that is what they wish, and to regulate qualification requirements for people caring for older people, with adequate training mechanisms in place.

Many Member States have cut back on specialist geriatric medicine and we need to know what the real effects have been on older people. We must not forget, either, the support and recognition that informal carers need. Quite often, they are the ones who care for their relatives day in, day out, with little help.

The whole area of long-term care for older people has been ignored for many years. I hope, with this oral question and resolution, that all of us together can start to really give this matter the attention it deserves. Quite often, older people who require long-term care find it very difficult to speak for themselves. It is up to us all, working with them, to make sure their voices are heard and not forgotten.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, with Europe’s societies growing older over the next few decades, we need to find ways of ensuring that older people are given the quality care they need.

That is the goal the Member States set themselves in the objectives they agreed for healthcare and long-term care at EU level. In addition, the Council conclusions of 30 November 2009 called on the Commission to develop ‘an action plan for further activities in 2011, which will promote dignity, health and quality of life for older persons’. I am pleased that the forthcoming presidencies, including the Hungarian and Polish Presidencies, intend to take this work forward.

The Commission has already taken a number of initiatives to step up work on the quality of long-term care services, increase knowledge in this area and promote debate at EU level. It has long supported work on long-term care provision as part of the open method of coordination in the area of social protection.

The 2009 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion confirmed the importance of addressing the issue of workforce shortages in the long-term care sector. Identifying and disseminating best practice is one of our main objectives. The Commission can act as a catalyst for change and can support national efforts.

A Commission staff working paper is currently being prepared on long-term care in connection with efforts to promote active, healthy and dignified ageing, and a Commission communication is scheduled for 2011.

Yesterday, the Commission adopted the proposal for designating 2012 the European Year for Active Ageing. The Year will serve as a framework for raising awareness, identifying and disseminating good practice and, more importantly, encouraging policy makers and stakeholders at all levels to facilitate active ageing.

The aim is to invite these players to commit themselves to specific actions and goals in 2011, the run-up year, so that tangible achievements can be presented during the European Year in 2012.

I want now to talk about people more concretely. You have rightly pointed out that, in most Member States, the bulk of support and care for dependent persons is provided by family and friends, and this will continue to apply over the next few decades. In all countries, women are far more likely to be carers than men. Inadequate recognition of the role of informal carers and inadequate support for their contribution can lead to risks of social exclusion.

To help remedy this situation, the Member States, together with the EU institutions, could consider moves to assess and certify caring skills, including those acquired while caring for dependent relatives, and in household management, which are activities mainly performed by women.

Progress will depend on efforts by many stakeholders. The Commission warmly welcomes the work on care issues carried out by Parliament’s Interest Groups on Ageing and on Carers and by civil society organisations such as AGE and Eurocarers.

The Commission is not planning to set up an Active Ageing Observatory, but mutual learning covering active ageing is one of the aims of the European Year for Active Ageing, for which a dedicated web site will be set up.

I also want to mention the contributions of the Grundtvig programme for adult education, the public health programme and the 2011 European Year of Volunteering.

Mrs Lynne, you rightly underlined the importance of ethical issues such as those involved in ‘do not resuscitate’ orders. While the Commission acknowledges the importance of this issue – and I fully share the moral substance of your question – we sometimes have to express ourselves in legalistic terms, and if we do that in this case, we must say that such matters are exclusively a Member State competence and that we do not have the capacity, from the viewpoint of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to interfere with that Member State competence.

The Commission has taken a number of initiatives – including the major conference it held on 17 March 2008 – to increase knowledge of the elder abuse issue and to promote debate at EU level on how to prevent it.

In 2009, the Commission implemented a pilot project which led to the selection of two projects. One project investigates how elder abuse can be monitored through public health and long-term care systems. The second seeks to map existing policy approaches and policy frameworks in the European Union. Both projects started in December 2009 and the findings will be presented in autumn next year.

The Commission also continues to cofinance a number of actions under the Daphne programme and the public health programme.

The Commission is actively supporting work under way within the Social Protection Committee on a voluntary quality framework for social services. That framework needs to be flexible enough to apply in all the Member States at national, regional and local level and to a variety of social services.

One big sector where the framework could apply is long-term care. But delivering long-term care is not an easy task on a daily basis, and it is the sad truth that people with heavy care responsibilities often have to give up, or reduce, their hours of paid work because of these commitments. In turn, this affects their attractiveness on the labour market, their current income and their future pension rights.

Our longstanding work with the Member States on reconciling family and working life has revealed the importance of adjusting the working conditions of persons who provide informal care.

Establishing social services that allow for respite care and care leave, and granting specific rights to informal carers in social security schemes, in particular, as regards pension entitlement, would also help to encourage and enable more people to provide informal care.

As you suggest, poverty, access to care and longevity may be interlinked. We looked at such links in a recent communication on health inequalities. The evidence clearly confirms that differences in income, working and living conditions are reflected in the average health status at all ages.

However, we are only at the beginning in terms of policies that effectively break or modify the links between the social hierarchy and the hierarchy of health statuses.

What we are calling for is therefore more awareness and research, and more innovative policy development. In addition, we need to promote a ‘health in all policies’ approach which is a vital component of any successful strategy.

  Csaba Sógor, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) The phenomenon of ageing European societies is a significant challenge for each Member State. We must place an ever greater emphasis on care for the increasing number of elderly people. The traditions and culture of elder care differ by region: in the southern Member States, multiple generations living together solve the problem within the family, while in the northern Member States, institutionalised care is more common.

However, the costs of the latter form of care are growing and sustainability is increasingly tested due to the economic situation and the growth seen in the ageing population. In Central and Eastern Europe, non-governmental organisations and churches are very often able to implement a certain type of institutionalised procedure efficiently. However, this is still a rare phenomenon, and the state does not support this development route for the elder care system.

In the United Kingdom, the training system established for immigrants successfully solved the employment problem of previously unemployed women through elder care. Obviously, this practice can also be adopted successfully in other Member States. I welcome fellow Members Berès’s and Lynne’s motion for a resolution. I would like to highlight the part of the text calling on the Commission to compile a Green Paper based on Member States’ best practices and models, so that each Member State is empowered to implement the most adequate measures within its means, excluding the possibility of mistreatment and abuse of the elderly.

  Kinga Göncz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (HU) Increasing life expectancy is not just a good result; it is also an opportunity. Although we can indeed be proud that life expectancy is on the rise in Europe, it is also a challenge. It is a challenge partly because we do not know how we can ensure the opportunity for active ageing in an ageing society. It is also unknown to what extent we can ensure the opportunity for active participation in society and non-discriminatory treatment for the elderly. We are aware that there is a lot to do in this area. Can we achieve an increase in the number of healthy years? To what extent can we provide income security for the elderly or lifelong learning?

Maybe that certain European Year which will be called the European Year for Active Ageing will help draw more attention to this issue. However, it is inevitable that there will be a period when elderly people will be in need of social and health services and will have less power to represent themselves, thus increasing our responsibility to ensure that they have access to quality services. It is particularly important that appropriate services are available for low income, poor elderly people and for elderly people requiring permanent nursing and care, regardless of whether they need home nursing or are looked after in institutions. There are also a few specific tasks with which we are requesting the Commission’s assistance. First, we need some vital data on what the needs are and on those who require care. Special attention should be paid to the most vulnerable, we need monitoring mechanisms, and the compilation of best practices is also part of the minimum standards.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I would very much like to thank Mrs Lynne for the opportunity for us to be debating this tonight, and I welcome a lot of what the Commissioner has said. Indeed, I found quite a lot of it quite encouraging in some ways.

You will have recognised, of course, that a number of our questions concern the issues about the vulnerability of older people and a very strong feeling that we have that it is crucially important that people can feel safe with those providing care.

While I take your point about the issues about what is a Member State competence, nevertheless, the open method of coordination exists to help Member States work together on something which, while it is not a competence of the European Union, nevertheless is seen as something of common importance.

I think certain of the issues, even about basic care, nutrition, etc., are very important within this. I am also wondering what further steps the Commission might take to persuade Member States of the cost-effectiveness of supporting informal carers. There are certainly figures from the UK that recognise that this is a contribution of billions saved in our economy, because the care is being given by close friends or relatives rather than by the state, and that in fact, investing in something like a carer’s allowance and support mechanisms for carers really is worth doing, rather than having people totally worn out, isolated and suffering their own health and mental health problems because they have been caring for hours without background support.

I am also interested in what you are saying about the possibilities of improving the qualifications of carers. Part of that issue, of course, is not only that this concerns women, it often concerns migrant women, and therefore a particular sort of investment is needed. But our resolution also talks about the need for contracts to stipulate at least a minimum income, a minimum wage. I would welcome your comments on that.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Thank you. My great-grandmother is 69 years old and I have lived a long time with her. This is why I know from experience that the best way for us to care for the elderly is by ensuring that they can look after themselves as far as possible. However, even those who are in good mental and physical shape for their age face a strenuous task. The Attack party raised this issue during the previous parliamentary term and will also do so in the future.

The average pension in Bulgaria is a mere EUR 100. That is EUR 100 a month, fellow Members. Pensioners have to use this money to buy their medication, pay their bills and, usually last of all, provide their food. The reason for this state of affairs is the huge act of robbery committed against my country by the last three governments in succession. This robbery goes by the name of ‘mass privatisation’. I must also mention that it was carried out under the approving eye of the European institutions and the International Monetary Fund. Assets worth billions of euro were stolen from Bulgaria, which does not make it strange that my country has the lowest pensions in the European Union. This tragic situation must serve as an example to you when you are wondering how we are to care for the elderly.

  Thomas Mann (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the Commission has just declared 2012 to be the year for active ageing. In so doing, it has complied with a request from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the report on intergenerational equity. Congratulations! This important message is coming at just the right time.

The number of people over 80 years of age who are healthy and capable is constantly rising. For the period from 2010 to 2030, an increase of almost 60% is forecast. In the question put by our Committee, we call on the Commission to analyse the positive, but also the negative, effects in the area of care for the elderly and to propose conclusions.

We know that more and more families cannot cope with the care of their relatives alone. Care workers are in short supply. However, it is not good enough for well-trained and competent staff to be replaced by low-paid employees with basic knowledge obtained in a fast-tracked process. In many places, this care is the only care received.

As rapporteur for demographic change and intergenerational equity, I have called on the Member States to set up transparent and sustainable control systems. Those in need of care must have their dignity protected. We need an EU-wide Code of Conduct containing minimum requirements and minimum outcomes of services for the provision of long-term care. Regardless of income, age, social status or health risk, people must receive affordable, good quality care.

Elderly people are not a burden, either. Their experiences and their life achievements have shaped our society. We must not leave them alone to face their problems. Let us use the time leading up to 2012 to create many prerequisites to allow politics, the media and the public to engage intensively with the issue of active ageing. In this regard, those affected must, above all, have their say. We must all change our attitude in favour of a sustainable form of care that is continuously focused on people and not just on costs.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, when we all speak here in this Chamber about older people, we perhaps forget to factor in that, at some point, we too may be in the same position as older people and may reach the age of 80, 90 or even 100. Have we ever imagined how we would like to be treated then? Today’s older people are the people who brought us into the world, they are the people who gave us civilisation, they are the people who constitute our ‘personal property’.

Long-term care for older people does not only have a moral and social dimension; it also has an economic aspect, because the care which each older person needs implies a reduction in the productivity of the working members of their family. If, however, we introduce a care programme at the same time, we would even be able to create jobs. We need to think about all this, Commissioner, and put the Member States on the right track.

To close, I should like to thank the interpreters and translators who allow us to express our views even after midnight.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) According to recent statistics, the number of people in the European Union aged 65 or over is expected to grow by 70% by 2050, with a 170% rise in the number of people aged over 80.

This means that in 2060, the proportion of citizens in the EU-27 aged over 65 will reach 30%.

The European Union must find solutions to meet the ever-greater demand for healthcare, to adapt healthcare systems to the needs of an ageing population, and to maintain their viability against the background of the growing labour shortage.

The Commission, Member States and, in particular, local authorities must find solutions for adapting housing, means of public transport and even sectors such as tourism in order to be able to meet the specific needs of elderly people.

I welcome the adoption of European regulations on passengers’ rights, especially for people with reduced mobility, as is the case for many elderly people travelling by boat, plane or train.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) One of the current challenges facing European society is to address demographic changes that are putting increasing pressure on state budgets. I see a way out in the introduction of progressive and sustainable policies on the provision of adequate long-term care in a spirit of intergenerational solidarity, the elimination of age discrimination and full social inclusion even at advanced ages.

In my opinion, it is also important for the carers who look after old people to be accorded certain legally enforceable benefits or, where appropriate, financial remuneration, in a spirit of solidarity and appreciation for their self-sacrificing efforts. For this reason, I would like to emphasise the sharing of best practices and experience between Member States in this area.

In conclusion, I would like to add that, as a doctor, I completely disagree with so-called orders not to perform resuscitation on the basis of advanced age. I consider such an approach to be a gross violation of the basic human right to life.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) The authors have put 10 questions to the European Commission. However, intergenerational solidarity is mentioned in just one – the second from last. In order for the problem to be fully understood, I would like to add some more questions.

A moment ago, we were talking about how the European Commission can influence the Member States. Why does the European Commission not suggest to the Member States that they should value the care provided by family members to older, incapacitated people? Why, if a family member is looking after a relative, is that family member not financially rewarded and provided with health and social security cover and able to return to the workplace when the period of care comes to an end, just like a woman after maternity leave? Why are men and women who display intergenerational solidarity discriminated against in our society?

If we tried to eliminate this discrimination within the Union, we would have a far larger number of happier and more satisfied inhabitants.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the fact that we are having this discussion is very timely, because this is a big problem on our doorstep. I would like to thank Ms Lynne for outlining in particular the problems that exist in this so-called civilised society in the abuse of the elderly. The Commission has also given a very rounded contribution, outlining the goals, the challenges and the solutions.

Firstly, I think we should look at this as an opportunity, an opportunity to allow people to work beyond the normal time and age as of now, and secondly, particularly to travel and to contribute to tourism in the off-season. Then, of course, we have the challenge of caring for people in their homes for as long as possible, and then in institutionalised care. But the financial provisions have not been factored in at all yet, and a huge amount of work must be done if we are to reach a situation where the elderly are cared for properly in the years ahead.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, let me start by repeating what has been said at the beginning of the discussion about the diversity of Europe.

We have 27 Member States with different social conditions and material conditions and this is the main reason why the Commission is now working on a quality framework, not something stronger in terms of legislation. We believe this is now the right concept and we should see how it works together with Parliament, with which we have discussed these issues repeatedly in the recent period.

One key point where I think we can draw strong conclusions is how long-term care connects with our jobs agenda, how we see a strong capacity for job creation, but it also sets us the task of including this into our skills agenda and finding out how we can do more to train and develop a larger pool of carers who can provide professional services in this area.

It is indeed an open question how far we have to formalise these services because, as has been said, much of the work that is being done is informal. It is done, or can be done, by relatives and within families. Regulating issues, raising standards or demanding certain conditions within the framework of families and relatives is clearly something which would be highly problematic. Meanwhile, formalising these services and this work would add to costs and raise taxation issues, and we would easily find ourselves in a dead end in a different direction.

So there is no easy answer, while there are indeed compelling grounds to improve the conditions of those who need these services and are dependent on long-term care, but also to recognise those who provide this work. What we certainly can do is collect and disseminate best practices, for example, by using the open method of coordination.

I can say, at this late hour, that in a few hours’ time, I will meet some ministers from the Belgian Government in Liège at a conference on pensions. This will be a good opportunity to convey the words of Parliament on this question and connect it with our work on pensions, because these subjects are clearly interlinked in terms of both social security in general and an adequate income for the elderly.

We have a longer-term plan to follow up our work on pensions with a serious effort on demography. The forthcoming Hungarian and Polish Presidencies are equally interested in this subject, and we are exploring the right framework for the deliverables involved. This work will be followed by the European Year on Active Ageing, which is not only about employment – and definitely not simply about extending the pensionable age – but is also about doing more to preserve health and to upgrade lifelong learning, lifelong teaching, capacities and institutions in order to improve the quality of life.

So this is fundamentally a framework in which we can, I think, continue our work. It is full of challenges, but with the ethical commitment we all share, I think we can produce results.

  Elizabeth Lynne, author. – Madam President, I would like to thank everyone who has spoken, and the Commissioner for the things he has said tonight. These have been very useful. What has come out of this discussion also is the importance of having a code of conduct. This is something I called for in the oral question and resolution, and to which Thomas Mann and various other people have referred.

As I said before, we are not talking about legislation. The good example from Bulgaria of someone living on EUR 100 a month and having to pay for long-term care is just one of the reasons why we need that code of conduct, so that Member States can meet a minimum standard.

The same applies to ‘do not resuscitate’ orders. I am not saying that the same sort of legislation should be rolled out across all the Member States, but that we should actually have benchmarks for people to try and achieve best practice. That is where the Commission can do a lot of work in helping us to roll out the good practices acquired from different Member States.

Thank you once again, Commissioner, and thank you to the interpreters for staying beyond the 24:00 deadline.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 9 September 2010.

I, too, would like to thank the interpreters.

(1) See Minutes

19. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

20. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 00:25)