Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 9 September 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 10.00)

2. Better lawmaking

  President. – The first item is the report (A7-0215/2010) by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on better lawmaking – 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (2009/2141(INI)).

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, we make Union law where it is needed. This legislation must be correctly implemented in the legal systems of Member States, and it must be clear, transparent and understandable to the citizens. In practice, however, things are not that simple. European law is often described as confused, imprecise, and as leaving too much open to interpretation.

The general delays related to the transposition of law gave rise to Article 260 of the Treaty of Lisbon, a provision which enables the European Commission to punish Member States for failing to implement Union law properly or within the set time. In relation to this, it was with great interest that I listened to the idea of the ‘smart regulation’, which Mr Barroso presented in his political guidelines last year. While encouraging the Commission to put the ‘smart regulation’ agenda into effect, and taking the opportunity of the Commission’s representative being with us today, I would like to ask what is happening with this? How is the Commission acting upon this idea? I hope it was not just a trendy technocratic slogan. Something else which Mr Barroso promised was ex-post assessments. I agree that it is necessary to follow very closely what happens to Union legislation after it has been adopted. Is it implemented correctly, and if not, what is the reason for the delays in correct implementation? Is the new legislation something the citizens can understand? If European legislation does not have a beneficial effect on the economy, the environment and society, all of our work loses its meaning. Which explains the next question for the Commission: what is happening with ex-post assessments? How are they different from existing mechanisms used for monitoring the implementation of legislation? A further matter is that of the impact assessment which accompanies the proposal for every new law.

Parliament has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the Commission, when proposing new legislative acts, must carry out a detailed analysis of their implementation, based on credible data.

In the report, I have looked at the problem of impact assessments from two points of view: firstly, the content, or which consequences of the proposed legislative acts the Commission should examine. I appeal, here, to the Commission to attach particular importance to exploring the social effects of its initiatives. Answers to such questions as what effect a particular legislative proposal would have on the European labour market and on employment in particular age groups and sectors are particularly important in the context of the economic crisis. I think this aspect has not, as yet, been the subject of sufficient analysis. On the other hand, I would like to address the question of the independence of impact assessments, which is directly related to the problem of better lawmaking.

In the report, I highlight the need to guarantee full independence and suitable resources to the body which monitors the quality of impact assessments, and which, as you know, was established in response to Parliament’s demands. I am thinking, here, of the Impact Assessment Board, which is composed of the highest officials of the Commission and reports to the President of the Commission.

At the same time, I am very cautious in my approach to the question of engaging external experts to conduct impact assessments, because Parliament is not, in fact, in a position to confirm their independence. In the report, I also address the Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens. Public opinion too often associates the European Union with complicated and unnecessary bureaucracy. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Commission plans to reduce these burdens by as much as 33% by 2012. However, I have heard reports that in certain cases the exemption of businesses from administrative obligations has led to a reduction in standards, for example in relation to safety at work. Therefore, I appeal to the Commission to look at the problem from a global perspective. Cuts in administrative costs must not be made at the cost of a reduction in social standards in the European Union.

In the report, I also address the work of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, which is headed by Mr Stäuber. I think the work of the High Level Group to date has been very effective, and I welcome the news that its terms of reference are to be extended to 2013. I hope Parliament will be kept informed about how the group evaluates the realisation of the Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens at European Union level.

Finally, I would like to address questions related to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and in particular what the strengthening of contacts with national parliaments and the realisation of citizens’ initiatives will be like in practice. I hope cooperation between parliaments will extend not only to questions related to monitoring the principle of subsidiarity, but will also contribute to better transposition of European legislation. As for the citizens’ initiative, I think millions of citizens are waiting to hear Parliament’s position on this matter. I know that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is working intensively on this, and I hope the first reading of this document will take place before the end of the year. Now I am hoping for some fruitful discussion.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, allow me to start by thanking Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg for an excellent report. She will see from my introductory remarks that the Commission fully agrees with most of it. We very much like the effort and strong emphasis the European Parliament puts on smart regulation because this is clearly the way forward.

I am very glad to announce to you today that on Tuesday the Commission took the final steps to withdraw 59 pending proposals listed in the 2010 work programmes which we will not pursue any more because we see that they are outdated or have outlived their initial purpose. This is also how we are honouring the commitment we undertook in our framework agreement negotiations.

I would also like to confirm to you that the Commission will adopt a communication on smart regulation on 6 October, as well as the annual report on better lawmaking where we will be dealing in a detailed manner with subsidiarity issues. I believe that these documents will address in detail the issues raised by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg in her report, so I will just limit myself to some key points.

The first point on which I think we all agree, and the financial crisis is clear proof of that, is that regulation has a positive and necessary role in assuring that markets deliver sustainable prosperity for all. At the same time, I totally agree with Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg that we need to be very careful how we legislate because we do not want to overburden businesses, and especially SMEs, with unnecessary administrative burdens. We are doing our utmost to reduce the administrative burden in existing legislation and also in the legislation we are preparing.

We are going to work very hard to pursue the four main activities related to smart regulation. We are going to continue with impact assessments. We are going to do our utmost to further improve quality. We are going to simplify legislation which is already on the books. We will continue our efforts to reduce administrative burdens for businesses, and we are also going to evaluate regulations which are already in place to see how efficient this legislation is.

I have to say that we have some disagreements and shall limit myself to two issues. The first relates to the independent body accountable to Parliament. We are pleased at how the impact assessments are being done within the Commission. The Commission, as you know very well, is accountable to the European Parliament, so Parliament as a legislator is the body which in the end controls the quality of legislation.

The second issue is recasting. You know we have exchanges of opinions between the Commission and Parliament reflected in the exchange of letters between our Presidents, where we see that the current situation which arose after the changes to the European Parliament Rules of Procedure raised questions about the use of the recasting technique. Ultimately, if this situation persists, the use of recasting for simplification initiatives and for amending existing legislation will no longer make sense.

Otherwise, I think we have very strong agreement on other matters and our mutual goal is to legislate smartly, efficiently and in a way that is very good for our citizens and our businesses.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. – (PL) Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and thank her for her excellent teamwork during the preparation of this report. I am also pleased that my opinion, which was prepared in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, has been extensively incorporated into the final version of this document. During the many years of the functioning of first the European Communities and then the European Union, we have learned that a single EU regulation for all Member States works more effectively in the world of free movement of goods, services and persons than intricate and very often extremely complicated legislation at the level of 27 Member States.

New and existing legislation must not, however, create additional obstacles for the people who use it. It should regulate areas of life, but not prevent action. The basic idea is to simplify Union legislation and create a friendly regulatory environment which is intended to make it easier for citizens to function in the European regulatory jungle. However, this must under no circumstances lead to a reduction in existing standards in this area, but should, on the contrary, lead to standards being raised. This year’s report draws attention to a number of changes brought to the Union by the Treaty of Lisbon, which are going to have a significant effect on the entire process of Union legislation.

The increased role of the European Parliament as well as the European legislative initiative and further reductions in administrative burdens for small and medium-sized enterprises will, in a natural way, draw the attention of EU citizens to the process itself and to its quality and effectiveness. The increased participation of Parliament in the Union legislative process carries with it, of course, greater responsibility. Therefore, the citizens will perceive Parliament as an institution which has a real influence on legislation which is created, and will, therefore, look more carefully at our work as Members of the European Parliament. Therefore, another important question is that of guaranteeing independent and comprehensive impact assessments. We in the Committee take a view of the matter which differs at this point from that of the rapporteur. However, what we do all want is to have at our disposal an objective and reliable basis which will allow us to chart our course and make decisions about future legislation. We also have to remember that good legislation is one of the guarantees of effective implementation and subsequent application of the provisions of EU law in Member States, which, unfortunately, is still a fairly serious problem throughout the European Union.

  Raffaele Baldassarre, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg’s report highlights a fundamental question for the EU integration process: the need to make simple, clear laws that EU citizens can understand.

I cannot fail to agree with the key objectives identified by the rapporteur, in particular respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the importance accorded to the impact assessments and to reducing administrative burdens.

With regard to the impact assessments, I am keen to stress that the Committee on Legal Affairs is actively working so that the European Commission can develop mechanisms to provide guarantees and ensure the independence of the analyses carried out. This is a fundamental question: ensuring higher standards for the impartiality of the assessments would give the EU’s legislative proposals greater credibility, and would simplify the process for their adoption.

Furthermore, I consider it vital to work towards a clear reduction of the administrative burdens arising from European Union legislation. The European Commission would like to reduce these burdens by 25% by 2012, which would entail an increase in the level of EU GDP of 1.4%, equivalent to EUR 150 billion.

A substantial part of EU administrative burdens stems, in fact, from the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of administrative procedures implemented at national level. To give an example: 72 EU legislative acts have imposed 486 information obligations, which have led to the adoption in the Member States of more than 10 000 implementing acts.

While on the one hand, increased monitoring is required during the transposition of Union law, on the other, greater collaboration by the Council and the individual Member States is essential.

To conclude, I think that, leaving aside matters concerning the principle of subsidiarity, closer cooperation with national parliaments can provide a decisive contribution towards making EU laws more effective and ultimately bringing them closer in line with the needs of EU citizens.

  Evelyn Regner, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, our rapporteur, Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, has tabled an ambitious report. If all of those involved in European lawmaking abide by this, we will already have achieved a great deal. Ultimately, it is about the credibility of European law. The intention is to significantly improve the regulatory environment. It is a matter of greater transparency, coherence and effectiveness of European law.

Two elements of the report are particularly important. Simplification of the law – better lawmaking – must not lead to a lowering of European standards laid down in current legislation. In this regard, better lawmaking must be viewed in close association with another initiative, that of smart or better regulation. Every legislative initiative should include proper consultation of the interested parties, in particular if it will have an effect on employment and social policy.

Furthermore, an excellent impact assessment system is particularly important to me, as it is to everyone who worked on this report. We need a system that clearly indicates that the independence and credibility of the measures implemented are guaranteed. After all, we have had some very bad experiences in the past. I am thinking of the Services Directive and the one-sided assessment of the impact at that time, particularly on the part of the Commission.

The Treaty of Lisbon now contains a horizontal social clause. As far as I am concerned, this is also the basis for the fact that, in the impact assessment system, we pay particular attention – as already mentioned – to ensuring that a thorough consultation of the social partners is carried out with regard to the impact on employment and social matters.

  Alexandra Thein, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, what is meant by better lawmaking? We want to make simple and transparent laws that EU citizens and companies can understand. In this regard, it is important, above all, to respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. We want to regulate at European level only what cannot be regulated at national or local level.

An important element of better lawmaking is, above all, having a clear idea of the impact of the planned regulations. Only with this can we achieve the best possible effects and, at the same time, keep any negative impact to a minimum. The impact assessment must therefore be prepared by the Commission with the greatest possible meticulousness. It is right, therefore, that, under pressure from the European Parliament, an independent board was set up to monitor the quality of impact assessments. However, this board is intended to be accountable to the European Parliament.

For companies, authorities and citizens, the regulations are associated with costs, whether it is in relation to providing information, labelling products or complying with monitoring obligations. If the costs are too high, it cancels out the benefit of a policy. We therefore have the ambitious goal, which is also the right one, of reducing administrative costs by reducing red tape by 25% by 2012. To achieve this goal we need to act at European level, and the chances of achieving it are good. However, at this point it should also be mentioned that a good third – some people say two thirds – of the administrative burden that is derived from the EU is due to the fact that the Member States simply enact too many unnecessary administrative and bureaucratic regulations when transposing EU law. EU bodies and Member States should therefore actively work together to prevent unnecessary red tape. The transposition of Community law must also be fundamentally and actively scrutinised. Above all, the national parliaments should also fulfil their obligation for involvement in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if 27 legal systems come up against each other and want to work together, it is only to be expected that there will be difficulties. There is therefore a lot of criticism too of European lawmaking, to which we must respond. This response must include essential elements, such as impact assessments that are genuinely independent and take account of all interested parties, and not just the economy, industry and the lobby groups. I consider that to be vitally important.

The second point, and this has been the subject of particularly strong criticism, is the implementation of Community law at national level. Very many difficulties arise in precisely this phase of transposition, or perhaps lack of transposition, of European law into national law. It is therefore here, in particular, in this transposition phase that we need to make new improvements and to respond to the concerns of citizens in an effective, transparent and clear manner. The complaints of citizens provide the greatest impetus for innovation in European law.

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, first of all I should like to thank my colleague the rapporteur for this report and everything she has included in it.

Better lawmaking is a challenge of vital importance for the future of an EU that is relevant for citizens of our Member States. Much of the good lawmaking that we do in this House is, however, unfortunately negated, firstly by the large number of completely unnecessary regulations that still sit on our statute books and the administrative burden that places on the backbone of the EU economy, i.e. SMEs. I am pleased to see that the Commission has today recognised that in this House. Secondly there are the somewhat completely crazy initiatives that the Commission comes with to us from time to time, which achieve nothing other than to allow our real work to be ignored and these crazy ideas to be rightly rubbished.

Moving forward from the Lisbon Treaty, however, it is important that we concentrate on many of the issues that have been raised by my colleague. First of all, as the standing rapporteur on monitoring subsidiarity and proportionality, I can tell you that it is certainly of vital importance that our national parliaments play their right part in our process of lawmaking here, but without adequate interpretation facilities, that part of our job is not done to the best of our abilities.

I welcome the development on impact assessments. Consultation with all interested parties and compliance with subsidarity should also be tested. I welcome the report’s call for smart regulation to be defined. Impact assessments should be presented in committee right at the outset, so that Parliament can share its views with the Commission before any assessment is undertaken.

In short, my group is very supportive of the fact that we move forward on the following bases: the European Institutions must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; all draft legislation must include reasons for concluding that this level is the best at which we come forward with that regulation; all legislative proposals should be accompanied by an impact assessment with a greater degree of independence; the Commission should present all impact assessments to the committee right at the outset; and we must ensure that decisions are taken as closely to the citizen as possible.

  Morten Messerschmidt, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (DA) Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteur for an excellent piece of work containing many important points. I am particularly grateful for the fact that so much attention has been given to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Unfortunately, we have to lament the fact that the intentions set out in the Treaty of Lisbon will not be remotely fulfilled by what the Commission is proposing. It is very regrettable to see that the whole section on national parliamentary scrutiny, which is all about the principle of proportionality, has been removed, and it is equally regrettable that with the Treaty of Lisbon we have not gone all the way and said that if a large majority of the parliaments wishes to stop a piece of legislation because it violates the principle of subsidiarity it should, of course, have the opportunity to do so. The only thing we have been able to produce is yellow cards and orange cards – something that in reality is completely ineffective and is, as far as the autonomy and sovereignty of national parliaments is concerned, more of a joke than a real legal instrument.

This is regrettable, but I think it is gratifying that we have now started this debate, that we have placed the focus on these important elements and that, in the process that is now being started by the Commission, we will hopefully also arrive at a situation where the Member States are actually shown respect and where it is not merely noted if national parliaments feel there has been a violation of the principle of subsidiarity, but that we actually stop and think that, in that case, we need to find another way.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) I would like to continue with the points mentioned by the two fellow Members who spoke before me, especially concerning the new powers which national parliaments have under the Treaty of Lisbon to intervene when they feel that a particular act does not respect specifically the principle of subsidiarity. It was one of the fine aspects of the Treaty of Lisbon and received a great deal of publicity. However, the time has already come for us to see whether it was nothing more than a populist sop aimed at winning greater public support for the Treaty of Lisbon.

If you have really been honest when you said that national parliaments need to play a role in determining whether a particular act respects the principle of subsidiarity, a procedure needs to be drawn up right now, which will allow national parliaments to join forces with each other and take united action. This is why the requirement for two thirds of national parliaments to make a decision against a particular act because it fails to comply with subsidiarity means quite a sizeable majority is required. At the moment, in order to ensure that this principle can really be applied, a uniform procedure actually needs to be drawn up for all national parliaments to comply with. Only then will it actually be possible to apply this regulation. This is why I call on the Belgian Presidency, which will be hosting the COSAC conference of national parliaments, to take the necessary measures in this direction.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, this is a subject that we have been wearily and repeatedly making speeches about year after year in one way or another and I would like to recall the hard work done by Mrs Frassoni and Mr Medina Ortega in previous parliamentary terms.

However, I think that what we should take from Mrs Geringer’s report – which is excellent and on which I congratulate – is not only the letter, which is very important, and the objectives, but also the spirit with which this report has been written, which should pervade everyone involved in the European Union. If not we will fall once again into wearily and repeatedly making speeches about what is happening and how badly some things are happening.

I therefore believe that the Commissioner’s comments today not only demonstrate political will but also have credibility. I believe you, Commissioner, and I believe that this report and your efforts will be of great benefit for achieving the 25% targets and other targets that are very well set out in the report as part of the spirit of the report.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to say a few words about the principle of subsidiarity. It must, of course, be the case, as a matter of principle, that policies are pursued at regional or local level. Only there are policies really understandable to citizens, and that important instrument of direct democracy is only really possible to implement adequately at this level. That is the whole point of the principle of subsidiarity and that is precisely why the subsidiarity principle also has a requirement for the reasoned opinion. Thus, we should provide arguments based on quantitative and qualitative indicators as to why policy is pursued at EU level and not at local level.

However, it is currently the case – and I would like to address this point here – that this very requirement for the reasoned opinion is constantly being disregarded. It is possible in some cases to find information in the Commission’s report to indicate that these tasks have already been carried out at national level. Thus, insufficient arguments are presented to indicate why it is better for this regulation to be carried out at EU level.

The right to control subsidiarity that has now been introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon is, in my opinion, inadequate; the national parliaments do not have sufficient power and this control right is ultimately a sham right. I therefore call on the Commission in particular to proceed much more rigorously according to the principle of subsidiarity and, above all, to comply adequately with the requirement for the reasoned opinion.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR). – (CS) I thank the rapporteur for a quality report. Allow me to make a few comments on it. In recent years, the Commission has taken a number of steps leading to an improvement in legal regulation and I am personally very much in favour of that. This is despite the fact that I see with my own eyes that it does not always work as I would wish. I sometimes have the feeling in this venerable institution that the right hemisphere sees the content of ‘better regulation’ diametrically differently from the left hemisphere. I would also like to bring up the results of the work of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, chaired by Edmund Stoiber.

I must disagree with the report on one issue; that is, with the call to increase the number of employees of the Impact Assessment Board. In my view, it would be better to think about how to help the Board in this matter. For example, within the framework of current capacities here in the European Parliament, we could set up a committee for the removal of bureaucratic burdens which, within the framework of its activity, would judge the impact assessment, just as it would assess the reduction in the administrative burdens of the proposed legal rules. The activity of such a committee would ease the difficult task for the Commission without this impacting upon Parliament’s operational expenditure.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and also thank the Commissioner for his support. As a result of the Treaty of Lisbon, a new era has begun for European cooperation, and for Parliament. Our role has become more significant, but this involves an increased responsibility. It is important to make the most of every opportunity to make recommendations for improving the quality of legislation. The points of the report which call for a more effective inclusion of SMEs in impact assessments are of particular significance. Enterprise support involves the provision of a reasonable regulatory framework and simple administration. As for impact assessment summaries, they assist Parliament in its work. EU legislation is heading in the right direction, assigning particular importance to effective cooperation between institutions and national parliaments. Our resolution passed in February guarantees comprehensive and equal legislative information for the European Parliament.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we want to legislate better, but the protocol of subsidiarity is not working: the participation of regional and national parliaments has not become a reality.

Since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, the Commission – according to its own statistics – has sent 26 legislative initiatives to the national parliaments of the 27 Member States of the Union. However, only 52 out of a possible 702 responses have been received, or just over 7%.

Out of the 52 opinions received, 10 are Austrian, two are from the Czech Senate, one is from the Spanish Congress, one is from the French Senate, 18 are from the Senate of the Republic of Italy, three are from the Italian House of Representatives, two are from the Polish Senate and 15 are from the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal.

Moreover, the Commission does not have any information on the involvement of the regional parliaments in drawing up and adopting these opinions, which is established as a possibility in the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Alfreds Rubiks (GUE/NGL) . – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. By and large, I take pleasure in supporting what is expressed in the report, since, if Parliament and the European Union as such stand up for the observance of human rights and citizens’ rights outside the European Union, it is all the more important that we do so with respect to ourselves. To my mind, there is often a lack of supervision of how these Europe-wide documents, including those in the human rights area, are applied in practice. I shall refer to one fact only. In Latvia, which I represent here, parliamentary elections are being held on 2 October. The right to vote in these parliamentary elections will be denied to more than ...

(The President cut off the speaker as the time allotted had expired)

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) I would like, by way of introduction, to applaud the fact that the European Commission, along with the relevant committees of the European Parliament – the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs – have noticed that the legal environment of the European Union is enormously complex, in many cases to the point of opacity, and that it is necessary to take sweeping measures to improve and simplify it. I am aware of the demanding nature of this task, as the differences between the administrative and judicial systems of the various Member State create highly heterogeneous and frequently incompatible structures. However, this situation must not in any way undermine legal certainty for our citizens or interfere with their right to a fair and competent adjudication of their problems.

In the interests of better understanding of the interdependence of European and national legal environments, the European Union must put much greater effort into ensuring that the process of creating legislation and the subsequent implementation of regulations and laws is simple, transparent and intelligible to the citizens of all countries of the European Union.

Another important task is also to ensure the creation of networks of high-quality accredited institutions, specialised training of experts …

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, the legislative process as it is carried out by this Parliament seems to be designed to prevent individual Members from making individual judgements.

Legislative proposals and amendments are re-written or re-assigned to different batches of amendments or re-divided at the last possible moment. Those members of large party groups who wish to obey unthinkingly do not need to concern themselves with this, because they blindly follow the instructions of their party or group leaderships.

However, independent-minded MEPs, either of large or small groups, who wish to take an independent judgement before they vote must sometimes decide between attending a debate during the morning preceding a vote and leaving crucial judgements to their assistants, or absenting themselves from those debates so they can make a personal decision.

This is no way to run a democratic institution.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her report. The report very rightly stresses the vital importance of making simple, clear laws that EU citizens can understand. However, while appealing for this, we ourselves, here in the European Parliament, prepare reports, declarations and resolutions in a language which is very complicated and difficult for ordinary citizens to understand. Many of the documents which we prepare are written in the undecipherable language of law. Resolutions, too, in which we provide information to third countries about our values and talk about human rights violations, are written in this kind of language. Therefore, I think Parliament should join in the Clear Writing Campaign, which is being run by the Commission. The campaign shows people how to prepare clearly written documents.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) I followed this highly important and interesting debate from my office and I would like to thank both Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg and you, Mr Vice-President of the European Commission. I think it is a very good thing that the European Commission has set up a group at the highest level which will direct the European Commission in the reduction of bureaucracy.

Every country has its own culture, but the fact that you have chosen as Chairman of this group at the highest level the German politician Edmund Stoiber is very good news, because it is precisely Germany that can provide an example of cutting back bureaucracy in a policy which applies both at the national and European levels.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I will try to answer as many questions as I can in the allocated time, but first I would like to thank all the Members of the European Parliament for their clear, strong commitment to smarter and better regulation. I think this is what the European Union and our Member States need. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for highlighting the importance of working with the impact assessments which are prepared for the Commission.

Very positive precedents have been set by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and we hope that other committees will also work in such a regular and detailed manner with our impact assessments as this committee has. We will of course try to do our best to improve the quality of impact assessments further, and to supply these together with a proposal for legislation.

The fact that we need to study the impact of proposed amendments is very important. I was glad that was highlighted in the report. Very often, legislation is proposed and we change it with significant amendments which are often adopted in a hurried manner. It can really improve the legislation, but it can also make it much worse, and we should bear that in mind.

I absolutely agree with those Members who said that we need impartial assessment. This is what we are trying to do in the Commission. We are working very closely with the Stoiber Group. We have a very strong impact assessment board which is really driving a new culture forward in terms of how the Commission works internally. The language is very bland, and I can tell you that more than 30% of the proposals sent to the relevant departments are refused by the impact assessment board and sent back for further improvement with a view to increasing the quality of the legislation.

As regards SMEs, I think we discussed two days ago how important it is to reduce the burden, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can benefit from the single market. I am very happy to report to you that this goal of reducing the administrative burden by 25% by 2012 will definitely be exceeded.

I see that my time is up so I would like to thank the rapporteur once again for a very high-quality report, and all the MEPs for their commitment to smarter and better legislation.

  President. − Mr Šefčovič, as a matter of fact the Commission has no time limitation, it is self-limited. Maybe I should not tell you that because it is good that the Commissioners believe that their time is limited so they limit themselves in their speech to a moderate use of time, but in any case that is a fact.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, rapporteur. – (PL) At the conclusion of this debate, I would like to express my sincere thanks to all fellow Members and Mr Šefčovič for a productive discussion. I am glad that I had the opportunity to work on the report on better lawmaking this year, which was the first year after entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the year in which the European Council adopted the EU 2020 strategy. Both these documents are going to affect many aspects related to better lawmaking, and the report was a good opportunity to address the issues involved. In the course of preparing the report, I met many different groups and tried to listen to the opinions both of the business world and of workers’ groups, trade unions and organisations such as ETUC, for example.

I think the complete consensus in the vote of the Committee on Legal Affairs testifies to the fact that we have managed to find a judicious compromise between the expectations of all the political groups. I would like, here, to thank all fellow Members for their first-rate cooperation, and would like to add that the cooperation was exceptional because it came from all the political groups, which rarely happens in this Chamber. I hope, too, for a favourable outcome of the vote in today’s sitting.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – Impact Assessments carried out by the Commission should be about ensuring that we produce good quality legislation, and therefore we all have a strong interest in making sure that they themselves are of good quality.

The main principles guiding these Impact Assessments should be: that they act as a guide to law making, and must not replace or hinder the role of the politically accountable decision makers; and that any cost-benefit analysis should contain not only economic considerations but also social, health and environmental impacts.

As regards the question of having an independent Impact Assessment Board, I believe the best method would be to ensure that it contains multiple stakeholders with their interests declared, whereby conflicts of interest are avoided. I do agree with the rapporteur that that the high percentage of assessments (over 30%) that are initially rejected by the Board testifies to the need for the Commission departments to improve their quality further. The Board of course should only inform the process and not make any political judgements. I would finally call on the Chair of the Board to appear before the Environment Committee on an annual basis following the publication of the IAB annual report.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Every year, we debate how to make better laws in the Union. For only clear, coherent and easy to understand legislation can be assured of effective implementation in the Member States. In the area of reducing administrative burdens, particularly important material is to be found in the ‘e-Commission 2006-2010’ framework, as well as in the ‘e-2010’ strategy, which aims to modernise administration in Europe. Electronic communication is already a reality in our lives, as it will also be in the future. Thanks to e-communication we will gain time, eliminate many administrative barriers and reduce the use of natural resources, and in so doing we will protect the environment more effectively. Therefore, we must concentrate our efforts and resources on making its use more widespread, remembering to give help to disabled and elderly people to make things easier for them. We regularly appeal to the European Commission to simplify and accelerate procedures for the use of additional EU instruments, such as the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the EU Solidarity Fund. The reaction of EU institutions to natural disasters and serious economic difficulties in Member States is still too inflexible and too slow. It is high time we developed new instruments without reproducing earlier shortcomings. The effectiveness of legislation is affected not only by its being written in a clear and understandable way, but equally by the way in which it is publicised and put into effect.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) We have before us a great challenge, which fits in perfectly with the subject of the report. The challenge is to put the European Citizens’ Initiative – an instrument which gives people the ability to have a direct effect on the European agenda – into the hands of the citizens. In the ongoing debate on this subject, we are all talking about the necessity of simplifying this instrument as much as possible so that the citizens will really feel they have a genuine chance of putting their proposals into effect and that they do not get bogged down in the complexities of EU procedures. On the other hand, however, we do want to protect this instrument from abuse, and also to protect the European Commission from being excessively burdened. A tension exists, here, between the idea of maximum simplicity and the maintenance of certain standards, and our role in this is to find the right balance.

3. Postal services

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question (O-0114/2010) by Brian Simpson, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, to the Commission on the implementation of Directive 2008/6/EC with regard to the completion of the internal market in postal services (B7-0458/2010).

  Brian Simpson, author. − Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, of which I have the honour to be chairman.

Those of us who have followed the process of postal liberalisation will be aware of what a long drawn-out affair it has been. Right from the outset in the late 1980s, this Parliament was keen to ensure that any liberalisation process should not adversely affect working conditions and should guarantee a universal postal service to the citizens of Europe.

Modern technology has radically changed the way people communicate with each other, but at the end of the day citizens still like to see, on a daily basis, the postmen and postwomen who deliver our mail.

Therefore, the starting point has to be that our postal services are not just about economic bottom lines, but they are also a social service that needs to be supported.

It is from this basic starting point that we must judge Directive 2008/6/EC, which will complete the internal market in postal services by 31 December this year.

The aim of this oral question from the Committee on Transport and Tourism is to remind the Commission forcibly of the safeguards put in place by Parliament in this directive in the areas of social protection and the delivery and financing of a universal service, and to remind the Member States that the obligation is on them to protect both of these areas and not, as they have done with railway liberalisation, just to ignore the law.

Therein lies the dilemma faced by this Parliament. Firstly, there is a suspicion that the Commission will not enforce these important aspects of Directive 2008/6/EC but will act with great zeal in enforcing the economic liberalisation side of the directive and, secondly, that Member States will move at a snail’s pace, will do nothing to protect postal workers and postal services and will fail to finance adequately the universal service.

Therefore, there are four clear questions requiring four clear, unambiguous answers from the Commission. Those questions are the ones contained in this oral question.

We do not require technical Commission-speak answers or even quotes from the various treaties, etc. My committee is well-versed in the treaties. We require guarantees that what was agreed in Directive 2008/6/EC will be implemented, including the safeguarding of postal workers in all sectors.

We require the guarantee of a universal service. We want to see the studies demanded in the directive on the cost of delivering that universal service or at least a date for their completion. We want the Commission to carry out a full impact assessment on the liberalisation of the postal market and on the effects that it will have across the sector, and not just in terms of the economic aspects of that sector.

In conclusion, one could ask why this oral question is being placed before Parliament at this time. Sadly, the answer lies in a suspicion – even a mistrust – that having got, after many years, full liberalisation of this sector, Member States will ignore the social and service provision articles that are contained in the directive and that the Commission will allow them to do so.

That simply cannot be allowed to happen. We as a Parliament are not prepared to have the same debacle afflict postal services that has been prevalent in the railway sector. Member States must abide by all the provisions of Directive 2008/6/EC and the Commission must be vigilant in ensuring that they do.

Failure to do this would, in our opinion, be a dereliction of duty.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Simpson, ladies and gentlemen, I have now been a Member of the European Commission for around seven or eight months. You have often heard me state, including in this very Chamber, during my hearing on 13 January, the personal commitment that I have always made and will continue to make to the preservation and protection of public services and to the reconciliation of the internal market – for which I am one of the people responsible – with the citizens.

I will have the opportunity to repeat this when the Single Market Act is presented in October. It is within this context that we – that you – want to develop and forge ahead with this internal market. It is an opportunity for employment, since real importance is attached to its human and social dimension and, as far as I am concerned, to the protection of public services and services of general interest. That is why I welcome the question you are asking on behalf of your colleagues, Mr Simpson.

This very important project to reform postal services has been under way for more than just a few months. Work began on it a long time ago. The market will be fully opened up on 1 January 2011 in 16 Member States, which account for 95% of the EU’s postal volume. I repeat: this is a reform project that has been carefully thought out. It is a gradual reform that was announced in 1992 with the Green Paper. Moreover, this will to reform has been enshrined in no fewer than three directives, and validated by many successive democratic processes.

I would also point out that the third and most recent directive, which you know well, Mr Simpson, for many reasons, was adopted in 2008, with the support of the European Parliament and of a huge majority within the Council of Ministers. Twenty-five Member States voted for this reform, which has been carried out, therefore, in a fairly transparent way. It has not been carried out secretly, or randomly; it has been carried out because it meets a need, that of enabling this sector, which is very important in every respect – to quote some figures, it generates EUR 95 billion in turnover, and directly or indirectly affects 5 million employees – to evolve, to innovate, to move with the times and to better meet the expectations of users – of citizens and businesses alike. The completion of this internal market, provided it is structured and supported, is in my view a guarantee of innovation, of adaptation to change, and, therefore, of economic growth and of better services that are designed to meet citizens’ needs more fully.

Operators face obvious challenges due to our evolving social and economic practices, but we in the Union are fortunate in that we have long been preparing for the development of this postal sector by undertaking what is, I believe, a consistent, considered and gradual reform. This sector is developing fast. New technologies are radically changing the ways in which we communicate. The electronic substitution phenomenon is gaining ground and is quite simply the result of new behaviour patterns on the part of Europeans themselves. In addition to that, there are the effects of the various economic and financial crises we are experiencing.

With this in mind, ladies and gentlemen, quite frankly, who could actually think that a sudden, abrupt postponement of this process that we have carefully overseen is a desirable solution? Not the Commission, for at least three reasons. Firstly, achieving the 1992 Green Paper objectives is one important way for the European Union to come out of the crisis affecting the sector: we need efficient operators that rank among the best in the world, high-quality postal services and a sound, effective regulatory framework.

Secondly, with these directives we have established a robust regulatory framework that relies on the involvement of competent national regulatory authorities, which are going to work together regularly and in a much more productive way. Liberalisation is taking place, therefore, in a controlled manner. In particular, these national regulators will have the task of ensuring, Mr Simpson, that the universal service obligations, to which I am very committed, are actually fulfilled properly and funded.

Finally, any hesitation at this very advanced stage of the reform would create widespread legal uncertainty, which would benefit no one. It would harm not only newcomers to these postal markets, but all other operators in the sector, too. Suspending this process would, in our view, plunge the sector into a situation where it has to simply wait and see what happens, without being able to act.

I fully understand all the concerns expressed on the subject of employment and working conditions. I know how important the postal service is in the context of European employment, ladies and gentlemen. May I remind you that the third directive, which offers the Member States considerable scope to reconcile liberalisation and social requirements, states that – and this is my only reference to the text, Mr Simpson – social considerations must be duly taken into account in the preparations for liberalising the postal markets.

I agree, Mr Simpson, that we have a duty to ensure that all these requirements and all these conditions are fully met. In 2013, when all the EU Member States have implemented this reform, the Commission will present an official evaluation report to Parliament and to the Council. Other studies will be published before then. Moreover, in order to show how important your concerns are to me personally as Commissioner, and to President Barroso, I wish to inform you that, although I am under no obligation to do so, I intend to create a users’ dialogue group in 2011. The group of regulators is being established. In addition to and alongside that group I want to create a users’ group, so that businesses, citizen-users, trade unions, which have a very important role to play, and then Parliament, of course, can come around the same table and discuss what is happening on the ground, hear the report by the evaluators’ committee and regularly – just how regularly is still to be decided – carry out evaluations and hold dialogues in order to check that these various postal sector reforms are being implemented correctly.

That is the guarantee I am giving you, and I shall personally ensure, Mr Simpson, ladies and gentlemen, that this users’ dialogue group functions properly and transparently.

  Markus Ferber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the second and third Postal Services Directive, I am, of course, particularly pleased that this subject is also on the agenda during this parliamentary term, because I believe it is also important to show what we have achieved since we tabled the Green Paper in 1992, as the Commissioner mentioned.

We have managed to significantly improve the quality of postal services throughout Europe. I can still remember that, two parliamentary terms ago, I said in this Chamber that it was usual for holidaymakers to arrive home before the postcards they had sent home to their loved ones. That situation has now changed. We have achieved a significant improvement in the quality of cross-border postal services. We have achieved a significant improvement in the quality of postal services within the Member States. With the obligation for a universal service that is uniform throughout Europe, we have also managed to significantly improve the availability of postal services, or in areas where it was already good, we were able to maintain this level. That is also important, and it was mentioned by both the Commissioner and our committee chair.

Of course, in implementing the third directive, which for the majority of Member States specifies 1 January 2011 as the date for complete liberalisation, it is now important to safeguard this universal service on a permanent basis. I would like to emphasise what is stated in the question regarding the simultaneous requirement – and that was the Conditio sine qua non for the third directive – that it should not result in a deterioration in working conditions, but that existing social standards and protection mechanisms should continue to apply in the Member States beyond 1 January 2011. We will, of course, ensure that this is the case.

We will not only have the oral question today, but the Commission also has obligations to provide us with reports. We will read these reports very carefully, Commissioner, and if necessary we will also formulate the appropriate conclusions.

  Saïd El Khadraoui, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (NL) Mr President. Commissioner, thank you for your answer and for seeking to establish a dialogue among users. However, our group thinks that more is needed. As I am sure you know, we have always been critical of the Postal Directive. Improving the efficiency and dynamism of the sector would seem a laudable objective, but there are two essential elements that are not, to my mind, sufficiently developed or sufficiently guaranteed. These are the social aspect – working conditions – and the financing of universal service, which must be continued, at least according to the Directive. These two aspects are closely related.

As regards the social aspect, we note that the ball has been placed in the Member States’ court but that hardly any use is being made of the opportunities for creating a level playing field between former monopolies and new players in this sphere. That is a big mistake, as competition is not taking place on the basis of innovation and innovative concepts but rather on the basis of cost cutting in the sector, where labour costs account for approximately 70% of production costs. In practice, we are seeing postmen and postwomen being replaced by people who have precarious contracts, lower wages and less security. That is not the Europe we want to see.

Universal service – the obligation to guarantee a home delivery every working day, including in sparsely populated areas – has up to now been financed by the monopoly. In other words, large customers have been contributing towards the service to ordinary citizens. In practice, this will now have to be replaced by State aid, and what is more in a very difficult budgetary context in the next few years, and there is reason to fear this coming under threat.

Consequently, Commissioner, I should like to ask you the following questions. Do you agree with me that one of the most important objectives of the Directive, namely bringing about greater social and territorial cohesion, will be hard to achieve in this context? Secondly, you refer to a 2013 report, but could you not undertake in the shorter term a detailed analysis of Member States’ transposition of the Directive, addressing in particular the two aspects I cited: the social aspect and universal service? Finally, in addition, how does the Commission intend to strengthen the social dialogue in the sector at European level and take initiatives to arrive at a level playing field in the social sphere for all the workers in the sector?

  Gesine Meissner, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, we live in a Europe where we want people to be able to live together happily and to have access to all areas of life that are important to them. As you know very well, we are experiencing demographic change in Europe. In future, there will be fewer people living in many areas than there are now. Nevertheless, we want all citizens to be provided with the services that they require and that they need in order to be able to have their say. This includes – very importantly – the postal service, which is to be guaranteed by means of a universal service.

Firstly, there is the question of how we can ensure the provision of the service in remote rural areas with little money in the coffer, and at affordable prices. We also need people to deliver this post who are paid a reasonable wage for doing so. That is not a simple task for the Member States. However, we have decided that that is what we want and you, Commissioner, have indicated that a large majority of the Member States have also agreed to it. We now also need to make it possible for users to complain. I can see a problem with this. It has not yet been mentioned. However, the directive states that if something goes wrong, citizens should have a body they can complain to. It is not so easy, either, to maintain the appropriate infrastructure in this regard, particularly where there are not many people.

Commissioner Barnier, you said that you are still new to this office and that you will at least take everything into account. I believe you. However, you have to understand that we are extremely sceptical, particularly in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Mr Simpson said that the same thing happened in the case of the railway package – the previous Commission was responsible for monitoring its implementation – practically nothing was implemented and nothing happened. In other areas, too, things have not always proceeded in the way we would have liked them to. I know that, because I was also previously in politics in Germany. Decisions are made which are extremely good and which everyone is agreed on, and then no one thinks to check to see whether it is implemented and whether it is implemented quickly in the interests of the people of Europe and in the interests of workers. That is what we want from you. Therefore, show us that we can trust you. We will be very pleased if that turns out to be justified.

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, clearly, I do not dispute the democratic and transparent nature of the process that led to the adoption of these various directives on the liberalisation of the postal market. Nor do I dispute the fact that it is important to monitor their application. However, I do think that it is just as democratic and transparent to actually evaluate, at some point, the effects of a directive and the effects of its application. I do think there are probably slight differences between the Member States, but I do not believe we can talk about improving the postal service or making it more accessible to European citizens.

You spoke about a reasoned and supportive attitude. I think it is reasonable to state that we are witnessing a concentration of private operators and hence a kind of private oligopoly rather than the dismantling of a public monopoly and the introduction of competition, as had been planned. I am not sure this was the intended outcome.

You talked about supporting a process. What regulatory practices are being applied? I am pleased that there is a group of regulators, but I would like to have a clear understanding of what constitutes good regulatory practice, since there are many flaws in the system.

Lastly, on the subject of European employment, I would join my fellow Member, Mr El Khadraoui, in stressing that the new jobs that are being created are very much insecure jobs, and that job losses are, instead, the rule.

I am pleased that you are setting up a round table so that all the parties involved can engage in dialogue. If we want, as you do, to reconcile the internal market with the citizens, then opening up the postal service is really a textbook exercise in order to demonstrate that this is possible. However, this requires, firstly, a case-by-case evaluation of the results and the effects seen on the ground today. These are not the objectives that you set – or that others set. It is about time we evaluated the situation before we forge ahead and actually create an even bigger gap between European citizens and their postal services.

  Cornelis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President. Commissioner Barnier, as you mentioned a moment ago, you stated when you assumed office that you would give the internal market a more social dimension. In his report, Professor Monti also put strong emphasis on this, and that is to be welcomed. What is the situation in reality, though? Yesterday, during the demonstration by hundreds of postmen and postwomen outside this building, a Dutch postwoman told me that she was already 55 years old, had been working for the postal service for only 20 years and was therefore assuming that she would be one of the first to be laid off by TNT Post next year. She is not alone. TNT Post in the Netherlands is laying off all its postmen and postwomen, purely and simply because it is now having to contend with competitors – from its own subsidiary, mark you – employing temporary ‘flexible’ workers to deliver the post for much lower pay. We are talking about 15 000 redundancies of professional postmen and postwomen who are reliable and can be trusted with our post and who, in many cases, have been doing the job for decades. Commissioner, why have you never had a study carried out into the social impact of the liberalisation of the postal market; or, rather, why are you keeping from the European Parliament the study that you have already financed, which can be found on the Internet at pique.at? The liberalisation will have dramatic consequences for everyone sending or receiving post. In the Netherlands, we are seeing several companies delivering post a couple of times a day or in the middle of the night and on other days not at all, the closure of post offices, more or less all of them, and the latest idea to be developed within your services, among that group of regulators that you mentioned but did not consult Parliament on, namely to introduce extra-high tariffs for people living on islands or in mountainous regions.

Commissioner, can you send us a full study of all the consequences of the liberalisation for postmen and postwomen and for the service as such at long last, and can you present a proposal without delay to postpone the date for commencement of the liberalisation – a moratorium, that is – until we are in possession of these data? That would give the internal market a social dimension.

  John Bufton, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, when the EU ordered the postal sector to open up to competition, it destroyed a vital British service. As a sovereign nation, our post offices were run by the Royal Mail and linked with national savings, licensing, welfare and pension collection, to name a few.

In 1975, we had 25 000 post offices. Now there are fewer than 12 000 despite a population boom. After being forced to sell off their profit-making arm, post offices could not stay open without government support. Thousands shut, stripping communities of access to vital services.

The EU postal reform says that good quality postal services should be available throughout the Union. That is exactly what we had in Britain. As a consolidated enterprise, the service was efficient, prices were managed and everyone had access to it. Now the sector has been broken up, along with people’s faith in it. It is a disgrace to strip Britain of an efficient public service merely to satisfy competition law. Do you wish to privatise our NHS as well next? The UK must be allowed to fully opt out of this directive.

  Georges Bach (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, my congratulations to Mr Simpson for asking the right questions. This liberalisation process is yet to show that it can fulfil the objectives of better availability and better quality at affordable prices. In the past, traditional postal undertakings also provided good quality at good prices. However, we also have to recognise the fact that traditional postal service providers have undergone modernisation, which, through major restructuring, has enabled them to increase their efficiency.

In my opinion, it is extremely important for various points to be taken into account. It is vital, for example, that labour law continues to be respected, in other words working conditions and wages. This can only be controlled by means of collective agreements. That is the only way to prevent social dumping.

The universal service has been mentioned many times already: the delivery of letters and packages throughout the whole of Europe. I also expect the Commission to carry out a study on the universal service. Furthermore, every country must fulfil its obligation to set up an independent regulatory authority. In addition to the regulatory requirements, this authority must also monitor the working conditions of the staff and deal with customer complaints. In order to make this possible, such an authority must be provided with the necessary staff.

As electronic mail and purchasing and selling via the Internet are becoming more and more widespread and banks, insurance and advertising are all making use of the postal infrastructure, this must be strengthened in the short term. I expect the Commission to provide an impact assessment that also takes account of social aspects. I also congratulate the Commission on the establishment of the users’ dialogue group for trade unions, clients and operators, which was announced by Mr Barnier.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) The liberalisation of postal services is scheduled for 2011, with Member States which joined the EU after 2004 and those with special topographies having the option to postpone opening up their postal services market to competition until 2013.

However, it is vital in the postal services sector that Member States ensure the collection, sorting, transport and delivery of mail to all European citizens, regardless of where they live, once a day, at least five days a week, at the same price across the whole Member State, in keeping with the obligation to provide a universal service.

I wish to highlight the need, even during this crisis period, for Member States to continue to keep postal networks operating efficiently, with a sufficient number of access points, including in rural and sparsely populated areas.

The directive on the completion of the internal market of Community postal services stipulates the obligation for Member States to define their own methods for funding the universal service, providing them with sufficient flexibility. This funding determines the quality of the postal service, the provision of decent working conditions for postal service workers and guarantees concerning jobs and employees’ training and incomes.

I believe that it is absolutely essential for the Commission to present to us by the end of this year a study on the impact of postal services liberalisation in states which have completely opened up to competition in this sector.

Finally, I wish to point out the need for postal operators to diversify their activities through providing services appropriate for the information society.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). - Mr President, the internal market in postal services will be completed by December of this year. Many people living in rural areas – many of whom I represent – and many employed in the services in Ireland and in Europe have real, genuine concerns. Postmen and postwomen play a vital role in Irish life. I should like to take this opportunity to thank them and pay tribute to them for the role they play, often going beyond the call of duty.

The postal service, as we all know, is more than an economic sector. It is an integral part of our social fabric in rural areas, particularly in my own country, as 40% of our population live in those rural areas. Postal workers are a great source of social contact for many elderly people and those living in isolated communities. It is therefore vitally important that the Commission ensures that the universal service obligation contained in this legislation is fully respected. I take note of the comment by the Commissioner in relation to the obligation of national regulators.

The Commission must guarantee that mail will be collected from and delivered to customers everywhere throughout the Union, including the most rural areas, five days a week in accordance with the legislation. I am pleased to hear the comment from the Commissioner on the users’ dialogue group which of course will involve the citizens, businesses, the unions and Parliament.

We had a visit here from a delegation of European postal workers some time ago. I believe that we have an obligation to represent them and, more importantly, to represent the citizens and ensure that they have the universal service which they had many years ago, long before the economic developments in the Union.

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, so far I have, unfortunately, seen very little of the improvement that is being promised as a result of this further phase in the liberalisation process. On the contrary, the feedback that we MEPs receive indicates a worsening of the situation. We are already seeing a thinning-out of the postal services in rural areas. Access to postal services in rural areas is no longer guaranteed, particularly in areas of human settlement that are difficult to get to.

Although we have additional jobs, they are not full-time jobs. It is not possible to earn a living wage from them, and they can at best merely constitute an additional income for a family. However, if the only user of postal services we consider is the advertising industry then, of course, success has already been recorded, because there is no doubt that this industry has improved its business foundation. The universal service that is in fact intended to guarantee a basic service, is now to be paid for by the Member States, which on the other hand are under enormous pressure because there is no more budgetary leeway to be able to guarantee the provision of this service in rural areas by means of subsidies. Commissioner, in this case the indirect consequences in this area have been given far too little consideration in the impact assessment and this will lead to a deterioration of the situation for consumers and for postal service workers.

  Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, two phases of postal service liberalisation have already been implemented. The Commission has not, as yet, published a single study dealing solely with social conditions and the impact on postal workers of the opening up of the market. My question to you, Commissioner Barnier, is when will this study be made available to Parliament at long last?

Yesterday, we heard from numerous postal workers from several EU Member States that entire workforces are already being dismissed by the new postal companies and re-employed under poorer conditions. Competition and competition policy must not be played out at the expense of the workers.

If the Commission and Parliament really want to do something to combat poverty and exclusion in the EU, the third phase of the postal service liberalisation must now be discontinued. The consequences for postal workers and the quality of the universal service must first be investigated. We therefore call for a moratorium on the third phase of postal service liberalisation for the sake of customers and postal workers.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, we are discussing a very important step, here – an important decision towards the liberalisation of postal services in the European Union and towards healthy competition. The directive on the completion of the internal market in postal services is such a decision. We must make every effort for the directive to be implemented correctly and in time in all Member States. Mr Barnier’s answer shows clearly that he is going to work on this in close cooperation with the Member States. I very much welcome the Commission’s decision to appoint a European Regulators Group for Postal Services, which will be composed of the national regulatory authorities in the field. I am sure this will help consolidate postal services. Opening the postal markets of Member States to independent operators is another extremely important topic, and I note with optimism all the Commission’s specific measures, about which we have also heard, here. These measures are intended to enable independent operators to operate freely in each Member State. I am very pleased with the plans concerning permanent monitoring of implementation of the directive. There is one other matter: a European identity requires distinct symbols. These symbols are the common currency, flag and anthem, but, similarly, another symbol of European identity would be zero-rated roaming in the European Union and a common postage stamp. Would it not be worthwhile to consider such measures?

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the completion of the internal market in postal services by the end of this year is an important step, but the Commission should carry out an impact assessment – as some of the previous speakers pointed out – on the postal market liberalisation in order to better understand citizens’ requirements.

Indeed, how does the Commission intend to safeguard the rights of European citizens who live in hard-to-reach areas, such as mountain or rural areas, so that they may receive post regularly, and what instruments does the Commission intend to adopt to ensure this occurs?

Moreover, I do not think that we should use this directive, which already exists, to justify social dumping. It is the Member States which must apply the directive and which possess all the means to do so.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, the issue of opening postal services up to competition has raised concern in many Member States about how their availability and quality might be preserved.

For example, in a large but sparsely populated country like Finland, there is a danger that competition will only be of interest in the most densely populated urban areas, where they can derive an economic benefit. On the other hand, the costs of delivering the mail in the unprofitable sparsely populated areas will have to be met by society.

Delivery costs in sparsely populated areas are on average four times higher than in built­up areas. In extreme cases the difference might be anything up to 10 times more. Even so, in Finland too some postal services have now been opened up to competition.

The directive attempts to safeguard the standard of services by means of obligations imposed on the holder of a universal service obligation. I would like to hear the Commissioner’s view regarding how competition can be genuine and on an equal footing if the demands concerning the quality and standard of service placed on the holder of the USO are significantly more stringent than those placed on the competition. How are the costs incurred in the provision of the universal service to be met?

The directive proposes funding options, of which the simplest is to finance losses out of taxes. This, however, will probably not be seen as a sensible move, given the current state of public finances. The situation in Finland threatens to become nothing less than absurd. The holder of the USO there is a profitable state­owned company, whose annual profits of roughly EUR 100 million would be converted into state budgetary expenditure representing more or less the same amount, so that a few companies would be able to make a profit from the lucrative markets in the cities and towns. This could be very difficult to explain away to the taxpayer.

Finally, I would like to ask the Commissioner whether it will be possible within the framework of this directive to legislate nationally on, for example, the charge on delivering a postal service, payable by all operators in the sector in order to guarantee services impartially and in unprofitable areas too.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, postal services are an essential instrument of communication. They play an important role in competitiveness and in the objectives of social, economic and territorial cohesion. Therefore, it is not acceptable that those who live in rural areas should not have access to services of the same quality that other people have. The most disadvantaged or isolated populations have the right to quality postal services. There has been a decrease in service access points in rural areas, and a decrease in the quality of service in Portugal and in other Member States. The quality of these services must be improved or maintained, but it should never diminish.

We must also prevent the application of European legislation from leading to negative impacts on the working conditions and salaries of postal workers. We cannot accept that those competing for service providers intend to eat only meat, leaving just the bones for everyone else. By way of explanation, I refer, for example, to those who only intend to provide services in locations where distribution is profitable, meaning in areas with larger population density.

It is therefore necessary for the Commission to find solutions to prevent the problems I have just mentioned, further striving to ensure that the legislation regarding this matter be complied with and, if necessary, improved.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in our modern societies effective communication services are crucial to the lives both of our businesses and of European citizens as a whole.

From this point of view, the opening-up of the postal market represents a real challenge for this sector, at a time when technological developments and the economic crisis have weakened those companies that have historically transported postal items.

Like many of my fellow Members, I am very attached to economic and social cohesion, and to territorial cohesion, of which these postal services ultimately form part. As Vice-Chair of the postal services intergroup, I am conscious of the fears that exist with regard to the future of services of general economic interest: indeed, around 100 postal workers demonstrated yesterday in Strasbourg.

In my view, it is crucial to ensure that the postal market is not opened up at the expense of working conditions and quality of service. The aim of the 2008 directive is to guarantee a quality service at competitive prices and to create jobs. To achieve this aim, the law must be scrupulously applied, in particular with regard to universal service obligations. Furthermore, postal service providers must evolve by diversifying their activities and, at the same time, their sources of income.

Commissioner, we are counting on the European Commission to be vigilant and to closely monitor developments in this economic sector. You have successfully carried out a major structural reform in the field of monetary policy coordination, of financial supervision. I am certain that you will be able to involve every single one of us so that we can press ahead with this important reform.

  President. – It is now time for the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) December 2010 is an important milestone in the creation of a common market in postal services in the countries of the European Union, which are opening up to all postal service providers, thereby boosting competition in this sector. Europe has been innovating in this sector since 1992, with the most recent directive being in 2008. I consider it a very important step in view of the powerful monopolistic organisation of the national postal markets in most Member States, which results in ever-rising prices for postal services and a negative impact on consumers in particular.

I fully support the liberalisation and privatisation of the European postal market and the breaking up of state monopolies, which will lead not only to lower prices, but also to better quality postal services for the ordinary consumer, and what I hope will be the least possible impact on employment.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I myself questioned the Commission in June on the negative impact of the liberalisation of public services on consumers by emphasising that numerous investigations have uncovered serious shortcomings, most notably in postal services, such as price rises, a decrease in service quality and a lack of transparency.

I urge the Commission once again to analyse not only the electricity market, as it did at the start of 2010, but also postal services, in order to determine the extent to which consumers really benefit from a free market in terms of choice, price and quality. I would also urge it to analyse job quality within postal services. I ask this because the time for making fine statements about the benefits of liberalisation has passed. It is time, now, to make judgments on the basis of actual evidence before any further steps are taken, so that the mistakes made in the other liberalised sectors are not repeated in the postal services sector.

I duly note the creation of the users’ dialogue group but, as Mr El Khadraoui said before me, more progress needs to be made; we expect more of you, Commissioner. The Commission must stop rushing ahead regardless.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Commissioner, you told us that the directive gives leeway to Member States when implementing it in order to comply with social requirements, but I am asking you, as Commissioner, to make sure that those social requirements are fully respected.

Yesterday in this Parliament we voted through the employment guidelines and we called for decent work. Yet all over Europe decent jobs are being lost in the postal service. They are being replaced by precarious low-paid jobs and we know that the liberalisation of postal services is driving this agenda. There is real concern among citizens and among postal workers about the loss of jobs and I do not think that we in this Parliament and the Commission can continue to ignore that fact.

As a representative of a largely rural constituency, I have received many queries about the obligation to ensure the collection and delivery of postal items five days per week. Once again, you have a responsibility in this area.

Finally, I agree with many of the other speakers that we do need a moratorium on the full implementation of this directive. In the meantime…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - (PT) Commissioner, all over Europe, people and workers in the sector agree on an undeniable reality: liberalisation of postal services, contrary to what was and is proclaimed by those who promoted and are promoting it, has led to a significant degradation in the services provided, and to an unprecedented attack on the rights of workers in the sector.

As in other sectors, liberalisation leads to privatisation, and this would be a monopoly on a European scale. The consequences are visible, even in countries where the process is even more backwards: reduced geographic coverage and distribution frequency, higher prices, and social and labour dumping. For these reasons workers and people are uniting in a common fight against the privatisation and destruction of this important public service. We would like to salute them, acknowledge their example, and underline the importance of their fight. The Commission should pay them more attention.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I have just taken part in the debate on better lawmaking. Postal market liberalisation is an example of a case where many of the negative consequences would not have arisen if – as in the report on better lawmaking presented earlier – an independent, reliable impact assessment had been carried out.

The Commission has not published a single study dealing solely with social conditions and the impact of postal market liberalisation. The Commission only supports the national regulatory authorities in order to guarantee pure unfettered competition. You are aware of the consequences of this: unreliable shipments, low-paid, poorly qualified workers, delivery now only on three days, different prices for different regions. I therefore have a personal question for you, Commissioner. Does it not make your heart bleed to see La Poste in France being privatised against the will of the company management, the trade unions and the population in general?

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, in countries that are at the forefront of liberalisation such as Finland, the United Kingdom and Germany, there have been a succession of deficits, collapses of operators and massive job losses with no clear social alternative.

The third postal directive was adopted with three essential conditions. The first is guaranteeing the universal postal service as an obligation for postal services across the territory at the same price and at least five days a week as a guarantee of social and territorial cohesion. The second is evaluating and monitoring the social impact and the quality of the jobs, as competition cannot be based on social dumping, therefore we urge Mr Barnier to prove to us that the Directive has had the effects required by Parliament. The final condition is users’ rights, which are not the basic rights but the rights that we promised them for the new era: information on access points, on the capacity of new postal services, rights of complaint…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, moving from postal services run by the individual States to a postal service run for the whole of Europe is an initiative which will strengthen the various regions, and I support it.

I would, nevertheless, call for a careful evaluation of costs, time frames and actual benefits. We should provide for the prompt delivery of mail, taking into account rural and countryside areas. Networks linking the various countries and regions should be strengthened. We need to provide stable employment – not insecure jobs – and stagger any retirements. The costs of the postal service must not rise and we need …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. – I am surprised that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the author of the question does not have a specific time to respond to it and has to use the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure.

Therefore, Mr Simpson, in my interpretation of the President’s management role, I am going to give you two minutes to respond to all the speeches that have been made.

  Brian Simpson, author. − Mr President, I think the fact that you have had a lot of people willing to participate in the catch-the-eye debate shows the importance of this issue to Parliament, and that is what I want to stress to the Commissioner.

I have heard the Commissioner’s response and, in some respects, I am gratified at what I have heard, but there is deep concern in this Parliament that, with the liberalisation of the postal services, social conditions and workers’ conditions, as well as the service conditions that are contained in the universal service, will be diluted on the altar of liberalisation and privatisation on some issues.

I therefore think it is relevant that we make that point to him and I hope he will come back on that in his response.

The second point I wanted to raise is in response to the spokesman from the EFD Group with regard to the United Kingdom and the fact that he was blaming the closure of sub-post offices in the United Kingdom on this liberalisation process.

We need to nail that lie very strongly. The closure of sub-post offices in the United Kingdom was a decision of the United Kingdom. It was a decision that came about because the UK Government reduced its subsidy to sub-post offices and it changed its payments of benefits into a direct payments method. That was one of the major reasons why, along with Royal Mail cutbacks, sub-post offices closed in the United Kingdom.

Finally, the idea of a UK opt-out is one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard in my life as far as postal services are concerned. Why? The most Hezbollah, pro-liberal, ‘let’s get on with it quicker than any other government’ government in Europe on liberalisation was the United Kingdom’s own government, from Thatcher to Major to Blair...

(The President cut off the speaker).

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is very important, and I am grateful to you, Mr Simpson, for having initiated it.

I wish to make two or three points before responding in slightly more depth.

Firstly, as I said earlier and as everyone ought objectively to recognise, this reform, this controlled liberalisation of postal services, has not been carried out in a secretive, hurried or random fashion; it has been carried out in accordance with legitimate democratic processes and with the support of all the governments. Many of you have played a very important part in this: Mr Simpson, you are one of those people, Mr Ferber is another, and I could mention many other names besides.

That is where we are today. This is a gradual reform. As my services pointed out to me, there have been around 20 sectoral studies. Mr de Jong, there has been no hastiness or secretiveness. Mr Tarabella, there has been no rushing ahead regardless, either. Things are being done gradually and in stages. That is the first point.

My second point is that I know what is written in the Treaties and in the texts. Mrs Auconie mentioned a very important term: territorial cohesion. I fought as one of the authors of the old constitution and of the new Treaty of Lisbon – at that time I was European Commissioner for Institutional Reform – to have the words ‘territorial cohesion’ included in the treaty. It was not easy. These are words that mean something, just as, in the Treaty of Lisbon, there are new words on security and the protection of public services.

These are words to which I attach importance, over and above my personal beliefs, which I would like to outline in one sentence: I do not believe that Europe can be summed up as a large free trade area. Europe is not just the internal market. It is a common area of economic, social and human life. Indeed, I returned to the European Commission with that firm belief. It will underpin the work that I do throughout the five years in which I have the honour of being in this role. That is what is in the treaty. I have not forgotten it, and, if need be, I will remind all those who have forgotten it.

And then there are the texts of these directives, ladies and gentlemen. Frankly, I do not believe – I have said this to Mrs Wils and to others – that a moratorium or a sudden suspension of this process would help matters. From my point of view, it would create uncertainty, which would harm businesses and users, and, all things considered, it would be irresponsible. Yet, having said that, having thus confirmed that the process will get under way, we have a duty to check that it gets under way properly and in accordance with what is written in the texts of the directives and in the Treaty on European Union.

Mr Bach and Mrs Auconie mentioned the universal postal service; there are some important words in the texts that are designed to strengthen the provision of the universal service. There are many mechanisms that safeguard this service provision, and we must verify that they are used; this applies to the compensation fund, to designations in the field of public contracts and to other instruments besides. These are words that I have not forgotten, either.

The inclusion of working conditions is also laid down as an essential requirement that must be taken into account when authorising or approving postal operators. As regards social protection – Mr de Jong, Mrs Durant and Mrs Serracchiani raised this issue – it is clearly stated in the third Postal Directive that the Member States have access to instruments in labour law to prevent any possible social dumping, and it is the responsibility of those Member States to respect the principle of subsidiarity and find the best way of guaranteeing this correct level of employment and social protection.

I could cite countless other examples of phrases and words that are all requirements for the Member States, for businesses and for the Commission, under the supervision of your Parliament and of the Council.

I would also like to say a word about an issue that affects me personally, because for 20 years I was the elected representative of a rural, and indeed very mountainous, region, and we know how important public services are for the most isolated and the weakest people who live in such regions. Mr Gallagher raised this issue, as did Mr Fernandes, Mrs Auconie and Mrs Harkin just now. On the subject of rural areas, I would point out that, where the Member States fail to meet certain minimum requirements, the Commission will use all the instruments at its disposal to ensure that they provide these basic postal services, particularly in rural areas, in pursuance of this territorial cohesion.

I recognise that we need to make progress, without rushing ahead regardless, but we do have to make sure that the provisions in the texts, in the treaty, are respected. That is why, Mr President, the evaluation, study, report and, where necessary, correction, stages must be put to good use. Mr El Khadraoui, Mrs Ticău and Mrs Wils mentioned the first studies. I can confirm that we are going to undertake a first study this year – at the end of this year, Mr El Khadraoui – which will provide all the parties involved with an analysis of the recent developments in the postal markets and which will also cover the most recent employment trends.

We shall not stop there: there is the official report that we are due to present to Parliament and to the Council in 2013, when the entire directive will be implemented by all the Member States. Then, there is this users’ dialogue group, in which you will participate, along with trade unions, businesses and users themselves. The group will hear the group of regulators and examine the impact assessments provided by the Commission.

Ladies and gentlemen, to conclude – and here I am addressing Mrs Thun Und Hohenstein, Mrs Durant and others – I am as committed as you are to ensuring that these directives are implemented correctly, without citizens and users being penalised. I will be as committed as you are to ensuring that the impact assessments are objective, accurate and honest. Moreover, since I am talking about sincerity, I shall repeat what Mr Simpson said: ‘We have to be fair with Europe.’ That is why these studies and the publicity that we will generate in their regard, the debates that we will create around these studies – especially within this users’ dialogue group – are important. I shall undertake to ensure that we are fair with the European Union and with the decisions that we have taken together.

When we talk about jobs in the postal services, when we talk about the quality of distribution, when we talk about territorial cohesion, when we talk about social protection, what impact do European decisions have? What impact do the decisions taken by businesses have? What impact do the policy decisions of governments have? We must say who is responsible for what and not hold the European Union responsible for everything that happens on the ground.

That is also why I want to see this debate and evaluation work through to the end, and it is why, Mrs Durant, ladies and gentlemen, I personally will oversee the creation of the users’ dialogue group. I will do so in order to demonstrate the Commission’s sincerity and sense of purpose in this sphere, which is at the heart of this internal market, as an area of common economic and social life, to which I am committed and for which I am one of the people responsible.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place in ten minutes.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The deadline for implementing the internal market for postal services is approaching. However much this Directive will create additional competition in towns and cities, there is no doubt that it will seriously degrade the service provided in rural areas. 40% of the people of Ireland are rural dwellers and it is essential that a postal service is provided for those of them living in remote areas. Postal services in such areas are often unprofitable.

How will the Commission ensure that essential services for small, remote communities are not discontinued and that mail will continue to be collected and delivered in remote areas, in accordance with the universal service obligation? Given that business to business deliveries and postal services in towns and cities are the most profitable, what can be done to ensure that new bodies do not neglect customers and services in remote or non-profitable areas? This Directive could have a significant social impact on certain communities and postal workers. These issues must be addressed before the Directive is implemented.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) The strength of the European Union lies in unity. The European Union is the world’s leading region, which has now been acting according to defined principles for over 50 years. We are strong, because we have been united and we have shown solidarity. The larger Member States of the Union have respected the interests of the smaller states, and the economically more powerful states have supported the economically weaker states. Nor must we resile from these principles going forward. France’s intention to sell Mistral warships to the Russian Federation, which two years ago attacked Georgia, a partner state of the European State and of NATO, has aroused indignation among the population of several Member States. I do not wish to question France’s right to do such a deal. Nevertheless, I call upon France to abide by those EU and NATO principles that it has observed in the past, and, I am convinced, will also observe in the future. This deal is causing concern to France’s NATO and EU partners, which have always observed the principles of mutual solidarity. In the short term, this deal may well be financially advantageous, but in the long term it could reduce European security and worsen relations between Member States, thereby making us weaker. A partner’s point of view must not be ignored, especially on so important a question as the military security of EU Member States. We must not allow other countries to weaken our unity with deals of this sort. Let us not forget that our closest friends and allies are not to be found in the East, but within the Union. Let us continue to abide by the principles by which we have abided to date. If we remain united, we shall remain strong.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to start with Poland, which finds itself in a privileged situation, because it has been given a two-year transition period. I draw attention to this situation because we have been given, in this way, the ability to refine certain solutions and mechanisms which are in use in the other Member States. It should be pointed out that letters up to 50 grams in weight – and a great many such letters are sent by post – will be completely deregulated, although they are often letters of an official or judicial nature, which are sent as part of responsibilities entrusted to the state. The question arises, therefore, as to how the Commission intends to prevail upon Member States so that as part of the liberalisation they make it possible for services which are so important to be offered by different operators while at the same time maintaining stability and security for the state and its citizens. Considerable fears are also aroused by the very mention of the matter of adequate social protection.

Enterprises which operate postal services are usually huge firms with considerable human resources. Will, therefore, an aggressive pricing policy and the cost-cutting policy that will go with it not result in a definite reduction in staff numbers? Meanwhile, from the point of view just of the quality of the services, the question arises as to whether the price factor will not bring about a reduction in standards. The way postal services are operated also depends on the places where mail can be sent and collected, how many there are of these facilities and their accessibility. In the case of large metropolitan areas, I am not worried. However, small towns, and rural areas in particular, may be almost completely deprived of access to postal services.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D), in writing. – (DE) The experience of countries where liberalisation has already taken place shows that liberalisation of postal services is a downward spiral. Competition must not be played out at the expense of workers, in other words on the basis of pay and working conditions. We must retain high quality jobs in the European postal service, because that is the only way that we will be able to guarantee the universal service for everyone. Postal services must be equally accessible to everyone, wherever they live – it must be a basic right.

It is the Commission’s job to protect the citizens of the European Union from social dumping and to maintain labour standards. So far, however, nothing has been done. The opening up of European markets must not go hand in hand with the abolition of social protection rights. We reject the competition between the social systems of the Member States. I call for a moratorium until the social impact has been investigated, social conditions are secure throughout the postal market, the financing of the universal services is ensured and a way is found for competition to be based on quality and innovation in the market. Member States must provide legislative guarantees of the full accessibility of postal services.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.50 and resumed at 12.05)

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

4. Statement by the President

  President. − Dear colleagues, I have some sad information for you. I wish to say a few words.

Mr Angelo Vassallo, aged 57, mayor of Pollica in the Campania region of Italy, was murdered last Sunday night by the Camorra on his way home. He was better known as the ‘environmental mayor’ for his great work to improve the natural environment in his region.

Mr Vassallo always fought against the infiltration of organised crime in his municipality. He had a fantastic human touch in his relations with his citizens. We must not underestimate the role of organised crime in some of our Member States. We should stand together in solidarity to root this evil out of our societies, so that Angelo Vassallo’s death will not have been in vain.

I would ask you to stand for one minute’s silence in his memory.

IN THE CHAIR: Libor ROUČEK
Vice-President

5. Voting time

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, 48 hours from now, as millions of Muslims will still be celebrating Eid and the world will be remembering the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, a Koran burning has been planned to coincide with this in Florida, USA. This act has been denounced by the US Administration and the Vatican. I hope this House will do likewise.

(Applause)

This extreme act of Koran burning is the act of one man and his followers alone. His actions should not be identified with the West or Christianity. Muslims globally mustbe told that, through this Koran burning, that pastor will achieve nothing. He has been isolated in his country and by his religion. It is only through a reaction that any perverse sense of achievement can be earned.

(Sustained applause)

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Mr President, irrespective of the merits of Mr Karim’s remarks, I fail to see how that was a point of order. If anybody else had stood up to make a statement, you would have asked them under which Rule they were speaking. Can you please tell me how that was a point of order?

  President. − Mr Batten, it was a point of order, information to the House.

5.1. Better lawmaking (A7-0215/2010, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg) (vote)

5.2. Situation of the Roma people in Europe (vote)

– After the vote on paragraph 8:

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). - Mr President, I would like to move the following amendment as a new paragraph 9a. I will read it: ‘Considers that the situation of Roma in Europe can in no way affect the forthcoming accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen Area, nor the rights of their citizens’. I hope the House can support that amendment.

– After the vote:

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Mr President, I notice that there were a large number of people holding up banners. I understand this is against the rules, but you did not say anything about it. If they can hold up their banner, can I hold up mine, please? It reads: ‘Say no to the European Union’.

(Applause from the EFD Group)

Can we have one set of rules that applies for everybody, please? Is that possible?

  President. − I think you have made your point. Everybody knows and noticed that you say ‘no’ to the European Union.

5.3. Long-term care for older people (vote)

5.4. Situation of the Jordan River with special regard to the Lower Jordan River area (vote)

6. The lack of a transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and potentially objectionable content - Establishing a European Year of Combating Violence against Women (written declarations): see Minutes

  President. − Colleagues, before you go I still have two announcements to make. The text is in Czech so I will read it in Czech.

  President. − Written Declaration (Rule 142) 0012/2010 proposed by Françoise Castex, Zuzana Roithová, Alexander Alvaro, Stavros Lambrinidis on the lack of transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and potentially objectionable content, signed by a majority of all members of the Parliament.

In accordance with Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure, the written declaration will be forwarded to all its addressees and published as a text adopted at this part-session. The names of the signatories will be published in the minutes.

Written Declaration (Rule 142) 0020/2010, proposed by Marc Tarabella, Barbara Matera, Marije Cornelissen, Ilda Figueiredo and Antonyia Parvanova, on the declaration of a European Year of Combating Violence against Women, was signed by a majority of all members of the Parliament.

In accordance with Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure, the written declaration will be forwarded to all its addressees and published as a text adopted at this part-session. The names of the signatories will be published in the minutes.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). - (PT) Mr President, I simply wish to welcome the fact that those of my fellow Members who did so added their names to the request to create the European Year of Combating Violence against Women. We believe this is very important, and we hope that the European Commission will take this statement into consideration. Thank you to everyone who took part.

  President. − Colleagues, we now come to the explanations of vote. Those of you who do not wish to explain their vote please leave the House quietly so that we can proceed with the explanations.

7. Explanations of vote

Report Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (A7-0215/2010)

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, (…) a step towards greater understanding, on the part of EU citizens, of the texts that we adopt. There is still much that needs to be done, but it is important that we take these steps on an ongoing basis.

Clearly we must find a way to balance the two different legal systems: the Anglo-Saxon system and the continental system based on Roman law.

The passage regarding impact assessments is, however, also important. It is a vital passage which must be reflected in national laws too. In this regard I must point out that they have significant shortcomings. It will be important to come back to this matter, and I believe we shall do so soon.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, simple, clear legislation that people can understand is extremely important for people’s acceptance of the European Union. However, sound legislation is also key to the functioning of the European Union. Simplification of the European lawmaking process should therefore be one of the fundamental concerns of the European institutions. One very important aspect of this is the reduction of the administrative burden on our enterprises. This will release a new impetus for economic development and innovation. However, Europe is not always to be found where it is heralded to be, at least that is the experience I have had in my country. The Commission must take great care to ensure that the Member States enact regulations that do not go beyond European requirements.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, there are moments in this Chamber when the order paper is beyond parody. The report on ‘better lawmaking’ comes from the same institutions that have turned this part of the world into the most over-regulated and least competitive bloc on the planet, that have brought us the bureaucratic nightmare of the common agricultural policy, the ecological calamity of the common fisheries policy.

But let me try and be constructive. Here is an idea for better lawmaking: let us try not to be declamatory when we make legislation. Let us try not to use the statutes of this House as a way of showing that we are nice people, that we care about unemployment, that we care about the Roma or longer working hours or whatever it is. Heavy-handed intervention by the state is not usually the best way to solve problems. We are far better off allowing decisions to be taken as closely as possible to the people that they affect.

So my modest proposal for better lawmaking is that we close down this Parliament for the next six months on an experimental basis, we do not pass any legislation at all, and we see whether our constituents complain about it.

Motion for a resolution (B7-0492/2010) - Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B7-0493/2010)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) In Slovakia today we are marking a commemoration day for the victims of the holocaust. Under the Slovak state more than 100 000 Jews, Roma, homosexuals and physically-disabled people were deported from Slovakia to concentration camps. Precisely for that reason I have today supported this motion for a resolution - of which, coincidently, I was also the translator - because I consider it extremely important for the European Parliament to signal that we want no such thing in Europe today, in the present, or in the future. We have lived through two great wars in Europe and it is now high time, particularly after France has begun large-scale deportations of Romanian Roma back to their country, to show that such things are simply not acceptable to us, and the vote on this motion for a resolution will help to convey that message. Mr President, I would like to thank all Members who have supported our resolution.

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, I supported the resolution, which included the European United Left Group as a signatory.

In singling out the Roma community in France for victimisation and expulsion, French President Sarkozy and his government have displayed the most disgusting cynicism. The crude use of a minority community of oppressed people to divert attention from the disastrous economic and social policies is what this is all about.

Mr Sarkozy’s policies have resulted in mass unemployment in France and marginalisation of many working class communities. Mr Sarkozy’s government is now systematically attacking the living standards of French workers and is attacking the pension rights of the French people. Mr Sarkozy and his government are the agents of the French bourgeoisie and international big business and are desperately trying to use a vulnerable community as a scapegoat to divert attention from their huge unpopularity.

I salute the tens of thousands of French people who demonstrated against this policy last Saturday, and appeal to French workers to exercise their tremendous tradition of solidarity – with all minority communities and working people standing together in defence of human and civil rights and a better future – and not to be conned by this cynical exercise.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) I voted first and foremost for my own political group’s resolution because it proposed solutions and not stigmatisation of a political option. Unfortunately, this motion for a resolution did not get through.

As regards the motion for a resolution proposed by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and those sympathetic to their policies, I voted for some points in this text which I found constructive, mainly the oral amendment supporting the lack of any link between the Roma’s situation in Europe and Romania’s integration into the Schengen area.

I also voted for the second part of paragraph 10, which called for strong horizontal coordination for responding to such situations in the future, and for the second part of paragraph 16, which encourages both the Commission and Member States to respect Roma’s rights and their implementation.

I also voted for recital L, which indicates the need for better Roma representation in governmental structures and public administration in Member States. However, I could not vote for the whole motion for a resolution because I find it demagogic.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE). – (SK) External migration is a key problem for Europe. Every year 900 000 new immigrants arrive in Europe. The Roma issue is an internal problem for Europe, since the migration of Roma between the Member States can be counted not in hundreds of thousands but in thousands. However, that does not mean that it is not a serious problem.

I support the motion for a resolution of the European Parliament on the situation of the Roma population in Europe. I regard it as positive that it defines this problem as a Europe-wide problem. The problem of the Roma population cannot be solved effectively in isolation. It is necessary to involve European resources and European know-how in the solution, especially in countries with a significant Roma population.

The migration and repatriation of the Roma should not become a political issue. Minority rights should not be infringed. However, rights and obligations must apply not only to Member States but also to the actual minorities.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, I voted for the EPP resolution because the text of this resolution offered a constructive and comprehensive European solution to the problem of better social inclusion of Roma.

Instead of using their serious social and economic situation as an instrument for politically motivated attacks against certain law-abiding governments like those of France and Italy, the EPP proposes a European Roma strategy.

Shifting the problem from one Member State to another does not help us to find necessary resources. We can only do it together in the spirit of a constructive approach.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). - (DA) Mr President, we in the Danish Liberal Party chose to vote in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the Roma, not because we do not think that the language in large parts of the resolution is rather too emotionally charged and its attacks unsubstantiated, rather it is because we believe that there is reason to question the manner in which France has suddenly chosen to expel the Roma. In this regard, we do not think there is anything to be investigated in relation to Denmark’s or Germany’s deportations. Denmark acted by the book, and if Germany cannot send home refugees from a war that is over, the concept of refugee status will be lost and we will then have a completely new legal status in the world. I have to say that the Danish Liberal Party’s fight against the unjustified criticism of Denmark and Germany has been an uncomfortably lonely one. Neither the Social Democrats nor the Socialist People’s Party supported us. No, they would rather have their country and neighbouring country tarnished by controversy for which there is no documentable justification. I honestly think that it is embarrassing. I would like to finish by emphasising that the last explicit vestige of so-called criticism of Denmark and Germany was definitively removed during the vote today.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Mr President, I did not vote in favour of any of these resolutions because, as a matter of principle, I do not recognise the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, and I never will.

However, it should, of course, be the right of sovereign nations to decide who can and cannot enter their territories, and on what basis. EU states have abdicated that right by recognising the supremacy of EU law, and in particular by adopting Directive 2004/38/EC on the free movement of people.

The French cannot have it both ways. They cannot be full members of the European Union and then discriminate against Romanian gypsies.

If the French do not like it, then I suggest that they adopt the policy of the UK Independence Party, which is to leave the European Union and regain their sovereignty.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Through the adoption of the motion for a resolution on the Roma, the European Parliament and the European Commission have, in my opinion, correctly acknowledged responsibility for the situation of the Roma in the European Union. Based on the experience I have had in my own country, however, I would like to point out that, when looking for effective solutions to the integration of the Roma, it is not enough just to provide financial assistance or material goods in an effort to improve their material situation. It is far more important to teach the Roma that maintaining a standard of living requires putting much more effort into getting the best possible education and holding down a permanent job. It is only through education and social integration that the Roma will free themselves of the burden of an ignominious standing in our society. It will be a demanding task, and I hope we can pull it off.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of all members of the European Union having equal rights. That also includes the Roma.

I understand that some, for example in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), believe that this motion for a resolution is too much of a tool of political action against France. It is quite true that we must see things in such a way that we do not implement policy as a tool, but, because the European Union is a community of values, that we show that we are really committed to the notion that we should take responsibility for our most vulnerable population groups.

We know that at present there are poor levels of social participation among the Roma population in many European countries, and that is why resolving this problem is a challenge that Europeans, the citizens of the European Union, share. We will not be credible while outside Europe we explain how human rights should be tackled, if we do not deal with the Roma situation properly ourselves within the European Union.

I hope that this will be viewed as concrete action in the European Parliament. Parliament has, of course, organised various small­scale pilot projects attempting to promote the integration of the Roma into society, through education and so on. Sometimes, however, it seems that this House will not provide cash for projects of this sort out of its budget either, but would rather give it to Greece or some other country, or even countries outside Europe.

We must now sort out the Roma issue inside the European Union once and for all. That will mean we will have to demonstrate credibility and the basic values on behalf of which the European Union works.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, I listened carefully to what Mr Takkula said, but in fact some very large appropriations amounting to several tens of billions of euros have been opened, only EUR 9 million of which has been spent to date.

With this motion for a resolution, I believe Mr Sarkozy and Mr Hortefeux, the French Minister for Home Affairs – who, nevertheless, were once Members of this Parliament – are today reaping what they have sown. They supported the opening of our borders; they concluded those treaties; they sometimes even wrote or promoted them; and they must certainly realise today that the fragile barriers that were erected – the temporary solutions that only allowed the Roma to come and settle in France after 2013 – well, they have all gone by the board.

In conclusion, what I find most disagreeable in our fellow Members’ attitudes is that, on the pretext of fighting discrimination, there is in fact systematic discrimination – or stigmatisation, to use their expression – of the indigenous majority populations. It is all very well to defend minorities, but do you not believe that sometimes problems may arise – cultural, behavioural or other kinds of problems – in the conduct of these minorities that in fact prevent their integration? Would it not be doing these minorities a service to be honest and put these problems on the table as well? Just the once would not hurt.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I am astounded at the frivolity with which the left in this House is juggling with terms such as ‘collective expulsions’, when we are talking about dossiers in France that are evaluated on an individual, case-by-case basis and about people who have received aid for voluntary return to their country of origin. A Member State does indeed have the right and the obligation to enforce the rules of a State governed by the rule of law and to take action against illegal immigration and the attendant nuisance. In any case, an important key to solving the problems lies with the Roma communities themselves. I should like to mention a memorandum from former Dutch Minister for Housing, Communities and Integration Van der Laan, a socialist, which states among other things that, among Roma, crime is disproportionately high, school absenteeism is sky-high, and children are being abused for begging and criminal activities. With that position, according to socialist Van der Laan, the Roma are excluding themselves from Dutch society. There is work to be done, therefore. Mr President, I know it is not popular to say this here in Parliament, but Roma, like all other people, have not only rights but also obligations.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we did not vote for the motion for a resolution by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which is certainly more balanced, because of one key point to which we wish to draw your attention: the call for the European Commission, for Europe, to speed up the process to integrate Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area.

We feel – and we already sounded this alarm at the time of enlargement – that these countries have not yet adopted strict control policies for the issue of identity cards and recognition of nationality.

Are the Commission and Parliament aware that in these countries certificates can be obtained with great ease from non-European countries enabling, thanks to the freedom of movement, illegal entry into the Schengen area? We must pay close attention to this matter, and it is completely irresponsible not to have done so, and to be pressing for the enlargement of the Schengen area, contrary to common sense.

Lastly, I would like to voice my hope that, when we next meet, at least one of the do-gooder MEPs who are so supportive of the Roma will report that he or she has taken in – they can afford this on an MEP’s salary – a nice Roma family, and are feeding a few extra mouths. It is not hard to show with actions, instead of just with words, that you are a do-gooder.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) I did not support the approved motion for a resolution, because I do not think that it will contribute to a solution to the Roma question in Europe, and at the same time it will sour the political atmosphere between individual European Union states. Our inability to solve the problems of the Roma community can be summed up in one sentence: We know what we do not want but we do not know what we want. We do not want anyone to be punished for the offences of another only because they both belong to the same ethnic group. However, we also do not want some people to think that the law does not apply to them. We do not want to force anybody to give up their culture, but we also do not want to tolerate violations of the fundamental principles of coexistence in the name of ethnic identity. The French Government knows what it does not want. As long as it has not broken the law, there are no grounds for reproach. If it has broken the law, the courts must decide on the matter. One brief comment on the meeting this week in Paris: I would be delighted if the countries that are expected to provide a positive solution to the Roma issue were among the first to be invited to such meetings.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, the motion for a resolution which gained the majority of votes in Parliament also received my vote. The resolution concerns an essential feature of the law, which makes it very clear that no sanction can be linked to nationality. Responsibility must always be of an individual nature, and that is a foundational principle of the law. Roma people should be treated in the same way as other citizens of the Union. This means, too, that they are subject to the law, and if they break it they must bear responsibility on the same basis as others. We cannot allow a situation in which nationality is invoked as a reason for exemption from bearing responsibility for breaking the law. The point is that nationality should never be the basis for deciding what sanctions are taken, because sanctions should always be decided on an individual basis.

Motion for a resolution (B7-0491/2010)

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I just want to say that I fully support the motion on long-term care for older people.

Given the current demographics, the issue of long-term care for older people is certainly a European issue, and while it is largely the responsibility of the Member States, nonetheless, because of the nature and the magnitude of the situation, it is a European issue and has indeed been recognised as such.

One of the issues highlighted in the resolution which I fully support is the need to take account of the needs of informal carers. They provide a significant proportion of the care that older people require. Member States must take practical steps to support and safeguard this invaluable resource, and they must do that by way of training, respite care and other measures that will help to reconcile work and family life.

One other point on the resolution that I want to highlight is that it asks that guarantees be put in place in Member States to protect the fundamental rights of persons receiving long-term care, and not just that the guarantees be put in place, but that Member States ensure that enforcement and compliance with quality criteria for service provision is ensured.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, in relation to the motion for a resolution on long-term care for older people, I would like to express full support for the attention being given to this matter. In view of the unfavourable demographic changes which are troubling Europe, immediate action in this area seems essential. As well as helping elderly people to be active and guaranteeing them appropriate care, we must not forget the people who provide that care. Often they are people who have no other help, because besides caring for an older person, they also have to hold down a job. It is not easy to reconcile these two roles. I am thinking, here, of families in rural areas, who most often take it upon themselves to care for infirm family members. The legal situation of these people should be regulated. This will encourage others to take care of older people, who want to grow old with dignity. I think we would all want that.

Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B7-0484/2010)

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, unfortunately this motion for a resolution was one­sided, in my opinion. When we consider the situation in the Middle East, we should remember that there is one democratic state there with which we in Europe share the same values: Israel. Democracy, human rights and freedom of opinion are important values there.

Because of that, it is important that, when we look at the situation in that region, we should also look at the overall situation, and not be intent, in one way or another, on trying to hurt the only democracy there.

Regrettably, such an image was conjured up when the situation regarding the Jordan River was being discussed. We all know that water resources in the region are limited. We also know that, by establishing irrigation and water collection systems, Israel has made massive efforts to ensure that people have access to water both in Israel and in the so­called Palestinian territories, and that farming is possible there.

I hope that our attitude will be a constructive one. Let us hope that we make progress on the peace front as a result of the peace negotiations now under way. Our attitude towards this region must be constructive and supportive, and not one that puts the blame on Israel.

Written explanation

Report Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (A7-0215/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) How can one fail to vote for a report with a title such as this? How can one fail to emphasise the need to draw up legislation that is simple, transparent and comprehensible to European citizens? To be more precise, I clearly fully support this own-initiative report by Parliament, firstly because we should be constantly striving to produce better legislation, and, secondly, because it highlights a number of crucial issues. One such issue is the European Commission’s impact assessments, the independence and reliability of which must be guaranteed.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) Better lawmaking has become a prerequisite for the effective functioning of the European Union and can play an important role in ending the economic crisis and achieving economic growth. It is necessary for institutions’ activities to meet the expectations of citizens, companies operating in the internal market and national and local government, and to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to citizens. I support the provisions set out in the resolution, stating that we must support the process of better regulation aimed at increasing the transparency, effectiveness and coherence of European Union legislation. As the institution with the power of legislative initiative, the Commission has a key role in this process, in drafting high-quality legislative proposals, in reducing administrative burdens and the costs for businesses and cooperating with the Member States in order to ensure the proper implementation of EU legislation.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This initiative seeks to analyse application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, ensuring that these principles are respected in European Union proposals. Subsidiarity is a dynamic and evolving concept that allows actions of the European Union to be extended, if necessary, and limits actions when they cease to be justified.

Proportionality is a guiding principle for the exercise of European Union powers, whether exclusive or shared, which should not exceed what is necessary in order to attain objectives. Two major innovations in this area stand out: the creation of the Impact Assessment Board, and the fact of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which confers an important role on national parliamentarians in judging the manner in which these two principles are applied – ex ante political control, which may lead to a revision or possible removal of the proposal, or ex post judicial control, with recourse to the Court of Justice if it is believed these principles were violated. This assessment system allows the Union to legislate better, analysing and justifying its proposals, and it allows the Union to improve quality, accuracy and transparency. I welcome the fact that the impact assessment system is working correctly, and I support reinforcement of the process of analysis.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) -The report of Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg is mainly concerned with the evaluation of the 15th and 16th Report of the EC on the improvement of the regulations encompassing the years 2007 and 2008, the third strategic study on the improvement of regulation of January 2009 and the Action Programme on Administrative Burden Reduction of October 2009. The rapporteur seeks stronger enforcement of subsidiarity and proportionality as the fundamental requirements of European law in order to allow Member States to exercise their own legislative powers and seek to ensure that the expectations of their citizens are fulfilled. However, as regards the question of judging the impact of legislation and the reduction of administrative burdens, further efforts are needed. The report draws attention to the fact that 32% of the administrative burdens in the EU are caused by the overly rigorous application of European law by Member States, which exceeds the requirements of European legislation.

In the new Member States, we encounter these ills quite often. I welcome the fact that reference was made to new opportunities for the European Citizens' Initiative. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the citizens of the European Union have, for the first time, been given the opportunity to participate actively in the creation of European legislation. The report as a whole is a contribution to our legislative activity and I am in favour of its approval.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on better lawmaking because I advocate the need to create legislation for Europeans that is simple, transparent and understandable. However, it is important to make sure that administrative burdens are reduced and that economic, social and environmental impacts of all of the Commission’s new proposals are assessed, with proper scrutiny by an independent body that must be accountable to Parliament.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I fully support the ongoing effort to develop legislation for Europeans that is simple, transparent and understandable. Despite well-intentioned declarations, rigorous studies and clear reports from numerous institutions, the truth is that European legislation continues to suffer from the ills that are frequently pointed out: excessive volume, unsuitable complexity, unintelligibility, and a string of remissions.

This fact not only distances Europeans from decisions made at European level, it also feeds the debate – not always very reasonable or rigorous – regarding European intrusion into matters on which it would not pass judgment or legislate if there were more careful compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Thus, this resolution is on the right path.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This resolution tackles the subject of ‘better lawmaking’, which covers the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality that are indispensible to the proper functioning of the European Union, and includes, for example, the need for impact assessments of the lawmaking process, for the simplification and codifying of existing legislation, and reducing administrative costs arising from European law by 25% by 2012.

The most important aspects of this area are the European citizens’ initiative introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which will enable citizens to actively participate in the process of creating European law, the fact that the European Parliament is now on an equal footing with the Council in the ordinary legislative procedure, and the inclusion of the national parliaments in overseeing the application of the principle of subsidiarity. In this context, under the terms of Article 225 of the Treaty of Lisbon, and because I believe that it is an example of ‘better lawmaking’, I proposed, in an own-initiative report, the drawing up of a specific directive for bio-waste that was adopted by a majority in this Chamber in July: I hope that the Commission will respond to it soon.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I recognise the importance of clear legislation, a reduced administrative burden for businesses, the quality of impact studies, the fact that they should be taken into account (which does not always appear to be the case, far from it), and above all strict compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, to which every legislative act coming out of Brussels must be subject. On the other hand, I find it regrettable that, while the report repeatedly points the finger at what it calls ‘gold-plating’ of legislation by the Member States, it does not mention a highly interesting piece of information that appears in the explanatory statement. Of the thousands of legislative acts in force, 72 alone have imposed 486 information obligations, resulting in over 10 000 implementing acts in the Member States. It seems to me that this information reveals the opposite: that the roots of this evil lie in the Commission’s hyper-regulation. More fundamentally, I wonder whether there is anything other than formal respect for the principle of subsidiarity, in that the Treaties provide for areas in which the European Union has exclusive competence and which cannot be called into question at all, while in all other areas it seems that certain national parliaments are still unable to fully exercise their rights on the subject.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. − (FI) The philosopher Schopenhauer said that we should use ordinary words and say extraordinary things. Many people, politicians and legislators in particular, do just the opposite, probably without realising it. It is for this very reason that the continued examination of legislative practice and its improvement will always be crucial to the work of the European Union. I voted in favour of Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg’s report on better lawmaking because it raises important points on how legislation might be improved. Firstly, Parliament needs to remember its own responsibility: all too often, attention-seeking on the part of EU legislators has led to a situation where a viable directive has got bogged down by detailed amendments during the parliamentary debate. According to Schopenhauer’s precept, simple, transparent legislation does not mean that it is inferior in terms of its content: complexity and casuistry are often a way to hide a lack of ideas. Secondly, I wish to raise the matter of the impact assessments of legislation. A few important legislative initiatives, such as the history of the Emissions Trading Directive, showed that there were serious flaws in the impact assessments. People have to be precise, especially in the drafting of environmental legislation: a problem solved in one place can create a new problem somewhere else. As the resolution states, the Commission must consult interested parties regularly and comprehensively to make an objective evaluation. I think that the SME test launched by the Commission in its internal guidelines is a welcome development. Thirdly, we need to realise that national authorities are often vitally important for lightening administrative burdens. I come from a country where the official machinery is so meticulous in the application of statutes that it frequently results in additional burdens. The responsibility of the Member States cannot be ignored regarding this.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The only merit of this text is to call for an extension to the period of consultation for the social partners on the Commission’s legislative proposals. The rest is appalling: it welcomes the work of the group chaired by Edmund Stoiber, a club of businessmen advocating deregulation on the pretext of reducing administrative burdens; it proposes restricting the right to the Citizens’ Initiative, a paltry instrument left to the sovereign peoples by the Treaty of Lisbon; and it confirms the eight-week period for receiving the national parliaments’ opinions on Commission proposals.

In addition, while the text insists on the need to have understandable European legislation, nowhere does it show any concern that most of the papers by the Commission and working parties are only available in English. What else can one expect of an assembly in which most members do not demand the right to be a true parliament?

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The great complexity of the subjects handled by the EU means that, the majority of the time, the legislation adopted is overly elaborate and not intelligible enough to the great majority of the European public. That is why there is a need for legislation to be prepared that is simple, transparent and comprehensible to Europeans from all Member States. At the same time, in the face of the crisis that we are experiencing, mechanisms need to be found that significantly reduce the high costs of the EU’s legislative process, so that we can be the first to set a good example in terms of use of the EU budget.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) This report claims that the role of the national parliaments is strengthened by the Treaty of Lisbon, but in actual fact the Member States have had to relinquish even more competences to Brussels. There are also de facto situations in everyday life which demonstrate that there are still problems in the legal sphere across borders.

For example, in the case of divorces where the couples are citizens of two different Member States, where some of the EU Member States were at least able to agree on the regulation of the powers given to the law courts, or in the area of the European environmental impact assessment, where Member States have delayed implementation in order to circumvent this requirement for large-scale projects such as the extension of the Temelin nuclear power station. Now, it may well seem sensible to draw up an impact assessment, and the goal of reducing administrative costs and simplifying the law is also to be welcomed, but the EU has already been doing this for years and very few results have been seen by the citizens and the undertakings. This report is not very likely to change this situation and for that reason I have abstained from the vote.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted for the report on better lawmaking, because I believe that better lawmaking is a prerequisite for the effective functioning of the European Union and is one of our citizens’ rights which cannot be achieved without clear laws that the general public can understand. Better regulation in the European Union covers a range of matters, such as carrying out impact assessments, reducing administrative burdens and simplifying and codifying existing legislation. In particular, I agree with the Commission’s programme aimed at reducing the administrative burdens arising from European Union legislation which has been in place since 2005 and which seeks to reduce those burdens by 25% by 2012. It is very important to reduce the costs for businesses operating in the European Union, in order to enable them to function effectively in difficult economic conditions and compete globally and to streamline public administrative procedures. We must focus on the unnecessary requirements to provide information and apply the ‘only once’ principle set out in the Small Business Act. Electronic communication constitutes an excellent tool for reducing administrative burdens. The EU institutions must actively cooperate with the Member States in order to avoid discrepancies in interpretation and the ‘gold-plating’ of legislation. According to the Commission, 32% of EU administrative burdens are the result of decisions by certain Member States, exceeding the requirements of EU legislation and of the ineffectiveness of their administrative procedures. Also, we must not forget that consultations with all the interested parties, social partners in particular, are of fundamental importance in preparing draft legislation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I have strongly supported this report, which stresses the vital importance of making simple, clear laws that EU citizens can understand and emphasises that European institutions must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality when formulating proposals. The report emphasises the Commission’s key role, as the institution with the power of legislative initiative, in drafting high-quality legislative proposals.

Parliament undertakes to make every effort to examine such proposals promptly, in accordance with the appropriate legislative procedure. It also emphasises the importance of cooperating with Member States to ensure that legislation is correctly implemented.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) We strongly support the Commission’s report on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality since it provides for impact assessments of directives which are issued.

These assessments, which must be carried out using serious, independent studies on costs and benefits, are vital in order to avoid making choices which place an excessive burden on citizens and on businesses. In particular, we must prevent new EU legislation giving rise to new administrative burdens.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Better lawmaking has become an essential condition for the European Union to function well and to correctly apply European law based on greater transparency, efficiency and consistent decisions. Correctly applying the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, now redefined after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, must contribute to simpler and more consistent legislation for the European public, and so that decisions at European level can be made in the best interest of Europeans. The Treaty of Lisbon states that the European Parliament must act in partnership with the Council and encourage closer participation of national parliaments in monitoring the application of the principle of subsidiarity.

In addition, the regulatory environment of the European Union must continue to support impact assessments and reduce administrative burdens. As stated in the report for which I voted, only by significantly reducing administrative burdens and efficiently applying European laws to internal legal planning, as well as efficient impact assessments considering the economic, social and environmental domains, will legislation be truly improved.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg’s report since it highlights the need to make simple, clear laws that EU citizens can understand more easily.

Respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the importance of appropriate impact assessments on legislative proposals, the reduction of administrative burdens and the simplification and codification of legislation are therefore key objectives of the ‘better lawmaking’ report. We should also note that simpler, easily understandable laws are central to progress in defining future EU economic and social policy.

Motion for a resolution (B7-0492/2010) - Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B7-0493/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament on the status of the Roma population in Europe because I am deeply concerned about the steps taken by France against this community, and I am obviously in favour of the immediate suspension of this process. France began collective expulsions of European citizens belonging to this minority last August. The Roma community is the largest ethnic minority in the European Union, with populations established in several Member States in the Union.

The right of all European Union citizens to travel and live freely anywhere in Europe is a pillar of European citizenship, as defined by the Treaties. I do not understand, therefore, the deafening silence of the European Commission. The Commission should have reacted by explaining that for expulsion by a Member State of European citizens to be legal, it must be based on reasons of public order, it must be analysed individually, and it must be proportional to the respective threat to the public order and never result in a collective penalty against an ethnic minority. We may also ask ourselves about whether the use of funds to justify ‘voluntary departures’ is not a manipulation of the freedom of citizens and an illegal way of avoiding being defined as expulsions.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) With regard to the debate on the Roma people, the message that I would like to send out is clear: we must put a stop to irrelevant controversies that concern only France, and speak instead as Europeans about a European issue requiring a European response. The current debate illustrates the difficulty we still have today in tackling European issues as Europeans and not as nationals of one or other Member State. European integration means first and foremost sharing certain values, which give rise to certain freedoms, including the freedom of movement, and of certain duties, including that of respecting the conditions that come with exercising one’s right of residence. Today, we must respond to the suffering of a population in need of integration. Suffering which is being exploited by a number of Mafia-like networks and which offers no means of subsistence other than begging, theft and prostitution. That is the main issue to be solved today.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The absolute hypocrisy of the political powers which support the European one-way street is expressed in the motions for resolutions tabled in the European Parliament, which shed crocodile tears about the situation and persecution of the Roma. The European Commission has decided, in the face of general reaction, to set up a special working group to study the problem. They think that this will appease the general outcry about the policy of discrimination and will limit the decisions by the French and Italian governments to deport the Roma. The political spokesmen of capital who alternate in the governance of the Member States and jointly make decisions in the EU believe that condemning these government decisions will absolve them and the EU of responsibility for the constant and systematic discrimination against the Roma.

However, the policy of discrimination is in the very nature of the imperialist, transnational union of capital. The more vulnerable the social group and the greater the profit to capital, the more acute the discrimination. The Roma are increasingly coming up against the EU, its bodies and the powers that support it. Only a joint fight with the workers to overturn the society of exploitation and to fight against the EU and its supporters will bring about respect for their rights and satisfaction of their contemporary needs.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The joint motion for a resolution tabled by the Left seeks to interpret Directive 2004/38/EC in a way that I consider to be completely wrong in political terms, and unlawful.

The text of the directive is clear: there are limits to the freedom of movement in the Member States, and should it consider it appropriate, a government may repatriate EU citizens too. Furthermore, the resolution completely disregards a fundamental fact: Europe has already spent hundreds of millions of euro in recent years on social integration programmes for the Roma but with no positive outcome, given that the central problem is the extremely poor ability of Roma populations to integrate into the local social fabric.

A resolution that disregards the security needs which our Member States’ citizens are asking us to meet, and which, on the contrary, paves the way to an extremely broad interpretation of the principle of free movement of persons, marks a further step towards building a Europe out of touch with people’s sentiments and requirements. I therefore voted against the joint motion for a resolution.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The recent wave of expulsions of ethnic gypsies from France, neatly presented as voluntary repatriation, reignites the debate in Europe on an unresolved problem. Expelling these people to their countries of origin is obviously not going to resolve anything. They will return as soon as they can and no one can stop them because every one of them is a European citizen, free to go where they want as long as the provisions of Directive 38/2004 are respected. My vote firstly expresses the slight reservation I have about the motion for a resolution from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)/European Conservatives and Reformists due to the tacit acceptance that expulsion is not excluded as a possible solution. However, I totally disagree with the joint motion for a resolution proposed by the other political groups which, influenced by the political backlash towards the Sarkozy government, attempts to make the gypsy minority a victim of a majority and not to blame for the situation which they have been happy with for centuries.

The events occurring in France and Italy must remind Europe of the presence of a minority of 10-12 million people, which is already pan-European, with major integration problems. However, hiding them behind national borders is the wrong solution. The only viable solution capable of producing long-term results is one requiring a joint European effort to integrate this minority.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) - The return of over 8 thousand Roma from France to their country of origin – especially Romania and Bulgaria – is certainly a issue which is worthy of the attention of the European Parliament. I am not a supporter of rash judgments and threats but prefer the path of a thorough examination of the situation and its subsequent evaluation. Let us take the path of dialogue with the French side. Let us give the French side a chance to explain everything and only then let us draw conclusions as to whether it is a case of a violation of human rights or whether the approach to the Roma is being carried out within the confines of European law. I expect an active approach from the European Commission in the spirit of its mission as guardian of the Treaties.

It would be a mistake if for reasons of convenience a strategy of obfuscation and attempts to let the problem bubble away were to be adopted. I would also like to add that I believe the only way to move forward on the Roma issue is the acceptance of a unified European strategy covering all the states concerned and having a direct connection to the European Social Fund as well as other financial resources of the EU budget. First and foremost, though, we have to recognise that the Roma problem is a European problem.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the motion for a resolution by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on the situation of the Roma people in Europe. I believe freedom of movement is a fundamental right of European citizens, in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC. This directive also sets out conditions to this freedom, which apply throughout the European Union: persons staying in a Member State for more than three months must be able to show evidence that they have a job or sufficient means to meet their needs or follow a course of study.

It is therefore important to see the social and economic integration of the Roma as a European issue and to find a European solution to it. I therefore call on the Member States and the European Commission to address this issue so that they can provide a European political response to it.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I am in favour of a constructive approach based on dialogue about cultural diversity and what that represents in terms of human wealth. Education is key to the integration process. By offering education and training we are combating exclusion, unemployment and discrimination. We are also guaranteeing a society that is more just, more creative and more dynamic. It is important to integrate ethnic minorities, not just into the labour market but also into all areas of society. Protecting fundamental rights and creating a common area of freedom, security and justice are objectives of European integration. I applaud all those who promote integration at local level, including politicians, teachers and associations. This is because it is often these people who are responsible for access to housing, healthcare, education, culture and improved quality of life.

  Carlo Casini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for Mrs Weber’s motion for a resolution on the Roma in Europe because of its balanced, constructive content.

It is not enough to shout against discrimination, perhaps exploiting real and extremely serious problems for the purposes of party-political wrangling. Naturally, we need to firmly reassert the principles of non-discrimination, of free movement and the resulting rights and obligations – as does the resolution by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) – but more important still is to undertake practical reforms to solve the problems, in order to implement fundamental human rights. Immigration is a European issue and the time has come, as called for by Mrs Weber’s resolution, to tackle it at European level.

The Roma issue only partly overlaps with the issue of integration, and in any case it has specific features which must also be addressed at European level. The structure of the EU was designed on the premise of the territorial stability of the member peoples. A nomadic lifestyle may be a characteristic of a people, which must also be respected, but inclusion must come about in a spirit of solidarity, in accordance with European rules, without the individual Member States playing it by ear. This is the resolution’s proposal which won our support.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this joint motion for a resolution on the situation of the Roma people in Europe. In view of the Commission’s inertia and the silence of its President, José Manuel Barroso, the European Parliament has taken a stand against the policy implemented by the government of the French President towards the Roma community.

I must point out that Mr Sarkozy’s policy is contrary to the principle of the free movement of persons guaranteed by the European Union. Romania is a Member State and the European Union forbids any discrimination among its citizens based on ethnic origin or nationality. Moreover, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been legally binding since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009. The resolution demands a European policy to respond to their situation.

This resolution was needed because Mr Sarkozy’s actions, like those of Mr Berlusconi in Italy, are representative of the right wing in Europe. They want a Europe that suits the banks and multinationals. They agree to the free movement of capital, but when it is a matter of the poor and persecuted they close their borders and throw them out.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE) , in writing. − (PT) In contrast to my colleagues, I do not question the legality of expulsion decisions taken by the French authorities. All Member States may do this by invoking legitimate grounds for internal safety and maintaining the public order. What I do find regrettable is the associated discourse that seems to aim to accuse an entire ethnic group and awaken unacceptable xenophobic reactions. If a European commits a crime, we cannot conclude that all Europeans are criminals. If a Roma robs, we cannot conclude that all Roma are criminals.

It is important to strengthen the support mechanisms for inclusion of the Roma people and to fight any type of discrimination, stimulating the schooling of their children and protecting their fundamental rights. No one is above the law, neither nomadic people nor governments, and everyone must responsibly contribute to solving problems and not magnify drama or increase tension.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. − I support this resolution which expresses deep concern at the measures taken by the French authorities and by other Member States’ authorities targeting Roma and Travellers and providing for their expulsion and urges those authorities immediately to suspend all expulsions of Roma. It further emphasises that mass expulsions are prohibited by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and that such measures are in violation of the EU Treaties and EU law, since they amount to discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity and a breach of the Directive on the free movement of citizens and of their families in the EU. I welcome Commissioner Reding’s belated but strong response that she is convinced that the Commission will have no choice but to initiate infringement proceedings against France for breaches of the Free Movement Directive. Roma are the single most discriminated-against community in Europe. They continue to suffer serious systematic discrimination in education, housing, employment and equal access to healthcare and other public services. However, as EU citizens Roma have the perfect and equal right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This resolution had two objectives: the first is to point out the difficult situation faced by the Roma people, who are discriminated against throughout Europe in all areas of social and economic life, and the second is to denounce the growing stigmatisation of these people in several host countries which, for legal reasons that have little or no basis in European law, are denying them the right to move freely within the EU. The time has come for all of us to shoulder our responsibilities, both by refraining from any populist, discriminatory rhetoric and by conducting effective and proactive policies to facilitate the integration of the Roma people. This applies, in the first instance, to Member States of origin, which must make better use of the funds provided by the European Union, but also to host and transit countries. Thus, in order to tackle this common problem, the resolution calls for a comprehensive plan on Roma integration to be implemented at EU level.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The debate held by Parliament on the Roma issue has turned into a highly left-right political debate. None of the motions for resolutions put to the vote answered the pressing question of how best to meet the needs of the Roma people. It is quite clear that the Roma community is socially and economically discriminated against in the vast majority of Member States, which have not necessarily made use of the integration methods that the Union has made available. If the Roma community has rights, which are clearly being ignored, it also goes without saying that it has duties, like all other European citizens.

The same applies to the Member States, which have a duty to provide these European citizens with somewhere to live and a chance to make a living. With regard to the events for which France has been criticised, and while we are still waiting for the Commission’s decision on the illegality of the operations carried out, I condemn any mass expulsion not based on respect for European law. However, I refuse to fall into the questionable amalgamations contained in the joint motion for a resolution, comparing the events of this summer with deportations. The reference to the Nazi period is totally unacceptable.

  Harlem Désir (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The motion for a resolution on the situation of the Roma people is a major snub for Mr Sarkozy and a scathing call to order from the European Parliament. The stigmatisation of the Roma by the President during a speech on insecurity, the statements by his Minister for Home Affairs against the Romanians and the blatant expulsion of several hundred of them in breach of the law are an insult not only to the values of the French Republic but also to the fundamental values of the Union. Throughout history the Roma have been systematically marginalised, discriminated against and used as scapegoats. Regardless of whether they are French, Romanian or Bulgarian, today they are European citizens. The indignity of the treatment they have received should not be tolerated in a community founded on the principles of law, freedom, equality and non-discrimination, which lie at the heart of the EU Treaty and its Charter of Fundamental Rights. The resolution is therefore a firm and unambiguous condemnation of the French Government’s actions and of the discriminatory rhetoric that accompanied them. It condemns expulsions in breach of the law. It demands that the governments of Europe and the Commission coordinate their actions to integrate the Roma, using the funds allocated by Parliament.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the approval of the motion for a resolution on the situation of the Roma people in Europe and violation of the law on freedom of movement. I think that the European Parliament’s position is extremely beneficial in Europe’s social and economic climate. Measures like those taken by the French Government must be replaced by a responsible, common European position, which will take into account both the characteristics of this minority and the right of free movement which they enjoy as European citizens. I hope that this position adopted by the European Parliament will strengthen and create a precedent for applying the framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia on the basis of criminal law, and the action plan for implementing the Stockholm Programme. The Commission must take urgent action in line with recommendations approved in the resolution and condemn the discriminatory actions taken against the Roma ethnic group. The Commission must also take seriously its role as coordinator for Member States in implementing the European Roma integration strategies and plans in the EU.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted on the motion for a resolution on the situation of Roma and on freedom of movement in the European Union because I condemn the steps taken by the French authorities and by the authorities of other Member States regarding the Roma people and their expulsion. I hope that these authorities will suspend expulsions of the Roma people, which are barred by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I remind you that these steps are contrary to the Treaties and to EU legislation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This motion for a resolution arises at a time of contradictory statements regarding the expulsion of members of the Roma ethnic group from French territory. I believe that this matter is too serious to be debated in a way that is more emotional than rational and deserves a different political climate allowing a debate than avoids clichés. I am therefore of the opinion that the House should not have decided on this ill-timed scheduling.

That said, I repudiate, as I will always repudiate any political, military or police reaction against members of any ethnic group simply because they belong to it. The history of the 20th century was unfortunately too full of situations in which people were condemned not for what they had done, but for who they were. The brutal legacy of Nazism and communism proved this beyond doubt. I believe that the Union’s Member States have an incomparable record concerning their treatment of ethnic and religious minorities.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The freedom of movement is a noble concept, but it is in danger of remaining an abstract concept unless it is accompanied by rigour and legality. Whoever denies these principles in the name of hypocritical do-goodery is responsible for fostering hostile sentiments against the Roma.

The freedom of movement can never imply freedom to settle illegally, forcing women, children and minors, who live in disgraceful sanitary conditions, to steal, to become prostitutes, to beg, with paths towards integration into schools and employment often being refused. The EU has equipped itself with detailed rules on the free movement of European citizens, laying down guarantees, requirements and sanctions. However, in practice, these rules have proved to be outdated following the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU and the exodus of tens of thousands of Roma to the West.

Therefore we urgently need to tighten up Directive 2004/38/EC, currently in force, which stipulates that EU citizens who, after a period of three months in another Member State are unable to maintain themselves lawfully, may be expelled. Expulsion, today inapplicable unless economic incentives are provided and it occurs on a voluntary basis, should be replaced by the concept of compulsory expulsion and repatriation, in the same way as for non-EU citizens. Furthermore, mandatory mechanisms should be laid down to keep citizens expelled from another Member State, in violation of Directive 2004/38/EC, in their country of origin.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The expulsion of the Roma by the French Government and other European Union governments is a reprehensible act. Unfortunately, this racist and xenophobic act, which seeks to distract us from the serious social crisis we are experiencing and find scapegoats, has not received immediate repudiation from the European Commission and the Council. We harbour no illusions about the hypocritical role played by EU institutions in this entire process, especially if we remember that they are so diligent in their criticism and interference in third countries.

In this case, however, dealing with citizens of EU Member States, they have folded their arms or made merely circumstantial statements. Where, when it comes to it, is the European Union that claims to be one of the world’s greatest defenders of human rights? No posture other than condemnation would be acceptable here. Experience shows us that when it comes to dealing with France, one of the leaders of the EU, discretion is always used.

What is needed here is a break with the neoliberal policies that conservatives and social democrats continue to practice. New policies are urgently needed to promote employment with rights, welfare and social progress for all. This is the way to prevent governments such as the French from turning racism and xenophobia into state policies, and the transformation of the EU into a police force for Member States as some would have it, taking advantage of the reprehensible acts of certain governments.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The joint motion for a resolution tabled by the Members on the left is marked by repeated appeals to the idea of equality, but contradicts itself in several places.

I have to put it on record that I am opposed to the document tabled in view of the fact that it postulates equality of rights between Roma communities and citizens of the host countries without, however, substantively asserting any equality of duties between the two sides. I must also dissent because it does not establish a legal position but confines itself to criticising the policies implemented by the governments of Italy and France.

Furthermore, the document completely ignores the confirmed problems of law and order, which some Member States are trying to control with the means that the law places at their disposal.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Although I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution, I would still like to make the following remark. My support for this resolution is in no way intended as an endorsement of certain extreme comments made during Tuesday afternoon’s debate. Given all the sensitivity that treatment of the issue in question deserves, attempting to compare the returns of Roma with Second World War concentration and extermination camps amounts to trivialising the Holocaust. That is the surest way to stifle the debate. What is needed in this instance is a calm, collected, responsible debate. This comparison smacks either of bad faith or of immaturity. Either way, it does no service to the Roma cause.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Appalled as I was by the measures taken by France to expel the Roma people (measures that had already previously been taken by other States), I immediately co-signed Parliament’s resolution, and I welcome its adoption. The events currently taking place in France are unacceptable. France is conducting, in full knowledge of the facts, a discriminatory policy that runs counter to the founding and fundamental values and principles of the European Union. In first place, the principles of European citizenship and of free movement within the European Union: the Roma people are European citizens in their own right. In second place, the principles of non-discrimination and of respect for minorities: under no circumstances should such measures be taken solely on the grounds that a person belongs to a minority. Today it is the Roma, tomorrow it will be the Arabs, and the day after the Jews, and why not women and then the poor? All of these principles underpin our Union and are binding on all of us, and in particular on the individual Member States. Furthermore, it is high time that we had a European strategy on Roma inclusion. The European Union needs stronger political will: social integration, housing, education and the fight against discrimination are all areas in which the European Union must act.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the resolution on the situation of the Roma people in Europe as the text explicitly condemns the measures taken by the French authorities. The resolution reminds us of the right of all European citizens to move and reside freely throughout the European Union, and of the basic principle of equal treatment of citizens and of non-discrimination. Nicolas Sarkozy and the government are mistaken if they think they can flout the values of the Union, European law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights with total impunity: the European Parliament has vigorously called them to order, and it would do the same to any Member State tempted by such practices. The resolution also makes the European Commission face up to its responsibilities, calling on it to stop dithering and finally to implement a clear and determined strategy for the inclusion of Roma communities, in all areas – access to housing, employment, education and health – in order to put a stop to their unacceptable exclusion.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I have supported this joint motion for a resolution because I am convinced that we urgently need to condemn the policy of the French Government, which has deliberately stigmatised an ethnic group by associating it directly with criminality, for the sole purpose of diverting attention away from the difficulties with its home affairs policy. This exploitation of the Roma issue is unacceptable in my view, and Parliament ought to react. Progressive Members, including the Social Democrats, have therefore demanded an end to this discriminatory rhetoric and to the collective expulsions, whereas the European right wing has largely supported the French Government in its drift to the right. We urgently need to implement a global strategy to tackle this subject, which affects 10-12 million EU citizens. This resolution deplores the lack of any reaction from the Commission, which is, however, supposed to be the guardian of the Treaties and as such should have condemned the French Government’s actions. The collective expulsions effectively make a mockery of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The motion for a resolution tabled by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the Greens, as well as the Confederal Group of the European United Left also contains several unfounded and even unacceptable statements. As I already indicated in the debate on Tuesday regarding the questions addressed to the European Council and Commission, political opinions and legal assessments are two different things, and while we may find the expulsions deplorable or excessive, only the European Commission has the competence to assess the legality of the steps taken by France. In my opinion, to accuse a country of a serious infringement based on unsubstantiated information, prior to the Commission’s pending assessment and not knowing its results diminishes Parliament’s authority. However, as rapporteur for Parliament’s European Roma strategy, I felt that in the current situation it is imperative for the European Parliament to formulate the progressive recommendations made in the motion in an official resolution.

It is therefore important to state that the EU and its Member States share the responsibility for Roma integration, which requires a comprehensive EU-level strategy. This should be created with the inclusion of Roma communities from grassroots levels to international NGOs, including all aspects of planning, implementation and control. We must also state that a complex development programme must be created, which targets simultaneously all related policy areas and facilitates immediate intervention in ghetto areas struggling with serious structural disadvantages.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) I voted for the motion for a resolution moved by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) because I consider that we must adopt and implement a common European strategy on the Roma issue, which would overcome the social and economic exclusion of the Roma people. The problems of minorities in Europe are complicated and sensitive, and they are often exploited for narrow political ends. Political manipulation that essentially fails to tackle problems at their root but complicates the integration of minorities I find unacceptable. Proper EU financing and the cooperation of Member States in order to implement it are essential to encourage the social integration of Roma people. Several instruments that could be used to eradicate Roma exclusion, including the possibility of using the European Social Fund, are already at the EU’s disposal. They will be supplemented by the opportunity to use up to 2% of the common European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) finance for housing expenditure for socially excluded communities. That is why it is important to ensure practical action is taken for the integration of the Roma people, beginning in those Member States whose nationals they are. At the same time, of course, we must guarantee freedom of movement within the Union, and when expelling EU citizens from a Member State, every case must be considered on its merits, and the decision for expulsion must be based on the appropriate decision of a court.

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), in writing. − I and my ECR Group colleagues agree with much of this resolution and we remain wholeheartedly committed to providing equal rights, opportunities and the freedoms laid out within EU law for all people, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

However, whilst we fully support the integration of the Roma people within the European Union, we believe that the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, should complete a thorough legal investigation into the matter before this Parliament makes its final judgement. For these reasons we have abstained on this resolution.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is essential to impose a little order on this debate, in which a scandalous confusion reigns. Some of the remarks made in this House and included in this motion for a resolution are unacceptable. This Chamber should stop being a forum for political point-scoring about Member States’ national policies. France has been strict in applying Community law and the Commission has confirmed that. Moreover, I appeal to the Commission to deal with this dossier as quickly as possible and to propose concrete measures to help integrate the Roma in the European Union.

The time for statements of good intentions is over; we must now implement a truly European strategy for the integration of the Roma in Europe. What has happened to the EUR 20 billion approved by the Members of this House and allocated by the Member States under cohesion policy? This money does not benefit those for whom it is intended. We must put an end to this situation and take greater control of the good management of European funds.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Union needs to take strong action against the discriminatory and brutal policy of which the Roma are victims in France. Freedom of movement is not the prerogative of capital. The Eurocrats may not like it, but it is a right shared by all European citizens. It is the duty of all Europeans to defend the rights of Roma citizens, who have been made scapegoats by the current French Government. The EU must set an example and condemn these xenophobic government policies. Not to do so would encourage the excesses of governments that are already seriously at fault.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) For several decades, France has been an exemplary country in terms of integrating citizens originating from all over the world that had chosen the country as their destination. It should be remembered that Romanian citizens will only enjoy full freedom of movement in 10 countries of the EU, including France, from January 2014. Moreover, all EU citizens can be obliged to provide proof of their means of support after staying longer than three months in a country that is not their own. If they prove to be too great a burden on the social security system of the host country, measures can be decided on, under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC. While the mass expulsion of Romanian citizens of Roma ethnicity can be questioned, people who protest violently against it should also be concerning themselves with a great deal more, and with the same intensity. They should be concerning themselves with the children whose families generally prevent them from attending school; with children and women who are used in begging; with begging adopted as a life choice; and with the rejection of work and recourse in its stead to the social security systems of third countries. That is why I voted as I did.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this joint motion for a resolution tabled by the left, the centre-left and the liberals in the House because President Sarkozy’s French Government must be asked to immediately halt the expulsion of the gipsy population. We ask the Commission and the Council to also act along the same lines. We condemn not only the deportations in France, but also those in Germany, Austria, Sweden, Belgium and Italy. We need a European strategy for combating the poverty and discrimination that the Roma people suffer in Europe. The Roma people have been part of the European Union since the enlargements in 2004 and 2007. For this reason they have a right, like any European citizen, to free movement and residence throughout the EU.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) In the current Roma debate, I ultimately voted in favour of the motion for a resolution tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). It demonstrates the problem in an objective manner and also proposes sensible solutions. The motion tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, on the other hand, demonstrates how out of touch with the real world the approach of these politicians is. They talk about ‘serious systematic discrimination’ and of a general anti-Gypsyism, and in so doing completely disregard the fact that the Roma are also required to comply with the law just like any other European citizen.

That is quite clearly a thorn in the side of the Left when they complain about the taking of the fingerprints of expelled Roma. This, in their opinion, is unfair discrimination. However, the same people have no problem with requiring all other citizens to provide fingerprints when a passport is issued. That is the logic of the Left. Even if the Sarkozy government acted out of opportunism, this reaction is nevertheless sensible and necessary in order to protect France’s own citizens. I therefore voted against the motion for a resolution tabled by the Left.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE), in writing. − (NL) The Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) delegation voted in favour of motion for a resolution B7-0504/2010 on the expulsions of the Roma people. However, this does not change the fact that, in accordance with the Directives, people can always be forcibly repatriated to their countries of origin in individual cases if the provisions of these European Directives warrant this.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the motion for a resolution initiated by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) as it proposes consistent, long-term measures aimed at resolving the Roma problem in the European Union. The PPE Group’s motion for a resolution also featured explicitly and directly the request for Romania’s accession to the Schengen area not to be linked to the Roma issue. Following the rejection of this motion, I voted for the joint motion for a resolution from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and others, which, although less extensive, offers a largely fair point of view.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the European Conservatives and Reformists Group on the situation of the Roma people in Europe for the following reasons: 1) it focuses on the actions (European strategy: action plan, take-up of resources, cooperation between Member States and others, involvement of the Roma and so forth) which need to be taken in order to reverse the exclusion experienced by the Roma community in various European countries; 2) it does not confine itself to apportioning blame, 3) it does not take the attention of public opinion away from the essence of the problem: the failure to date of policies to integrate the Roma, 4) it does not contribute to sterile political confrontation.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) It is the duty of Member States and the European institutions to develop and support the implementation of the measures required to create a political and social environment which is conducive to implementing measures for Roma integration in the areas of education, health, social protection and labour market inclusion. At the same time, the situation of Roma women provides another interesting aspect as they are victims of double discrimination: on account of their gender and belonging to a minority group.

I call on the European Commission to devise an inclusive European strategy which will address the specific issues of the cross-border, minority Roma community. EU institutions should show a minimum level of institutional interest in monitoring the fight against discrimination and supporting Roma integration.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (ES) The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance welcomes the vote by Parliament, which has fully carried out its role as the guarantor of fundamental values in the EU. It has refused to keep silent about the situation in France, and has also not forgotten to criticise the late and limited response by the Commission. Indeed, these expulsions are crucial evidence for Europe in terms of its capacity to comply with its own rules laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is the responsibility of the Commission to take the appropriate measures, starting with completing its analysis report as soon as possible pointing clearly to the governments that are responsible.

Today’s vote opens up a crucial phase for the credibility of our institution. However, the battle for respect for the rights of minorities is not completely over. Now more than ever there is a need to acknowledge all the rights of minorities in the EU and ensure that those rights are put into practice.

  Catherine Soullie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I deeply regret the fact that Parliament has adopted the motion for a resolution tabled by the Socialists, Liberals, Greens and Communists regarding the situation of the Roma people in Europe.

I feel it is unacceptable to criticise France in that way, since it is not the only Member State to return Roma to their own country. The establishment of certain Roma camps is clearly prejudicial to public order and sometimes even a violation of the right to private property, and the burden it places on our social security system entitles the French Government to take such measures in accordance with the provisions of the European Treaties. The returns to Romania and Bulgaria were carried out in accordance with French and European law and in strict compliance with human rights.

I welcome the decision by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) to set up a working group on Roma integration in order to find a European solution to the issue of nomadism. We need to take a constructive approach to this subject.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) We abstained from the vote on the motion for a resolution tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and by the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, as we cannot agree with the point seeking to promote the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area, since these countries are not capable of guaranteeing equal social, economic and security conditions. Our position is consistent with the clear ‘no’ to their accession to the EU that we voiced in the past.

On the other hand, we voted firmly against the resolution tabled by the Left because it undermines the autonomy and discretionary power of countries such as France and Italy which have decided to take a hard line against people who do not respect the law. A statistic which should give us food for thought is that since the recent arrival in France of a large number of Roma from Eastern European countries, burglaries have risen by over 200%.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing concerning motion for a resolution B7-0492/2010. − (PT) The Roma ethnic group is a minority, the majority of whose members are citizens of a Union Member State. European citizens have the right to move freely and settle in any EU Member State, as long as they comply with the provisions of Directive 2004/38/CE. The restriction of this freedom is, however, possible for reasons of public order, security or public health. Nevertheless, we cannot forget that a measure such as the expulsion of EU citizens must be applied on a case-by-case basis and not attributed to groups or communities.

The solution to the problem lies in the implementation of a strategy favourable to the Roma, allowing cooperation between states, institutions and other parties and the involvement of Roma communities in its planning and execution, as well as the setting up of a programme for intervention in marginalised areas with structural disadvantages. I am in mind of the opportunity offered by the European Regional Development Fund legislation concerning the eligibility of housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities and the need for better action by the European Platform for Roma Inclusion. Equally important is the development of a constructive dialogue between states and Roma community members. For the reasons mentioned above, I am voting in favour of the motion for a resolution.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing on joint motion for a resolution RC-B7-0493/2010. − (PT) The Roma ethnic group is a minority, the majority of whose members are citizens of a European Union Member State. All European citizens have the rights and duties set out in Directive 2004/38/CE concerning the right to freedom of movement in the European Union, according to the conditions stipulated therein. Member States do, however, have the right to restrict freedom of movement and the immigration of citizens of the European Union into their territory, regardless of nationality, for reasons of public order, security or public health.

Member States are not obliged to inform the European Commission before applying this public order clause, which remains their sovereign right. Although I share the conviction that the European Union and its Member States share responsibility for encouraging the inclusion of the Roma community, through an integrated strategy, and through cooperation between the Member States, the European Commission, the other European institutions and other interested parties in compliance with the principle of non discrimination, I am unable to vote in favour of condemning the late and limited reaction of the Commission to the situation of the Roma in Europe and verifying compliance with human rights, as this is a responsibility shared by all. For these reasons, I am abstaining from voting on this motion for a resolution.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the joint motion for a resolution on the situation of Roma and on freedom of movement in the European Union as I believe that the situation of roughly 10-12 million Roma requires a European integration strategy for them. Free movement of persons is one of the EU’s fundamental principles. European citizens of Roma origin, regardless of their nationality, also have the right to move around the EU freely. They, like any European citizen, have both rights and obligations. If a person, regardless of their ethnic origin and nationality, commits offences, they will face the full force of the law. However, there is no nationality or ethnic group associated with criminality. I believe that a whole ethnic group or population of a country cannot and must not be stigmatised by actions committed by some of their members. The Treaty of Lisbon gives binding legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 2 of this document clearly states that the EU is based on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, as well as respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. I believe that the EU and Member States have a shared responsibility to promote Roma integration via an EU Roma strategy.

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against the joint motion for a resolution proposed by the Left because this document puts the issue of the Roma minority in Europe on the wrong track. The resolution adopted during plenary is an ideological text rather than a concrete action plan. The resolution tabled by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is basically a show of hypocrisy covered up by ‘progressive’ political discourse. This resolution is attempting to make us believe that now we are all racists.

That is except for left-wing politicians, of course. The resolution was drafted and voted on without any proper knowledge of the Roma’s situation, either in Eastern or Western Europe. The Roma issue is not a national problem and cannot be described either in terms of racial policy. The Roma issue goes back a long way in Europe’s history and still remains unresolved. The use of clichés and the political agenda, mainly in the form of the socialists’ clash with the right-wing administration in France, will not resolve anything, apart from the left wing’s electoral objectives. I voted for the resolution from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) precisely because this document suggests measures and calls for coordination at European level. The Roma issue is not a question of racism, but of realism. If the Roma issue is dealt with according to the terms stipulated by the left, it will quickly resurface and will trigger new crises in one Member State or another. The outcome of today’s vote is regrettable and unproductive.

Motion for a resolution (B7-0491/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on long-term care for older people, as I consider it to be of the greatest importance to guarantee conditions for active ageing, with greater assistance to ensure a better quality of life for all older people in the EU. This motion for a resolution aims to reduce inequalities in health and protect older people in the European Union and, in terms of healthcare provision, fight against the inadequate treatment to which older people are often subjected, adopting more efficient human-resources strategies to reduce staff shortages, contributing to spreading information and communications technology, and encouraging care in the family and autonomy for old people.

I hope that with this proposal the European Commission will collect data on long-term care best practices that could be an added value for the European Year for Active Ageing and Intergenerational Solidarity (2012), with the goal of reducing any kind of discrimination, improving long-term care and the impact of poverty among older people. I also recommend the creation of an active ageing observatory to promote best practices.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Even though some countries such as Italy and Germany are more likely to be affected than others, all the Member States of the European Union are having to deal with ageing populations. We must take this challenge on board. However, we still too often act in the short term and forget to make provision for the change that is taking place in our societies. This is an excellent resolution as it provides a brief and fairly comprehensive overview of the ways in which we shall have to adapt (infrastructure, health systems, interpersonal relationships, and so on). It is vital that we continue to take action on this matter. We must avoid today the potential difficulties of tomorrow.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I support this report. According to the employment policy guidelines, Member States must make every effort to achieve the most important objective – to ensure sustainable growth and strengthen job creation. We must also resolve Member States’ long-term problems: demographic change, globalisation and the creation of new technologies. To achieve this we must invest in sustainable growth that would promote the preservation of existing jobs and the emergence of new jobs, with particular attention paid to small and medium-sized enterprises, which create most jobs in Europe. We must also pursue the following social objectives of employment: promoting quality education and lifelong learning among existing and future workers; combating unemployment, paying particular attention to promoting the employment of young people, the elderly, the disabled and women, and viewing non-standard work contracts more favourably.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) With the demographic changes taking place in the European Union, the number of older people is growing rapidly and we must address major challenges: meet the higher demand for healthcare, adapt health systems to the needs of an ageing population while keeping them sustainable in societies with a smaller workforce. At present, poverty is very widespread among elderly people, because in many EU Member States pensions and other social benefits are being reduced dramatically, so it is important to devise sustainable financing systems for long-term care provision to finance eldercare provision. We must also set minimum standards for all care sectors, including minimum wages.

I would like to point out that we must reduce health inequalities and safeguard older people in the community and in care settings. We must also fight against the social exclusion of older people and any type of discrimination based on age. We must safeguard the conditions for active ageing and ensure a dignified and fulfilling life for older people.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Quality education and training are a must in terms of personal fulfilment of the individual, equality, fighting social exclusion and poverty, active citizenship and social cohesion. I call on the Member States to regulate the qualification requirements for welfare workers caring for older people and to devise and implement advanced training systems to help raise the educational level of those working in the eldercare system and hence improve the quality of the services offered. It is essential for investment in the provision of specialist geriatric medicine to be increased in order to increase the quality of the care provided for older people.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) The Danish Social Democrats do not believe that minimum wages, as specified in paragraph 12 of the resolution, should be introduced. That being said, the Danish Social Democrats have chosen to vote in favour of the resolution, because, apart from this call to introduce minimum wages, it contains a number of views and initiatives that we support.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Parliament’s decision to adopt a motion for a resolution on long-term care for older people is beneficial because these people, as European citizens, need to continue to exercise their rights and freedom, preserve their place in society and keep in touch with the other generations. I believe that the EU and Member States need to take into consideration population ageing in order to establish cooperation aimed at setting up a sustainable system for funding the provision of care for the elderly, as well as for providing suitable professional training to staff who work in the sector, offering them an appropriate level of salary, which will help improve the quality of the services provided. Furthermore, urban and spatial development services need to adopt measures facilitating access for the elderly and persons with reduced mobility where they need it: social services tailored to their needs, social and cultural activities. The relevant authorities need to regularly inform elderly people about their entitlements and about changes to legislation which affect them.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing − (PT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution because I advocate access to quality health services and proper care for older people. In the light of the demographic changes of recent years, in particular the ageing of the population, older people must be supported so that they can live with dignity and independence in their own homes.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We must maintain a high standard of care for older people, and this care must be a prioritised part of the welfare system that is developed in line with demographic change. We fully understand the setting of requirements for minimum social standards for all contracts in the care sector, but we think it is unfortunate that minimum wages are specified, something that we do not always have in Sweden, as it is the responsibility of the social partners to set wage levels. The setting of wage levels does not fall within the competence of the EU, either. We do not believe that this situation should change in any way, but have, nevertheless, chosen to vote in favour of the motion for a resolution, as we believe that the main issue is a very important one.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) With increased average life expectancy and the growing vulnerability in the situation of older people due to their dependence on social services that are often inadequate and cause fragmentation in family relationships, we are facing a situation in which many people, at this most difficult stage of their lives, find themselves alone and without the financial means to support themselves and, in many cases, in situations of tragic poverty, therefore making it necessary for national governments to assume the provision of basic care.

In Europe, as in Portugal, the issue of continued care is very important to the CDS-PP (the Democratic and Social Centre − People’s Party), and for several years we have clearly supported the creation of suitable networks to provide this kind of care and support for families including older people, and for private care providers. It is with satisfaction that I see that the motion for a resolution here proposes that national governments should support informal continued care providers, often family members, and that these carers, who are taking on the role which under other circumstances would be the state’s, be given the conditions necessary to care for their older relatives without being penalised, for example professionally.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In recent years, a demographic change towards an older population has been recorded in the EU. This phenomenon has created serious budgetary pressures and led to large amounts of extra healthcare infrastructure and social services being sought. Policies are therefore necessary for the inclusion of older people and for combating all forms of age-based discrimination. I am surprised that, in many Member States, funding and provision of specialist geriatric medicine has been reduced over the years. The provision of care to the older population should be of high quality.

Therefore, the Member States should have policies for improving specialist training. I would also remind you of the enormous contribution of voluntary bodies, religious organisations and charities in this area. The Member States should be particularly vigilant with regard to guaranteeing the protection of the fundamental rights of people receiving care over a long period. The Member States should provide support, as a matter of priority, for the establishment of home palliative care units, and devise and implement advanced training systems to help raise the educational level of those working in the eldercare system. The Commission should prepare a study which will give a clearer picture of the increasing requirements for the care of older people and an estimate of the anticipated specialist provision for the period until 2020.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Scientific and technological progress and the positive evolution of civilisations have enabled people’s life expectancies to be prolonged. Now, however, with neoliberal propositions and capitalism’s permanent goal of ever greater profits, governments are tending to give less value to the role of older people and considering an ageing population to be a burden; this is unacceptable.

In this motion for a resolution, even though it does not address the root of the problem, namely the reasons for the devaluing of social support, there is a call to fight against older people’s social exclusion and against all forms of age discrimination.

It also condemns the reduction in specialist geriatric medicine, the lack of commitment to training those specialised in caring for older people, and the lack of community and home care infrastructure, as well as of care for older people in conditions accessible to all.

We therefore endorse this call, but will continue to fight against the causes of this situation and for a real change in policies to favour older people.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) On reading the motion for a resolution from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on which we have voted, I am reminded of the painful and shameful episode of the 2003 heatwave in which over 15 000 elderly people died in France. The staff shortage in retirement homes and an unhealthy trend in our societies, especially in my country, that leaves many of our older people alone and destitute are at the root of that tragedy. Nor can I forget, however, the huge responsibility borne by the European Union for the disintegration of our social security systems, through the economic and trade policies that it applies, the budgetary Malthusianism that it tries to impose, and its purely actuarial vision of social security, which it shares with our political leaders. I hold it jointly responsible with the governments that support it for the low levels of wages, purchasing power and pensions. Nor can I forget the death culture that a large number of texts debated in this Chamber convey. Frankly, therefore, I do not feel it is ever relevant to give Brussels any power whatsoever over policies regarding older people, not even the power to draw up statistics.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. − (SV) Explanation of vote: we have today voted in favour of the motion for a resolution (B7-0491/2010) on long-term care for older people. However, we would like to point out that we do not agree with everything in the resolution. Our main concern is the call to introduce minimum wages. In this regard, we would uphold the principle of subsidiarity. Gunnar Hökmark, Christofer Fjellner, Anna Ibrisagic, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This is an issue to which we in my party have been giving great prominence and which we consider of great importance, in order for the latter part of the lives of older people with serious health problems to be lived in the best possible conditions. It is therefore necessary, despite the crisis, to channel the most possible resources into achieving the best possible support for all those receiving long-term care, in order for older people to have a good quality of life. That is what my party has been advocating in Portugal, and we have tabled several proposals to the Portuguese Parliament on this issue.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) Demographic change in recent years, especially the ageing of the population, has resulted in an increase in budgetary pressure and a high demand for better health and social care infrastructures. I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on long-term care for older people, which encourages the Member States to combat the social exclusion of these people and all types of discrimination on the grounds of age, because the Member States need to guarantee access to adequate health and social care as a fundamental principle of the European solidarity model.

It is important to acknowledge the importance of quality and continuity of care and therefore the Member States must introduce programmes providing assistance and care at home for older people or continue them in those countries where they already exist, under the administration of municipal and local authorities in their respective areas of competence. Guarantees must be established in all the Member States to protect the fundamental rights of people receiving long-term care.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I fully support this motion for a resolution. I hope that further action will follow the European Parliament’s declaration. It is essential to react sharply and effectively to any and every instance of discrimination against the elderly. It is essential to draw up a directive legally binding on national governments which will provide for legal action against acts intended to reduce pensions and non-compliance with other obligations incumbent on the state with regard to the elderly. In 2009, in my country, Latvia, in order to ‘plug a hole’ in the budget, the government reduced pensions, thereby destroying people’s hopes for social stability and fairness. I voted for this resolution in the hope that similar infringements and the malicious exercise of power will not happen again.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) We have already been seeing for many years that it is no longer feasible to finance short- or long-term care. Nevertheless, all measures in this regard have been put on the back burner and those affected and their relatives have been left out in the cold. Just as in the case of bringing up children, the services of caring relatives and voluntary workers in the community are far too undervalued and social networks are destroyed in the name of capitalism. Instead, people have been persuaded that unbridled mass immigration is necessary in order to guarantee that the social systems are maintained and therefore also the care of the elderly.

The opposite is true, in fact. This has only speeded up the impending financial collapse. The debate about the financial viability and financial burden of care is coming far too late. If we now want to give priority to developing palliative care and medical care at home, it will not really be possible to change our minds and do a U-turn on this. The desire to tackle the abuse of elderly people in care is, in any case, to be welcomed. The list of demands is years overdue. I have, nevertheless, voted in favour of it.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I am very happy with the adoption of this resolution, which basically: calls on Member States to consider the demographic developments of recent years – and especially the ageing of population – leading to increased budgetary pressures and high demand for better health and social care infrastructure; encourages Member States to fight against the social exclusion of elderly people and any type of discrimination based on age; and reminds Member States that ensuring access to adequate health and care services is a fundamental principle of the European model of solidarity.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The adoption of this motion for a resolution once again demonstrates that the European Parliament and its Members are particularly committed to the issue of healthcare for older people. In an ageing society, protecting and enhancing our ‘silver years’ is becoming increasingly important.

Continuing training for people working in this field, a call for all Member States to launch information campaigns aimed at older people on dietary choices and prevention of the risks of dehydration, the development of so-called ‘e-Health’ in order to tackle inefficiency and waste are just some of the measures proposed by this resolution.

No Member State may evade the essential obligation to improve the conditions of these men and women who are often left to fend for themselves. I therefore hope that, with the aim of truly creating a ‘society for all’, the adoption of this resolution can provide fresh impetus to the Member States so that people of different ages have the opportunity to participate actively in community life, without the community leaving them to their fate.

  Alf Svensson (PPE) , in writing. − (SV) I have today voted in favour of resolution B7-0491/2010 on long-term care for older people. However, there is one paragraph in the resolution that I do not support. In paragraph 12, the resolution calls for minimum standards for all contracts in the care sector, including minimum wages. This is something to which the Swedish Christian Democrats are opposed. It is also alien to the Swedish model of collective agreements. Our Swedish model has proven to be in the interests of both workers and employers. I firmly believe that wages are a matter that should be decided by means of an agreement between the social partners and not something in which politicians should be trying to outbid each other.

Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B7-0484/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the situation of the Jordan River with special regard to the Lower Jordan River area as I believe it essential to call attention to the destruction of this river, especially of its lower reaches. The proposal requests the governments of Israel and Jordan, as well as the Palestinian Authority, and the support of the European Union, to create a Jordan River Basin Commission, which would be open to other riparian countries.

I feel a management plan is needed capable of repairing the devastation caused to the Jordan River, along with the concession of financial and technical support for its rehabilitation, in particular of its lower reaches. The question of water resource management, with an equitable sharing of water that respects the needs of all people living in the region, is of utmost importance to establishing lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. I therefore feel efforts should be intensified in terms of supplementary financial and technical support to water management projects, encouraging its equitable use and the transfer of the necessary technology to countries in the region.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I support the resolution on the situation of the Jordan River, because it calls for concrete action on an issue that has a direct effect on the economic, social and cultural well-being of the peoples of the region. The severe degradation of the Jordan River impacts on all aspects of the livelihood of the communities dependent on the water resources of the River. In calling for jointly planned, cross-border solutions to the issues of pollution and over-exploitation of water resources, the resolution underlines the confidence and peace-building outcomes that can follow on from Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian cooperation in facing the problem of the River Jordan’s degradation.

The resolution rightly stresses the need to include plans and proposals for the rehabilitation of the Jordan River in the Union’s relations with the riparian countries. Similarly, given the pressing nature of the problem, the EU should prioritise rehabilitation of the Jordan River in its development projects in the region.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the situation of the Jordan River because its value in environmental, natural beauty, cultural, historical, agricultural and economic terms must be preserved. Proper management of the water resources that respects the needs of all people in the region is also of great importance to the stability of the Middle East.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The problems of the Jordan River go well beyond normal concern over environmental degradation of water courses. As recognised by the resolution we have adopted, the Jordan is not just a river. Its significance goes well beyond the condition of the river, affecting the political, symbolic and religious spheres of states, nations and peoples of various latitudes.

The particular importance conferred on it by humanity’s history justifies the concern of Europe and, in particular, of this Chamber, over its fate. I hope and wish that the states bordering the Jordan will be able to put their traditional differences and mistrust aside and join together in avoiding further degradation of this river.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Jordan River, and the Lower Jordan River area in particular, is a cultural landscape of universal significance, with great historical, religious and environmental importance. Unfortunately, it has been devastated by overexploitation, pollution, and mismanagement of its flow, leading to a 50% loss in biodiversity. The rehabilitation of the Jordan River, and the Lower Jordan River area in particular, is of the greatest importance for the Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian local communities facing similar water challenges.

It also offers tremendous economic and mutual trust-building benefits. The existence of active cooperation between governments, civil society organisations and local communities concerned can make a major contribution to regional peace-building efforts. Therefore, we call on the authorities of the affected countries to cooperate and rehabilitate the Jordan River by drawing up and implementing policies which focus on achieving tangible results in the areas of domestic and agricultural water-demand management, and water- and natural-resource conservation. We also call on the Council, the Commission and EU Member States to encourage and support a comprehensive plan to rectify the devastation of the Jordan River.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As already stated in the motion for a resolution, the Jordan River basin, especially its lower reaches, constitutes a cultural landscape of universal significance and of great historical, symbolic, religious, environmental, agricultural and economic importance both in the Middle East and further afield. The river’s current state of ecological degradation and the resulting levels of pollution give serious cause for concern.

The desirable and needed restoration of the Jordan River – an environmental, social and cultural imperative – is, of course, inseparable from the region’s geopolitical context. It must be recognised that the Palestinian population of the West Bank is already facing a serious water shortage due to a large part of this being used by Israel and the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and also to the continued occupation by Israel of part of the Golan Heights, where many important springs are located. An equitable division of the water resources, respecting equally the needs of all the region’s peoples, is of prime importance to establishing lasting peace and stability in the Middle East and this, in turn, is inseparable from the required rehabilitation of the lower reaches of the Jordan.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (CS) The situation in the Near East has been complicated for many years, both politically, as well as economically and ecologically. Rivers have never been many here, their flow is very unstable, even in ancient times forests gave way to farmland and pastures every year destroy shrubs, trees and other greenery. The water flow in the Jordan River is already low and the water is polluted and the Dead Sea is gradually drying up. Assuring a sufficient flow of water in the river is a major technical problem, which can only be solved in a peaceful political climate. The European Union has long been active in a series of projects the chief aim of which is to support the peaceful development of the whole area.

It is therefore also desirable that we support the key programme, namely the renewal of a rational water regime in the middle and lower flow of the Jordan. Because local governments face similar problems in a number of places in the Sahel and Asia, it is not only the response of the Commission that will provide a valuable inspiration for the solution of similar problems in a number of other places, but the adoption of concrete corrective measures. I support the adoption of the joint draft resolution.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Access to drinking water is a fundamental human right. In July, in fact, the United Nations adopted the resolution emanating from the Cochabamba Peoples’ Summit demanding that it be recognised. The River Jordan has been devastated and the Palestinian people deprived of access to drinking water by the diversion of virtually the entire flow of the river by Israel, Jordan and Syria. Cooperation agreements between states to regenerate the river and improve the way water resources in the region are shared out must be supported by the European Union without fail.

This exclusive interest in the River Jordan when so many other rivers are being destroyed is shocking, nonetheless. That is what this resolution advocates. I am voting in favour in the hope that there will be comparable concern for the other watercourses around the world.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the situation of the Jordan River because all the countries along the river need to be encouraged to restore it. The Lower Jordan River area is entirely spoilt: poor management has resulted in serious pollution, resulting in a 50% loss of biodiversity.

In the Peace Treaty, signed in 1994, Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan agreed to cooperate in the ecological recovery of the River Jordan along the shared borders and to protect its water resources. However, the Palestinians have been excluded from the Israeli security zone established in the West Bank throughout the Lower Jordan River area, which is illegally occupied by Israeli settlers who irrigate the land with water that belongs to the Palestinians.

This means that the Palestinian population in the West Bank is facing serious water shortages, therefore we demand that Israel puts an end to the settlements policy, including in the Lower Jordan River area. The countries along the river must, with the support of the EU, create a Jordan River commission to restore the river in order to guarantee that there is a sufficient volume of water to supply the population that lives along the river.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I voted for this motion for a resolution. The resolutions states that today the Jordan River is in a catastrophic state. The level of the Dead Sea falls by 30 cm every year. The coastal countries, especially Syria and Jordan, exploit the river’s resources while making no investment in the development of sewage purification equipment and drinking water preparation equipment. If the EU does not very soon increase its pressure on all water resource users, an ecological disaster is inevitable. In this respect, the resolution is a very timely signal to the governments of Syria, Jordan and Israel. It is essential to make all Middle East governments understand that the EU is not a fire engine that can solve their problems. We must force the Syrian, Jordanian and Israeli governments to think of the future. We must help them to plan for action to this end, but in no circumstances must be hand out funds to those who exploit natural resources thoughtlessly so that they may obtain their selfish aims.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I welcome the important vote, today, on a resolution that draws attention to and expresses its concern at the devastation of the River Jordan, and the Lower Jordan in particular. It calls on the authorities of all the riparian countries to cooperate and rehabilitate the River Jordan by drawing up and implementing policies which focus on achieving tangible results in the areas of domestic and agricultural water-demand management, water conservation and the management of sewage and agricultural and industrial effluents, and on ensuring that an adequate quantity of fresh water flows into the Lower Jordan. It welcomes the cooperation among Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian local communities facing similar water challenges in the Lower Jordan area and calls on Israel and Jordan fully to honour commitments made in their peace treaty concerning the rehabilitation of the Jordan River.

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12:50 and resumed at 15:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

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

10. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law

10.1. Kenya: failure to arrest President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan

  President. − The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Kenya: failure to arrest President Omar al-Bashir⁽¹⁾.

  Charles Tannock, author. − Madam President, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has been indicted on charges of genocide by the International Criminal Court for allegedly ordering terrible crimes in Darfur.

He is hardly the sort of person you would want to make a guest of honour, and Turkey had to back down from inviting him to the OIC Conference on Ankara last year because of the ICC indictment.

Sadly, that is exactly what Kenya’s President did recently at the ceremony to mark the promulgation of the new constitution of Kenya. Admittedly, many government ministers in Kenya’s fragile coalition, including Prime Minister Odinga, were very uneasy about Bashir’s presence, but the damage has been done and Kenya’s reputation as a regional leader, in that it is both a democracy and upholds international law, is now besmirched.

The ICC was established precisely so that high-ranking officials, even heads of sovereign states, could be called to answer for their alleged crimes when these became crimes against the whole of humanity, or genocide, or war crimes and therefore subject to universal jurisdiction for Rome Statute signatories.

Kenya’s refusal to honour its obligations as an ICC member is therefore deplorable. However, recent news that Kenya will cooperate fully with the ICC as it investigates the tragic post-election violence of three years ago is to be welcomed, even if it is long overdue and seems to be a consequence of the furore over the Bashir case.

  Marietje Schaake, author. − Madam President, Kenya, as well as other African countries, is an essential partner of the EU in a number of key areas such as security, development and trade.

Africa played a crucial role in the establishment of the ICC and its commitment to the court’s Statute is also reinforced in Article 4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union.

The Cotonou Agreement between the EU and Kenya lays down the conditions for partnership, and in this agreement conditionality on trade and aid in terms of adhering to democratic and human rights standards are clearly spelled out.

Unfortunately, on 27 August, Omar al-Bashir visited Kenya as an official guest of the government, a dignitary. This happened during the period of an arrest warrant brought against al-Bashir for his alleged role in the genocide in Darfur in Sudan.

Al-Bashir can still defend his case before the ICC, but first needs to be brought to The Hague. Kenya had the obligation to arrest him while he was on its soil and failed to do so. This is a serious problem. It is a signal that the government does not play a credible role in adhering to agreements it has itself signed up to, and this should be a serious problem for the EU.

We have to make sure that we adhere to our own standards in fighting impunity, and we need to fight impunity in Africa to create more stability and democracy. I would like to ask the High Representative to take serious diplomatic action against Kenya and to remind its leaders of their commitment to the Rome Statute.

  Barbara Lochbihler, author. – (DE) Madam President, at the International Criminal Court’s review conference this year in Kampala it became abundantly clear that this court can only do its job effectively if it has the support of the Member States, in particular those Member States that have ratified the Rome Statute. The EU Member States need to be constantly reminded of this, as the fear of diplomatic problems and possible political prejudice often stands in the way of consistent action, in connection with the arrest of suspected war criminals, for example.

In our motion for a resolution today we criticise the actions of the Kenyan Government, which invited the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, and then failed to arrest him. Arrest warrants have been issued against Omar al-Bashir for war crimes and genocide. As a result of this, Kenya has contravened international law and publicly celebrated the fact that the supposed African solidarity between governments is more important than dealing with and prosecuting such serious crimes as crimes against humanity. That is not a good sign for the millions of people in Africa who have suffered the atrocities of President al-Bashir, and also those who have experienced terrible suffering in other wars and civil wars. The victims and their families need this to be dealt with, they need justice, and they ought to see these criminals, even if they are high-ranking political or military figures, brought to account for their atrocities.

The fact that the African Union spoke out openly against the arrest of President al-Bashir is also worthy of strong criticism. It shows false solidarity to its Member States, it supports impunity for high-ranking politicians and thereby weakens the essential good governance – governance that should base its decisions on current and international law. It is also disappointing that the African Union has refused to establish a regional office of the International Criminal Court in Addis Ababa.

This is the reason for the renewed call for the Commission to place the matter of this non-cooperation and the refusal to cooperate with the International Criminal Court on the agenda of the next EU summit with the African Union.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, author. – (FR) Madam President, many of us in this Chamber regret the decisions by Kenya, the African Union and the Arab League to refuse to put into effect the international arrest warrant brought against Omar al-Bashir for crimes against humanity. The Sudanese President thus enjoys total impunity in almost all African and Arab countries. Many of us, though doubtless not quite so many, wish that international justice could be the same for everybody throughout the world.

We know how difficult it was to set up the International Criminal Court (ICC). We also know that there is still quite a long way to go before this court can act throughout the world. We would be more credible, however, if all our Member States, particularly France, did not vacillate so much before adapting their laws to those of international justice. We would be more credible if major countries like the United States did not place themselves beyond the reach of this international justice.

I would go so far as to say that European countries bear serious responsibilities towards Africa, and we must not give them the impression of having double standards, because we have to acknowledge that international justice seems to apply above all to African countries unless the governments of certain European countries have powerful interests there.

Therefore, we in this House regret that the ICC’s decision has not been applied to Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for so many crimes. However, we want equal justice for everybody, including on European Union soil. It is only on the basis of this condition – that of setting an example – that the European Union can be a real area of freedom and justice and we can progress step by step towards the universality of law, democracy and human rights.

That is why I am also delighted that this morning a large majority of this House condemned all discrimination against the Roma people, particularly the xenophobic comments by the President of the French Republic, who still dares to invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What we have to do now, Commissioner, is to turn our words into deeds if we want our words to remain credible throughout the world.

  Thijs Berman, author. − (NL) Madam President, there is little reason to believe in progress. The horrors of the war and persecution of the 20th century compel us to modesty in this century, too. There is one point, however, on which I believe we can indeed speak of progress, and that is international criminal law. It all began with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), followed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and led to the International Criminal Court. Justice is administered not by the victors in a war, as could still be said of Nuremberg, but by an independent international court. The most serious crimes can be tried there if the state in which they were committed fails, intentionally or otherwise, to prosecute them itself. This way, the world’s sense of justice can be restored after great atrocities and justice is done for the victims, and only then does reconciliation become possible. Lasting peace. This criminal court acts as a deterrent to future war criminals. Impunity is a licence to commit new violence and cannot and must not exist, particularly in the case of the immense atrocities of which Omar al-Bashir stands accused. Kenya is a signatory to the Rome Statute. Pacta sunt servanda, treaties must be adhered to, otherwise they are undermined, and that is why it is intolerable for al-Bashir to be able to celebrate democracy unhindered in Kenya, when such gross human rights abuses have been committed in his name in his own country Sudan. Thus let this be an appeal, like the one by Mrs Vergiat, to the countries who have yet to sign the Rome Statute, chief among whom the United States. What is Barack Obama waiting for? Strengthening the International Criminal Court will bring us closer to the world order we seek, an order that does not let war crimes go unpunished, that brings us closer to peace and that is based on human rights throughout the world.

  Tunne Kelam, author. − Madam President, I think today’s issue is to discuss whether accountability for crimes against humanity can be applied in practice.

Sudan’s President Bashir is accused of such crimes by the International Criminal Court and arrest warrants have been issued. The issue today is whether there will be enough international political will and coordination to bring such perpetrators to justice.

On 27 August, the Kenyan Government missed this opportunity. They invited President Bashir as a guest. It is good to know that the Kenyan Prime Minister has admitted that this invitation was a mistake and a breach of Kenya’s international commitments.

Today we call on African Union states to join without exception the international effort to bring President Bashir to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, where he will benefit from all rights for his defence. I am very glad that there is a unanimous message around this Chamber today to address this issue and bring President Bashir to the International Criminal Court.

  Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Madam President, in Poland we say that someone cannot be half pregnant, but this is exactly what Kenya is trying to be. On the one hand, it invites and welcomes President al-Bashir, and on the other hand it is a signatory to the Rome Statute. These two facts cannot be reconciled. Kenya must decide what to do – either to pursue criminals, or to allow them to live in peace. Pretending these two alternatives can be reconciled is, quite simply, dishonest. The argument of the Kenyan authorities that the West is not one of Kenya’s neighbours and that this is why President al-Bashir was invited is not acceptable, because it does not take account of earlier formal, political and moral commitments. The authorities of Kenya, Chad and other countries which have ratified the Rome Statute should adhere to its unequivocally specified principles. I can understand that some people are in favour of leaving criminals unpunished, but I cannot understand or accept that people pretend to want to pursue criminals but do not do this.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PL) History shows that justice does finally catch up with war criminals, even if at first they escape the clutches of the law and cover their tracks. Adolf Eichmann, one of the men behind the Nazi operation to exterminate the Jews, was apprehended in Buenos Aires after being sought for 15 years. Radovan Karadžić was captured by the Serbian Police 13 years after the Srebrenica massacre.

The same scenario certainly awaits the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, the architect of ethnic cleansing in Darfur, who has been wanted by the International Criminal Court since March last year. What can the European Union do to help bring al-Bashir before the Court? First and foremost, it can put pressure on states which are signatories to the Rome Statute, because the Statute is the legal basis of the Court’s work. There must not be a repeat of the situation which took place on 27 August, when President al-Bashir, undisturbed by the police, came to Kenya, a country which has signed the Rome Statute, for a ceremony related to the adoption of the new Kenyan Constitution, after which he returned safely to Sudan. All diplomatic channels should be used, including the active participation of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, to use the instruments which are available, such as the regular summits of the African Union and the Cotonou Agreement, finally to bring about the detention of al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide.

  Frédérique Ries, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, the fact that the Kenyan authorities welcomed the President of Sudan with open arms in August has led Parliament, through our resolution this afternoon, to reaffirm certain very firm principles that we hold dear.

Like any other country, Kenya is bound by compliance with international law. As such it should have facilitated the arrest of Omar al-Bashir, a leader – as has been said – against whom an international arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Darfur. As if we needed reminding, there were over 300 000 innocent victims in Darfur.

That said, there are other African countries that have behaved in exactly the same way towards the Sudanese President: Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to name but a few. Europe must therefore have a single policy – firmness – towards the de facto complicity of the African Union, which has advised its member states not to arrest the president. This House must remain vigilant and call on the European Union, and Baroness Ashton in particular, to put this respect for international law and human rights before any other consideration by, of course, making it a major topic on the agenda of the forthcoming European Union-African Union summit to be held on 29-30 November in Libya.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) The fact that Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir travels freely to many countries in Africa and Asia, despite the fact that the International Criminal Court on 4 March 2009 issued an international arrest warrant for him for crimes against humanity, including murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape, together with war crimes such as planning attacks on civilians in the province of Darfur, shows that the representatives of many African and Asian states do not take their international obligations very seriously and that they have a different threshold of tolerance for crimes committed against defenceless civilians than we do in Europe.

The position of the African Union from July 2009, and also of the Arab League, which are refusing to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in this matter, provides clear evidence that many representatives of these countries simply do not see in the actions of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir the kind of deeds that should be judged before the International Criminal Court. In other words, many of them consider tyranny and the crude genocide of millions of civilians as an acceptable procedure, and one which they could employ to deal with the rebellion of a population that had duly failed to appreciate their rule and therefore dared to be dissatisfied.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not sure whether it is correct for the civilised world to provide such rulers with any form of financial or material assistance. Perhaps it would be appropriate to sit down with these rulers as soon as possible and carefully explain to them that violating serious international commitments really is not compatible with the financial and material assistance they receive from us. If they fail to understand this, for whatever reason, it will then be necessary to apply the sort of measures that are applied against other barbarous regimes. It is simply not acceptable that our citizens are contributing in these difficult times to assistance for rulers who are helping to frustrate the provision of justice by the International Criminal Court.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - (FI) Madam President, a state party to the International Criminal Court must ensure its commitment to its obligations and international law. Ignoring these principles, however, Kenya defied the Court’s decision to arrest the Sudanese President.

The situation is a delicate one, and past and future events both play a part. Its neighbouring countries make a priority of good relations with Sudan, even at the expense of international law. At the same time, the millions of victims of the Darfur conflict deserve justice and relief from their suffering. Furthermore, there follows an important phase in the implementation of the peace agreement concluded in 2005: the vote in January on autonomy for Southern Sudan. Whatever the referendum results in, it will be difficult to avoid unrest. It may be possible to prevent a repeat of the disaster across Darfur with a little prudent assistance.

That is why I now want to seek a greater role for the EU in Sudan, given the criticism of Kenya’s decision. We must show that the EU robustly and tangibly supports the implementation of the peace agreement. Alongside that, the EU must commit to election monitoring in the referendum in January, right through the process, from registering voters to counting the final votes, and prepare for a state of emergency in Sudan.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Omar al-Bashir has managed once again to defy the international community and I deplore the decision of the Kenyan authorities to invite the Sudanese president to the promulgation ceremony of the new constitution and, above all, not to arrest him.

The justification offered by the Kenyan authorities on the grounds of good neighbourly relations is definitely inappropriate in this instance. As a state party to the Rome Statute, Kenya has a clear obligation to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. Moreover, the case of the atrocities committed in Darfur was submitted to the Court based on Security Council Resolution 1593 from 2005, adopted on the basis of Chapter 7. This text is binding and obliges all states and international organisations to cooperate fully with the Court, in accordance with paragraph 2.

The Kenyan minister of foreign affairs also mentioned the decision adopted by the African Union last year not to cooperate with the ICC, which was reiterated in July at the meeting in Kampala. This justification is not admissible either because this decision does not comply with international law.

I believe that member states of the African Union should be the first to cooperate with the ICC in the battle against impunity when heinous crimes are committed in Africa.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, we must express emphatic opposition to the conduct of the Government of Kenya and threaten to reduce our policy of support for that country. It is unacceptable that the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, who is now the subject of two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity, murder, extermination, torture and war crimes, should be invited and received with full honours at state occasions. It is the responsibility of Kenya, which has ratified the founding document of the International Criminal Court, to arrest any person who is being sought or to refuse him entry to its territory. I would like to appeal, here, for a change of attitude and for respect for international commitments. I call upon all African states to assume full responsibility for dealing with crimes against humanity and war crimes, which must not remain unpunished and whose perpetrators should stand before the Court in The Hague.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) The formal ceremony to mark the declaration of a new constitution in the modern western style as one of the greatest events in Kenyan history since the declaration of independence in 1963 will forever be marred by the visit of the Sudanese war criminal Omar al-Bashir. By inviting a man who is responsible for the massacre of civilians in Darfur and is guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, Kenya has shown that the new efforts to strengthen freedom, democracy and the legal state are just empty words.

The indifference of Kenya to the fulfilment of its international commitments is, in my opinion, very worrying, and I would like to add my voice to the call for Kenya to reconfirm its political will and determination to fulfil its commitments arising from the Rome Statute setting up the International Criminal Court.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - (PT) This Parliament, the Commission, the Council and European governments must unequivocally condemn the invitation and reception by Kenyan authorities of President Al-Bashir, of Sudan, which failed to seize him despite the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for war crimes and genocide committed against the people of his own country in Darfur. Kenya has violated not only its international obligations as a State Party to the International Criminal Court, but also its obligations as a member of the Cotonou Agreement, and must therefore face the consequences.

The Kenyan authorities have grievously compromised the interests of its people by its affront to all of those who, in Africa and all over the world, are working to end the impunity of criminals such as President Al-Bashir. The Kenyan authorities, with the miserable endorsement of the African Union and the League of Arab States, shame Africa by so conniving with a criminal who, sooner or later, will be captured and who will have to face international justice.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - (FI) Madam President, genocide is a serious crime. Those who commit, order or plan it must be brought to justice and sentenced.

At the forthcoming summit between the European Union and the African countries the EU must put this issue at the top of the agenda. Human rights, and this matter of genocide, which has affected hundreds of thousands – millions – of people, must be investigated. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant must be served. The EU must be fully involved in helping this to come about and do all that it can to ensure that it is.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, according to a United Nations Regional Information Centre brochure, the EU, with an eagerness to spend money, has been supporting the African Union in the development of an African security architecture since 2004. Up to 2007, the financial support amounted to at least EUR 300 million.

However, this financial support is only meaningful if the African Union actively cooperates to ensure peace in crisis-torn regions of Africa. It is apparent, however, that the African Union is in fact not very cooperative. At the summit in Libya in July 2009, it was decided that the Member States would not hand over the President of Sudan if he entered the territory there. There is an old saying that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ – not very elegant, but there is a certain amount of truth in it. In simple terms, that means that the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy needs to make it absolutely clear that the EU funds for peacemaking measures in Africa can only be provided if the African Union and the Arab League cooperate with the International Criminal Court in future, instead of undermining its work.

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the Rome Statute system is a key instrument of the international community in combating impunity for the most serious crimes. As this Parliament will know, the EU is a long-standing supporter of the International Criminal Court. Witness to this is the promotion of the universality and implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC in our political dialogue with partner countries.

The revised Cotonou Agreement is another instrument which we have to promote the strengthening of peace and international justice by seeking to ensure that our ACP partners ratify the Rome Statute.

We therefore note with concern that, at its July Summit, the African Union called on its Members not to execute the arrest warrants against President al-Bashir. The official visit of President al-Bashir to Chad in July, and Kenya’s invitation to al-Bashir to attend the ceremony promulgating its new constitution are also worrying signals from our African partners.

It is the EU’s view that Kenya must balance its legal and political obligations: it must abide by its obligations to the ICC as a State Party to the Rome Statute and it must respect its international law obligations, notably UN Security Council Resolution 1593.

As a supporter of the National Accord in Kenya, mediated by Kofi Annan, a key element of which is fighting impunity for the post-election violence, the EU will continue to encourage Kenya to cooperate with the ICC, including in our Article 8 dialogue.

We appreciate the fact that Kenya has upheld its commitment to cooperate with the ICC on internal issues, as demonstrated during the visit of the ICC registrar last week. We can but hope that Kenya adopts the same behaviour as far as international issues are concerned as well.

In keeping with the EU’s position on the ICC, on 27 August, the spokesperson of the High Representative and Vice-President issued a statement expressing concern over Kenya’s failure to arrest al-Bashir, and the EU delegation to Kenya was instructed to undertake a démarche to convey our messages to the government. That was done yesterday. I will convey to the High Representative the wish expressed during this debate that this issue be brought up in the context of the next African Union-EU meeting.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – I too condemn the decision of the Kenyan authorities not to arrest the President of Sudan, against their obligations under international law, and against their duties towards the victims waiting for justice.

Let us recall that Al-Bashir is accused by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. In Southern Sudan, several million people were murdered or displaced. What is the message being sent to the victims by Kenya’s choice? And what can Kenyan citizens and the rest of us expect as regards Kenya’s cooperation with the ICC in its own case of serious crimes committed following Kenya’s 2007 general elections? I have only one message and call: we do not accept impunity. Al-Bashir must be arrested and handed over to the ICC.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The European Union should react strongly to the unacceptable stance of the Kenyan authorities after they did not arrest the President of Sudan, who is being sought with an arrest warrant, while he was in Kenya. Omar al-Bashir has been identified by the International Criminal Court as complicit in the genocide which was committed in the province of Darfur. This is the first time the ICC has indicted a head of state who is still in office. The cruel actions of Omar al-Bashir produced thousands of victims, and many of those who survived have been forced to leave their homes and live in exile. The Government of Kenya made a deliberate decision to ignore international obligations. Not only did it host Al-Bashir at the celebrations for the promulgation of the constitution, but it did not take any steps to carry out his arrest. This testifies clearly to the fact that local interests and neighbourly solidarity have proved more important than decisions of the International Criminal Court. However, no one should be exempt from punishment, and especially not a person responsible for such serious crimes. The President of Sudan should bear the consequences of his deeds under international law, and the Kenyan authorities should have helped achieve this. The European Union must make appropriate efforts to convince the countries of the African Union of the necessity of respecting the principles of universal jurisdiction. This is not only in the interests of the authorities, but principally of the citizens of the African Union’s Member States.

(1) See Minutes.

10.2. Human rights in Syria, in particular the case of Haythan Al - Maleh

  President. − The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on human rights in Syria, in particular the case of Haythan Al - Maleh⁽¹⁾.

  Charles Tannock, author. − Madam President, last year I met the son of Haythan Al-Maleh in Brussels. He was seeking support for the release of his father. Mr Al-Maleh has a distinguished history as a human rights defender and jurist, and has been a frequent critic of the Al-Assad Baathist dictatorship in Syria over the years. Mr Al-Maleh is a sickly elderly gentleman and should be released on humanitarian grounds – not that he has committed any crimes, except falling foul of the emergency and repressive laws against dissidents in Syria that have been in place for more than 40 years.

Syria, sadly, is a problematic state harbouring known terrorists, having suspicious arms dealings with North Korea – including possible nuclear ambitions – and being close to that very roguish state, Iran, on political grounds. I appeal now to the Syrian leadership and its President to improve its deplorable human rights record and release Mr Al-Maleh.

  Heidi Hautala, author. − Madam President, this resolution has not arrived a day too soon. For a long time I have followed the case of Haythan Al-Maleh with concern. Too often I have felt that not enough attention has been paid to his case. We have no time to waste: he is 80 years old, and I hear from his son, who has visited Parliament, that his father’s health is deteriorating. Mr Al-Maleh suffers from arthritis, diabetes and thyroid problems, and I understand that he is being deprived of access to medication.

Mr Al-Maleh was arbitrarily arrested by the General Intelligence Service on 14 October 2009. He was held incommunicado and tried before the Second Military Court of Damascus, despite the fact that military tribunals should not try civilians.

On 4 July 2010, Mr Al-Maleh was sentenced to three years in prison on the grounds of ‘transferring false and exaggerated news that weakens national sentiment’. Colleagues, we should be aware that many countries are unfortunately using such titles for criminal charges nowadays. It is totally unacceptable. This happened under Articles 285 and 286 of the Syrian criminal code. Such charges are clearly too vague and easy to abuse. They have no place in the jurisdiction of any modern state.

Serious concerns also remain over the fairness of Mr Al-Maleh’s trial. My key message is that there are serious grounds to believe that Mr Al-Maleh is a victim of repression by the authorities in response to his human rights work, which is extensive and impressive. He must be released immediately.

I would like to point out that Mr Al-Maleh is an excellent candidate for the Sakharov Prize. I will be taking action to see that he is one of the candidates.

  Marisa Matias, author. − (PT) Madam President, today we are discussing yet another situation of violation of human rights: that of the imprisonment of the Syrian activist Haythan Al-Maleh, an 80-year-old man, a lawyer, accused, they say, of distributing false and exaggerated information that weakens the national sentiment of his country. In addition to violating international treaties and conventions, the imprisonment of this man, who is a human rights defender, is also contrary to the legislation of that country, which stipulates that military tribunals are not competent to judge civilians.

The decision that was taken regarding this man and other Syrian prisoners held for similar reasons, the various detentions, the restrictions to freedom of movement, and the arbitrary measures implemented by the Syrian authorities are practices that go against Syria’s important role throughout the region, and they do not reflect the efforts that have been being taken in this country to improve its social situation.

I repeat, today we are discussing yet another situation of violation of human rights. It is not possible to separate it from the many discussions we have had here this week. I would highlight two: the first is the condemnation of the sentence to death by stoning imposed on Sakineh Ashtiani. Many voices joined together and there were some results. It is not yet time to declare victory; much less is it time to fall silent. The second is that we have adopted an important resolution today against abuses committed by President Sarkozy’s government against Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. The defence of human rights has no borders, and it is not a fight that can be fought only outside our walls.

Today we gave a good example of how to also fight it within our own walls. The unjustifiable imprisonment of Haythan Al-Maleh united all of us here today. He is a human rights defender. Human rights defenders must be free, and this is what we demand of the Syrian authorities. We who are also human rights defenders will not abandon him.

  Véronique De Keyser, author. – (FR) Madam President, I add my voice to those of all my fellow Members who have demanded here that Mr Al-Maleh be released immediately.

As has been said, he is an elderly gentleman. He is accused of crime, but under articles of the criminal code that seem to us to be greatly exaggerated. After him, above all, there are other human rights defenders, other lawyers and other doctors whom we know well, as they have come to the European Parliament and have been subsequently imprisoned. They are prisoners of conscience, and we cannot accept that from Syria.

As it is always important to mention names, I would like to mention the names of Mr al-Hassani and Mr al-Abdallah, as well as Mr Labouani, who visited us here. They are almost all friends.

I would like to say very strongly that there are many things in Syria that I would like to see shared elsewhere. There is nothing outrageous in what I am saying. There is real freedom of conscience and religion. A real effort is being made in education and health. A real effort is being made to welcome Iraqi and Palestinian refugees. It is a country with potential, not least on the international stage, that we cannot ignore.

I would like to say to President Bashar al-Assad, whom I know well, ‘President, you do not need these prisoners of conscience to be strong in your country and to figure on the international stage. You can afford the luxury of defending human rights as well.’

We should not, in my view, just remember the face of systematic repression when we think of Syria. It does exist, ladies and gentlemen, and we cannot deny it. There is more to Syria than that, however, and that is why we value this association agreement so much, Commissioner. We are aware that Syria has rejected it for the time being. Please keep us informed about how the negotiations progress. We – many of us, at least – would like Syria to be able to play the positive role that it would be capable of playing on the international stage and in the Middle East peace process.

  Bernd Posselt, author. – (DE) Madam President, our motion for a resolution sends out several clear messages. The first is that we want the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Haythan Al-Maleh, all other human rights defenders and all other prisoners of conscience. As far as we are concerned, there can be no compromises whatsoever on matters of human rights. However, in our resolution, including in recital A and paragraph 9, we say that we want a dialogue with Syria. At the end of the day, we want the agreement with Syria as quickly as possible, but not unconditionally, as an instrument for human rights and cooperation.

We certainly recognise the fact that – as Mrs De Keyser said – there have been positive as well as negative developments in Syria. Nowhere on the Arabian Peninsula or in Mashriq are Christians and other minorities treated as well as they are in Syria. Lebanese Christians – and indeed prominent ones – tell me that they are only able to survive because Syria is holding a protective hand over them.

Syria is not Iran’s lackey either, Mr Tannock, but an important counterweight against the dominance of Iran. We therefore need a stable Syria, but Syria must also take steps to make that happen.

  Frédérique Ries, author. – (FR) Madam President, one may wonder whether Syria is not in the end getting used to the criticism that we level at it virtually every year on the subject of human rights abuses in the country. Let us not give up hope of being understood, though, and let us carry on waiting for progress, more progress – I do understand that some progress is being made there – for all the Syrian citizens who aspire to more freedom, particularly freedom of expression.

Our motion for a resolution today concerns Mr Haythan al-Maleh in particular, a tireless defender of human rights. This lawyer was sentenced to three years in prison at the end of a parody of a trial for having – and I quote – ‘spread fallacious and exaggerated information prejudicial to national feelings’. That is what it says. Our resolution therefore demands the immediate release of Mr Haythan al-Maleh for the reasons that I have just explained and also for what has already been mentioned – his old age and the very serious health problems that he has.

More fundamentally, of course, we want to draw attention to human rights abuses in Syria: executions – we mention them in our resolution – arrests and restrictions on a whole series of freedoms, all that in the name of a state of emergency, which is temporary by definition, that has been going on and on there for more than 40 years.

We call on the European Union to assert these demands, which have been restated by Baroness Ashton and are crucial, and above all to use them to exert pressure in talks and negotiations in connection with signing the association agreement.

We are moving away from what was termed the ‘Prague Spring’ over 10 years ago, in 2000, when Bashar al-Assad had just come to power. Over a period of just a few months it offered a glimpse of a brighter future for Syrian civil society. It is now time, I think, for Syria to continue to implement all these necessary reforms if it wants to put across an image worthy of the major role that we hope and want to see it play in the region.

  Monica Luisa Macovei, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Mr Al-Maleh criticised the Syrian authorities in the media and was condemned for spreading false information that weakens national security. His arrest, detention, conviction and sentencing to imprisonment by a military court are in violation of his rights, in particular the right of freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. They are a threat to all human rights defenders in the country.

The point of freedom of expression is to be able to criticise a government, share information publicly and voice opinions without fearing imprisonment. One does not go to prison for the very essence of a speech: to share opinions and ideas which the listener does not share.

I therefore join my colleagues in calling upon Syria to release Mr Al-Maleh immediately. I ask the Commission to raise this issue with the Syrian Government as a matter of urgency.

  Corina Creţu, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (RO) We are debating today an outrageous case of human rights violation, symbolic of the way in which an authoritarian state intends to treat its citizens.

The victim has had his fundamental freedoms violated and has not had other rights respected, such as the right to presumption of innocence, a fair trial and defence, including the right to choose freely his own lawyer.

However, apart from all these extremely grave irregularities, the nub of this case is the charges brought against Haitham Al-Maleh, a veteran human rights activist who had already served time for his activities supporting constitutional reforms in the 1980s, when he was sentenced to a seven-year prison term.

This time, Haitham Al-Maleh was sentenced to three years in prison for a crime of opinion, charged with damaging the morale and feelings of the nation through criticism targeted in particular at the state of emergency which has been in force for four decades and suspends citizens’ fundamental rights.

Therefore, this severely ill octogenarian is in danger of ending his life in prison all because he exercised his legitimate right to free expression, guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which has been ratified by Syria.

Given that the charges made contravene the right to free expression and his state of health is increasingly precarious, we too support the appeal made to the Syrian authorities to drop the charges and release Haitham Al-Maleh and the other political detainees.

The first steps towards normalization and democratization of the regime should be a general amnesty, stopping the harassment and punishment of human rights activists, ending the arrests of political opponents, as well as guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, Syria is a key player in the Middle East. Last year, when I visited Damascus, I was struck by the potential of the ambitious young Syrian generation.

A change towards more openness and adherence to fundamental rights is necessary for the progress of the country itself and its connections to the international community.

In his inaugural speech, President al-Assad spoke of creative thinking, transparency and democracy. However, Syria’s prisons quickly filled again with political prisoners, journalists and human rights activists, such as recently when two leading human rights lawyers, Haythan Al-Maleh and Muhammad al-Hasani were sentenced for criticising Syria’s human rights record.

Writer Ali Abdullah also remains in prison, after already having completed his sentence. There is no freedom of expression, including on the internet.

There is a very big and painful gap between al-Assad’s self-proclaimed ambitions and the reality of achieving democracy. This is not serving the country well – and especially not the younger generation.

The EU should use all the necessary means available to push Syria in the right direction and to have it improve its human rights record.

  Paweł Robert Kowal, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, Mrs Schaake is right that there are very many people in Syria who want that country to change. I myself, when I was in Syria, saw those people and heard what they say. In speaking of this case, I think we need to go back to Tuesday’s debate on the state of the Union, when the leader of one of the political groups said that in important matters we must not be a kind of fax machine which spits out statements about world events. We have to get over that barrier and do more than just talk – and we talk a lot in Parliament – but we would like the talk to translate into greater effectiveness in our work. I am disturbed by the situation of the well-known human rights defender Haythan Al-Maleh, who has been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for defending human rights and openly expressing his opinions. He has frequently suffered repression at the hands of the authorities, and has been imprisoned, accused and persecuted. Despite this, he has never ceased his activities and continues consistently to expose the illegal activity of the authorities. He is not alone in this. Many Syrians are saying they want their country to change.

One of the European Parliament’s most important objectives is to be involved in the defence of human rights. This is one of those situations in which we must not be a fax machine, printing out statements. Haythan Al-Maleh is a prisoner of conscience, and is being held only because he exercised his right to express his opinion. We must not stand quietly by, because those who have elected us precisely so that we will freely express our opinions expect us to call for the same rights for others. If, today, we did not speak up for Al-Maleh, what sense would there be in our being elected, what authority would we have as MEPs, how would we be able to look our voters in the face in a few years’ time? I would like to stress that when we appeal to equality, justice, law and order and to everything about which we never stop talking in the united Europe, when we talk about friendship and about peaceful cooperation, we must not hide from such problems. These problems require great commitment from EU diplomacy, and they require the development of forms of pressure which would allow the Syrians to enjoy the kind of freedom of speech which they want and the kind which we enjoy. Let us share freedom of speech, and let us appeal to the EU institutions to be particularly effective in such matters, because the reputation of the European Union depends on it.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) I deplore the fact that there are still cases of restrictions on the freedom of expression in Syria, a country which has established economic and social processes over the last 10 years.

Although the Syrian Constitution guarantees, in principle, fundamental human rights, Mr Al-Maleh’s case is part of a series of random arrests and detentions.

He did not receive a fair trial, was refused the right to defend himself and continues to be subject to harsh conditions of detention. I am particularly worried about Mr Al-Maleh’s grave state of health. This is why I call on the Syrian authorities to release him unconditionally and to make a firm commitment to respect human rights.

Finally, I would like to encourage Syria to sign the Association Agreement. This agreement contains important aspects relating to civil and political rights guaranteed by international legislation. Compliance with the Association Agreement would speed up the process of establishing democracy and carrying out reforms.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) I too, of course, wish to join those who have called today in this Chamber for the immediate release of Haitham Al-Maleh. As has already been said, he is an 80-year-old man in a frail state of health and this case must surely be judged from a humanitarian perspective.

Apart from the purely humanitarian aspect of this case, we must take into account that Haitham Al-Maleh has been convicted by a military tribunal, following a trial where his fundamental rights have been completely flouted, and that this verdict, as we have already been reminded, contravenes international norms. Why has this happened? Simply because Haitham Al-Maleh has done what he has been doing for well over four decades, which is to speak in very serious, plain and critical terms about the freedom which is sought after in order to improve the situation for people in this country.

I think that the Syrian authorities must look at the prospect of signing the Association Agreement with the EU as an incentive to improve the overall human rights situation. It is therefore time for Syria to show that the commitments it has made to human rights are not only at a structural level, but are also put into practice in this society.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, we are asking the Government and the President of Syria to remit the sentence being served by a well-known lawyer and human rights defender and to acquit him. This is the right way to make our request, because it is these authorities of the state which make the decisions. However, I would like to recall something: not long ago, towards the end of the last parliamentary term, we played host, in this Chamber, to the Grand Mufti of Syria, who spoke during a plenary sitting of how there are civil liberties in Syria and that the principles of democracy and freedom of speech are upheld. Perhaps we ought to turn to him, because he is a great authority in Syria and someone who enjoys support in society. It may be that he will be able to influence the Government and the President. Perhaps we should ask him to join the fight for the release of a defender of human rights, who, after all, has been unjustly sentenced.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Emergency Law from 1963 is still in force in Syria. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly are extremely restricted in Syria as a result of this. Politically motivated detentions are nothing unusual in Syria, one of the detainees being Mr Al-Maleh. He has already spent several years in prison on account of his involvement in human rights cases. In October 2009, the 80-year-old was arrested again and sentenced to imprisonment by a military court. In its dialogue with third countries, the EU must play a forceful part in putting an end to the persecution and repression of political activists and their family members.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) The recent prison sentences handed down to prominent human rights lawyers for exercising their freedom of expression show that Syria still employs a lax and often distorted interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a signatory. Persecution, restrictions on freedom, unjust arrests and obstructing the activities of human rights defenders, as well as denying the right to a fair trial in Syria cause internal destabilisation in a country which otherwise has the potential to spread peace and stability in this region.

In my opinion, the Commission should exploit to the full Syria’s desire to conclude an association agreement with the European Union in order to pressure Syria into making a commitment to eliminate persistent breaches of human rights.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - (FI) Madam President, the prison sentence given to Haytham Al-Maleh is a clear reflection of the current state of human rights in Syria. It is a very questionable move to extend the judicial power of military courts to civil ones, which rarely, if ever, can be justified.

Without in any way wishing to understate the inappropriate treatment to which Haytham Al-Maleh has been subjected, I want to stress that the real problems are deeply entrenched in the structures of Syrian society. The state of emergency that put many constitutional rights on ice has been in effect since it was declared in 1963. The original main justification for its continuation, the conflict between Syria and Israel, lost its credibility a long time ago.

No government can remain in power for decades and claim that it functions according to democratic principles. I urge the European Parliament to condemn in no uncertain terms the continuation of the state of emergency and support all steps to enable the return of genuine democracy to Syria.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) It is disturbing to see the Syrian authorities making dictatorial arrests of this kind and persecuting well-known defenders of human rights. The trial of Mr Al-Maleh did not comply with international standards of justice, including the assumption of innocence and the right to a defence. The grant of a pardon to Mr Al-Maleh and other human rights defenders who were not given the right to a proper trial would testify to a change of course in the policy of the authorities and a move towards upholding international standards of human rights and the principles of a fair trial. In addition, the signing of an association agreement between the European Union and Syria, the fundamental feature of which is respect for human rights, was postponed at Syria’s request in October 2009. In relation to the current situation, the European Commission should present a report to the European Parliament on the state of discussions over the signing of that agreement.

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the recent wave of arrests and verdicts against human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and Kurds is of grave concern to the European Union.

Three significant cases have captured the EU’s attention recently: those of Mr Muhammad al-Hasani and Mr Haythan Al-Maleh – many have referred to them today, not least to Mr Al-Maleh – and also of Mr Ali Abdullah, a writer who was re-arrested in June after having completed his sentence.

The European Union has taken a number of actions. These cases have been raised – including by the High Representative – with the Syrian authorities at the appropriate levels. The EU has insisted that the very fragile health condition of the 80-year old Mr Al-Maleh be taken into account on humanitarian grounds. Démarches were made in the utmost discretion to start with but, in the absence of any response from the authorities, the High Representative issued a statement on 27 July recalling Syria’s commitments under international law and urging the release of political prisoners.

Despite the lack of a positive response so far, EU actions must – and will – continue. The EU is working on different fronts in parallel to advance human rights in Syria. The EU and Member State delegations in Damascus will continue to monitor the situation and observe the trials. Mr al-Hasani and Mr Al-Maleh have filed appeals.

Support for human rights defenders and their families and lawyers will be pursued. At the same time, respect for human rights must remain a recurring issue in any EU dialogue with the Syrian authorities, at all levels.

Mrs De Keyser asked about the status of the association agreement. Syria is still withholding its reply to the EU’s invitation to sign this agreement, which has been pending since October 2009. Syria indicates that the assessment of its political and economic impact is not yet finalised. The agreement will undeniably bring several benefits to both parties but, for the European Union, it is also the best way to establish a regular and frank political dialogue with Syria, including on human rights issues.

Advancing EU assistance on human rights and democracy is another important avenue. Projects in the pipeline include modernising the judiciary and strengthening the capacity of Syrian civil society.

  Bernd Posselt, author. – (DE) Madam President, I do apologise, but my group has this time – as we do every time – requested a roll call vote for the final vote on the last of the urgent issues, namely that relating to Syria. However, due to a technical oversight this information seems not to have reached you. I would ask you, on behalf of our group, and the other groups will surely have no objections, to please be so kind as to allow a roll call vote on the resolution on Syria.

  President. − Mr Posselt, you do not need to appeal to me, it is already going to happen.

The debate is closed.

The next item is the vote.

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

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the fact that the question of human rights violations in Syria is being discussed, today, in the European Parliament. We cannot remain indifferent to this problem. I call upon the Government of Syria and on the President for the immediate and unconditional release of Haythan Al-Maleh. The trial against this 80-year-old Syrian lawyer did not meet international standards for a fair trial, including the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to a defence. Furthermore, the charges which were made against him strike at the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Syria is a party. I also call on the Syrian authorities to bring an end to all persecution of human rights defenders and their families, and also to guarantee them the right to carry out their activities freely without any hindrance or intimidation. I call on the Syrian authorities to respect international standards of human rights and the international obligations which their country has accepted and which guarantee freedom of opinion and expression and the right to a fair trial, and also to guarantee that detainees are well-treated and not subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment and are given prompt, regular and unrestricted contact with their families, lawyers and doctors.

(1) See Minutes.

11. Voting time

11.1. Kenya: failure to arrest President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan (B7-0508/2010)

11.2. Human rights in Syria, in particular the case of Haythan Al - Maleh (B7-0511/2010)

12. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

13. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

14. Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity : see Minutes

15. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

16. Council position at first reading: see Minutes

17. Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes

18. Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

19. Documents received: see Minutes

20. Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes

21. Adjournment of the session

  President. − I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament.

(The sitting closed at 16.05)

Reducing by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015 forms one of the targets of Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals. This issue is very directly linked to the right to health, education, food, clothing, housing and work. Nonetheless, nearly one million people still do not have access to safe drinking water, more than 2 500 million do not have access to sanitation and a child dies every eight seconds from water-related sicknesses. A World Bank report says that by 2030 global demand for water will exceed supply by 40 %.

Does the Council think that recognising access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation as a universal human right can contribute to improving this state of affairs?

Is the Council intending to support and work towards approval of the resolution on ‘The Human Right to Water and Sanitation’ being examined at present by the UN General Assembly?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the September I 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(FR) The European Union is firmly committed to ensuring that the need for access to water and sanitation is better taken into account throughout the world. Aware of the issues at stake, particularly with regard to public health in developing countries, the EU has been fulfilling this commitment in various ways for many years, starting with the launch in 2002 of its major water initiative. The aim of the initiative is to provide a framework for establishing and financing strategic partnerships with developing countries regarding these issues, with a first partnership agreement signed the same year in Johannesburg between the EU and Africa. The Water Facility set up for the ACP countries will have a budget of EUR 500 million, which will be used in particular at local level, where it is most needed.

With this in mind, the European Union will support the work of the United Nations Human Rights Council on human rights issues relating to access to water and sanitation.

The Human Rights Council Resolution 7/22 of 23 March 2008 established the mandate of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation. This mandate is for three years and runs until 2011. Mrs de Albuquerque has, since then, been working to clarify the content of these obligations through studies and reports, and through field visits to identify good practices. The Human Rights Council has repeatedly adopted resolutions acknowledging this work. Moreover, the EU established a very close working relationship with the independent expert within the Council’s Human Rights Working Group in February 2010.

To celebrate World Water Day on 22 March 2010, the EU wanted to mark the importance of this issue by highlighting Member States’ human rights obligations relating to access to safe drinking water, which must be available, physically accessible, affordable and of acceptable quality.

The European Union considers that human rights obligations regarding access to safe drinking water and sanitation are closely associated with individual human rights such as the right to housing, food and health.

It is in this spirit that the EU is approaching the discussions under way in Geneva, and that it adopted a position in New York. A common EU position could not be reached last July on the Bolivian resolution recognising the right to water and sanitation as a basic human right. The EU is committed to ensuring that the independent expert continues her work in Geneva. The EU hopes that by clarifying the scope and characteristics of the obligations resulting from this right it might be able to reach a common position on this issue. The EU remains committed to ensuring that a consensus is reached on these issues with the entire international community, and it will continue to work along those lines with its partners.

Beyond these discussions, the EU continues to make a major contribution, within the scope of its development policy, to the efforts to improve access to water and sanitation in practice.

Can the Council provide an updated assessment outlining the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Haiti?

The present answer, which has been drawn by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the September I 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(FR) As you know, the European Union reacted immediately to the emergency situation following the earthquake in Haiti on 12 January by adopting a EUR 3 million emergency aid package on the very next day following the disaster. This was followed by an aid package of EUR 8 million. A rescue team was already at the scene in Haiti on 13 January and, on 18 January, a further EUR 19 million of emergency humanitarian aid was made available by the Commission to enable the partners of the United Nations, the Red Cross and the NGOs on the ground to help the victims. By then the Member States had already announced EUR 92 million of emergency humanitarian aid. In total, more than EUR 300 million were allocated in just a few weeks to meet the country’s immediate needs.

At the ministerial-level International Donors’ ‘a New Future for Haiti’, which took place on 31 March in New York, the EU pledged more than EUR 1.2 billion over 10 years for the recovery and reconstruction of Haiti, thereby reaffirming its long-term commitment to that country. The citizens of Europe and European civil society also took action to raise more than EUR 600 million to support the relief and reconstruction efforts.

I think that, all in all, we can be reasonably proud of the action taken by the EU as a whole to support the Haitians at a particularly difficult time.

With regard to the current humanitarian situation, it is true that, some seven months after the earthquake of 12 January, the humanitarian situation is still fragile for hundreds of thousands of people, in spite of the huge amount of aid given to Haiti by the broader international community. We do not have the time to list the needs and the challenges that lie ahead. The most important aspects of the challenges to come are described with sufficient precision in the situation report regularly updated by the ’s Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO). I have also noted with interest the edifying findings mentioned in the mission report of the European Parliament delegation led by Mrs Striffler, which went to Haiti at the end of June.

As also pointed out in the European Parliament’s mission report, it is important to emphasise the positive aspects of the humanitarian action taken so far, especially the fact that this action, while indeed not perfect, has so far averted a serious health crisis and epidemics, the outbreak of which was very much feared in the aftermath of the disaster.

There is obviously still a huge amount of work to do, and I wish to reassure Members that the European Union of course remains mobilised.

The country must now begin the process of reconstruction in a tense pre-election context, marked by a worrying level of insecurity. One of the difficulties we will have to face in this context is associated, as you know, with the state of the capacities of the Haitian State itself.

Over the next six months, the emergency shelters will have to be maintained, given the delay in the implementation of a strategy for the construction of transitional houses. The internal displacement of people outside the zones directly affected threatens the survival of families taking in the victims. It will be important to provide these families with adequate support in the coming months.

The hurricane season started at the beginning of June. In the medium term, the national authorities and the international community will have to prepare, as far as possible, for this additional foreseeable threat.

As you will know, it is mostly officials from the European Commission and the Member States who implement the decisions and commitments of the EU and the Member States on the ground. I therefore invite the Honourable Member to approach the Commission, too, in order to obtain more information about the current humanitarian situation in Haiti.

Does the Council intend to publish conclusions of all Council meetings in the Irish language?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council at the September I 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(FR) Under the European ’s linguistic system, Irish is one of the 23 official and working languages of the Union’s institutions. However, for practical reasons and as a transitional measure, in accordance with the derogation provided for in  2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005⁽¹⁾, the institutions of the European Union shall not be bound by the obligation to draft all acts in Irish and to publish them in that language in the Official Journal of the European Union. Nevertheless, the regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council are drafted in all the official languages and, consequently, also in Irish.

The Council conclusions do not form part of this category of documents, so there is no requirement to publish them in Irish. That said, the Council would point out that it makes every effort to ensure that the Irish language is used in its documents.

Indeed, since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005, the Council and its General Secretariat have constantly endeavoured to have a sufficiently broad team of Irish-language translators in order to provide the greatest possible number of translations. Since 1 January 2009 this team has been an independent unit within the language service of the General Secretariat of the Council and includes 14 translators, a national expert on detachment and 7 assistants. As the EPSO competitions did not achieve sufficient results, 10 of these translators and the 7 assistants were recruited, as temporary agents, by means of selection tests organised by the General Secretariat of the Council.

The Chagos islanders were removed from their home, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), between 1968 and 1973 by the UK government, in order to clear all 65 islands of the archipelago of its population. The UK’s purpose was to give one of these islands, Diego Garcia, to the US military for an air and naval base, construction of which began in March 1971. In consequence, the entire population was forced onto cargo boats and set down in Mauritius and Seychelles, over 1 000 km from their homeland. They and their descendants have lived in exile in Mauritius and Seychelles. The community now consists of approximately 5 000 people, with only 750 surviving adult natives. All are British citizens and therefore citizens of the European Union. Some have emigrated and now live in the UK and France.

Does the Council feel that it would be fair and just to allow the Chagossians to return to their homeland, and what is the Council prepared to do to find an appropriate solution to this long-standing issue?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the September I 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(FR) I the Honourable Member for this question. However, this matter not been referred to the Council, and so it is unable to give a reply. As the Honourable Member knows, the matter of the Chagos islanders is complex and is the subject of legal proceedings before the Court of Human Rights. In line with practice, the Council does not comment on a case while there are legal proceedings under way.

What steps is the Council taking for the further reinforcement of security on the EU’s external borders, to develop Frontex and, if possible, to move closer to the establishment of a real European border protection force?

The present answer, which has been drawn by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the September I 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(FR) The objective of the European Union border policy, as laid down in the Programme, is gradually to develop the integrated management of the external borders. Several important measures have already been adopted by the European Union towards achieving this objective. These include, at the legislative level, the adoption of the Borders Code; at the operational level, the of the FRONTEX Agency; and, at the financial level, the creation of the Borders Fund.

In line with this objective, in its conclusions of 25-26 February 2010, the Council 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of external borders and combating illegal immigration. Among the main challenges facing the Union in this area in the foreseeable future, the measures list the improved efficiency of the Agency, the development of the European Surveillance System (EUROSUR), and solidarity and the integrated management of the external borders by the Member States.

The Council is closely monitoring the activities of the Agency as regards assistance and the coordination of operational cooperation in respect of the activities carried out by Member States to protect the external borders. It is currently examining the for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 aimed at revising the mandate of the Agency in order to enhance its role and operational capacities.

The Council will also examine the legislative proposals being drawn up by the Commission concerning the introduction of new technologies in the management of the borders, in particular the introduction of a system allowing the electronic recording of the dates of entry and exit of third country nationals and a system for the granting of Traveller status for fide travellers.

A referendum in Sudan concerning the secession of the southern part of the country is, with the support of the EU, being scheduled for January 2011. Major oil companies from various countries are playing a significant role in this connection. Specifically, the Swedish company ‘Lundin Petroleum’ has been accused of complicity in the actions of the Sudanese armed forces and the displacement of part of the population of South Sudan so as to secure control of petroleum deposits.

Does the Council still support the holding of a referendum in South Sudan? What view does it take of the allegations concerning the actions of European oil companies in Sudan?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the September I 2010 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

(FR) The Council actively supports the holding of a referendum on the self-determination of South Sudan (in January 2011), which it considers a fundamental element of the 2005 Peace Agreement, to the implementation of which the EU steadfastly contributes. The Council has supported this position for a long time and has repeatedly affirmed it in its public declarations. At its meeting on 26 July 2010, the Council stressed that the EU was ready to support the referendums to be held in South Sudan and in the Abyei region, by providing substantial technical and financial assistance, as well as the implementation of the Peace Agreement, by reaching an agreement on post-referendum issues and by working towards long-term stability in the region.

The Council also supports the work of the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel on Sudan. It promotes building and support to help Sudan the challenges it is facing, well as efforts to combat insecurity and to conclude a lasting peace agreement for Darfur. The Council also supports the work of the Criminal Court and the provision of humanitarian and development assistance throughout the entire country.

We are determined to act in close coordination with the Sudanese parties, the African Union, the United Nations, the Authority on Development (IGAD), the United States and other national, regional and international partners.

Funds from the Instrument will be used to organise the referendum. The EU is also to respond favourably to any invitation from the Sudanese authorities for it to send an EU mission to observe the referendum process, including, if possible, voter registration.

The Council has taken note of the opening of an investigation into allegations that certain persons working for a Swedish consortium of oil companies, including LUNDIN PETROLEUM, were involved, during the Sudanese civil war, in violations of human rights, in breach of international law. However, it is not appropriate for the Council to express an opinion on a matter that is under legal investigation.

What initiatives is the Commission pursuing at present to combat youth and long-term unemployment in the European Union?

(EN) Both the Member States and the EU need urgently to do more to improve the employment situation of young people and to tackle long-term unemployment, and this is recognised clearly in the EU’s Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. One of the five Europe 2020 headline targets seeks to increase the employment rate of women and men aged 20 to 64 from the current 69% to at least 75% by 2020. The Commission believes that, despite the current economic situation, meeting that target can realistically be achieved by 2020 if the Member States implement the necessary structural reforms of the labour market.

The headline target for employment reflects one of the strategic challenges that will face the European Union over the next decade: the ageing of the population, which involves a growing numbers of people of retirement age who will need to be supported by a smaller active working population.

The Europe 2020 strategy’s key tools for meeting the headline targets are the Integrated Guidelines and a series of seven flagship initiatives. The Integrated Guidelines, and in particular the Employment Guidelines, set out a number of policy priorities for implementing Europe 2020 in terms of combating youth and long-term unemployment. Guideline 7 aims to increase labour-market participation and reduce structural unemployment by means of adequate flexicurity policies, improving job quality, reviewing tax/benefit systems, active ageing, gender equality, work-life balance policies and combating youth and long-term unemployment. Guideline 8 concerns the development of a skilled workforce that meets the labour market’s needs and the promotion of lifelong learning. Guideline 10 calls for the promotion of social inclusion and support for groups at risk, including elderly women and men.

Various actions have already been taken at both Member State and EU level, for example through the mutual-learning programme as part of the European Employment Strategy. This involves the exchange of best practice at EU level and improving the transferability of the most effective policies, in particular targeting long-term and youth unemployment. Further measures to support vulnerable groups, including young people, by stabilising and alleviating the impact of the crisis on them were introduced through the coordinated response discussed most recently at the Employment, Social Policy and Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) Council meeting of 7 June 2010.

EU policy-makers in the field of youth also put employment high on their agenda. The Trio Presidency (Spain, Belgium and Hungary) has chosen youth employment as its common priority until mid 2011 and it is the central theme of the Structured Dialogue with young people. The Youth Council adopted in May 2010 a Resolution⁽¹⁾ on "the active inclusion of young people: combating unemployment and poverty".

The Commission will present a Communication on the flagship initiative ‘Youth on the move’ in September 2010. It will set out in detail the action needed in the coming years to improve the situation of young people in Europe. In particular it will cover action to improve young people’s transition from education to the labour market, a crucial concern of those looking for their first job with little or no work experience. The Communication will also outline the way such action, which falls largely within the Member States’ responsibility for education and employment policy, can be supported by EU funding, in particular the European Social Fund (ESF).

The ESF plays an active role in supporting young people. When targeting youth unemployment, actions financed by the ESF focus on various projects in the Member States and regions either to facilitate transitions from education to work or to help young people back into education in order to raise their skill levels and combat early school-leaving. According to the latest data available, around one third of ESF beneficiaries are young people (the ESF helped 2.5 million young people in 2008). The ESF also allocates EUR 8.3 billion directly to reforms of Member State education and training systems which mainly target young people: this represents about 11% of the overall ESF budget.

The ESF’s priorities also include combating long-term unemployment, which it does by stepping up access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people and promoting their sustainable inclusion in the labour market. Actions to prevent long-term unemployment and facilitate the re-integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market form part of the operational programmes at Member State or regional level. During the current programming period, about 30% of the overall ESF budget (EUR 21.7 billion) is devoted to improving access to sustainable employment, which covers programmes for the long-term unemployed.

What is the Commission doing to support small-scale farming in Africa, typified by family farms and village communities, and thus to combat the depopulation and desertification of large areas?

(EN) More than 70% of Africa's poor and hungry live in rural areas where agriculture forms the main economic activity. In these areas, small-scale farming is dominant with around 80% of farmers in Africa, many of whom are women, working less than two hectares of land.

In its recent Communication on food security in developing countries⁽¹⁾, the Commission expressly stated that investments in the smallholder sector have to be prioritzed since they yield the best returns in terms of poverty reduction and growth. A stronger investment in rural development can play a key role in reducing inequalities and conflicts and in slowing down migration from rural areas to cities.

By giving priority to support for small-scale farmers to increase production in a sustainable and efficient manner, the Commission strives to reduce poverty and hunger as well as desertification and depopulation of large areas. This approach is supported by Parliament and the Council⁽²⁾.

One of the objectives of the EUR 1 billion Food Facility, an initiative of the EU as a rapid response to the soaring food prices in developing countries in 2007-2008, has been to mobilise farmers and smallholders in target countries in order to increase productivity. Of the EUR 1 billion, all has now been committed, and so far EUR 625 million have been disbursed. A very large part of this goes towards helping small scale farming.

A good example illustrating this is a project in Zimbabwe, where the Food Facility has helped supply 176 000 small-scale farmers with 26 000 tonnes of seeds and fertilizers for EUR15 million. Another example is in Lesotho, where the EU is assisting over 36 000 farmers with more than 715 tonnes of seeds. This assistance will lead to 10-18 000 additional tonnes of crops harvested, which is a substantial boost compared to the total cereal production in 2009 of 86 000 tonnes.

However, other types of projects may also assist, such as the Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP) programme, helping small scale farmers in Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to meet European regulations and standards. So far 100 000 small farms in ACP countries have been assisted, helping them to keep their market in EU countries.

The Commission is convinced that by supporting small scale farming, providing them with the right inputs to increase productivity in a sustainable way, it can make a real contribution to the overall goal of catalysing a green revolution in Africa.

Of the 79 African, Caribbean & Pacific (ACP) states linked to the EU through the Cotonou Agreement, 49 criminalise homosexuality, with penalties ranging up to 14 years in jail, and as many as five punish lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people with death.

The revised Cotonou Agreement does not, however, specifically cover non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, despite an increasing incidence of state-sponsored homophobia.

Given this regrettable absence of reference to LGBT rights in the Cotonou Agreement, how does the Commission intend to ensure, through observance of the general human rights obligations in that agreement, that the human rights of LGBT people are safeguarded in the ACP countries with which the EU has this partnership?

(EN) The Commission rejects and condemns any manifestation of homophobia as a blatant violation of human dignity. It also pursues a determined policy of opposing homophobic actions and campaigns for the decriminalisation of homosexual relations, both in the United Nations, but not least with partner countries. The Commission and the EU will continue to maintain pressure on partner countries to have legislation compatible with the international principles on non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Although admittedly far from ideal, in the revision of the Cotonou Agreement, the EU did manage to ensure the amendment of Article 8.4 in a positive way, introducing the concept of "discrimination of any kind", based on several grounds among others "sex or other status". This formulation is literally based on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and did not exist in the Cotonou agreement before. The EU will now make use of these changes through all political dialogues with partner countries.

As an example of the commitment to the principle of non-discrimination, the Commission can mention the active role that both the High Representative/Vice president and the Commissioner in charge of Development played earlier in 2010 in a trial against a Malawian same-sex couple, as well as the Commission services, which made numerous approaches in Malawi at all levels of government and society. The couple was later pardoned by the Malawian president, at least in part due to European intervention.

Furthermore, the EU's Political and Security Committee endorsed on 18 June 2010 the Toolkit to Promote and Protect the Enjoyment of All Human Rights by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people. This will now be used by all EU Delegations and geographical services.

Civil society in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries is obviously a critical actor and it is supported both under the European Development Fund and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. Civil society can become an effective force for political reform and defence of human rights.

At the end of May a Commission study concluded that a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU by 30% (compared with 1990) was affordable and technically feasible. However, the Commission - represented by the Commissioner responsible - took the view that the time was not yet ripe to proceed unilaterally with this more ambitious target. On 15 July the three biggest Member States called, however, on the Commission to increase the EU's target for reducing emissions to 30%. That is needed in order to stimulate the necessary investment in green technology and to keep the value of tradeable emission rights high enough to encourage a change in behaviour.

Does the Commission consider that circumstances are now favourable, with a view to the climate negotiations in Cancun, for pressing ahead with an emission reduction target of 30%? What steps will it take? And what role does it see in this for the emissions trading system?

(EN) The support from the French, German and United Kingdom ministers for a decision to move emission reduction beyond 20% is a very welcome contribution to the debate which the Commission launched with its Communication in May 2010⁽¹⁾.

It shows increasing recognition of the fact that this question is not just about commitments and burdens and international negotiations – but also about what Europe as a society will base its welfare and growth on in the future.

And let us be clear: while other countries have not yet signed up to sufficiently ambitious targets in the international context, some of them are moving very fast in any case. For example, in July 2010 it was announced that China may spend USD 738 billion on developing clean energy in the next decade.

But as far as the international negotiations are concerned, the EU is at present the only large emitter that has binding legislation in place on targets after 2012, bringing emission down in the EU to -20% by 2020. Regrettably, the other key industrialised partner - the United States - doesn't seem likely to adopt ambitious legislation any time soon.

However, it is clear that the EU should prepare itself for the situation when the Commission, Council and Parliament see conditions right to increase the target beyond -20%.

The 20% by 2020 target was always an intermediate one, and from the Commission's perspective there is no doubt that emissions will have to be reduced by 30% and even much more at some stage – the question is only by when - and when we take the decision.

In answering this question, one should not only look at what the outside does in the international negotiations, but also look at the self interest of the EU.

On this level the Commission very much welcomes the statements by the three ministers. In line with the Commission's analysis, they emphasise elements such as potential future oil price spikes, energy security, green growth etc. In other words, they agree with the argumentation in the Commission's Communication that this is also about the EU's self-interest.

The Commission hopes that the Communication and its rich analysis will get similar attention in Parliament. It would be good to get input from Parliament on the type of policies the Commission should consider when assessing in further detail the impact of going to a -30% target.

With regard to the implications of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), the Communication outlined some of them. A possible option for the EU to use the ETS to implement a 30% decision would be to tighten the emission cap over the 2013-2020 period by setting aside EUR 1.4 billion allowances that would otherwise be auctioned. This would ensure a cost-effective contribution from the ETS sectors to such a target. This effort would be complemented by emission reductions in the non-ETS sectors.

The European Union’s climate policy and its energy security are the key goals set out in the Green Paper entitled ‘A European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy’ of 8 March 2006.

In countries whose energy mix is made up to a large extent of coal in terms of energy, applying a uniform standard for limiting CO2 emissions will mean increasing dependence on gas imports. Unlike countries in Western Europe, those in Central Europe do not enjoy a sustainable diversification of supply but instead have to face the virtual monopoly on exports of the Russian Gazprom company. This places an appreciable restriction on the EU’s energy security.

How does the Commission intend to solve to this problem? Is the aim to have uniform rules for CO2 emissions for completely different parts of the Common Market? Does the Commission recognise the equivalent nature of the EU’s energy security and its climate objectives?

(EN) The Commission recognises the importance of energy security. One of the consequences of the 2008 Climate and Energy Package and other supplementary measures will be to lower the energy intensity of the European economy and thereby contribute to energy security.

For the time being and up to 2012, Member States from Eastern and Central Europe have to reach less ambitious targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

Furthermore, there is not necessarily a direct link between CO2 emission reduction target and increased dependence on natural gas. The EU climate policy offers flexibility to Member States that may choose between various options to reduce their emissions. Beyond the mere promotion of natural gas, alternative options to reach the reduction target include renewable energy production (including biomass), carbon capture and storage for fossil fuel power plants, international credits, or energy efficiency.

For the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), harmonised rules are put in place as of 2013 to avoid competitive distortions in the internal market, including for electricity.

Nevertheless, the perspective of new Member States - several of them rather coal dependent countries - has been given ample recognition in the Climate and Energy Package, via:

- the option to derogate until 2019 from full auctioning in the power sector for existing power plants (new plants for which the investment process has not been physically initiated before 31.12.2008 are not eligible to avoid competitive distortions). Under this provision the new Member States shall invest corresponding amounts in retrofitting and upgrading of the infrastructure and clean technologies, also with a view to the diversification of their energy mix and sources of supply;

- the redistribution of 12% of auctioning rights to the new Member States, which will increase the revenues for governments from auctioned allowances (these revenues can be used for a combination of investments in energy saving, improved energy efficiency, increased use of biomass and other renewables);

- less demanding effort in terms of emission reduction outside of the ETS (effort sharing decision) and renewable energy targets.

To conclude, the Commission is well aware of the close link between climate action and energy security aspects. The specific situation of some of the Central and Eastern European Member States was taken into account when adopting the 2008 Climate and Energy Package, including through differentiated CO2 targets and special measures for the states concerned. There is therefore no need for additional measures. The priority is rather on full and timely implementation of the climate and energy package.

Given that, for security reasons, it is difficult to use EUR 500 and EUR 200 banknotes, would it not be a good idea to withdraw them from circulation, especially since they are an unnecessary complication for EU citizens?

(EN) Decisions on the issuance of euro banknotes or their different denominations are the sole competence of the European Central Bank. The decision on the current denominations of euro banknotes was taken after careful consideration and extensive consultations of the different categories of cash users and there are no plans to withdraw any of them from circulation. High denomination banknotes are primarily used by euro-area residents, as well as non-residents, as a store of value. Furthermore, experience so far has shown no particular security problems with the EUR 500 and EUR 200 banknotes, which are in fact among the least counterfeited banknote denominations.

The two-year existence of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) will soon be ‘celebrated’. Following the postponement of the Barcelona Summit, initially planned for 7 June 2010 during the Spanish Presidency, to November 2010, the UfM has appeared weakened, and the recent events in the Middle East have merely heightened this.

What is the Commission’s assessment of the two years of the Union for the Mediterranean’s existence?

The areas of activity and structures of the UfM have been identified since 2008.

In the Commission’s view, is the UfM current functioning in an operational capacity? Has financing for projects so far been guaranteed? Is the UfM’s commitment the same on both sides of the Mediterranean, and what precise form does it take?

What initiatives does the Commission intend to introduce in connection with the UfM?

(EN) The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a priority for the European Union. Since its launch in July 2008 and despite difficult political conditions prevailing in the Middle East, the 43 partners eventually managed to successfully implement the preparatory and transition phase for the setting-up of the Secretariat in Barcelona. Recently the Secretariat has signed a grant contract with the Commission covering 100% of the Secretariat’s provisional budget and making it possible for the latter to start its recruitment procedure and preparatory work on the project guidelines.

This being said, it also has to be acknowledged that the Union for the Mediterranean is not operating in a political vacuum. Political setbacks in the Middle East Peace Process obviously constitute a major obstacle for regional integration and the UfM process as such. The resolution of the Middle East conflict is therefore essential if we are to progress towards regional integration and sustainable peace.

Since 2008, the EU has lent its support to the UfM. In July 2009, the EU decided to provide funding (EUR 60 million) for five project priorities identified at the Paris Summit. We all have a vested interest in developing the institutional capacity of the Union for the Mediterranean, in particular its Secretariat, to promote regional integration projects and spur investments. The Commission is determined to help the Secretariat to deliver on its mission. Funding is available already in 2010 and additional funding can be made available for successive years once the cruising speed of the Secretariat is reached. The Commission is doing its utmost but financial support from other UfM partners will be important.

The London 2012 Olympic organisers have said that fans who wish to buy tickets to the event by card on the official London 2012 website, or pay for items by card at the Olympics, will be allowed only to use the Visa payment system. This seems to be part of an exclusive sponsorship deal struck between Visa and the Olympic and Paralympic Games. However, the deal will have a discriminatory effect on sports fans from the UK, EU and beyond who happen to have another payment system such as Mastercard or Amex and want to purchase tickets or buy merchandise. It cannot be right that people are prevented from buying tickets to this significant sporting event simply because they have the wrong kind of card in their wallet. The London 2012 Olympic Games should be about a level playing field, and hampering equal access to the Games in this manner is wholly against this spirit, as well as being anti-competitive. Will the Commission therefore agree to look into this issue?

(EN) The Honourable Member is concerned about the compatibility of the ticketing arrangements for the 2012 London Olympics with EU competition law and brings to the Commission's attention a concern that, due to contractual arrangements between VISA and the organisers of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, sport fans buying tickets through the London 2012 ticketing website may be obliged to use a VISA card.

The Commission is aware of the above issue. The Commission and the United Kingdom Competition Authority, the Office of Fair Trading, are currently examining it and are in discussion about what action, if any, should be taken. When examining the matter, the Commission takes into account the past cases where it assessed credit card exclusivity arrangements for sports events, namely the arrangements for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and the 2006 Germany World Cup. In both cases, the Commission followed the principle that consumers in the European Economic Area should have a reasonable access to tickets via alternative sales channels that accept other payment means.

The Nord Stream gas pipeline is under construction, and the sad example of the Gulf of Mexico oil slick must alert us to the risks of this multinational project. That is why I would like to put a number of questions. There has been an obvious lack of appropriate responses by BP. Is the Commission familiar with the crisis management procedures provided for in the event of an accident at the Nord Stream gas pipeline? Is the Commission prepared to help Nord Stream with crisis management if any accident occurs? What state would be responsible in the event of an accident, and who would finance action to rectify damage caused by a disaster? Furthermore, Russia has not ratified the Espoo Convention, though it is a strategic and essential Nord Stream partner. What is the Commission's assessment of this situation, bearing in mind that, in his speech on 8 July 2008, Commissioner Stavros Dimas gave an undertaking that 'we always put pressure on third-party countries to ratify agreements of environmental interest'?

(EN) The Commission would like to inform the Honorable Member that Nord Stream has been subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC⁽¹⁾, as amended (the “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive”), as well as with national legislation transposing the Directive in each of the countries through which it passes. Under the EIA Directive, the likely significant effects of such proposed projects on the environment should be assessed and the necessary measures to prevent reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment should be identified prior to the development consent.

In addition, as a cross-border project, Nord Stream has been subject to an EIA in a transboundary context, on the basis of the UN/ECE Espoo Convention. The Russian Federation has complied de facto with the Espoo Convention. The international consultation process lasted three years. All countries around the Baltic Sea were involved, and consultations as well as formal meetings among all the stakeholders, experts, administrative bodies and the public concerned took place in a transparent way. The EIA is part of the authorisation process and is a pre-requisite for granting permits to construct the pipeline. The competent authorities of all countries concerned have taken the results of the Espoo procedure EIA into consideration when issuing their respective national construction permits. The project received all required environmental and construction permits by the concerned countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany and Russia) and the construction started in April 2010.

The position of the Commission is that the Espoo procedure is the most appropriate procedure to assess the environmental impacts for this kind of trans-boundary project and that its ratification by the third-party countries shall be encouraged. Thus, on various occasions the Commission has reminded the Russian Federation of its view that Russia's formal ratification of the Espoo Convention would be a constructive step towards a further enhanced common responsibility for the environmental protection of the Baltic Sea as a particularly sensitive maritime basin. Russia agreed to abide by the rules of the Espoo Convention and a full EIA satisfying the requirements of the Convention was carried out, following which the necessary authorisations were granted by the authorities of the States concerned. This in essence means that for this particular case it did not make a difference if Russia had not ratified the Espoo Convention.

As a general remark, the Commission would want to note that the case of the Nord Stream pipeline cannot be compared to the risks that led to the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Nord Stream will carry natural gas and no crude or refined oil. Natural gas supply can be very easily controlled at the supply source. Therefore, in case of crisis, such as a rupture of the pipeline, the gas supply can be immediately shut down by the supplier. Consequently, the environmental risks are not similar to those of deep-sea oil drilling.

Finally, the Commission is not informed about crisis management procedures provided for in the case of projects planned and proposed by private developers, as is the case of this gas pipeline. This is the responsibility of Member States concerned. The Commission encourages the decision to set up a joint monitoring system for the Nord Stream pipeline by the countries concerned, as proposed in May 2010 during the meeting between the Prime Ministers of Finland and the Russian Federation. Furthermore, in the absence of a legal framework, the Commission always advises pipeline operators to define precise responsibilities and to conclude on the applicable law in advance. The Commission is ready to assist any project, upon request, to achieve legal certainty.

The EU concluded agreements with Latin American countries and the US on trade in bananas within the WTO earlier this year and has already started their provisional application. Does the Commission possess any indicators showing the impact of these agreements on European banana producers and related businesses, especially in the context of the current economic and financial crisis, and the outermost regions of the EU, i.e. French Antilles, Canary Islands, Madeira, etc.?

(FR) The Commission is aware of the importance of the socioeconomic role of the banana sector in EU producer countries.

In 2006, the EU reformed the organisation the market in bananas transferring the aid for producers to the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI). On that occasion, the European Union increased the Community banana budget very significantly compared to the previous period (up 47% in comparison with the average of the years 2002-2006)

.

The Commission therefore considers that the current annual budget of EUR 278.8 million adequately supports the income of European banana producers, given the possible impact of the gradual reduction of tariff duties on banana imports on their competitiveness.

Nevertheless, the services of the General for Agriculture and Rural Development (the services of the for Agriculture and Rural Development) continue to monitor the market and to analyse the available data and will not hesitate to take action if the situation so requires.

Has the Commission ever performed any study focusing on the efficiency of cross-border logistics and its impact on, as well as needs in terms of, trade, employment and training across the Community?

If so, which priorities have been adopted by the Commission for an EU-wide strategy for cross-border logistics and what further steps does the Commission intend to take?

If the Commission has no clear view based on the treaties, could and does the Commission plan to adopt a clear strategy for accelerating cross-border logistics whilst cutting carbon pollution and protecting communities at risk, including key multi-modal infrastructure projects, electronic freight tracking and load exchange, cross-border customs harmonisation and training programmes across the supply chain/logistics sector as soon as possible in order to help restore growth in European Member States’ economies?

(EN) Freight Transport Logistics focuses on the planning, organisation, management, control and execution of freight transport operations in the supply chain. According to information available to the Commission, the sector accounts for 14-15 % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Given that transport alone accounts for 7 % GDP, this figure might well be realistic. On the other hand, given the very broad scope of activities which could fall under "logistics" it might also be too low.

The Commission has set out its main objectives with regard to logistics in the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan, adopted in October 2007. The Plan, which covers 35 actions, has already delivered some tangible results (ITS action plan, freight-oriented rail corridors etc) and will be subject to a review during 2010 so as to keep it up-to-date.

The Action Plan gives due importance to the key contribution that professionals make to the performance of the logistics industry: 2 among the 35 actions of the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan, focus on the social aspects; namely on the qualifications, training requirements and on the attractiveness of the logistics professions. The Commission is addressing these issues with the cooperation of social partners, professional associations and other relevant stakeholders.

As concerns the integration of transport modes, this is an important objective of the EU transport policy, to be reflected also in the forthcoming White Paper on transport policy. Therefore initiatives that support the integration of physical goods flows and information flows will be prioritised in the coming years. The on-going review of the TEN-T guidelines will target multi-modal infrastructure projects. The Commission is also moving forward in developing information systems for the logistics sector, in close collaboration with the developments ongoing in the customs area. Finally, in the context of FP7 a number of research and development projects have been addressing the issues of information and communication technologies in transport and logistics, both on EU and global level, notably "SMART-CM- Smart container chain management⁽¹⁾ and INTEGRITY⁽²⁾- Intermodal global door-to-door container supply chain visibility.

With regard to the specific studies related to logistics, the Commisson would like to refer the Honourable Member to the impact assessment of the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan that can be found on the Commission's website.

In conclusion the Commission can confirm its interest in promoting smooth cross-border logistics. Businesses' need for seamless logistics services requires a more integrated policy, which combines different modes of transport and different processes such as customs. This will be an important theme of the White Paper on Future Transport Policy which the Commission plans to put forward in a few months time.

The Turkish occupying power in the northern part of Cyprus tolerates or in many cases even actively colludes in the destruction or transformation of historic Christian buildings and monuments in the occupied northern part of Cyprus and, at the very least, contributes to their total neglect.

This constitutes a violation, inter alia, of Article 56 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 and of the more recent UNESCO Declaration concerning the intentional destruction of cultural heritage (2003).

Is the Commission aware of this deliberate destruction of the Christian/Byzantine heritage in one of the EU Member States? Can Turkey be held liable for this? What steps will the Commission take to halt this scandalous illegal practice? What practical steps must Turkey take to halt this practice, and within what time limit? What consequences will all this have for the accession negotiations? Does this not, at the minimum, constitute an obstacle to direct relations with the occupied territory?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the damage to cultural heritage in the northern part of Cyprus and takes note of the concerns of the Honourable Member. It is clear that a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus would enable issues of cultural heritage to be adequately addressed between the two communities.

In this context, the Commission appreciates the establishment of a bi-communal Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage which notably confirmed in press statements that it is the primary responsibility of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to protect the endangered cultural heritage of the island.

The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that recently it launched a study under the financial aid programme for the Turkish Cypriot Community to compile a list of the immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus according to a common methodology. The Commission is ready to see how it could help further once this first study has been successfully completed by the end of 2010.

Concerning the questions on Turkey, the Commission recalls that the Copenhagen political criteria for accession include the respect for and protection of minorities, cultural rights and freedom of religion by Turkey, as by all candidate countries.

The Commission monitors closely Turkey's position on Cyprus and its compliance with the political criteria, in line with the 2005 Negotiating Framework for the accession negotiations with Turkey. Its assessment is presented in the annual Progress Report. The next report will be adopted in November 2010.

The EU is the largest importer of agricultural goods originating from developing countries, owing chiefly to preferential commercial agreements, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative in favour of the least developed countries. EU imports exceed combined imports by the US, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

How does the Commission evaluate the impact of the EU's agricultural concessions to developing countries on the development of their agricultural sectors? How does it ensure that local producers and exporters benefit from preferential access to the EU market?

(EN) From 2006-2008, the EU imported on average EUR 63,8 billion of agricultural products (chapters 1-24 of the EUs Combined Nomenclature, including fish products) from the 176 countries benefitting from the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). EUR 11,2 billion of those EUR 63,8 billion were imported under the GSP preferences (under the three GSP schemes: GSP, GSP + and Everything But Arms – EBA). In addition, 67 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries currently benefit from full duty and quota free access to the EU market for all products (with the exception of sugar which is subject to special provisions) under Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Overall, 40% of agricultural imports from the GSP beneficiaries entered the EU market duty free under the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) regime, 18% with GSP preferences and 16% with preferences resulting from bilateral agreements, including EPAs.

The impact of the EU's agricultural concessions to developing countries under the GSP scheme, as part of the wider universe of goods, is regularly scrutinised by the Commission, using both internal experts and external consultants.

The last available study by the external consultant CARIS on the mid-term evaluation of the EU’s GSP scheme⁽¹⁾ noted there was some positive evidence of the effectiveness of the scheme. In particular, the studies noted that the EU‘s GSP preferences can be effective in increasing Least Developed Countries' (LDCs) exports and welfare, that GSP utilisation rates are typically high, and that LDC exporters tend to benefit from preference margins received. Still, the analysis also notes that a number of factors, centred on some structural features, such as the generally low level of EU MFN tariffs and the structure of LDCs' trade, constrain to some extent the effectiveness of the GSP regime. The study includes sector-specific analysis showing that imports under the GSP regimes rose for vegetables and prepared foodstuffs. Sugar imports also increased under the EBA regime.

In the context of its Aid for Trade strategy the EU provides development financing seeking to integrate local farmers to regional and international markets. The Commission also regularly informs the beneficiaries' countries about the conditions required to fully seize the advantages of preferential access. In addition, the Commission created the Export Helpdesk, in 2004, as an online service about exporting to Europe, intended at facilitating market access for developing countries to the European Union.

Directive 2001/29/EC⁽¹⁾ on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society provides the European legal framework for exceptions and limitations to copyright. Article 5(2)(a) of the Copyright Directive states that Member States may provide for exceptions and limitations to the authors’ reproduction right. The condition for such an exception is that authors receive ‘fair compensation’.

The recent opinion of Advocate-General Trstenjak in the case SGAE v. Padawan (C-467/08) interprets the requirements deriving from Article 5(2)(b) of the Copyright Directive, but large parts of the Opinion also apply to Article 5(2)(a). In her recent Opinion, the Advocate-General has made it clear that the Directive (2001/29/EC) can be interpreted as prohibiting levies to compensate for illicit copying (§ 78).

Fair compensation should hence not cover damages caused by reproductions of copyrighted works other than those falling under the legal exception, such as unauthorised reproductions of copyrighted works (i.e. piracy), or reproductions that have been explicitly authorised by the copyright-holder. Authors have the right to obtain compensation for such copies, either in court (for unauthorised reproductions), or by contract (for explicitly authorised reproductions).

Is it the Commission’s view that only legal acts of copying fall within the scope of the exception provided for by Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC and that these are therefore the only copies that should be compensated for? Given the diverse interpretation and application of Directive 2001/29/EC across the EU, what measures does the Commission plan to take in order to address the negative consequences for the internal market?

(EN) Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society provides that rightholders must receive fair compensation for exceptions and limitations from the reproduction right such as those relating to reprography (Article 5(2)(a)). As the Honourable Member points out in his question, as soon as Member States provide for an exception from the exclusive reproduction right for the purposes of reprography ("reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by a photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects"), only acts that fall within the scope of the definition of the exception are lawful acts. In addition, only such acts allowed by the exception can give rise to a claim for fair compensation.

Acts of reprography that are not covered by either a license or a statutory exception would be an infringement of the author's right of reproduction. For example, the reproduction of sheet music is specifically excluded from the scope of the exception. The unauthorised reproduction of sheet music therefore remains an illegal act and the copying of sheet music cannot be rendered lawful by the payment of fair compensation. In this respect, the Commission is cognizant of the need to fight piracy and counterfeiting. It is actively pursuing policies in consultation with all stakeholders on how best to address this phenomenon. Any solutions must be based on a coherent approach that does not undermine the legitimate interests and concerns of rightholders and consumers alike. This also means that fair compensation for lawful acts of reprography has to be distinguished from illegal copying.

The Commission has, in the past, undertaken a variety of initiatives to ensure a coherent interpretation of the above mentioned copyright exception. At this stage, the Commission is still engaged in a stakeholder dialogue aimed at clarifying such matters.

Will the Commission ask the authorities of the Russian Federation to give an account of the causes, including technical causes, of the crash involving aircraft TU-154 on 10 April 2010? In this crash, a total of 96 Polish citizens tragically died, including the President of Poland, Lech Kaczyñski, senior officers of all branches of the Polish armed forces, the Governor of the Central Bank, the Ombudsman for Civil Rights, numerous leading members of political parties and representatives of associations commemorating the massacre of Polish officers perpetrated by the Soviet Union in 1940.

(EN) Commission does not intend either to participate in the investigation into the causes of this accident or to establish its own commission of inquiry. The Commission understands that the investigations are being carried out by the competent authorities of the Russian Federation and of the Republic of Poland in accordance with agreed procedures, and has not received from these authorities any requests for assistance. Should any such requests be addressed to the Commission, they will be assessed and responded to. The Commission expresses the hope that the causes of this accident will be established as soon as possible.

There is a toxic waste site on the island of Haulbowline, Co. Cork, Ireland. The waste is a product of over 50 years of steel manufacturing by the companies Irish Steel Limited and ISPAT. The Irish State owns the site and has had full responsibility and liability for the site since ISPAT went into liquidation. The toxic dump has been lying idle for ten years and the Irish Government has said it will not be conducting a baseline health study. The Irish Cancer Registry has proved that the island of Cobh has one of the highest cancer rates in the country: 37%. Some of the hazardous waste includes chromium VI.

Can the Commission inform this House if the Irish Government is in breach of EU environmental law?

(EN) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his written question E-5690/10⁽¹⁾.

Piraeus Bank has made a bid totalling €701 m for the government's 77.31% stake in the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ABG) and its 33.04% stake in the Hellenic PostBank (TT), this being the response of its major shareholders caused by the PASOK Government and EU and IMF representatives for consolidation of the banking sector, taking advantage of the protective umbrella afforded by the State under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government, the EU, the ECB and the IMF. All Greek banks have benefited massively from the €28 billion aid package, together with the new supplementary EU and IMF €10 billion package, which was accorded subject to very stringent conditions and for which the Greek people will be required to pay dearly. The merger and privatisation of the ABG and TT, which will generate massive banking profits, will be paid for by wage earners and will have particularly unfavourable consequences for deeply indebted small and medium-sized farmers and processing companies holding accounts with the ABG, as well as bank employees.

Given that, under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the proceeds from the sale of state assets are estimated to be €1 billion annually in the immediate future, is the takeover/privatisation of banks in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the PASOK government and the EU, ECT and IMF?

(EN) The privatisation receipts indicated in the Memorandum of Understanding are estimates. Furthermore, it has to be noted that the Memorandum of Understanding does not list the companies to be privatised. As the international assistance programme does not mention the specifiic case, it cannot prejudge the outcome of the takeover proposal by Piraeus. In terms of any merger that would have to be notified to the Commission, the Commission would examine the case on its merits with a view to assessing the compatibility of the transaction with the common market pursuant to the EU Merger Regulation⁽¹⁾.

By drastically cutting public expenditure on health services under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding with the EU, ECT and IMF, the Greek PASOK government is endangering public health and driving wage earners towards private health and insurance schemes, an extremely lucrative sector for multinationals. The findings of the Public Health Inspectorate regarding contracts between public hospitals and Siemens from 2002 to 2009 support complaints by wage earners of massive corporate profits from the plethora of supply contracts. Siemens, as well as being the principal supplier of the EU institutions, also enjoys a virtual monopoly in the supply of public hospital equipment maintenance services. As a result of privatisation and the deregulation of services in the name of competition, the EU and the Greek PASOK and ND governments have effectively blocked public services from the hospitals in question.

What view does the Commission take of privatisation of the health services and the deterioration in health care standards? What is its position regarding allegations concerning transactions with Siemens in Greece and other countries?

(EN) The economic crisis puts great pressure on public health budgets. This has resulted in delays in the payment of public contracts in several Member States. Poor management of health systems and lack of financial transparency can further worsen the situation.

This is the reason why, exceptionally, health sector refom is part of the structural reform conditionality package for Greece's economic recovery plan.

The Commission is closely monitoring reforms in Greece and will raise the Honourable Member concerns at forthcoming meetings with the Greek authorities.

Let the Commission stress that it does not have the competence to intervene in Member States' decisions about the management of national health systems. Member States are free to decide about privatisation of health care.

Finally, the Commission does not dispose of any information regarding allegations on transactions between Siemens and health authorities/hospitals in Greece or other countries.

The Memorandum of Understanding regarding terms of credit for Greece, to which the Commission is a signatory, specifies the closure of loss-making railways.

For decades, successive Greek governments have systematically failed to meet their financial obligations towards the Greek Railways Organisation (OSE) forcing it to have recourse to state-guaranteed loans. National contributions to co-funded rail projects have also largely taken the form of loans which has not been the case for other transport infrastructures.

The closure of railway lines is the result of practices designed to attribute to the OSE a public debt of €9 billion and of unfair competition at the expense of the railways.

Is the closure of EU-funded railway lines being sought by the Commission in accordance with EU rules?

(EN) The Commission provides support to the Greek government regarding the implementation of the different Memoranda of Understanding of May 2010 in order to stimulate growth and employment and to remedy the financial problems of the State.

The Greek rail sector features cost recovery, productivity and traffic intensity at levels of 30 to 60% lower than most other European railway companies, whereas the ability of the State to provide financial support is evidently limited.

Funding arrangements for infrastructure under the Structural Funds are not linked with obligations regarding arrangements for the provisions of transport services. Where particular passenger services cannot be operated in profitable way, the State may decide to compensate a railway undertaking on the basis of a contract. Otherwise the latter decides on the services it would like to provide. Nevertheless, the Honourable member should be informed that the EU regulations foresee the rules on durability of operations co-financed by the Funds, in this case the availability of the infrastructure for using it. In the 2007-2013 programming period, Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 provides for a maximum period of 5 years past completion of an operation co-funded by the Funds during which the said operation should not undergo significant modifications affecting its nature or implementation conditions. In the 2000-2006 programming period, the durability of operations is regulated by Article 30(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999⁽¹⁾.