Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 21 September 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

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

3. Security of gas supply (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Vidal-Quadras, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Directive 2004/67/EC (COM(2009)0363 - C7-0097/2009 - 2009/0108(COD)) (A7-0112/2010).

  Alejo Vidal-Quadras, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, in recent years, we have witnessed repeated examples of the vulnerability of Member States with respect to energy matters, particularly as regards the gas supply.

Supply disruptions in the north and east of the European Union in the winters of 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 became a veritable nightmare. The harshness of recent winters in Europe makes it even more incumbent upon us, if possible, to do everything that is in our power to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

The majority of the Union’s energy supply is imported; hence, diplomacy can play an important role in this strategic area. We are all aware of the efforts made by the Commission in this area, which we greatly appreciate, but we need to equip ourselves with more directly effective mechanisms.

We must bear in mind that, in the supply crises that we have experienced, national market rules and the lack of interconnections prevented fully satisfactory aid being provided to the Member States affected.

The regulation we are going to vote on is intended to be a firm step forward in resolving this problem. We have spent a long time trying to make progress on this issue, overcoming the difficulties arising from the different national perspectives. It has been a long and hard negotiation process.

The agreement we are voting on today shows that Member States have looked beyond their particular interests in order to accept a much more European focus. Once the regulation is adopted, we will then have a powerful instrument with which to increase gas supply security in the European Union as a whole.

The regulation was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy after the successful outcome of the trialogues with the Council.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent work, duly reflected in the text, as well as all of the committee members who provided opinions, a significant number of whose important amendments were incorporated into the text.

I would also like to thank the European Commission for the valuable support given to the colegislators and to acknowledge the generous collaboration of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, which kept us fully updated on the progress of the work it was doing.

This regulation ensures the security of all European citizens, who, from now on, will find themselves better protected in the event of a crisis. Moreover, it also provides Member States with a degree of flexibility, enabling them to include additional protected customers, such as public services.

However, the legitimate eagerness of a Member State when it comes to protecting consumers in its national market must be balanced by an undertaking of solidarity with citizens of other Union Member States.

In the event of a crisis, the regulation obliges gas supply companies to supply protected customers for a minimum, uninterrupted period of 30 days. Moreover, Member States must either build, or upgrade, their infrastructures in such a way as to improve the integration of the internal energy market and reduce the existence of energy islands.

One of the most important achievements of this regulation is the fact that it imposes reverse flow on the gas interconnections of all Member States, thus complying with criteria such as need and viability. Reverse flow, by means of investments in the short term and at an acceptable cost, will enable the unprecedented diversification of supply within Europe. In this sense, the Yamal pipeline is an obvious example, given that it supplies Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Germany via Belarus.

Another achievement of Parliament is the important role given to the Commission, which acquires the power of veto with respect to specific measures if it deems that these may endanger the security of supply to other Member States.

Furthermore, the Commission will play a decisive role in coordinating between Member States in any crisis situation through the auspices of the Gas Coordination Group. This regulation provides a real solution to a real problem. It strengthens gas supply security and obliges all market stakeholders to collaborate in dealing with serious supply problems in the future.

Proper and efficient market functioning, the building of interconnections and supplier and route diversification are the best defence against future crises.

Mr President, the regulation concerning gas security represents a profound qualitative change in which Member States are leaving aside purely national schemes to enter fully into an ambitious European approach.

It is true that it has taken two crises with dangerous consequences to awaken the EU conscience of some Member States, but their attrition is very welcome if it has the same consequences as contrition.

Lastly, Mr President, this regulation represents an historical milestone on the road to gas supply security in the Union and is irrefutable proof of the worthiness of our great integration project. The proper and swift application of this regulation will send out a very strong message to our suppliers, who are almost always our friends; that as far as gas supply is concerned in the Union, the motto of ‘every man for himself’ no longer holds. It has been replaced by ‘all for one and one for all’.

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, gas plays an important role in our energy policy and the strategy for this area is clear. Firstly, we need an efficient European legal framework to ensure the security of the gas supply. Secondly, we should be diversifying our sources and routes of supply for imported gas. We also need to develop further and consolidate the necessary infrastructure and to take a common approach on European interests when dealing with our energy partners and the transit countries. All of this must be based on a well-functioning internal market.

The gas crisis in January of last year and the developments which took place in June between Moscow and Minsk confirmed that we are on the right track with our gas strategy. For this reason, I am grateful that the negotiations in Parliament and with the Member States on the basis of the Commission proposal were brought to a constructive conclusion in the space of only a year. This is good news for the business community and for the citizens of the European Union. I would like to thank, in particular, the European Parliament and also Mr Vidal-Quadras for showing commitment to this issue. You were certain of the results that could be achieved and have brought the process to a convincing conclusion. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Member States for their readiness to give up some of their powers and become part of a European framework.

This draft regulation is the very first piece of legislation based on the comprehensive article on energy in the new Treaty of Lisbon. You are entering new territory and making use of your newly acquired, comprehensive powers. No one can guarantee that there will be no interruptions to the gas supply. This makes it all the more important for us to take the necessary precautions. We believe that close cooperation with the Member States on the subject of gas is more essential than ever. We are currently advising Poland to ensure, right from the outset, that its new gas supply contract with Russia is compatible with European law and does not require formal breach of contract procedures.

We welcome the call from this House for a common European approach, faster preventive action, new technical options, such as reverse flow capacity, the expansion of the infrastructure and a common European external energy policy. We also support Parliament’s proposal to monitor and establish an internal market. The mandatory minimum standards for every private household are an indication of solidarity and of the responsibility which Europe assumes as regards its citizens. Right across Europe, there will be mandatory storage of 30 days’ supply in the case of extreme conditions, for example, infrastructure failure, temperature variations or peaks in demand. Thirty days’ worth of security is not a true safety net, but it forms a foundation on which we can approach the winter and possible future crises with greater confidence.

We should increasingly be speaking with one voice, building up our position internally, as we are doing now, and presenting a united front to the outside world.

Many of the measures which form part of the regulation have already been implemented, including those relating to the gas infrastructure and the reverse flow capacity. We are currently providing support for 31 projects in the field of gas using money allocated by Parliament. A total of EUR 1.4 billion is helping to release a variety of public and private funding. In recent months, we have achieved a great deal of what the regulation is aiming to implement. However, much still remains to be done. I am sure that this regulation will not be the last word on the subject. Therefore, I am interested in seeing an interim review and possibly the continuation of this regulation and the fine-tuning and expansion of the corresponding plans in two to three years.

We would like the regulation to be applied quickly after it is adopted. The Commission wants to take action at an early stage in order to ensure that we have a common approach to our external energy relationships. The gas coordination group, which is led by the Commission and meets every month, will have a stronger role to play as a result of the regulation. We welcome the fact that there will be cooperation not only at a European level, but also at a regional level. One example of this is the pilot project involving the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as part of the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP). In brief, we need regional solutions within the overall European dimension.

I can assure you that the Commission wants to see a wide-ranging debate on infrastructure. The infrastructure package which we intend to present to you in November represents the right opportunity for this, along with the next financing period.

(Applause)

  Bogusław Sonik, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (PL) The citizens of Europe expect measures and decisions from the European Union which will visibly and specifically express our desire for supranational infrastructure to be managed collectively. This regulation meets these expectations. In particular, this concerns transport and the ability to travel rapidly to any destination in Europe using fast railways, roads and air connections, and it also concerns security, including energy security.

For several years, we have been saying in Parliament that energy supplies should be treated as a strategically political subject. Europe must not be dependent on a single supplier, but this is the situation in Central and Eastern Europe, which obtains most of its supplies from Russia. Gazprom has repeatedly shown that it treats gas as a strategic weapon for increasing Moscow’s political influence by creating difficulties over gas supplies. We, as Poles, as Polish MEPs, have called attention to the egoistic nature of the Northern Gas Pipeline, an investment which has been undertaken without consulting the Member States of the European Union.

Today’s regulation on gas solidarity is an expression of the European awareness that only together can we build an effective and mutually beneficial system for the procurement and distribution of gas. A system in which no country, if deprived of gas, will be left to itself. In order to put the provisions of this regulation into effect, we do, however, need the political will of governments, and also the financial effort of the European Union.

  Sandra Kalniete, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. This is a very important report, and I am pleased to see that Parliament’s resolution reflects the concerns of those Member States that are isolated in the area of energy, because they are largely dependent on supplies from third countries and lack the infrastructure connecting them with other European Union Member States. I hope that the adoption of this regulation will enable the development of common energy policy projects. On behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I take pleasure in noting various points where Parliament has improved this proposal. First, the class of consumers to whom gas supply is guaranteed in extreme circumstances has been made more precise and clearly defined. Second, the working of the European principle of solidarity has been averted, strengthened and made more specific, with emphasis on regional cooperation and the extension of the Commission’s powers and responsibility. Finally, priority has been unambiguously given to market-based instruments, rather than non-market mechanisms, in solving disruptions in supply. They are to be applied only in circumstances where the market is unable to guarantee supply to protected consumers. In conclusion, I should like to thank Mr Vidal-Quadras for his excellent collaboration.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – Mr President, energy security is one of the key elements for safeguarding the future. It is a public good that the EU has a duty to provide for its citizens. The question is not if, but how, the Community should act in order to make Member States secure in the energy field. For that purpose, two elements are required: first, proper legislative instruments and, second, political vision and the will to implement those instruments.

As for the legislative package that has been negotiated in a very effective manner by the rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras, I would estimate that, when compared with initial ambitions, two-thirds of the goal of providing energy security for the EU as a whole have been reached. The package provides us with ambitious rules concerning infrastructure, introduces the system for Community reaction to emergency situations, and incorporates the principle of solidarity, as stipulated in Article 194 of the treaty, as a binding provision.

However, there are some important omissions, especially in the external dimension of EU energy policy. The regulation omits the role of the High Representative and only vaguely refers to the southern corridor, Nabucco or cooperation with our ENP partners.

However, the overall text represents huge progress – or rather may do so, if duly implemented.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Herbert Reul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to thank the Members of this House who have worked so hard on this project and, in particular, Mr Vidal-Quadras. This proves that the European political system is capable of responding to crises and providing useful solutions.

We have seen supply security situations of this kind on several occasions. As a result, the problem of security of supply has become much clearer. We have been forced to act and we have taken the necessary action. We have found solutions which are not straightforward, which involve new instruments and which, and this is the interesting aspect of all of this for me, not only put in place infrastructure standards in Europe, not only create common rules for prevention and emergency plans, not only provide the certainty, which Mr Oettinger has rightly referred to, that we can offer our citizens 30 days of security in future, but also demonstrate that we are able to reach compromises which produce viable results. The process was laborious, but it is now clear that the focus is on the role and the responsibilities of the companies which build and manage the networks. Another important factor involves ensuring that the policies are flexible and making it clear that we are not imposing requirements that do not pay off and are no longer intelligent or sensible, for example, by building in flexibility to the reverse flow capacities. We are not saying that everything must be done at any price, but we are leaving ourselves scope for evaluating individual cases and improving cooperation in the regions.

Equally important is the reference to the fact that although the Member States must be aware of their own responsibilities, if they cannot find the necessary solutions, the Commission will have an additional job to do. The Commission’s role has been reinforced, but it is not the sole decision maker. It is responsible for making decisions when other solutions are no longer possible and it also has the last word. We need flexibility and systems which keep the burdens within reasonable limits. Last but not least, we must ensure that there are solutions in place. This is the good news from Brussels for the people of Europe.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to start, of course, by thanking Mr Vidal-Quadras warmly for his positive report and, above all, for the productive collaboration between him and the shadow rapporteurs. I would also like to express my thanks to the committee chair who ran the meetings with the Spanish Presidency.

We have achieved a good result. Of course, this is all about solidarity on a European level, which is the central point, about the joint development of pipelines, about reverse flow capacity and, most importantly, about protecting vulnerable consumers. All of this is covered, as has been said, by direct legislation. Some people have been critical of this, but it is very important as it allows us to send out a clear signal.

Mr Oettinger has already begun to look to the future and has said that this is not the end of the story. I would like to support him in this respect. We should take a few steps further. A report was recently issued by Mr Delors’ group about the possibility of establishing a European energy community. I know that our chair is very much in favour of this. I am pleased that this is his view, because I believe that it would make a very important contribution to the progress and continuation of the European unification process if we were to establish a common European community on energy issues without amending the treaty. It is also important that we do not get bogged down in discussions on modifying the treaty. Solidarity really must take priority.

My second point concerns our united front both internally and externally. What do I mean by ‘internally’ here? I am thinking about how much additional infrastructure we need and Mr Oettinger also mentioned this. The more we move into solar energy and wind energy, the more we will have to develop our infrastructure, because, together with an increased storage capacity, we will also need to ensure that other energy producers can step in when there is not enough solar or wind energy currently available. As a result, this common infrastructure network in Europe is very important.

Of course, we also need to present a united front to the outside world. We increasingly have a common market, where other countries do not. Russia does not have a common, open market. Instead, it has state monopolies. If we want to confront this system, we need to do so together on the basis of a common European external energy policy, but perhaps also on the basis of a joint approach by European gas companies, in order to obtain better prices and better terms, and, of course, the development of the infrastructure, such as Nabucco. For me, that is the reason for moving towards a common European energy policy today.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I have to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras, for his excellent work on this important report. Every winter reminds us that Europe is dependent on the gas supply from Russia, Ukraine and other countries. Security of energy supply has become a priority for the EU, and this is most welcome.

This legislation is a positive step towards reducing Europe’s vulnerability and assuring our citizens that gas will be delivered in the event of serious disruption; prices will be affordable and solidarity will prevail. But more needs to be done. We need to continue diversifying energy routes and supply sources. Security of energy supply has a different meaning depending on whether you are Romanian, Dutch or Finnish. Our various geopolitical situations require a European approach and the European approach requires full completion of the energy market.

It is not a scoop to state that many protectionist barriers remain within the EU. Protectionism is harming the market and therefore harming consumers, keeping prices up and undermining our security of supply. What is a scoop, though, is for a politician to say that politics should back off from energy policy, and I am saying that loud and clear. Every day, we hear about ambiguous contracts, deals agreed behind closed doors, monopolies and political arrangements.

In Romania, the shaping of our energy strategy is in the hands of a few people in the Security Council led by the President. Accountability? Not for the Romanians. Democracy? Not for the Romanians. And yet the consequences of this policy end up in their hands of the citizens of Romania when they receive their pricey gas bills at the end of the year.

It is time to ask for more transparency, accountability and democracy in the way our Member States deal with energy policy. Otherwise, we will not be able to improve the situation for consumers. Let the free market regulate prices — it will undoubtedly do a better job than politicians. We need the Commission to dismantle protectionist barriers and behaviour patterns.

  Claude Turmes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, congratulations to Mr Vidal-Quadras and to everyone involved in the negotiations. I would also like to congratulate the Spanish Presidency, which has really helped us to make rapid progress in this area. We have achieved a good balance between the internal market and forward planning and between the regional level and Europe as a whole. I am also pleased that the area where we have made most progress, the reverse flow capacity, plays a prominent part in the regulation.

I would like to raise three points with the aim of looking to the future. Firstly, as far as infrastructure is concerned, we can see potential for developing the north-south connections in particular, in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia. It is very important for us to have more north-south connections. In the case of gas storage, we need to consider the issue highlighted by Mr Swoboda. If more gas comes onto the electricity market, as seems likely, we need fast-cycle storage. We must evaluate our infrastructure to identify whether we have slow or fast-cycle gas storage, because we must focus more closely on fast-cycle storage.

Secondly, in my opinion, we are completely lacking in good data as a basis for evaluating future gas demand. What impact does the EU Buildings Directive have? What is the effect of a country like Germany saying that from 2050, all its buildings, both old and new, will be zero-energy buildings? The PRIMES model is not detailed or independent enough, because it was created by the same man who developed the scenarios for EURELECTRIC. This means that we need better data in order to avoid wasted investment.

Thirdly, the Heads of State will be meeting on 4 February 2011. Before this important summit on 4 February, I think that the Commission should provide us with a document containing a reassessment of the global gas market. The discoveries of shale gas in the USA have made more liquefied gas available. What will it mean for us if we discover shale gas in Europe? We need a document from the Commission which gives the Heads of State an assessment of the current situation of the global gas market. In my opinion, it is much more positive than was the case two or three years ago.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Congratulations are certainly in order, because Mr Vidal-Quadras is not only the mainstay of the compromise we have reached with the Council, but he is also the mainstay of the exceptionally broad consensus among the political forces in this Parliament. This is very important. The European Conservatives and Reformists support this compromise, despite the fact that Parliament initially proposed measures which were much more ambitious, particularly concerning the building of infrastructure, but also in the area of the political involvement of the European Union in crisis resolution, including crises which have an international dimension.

It can be said that the original version of the resolution laid many more obligations both on firms and on Member States. What we have on the table, today, contains many more options. It only remains to be hoped that this will not be a pretext for continuing the policy of indifference – both on the part of Member States and of firms – the policy of indifference to the Russian abuse of the gas weapon in Central Europe. It remains to be hoped that the European Commission will be fully resolute in fighting Gazprom’s abuse of its monopolistic position, because Gazprom has political reasons too for wanting to retain not only full control over gas pipelines, including those in the territory of the European Union, but also full control over the raw material, including after its sale in the EU market. This is taking place at the cost of the common market, it is taking place at the cost of competition and consumers’ rights, and it is taking place at the cost of the development of modern technologies in the gas industry.

Of course, the regulation could be better, but it is still the most significant opportunity and the most significant guarantee of Union energy policy in the face of a gas supply crisis, and therefore in the vote, today, it should be supported as widely as possible by this House.

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, do we need to ensure energy security and independence? Yes we do. However, to fully ensure security and independence, it is essential that we remove gas and other energy sources from the serious problems caused by speculative markets, declaring them public assets, and enter into tariff agreements that respect the people of producer countries and provide security for European consumers. This could be the mission of a European agency for energy under the control of Parliament and the Council.

The Union must not act as representative for the gas and oil multinationals, especially after the disaster we have just seen off the coast of Florida. Multinationals do not care about consumer interests. They only serve their shareholders, with nothing but contempt for the rights of people living in gas-producing countries to do what they will with the products of their own subsoil.

Unlike our rapporteur, I am not convinced that the free action of the market and private companies operating in the gas industry will secure gas supplies in the Union. To guarantee gas supplies for all citizens of the Union we need to nationalise the large gas groups and create, out of these entities, a European interest group under multinational and, above all, public control.

  Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, Mr Vidal-Quadras, may I congratulate you on an excellent report, which puts our internal market in order. However, I should like to clarify the following point: Europe has not secured or resolved the major problem of alternative gas suppliers by any stretch of the imagination.

On the contrary, it seems to me, looking at the suppliers needed for the viability of the gas pipes which we are planning in Europe, that there is still just one supplier. To give you an idea of how effectively it has encircled us, Russia has secured gas supply agreements with every potential European supplier – even Iran. I have no objection but, this being so, Commissioner, we need a proposal on trade ties based on mutual interests with Russia, formulated in cooperation with Mr Tajani, if we, too, are to tie it down from an economic point of view.

My question is this: have you considered speeding up the LNG action plan? There are suppliers in North Africa and the Gulf. Do you intend to increase the number of LNG terminals in the Mediterranean? Alternative suppliers exist and I would ask you to give this matter due attention.

  Béla Kovács (NI). – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, the global expansion and internationalisation of natural gas trade has brought with it the risk that conflicts, whether international, political or economic in nature, will have a direct or indirect effect on the unified gas market, endangering its operation and consequently the security of supply. Any gas market model is, by definition, only able to handle short-term capacity, supply management, technical/technological and price variation problems, and attempt to minimise the cost of services as a whole. Security of supply must, therefore, be defined as a guarantee that consumers who need uninterrupted supply will have the necessary amount of gas continuously available at accessible prices. When formulating the supply security policy, special attention must be paid to temperature-dependent domestic users who are unable to switch to other energy sources. These consumers are not in a position to fight for their own supply security. In today’s completely liberalised gas market, it is the duty of the state, its government and regulatory authorities to make sure that the general service contract includes all acceptable requirements of the service.

  Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, Commissioner, we are all dependants. In Europe, we are dependent on energy supplies from third countries. We are especially dependent in the gas sector and, of course, there is great dependence directly on one supplier country – namely, Russia. We know that as a supplier country, Russia can be problematic. For example, as a result of the dispute between Russia and Ukraine, several European Member States were left without supplies of natural gas in January 2009. What is the solution? The solution is, of course, twofold. First, as various speakers have said, diversification of supply. Second, by developing an internal market with interconnections. So when we actually talk about a common European energy policy, we mean the necessity of developing a functioning internal market that would safeguard us. Where does the problem lie? The problem is that in Europe, there are currently several countries and regions that are completely isolated from the rest of the European Union. The Baltic States specifically are completely isolated and completely dependent on supplies of gas from Russia. This has resulted in the fact that, for example, consumers in the Baltic States currently pay 30% more for natural gas than the same consumers in Germany. Consequently, I wholeheartedly believe that this regulation which the Commission has initiated, and which Mr Vidal-Quadras has brought to a conclusion, is a step in the right direction. This is the right direction, but we must bring it to a conclusion. We must put an end to the isolation of various Member States with infrastructure investment so that we can have a common market, and so that we can have the prerequisites for a free internal market that would guarantee security of gas supplies. Thank you.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, the House has been reminded here today that the January 2009 crisis revealed something more than our energy dependence. We learned that a significant part of the problem lies within our borders. Spain, for example, cannot help new Member States affected, in spite of having resources.

I would like to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, although it might seem obvious, that internal solidarity requires that it be possible for gas to be easily carried throughout the Union, without either technical or contractual obstacles and, above all, by means of cross-border interconnections which, at present, are far from the best.

Therein lies the value of this regulation, which clearly links the building of interconnections to supply security, highlighting the need to diversify sources and to do away with energy islands.

Allow me, Mr President, to finish my speech by congratulating the Commission, Mr Vidal-Quadras and the Spanish Presidency for having contributed, in record time, to giving substance to solidarity in energy affairs.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank Mr Oettinger and congratulate Mr Vidal-Quadras on his report. With the help of the Spanish Presidency, it has been possible to produce a very good document. Natural gas is important and its importance is increasing. In his speech, Mr Turmes said that we must change our perspective on the situation. In the country which I represent, half of all households are dependent on natural gas, but 40% of this comes from Russia.

This is why adding legislation to the existing directive is important. It is also the right thing to do. It will give us prevention plans, preventive measures and emergency plans with three crisis levels. We do not want a repeat of the pictures which we saw in the gas crisis winter of 2009. We do not want to see our European partners and Europe’s neighbouring countries freezing. For this reason, this report forms part of our common European responsibility, which covers not just the EU Member States but also the neighbouring countries.

Ladies and gentlemen, the legislation is good, but we also need to take other routes. For this reason, I welcome the announcement by Mr Oettinger that all the infrastructure measures, some of which have been mentioned here, including Nabucco, Nord Stream and South Stream, will receive support. This will allow us to diversify and will ensure that we are not dependent on a single supply. What we need is storage facilities. We definitely need more storage. In Germany, we have 70 days’ supply and that is not the case in every country. We must raise the standards in every country in this respect. The other issue is the energy mix. That remains our greatest challenge, which we must work together to overcome. Thank you very much and I hope that the new legislation will be successful.

  Evžen Tošenovský (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, in January 2009, Europe was convulsed by the problem of restricted gas supplies from Russia, which we know as the January 2009 gas crisis. We need to be very careful, however, as this situation did not affect the whole of Europe by any means, and it appears from studies that it was more a structural problem. We should not, therefore, mindlessly embark on excessive attempts to regulate, because the large and even overly-large number of storage facilities or regulations in response to supplies would lead to higher gas prices, and could complicate the situation for the end user, of course, as well as undermining competitiveness.

In my opinion, the report has produced a very sensible conclusion in the interests of retaining the flexibility of the whole solution. I am also very pleased with Commissioner Oettinger’s opinion that it will be necessary, in time, to evaluate the impact of the report on gas prices and assess the overall effects of the measures adopted on the gas market.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, European gas production is declining steadily and demand for energy will increase, above all, in the near future, to coincide with the economic recovery we all await.

It is therefore very important to implement abundant and safe supply policies, particularly at times of crisis, when gas supplies depend on external geopolitical factors.

This regulation will greatly improve coordination between stakeholders in the gas sector and will prevent a repetition of situations such as those that occurred during the Russian-Ukrainian crisis without, however, putting in doubt the prerogatives of each individual Member State in the energy field.

I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras, and thank him for having considered some of the amendments that are so important to us. I also note with pleasure the words of the Commissioner in calling for greater and closer regional cooperation in this sector, and thank him for his concern.

  Nick Griffin (NI). – Mr President, lawyers chase ambulances: where there is an accident, there is a parasite rushing in to profit from someone’s misfortune. The advocates of European Union are ambulance-chasers extraordinaire: from the fantasy of man-made global warming, to earthquakes and forest fires, every crisis becomes an excuse to grab even more power.

The Russia-Ukraine gas crisis was an artificial problem caused by neo-con interference in the politics of Eastern Europe. The answer is to stop ‘baiting the bear’ and to leave the nations of Europe free to buy the gas that Russia needs to sell us. Instead, the crisis is used as an excuse for the EU to seize control of gas supplies and ensnare us all in a web of interdependence designed to enforce the Union that voters would never approve.

This is not about gas supplies. It is the creeping tyranny of a Socialist superstate using deceit to grab what it cannot get democratically. When it drops the mask of reasonable necessity, its new fascism will be imposed, not with castor oil, but with deadly cold. That is why freedom lovers will vote against this report.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Vidal-Quadras for his excellent report and his great and acknowledged capacity for mediation, which has led us to vote on a widely supported regulation at its first and only reading.

I too, along with my delegation and my group, will willingly vote for this regulation, because it certainly marks significant progress compared to the policies pursued so far, even though it is but one important brick along a road that is bound to see us consistently engaged in new and ambitious policies, as the Commissioner has already announced.

I applaud the public and official choice made in Parliament for a policy of solidarity in the internal market, which also serves as a warning to those who have speculated in this area too often in recent years. We should, however, diversify the corridors, sources and quality of resources. In this sense, I feel that attention could have been more boldly focused on the matter of the southern corridor.

I support and absolutely agree with the contention that the market is the only true guarantee to combat supply-related risks. The market is here to stay and so we must strive to guarantee a competitive market and therefore introduce regulations, directives, funding, a multitude of networks and multiple sources of supply to ensure that a monopoly no longer exists in this sector with regard to both sources and networks.

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). – (PL) The security of gas supply is an exceptional and a strategic subject. In all, four committees have worked on it. You are saying that the committees worked for a short time, but in total, it was a very long time – opinions were given and exchanges of views took place. It was an exceptional subject because it concerned geopolitics, technology and engineering, but also, and most importantly, it concerned the nature of European solidarity. How far do we want to go in building a common market in this area? How far do we want to go in acting together? How far are the great and the good ready to go to take the weak and the unprepared under their wing in a crisis situation?

A compromise has been agreed. A compromise which is welcome, as is every compromise. It is good that there is a compromise. However, when I recall the ambitious first intentions, I remember that we wanted to go further. For the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the most important word in the title of this report is ‘security’. However, it is security with a small ‘s’, the security of ordinary people who pay their bills, read the newspapers and find out that someone might simply cut off their gas. I think that from the point of view of their interests, from the point of view of people who are afraid – who, every winter, are afraid that someone will cut off their gas or that they will have to pay more – this is a report which reduces their fear a little, and it is very good that it has been proposed in this way.

However, let us also say frankly that when it came to the discussion about who can declare an emergency in relation to gas supply, and under what conditions, there was no agreement on this point. It was proposed that one country which is at risk can do this. When the first proposal said that two countries can do this, it, too, fell. Today, we have a vague definition which says that unspecified authorities are going to discuss this subject. So, in summary, it is a small step, but in the right direction.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) I would like to emphasise just two things: the importance of gas supplier and transit countries. At the same time, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue and for the way in which he has handled it.

As rapporteur for Turkmenistan, I believe that this country is one of the key suppliers for the European Union, given the reserves it has and the opportunities for opening up to the European Union, just as it has also done to other Asian countries, specifically China. I think that all the European projects, including Nabucco and White Stream, depend on relations with this country. In this context, I feel that improving relations with supplier countries is extremely useful, while maintaining the standards imposed by the European Union. The commitment exhibited by these countries in not only an economic, but also a democratic, strategic partnership with the European Union is a relationship which must be nurtured in the European Union’s foreign policy.

Secondly, I would like to emphasise the importance of my home country, Romania, as a transit country. I think that both Romania and Bulgaria can play a stabilising role.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Energy security is, today, one of the most important conditions for sovereignty. Therefore, the European Union must arrive at a consistent policy in this area as quickly as possible. The 2004 directive on gas crises which is currently in force is completely inadequate for the risks which exist today, for it is not able to protect countries, particularly the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, from reductions in gas supplies of many weeks’ duration. Even though it was a painful experience, we found out just how very serious a threat this is during the two gas crises between Russia and Ukraine in 2008 and 2009.

We might say ‘better late than never’. It is to be welcomed that, in adopting the new regulation, we are beginning, at last, to build a common energy policy. This regulation should contribute to the creation of mechanisms allowing coordination of action in the event of another gas crisis as well as to the improvement of the network infrastructure which will connect the gas systems of Member States. The compromise negotiated with the Council is certainly not ideal. In my opinion, the measures proposed initially by the European Parliament were significantly better. Despite this, taking into account the current, imperfect state of the law, I think the proposals which have been submitted should be endorsed.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) The regulation on security of gas supplies responds to a problem brought home to us by the energy and gas crisis at the beginning of last year.

The model regulation drafted by the Commission proposes a raft of measures that have the ambitious aim of achieving a higher level of energy security for the entire European Union. However, we have had to specify or improve on the original wording of many issues covered by the proposal in Parliamentary committees. Parliament has had to specify the role of businesses in handling emergencies, re-draft the scope of reverse flow usage and resolve the apportioning of costs in respect of new, cross-border infrastructure investments. It has specified the terms of the Community mechanism for automatically declaring a state of emergency, linking it to the prevention and emergency plans of Member States. Parliament has also proposed an arrangement for handling sensitive commercial information in order to prevent it being misused. However, despite the enormous efforts of both the rapporteur and the Parliamentary committees, many questions remain unresolved. These mainly include the definition of protected customers and the application of the N-1 infrastructure standards. We will have to address these questions again once the directive has been adopted.

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE). – (SL) Today, we are debating what is probably one of the most important documents of this plenary sitting. Many of our citizens were left freezing during the coldest part of the winter of 2009 because their radiators remained cold. It is precisely in such cases of emergency, when the gas supply in Europe is seriously disrupted, that we can demonstrate European solidarity.

The regulation we are debating is proof that we are putting the well-being of individual citizens at the heart of our work. The regulation defines all households connected to a gas distribution network as ‘protected customers’. Under this regulation, action will also need to be taken to guarantee them sufficient supply in times of emergency. This means that we have to strengthen the infrastructure both within Member States and between them. We have to ensure the proper functioning of gas loops, and that means reverse flows. We also have to draw up an effective plan of preventive measures in cases of emergency.

Here, I would like to encourage the European Commission to urge Member States to comply with the requirements of the regulation in a timely fashion. I am pleased to note that the rapporteur has listened to the arguments made by individual Member States and taken their specific circumstances into account. These solutions are therefore also relevant for Slovenia, where the existing network, which combines gas deliveries from Russia and Algeria, is sufficient to meet standard demand, despite the shortcomings of the N-1 standard.

Finally, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Alejo Vidal-Quadras, who has deftly led the negotiations in Parliament and between the institutions. He has really done an excellent job and I hope that it will receive the backing of the vast majority of votes.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, may I start by congratulating Mr Vidal-Quadras on his important contribution to the detailed compromise reached with the Council at first reading.

The new regulation will address serious inherent weaknesses in the security of the natural gas supply to the EU by stepping up measures at European level, by giving the Gas Coordination Group greater powers, by adopting early warning and alert criteria and, of course, by introducing clauses to protect consumers and give them a better service, especially the most vulnerable members of society, who must be our top priority.

However, I should like to point out – as Parliament has repeatedly emphasised – that we need to overcome the fragmentary approach to the question of the security of our energy supply and adopt a cohesive European policy in the energy sector, starting by strengthening regional cooperation and promoting projects to diversify energy sources and channels, such as the Nabucco and ITGI pipelines, which are complementary rather than opposing projects, and which can play a catalytic role in the security of supply to the EU.

  Ivo Strejček (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, last year’s energy crisis was disagreeable, but it did not indicate a structural failure of the market. It is therefore not necessary to have any kind of excessive regulation of the gas market or the gas supply market, as that would ultimately only result in higher gas prices for the end user. I would like to make three comments in this context: firstly, there is a need to define the category of so-called protected customers very carefully, in order to avoid an excessively broad definition, which would certainly lead to higher gas prices for end users. Secondly, we must proceed very cautiously in defining the mandatory period for which suppliers must provide gas, and it should not be 60 days, but perhaps just 30, as enormous storage facilities would have to be constructed, of course, and this would have an impact on end user prices. Thirdly, it is, of course, necessary to establish a precise definition of the so-called coldest period.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE). – (PL) I would like to express my regard for the rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras, who, a year ago, faced the exceptionally difficult challenge of preparing a report on questions of energy security in the area of safeguarding gas supplies to the European Union. Both the European Parliament and the Council are fully aware of the understanding which has been worked out together. The regulation concerning security of gas supply is to be an instrument on the strength of which the European Commission, Member States and their authorities and also gas enterprises are going to have to take action sufficiently in advance to prevent the effects of a disruption to gas supply. As we have heard, here, the rapporteur said it is a legal act which is a response to a real problem being faced by the European Union.

I would like to refer to the current situation and say that there may, at this moment, be a new crisis in the making. This concerns what is happening on the basis of a contract between Poland and Russia. This is a new challenge for the European Commission. Currently, Poland has become a battleground between the European Commission and the Russian Federation over implementation of the third liberalisation package for the gas market. If the Commission wants to test the situation, it should do so using the example of a country which has a diversified gas supply structure, and not Poland, which is very limited in this area. Poland is currently at risk of a serious energy crisis in the form of a gas supply deficit of 1.7 billion cubic metres. There is, therefore, a risk that the Polish economy will collapse. We expect support from the European Commission in resolving the problems which have arisen. It should be said that Poland plays the role of a transit state, and is not the end of the Russian system. I hope that the development of the situation on the eastern border of the European Union will make most Member States appreciate the significance and the importance of safeguarding gas supply security.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) The European Union cannot allow itself to be dependent on external monopoly gas supply sources. The gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine in 2009 showed us how vulnerable we are without a proper common European strategy.

The consequences of this were plain to see from the impact on the European economy and on the groups of consumers who were already vulnerable. This external EU crisis equally highlighted the level of interdependence among its Member States. This is why I believe that a common strategy must be devised, promoting diversification of routes and the EU’s gas supply sources so that it ends up with sufficient capacity to respond to a crisis.

Solidarity between Member States, a well-known principle in the Treaty of Lisbon, is vital to providing a European gas supply mechanism. The Nabucco project assumes major strategic importance as part of this mechanism. It must be supported, in particular, by the European Union because it offers the only viable alternative to Russia’s energy monopoly.

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) I would like to thank the rapporteur very much for bringing about a compromise, something which, on matters related to energy, is particularly difficult. I would also like to thank Mr Oettinger for his involvement in the agreement on gas supplies between Poland and Russia. We greatly value the fact that the European Commission is playing a fundamental role in this matter.

In Europe, today, energy is the factor which determines the independence of many states, and therefore it is with amazement that I hear the voices in this Chamber which are saying that we are only talking about energy, that it is only a matter of economics, and that our discussion is only about these things. No – many countries in Europe treat the question of energy as the factor which determines their independence, and rightly so, because this is, in fact, the case. If anyone needs convincing about this, they need only read any Russian document on the subject.

On energy matters, the Russians have adopted two different approaches. One relates to questions of economics and nothing else, and the second relates directly to questions of policy and security. Therefore, if we are lacking anything, today, it is greater involvement, and this includes the involvement of those agencies of the European Commission which are responsible for external relations, so that we, too, can use two approaches in this matter.

  András Gyürk (PPE). – (HU) I agree with those Members who think that we will be able to prevent disruptions in gas supply more efficiently by means of a gas supply regulation. For this, I thank the rapporteur. I consider especially important the provisions concerning protected consumers. I am pleased that instead of the initial restrictive definition, district heating networks and SMEs will also enjoy special protection. We are hardly dealing with a negligible number of consumers: in Hungary alone, 600 000 households rely on district heating networks. Protection of SMEs is also important because, as we saw in the first days of 2009, these firms may easily find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy if there are gas supply disruptions.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to remind you that although adopting the gas supply regulation is a significant step, it cannot replace energy investments. Last week, four new Member States sent a letter to Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, urging the EU on behalf of the Visegrad Group to strengthen financial resources for energy investments, especially in view of the next seven-year financial plan. We can only agree with what is set out in this letter. Indeed, the way to ensuring a satisfactory gas supply is for the EU to start building alternative delivery routes. And this intention should at last, in my opinion, be reflected in the budgetary figures as well.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – (FI) Madam President, my sincere thanks go to my colleague, Mr Vidal-Quadras, for the excellent work he has done. Whether we like it or not, Europe is relying more and more on gas to function, and it is Russia that supplies us with that gas. That is why it is not enough that the EU’s relations with its gas supplier are in order. We also need changes to the EU’s internal infrastructure and legislation for us to be prepared for crisis situations not of our own making. The Member States must define the roles of all market players and the areas of responsibility for guaranteeing security of supply. Recent history shows that there is a need for this.

Europe’s degree of dependence is alarming. Imports now account for over 40% of natural gas consumption in Europe, and forecasts suggest that this dependence may grow to a level of 70% by the year 2020. The consequence will be both economic and political dependence, and that is not healthy. In the future, the situation may improve with the production of liquefied natural gas, the price of which has fallen, as well as the more recently produced shale gas, which has been discovered in different parts of the world, including Poland. Hopefully, these will improve security of supply and provide more options for purchasing gas. Developing efficient forms of renewable energy will also help.

The recent disputes between Russia and her neighbouring countries showed just how precarious the situation was concerning our internal security of supply. That is why concrete action, such as ensuring that the gas also flows in the opposite direction between Member States or, under the principle of solidarity, ensuring that there is also sufficient gas in our own reserves for our neighbours in crisis situations, is important. It is also important that we are aware of the different circumstances prevailing in the Member States and acknowledge them.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the preparation of this very important document. Increasing dependence on imported energy, gas in particular, is one of the new challenges the EU faces in security policy and overcoming it will require a concerted effort by the EU and all of us.

The European Commission must play a particularly significant role, not just when it faces crisis situations, but when forming EU energy policy in general, and especially when talking about a gas supply contract with suppliers in third countries.

Commissioner, I really would not like the conditions laid down in the contract between Poland and Russia on the Yamal gas pipeline or the way it was signed to set a bad example for all new and future energy strategies in the context of the document debated today. Only by speaking with one voice, by coordinating the actions of all EU Member States, and by showing solidarity can we help create the desired internal energy market that is secure, united and fair for consumers.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, today’s debate shows that Europe has drawn lessons from the multiple supply crisis. Estonia’s first experience in independence came in December 1992 when Russia shut off all gas and oil supplies. It nevertheless made us stronger.

Today, we see encouraging cooperation, first of all, between Parliament and the Commission. I would like to thank you, Commissioner Oettinger, for your vigorous and responsible approach to these challenges. It is a promising attempt to embody solidarity in practical EU mechanisms. Importantly, we are going to provide for a common set of infrastructure and supply standards, with growing responsibility and coordination by the Commission. But, above all, we still need an integrated EU network of supplies. I would like to draw attention to Mr Turmes’ suggestion for improving our north-south connections and providing for storage facilities for the future.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) It is important for the EU to react at Community level in the interest of energy security, but Member States who have not yet normalised their bilateral political relationship with Russia also have to take steps. Eighty per cent of Hungary’s gas imports come from Russia, and so the dependency of Hungarian consumers is extreme. District heating users are particularly vulnerable. For this reason, Hungary would definitely like to diversify both supply sources and transport routes. We unequivocally supported and continue to support the construction of both Nabucco and South Stream, together with the utilisation of EU sources. However, the cheapest way for us would be a reassuring and stable resolution of transit through Ukraine. We ask the Commission to make sure that the EU acts at Community level, that it mediates between Russia and Ukraine, and exacts a system of guarantees concerning the Ukrainian transit route.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to highlight two points for the attention of Mr Oettinger which have already been mentioned by other Members during the discussion. Firstly, Mr Turmes emphasised the issue of the predictability of demand for gas. In the context of the gas supply, we are only looking at this question from one point of view.

Mr Oettinger, I would like to ask you how you plan to incorporate this second fundamental perspective into the strategy when you look to the future. Secondly, following on from a remark made by Mr Swoboda, I would like to pick up on the idea of an energy community in the European Union. The Notre Europe think tank, which was founded by Mr Delors, recently highlighted this issue, as did the former Commissioner, Michaele Schreyer, several years ago. Do you regard this as one positive goal of your work, Mr Oettinger?

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, in this debate on the security of natural gas supplies, I would stress that the global supply of natural gas is already very diversified; indeed, this must be properly acknowledged.

However, the more important issue in terms of the future is the expected oil crisis, because of which the European Union should actively promote the replacement of refined petroleum products in its fleets, and the best replacement for them is natural gas.

Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that there is natural gas of non-fossil origin: biomethane, produced from waste. As a matter of fact, several European countries are producing it, in particular, Sweden and Switzerland, and even Spain I think. It is a path that should be incentivised in terms of EU investment and we should keep this issue very much in mind in this debate.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the majority of gas suppliers have announced significant price increases as a result of the growing demand for gas. There is talk of the wholesale price of gas doubling. Therefore, it is likely, in my opinion, that Moscow will provoke another gas crisis this winter. In the past, the EU has probably not been assertive enough in its role as mediator. In the case of the current disputes over responsibilities between the new leading representatives of the EU, the Member States which are affected will be feeling once again that they have been left in the lurch.

However, weak crisis management on the part of the EU has other consequences. Nuclear power stations that have been shut down are being brought back into operation and in Poland, there are plans to invest in a liquefied gas terminal which will be in direct competition with the Baltic pipeline. Even though the purchasing cooperative that was announced yesterday may seem a sensible solution, it does not change the fundamental problem. When the next gas dispute occurs, we will see whether the European energy early warning system is worth the paper it is written on and whether the confusion over responsibilities following the Treaty of Lisbon can be resolved. The fact is that we cannot simply bring an end to our dependency on Russian gas and even the Nabucco project will make very little difference to the situation.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr Oettinger said this is the first document on energy matters since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. Indeed, energy solidarity was the main objective of many countries, including of my own country, Poland, in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon. However, the gas crises – in particular, the crisis of 2009, but also the earlier crises – showed that without the energy market, without the infrastructure, including the interconnectors, new networks and new sources of supply, without the coordinating role of the European Commission and, above all – something which I would like to stress strongly – without the political will of both the Commission and the Council and that of the Member States, we will not prevent gas crises. At the present moment, Poland is still to complete an agreement for the supply of around 2.5 billion cubic metres of gas.

The regulation could be better – closer to the ideal – particularly concerning obligations, including in relation to the European Commission and also concerning the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the role of Member States. Mr Oettinger has confirmed that in two or three years’ time, it will be necessary to carry out a kind of evaluation of this regulation to assess its effectiveness. This, too, testifies that we have not included everything in it.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) The European Union’s energy security depends on the diversification of energy supply sources and routes. I believe that the European Union should invest more in the energy infrastructure and in energy efficiency. As far as the energy infrastructure in the gas sector is concerned – I am referring here to the creation of new gas pipelines, and I would like to emphasise at this point how important the Nabucco project is for the European Union’s energy security – it would be an important step for the European Union to invest in new gas deposits, in improving interconnections between Member States, in providing them with reverse flows, as well as in production facilities for producing gas from renewable energy sources.

I would like to stress that the Treaty of Lisbon has created a new framework for promoting solidarity between Member States in the event of an energy crisis. I also want to commend the rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras, for his efforts, as this regulation actually marks a step forward in increasing the European Union’s energy security.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Mr Vidal-Quadras and Commissioner Oettinger deserve thanks for making this important report possible. This regulation will be particularly welcome to Central European countries, some of which are 100% dependent on Russian gas imports. This not only creates a state of dependency but is also dangerous as a political tool. Compared to fossil fuels, gas produces the least CO2 emissions, which is why it plays a significant role in Europe’s fight against climate change. However, the concept of an EU emergency needs to be re-evaluated inasmuch as it is tied to a 10% reduction in imports. This could actually represent the total gas imports of a Member State, such as Slovakia. It would be more reasonable for an EU emergency to be declared for a specific geographical region. Securing an uninterrupted gas supply at an acceptable price must be a priority even in a crisis situation. In my opinion, this report may contribute significantly to the achievement of this objective.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) First of all, I, too, would like to congratulate Mr Vidal-Quadras for all his efforts in drafting this important report. We are all aware how important the energy supply is to the European Union. The Commission and Commissioner Oettinger must continue to be actively involved in resolving the issues which determine the progress of the projects relating to the diversification of gas supply resources and come up with both political solutions and the most favourable financial resources.

The key to safeguarding Europe’s energy supply security lies in improving the energy infrastructure, interconnections and the reverse flow capacity, storage facilities and, most importantly, in monitoring and management based on solidarity between Member States. It would also be important to continue the debates on the future European Energy Community.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) The regulation which we are voting on today is a milestone in building a common energy policy. The provisions relating to energy solidarity are, without doubt, testimony to this. They guarantee the operation of legal instruments which will enable a common, united reaction in an emergency situation. The text on which we are going to vote does, it is true, differ from the ambitious vision proposed by Parliament. It does, however, give hope for the efficient operation of an emergency mechanism in the future. The very fact that we quickly reached an agreement with the Council, where the different interests of Member States were in conflict, should be seen in a positive light.

I would like, here, to express my thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras, who, from the very beginning, was open to the measures proposed by fellow Members and who was open to reaching a compromise which would be acceptable to all. The regulation also shows that the European Parliament is a key player in interinstitutional conflict and that it is bold enough to fight for measures which often seem unrealistic because of the lack of agreement between Member States.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) I congratulate the Commissioner and Parliament for working together to prepare this large-scale document. While it is a step in the right direction, it is also clear that law is only a precondition for investments. Creating motivation for European investment may also help us through the crisis. This regulation may also be proof positive that cooperation does not mean giving up national sovereignty, but represents an expansion of the freedom of European citizens. Great debates are going on in Hungary. We Hungarian socialists are intent on creating European energy security. A year ago, the head of the Hungarian Government promised to make the country completely independent as regards energy. As socialist MEPs, we are glad that he changed his mind and that he, too, sees the future in terms of energy security and EU cooperation.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). – Madam President, since 2006, when the first interruption of gas supply from Russia took place, energy security has become a top item agenda on the EU’s activity. The issue is not only economic, but highly political too, because it has a strong impact on the foreign policy of the EU and, consequently, on its international standing. In spite of the fact that this is widely recognised, in practice, the EU is incapable of stopping its increasing dependence on energy supplies from actors with strong political agendas who do not hesitate to exploit the EU’s increasing vulnerability. This is due to the resistance of some new important members.

However, to conclude, it would be wrong to say that there is no current energy security system – there is, it is just that it is individual and not collective, with each EU country wanting to protect itself through preferential relations with individual suppliers for whose favours they are sometimes ready to compete fiercely.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, as several of us in this Chamber have referred to the Nabucco pipeline as a very important project for energy security in Europe, I should like to ask the Commissioner to tell us, if he can, what stage has been reached and what progress has been made on the Nabucco project.

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate, which began with the subject of gas and gas storage, has taken on a more general character and has expanded to cover energy policy as a whole. Of course, it is true that we are dependent on gas. However, this applies not only to gas, but also to other energy sources, including oil to just the same extent, coal from the world market and nuclear raw materials. Even in the case of renewable energy, our dependency on countries with storage facilities, such as Switzerland and Norway, is growing. Europe is dependent on other states. For this reason, the subject of energy efficiency, in other words, using our energy in a more targeted way and not wasting it, will become increasingly important. Over the coming months, we will want to discuss our conclusions with you in detail.

The subject of the energy community has also been brought up and I believe that the European Union must become a more effective energy community based on solidarity. The approach taken by Mr Delors shows us the direction in which we should go. However, my advice is that we should use the new instruments over the next few years; in other words, we should make active use of Article 194 as our legal basis, as well as exploiting other opportunities, in order to create an internal market. We do not yet have a genuine internal market for electricity and gas. The Member States, some of them more so than others, make fine speeches about the internal market, but they do not actually do anything about it and, instead, focus on their own national industrial policy. They should be using these instruments. In four or five years, we will then be in a credible position to talk to the Member States and the general public about developing our legal basis further.

As far as the energy community is concerned, I believe that Switzerland, Norway, Serbia, Croatia – and the countries of the former Yugoslavia in general – together with Morocco, the Maghreb countries, the Middle East, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, belong together in a close-knit energy community, with the addition of Turkey in particular.

There have been calls for a forecast for the energy and gas market. We want to put forward a range of different alternatives as part of the Roadmap 2050. It is clear that as long as the energy mix is primarily a matter for the Member States, we are dependent on the sums done by the politicians in the Member States for our forecast of how much gas will be used to generate electricity and what our gas requirements are. We will not have sole responsibility in this area. Nevertheless, we want to make a proposal concerning our gas usage over the decades to come. We are currently using more than 400 billion cubic metres of gas. In 2030 or 2040, will that figure have risen to 500 or 600 billion or fallen to 300 billion? This is a very important question when it comes to predicting our infrastructure requirements and our dependency on other countries.

On the subject of dependency, we must remember that we still have significant gas deposits of our own. However, they will run out in the next 15 to 20 years. The Netherlands is a typical example in this respect. It is true that we are primarily dependent on Russia, which is currently responsible for 25% of the European gas market. A quarter of our gas comes from Russian deposits. This is a large amount, but it is still a manageable figure. However, it is clear that the equivalent figures for Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania range from well over 50% up to 100%, while for Portugal, the figure is zero. We have an East-West divide depending on each country’s proximity to or distance from the location of the gas deposits in Siberia. We receive significant supplies from Algeria and from Norway and we should also highlight the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) which comes from Qatar in the Middle East, either by ship or via terminals.

With regard to our dependency on Russia, I regard Russia, despite all its problems, as a partner. The ten-year EU-Russia Energy Dialogue will be taking place in November. The fact is that we are mutually dependent. Why is this? As the Russians are responsible for more than 50% of the financing for the Nord Stream pipeline, which involves an investment of more than EUR 4 billion, it is in their interests for the gas to flow through it, otherwise the investment would not be profitable for them. In addition, the Russians want to sell us gas so that they have European currency available to buy cars, industrial plants, machinery, high-tech goods and expertise to develop the Russian economy. Therefore, I believe that if we act together, we will be in a situation of mutual dependency, rather than being laid open to blackmail.

The next area which we need to look at is diversification and reducing our dependency on other countries. On the one hand, we need to ensure that existing pipelines are renovated, so that our technical dependency does not increase. On the other hand, we must focus on new areas. I believe that we should be dependent on the Russians with regard to Russian gas. The Russians should be our partners when it comes to selling and trading in their own gas, but not in the case of gas from third countries. The largest gas deposits are in the Caspian region. While I feel that Russian gas is closely linked with our partner Russia, I do not believe that our supply of gas from the Caspian region should come to us via Russia. The Russians should sell us their own gas, but not trade in gas from third countries. Gas from Algeria and from Norway is not supplied to us via Russia. Therefore, the European Union must establish a direct connection with the Caspian region which is as short as possible, has no detours and does not make us unnecessarily dependent on the Russian trading system. However, to achieve this, we need solidarity. I would therefore like to ask all the Member States, including Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland: Are we prepared to work together to find a solution in the southern corridor which is in the European interest? Or are we divided? That is the crucial point. If we are united and are not prepared to take up other offers which, to a large extent, are not in the European interest, we can achieve a breakthrough in the Caspian region. We are working very hard on the Nabucco project. We hold working sessions every week and, on 1 October, there will be a top-level meeting with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. We cannot make the decision ourselves. It will be made by the investors. However, we can do everything possible to ensure that we act as moderators for the decision involving the Member States and our neighbouring countries, including Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. I remain of the opinion that Nabucco is on the right track.

You say that we need to invest more. That may be the case, but I can promise you that we make proper use of every euro allocated by Parliament and the Member States in the European budget for cofinanced infrastructure, in areas where it would not be profitable for us to go it alone. You will be making the decision for the financing period in the near future. We need to talk about priorities in this respect. If we want to spend more money on infrastructure, we either need to bring in more money, which does not seem entirely feasible, or we need to spend less money in other areas. I will be interested to see how this process between the different working areas, including those in Parliament, will function.

Thank you once again for your support. You have made progress in this area and together, we have convinced the Member States. I am pleased to be able to say to you all that we will implement the regulation quickly and, in the report which is planned for four years’ time, we will analyse its strengths and weak points and present our final conclusions as to whether it will make sense to develop the regulation further and expand its content.

(Applause)

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, Tuesday, 21 September, at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The adoption of this report significantly enhances the legislative framework for the EU’s energy security policy. Diversification of energy sources is a priority, given the energy crisis which Europe has faced. I believe that it is vital to support alternative credible projects in the gas supply sector in the Caspian Sea region. Given that it will only be possible to use the Nabucco gas pipeline’s full capacity in 2018, this makes the AGRI project more than necessary. This pipeline will connect the European market to the gas resources in the Caspian region through the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Romania energy corridor. The political leaders of the four participating states signed the Declaration of Baku last week. The first gas deliveries from Azerbaijan are expected to be made in just three years, especially as Romania has already initiated a feasibility study on the terminal in Constanţa. Furthermore, the implementation cost is half that of the Nabucco gas pipeline. Bearing in mind the energy security guarantees provided by this agreement, I hope that the EU will give it the attention it requires.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) Our topic for debate today is gas supply security. We are debating it as winter is approaching. In January 2009, the natural gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine highlighted that dependency on imports had grown throughout Europe. This time, the risks linked to supply and transit have increased too. This is why we still need infrastructure investment in Europe. How long is the implementation of these infrastructures going to take? Definitely several years. Can we afford this period of time when every winter means a new gas crisis? How many concessions will we still have to make to Ukraine and Russia until then? I believe that we should identify and prepare to opt for an alternative solution not only in terms of a source, but also of a network which will combine both internal and external aspects. When I say ‘alternative’, I am thinking about what experts call the ‘White Stream’ pipeline, passing through Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. Furthermore, all the measures intended to ensure that the internal energy market operates properly should be accompanied by active energy diplomacy.

  Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to express my esteem for Mr Vidal-Quadras for his work and his commitment to the regulation concerning the security of gas supply. I am pleased it has been possible to achieve such a good compromise in this extremely important document. The interests of all the Member States on the most significant issues have been reconciled, thanks to which the European Union will be able to react rapidly and in solidarity when faced by disruptions to gas supply. The most important matters concerning the protection of Member States from possible disruptions to gas supply and good cooperation on preventive and emergency measures in the EU have been covered by the report.

An important change is the obligation on the part of the Commission and the Member States to work together at Union level to prevent a potential emergency. Pursuant to the regulation, the European Commission will now be able to declare an emergency in a region affected by interruptions to the gas supply at the request of just one country. The compromise which has been proposed increases the role of the European Commission through new rapid reaction instruments. In this form, the regulation is a guarantee of the security of gas supply even in particularly sensitive regions. However, investment in the development of infrastructure is essential, so that the provisions contained in the regulation are not just the version found on paper.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) We say a great deal about the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in the context of the European External Action Service. However, it is worth drawing attention to measures being taken in the area of energy policy. Article 194 of the Treaty of Lisbon has laid down clear priorities in this area: establishing a single energy market, ensuring security of gas supply, energy efficiency and energy saving, as well as promoting the interconnection of energy networks and measures intended to reduce dependence on imported energy. The Vidal-Quadras report on the security of gas supply is an important step towards accomplishing the objectives of the treaty. This reflects the spirit of European solidarity, which is so important, today. Documents of this type are a particularly important signal to the citizens at a time when much is being said about national interests and decentralising tendencies which are dividing the Union. The report shows that the European Parliament, working together with the European Commission, is putting European values of cooperation and solidarity into practice. The next step in this direction is the European Commission document entitled ‘Towards a New Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020’. This is a further step towards a comprehensive energy policy in the context of the EU 2020 strategy, but is also a further step towards accomplishment of the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon. The report which I have drafted, and on which I am now working in Parliament, also shows that the Community method is particularly important in the field of energy.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Security of supply will depend, in future, on the evolution of the fuel mix, the development of production in the European Union and in third countries supplying the EU, as well as on investments in storage facilities and in diversification of supply routes and sources inside and outside the European Union. I am pleased that the European Parliament was able to amend the proposal for a regulation to introduce an article specifically for the Nabucco gas pipeline project. This action confirms that the European Union’s institutions will attach particular importance in the future as well to the Nabucco gas pipeline project with regard to its political aspect and funding. In specific terms, this regulation guarantees that European domestic consumers will be supplied with gas even during a crisis, in order to avoid situations like the one in January 2009 when a number of Member States had no gas delivered at all. The European Commission will have to coordinate these possible emergency scenarios and ensure that every Member State is protected.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) It is clear that the European Union should not have to rely on which side of the bed the President of Ukraine or Belarus gets out of in the morning. It is clear that the EU should not have to rely on the machinations of superfluous middlemen wanting to cash in on speculation and manipulation in the area of gas supply. It is clear that gas supply cannot become a political weapon for the pursuit of narrow national interests. Yet how are we to judge the fact that natural gas in Latvia costs three times as much as in Germany? It happens to be the case that Latvia and Germany, both EU Member States, have differing opportunities for developing their economies. The fact that the Republic of Latvia is experiencing a severe crisis and that its per capita GDP and income is one-tenth of that of Germany gives rise to the question whether EU Member States all have the same development conditions. An urgent resolution of this question is essential, at least with respect to common gas prices for all EU Member States. Without that, the coupling of the words ‘United Europe’ becomes questionable.

  Algirdas Saudargas (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I would like to agree with my fellow Members and welcome the fact that such an important regulation will be approved in such a short space of time. This only proves once again that when there is a real problem, Europe is able to act quickly and effectively.

The security of gas supply regulation strengthens the principle of solidarity between Member States and this is another step towards a common energy policy. We probably all hope that the crisis of 2009 will not be repeated and that we will not need to resort to the mechanisms laid down in the regulation, but what happens in reality is another matter. Not so long ago in June, the supply of gas to Lithuania was halved due to disagreements between Russia and Belarus and that persuaded us that the timing of this regulation is opportune.

I have frequently pointed out that for isolated gas markets dependent on one supplier, as we are, for instance, in the Baltic states, this regulation will only be effective when these markets are joined in a common European Union gas network. Private investment is often insufficient for laying the new gas pipelines that are required and additional funding is therefore needed.

I would like to thank my colleagues who understood this and took it into account when negotiating this regulation, and the Commission which has officially pledged to solve the problem of energy islands in the Energy Infrastructure Package. All that remains is to call on the Member States to properly implement this regulation.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Adoption of the regulation on security of gas supply opens the way to creating a common gas market at EU level in the future. Important provisions contained in this document are the introduction of the obligation to prepare preventive and emergency plans in every Member State, the obligation to declare a Union emergency when two Member States declare an emergency and application of the criterion of geopolitical risk in the overall assessment of risk on the question of EU gas security. Given acquisition of the capability to transport gas in both directions, a country which finds itself in danger of having a shortfall in energy supply will gain the necessary assistance from another country which does have sufficient reserves of gas at the time. This, without doubt, is the beginning of the use of measures based on the idea of cooperation and solidarity. The reference to the question of diversification of energy sources will allow intensification of activity in this field by Member States and will help projects which have already begun, such as Nabucco, for example. In summary, thanks to the measures proposed in the report and intensive investments in infrastructure, we are in a position to protect ourselves, or to secure ourselves more effectively, against the situation which occurred in 2008 in Ukraine. Becoming fully independent from Russian gas supplies is an illusion, but we can, at least, strengthen our position in negotiations with Russia. I would like to thank all those who contributed to working out a compromise on a matter which is so important for the entire Union.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The compromise negotiated by the European Parliament is a real step towards putting the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon into operation. It creates the initial conditions for practical application of the solidarity of Member States in the event of disruptions to gas supplies, and we count this as our success. The provisions on transmission infrastructure, the system of crisis responses at Union level, the common risk assessment and, on the basis of this, the creation of preventive and emergency plans, as well as the inclusion of the geopolitical aspect in the assessment, demonstrate not only the negotiating success of MEPs, but also create the foundations for making energy policy more Community-oriented, which is something Parliament had already been trying to achieve during the previous term of office.

  Vladimir Urutchev (PPE), in writing. – (BG) It is only 18 months since gas supplies along the Russia-Ukraine-EU route were disrupted in January 2009. Bulgaria was the country most affected at the time, but the whole EU realised how vulnerable mainly Central and East European countries are in terms of gas supply security. This is why I welcome the adoption of Mr Vidal-Quadras’s report, which provides a pan-European legislative response to the occurrence and consequences of such gas crises. Apart from the comprehensive nature of the legislative resolution on gas supply security, I would like to emphasise the following aspects: creating an integrated EU gas network proving a bi-directional flow of gas between individual countries; guaranteeing cross-border access to storage facilities and maintaining cross-border transmission of gas in cases where the highest crisis level ‘Emergency’ is triggered. As far as my country, Bulgaria, is concerned, fulfilment of these requirements ultimately means that links are being established with neighbouring countries, Bulgaria has more opportunities to store gas on its territory, and that an alternative to our dependency on a single external gas supplier is also now available. In fact, this new EU legislation precludes an end to the monopoly of supplies from GAZPROM to our country, which needs to happen in the next four years. Thank you for your attention.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I congratulate the rapporteur on a very well drafted document. Following long and difficult negotiations, it has been possible to reach a Europe-wide compromise. I consider particularly important elements of the agreement to be the obligation to prepare, within two years, preventive and emergency plans in every Member State, and also the obligation of declaring a Union emergency if two countries declare an emergency. Another success of the negotiations is the obligation to enable bi-directional flow in gas pipelines three years from the date of entry into force of the regulation. I congratulate the rapporteur again. This document is a step in the direction of a true European energy community.

4. EU-China summit on 6 October 2010 (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the EU-China summit on 6 October 2010 [2010/2862(RSP)].

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the preparations of the 13th EU-China summit. The summit is particularly important this year, as we are celebrating the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the EU and China, and using for the first time the set-up provided by the Lisbon Treaty.

At last week’s European Council, Heads of State and Government discussed the challenges and opportunities for the EU when dealing with strategic partners such as China. This had been prepared at the informal Gymnich meeting of EU Foreign Ministers that I attended together with HR/VP Ashton and several other Commissioners the weekend before. There is a need and a willingness to act in a more integrated and coherent way. We need to know better what we want from strategic partners and have the same message with 27 voices.

EU-China relations have grown immensely over the last 35 years, in particular, in the economic field. We are important trading partners for each other. European businesses are benefiting from continued growth in China, but more needs to be done to open the Chinese market further and to improve the implementation of rules, for example, in the area of public procurement and intellectual property rights.

This 13th EU-China summit is the first under the post-Lisbon structure. We want to take a forward-looking perspective and act as partners to address global challenges such as climate change, the need to maintain open markets and equal access to raw materials, international stability and the rule of law.

We will look at the role of the various EU-China political and sectoral dialogues. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will be discussed, in particular, its dimension to provide a legal and institutional framework for the further development of our partnership.

Human rights are the silver thread of EU foreign policy. Even though significant differences continue, it is important that we discuss human rights and the rule of law during the upcoming summit. We can also build on some concrete positive examples, such as the EU-China law school.

The 13th EU-China summit takes place a few weeks before two crucial international events, namely the G20 summit in Seoul in November and the Climate Change summit in Cancún in December. Finding common ground with China in order to align their position to our priorities would be an important objective of this summit.

It is also important to address misperceptions and to build people-to-people links. A Cultural Forum will therefore be held for the first time in the margins of the summit. That is also why 2011 will be designated Europe-China Year of Youth with the objective of strengthening mutual understanding between European and Chinese youth and promoting intercultural dialogue. This focus will continue in 2012 with the Europe-China Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

The summit follows a very rich year in terms of political dialogue, packed with several important high-level meetings held earlier this year, including the College visit led by President Barroso and Cathy Ashton’s visit to China for the first round of the Strategic Dialogue in early September. A meeting of the High Level Economic and Trade Dialogue is planned for November. Commissioners Almunia, Rehn and myself will lead the EU delegation consisting of several Commissioners.

Honourable Members, we all share the goal of China developing further, becoming more open and transparent, adhering to international standards on human rights, welcoming international and European businesses on a level playing field and working together to address global challenges. To achieve this, we must continue to engage and deepen our cooperation. This will allow us to move the relationship further and – on the way – address difficult issues for us and for China.

The October summit provides us with the next opportunity to take stock of our relationship, and to discuss where we want to take it in the coming years.

  Ioannis Kasoulides, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, a globalised multilateral world, along with the challenges of climate change, security of energy supply, nuclear non-proliferation, Iran and North Korea, collective security issues like terrorism and piracy, and the peace efforts in volatile regions like the Middle East, warrants a strategic partnership between China and the EU.

The EU is China’s largest trade partner and China is the EU’s second largest trade partner. China is the biggest source of manufactured imports. The trade deficit in favour of China is partly due to difficulties in accessing Chinese markets. High on the agenda of the efforts to upgrade the partnership and cooperation agreement are the non-tariff barriers to markets, intellectual property rights and access to public procurement.

In our relationship with China, we pursue our mutual interests but also our values. In the context of political dialogue and on an equal footing, the EU encourages China’s transition to an open society based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. We advocate human rights for the people of Tibet and other Chinese provinces, but with full respect for the territorial integrity of China. We welcome the recent agreements with Taiwan, but in respect of the one China policy. The global economic crisis has proven global interdependence.

We welcome China’s economic progress and recovery as a factor of stability, and we urge a further appreciation of the renminbi for the world’s monetary order without distortions.

  Libor Rouček, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (CS) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the states of the European Union and China face many of the same global challenges and problems: overcoming the global economic crisis, climate change, terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, uncontrolled migration and many other challenges. We will not resolve any of these challenges or any of these problems alone. We must cooperate, we must seek partners for common solutions, and in this area, the European Union and China are natural strategic partners. We therefore anticipate that at the forthcoming summit, both partners will be aware of their global responsibility and will propose concrete steps and concrete solutions, at least for some of these challenges and problems.

Today, as the global poverty summit takes place in New York under the aegis of the United Nations, I think it is worth mentioning that the European Union and China are also particularly appropriate partners when it comes to the problem of eradicating global poverty. The Members from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament also expect that the European representatives will make some clear statements concerning certain bilateral problems at the EU-China summit on 6 October: statements on the development of, and support for, mutual trade, on access for European goods and services to the Chinese market, including public contracts of course, on the protection of copyright, protection of employment law standards, on human rights, tourism development, exchanges between students and young people and so on.

  Niccolò Rinaldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a summit between China and the European Union is a model affair between two friends who have mutual reasons for satisfaction. In certain respects, they go back a long way, because Europe and China have both contributed to a safer and more prosperous world.

Trade policy represents a crucial factor in this combined effort, even if something is not working properly, and even if it is true to say that over the last five years, the European trade deficit has tripled. This is not sustainable for the European Union but perhaps inevitable, due to China’s constant social and environmental dumping, its world record for counterfeit medicines, its market that is closed to services, its unwillingness to take part in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and its instinctive reaction to conduct a closed policy, even with regard to human rights: from the oppression of Tibet, which is culturally, spiritually and ethnically stifled, to this obstinate refusal to recognise the de facto sovereignty of Taiwan, the repression of freedom of expression in the media and on the Internet and the shameful systematic use of the death penalty.

All this is old politics to us – and we are bound to say this to our Chinese friends – because why should we offend the intelligence of a people whose civilisation has always kept pace with the times? We have little to teach China. Quite the contrary: all the competitive clout wielded by the Chinese, including in trade policy, derives from the fact that China has 1.5 billion inhabitants and one Foreign Minister, 1.5 billion inhabitants and one fiscal policy, 1.5 billion inhabitants and one currency, and the Europe of 27 + 1, which constantly falters in its dealings with China, still has a lot to learn and must recover its unity.

  Reinhard Bütikofer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr De Gucht, I agree with your basic premise that the European Union must work towards a strategic partnership with China. However, if, after having said that, our next step is almost always to talk once again about the Chinese market, I believe that we are narrowing our horizons in our approach to this strategic relationship. We are underestimating China and our own European responsibility.

Therefore, I would like to look at some issues that go beyond the admittedly very important economic relationships between us and the Chinese. During a recent visit to Vietnam, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has made a surprising move with regard to security in the South China Sea and has taken up a position which should appeal to the Europeans. It involves introducing a multilateral conflict management strategy in this complex area that is also of economic importance to us. Does Europe have a position on this? Do we share this approach or do we not have an opinion?

The next climate summit will soon be taking place in Cancún. On the last occasion, the Chinese did not play a particularly helpful role and I say this with gentle irony. We could also have been more self-critical in this respect. Is there a European strategy for working with the Chinese to get things moving with regard to Cancún and beyond? It is clear that the American contribution to this issue is largely non-existent at the moment as a result of internal political problems.

Of course, we must also look at economic policy questions. However, when you refer to raw materials and rare earths, Parliament would be interested to hear about your strategy in this area. Do we want to threaten the Chinese with World Trade Organisation (WTO) sanctions? Do you believe that this is the right course of action? Are we looking for a cooperative strategy which will involve, for example, helping the Chinese to solve their problems in this area by means of technology transfers? I would like us not only to talk about the strategic partnership, but also about the strategy and the strategic European objectives which we will use to achieve it.

  Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, for more than 30 years now, foreign observers have been constantly amazed at the growth rate of the Chinese national economy. Over this period, a developing country in which the great majority of its citizens depend on unmechanised agriculture has made up for centuries of lagging behind the developed countries of the world through a rate of economic development not seen in many long years. Some statesmen and political commentators forget that we are still talking about a developing country in which about 70% of the population still feed their families through unmechanised agriculture, which means that when yields are good the family eats, but when they are not, there is hunger. The stage of development at which China finds itself today can therefore be compared to that of the industrialised countries in the second half of the 19th century. Only by keeping this fundamental factor in mind will we be able to reach mutually advantageous agreements at the summit, without skating onto the thin ice of recent history, not to mention pressuring our partners into making a giant leap in any of the areas under discussion. In such a case, the Chinese side would be highly unwilling to accede to pressure from the EU. Anyone who remembers the consequences of the giant leap of the 1960s will surely understand what I am talking about.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) The Chinese market is attractive to European business. However, we have a jungle of oft-amended and retroactively-applying regulations which are blocking European companies’ road to that tempting market.

The position paper of the European Chamber of Commerce in Beijing published in early September – so quite recently – makes that abundantly clear, in its 647 pages and 380 recommendations to the Chinese Government. I therefore expect the Council and the Commission to ensure that this document, which is crucial to the improvement of EU-China relations, is included on the agenda of the forthcoming EU-China summit. The European Chamber of Commerce is rightly demanding of the Council and the Commission a single, clear, European voice which will actually represent and defend the interests of European companies within this country.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Madam President, I would emphatically draw your attention to China’s role when it comes to North Korea. During dictator Kim Jong-il’s recent visit to China, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, stated he wanted to pursue more trade with North Korea. This is a source of great concern to my group, the Dutch Freedom Party.

In fact, China is propping North Korea up, while we want to see this inhumane regime overthrown as soon as possible. At present, there are some very frightened North Koreans and, in particular, North Korean Christians, living in China as refugees. As soon as they are discovered by the Chinese police, they are immediately sent back to North Korea and put in labour camps, and they include many children among their numbers. At a time when North Korea is performing nuclear tests and starving its own population, it is receiving political support from China.

I would like to hear the Commission comment on whether the European Union should maintain its trade relations with a China that has trampled over human rights in such a fashion and has not stopped repatriating North Korean refugees. In this respect, I would also urge the EU to put North Korea at the top of the political agenda of the forthcoming negotiations.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, today’s debate does indeed raise the question of how to build a strategic partnership with China based on its economic potential and on our value system, particularly with respect to human rights, which have to be of a universal nature.

Garton Ash, a brilliant British analyst, said that relations with China pose four problems, all of which begin with the letter ‘t’: trade, Taiwan, Tibet – and here, I would like to remind the House of the suspension of the EU-China summit in 2008 – and lastly, Tiananmen, in reference to the human rights issue.

What is obvious, as Mr Kasoulides has said, is that none of the challenges facing the world at present, such as globalisation, the digital economy, reform of the financial system, the security issue, the fight against nuclear proliferation – just look at the case of Iran – environmental and natural resource conservation or energy supply security, can be resolved without the cooperation of China.

The United States has managed to establish a structured relationship with China, though not without its problems. President Bush presented the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal; nonetheless, relations between both countries are still functional.

Commissioner, bearing in mind the importance of China on the world scene, in the United Nations Security Council, in the G20 and in the BRIC countries, will we, as the European Union, be capable of building and consolidating this relationship? More importantly, Madam President, will we, from the European Union, be able to smooth out the path to freedom given that rather unique system that is Chinese state capitalism?

I believe, Madam President, that this is the most important question, and I would ask you, Commissioner, to defend our value system at the forthcoming summit, while also displaying a certain pragmatism.

  Henri Weber (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, for such an important debate, I would have liked Baroness Ashton to have been present or at least one Member of the Council.

Good for China! It has decided to lead the way in green technology; 38% of its massive recovery plan has been invested into these new industries. It is already the number one producer and biggest exporter of solar panels and wind turbines in the world.

We would be only too delighted with this new direction, which can help reduce pollution levels in China and world-wide, were production to be carried out in accordance with WTO rules. However, that is not the case.

Chinese exporting companies receive massive aid from state banks and local authorities. Although some green technology markets are open to foreign companies and foreign investment, many remain restricted in terms of quotas and some are even closed. Our European industries are under threat in the light of such unfair competition.

Commissioner, China has signed WTO agreements. The European Union must ensure that it adheres strictly to the rules.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, I think it is high time we consider the issue of Europe’s relations with China and even define a new strategy. I have three suggestions.

Firstly, as the President of the Council said, we need reciprocity. For example, Chinese companies cannot continue setting up shop in Europe when European companies are denied access to their public market. A choice has to be made. I expect measures to be taken in this respect.

Secondly, the Union can no longer tolerate dumping in terms of welfare, health and the environment without reacting to it as it is directly responsible for far too many transfers of production outside Europe. Furthermore, the ridiculously low labour costs and despicable working conditions should no longer be seen by the Commission as ‘natural competitive advantages’. On this point, Commissioner, I insist that the Commission changes its doctrine.

And thirdly, we can no longer turn a blind eye to the issue of human rights and Beijing’s open support, for example, for Iran, North Korea or Burma, is obviously a problem. The European Union’s aim has always been to encourage the emergence of democracy and democracies. On this issue then, we should not give an inch.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Madam President, it has been very noticeable recently how perplexed the European Union has been by China’s growing power. This is also reflected in our human rights dialogue. I would like to say that the human rights dialogue which we have engaged in with China is in some sort of crisis, one that we need to find solutions to.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister of this ever stronger player in world politics very recently said that the economic achievements in China might go to waste unless there are political reforms. He went so far as to say that citizens should have the right of access to information, they should have the right to participate in decision making, they should have the right to make their views known, and they should also be able to monitor governmental power.

I would like these issues to be discussed again seriously at the EU­China summit. As we are always hearing from representatives of China that the country operates in accordance with the needs of the majority, we must be able to show that some brave individuals, quite a few of whom are now in prison because of their views, are, in fact, the very people who speak up for the majority of the people, as they bring the abuses that are going on to everyone’s attention. These include the milk scandal, the poorly built schools and the HIV/aids scandal. In this way, we could perhaps establish a new human rights dialogue with China.

We might also acknowledge that there have been some positive reforms in China’s judicial system and that torture is being disapproved of more and more. This could be a way to get to grips with this serious problem. We should also point out that quite recently in China, there has been a reduction in the number of crimes that carry the death penalty. All this gives us greater reason to continue a robust human rights dialogue with China.

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the EU-China summit is seen as very important by European-based transnational corporations which want more flexibility to reap bigger profits from their Chinese operations – bigger profits made on the backs of Chinese workers, tens of millions of whom are appallingly exploited, migrants in their own land without human rights or workers’ rights, and costing big business only 2.7% of the cost of their American counterparts.

The summit is also important for the Chinese regime, which wants to intensify its trade with the EU. Never mind the diplomatic language of the Trade Commissioner: this is a viciously repressive regime which routinely crushes human rights, political rights and workers’ rights. However, Chinese workers are now struggling for free and independent trade unions to fight for their real interests.

In recent months, young Chinese workers in particular have led a wave of strikes throughout the country, announcing to the regime and to Western big business that they will no longer be treated as faceless cogs in the ruthless wheel of capitalist production and profit taking by big Western business. May European workers support them all the way in their struggle for justice.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I support all the previous speakers who have spoken about values, freedom and human rights in the context of the Communist dictatorship in China. Today, however, I would like to focus on economic issues. China is no longer a developing country. It is now the second largest economy in the world.

In 2009, the year of the economic crisis, China’s economic growth reached 9% and in the first half of 2010, it rose above 11%. For this reason, we need to address a number of issues, because the economic relationships between the EU and China continue to be overshadowed by existing trade barriers, in particular, on the Chinese market. In recent weeks and months, I have been receiving an increasing number of messages from businesspeople complaining about the deterioration in the business climate in China. Many markets, for example, in the construction industry or the financial sector, remain closed. There are problems with direct investment and there is still far too little protection for intellectual property. Non-tariff trade barriers are widespread and Chinese Compulsory Certification, for example, in the field of IT, makes life difficult for European companies. The lack of access to the public procurement system, the lack of free market access to raw materials and a growing number of anti-dumping cases, export subsidies, export restrictions and occurrences of product piracy and counterfeiting are further examples of the unsatisfactory nature of our current collaboration with China.

However, China is a partner on equal terms and must take responsibility for ensuring that the global economy functions effectively. China must not be allowed to shut off the Chinese market to foreign companies. Mr De Gucht, in committee, you said to us that the European Union should be ‘open, but not naively open’. I very much share your view and I would like to say quite categorically that I like the clear way in which you often express yourself. Please make sure that you speak in this way in China.

The Commission must monitor the interests of European companies more closely and represent them more effectively. In addition, the Commission must force China finally to fulfil its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation. I have a major interest in achieving a good partnership between China and Europe. However, in order to achieve this, both sides must behave as partners.

  Emilio Menéndez del Valle (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, China is on an export and investment offensive on practically every continent. Trade and investments have substantially increased. Forecasts suggest that in 2014, China will overtake Europe and become the second biggest market for Latin American exports, while by 2015, Latin America will be buying more from China than from Europe.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, a certain interesting reservation must be made, namely, that the European Union could hold off such an occurrence if our partnership agreements with Central America, the Multiparty Trade Agreement between the EU, Peru and Colombia and the future agreement with Mercosur, stimulate bilateral trade between the European Union and Latin America.

At the last EU-China summit in 2009, both parties backed a trilateral dialogue between the European Union, China and Africa and agreed to explore possible areas of cooperation. Does the Commission not think, given, moreover, the absence of the Council, that a similar dialogue between the European Union, China and Latin America ought to be promoted at the next summit?

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, China is now a fabulously wealthy state, boosted by economic growth which, year in, year out, stands at between 8 and 15%. Its economic performance has earned it the title of workshop of the world, whereas, for some decades now, the United States has assumed the role of ultimate consumer.

China produces and sells, stimulating American consumption due to the fact that, alongside the goods sold, it provides the US with consumer credit. Therefore, China, which encourages American consumption more than its own, sees itself faced with requests from the rest of the world.

Such is the strategic interdependence between the United States and China that any real change in this odd partnership would impact more than just these two countries alone. As for relations between the EU and China, while they are vital, they obviously have less in common when it comes to the more important areas.

As long as it is in China and the United States’s interest to have European exports limited by an extremely strong euro, we are in a position of weakness. At the same time, ever since China became a member of the United Nations Security Council with a right of veto, it has also become a force to be reckoned with in the field of international relations.

This country which, in the course of this year, has become the second biggest military power, demands our attention in more ways than one. Stability now depends on China too. For all these reasons and all these issues, may I also add that we urgently need a European strategy for external relations.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, many important topics will be tackled at the EU-China summit. I believe that one of the main topics is the promotion of free and fair trade and the ultimate gradual integration of China into the world economic scene as a responsible and reliable partner.

Today, although China joined the WTO nearly 10 years ago, on 11 November 2001 to be precise, and has benefited from substantial advantages, there has been no reciprocity of undertakings and improvements to facilitate access by international investors to certain sectors of its market.

In particular, problems relating to the opening up of the public procurement market, intellectual property and counterfeiting, subsidies for export and the currency market have not shown any essential changes, and the difficulties for international companies remain virtually identical even though, I repeat, China joined the WTO many years ago.

The Chinese market is continually expanding. China’s aggressive policies with regard to export subsidies, their instrumental use facilitated by the value of its currency, and the safaris to Africa to plunder raw materials are elements that concern those who fear a global economic imbalance that may undermine peace in the world.

It is therefore now right to ask ourselves some questions: was it a good idea to allow China to join the WTO on 11 November 2001 without first agreeing what its obligations should be? I wonder if the Trade Commissioner would mind answering this question: what happened to the negotiations for a new partnership and cooperation agreement, agreed in December 2005, begun in January 2007 and then, as far as I can see, allowed to go no further with regard to its economic aspects?

Could the meeting of 6 October 2010 be an opportunity to conclude agreements that give international companies free access to the market? At the forthcoming meeting, will it be possible to discuss certification of licences for access to the Chinese market, particularly for public contracts and tenders, without international companies having to hand over their know-how?

I look forward to hearing specific responses to all these questions from the Trade Commissioner and his views on the forthcoming meeting.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Madam President, this summit will be of great importance to the EU. We need to make sure that it is also important for China. I have no doubt that China wants a strong, integrated Europe. It wants a multipolar – not a bipolar – world, and we should welcome that.

We therefore need to ensure that the EU has a strong, coordinated approach on many important issues – for example, on trade links and on IPR, to help us access the huge and growing Chinese market, but also on climate change and energy. Energy, in particular, is a vital issue for both the EU and China. Therefore, I believe that cooperation on such things as clean energy technology is an important topic for us to discuss. We should have discussions on the exchange of technology such as CCS. This will help us improve our environment and will be good for our energy policy.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr De Gucht, a strategic partnership involves the two partners speaking with one voice. One of the two partners, the European Union, has, unfortunately, not reached that point in many areas, in particular, with regard to economic issues. We know that joint responsibility between the two partners forms part of a strategic partnership. For this reason, the question of partnership in external and security policy issues, in regional security, and with regard to matters such as Iran and North Korea, is of huge importance. In these last two areas, in particular, events have occurred which have resulted in China taking on increasing responsibility.

However, we also need to see joint responsibility for trade and economic standards, for universal human rights and for environmental and social issues. I believe that China must not hide behind the developing countries on these issues as it becomes stronger both politically and economically. The enormous economic growth in China since 1980 deserves our admiration. In the 18th century, China had a gross national product which amounted to one third of global GNP and, we must be honest with ourselves, it is on the way to returning to this position. This is currently the case with 8% of the population. It represents a dramatic change in the situation, which will result in an economic shift in power in political terms. The financial crisis has made this very clear.

However, this also means that things will only work when China is prepared to genuinely open up its markets. It must stop taking an approach to public procurement and licensing which excludes others, it must start applying copyright law and applying it correctly and it must end the practice of only concluding contracts which involve the necessary knowledge transfer from a Chinese perspective.

I believe that our job at this summit is to attempt to define China’s status with regard to the market economy, because I see this as the key issue in taking these developments forward.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, advantage must be taken of this summit in order for the European Union and China to agree on joint positions for the Cancún climate change conference. It is important to learn lessons from the events of Copenhagen. It is incomprehensible that the United States has negotiated a minimalist agreement with China, India, Brazil and South Africa, and that the European Union’s ambitious proposal has been ignored.

Europe must take the lead again in the fight against climate change and positively influence its strategic partners. China is essential to this fight, not just because it is the world’s most populous country and has a flourishing economy, but also because it is already the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and consumer of coal.

By 2020, China is proposing to reduce CO2 emissions, while increasing renewable energy use and its forested area. That is a start, but it is not enough. We have to be more ambitious if we want to save our planet.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union defined certain objectives correctly. There are others that are anachronistic, and I consider the non-recognition of China as a market economy to be one of those. Several speakers have mentioned the importance of market access. I would like to bring to the attention of Commissioner De Gucht the fact that most European food products can only find their way to the Chinese market through Hong Kong. It would be good if the Commission took steps in this area as well. Several speakers have brought up the subject of cooperation in the area of climate change. Yes, a lack of cooperation also contributed to the failure of the Copenhagen Summit. Finally, on the subject of human rights: it is right that we speak out for Tibetan autonomy, for the cause of minorities, but let us not forget that 700 million rural dwellers and 200 million guest workers have no healthcare, no social security and no pension, and their children’s schooling has not been resolved.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Madam President, I should today like to repeat once again something I have always said: relations between the EU and China are extremely important for both sides and for the whole world. This is even truer today, with China continuing its rapid growth and the EU still struggling with the crisis.

The EU needs China and China needs the EU. Until now, no real strategic agreement has been reached by the EU with Beijing. My hope is that the forthcoming summit will finally be the right opportunity for us to speak with a single voice and to establish a strategic approach to our relations with China.

Commissioner, with the agenda now so close and so important, the following issues are essential within the strategic partnership for this autumn and next spring. First, in the G20, Europe and China need to build up a strong and effective partnership. Second, there is Cancún, with the lessons drawn from the EU failure on climate change in Copenhagen. Third, there is the issue of international aid and development – not only for Africa – with a view to working together to make the Millennium Development Goals a reality, rather than just a holy promise.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to raise a point of order. I have been hoping all this time that the Council might possibly put in an appearance. Now the discussion is almost over and the Council has unfortunately been notable by its absence. Does this mean that the Council does not consider it necessary to discuss with Parliament the strategic relationships with China, or how should we understand this? How can we make it clear to the Council that Parliament has the right to play a role in these strategic relationships?

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to highlight once again the agreement reached between the European Parliament and the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission. This states that a Commissioner can fully represent the Vice-President and speak on her behalf, including with regard to issues of mixed importance and in her capacity as chair of the Council of Foreign Ministers. I am assuming that this is what Mr De Gucht has done. This does mean that we are once again introducing the double-hatting arrangement on the part of the Council. I regard Mr De Gucht as the representative of Baroness Ashton in her full capacity.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) We are all aware that the European Union is not alone in recognising the opportunities offered by a smart, green economy with a view to achieving greater competitiveness and prosperity.

China is one of the countries which have set out similar priorities and are investing in emerging industries, green technologies, information and communications technology and smart networks. Apart from pursuing close cooperation in these economic sectors, I believe that another priority area which needs to be looked at is trade. This is one of the driving forces for growth, employment and investment in both the EU and China. We must take measures, as part of bilateral cooperation, to ensure that the barriers preventing the flow of trade and investments are lowered and to promote trade based on clearly defined standards.

We should also strengthen the economic and political ties we have established with China, one of our main strategic partners.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). – (SK) China is an important business and trading partner of the European Union.

I am naturally in favour of a closer strategic partnership, but it must be based on trust and reciprocity. However, we must not neglect social conditions in China in the rush to establish good trade relations, joint research, joint measures on environmental protection or other things. The population of China represents almost a quarter of the global population, and despite the fact that social changes in China over the past 20 years have led to improvements, we must not neglect the intervention that is needed in order for China to be a truly open and democratic country.

We are talking about 1.5 billion people, who deserve a guarantee of basic human rights and freedoms. However, we must remember that next year is the year of youth within the framework of Europe-China relations, and in the European Union, it will be the year of volunteering. I therefore consider it necessary for us to aim to establish projects that are as closely interlinked as possible, and to support exchanges of young people in particular, as the younger generation represent the future for all of us. If we create conditions for cooperation now, the better it will be in the future.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, the PRC remains a ruthless communist dictatorship, but every day, capitalist China achieves another economic record. It is about to overtake Japan as the world’s second economy and is already – astonishingly – far and away Brazil’s number one trading partner, as China goes truly global.

We all know of its massive scramble for natural resources in Africa and its shameful backing for the indicted war criminal, President Bashir, in Sudan and the Mugabe dictatorship in Zimbabwe. I worry about the risk of a proxy war in Sudan, with China backing the north and the Americans the south, in the south’s quest for independence.

At this summit, I do hope that ratification of the ICCPR and reform of the notorious Laogai labour camps will also be raised. Once piece of good news in my view – and I speak as President of the EP-Taiwan Friendship Group – is that communist China, the PRC, is now treating Taiwan with much more respect and there is much more detente across the straits.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commissioner has rightly described China as a strategic partner, but let us be frank: this relationship is a one-way street!

Europe is strategic for China, meaning that China has a clear and very aggressive attitude toward us; it knows what it wants from Europe and it gets what it wants: China makes up the rules to suit itself.

We are, in fact, subject to its will. We have chosen not to make a choice, not to lay down genuine and far-sighted conditions with regard to the economy, trade and even less in terms of human rights. We draw a merciful veil over the human rights issues, lest we have to face up to the facts of Tibet, the world record for capital punishment and the human rights record in general. Even if we timidly lay down certain conditions, we then let China systematically trample all over them.

I would like to close by saying – the Commissioner put it much better than me by asking a fundamental question – what do we want from China? What does Europe want from China? Maybe it is time to seriously ask ourselves this question!

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, over the next few weeks, the European Union is going to hold three crucial summits: the first with China, the second with the United States and the third with Africa. At the same time, a year will have passed since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, while the European External Action Service will be about to come into operation.

The time has come for Europe to play its part as a global player on the world scene, not only entering into economic partnerships, but political ones as well, with respect to nuclear proliferation, climate change, security and the role of China in Africa and Latin America.

Therefore, the time has come for us to hold a summit that is different to the previous ones. This is the thirteenth summit, but it is the first one at which Europe must act with a single voice.

  Rachida Dati (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I agree with the position taken by my fellow Member on the Council’s absence from this meeting of Parliament. I must say, I find it a bit offhand of the Council.

With the approach of the next summit on 6 October, China and the European Union must absolutely and resolutely try to take steps together on the issue of climate change. This time last year, in this very Chamber, we were already busy urging Europe to do all it could to reach an ambitious and binding agreement in Copenhagen. We have seen that the results did not live up to our hopes and expectations. A year on and concerns remain the same, if not more serious.

For us to be able now to force or persuade our partners, we must show that our determination is absolutely intact, show, for example, that we will do what it takes to honour our commitments to the countries of the South. To this end, the introduction of innovative financing – and I did hear the speech delivered by President Sarkozy to the UN yesterday – is the obvious answer.

For example, the introduction of a carbon tax at our borders should not be ruled out. It would act as an incentive to countries not going far enough in their commitments to climate change; actually, it would be much more than a threat as it would help protect our jobs and our businesses, helping us deal better with the post-crisis period.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, in the first three months of last year, the United Kingdom imported more than four times the value of goods from China than it exported to that country.

The EU as a whole is facing a similar threat from a growing Chinese economy. In 2009, the EU imported goods worth EUR 215 billion from China but exported goods worth only EUR 82 billion. We might have expected to compensate for that deficit in trade by a favourable surplus in the trade in services, but the surplus there was a paltry EUR 5 billion. We are allowing the Chinese to destroy the industries and jobs of the nation states of Europe by embracing globalism and opening our markets to low wage goods with which we simply cannot compete. We must stop importing goods that are destroying our industries and destroying the jobs of our peoples.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Preparations for the coming summit are very important, because the subjects which will be discussed will determine the direction of policy as well as priorities for the next period of our cooperation. It is extremely important to adhere to the requirements concerning quality standards in environment protection, which includes climate protection, but also in social and socio-political matters and, finally, in the problem of respect for human rights.

It is necessary to analyse very seriously the difficulties being experienced with access to the Chinese market as well as respect for intellectual property rights and the principles of public procurement used by the Chinese Government. The dialogue and cooperation in the area of culture and the Europe-China Year of Youth are to be welcomed. In our approach to China, more unity among Member States is needed. Only then will our policy be effective.

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Europe is facing an important challenge in its relations with emerging countries: our relations need to be organised.

The European Union has a commercial, political, strategic and humanitarian interest in its most important partner: China.

Spain exports EUR 500 million to and imports EUR 580 million from China. The Community of Valencia exports EUR 60 million to and imports EUR 25 million from China. This represents a positive balance of 240%.

The Community of Valencia is a big exporter to China, accounting for 12% of Spain’s total. It imports footwear, toys and electrical appliances. China is the Community of Valencia’s third biggest customer. It imports leather goods, footwear and plastic goods.

This is why it is necessary to try and open up the market, improve the quality guarantees of imports, improve exports, help our businesspeople in trade and employment matters, along with that which has to be added to an agreement, namely, improvements in the environment, human rights and in the fight against poverty.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Madam President, Mr De Gucht, Commissioner, I agree to a large extent with what the chair of the delegation for relations with the People’s Republic of China, Mr Rivellini, has said. Despite all the criticism of the work done by the European Union, which I always understand to be constructive, I believe that the summits with China are of central importance and that we should always bear in mind what happened in the Helsinki process. There, we saw change resulting from rapprochement. There are still important areas relating to trade and to World Trade Organisation (WTO) issues where I believe that we have differing opinions. I would like to ask you nevertheless to pay particular attention to the question of Africa. Unfortunately, the Chinese are making a deliberate attempt to undermine human rights standards in construction work on important projects in Africa. I hope that you can highlight this issue.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) China is, without doubt, a significant trading partner of the European Union and its Member States, and trade relations have deepened in recent years due to the remarkable growth of the Chinese economy.

For future relations between the Union and China, it is important to create a real partnership based on acceptance, but also on shared values. The EU is a worldwide defender of human rights, and it must therefore actively promote its human rights agenda and consistently push for human rights and values to be respected.

I personally believe that, in this area, we should avoid making compromises on the grounds that we might disrupt trade. The EU has a moral obligation to put pressure on the Chinese Government to adopt commitments leading to a dramatic improvement in human rights in the country and, above all, to accept immediately and unconditionally a moratorium on the death penalty, which is still being misused in order to eliminate political opponents in China.

  László Tőkés (PPE). – Madam President, as we know, the EU is China’s largest trade partner, and China enjoys our support in their economic reforms, but let us not forget that these reforms cannot move forward without reforms in the field of respect for human rights.

Europe successfully put an end to its nearly 50-year experience with Communist totalitarianism that deprived people of their identities, distorting the natural course of so many lives. Therefore, in dialogues with China, as well as in the upcoming summit, we must continuously focus on Communist China’s failures to respect human rights.

Our statements must reflect a stronger and more defined common position in order to provide a meaningful engagement on issues such as freedom of the press and religion, discrimination against ethnic minorities, the issue of Tibet, the Uighurs and the death penalty. I therefore ask the EU representatives to ensure a better integration of human rights issues into EU-China relations.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Prior to the forthcoming summit between the European Union and China, it is important for the Commission and the Council to understand the nature of the relationship between these two players from an international politics perspective.

From a European perspective, the growing influence of China is increasingly being seen more as a threat than an opportunity, and we now see with disappointment how we have failed to implement our original aim of positively influencing the internal development of China and its international behaviour.

From the Chinese perspective, the European Union is seen, above all, as an economic and technological power, and China has no ambition to interfere in the activities of the Union, although it is sensitive to the statements of EU representatives concerning the direction in which it should be heading. The entire tense dynamic of EU-China relations arises from the fact that, apart from mutual pragmatic, strategic and geopolitical interests, the EU is attempting to exert influence on China from the position of a normative power. Hence, the Union not only needs China on account of its security and economic interests, but also needs China to support and implement the ideas of the Union regarding international relations and human rights.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, China is undergoing huge growth and is full of contradictions. It is a country that is becoming increasingly powerful in a global context.

It is true that we need our own European strategy to define the action that we should take. We must make our interests clear and explain that we want multi-polar global relationships. We are interested in finding a solution to the problems of climate policy. We want to see overall sustainability, but we do not want a colonial style debate. Instead, we would like a relationship with the Chinese on equal terms. However, I would like to make it equally clear that human rights are universal. China is still failing to comply with human rights standards and there is no press freedom there. For this reason, we must continue to express our criticism of the Chinese Government. I am of the opinion that we should not lift the arms embargo. We must condemn the Laogai or forced labour camps. We must call for an end to the ban on trade unions and for cultural autonomy for the many minorities, in particular, the Tibetans and the Uighurs.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I welcome the high-level discussions due to take place between China and the European Union, and I hope that they will be very successful.

I think we ignore China at our peril and that we would be the bigger losers. There is a great opportunity for us to establish parity, particularly with regard to reciprocal arrangements regarding trade with China, which is badly needed for our businesses and our citizens.

I know there are issues regarding human rights, workers’ rights and North Korea, etc., but it is only by engaging with countries that you can influence them. If you do not engage, then you become irrelevant. I think this is a great opportunity for us to show that Europe can speak with one voice – one powerful voice. If that is seen in the forthcoming summit, it would be noted around the world, and the European Union as such would become far more relevant and far more influential.

I was pleased to be at the Beijing Games two years ago. China is a fine place, made up of wonderful people. The more engagement we have, the better for them and for us.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). – (CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, correct relations between the EU and China, based on mutual respect, must be capable of incorporating and understanding the differences between our two cultures. The key is to make an honest and non-superficial attempt at mutual recognition. Personal experience and the development of human capabilities, including the elimination of language barriers, are an essential precondition for this. I therefore welcomed the joint declaration of the 12th EU-China summit in Nanjing in November 2009, which spoke of strengthening cooperation in the fields of education, supporting talent, joint research and support for language teaching, including a commitment to make all efforts towards a substantial increase in student exchanges. As I do not know whether and, to what extent, there has been concrete progress in this direction, either at EU level or at the Chinese level, I would like to call again for a fundamental strengthening in these areas as an essential precondition for effective multicultural dialogue.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). – Madam President, it is now a fact of life that China, already the second economic and exporting power in the world, is moving towards the status of a superpower, forcing the US to pay it increasing attention. Consequently, Europe will soon have to compete with China for the favours of the US, while its power of attraction is fading away.

Under the circumstances, the EU’s own relations with China are given even more weight, not only commercially and economically, but politically, and perhaps even militarily too. However, in order for that to happen, we need to overcome the apparent division of labour between the institutions of the EU, often entrusted to play the ‘bad cop’ role in relations with China, and the individual member countries competing for the role of ‘good cop’ in their relations with this rising superpower.

  President. – Further to a message which I have received from the Council, I wish to clarify that Commissioner De Gucht will speak on behalf of Lady Ashton and that, under the agreement with the European Parliament, Lady Ashton represents both the European Commission and the Council. This clarification is in response to members’ comments on the Council’s absence.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for making it clear that today I am, in fact, wearing two hats (by the way, I have at least two hats – one for the winter in dark brown velvet and one for the summer, a panama). You said, Madam President, that this was an agreement with Parliament. It is, in fact, the result of the Lisbon Treaty. It is important, in order to avoid misunderstandings when I take the floor in such a debate, if you would indicate ‘HR/VP’ instead of ‘the Commission’. That would make it clear to all Members what my specific capacity – or that of anybody else – is in this kind of debate. Having said that, this was, in fact, a very rich debate. I will try in the remaining minutes before you start voting to answer some of the questions.

Let me start with climate change, which Mr Bütikofer mentioned. In fact, it is very important that we come to a common understanding with China with respect to climate change. This is on the agenda of the summit due to take place on 6 October.

This leads me to a somewhat more general remark with respect to the strategic partnership. Many Members of Parliament have asked what this strategic partnership really means. For me, it means that China – being one of the most important economies in the world, the biggest country in the world, a superpower, a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, an economic powerhouse, and also an increasingly important military power – together with the European Union, the United States and others, has a shared responsibility for world affairs. That is what I think it should really mean. It is not only about politics, the economy, climate change or raw materials, but rather it is about the shared responsibility to conduct world affairs. We are open to doing that together with them.

References were also made to several existing problems in the economic sector. For example, Mr Belder drew attention to the European Chamber of Commerce which has produced – not for the first time, by the way: they do this annually – a report on trade irritants. There is also a shorter version than the full 627-page one, which gives an executive summary. We have many contacts with them. When I visited China recently, we had an in-depth discussion with them. We also attended a meeting with the Chinese leadership where European business people were in a position to put questions to the Chinese leadership. So we are keeping ourselves very well informed on what is happening in that respect. There are problems, notably compulsory certification, the problem of indigenous innovation and the very vast problem of raw materials, which concerns not only the extractive industry, but also cotton, paper and so on. This is a vast subject and we should continue to follow this very closely. It will be one of the main subjects at the High Level Economic Dialogue that we will be having with China in November.

Some specific questions were put with respect to reciprocity, amongst others, by Mrs De Sarnez. We are preparing a communication on trade for the end of October. There we will propose a new instrument, similar to the trade defence instruments, whereby it would be possible, on the basis of a report, to intervene in such a way that – and this is not specifically aimed at China, but at everybody – if a country closed its government procurement markets to our products and to our entrepreneurs, we could retaliate by doing exactly the same with our markets and close them to them. I am a great supporter of openness, but openness also means that there should be reciprocity. The European Commission will take action in that respect – I repeat, not specifically aimed at China, but China certainly comes into that orbit.

Dumping was also mentioned. We see no sharp rise in dumping activities and in anti-dumping procedures, but we are following this very closely. If need be, we take the necessary measures. For example, last week, we took a measure with respect to aluminium wheels, and we continue to monitor this very closely.

Mr Brok asked a question about market economy status. That is a very interesting topic indeed. One of the questions we should be asking ourselves is whether we should change our approach to the market economy status. Market economy status is, in fact, a technical assessment based on the fulfilment of five criteria. Market economy status has always been one of China’s key demands to us and there has been some idea of using market economy status as a bargaining chip to push for the EU’s offensive interests. However, China has never indicated what it would be willing to give us as a counterpayment for market economy status. It is clear that it would not be in our interest to give it for free. We have increasing problems emerging in China in areas of market access, investment opportunities for our companies, government procurement and access to raw materials. We would need to see improvement in these areas if we were ever to change our approach to market economy status. Let me add that, as a result of their entry into the WTO as from 2016, they will automatically have market economy status.

There was also a question on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, from Mr Rivellini, amongst others. The talks continue. On the trade front, we were in Beijing last week. On the political front, we have narrowed issues down to human rights, Taiwan and migration. This is, by the way, an ongoing process and, like the honourable Member, I would welcome a timely conclusion.

Let me finish by saying a word on human rights, an issue raised by many Members of this Parliament. Human rights issues are raised during our regular political contacts and, in particular, during our human rights dialogue with the Chinese authorities, the last session of which was held in Madrid on 29 June. In Nanjing at the 12th EU-China summit, for instance, they were raised both during the discussions and in the press conference. Of course, human rights and the rule of law will be debated at the Brussels Summit as well.

The EU recognises that China has made progress on economic and social rights. We value the achievements of the Chinese leadership in improving the economic situation of millions of citizens, as illustrated by the way China dealt with the economic downturn. However, this is not matched by similar progress on civil and political rights. In the light of China’s global role and its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is a strong international expectation that China should live up to internationally recognised standards in all fields of human rights. We urge China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which would be the most tangible sign of China’s commitment to respecting human rights.

Lastly, on Tibet, the EU respects the sovereignty and integrity of China, including Tibet, but human rights are universal and the situation in Tibet is a legitimate concern of the international community. We are concerned that a large number of Tibetan intellectuals and writers are currently facing criminal charges. We urge China to allow the Tibetan people fully to exercise their basic political, religious, economic, social and cultural rights, in line with the Chinese Constitution and the Chinese legal provisions on local autonomy.

  President. – The debate is closed.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

5. Voting time

  President. – The next item is voting time.

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

5.1. Draft amending budget No 5/2010: OLAF and the review of own resources (A7-0249/2010, László Surján) (vote)

5.2. Completing the internal market for e-commerce (A7-0226/2010, Pablo Arias Echeverría) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to apologise. I have left my card in the meeting room of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Someone is fetching it for me. There are so few votes and I have been here since the first one. I just wanted to explain that.

5.3. Investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation (A7-0195/2010, Christine De Veyrac) (vote)

5.4. Security of gas supply (A7-0112/2010, Alejo Vidal-Quadras) (vote)

5.5. Agreement between the EC and Pakistan on readmission (A7-0231/2010, Csaba Sógor) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Csaba Sógor, rapporteur. – (HU) Mr President, allow me to express my thanks for the statement by the European Commission which will be attached to the Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to be voted upon presently, concerning the proposal for a Council decision on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation.

5.6. Trade and economic relations with Turkey (A7-0238/2010, Metin Kazak) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, I am taking the floor on the basis of Rule 175(2) of the Rules of Procedure and I am asking for this report to be referred back to committee.

My reasons for this are as follows. There is a conflict of interest for the rapporteur, Mr Kazak, as he completed his higher education at the Sorbonne at the expense of the Turkish Government. Given this situation, I think that the report he has drafted is not impartial and must be referred back to committee and a new rapporteur appointed to draft a report which will be impartial and accurate.

This is why I am appealing to my fellow Members to support me on this request to refer the motion back to committee.

  President. – Thank you. A request of this kind may only be submitted by a political group. In this case, the request is not appropriate. We cannot consider it.

- Before the vote on Amendment 2, part 2:

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, point 2 states: ‘Referral back to committee may also be requested by a political group or at least 40 Members’. Please ask to see whether my proposal is supported by 40 MEPs and then we will find out whether we can continue further with the report.

(The request to refer the report back to committee was rejected)

5.7. EU legislation aiming at the conservation of biodiversity (A7-0241/2010, Esther de Lange) (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 67:

  Esther de Lange, rapporteur. – Mr President, I just want to ask you to take the final vote – the vote on the resolution as a whole – as a roll-call vote.

  President. – Are you making this request on behalf of a political group?

  Esther de Lange, rapporteur. – Yes, Mr President, and it has been discussed with the shadow rapporteurs as well.

  President. – It is a little late, but we can take a roll-call vote if nobody is against that. Is anybody against it? Mr Batten, are you against it?

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Mr President, I do object, not because I object to it being a roll-call vote but because – as I have said in this Chamber many times before – we should have one set of rules that applies evenly to everybody. If one of us stood up and asked whether we could have a roll-call vote on something else, it would be denied. If we have rules, we must follow the rules.

(The request was rejected)

- After the vote:

  Esther de Lange, rapporteur. – Mr President, with all due respect, we have had this procedure before. We can ask for a roll-call vote during the vote and if 40 Members oppose it, we will not take the roll-call vote, but until now, I have only seen one.

  President. – I would like to explain this without the need for excitement. The procedure you are talking about concerns oral amendments, because there is no deadline for the tabling of oral amendments. If you request a roll-call vote, another principle is involved – no one in the Chamber can oppose the request. In the case we have before us now, a deadline for tabling amendments had been set, and you did not make this request within the set time. These are the principles which are found in our Rules of Procedure. When a deadline for tabling amendments has been set, no one may oppose it. The resolution has been adopted. I would like to congratulate Mrs de Lange on her work on this resolution.

5.8. Prevention of natural and man-made disasters (A7-0227/2010, João Ferreira) (vote)

5.9. Poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries (A7-0192/2010, Eleni Theocharous) (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 84:

  Eleni Theocharous , rapporteur. – (EL) I wish to propose the following oral amendment, which is drafted in English.

(The speaker continued in English)

rapporteur. – I will read the English text: ‘Calls on the European Union and the G20 to take concrete action to eradicate abuses of tax havens, tax evasion and illicit financial flights from developing countries and to promote these resources to be invested in developing countries’. We would like to add a phrase after the first three words ‘and the G20’ and to replace the word ‘allow’ with the verb ‘promote’.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

  President. – In a moment, information about Thursday will be sent to you by e-mail.

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

6. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Pablo Arias Echeverría (A7-0226/2010)

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) E-commerce has now become an integral part of the Internet, but unfortunately, there are still noticeable shortcomings, particularly when it comes to cross-border commerce. Non-coordinated national regulations can seriously hamper the free movement of goods across Europe. According to surveys, in 2009, one out of three European consumers purchased some kind of merchandise electronically, but only 7% did so from another Member State. Another survey shows clearly that 60% of cross-border shopping attempts are unsuccessful either because the supplier can decline the transaction or refuses shipment. Europe may boast of 500 million consumers, but they are not making their presence felt on the Internet. We have to do our best to create conditions for a unified, functioning, electronic market as well. That is why I supported the report.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my views on this vote. I think we all agree that this is very important: there are still far too many barriers to e-commerce. It is important that we are able to purchase both digital and physical goods on the Internet across the EU. I welcome any initiatives which break down barriers within the EU to achieve that. That is probably one of the positive things about the European Union.

At the same time, however, there is so much more commerce which is involved with the rest of the world, and I would hope that we are not then seeking legislation on a global scale, but better coordination between different jurisdictions to ensure that we break down barriers and that citizens of countries within the European Union are able to take advantage of cheaper prices in the rest of the world and to buy products, goods and services from the rest of the world over the Internet.

At the same time, we should recognise that, as there is an abundance of bandwidth, storage and data, prices will tend towards zero, and over time, the prices of some digital products will come down to zero.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, constituents of mine in business will look at a report like this with weary resignation. Here are all the trite, clichéd phrases that we associate with EU directives: ‘e-commerce is a vital force of the Internet’; ‘an important catalyst for achieving the aims of the EU 2020 strategy’; ‘it is important for all stakeholders to cooperate’. This does nothing to facilitate actual commerce and free exchange. You do not need directives and regulations to allow businesses to buy and sell to each other: it is what they do, without having to be expressly legalised.

When one of my constituents is selling by Internet to a company on the other side of the world, in Australia or New Zealand, they manage to do it without the regulatory superstructure of the EU’s single market. In fact, they often do it with far fewer problems than when trying to negotiate their way through the tangle of European rules, which perhaps explains why, in the years of our membership of the European Union, our trade has been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. It perhaps explains now why, with the rise of the technological revolution, my constituents are rediscovering their global vocation.

Report: Christine De Veyrac (A7-0195/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as may clearly be seen from this report, air traffic has now been increasing steadily for years. Despite great progress with safety, this inevitably involves an increased risk of accidents.

The European regulations on investigation of air accidents are set out in a 1994 directive, drawn up when the EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, had not yet been set up. I therefore fully support the rapporteur’s aim of establishing a clear legal framework through a new regulation that makes the EASA the main agent of aviation safety within Europe.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, the regulation improves safety investigations into how to avoid accidents in the future, coordination through the creation of the Network and care for victims and their families, but I am disappointed that two issues have not been included: firstly, the principle of just culture, so that personnel are not sanctioned for decisions taken in accordance with their experience and training, without serious negligence, deliberate infringements or acts of destruction being tolerated under any circumstances; secondly, the demand for a self-regulating code to avoid the disclosure of sensitive information that may get into the hands of the media, thus avoiding the gratuitous suffering of families.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, we know that the existing Community system for civil aviation accident investigations is not as good as it might be. Over the last few years, there has been dramatic transport growth and expansion of the European Union, and there are better investigative methods. The aim of this regulation is therefore to respond to the situation that has arisen, and to ensure more effective accident prevention.

The proposed regulation will make it possible to involve the EASA agency – which has existed since 2002 and is responsible for certifying aircraft – in the accident investigation process, to create a European network of civil aviation investigation bodies, and to propose changes to the character and scope of submitted investigation reports, including a requirement for lists of passengers on board aircraft involved in disasters to be made available. The text under discussion results from a compromise between Parliament and the Council. The Czech Republic has agreed to the compromise in the Council. The report is of a technical nature and will contribute to greater safety in aviation. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) The volcanic eruption in Iceland in April showed that the entire continent of Europe is, in fact, stuck with aviation. At the moment, there is no alternative. Neither rail transport nor any other branch of transport was able to replace aviation, hence the question of its safety and reliability. In the case of aviation incidents – this is what we are interested in – or air disasters, it is absolutely crucial to be able to determine the causes effectively, so that, firstly, liability can be established. However, even more importantly, we need to be able to prevent incidents, especially near collisions, and disasters in this extremely important area of transport.

I would like to express regard both for the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for covering a range of matters. They have highlighted areas of responsibility and ways to resolve problems. It is a good regulation. I endorsed it.

Report: Alejo Vidal-Quadras (A7-0112/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, over recent years, many Member States have endured frequent interruptions in their gas supplies, showing that the European Union’s increasing dependency on foreign energy supplies can harm the long-term economic and political interests of Member States.

I fully support the notion that energy security should be considered an essential factor in the global security of the European Union and that the guarantee of maintaining gas supplies in the EU, particularly during crisis situations, must, in turn, be considered a strategic objective.

For this reason, I voted in favour of this report and I echo the rapporteur in hoping that this regulation will be applied quickly.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) The gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine last winter had a negative impact on European citizens and the European economy, while revealing the extent of the European Union’s vulnerability and dependency on supplies from abroad.

The Union should create its own energy policy in a spirit of solidarity, and thus ensure the security of energy supplies throughout the EU, in accordance with the new powers granted under the Treaty of Lisbon. Regarding sudden disruptions to gas supply, I agree with the opinion of the rapporteur, who has strengthened the provisions of the article dealing with the options for declaring a state of emergency in the Community for a defined geographical area, in other words, in a country which is, for example, experiencing a crisis with a complete collapse in gas supplies, even if the decline at the EU level has not reached the 10% threshold. I also consider it correct to establish a specific Community mechanism that will be implemented at the regional level.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Security of gas supply was, is and will, for a long time, be an issue which is crucial for the international political situation, but which, above all else, is crucial for ensuring the right living conditions for the residents of Europe by guaranteeing the right amounts of this essential natural resource. The ideas proposed by the author of the report, such as improving the system for declaring emergencies by relating the criteria to a particular geographical area, defining explicit thresholds which will enable Member States to intervene in the market, and centralisation and strengthening of the protection of data concerning supply and commercial information will, without doubt, improve security of supply and guarantee its continuity. This problem is particularly significant for economies which are based on gas as a source of energy, and we have many of these in Europe. Naturally, I endorsed the report.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) We have adopted an important report on the security of gas supply. The measures proposed in the report are a step in the right direction, but they do not give society or the economy a full sense of security. The experience of recent years shows that a number of Member States have been acting in their own interests and have not been trying to build a true, coordinated and mutually beneficial European policy in this area.

We should endeavour to achieve the separation of extraction from transmission, and we should eliminate monopolies and remove gas from the arena of international politics. Diversification of sources and routes of gas supply, infrastructure development, cooperation of entities involved in gas and working together at supranational level are essential steps which should be taken. In my opinion, this document is the beginning of the construction of a common energy policy.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Madam President. Security of gas supply is one of the most important aspects of Europe’s economic and strategic security. The ability to speak with one voice in energy policy questions with energy suppliers is one of our key goals. I greatly value what Commissioner Oettinger has achieved, but I consider that the five or seven years he mentioned for discussions with the Member States is too long a period. A common energy policy is needed urgently. It is essential to secure diversity of sources of supply, especially for the Baltic States, because a single provider – Russia – is exploiting its monopoly position in order to interfere in the political events of the states depending on it. Interconnections for gas supply in Europe must be established, based on the principle of solidarity, which is the foundation stone of European Union policy. A situation in which we had diversified gas suppliers but the gas still had to be piped through Russia would be intolerable. Europe must develop direct cooperation with Central Asian and Transcaucasian states, it must research tight gas and shale gas projects and alternative sources of energy. Thank you.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted in favour of this measure. It is time for the European Union to regulate energy security and the energy supply with clarity: last year’s dispute showed us the strength of our dependency on energy from third countries.

The regulation approved in this Chamber finally tackles this problem in an attempt to prevent further crises, taking an important step forward in energy security. Member States are called upon to guarantee appropriate energy coverage for families and protected customers; in other words, for essential structures and services. They are also called upon to draw up preventive and emergency plans.

We are therefore progressing towards the principle of State subsidiarity, so dear to the Union and to my parliamentary group. I particularly support Amendment 62. Lastly, I call your attention, if you will permit me, to my country’s far-sightedness in having opened up a number of channels of communication with countries that own large gas reserves.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Today, the European Parliament adopted a regulation on safeguarding the security of gas supply. This is a very important step towards the implementation of a common European Union energy policy. It is a step towards energy solidarity among European Union Member States and greater regional cooperation.

I voted for this document because I believe that this regulation will allow us to ensure that European Union energy islands, like the Baltic States for instance, still have gas when those who monopolise supply unilaterally turn off the taps.

This regulation also paves the way to European Union financing for energy infrastructure projects contributing to the abolition of energy isolation. However, provisions in the regulation planning stricter observation of the activities of third country suppliers such as Gazprom, above all, in the area of competition, were rejected, and the regulation limits itself to general provisions.

The second equally important aspect is environmental protection. Given that the regulation provides for the opportunity for third country projects to be financed with European Union funds, I hope that the European Commission will hurry to implement the independent environmental impact assessment instrument.

Report: Csaba Sógor (A7-0231/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this agreement is to strengthen cooperation between the governments of the countries concerned in order to speed up the process for readmitting persons residing without authorisation, and to do so by clearly setting out all the necessary technical provisions: readmission applications, means of evidence, time limits, transfer modalities and modes of transport.

I voted in favour because I am convinced that this agreement is necessary as a fundamental tool in the fight against illegal immigration in the European Union.

The agreement contains a clause of non-affection in respect of other international law and data protection rules: the States have to comply with relevant obligations arising from international law, such as the principle of non-refoulement, and they will be held liable for expulsions before their national courts.

The principle of non-refoulement also has procedural implications, since States are required to conduct an assessment of the risk of ill-treatment, including in cases of indirect removal to an intermediary country.

The Agreement also establishes – and I shall finish here – a Joint Readmission Committee, and I would like to emphasise at this point, Madam President, that the European Parliament will unfortunately not be part of it. I therefore call on the European Commission to duly report back to us on its activities at regular intervals.

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – How ironic that the European Parliament is voting today on an agreement to kick poor and penniless Pakistani citizens out of the European Union and back to a homeland that is ravaged by disastrous flooding. The long-suffering poor and peasants and workers of Pakistan are suffering even more than ever, with 20% of their country devastated by the floods, with crops destroyed, cattle killed, children going hungry and up to 20 million people affected.

It would be much more appropriate for us to discuss how we can attack, relieve and end poverty in Pakistan, for example, by forcing the International Monetary Fund to cancel the crushing burden of debt on Pakistan, to remove the burden of personal debt on the workers and poor of Pakistan by the cancellation of those debts, and to increase the aid to relieve the suffering, with such aid not being channelled through a corrupt government, but under the democratic control of peasants, workers and the poor, who are the real victims of this situation. That would be a far more appropriate response to the suffering of the people of Pakistan.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Madam President, I abstained on the vote on an agreement between the European Union and Pakistan. The agreement appears to enhance the ability of nation states, or Member States I should say, to return illegal immigrants to Pakistan. On the face of it, that would seem to be desirable for the United Kingdom, but it should only be for Britain, as an independent sovereign nation state, to decide who can and cannot enter her borders.

To vote in favour of this agreement would be to cede that right to the European Union, which is something I could not possibly do. Britain must gain control of its immigration policy, legal and illegal, and not surrender it to the European Union.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – What I would like to say is that the Danish Liberals are very pleased with today’s vote on the readmission agreement between the EU and Pakistan. Finally, after several years of negotiations between the Commission and Pakistan, an agreement has been reached which will allow the readmission of migrants who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry to, or residence in, any of the EU Member States.

This agreement is an important instrument in the struggle against illegal migration into the European Union, especially because Pakistan is an important country of origin and transit of migrants. With this agreement, Pakistan agrees to take back its own nationals and, under certain conditions, third country nationals too. This agreement will enhance security on European territory.

Report: Metin Kazak (A7-0238/2010)

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Kazak report on relations between the European Union and Turkey, as voted for within the Committee on International Trade and in the Chamber. Although Turkey built a customs barrier with Europe some time ago, many obstacles and barriers to trade are still in force between both parties.

If we wish to contribute to a specific and positive increase in trade, Turkey must take into account the position of Parliament and therefore ensure greater alignment of Turkish legislation with the Community acquis as regards free trade, must implement specific procedures to combat counterfeiting – which also touch on sectors important to public health, such as pharmaceuticals – and must guarantee free movement of goods in the customs area by withdrawing burdensome import procedures that damage the European manufacturing and farming industry.

It must also avoid discriminatory practices against European industry with regard to public contracts and come into line with agreements adopted by the World Trade Organisation.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Madam President, I naturally voted against the Kazak report given the arguments I presented to the Chamber. I cannot vote for a report drafted by a rapporteur who is practically indebted for his whole education, costing huge sums of money, funded directly by the Turkish Government. This represents a conflict of interest in my book. It means to me that the report cannot be drafted impartially, which is why I voted against it.

I would also like to make a further point. We can see that this report contains points which have nothing to do with either trade or the economy. This report mentions and praises the latest change to the Turkish constitution, which I see as nothing more than a victory for the Islamists over the people who want Turkey to be a secular country. Unfortunately, it was the military who – along with the judicial system, I might add – guaranteed Turkey’s secular nature.

Turkey lurched and is lurching ever further down an Islamist path and I voted against this report because I do not agree with us applauding this situation.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Turkey’s role as a world trade actor has grown in recent years, particularly as the country is capitalising more on its unique geopolitical position.

The creation of a customs union with the European Union in 1996 allowed for the deepening of economic relations. A considerable degree of market integration has been achieved since, particularly with regard to the free movement of goods. A particular recent noteworthy achievement towards integration has been the adoption of a new Turkish Customs Code and the introduction of the Generalised System of Preferences.

We cannot deny that Turkey has become a key trading partner of the European Union in recent years. Indeed, it ranks seventh in the EU’s top import markets and fifth in its export markets.

It has become an investment base for European businesses, with increasing integration into the EU’s supply and production chain, often within high value added segments.

I voted in favour of this report, Madam President, because I agree with the idea that we must first make the customs union more functional. I therefore support this relationship between Turkey and the European Union.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, there is a comprehensive trading relationship between the European Union and Turkey. Since 1996, there has also been a customs union and despite all of this, there are still a number of trade barriers in place. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that Parliament has today called on the Republic of Turkey to abolish its overly complex import procedures and to align its quota system for processed agricultural products, as these do not comply with the terms of the customs union.

Secondly, we must also work together to ensure that agricultural products imported from the Republic of Turkey meet the same standards as those produced in the European Union.

I have voted in favour of the report today. However, it is true that there is still a lot to be done. Let us get to work!

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the rapporteur on his work and, above all, on his approach to this topic, since we have been holding talks with Turkey on its accession to the Union for many years. Therefore, this is a difficult moment.

It goes without saying that Turkey represents an excellent trading partner for Europe, aided by its favourable position as a natural gateway to Asia. The European Union is Turkey’s biggest trading partner. The statistics are good; they are reassuring.

These trade relations must be improved, and I therefore agree with paragraphs 16 and 20, calling on Turkey to remove the import licences and overturn the ban on imports of certain pharmaceutical products.

Lastly, I also agree that the customs union should be made stronger and more far-reaching so as to make trade increasingly profitable.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Madam President, I have voted in favour of the Kazak report because it will improve economic and trade relations with Turkey. It will strengthen the neighbourly bonds between the European Union and Turkey. That, and no more than that, is exactly what we need.

I have abstained from voting on amendment 1 by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group. I share their view that Turkey should not accede to the European Union, but the Kazak report did not cover that issue. That is why I abstained from voting on that amendment and, indeed, why I voted in favour of the report, because, ultimately, we need to foster good neighbourly relations with Turkey.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Despite the improvement in relations between the Union and Turkey, difficulties still exist in the form of tariff and non-tariff barriers which, along with other formalities and procedures, need to be simplified. There are problematic questions on both sides. These include the failure to respect intellectual property rights and the problem of counterfeit products on our partner’s side.

We do want to be in partnership with Turkey, so we should very carefully look at the causes of disturbances to trade, before they turn into a more serious problem. Is it possible that, because of the many years of waiting for the Union to adopt a common position on the country’s membership, Turkey is now starting to look for alternative allies? Relations between the economies of the Union and Turkey should also be analysed in the light of the demographic structure of both sides and forecasts for the future.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) I have, of course, voted in favour of the amendment by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group and against the Kazak report because it is perfectly possible to maintain optimal trade relations with Turkey without this country acceding to the European Union.

The rapporteur seems to have been walking around with his eyes shut, seeing as he wrote that the outcome of the recent referendum in Turkey would promote democratisation in that country. On the contrary, what is beyond dispute is that the Islamists from the AKP have definitively inclined their party’s power base to their side. After islamising everyday street and social life, they have now paved the way for total islamisation of Turkish public institutions. Let there be no doubt: the amendments to Turkey’s constitution that have been approved are nothing more and nothing less than an outright attack on the army and the Constitutional Court as the last secular institutions in Turkey.

Report: Esther de Lange (A7-0241/2010)

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report approved today is a step in the right direction for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. The concept of biodiversity has at last been associated with that of responsible management.

We must immediately adopt implementing policies on eco-compatibility if we are to save our planet and sustain future generations. After our failure to achieve our aim of halting biodiversity loss by 2010, we must use this 10-year postponement for a serious awareness-raising exercise on the part of States and institutions.

The environmental heritage of the European Union, ranging from maquis to conifer forests, boasts a practically unique wealth of flora and fauna in biodiversity terms. Halting the loss of this environmental heritage – I am about to finish – is a duty that we owe to ourselves and to future generations.

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE). – (SL) I have voted in favour of the report on the implementation of EU legislation aimed at the conservation of biodiversity.

The report proposes many positive requirements, but its key finding is that results have not been achieved because of a lack of political will. That is also the reason why the legislation has not been properly implemented; there are data gaps, monitoring and funding are insufficient, and the integration into sectoral policies is poor.

We need much clearer reporting, both on good practice and on countries which have not been successful in this field. Here, the European Commission should not exercise a political role, but a strictly professional one. We have to protect nature and the future of mankind, not the governments of individual Member States.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems and the fight to prevent their further degradation are challenges of inestimable value for our society. Halting the loss of biodiversity is not merely our moral duty; it is also a political and economic duty: preserving our planet so that it can sustain future generations.

As is customary in European environmental policy, the directives in this area afford the necessary flexibility to tailor implementing measures to local circumstances. This approach is undoubtedly justified by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, but differences between Member States are often so great that the effectiveness of the directives suffers as a result.

I agree with the rapporteur when she states that, as a result of what is often a sector-based approach to biodiversity, EU budget financing of biodiversity and ecosystem measures is highly fragmented, too.

While fragmented financing may have a positive impact in that a number of sources can be tapped, mandatory cofinancing and a ‘pick and choose’ approach in rural and structural policy, for instance, mean that only Member States making this conscious decision actually use these funds for biodiversity purposes.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) In the European Union, the threat of extinction hangs over 42% of mammals, 43% of birds, 30% of amphibians, 45% of reptiles and 52% of fish, and the level of loss is set to increase tenfold by 2050.

Unfortunately, the urgency of the situation is not understood by European Union citizens, and the European Commission has a lukewarm approach to these numbers. This can be seen from the lack of determination when it comes to consistently and duly applying environmental directives, and the unwillingness to mount proceedings against Member States over infringements of regulations. If we honestly care about handing over to our children and future generations an environment that is at least in part the same as the one we have today, we cannot defer or avoid taking action. I therefore support the proposed steps, which might help to prevent irreversible damage being done to the environment.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the diversity of plant and animal species forms the basis for supplying the growing world population with food and raw materials. It is also essential to our efforts to adapt to climate change. Biodiversity is under threat throughout the world, in particular, from the human race. Therefore, we must bring a halt to the loss of biodiversity and attempt to rectify the damage that has been caused. The best way of protecting biodiversity is to make sustainable use of it. This means that in this instance, European farmers should be our allies and not our opponents. We should increasingly regard them as our allies in future.

Let me end, though, on a positive note. In the region which I represent, the free state of Saxony, we have succeeded in reintroducing the wolf after an absence of 200 years. This is a good example and it must be followed by other good examples.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) The environment and its biodiversity face a particular problem at the moment, with methods of production and a lifestyle that only regard nature as a commodity and a means for satisfying human needs.

Since we now, unfortunately, ignore the ethical and ecological significance of biodiversity, we should at least be consistent about placing a value on it. The economic value of nature is reflected little, if at all, in the current pricing system. In order for us to prevent financial and other losses, we should adopt appropriate laws, and also promote the importance of biodiversity among European Union citizens. Most citizens undoubtedly consider biodiversity loss to be a serious problem, but they do not unfortunately see that it applies to them personally. One of the important causes of the passivity of ordinary people in the fight against biodiversity loss is their lack of knowledge as to what they can do.

I voted in favour of the submitted report for this reason, and I also agree with the rapporteur that there is an urgent need for a public awareness campaign in this area.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) The riches of nature are the greatest fortune which humanity possesses. Unfortunately, as people, we do a very great deal to cause the loss of that wealth. The creation of programmes such as Nature 2000 is one step we have taken to protect nature from ourselves. Attention should also be paid to stricter legislation and high fines for people or firms for consciously contributing to the destruction of the diversity of Europe’s natural riches.

I also support the part of the de Lange report which talks about the common agricultural policy rewarding farmers for providing additional ecosystem services. Farmers love the land and they love and protect nature, and they protect it even when they are not given any additional bonuses. Financial support is, however, essential, so that the farmers do not bear all the costs associated with protecting biodiversity themselves.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) The conservation of biological diversity is linked to many other European Union policies. The fishing, energy and agricultural sectors all have an impact, in this case, on the grave state of the Baltic Sea. According to research, this sea, which is practically an internal sea of the European Union, is one of the worst polluted.

The European Commission expresses concern over the decline in biodiversity, but at the same time, insufficient effort is being made to combat the factors causing this process. In terms of the European Union, it probably needs to be said that every EU Member State must do its homework. Each must make efforts to ensure a sustainable fishing policy and the proper functioning of Natura 2000 in order to reduce pollution, both CO2 emissions and sewage pollution, and to reduce the amount of pesticides and phosphates.

It is exactly these factors which, in this instance, are contributing significantly to the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, which is causing the decline in biodiversity. The irresponsible implementation of so-called commercial energy projects in the Baltic Sea and a lack of criticism as regards their implementation are contributing considerably to this pollution.

Report: João Ferreira (A7-0227/2010)

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our vote on the report was very diverse and rich in ideas on how to improve our actions to prevent environmental disasters.

It is based on the consideration that current preventive measures have unfortunately proved inadequate or not been implemented. This means we are faced with a twofold need: to implement certain improved national and European measures, with a requirement to change conditions of access to the Solidarity Fund, and the equally important need for regions and local authorities to pay greater attention to disaster prevention. This report calls on them to improve the inclusion of disaster prevention in programming instruments and operational programmes. This is a step forward, one of the many we are making towards improved land conservation policies.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, rural depopulation, desertification and the increased rate of disastrous events – excessive rainfall, drought, hail, fires, and so on – force Member States to intervene with limited resources and limited means. The most important issue I would like to highlight here is the survival of the farming world, because it is often subject to natural disasters that slash farm incomes.

The European Commission must therefore undertake to set up a European agricultural public insurance scheme to better address the risk and income instability of farmers related to natural and man-made disasters, as indicated in paragraph 37 of Mr Ferreira’s proposal, of which I have just voted in favour.

Report: Eleni Theocharous (A7-0192/2010)

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Helping the poorest is one of the European Union’s most fundamental functions. There is no question about this, and I congratulate the author of the report for dealing with this. However, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I feel obliged to draw attention to paragraph 54 of the report, in which the rapporteur recommends a revision of subsidy policies under the common agricultural policy.

I agree that revision of the system of support is needed, but we cannot allow a repeat of the situation which resulted from the reform of the sugar market. That reform was supposed to support the poorest producers in third countries, but it was the great landowners of South America who benefited, and not the owners of the smallest plantations. Therefore, let us be careful and carry out accurate analyses before we make a decision about introducing any kind of reform. I voted against paragraph 54, but endorsed the report as a whole.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) The present report is actually quite balanced, but I have voted against it, nonetheless. Even though the report is balanced, it is based on the premise that if we just continue giving ever more money and aid to Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, then this continent will eventually receive this aid. That might be the politically correct thing to say, but I fear that it does not reflect the reality.

When we look at how many funds we have invested in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1940s, we can see that we are talking about many hundreds of billions of dollars or euros, and the result today is only more poverty and more misery. I think that we should continue to develop emergency aid and that, in other respects, we should systematically cut back on such long-term assistance.

Above all, we must ensure that we discourage systematic capital flight from North Africa to the rich countries. The illegal flight of capital over the past forty years amounts to some USD 1.8 trillion! You cannot begin to imagine what we could do for sub-Saharan Africa with those funds.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to the rapporteur on her work. The European Union has always been committed to supporting developing countries, and the report we have voted on today reminds us that we still have much, much more to do.

In order to improve conditions in these countries, we must encourage the development of labour law standards, of occupational safety standards – on this subject, I would like to emphasise my appreciation for paragraph 38 pointing out the importance of gender equality for the economic success of states. We must, in fact, guarantee women fair access to the world of work.

As the rapporteur rightly stresses in paragraph 37, the European Union must use all the instruments at its disposal to commit itself to eradicating child labour, which is one of the greatest obstacles to poverty reduction. This report covers some major and important points. I therefore voted in favour.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, I think there will be consensus across this House. I do not think anyone can be against the idea of poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries.

A couple of years ago, I ran a workshop in Côte d’Ivoire, where I spoke to young African politicians. I asked how we from the European Union could help them. They gave me a number of pointers. Firstly, they said that we should make sure that the aid we send to them does not help to keep corrupt governments in power. All too often, that is the problem.

Secondly, they said that we should encourage open markets and liberalisation, making sure they get away from state monopolies that provide them with bad services. Thirdly, we should reform the common agricultural policy – or get rid of it – and get rid of those subsidies that allow farmers in the EU to undercut farmers in developing countries. They also said that we should get rid of ideas about border adjustment measures, which is basically green imperialism to keep imports from developing countries out.

Finally, we are discussing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. The EPP, the Socialists and the Greens are looking to ban investment in developing countries. We must tackle that sort of economic nonsense.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I was pleased to vote for this report and it shows that we are not forgetting the world’s poor, in spite of there being a recession.

At the same time, I must say that I was in Africa as a voluntary worker several years ago; I used to buy a newspaper every day and was surprised by the number of articles criticising the NGOs. It was not that they were not doing good work, but that they were trying to get across their own culture, outlook and views about the world and impose them on local people.

It is time for us to have a debate. As part of that debate, not only should we make contact with the governments of those countries but, more importantly, we should talk to local leaders, social organisations, ministers, priests and so on, and do good with the money that we spend in those poor countries.

Written explanations of vote

Report: László Surján (A7-0249/2010)

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report to ensure that financial resources are provided to cover the modification to the OLAF establishment plan and to include this adjustment in the 2010 budget.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has been doing a commendable job in fighting fraud at European level. Reinforcing the means at its disposal and its workforce justifies an increase in its budget, which I willingly support. Obviously, I would prefer this not to prove necessary and OLAF to have more funds and more staff available right now to make it better able to carry out the important mission to which it is committed. A stronger, more independent and more active OLAF is essential for an EU that wants to be more transparent and understandable for the European public.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This Draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget for 2010 (No 5/2010) covers modifications to the establishment plan of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the revision of the forecast of traditional own resources, value-added tax (VAT) and gross national income (GNI) bases, the budgeting of the relevant UK corrections as well as their financing, and a revision of the financing of GNI reductions in favour of the Netherlands and Sweden in 2010, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own-resources contributions to the EU budget. The rules for calculating these own resources are set out in detail in the relevant legislation. With regard to OLAF, the Commission is proposing an additional 20 permanent administrator (AD) posts, as the Office now has the opportunity to bring the adaptation of its establishment plan to an end by recruiting the corresponding number of laureates as permanent officials.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I should like to express here that I strongly disagree with the way OLAF currently operates. Although fraud needs to be tackled, it should be done in a way that benefits European citizens and therefore, in an independent and effective way that protects the personal data of all citizens.

As it stands, OLAF is incapable of meeting these requirements. However, this text specifically refers to the transformation of temporary employment contracts into permanent employment contracts. No employee, regardless of where they work, should be refused the right to a decent contract. I will therefore abstain.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is to protect the financial interests of the European Union and fight fraud, corruption and any other irregular activities, including malpractice committed in the European institutions. Therefore, given the important role it performs, it has to be provided with the material and human resources needed for it to achieve its aims. Despite the crisis that the EU is experiencing, adoption of this amending budget is justified in order to provide OLAF with the means required for it to operate properly.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I abstained from voting because, although I am in favour of creating an additional 20 permanent posts for staff employed on temporary contracts in the European Anti-Fraud Office, I do not believe that the United Kingdom’s budgetary imbalance should still be corrected today. The rebate was granted to the United Kingdom in 1984 because it was considered a depressed area. Furthermore, I do not believe it is fair that since 2002, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria have been paying only 25% of what they owe.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000, the Union granted privileged duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process, in order to revitalise the Western Balkan economies. This regulation, following its numerous amendments, was codified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009.

The trade preferences were granted for a period ending on 31 December 2010 and currently apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo for all the products under the scope of the aforesaid regulation. The termination of the trade preferences would take from the beneficiaries an objective economic advantage in their trade with the EU.

In this context, the objective of this proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council is to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 to permit the extension of its validity until 31 December 2015, and make certain adjustments consequent to the entry into force of the stabilisation and association agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – An important vote, the one on the budget. In fact, whereas the Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 5/2010 covers modifications to OLAF’s establishment plan, without additional financial provisions, as well as the revision of the forecast for Traditional Own Resources (TOR, i.e. customs duties and sugar sector levies), VAT and GNI bases, the budgeting of the relevant UK corrections as well as their financing and revision of financing of GNI reductions in favour of the Netherlands and Sweden in 2010, resulting in a change in the distribution between Member States of their own-resources contributions to the EU budget, whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 5/2010 is to formally enter this budgetary adjustment into the 2010 budget, and whereas the Council adopted its position on 13 September 2010, we took note of Draft amending budget No 5/2010; and approved Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 5/2010 unamended and instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No x/2010 has been definitively adopted and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Commission is proposing 20 additional permanent administrator (AD) posts for the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), because the office now has the opportunity to bring the process of adapting its establishment plan to an end by recruiting the corresponding number of laureates as permanent officials.

In recent years, the European Parliament has repeatedly and, most recently, on 5 May 2010, expressed the view that OLAF should gradually move in the direction of comprehensive and unlimited institutional independence, in order to ensure that its activities cannot be deliberately or unintentionally restricted by the fact that its staff and management form part of the structure of the European Commission.

Report: Pablo Arias Echeverría (A7-0226/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that e-commerce cannot stay on the fringes of the internal market, as it is an important, forward-looking sector for economic growth in Europe.

E-commerce can contribute to the knowledge economy, confer added value and opportunities on European companies and consumers, and improve the competitiveness of our economy in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, including by developing and promoting new forms of entrepreneurship for small and medium-sized businesses. In the past year, one out of every three consumers in Europe has bought at least one item online, but only 7% of European consumers dared to do so in another Member State.

This trend must be reversed and the idea advocated by the rapporteur of creating a European trust mark could be useful in achieving that. The need to develop a secure and innovative method of online payment could also contribute to European consumers’ increased confidence in e-services in other Member States. Naturally, Internet access must be expanded and democratised within the EU. It falls to the Commission to work to prevent the diversity of consumer protection rules from being an obstacle to the development of e-commerce within Europe.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Since it is crucial to the aims of the EU’s Europe 2020 strategy that electronic commerce be widespread throughout Europe, I support what the report says on the implementation of measures to encourage and strengthen electronic commerce in the internal market.

Electronic commerce is of particular importance for entrepreneurs and SMEs. Electronic commerce and an online European internal market will help entrepreneurs and small firms to provide innovative high quality services appropriate for consumers and this will strengthen their competitiveness in the global economy.

The targets for broadband access must be achieved, and everyone in the EU must have access to basic broadband services by 2013. I welcome what the report says on this.

I also support what it says about advertising on electronic commerce and about encouraging customers to inform themselves of their rights. It is important that European customers trust the system when they are buying online.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. The potential of the internal market for e-commerce is not completely unlocked for many reasons. Consumers do not trust the security of the electronic market and many of them do not buy online because consumer protection rules and the level of protection differ significantly. I believe that we must increase consumers’ trust in the online market, by informing them of their rights, secure payment methods and ensuring consumer protection in the areas of security and personal data protection.

I agree with the proposal for the creation and implementation of a European trust mark which would give buyers more faith in the Internet. Some businesses also fail to exploit the economic market because of certain inconveniences. Therefore, we must develop initiatives to incentivise entrepreneurs to trade on the Internet, by improving payment mechanisms used on the Internet for example, simplify the Value Added Tax (VAT) reporting obligations, make postal and banking costs uniform, and resolve conflicts between suppliers and consumers more effectively.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The state of e-commerce is constantly changing at the moment. It has already ceased to be an emerging technology and is an increasingly widespread reality. It is a very important means of promoting cross-border trade, improving access to a wider range of higher quality products and competitively reducing prices.

Nevertheless, 10 years after the adoption of the e-Commerce Directive, cross-border e-commerce is not growing as quickly as domestic e-commerce, with 60% of attempted cross-border Internet orders failing for technical and legal reasons.

I voted in favour of this report because it identifies the problems that affect European e-commerce, as well as showing the way towards the creation of a true single online market for Europe. Achieving this requires better implementation of European legislation for the benefit of all European consumers and retailers; increasing efforts to achieve a high level of protection for the users of e-commerce; giving these users the confidence to explore the single market in all its potential; and informing them about their rights regarding e-commerce and how to safeguard them.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report for the benefits gained by SMEs and the development of the digital society, as well as to counteract the fragmentation of the market and standardise regulations.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Establishing a proper online single market for Europe is one of the great challenges we are currently facing. Especially in the current economic crisis, it is becoming all the more important for Europe to make efforts to remove the barriers preventing e-commerce. At the moment, the EU is a market with 500 million consumers. However, this situation is not reflected at all in the volume of online transactions carried out. The reason for this is not because European consumers are not keen on e-commerce, but because, once they have made the decision to make a purchase online, they come up against all sorts of problems and, in the end, it transpires that the transaction cannot be carried out. The figures stated in the report on e-commerce are relevant in this respect.

There are currently too many differences between Member States when it comes to e-commerce, a situation which can only cause consumer dissatisfaction. Given that the report also states that this form of commerce, along with innovative services and eco-industries, offers the largest growth and employment potential for the future, and therefore represents a new frontier of the single market, the measures proposed by the Commission, supplemented by those suggested by Parliament, must be implemented without delay.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) E-commerce constitutes an important Internet contribution to economic activity. It is therefore important to remove any obstacles to the single market in this sector as a fragmented set of national rules impedes the vitality of this profitable sector. I agree with the rapporteur in highlighting the shortcomings of e-commerce with regard to consumers. It is regrettable that 61% of cross-border transactions cannot be completed because online shops do not serve the consumer’s country. Add to this user fears regarding security of payments. The ability to carry out online purchases is usually dependent on the quality of the Internet connection. Priority should be given to increasing the number of Internet users, in particular, by improving the quality of the connection’s performance and by making prices more attractive. It is also necessary to increase consumer trust while shopping online. Like the rapporteur, I am in favour of creating a European trust mark as well as improved supervision of the web, particularly from the point of view of personal data protection. A special effort should also be made to protect minors who use the Internet.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The internal market for e-commerce is crucial for Europe, particularly if it is to attain the targets set out in the EU 2020 strategy. There are still obstacles to overcome, however. This report puts forward measures aimed at doing just that. The ones I consider particularly interesting are the control of copyright infringements on the Internet and the development of a safe and innovative system of online payment which does not impose fees that might undercut or limit choice. It will thus be easier to fight piracy, encourage businesses to trade on the Internet and also facilitate user access and confidence in the Internet.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) E-commerce represents a market of critical importance for the EU in the 21st century, not least in pursuing the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. We are facing the enormous challenge of creating a truly single online market for Europe that will allow the EU to compete in the global market. The confidence of European businesses and consumers in the digital field is limited because of unnecessary barriers to e-commerce, such as the fragmentation of the European market, the lack of security for consumers, the lack of security for transactions, the lack of redress mechanisms, etc. It is essential to simplify the cross-border rules and find practical solutions to issues such as copyright, consumer protection, labelling and sector-specific rules, e-waste and recycling fees, and online reporting and invoicing.

It is essential for existing legislation, such as the Services Directive, to be fully transposed and implemented. At the same time, the Commission must conclude its assessment of the EU legislation applicable to the single digital market and present any initiatives that seem necessary in order to deal with the main obstacles. I support the Commission’s 13 recommendations aimed at developing policies and practices in the field of cross-border e-commerce.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) E-commerce is vital for the development of the internal market: it removes information barriers, approaching the ideal of perfect competition to the benefit of consumers. It is capable of widening the potential market for small internal producers which would not be in a position to trade in other EU countries, protecting them and promoting job creation in the manufacturing sector.

Furthermore, the distance between central and outlying areas is reduced, thereby improving the quality of life in rural areas thanks to an increased supply of products, and it promotes uniform standards for the goods sold thanks to the placing of the same products on several markets. It is vital, therefore, to address and overcome the main obstacles to use of the Internet for the sale of goods: security and guarantees. This task, given the lack of physical borders, must fall to the relevant supra-national bodies, which, in our territory, are the European institutions.

This report provides traders with a framework of rules for operating and for planning their investments, it provides consumers with certainty regarding the guarantees afforded to them, and it puts producers one step ahead in tackling the crisis. At last!

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) As a result of the rate of online fraud, which is still fairly high, there remains a large degree of distrust in online shopping. This is why I voted for this resolution, which calls on the Commission to create a European early warning system, including a database, aimed at stopping illegal commercial practices, combating fraudulent activities and increasing consumer security during online transactions, including with regard to personal data protection. In my view, particular attention must be paid to distance contracts in order to protect consumers’ rights at a time when there is a rise in the online purchase of goods and services, such as in the tourism and transport sectors.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted to adopt this report. In an internal market with over 500 million consumers, promoting greater flexibility in e-commerce and greater consumer confidence in online transactions will not only make it possible to exploit the economic potential of the digital single market but also encourage the development of new market niches for small and medium-sized enterprises, thus potentially creating employment. The discrepancies found between domestic and cross-border e-commerce mean that consumers, particularly those living in outlying or outermost regions and those with reduced mobility, are prevented from benefiting from this commerce, with the access it provides to a vast range of goods and services. I would point out, however, that there is an urgent need for the Services Directive – the vehicle through which the digital single market can be completed – to be properly implemented in all the Member States; in particular, it needs to be more strongly enforced with regard to the non-discrimination of customers on the basis of their nationality. I would emphasise that the ‘one-stop shop’ must be fully operational in order to implement the digital single market for e-commerce. Equally important, however, are measures such as harmonising postal and banking charges in the European Union, simplifying value-added tax returns for distance selling, or increasing .eu domain name registrations.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because in general, I can support it. In particular, I was happy to note that in committee, most of my amendments were adopted. This way, SMEs will be supported in order to become more active players on the e-commerce market. At the same time, in my opinion, the report unnecessarily brings up the issue of postal liberalisation to which I have objected in committee. I maintain this objection and continue to object to the call for liberalisation while firmly restating my call to the Commission for a moratorium on postal services liberalisation.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report. As shadow rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I support the development of e-commerce, which is an integral part of European e-business. In future, the completion of the single ICT market in the EU will help overcome the problems which e-commerce is currently facing. Europe must become an important global facilitator in this sector. In order to achieve this, current difficulties need to be resolved urgently and in a uniform manner.

I am referring, in this instance, to the different VAT rates, consumer protection law and, above all, to the elimination of discrimination against e-commerce customers in a number of Member States, as demonstrated by certain traders and service providers. Europe must support its citizens who want to become actively involved in the online world by providing easy access to educational programmes and European funds intended specifically for purchasing hardware, software and Internet access.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on completing the internal market for e-commerce. One of the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy is to promote the knowledge economy. In order to fully achieve this objective, it is necessary for the European Commission to present measures aimed at increasing the speed of broadband services and rationalising these services’ prices to a greater extent across the EU. It is necessary to make rules and practices uniform in order to ensure that distance traders are able to reach markets other than those contained within their national borders.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the communication of 19 May 2010 on a digital agenda for Europe, the Commission demonstrated its desire to make online transactions simpler and more able to create confidence in digital technology. According to figures included in the report, one third of Europeans have made purchases online, but only 7% of consumers dare to choose cross-border transactions and only 12% express confidence in this type of transaction. It is therefore urgent to reinforce consumers’ security (or their perception of it) in relation to these transactions in order to encourage the development of a market that has huge potential, with transactions that are easier, more convenient and, in many cases, cheaper for the consumer. For a proper single e-market, it is essential for consumers to feel secure when buying online, and for companies to understand the immense potential of online trade, to increase online availability and remove cross-border barriers.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The free movement of goods in Europe is severely hampered by fragmented sets of national rules. The figures for the state of e-commerce in the European Union show that in 2009, one in three consumers in Europe bought at least one item online, but only 7% of European consumers dared to buy any from another Member State. Unpublished EU research on e-commerce practices show that 60% of consumers’ attempts to purchase items across borders in the EU fail, with the seller refusing to accept the transaction or to ship the goods, even though purchasers could save at least 10% by making an online purchase abroad (even when shipping costs were included) in half of the 11 000 cases investigated. I must therefore emphasise the need for a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework that can overcome cross-border barriers, enhance added value and regulate the risks of an activity that is constantly changing and nearly always progressing. Constant attention and monitoring are therefore required, prioritising the reliability of communications and transactions. In order to consolidate e-commerce, it is essential to work to improve the security and confidence of businesses and consumers, particularly as regards payments and delivery and return services.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report on e-commerce contains some contradictions and an excessive insistence on creating an internal market. We acknowledge the importance of e-commerce, but there is much to do to ensure that it does not become a vehicle for serious new problems.

As we emphasised during the debate, it is important to clarify many issues, specifically: the defence of copyright, the protection of children’s rights, and consumer rights and security.

It is true that the report puts forward a series of suggestions to improve the confidence of all operators in the e-commerce market, but not all of them are as appropriate as they might be or even give due consideration to all the interests and rights at stake in a process that could prove to be very complex.

It is true that the e-commerce supply chain needs to be more transparent so that the consumer always knows the identity of the supplier, as well as the latter’s business name, geographical address, contact details and tax registration number. However, the rights of children and young people and of people with various dependencies must be safeguarded at all times.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Electronic commerce is creating market opportunities, especially for SMEs. Electronic commerce can play an important role in improving the competitiveness of the Irish and European economies.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this milestone report because it is a significant step towards the full implementation and integration of the European single market. In times of globalisation and digitalisation, the European Union cannot afford to lag behind in creating an efficient internal market for e-commerce which should also become competitive on the global scene. Hopefully, this report will be followed by further steps to stimulate the creation of a Europe-wide digital market. Such developments will also contribute to rethinking and relaunching the vitally important R&D activities.

What we need, first and foremost, is to monitor and follow the implementation of the report on e-commerce to ensure that EU citizens will have easier access to digital business making, both as entrepreneurs and as customers. The measures laid down in this report should considerably ease doing business across the Member States, provided that the national governments start to make real progress in unifying the rules on contracts and overcome conflicting laws.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the call for the generation of more e-commerce within the EU borders. The EU must, however, encourage that this is done with respect to European legislation and it is essential that a high level of consumer protection is achieved.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) I wish to thank my colleague, Mr Echeverría, for his excellent report, one for which I was very happy to vote. E­commerce is a new and international sector, and, as a result, the European Union needs to assume an important role in the harmonisation of standards and practices. I would particularly like to mention those points in the report that urge us to ensure that good quality and comprehensive broadband connections are available throughout the Union. This objective is of critical importance if e­commerce is to thrive.

Bringing broadband to all EU citizens by the year 2013 and super­fast broadband by 2020 are ambitious goals, but are vital for improving people’s quality of life. I also wish to thank the rapporteur for his observations regarding consumer protection and the right of privacy in the world of e­commerce. This is a matter that requires careful examination in the future, especially with respect to services for children.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) Although the Internet is today the fastest developing retail channel, and the number of purchases via the Internet is growing every year, the number of cross-border transactions performed between Member States is unfortunately stagnating. It could almost be said that there is no internal market in the Union in the area of B2C. In my opinion, full harmonisation of consumer law and the elimination of national exemptions, along with a liberal concept of consumer protection, would provide an important stimulus to cross-border sales of goods via electronic commerce. However, I see a major problem over the restriction of access to online services on the basis of IP address by some states. In principle, there are no legislative barriers in this area, and yet the electronic internal market is restricted in this segment.

I share the view that the Commission should employ all of its executive instruments in this case, and intervene against the creation of artificial barriers on the internal market in the form of blocking IP addresses. The report also talks of targets for 2020 in the area of access to broadband connection. Personally, I do not favour such overt objectives, particularly in a sector which is developing dynamically, and where it is therefore very difficult to predict the direction it will take over the next 10 years. Despite this criticism, I consider the report to be balanced and I have therefore voted in favour of it.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Arias Echeverría’s report as I believe that e-commerce is a key market in EU policy, where certain interventions to increase the competitiveness of the EU economy in the context of the EU 2020 strategy can and must be provided for.

Indeed, I believe that in order to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the European single market, we should further develop e-commerce, which has the potential to have a positive impact on consumers and on company competitiveness alike. In a similar vein, I support the inclusion in the report of a European trust mark, necessary to guarantee the reliability and quality of goods placed on the cross-border electronic market.

At a time of crisis and financial difficulties, such as the one in which we are currently operating, we must support instruments capable of having a positive, significant effect on employment and growth, among which we can include e-commerce. I therefore feel that, in this regard, the report we adopted today is a positive result, not just for companies and SMEs, but also and, above all, for consumers.

  Nuno Melo (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) The single market has always been one of the great goals for the European Union to achieve. These days, cross-border e-commerce can make a very important contribution to enabling the single market to develop even further. Buying online has already become largely accepted by consumers at a domestic level, but the same is not true for e-commerce between Member States, essentially because of a lack of mutual trust between buyer and seller. To develop the e-commerce market, therefore, it is crucial to increase the confidence of all operators. European legislation in this area needs to be implemented in order to create a climate of greater confidence. That is why I voted as I did.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour because I believe e-commerce and the overcoming of barriers that still hinder its development to be of fundamental importance to the economy. The free movement of goods in Europe is severely hindered by fragmented sets of national rules, and 60% of customer attempts to buy items across national borders fail.

The aim is to set up a true online European single market. Thanks to an amendment by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (Northern League), the report contains a reference to the difficulty people who live in island and mountain areas have in accessing the Internet.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The report is being used to press ahead with a more extensive harmonisation of tax laws as well as of price fluctuations in the postal and financial services sector at EU level. I therefore voted against this text.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The recent Commission communication identified future strategies designed to reduce fragmentation and stimulate the growth in e-commerce.

While e-commerce is, in fact, taking off at national level, the level of cross-border purchases is still low, reaching only 7% in 2009. The main obstacles are to do with language and practical and legal problems.

I agree with the approach of the report, which identifies five priorities in an attempt to incentivise the sector: improve access to the Internet, overcome the fragmentation of the online market, increase consumer trust, encourage businesses to market their products on the Internet, and guarantee the safety of children using the Internet. All this should take place in a clear and uniform legal context, designed, above all, to serve the public. The fundamental incentive, I believe, will come in the form of public trust, which should be supported and enhanced.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Τhe Internet has become the most widespread form of distance selling. According to information provided by the Commission in response to my question (E 4964/2010), over one-third of EU consumers (37%) used the Internet last year to buy or order goods and services for private use. This represents an increase of 5 percentage points compared with 2008 and 10 percentage points compared with 2006. Nonetheless, consumers still do not have sufficient confidence in cross-border shopping and disparate national regulations dissuade companies from investing in cross-border commerce. Hence, there are significant differences in the penetration rate of distance selling in the Member States. However, the increase in this form of commerce is crucial in the current recession. This specific report aims to address the fragmentation of the internal market for e-commerce by making proposals, such as the adoption of uniform rules and practices that will enable distance sellers to trade beyond their national boundaries. At a time when traditional commercial transactions have stagnated, new technologies and the opportunities they afford may prove to be valuable in developing new and alternative commercial initiatives, which is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I abstained from the vote on this report, despite considering the promotion of e-commerce important and the extension of good Internet networks and services to the entire population necessary, even for the most isolated regions.

I also agree that it is essential to combat the discrimination suffered by many members of the public wishing to make purchases online, not least on the basis of which Member State they are located in or the e-mail address that they are using to carry out the transaction.

I agree with many of the suggestions presented in this report. Nevertheless, I do not regret the fact that the Services Directive has not been fully transposed in some Member States, I do not support the Commission’s policy for the postal services sector, and I do not welcome the EU 2020 strategy: these basic choices are largely responsible for the difficult social situation through which the EU is currently struggling.

The future models for the communications sector and even for e-commerce will surely be better constructed within a perspective more focused on people and their rights, and not simply subordinated to commercial interests.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Arias Echeverría’s report on e-commerce: e-commerce is one of the sectors with the greatest repercussions in terms of growth and employment for decades to come, and the European Union needs to exploit this potential to its fullest.

Remember that e-commerce facilitates and promotes the development of new niche markets for some small and medium-sized enterprises which would not otherwise exist.

Furthermore, I support the idea that, in developing our policies and statutory frameworks on e-commerce, we paid particular attention to the needs of vulnerable consumers who would otherwise have no access to the huge choice of consumer goods. I am thinking of those who are isolated or less mobile, of citizens with low incomes, or of individuals living in less accessible, remote or peripheral areas.

Finally, I amended the text in committee so as to highlight the need to develop educational tools for online consumers: we must enhance the digital skills of as many people as possible and make them more aware of their rights and obligations (key consumer rights on the Internet, e-commerce and, in particular, data protection rules).

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In this important report on e-commerce, among other things, we stress the importance of enhancing confidence in cross-border Internet payment systems (e.g. credit and debit cards and e-purses) by promoting a range of payment methods, enhancing interoperability and common standards, tackling technical barriers, supporting the most secure technologies for electronic transactions, harmonising and strengthening legislation on privacy and security issues, combating fraudulent activities and informing and educating the public.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are well aware of the number and type of disadvantages, particularly in Italy, for those who live and reside in mountain or island communities. Building an internal e-commerce market would simplify access to the Internet and improve quality in EU countries and regions without good connections.

It is important to develop initiatives designed to incentivise businesses to market products via the Internet while safeguarding users, particularly children, with adequate guarantees to ensure security. We cannot allow dishonest traders to cheat potential users; therefore, targeted and frequent checks are required.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I hope this report is a clear signal to the European Commission to take further steps to improve online trade inside the European Union. We are calling for the harmonisation and simplification of administrative procedures which, in their present form, are effective in stopping us from making purchases from foreign Internet pages, even if what they have on offer is interesting. We also want a guarantee that broadband Internet access will be available throughout the EU by 2013. This proposal ceased to be pure fantasy a long time ago. Not only is this increasingly possible but, in addition, it is not necessary to convince anyone of the beneficial effect universal Internet access would have on the internal market.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I could not bring myself to vote for this report despite it containing a number of positive elements, notably defending consumer interests and recognising the interests of SMEs on the e-commerce market.

I condemn, in particular, those that congratulate the Commission for implementing the Third Postal Services Directive aimed at the liberalisation of postal services, which will result in further damage to the postal service in the EU, and not, as stated in the report, lower prices and better services.

Nor can I deplore the fact that some Member States have not yet transposed the Services Directive as I want the Commission to quickly prepare a report outlining the climatic impact of implementing this text.

I regret that this text is broadly in the spirit of openness to competition, which we denounced when we rejected the Treaty of Lisbon.

Report: Christine De Veyrac (A7-0195/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because it aims to improve the prevention of aviation accidents and assistance to victims and their families. I unreservedly support the approach taken by the rapporteur, who has called for an analysis of incidents at European level, something which has never been done to date. The report also proposes improvements to assistance to victims and their families, such as the introduction of a maximum delay of two hours in which to inform families of the names of the passengers on board. The ball is now in the court of the Ministers for Transport who, I hope, will adopt this legislation as soon as possible.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of this report. Air traffic is ever-increasing and the risk of accident has also increased, despite improvements in safety standards, and therefore, European legislation relating to the investigation of accidents must be amended and brought up to date.

I welcome what the report says on the rights of victims and their families. The family of a victim has the right to get relevant information as soon as possible. Airlines must have an effective operational plan in case of a crisis. An important practical measure would be to compel airlines to nominate a person as the principal point of contact for coordination purposes, for providing important information, and for giving support to the families of passengers.

The practical measures called for in the report will be of help in the event of accident, especially what it says about the assistance given to victims and their families and about groups which act on their behalf. High standards of safety must be ensured in Europe’s civil aviation sector and we must do our utmost to reduce the number of accidents.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I support this proposal. The EU directive currently in force which governs accident and incident investigations in civil aviation was approved in 1994. However, the aviation market and situation have changed and we therefore need to adopt a new EU regulation appropriate for the current situation. Firstly, a network of safety investigation authorities needs to be established. These would comprise national government and EU institutions (the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)) and would be responsible for improving the quality of investigations, the classification and analysis of information, would promote cooperation between national government institutions and contribute to improving aviation safety. Moreover, the rights of passengers and their families need to be defined more clearly.

The regulation aims to extend the requirement for an airline to produce a passenger list as soon as possible and within two hours following an accident, which would apply not only to airlines that fly to the EU but also airlines operating flights to Europe. It aims to introduce an obligation on airlines to ask passengers to provide details, at the time of booking a flight, of a person to be contacted in the event of an accident. We need to create the conditions for victims’ families to have special access to information on the progress of safety investigations.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because it proposes solutions to the problems caused recently by air accidents, not only from a technical perspective, but also especially with regard to providing assurances to the victims’ families. It also clarifies the role of the EASA and the national authorities in the fair, impartial investigation of the causes of accidents.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Air traffic is constantly increasing and despite progress in the field of safety, reports still indicate an unrelenting rise in the number of air accidents. It is time for the European Union to regulate this sector more precisely and exactly too.

I therefore strongly support the rapporteur’s objective of preventing unfortunate air accidents and improving accident investigations. In fact, the relevant legislation dates back to 1994 when the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) had not yet been established.

I therefore voted in favour of this regulation which seeks to confer a leading role on the EASA with regard to air safety, and I agree in particular with the aim of providing generalised access to sensitive information.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) There has been a phenomenal increase in air traffic during the last few years. Despite numerous technological improvements, the risk of accidents has increased. Therefore, it is essential to adapt EU legislation on this subject. I therefore welcome Mrs De Veyrac’s proposals to adapt the 1994 directive on accident prevention to the current situation in the aviation market. By creating a network of national investigation authorities, it will be possible to reduce the disparities that exist between the Member States, notably through pooling resources and exchanging best practices. The rights of victims and their families must also be protected. I support the rapporteur’s request for the obligation for airlines to supply a passenger list within one hour of the notification of the occurrence of an accident to apply not only to EU airlines, but also to all airlines that operate within Europe. Finally, I welcome the rapporteur’s proposal for the European Aviation Safety Agency to be described as an ‘adviser’ when participating in safety investigations. It is important for the regulation not to give the agency the scope to be both judge and jury during safety investigations.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) It is vital to ensure safety in the civil aviation sector in Europe and to reduce the number of accidents and incidents by means of investigation and prevention procedures. I voted in favour of this regulation as I believe it fosters an environment that encourages spontaneous incident reporting by calling for safety investigations into European aviation safety to be effective, rapid and of a high quality. I agree that investigations should be carried out by a national authority or other authorities responsible for safety investigations. I consider it additionally important to set up a European network of authorities to enhance the quality of investigation methods and investigator training. Another point I find important is that standards should be set for the timely provision of information on persons and dangerous goods on board at the time of an accident, and assistance to victims and their families should be improved.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The intensification of air traffic has resulted in an increased risk of air accidents occurring. Despite the safety improvements that have been introduced, gaps remain in the current accident investigation system. The safety system in this area is based on feedback and lessons learned from accidents and incidents. It is important to strengthen coordination between the authorities responsible for safety investigations, specifically by creating a European network. In order to identify possible safety failings and the corrective measures to be adopted, this network must ensure the total independence of these investigations as well as a high level of efficiency, diligence and quality.

It is important to ensure effective preventive action and a high level of safety in civil aviation in Europe, and to spare no efforts in reducing the number of accidents and incidents, so as to ensure public confidence in air transport. As well as safety investigations, particular attention must also be given to the issue of reinforcing assistance to the victims of air accidents and their families, for which all European air companies must have a crisis and assistance plan.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We are regularly appalled to hear news of a new air crash. I hope that the new regulation on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation will successfully meet the need for passenger safety in the form of a more precise measure than Directive 94/56/EC, which it is replacing. I believe that the main focus must be on controls, cooperation and exchanging information for preventive purposes. Furthermore, results from accident investigations which have been carried out should be kept in a central location and analysed with a view to improving air transport safety and managing critical situations more efficiently. On this point, I think that European passengers should have the opportunity to appoint a contact person in the event of an accident, a practice prevalent in the US. Last but not least, I believe that there needs to be tighter coordination and supervision of the emergency services involved in intervention and providing assistance to victims and their families.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation on investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation because it introduces new rules that will enable the strengthening of accident prevention, transparency and the speed of investigations in the case of an accident.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the number of flights and passengers in civil aviation has been increasing significantly for years, and even though this has been accompanied by a drop in the number of air accidents and incidents, safety must continue to be a fundamental concern, now and forever. Given, too, that the directive regulating the investigation of air accidents dates from 1994 and that much has changed in civil aviation since then, a review of this regulation seems urgent to me.

I agree with the rapporteur when she talks about the need for greater coordination and integration in the investigation of air accidents. With the EU ever more integrated, and considering that the consequences of an air accident do not just affect one Member State, it makes no sense that there is still little contact between national aviation authorities.

In this context, I think the European Aviation Safety Agency could be given a new role.

Finally, this seems to me to be one of the areas in which it is essential that the European Union act in a coordinated and integrated way, so as to guarantee the safety of all passengers in European airspace.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) Air transport today undeniably plays a decisive role in people’s mobility and the dynamics of the global economy. Its importance and impact will surely continue to grow in a society increasingly defined by globalisation and the priority of making profitable use of time and space. In the current climate of a global crisis and strong pressure to cut costs and spending, an efficient regulation and inspection framework is needed to protect users’ interests. Safety is the area of greatest concern for users and has a major impact on fare setting. I therefore highlight the contribution made by this report to the quality and independence of civil aviation accident and incident investigations, harmonising the Member States’ investigation capabilities and, at the same time, ensuring that European legislation in this area is well adapted and up to date, in view of the changes taking place in the sector and the appearance of new actors such as the European Aviation Safety Agency. I would point out, however, that priority should be given to accident prevention, and it is this that should guide investigation, as a tool for identifying problems and enabling solutions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted in favour because we recognise the importance of accident and incident investigation and prevention in civil aviation.

We view as positive the fact that Member States have an active role, specifically through their respective investigation authorities, which will make up the European network of national authorities for this area. This network is being put forward as having specific objectives: formulating suggestions to the competent national authorities, sharing information about investigation methods, coordinating and organising training for each Member State’s investigators, developing common investigation methodologies for the EU, and developing and managing a framework for sharing resources.

We will monitor the future of this network because we believe that its operations must be kept strictly within the bounds of the aforementioned objectives and within the framework of the participation scheme on the part of the Member States set out in the proposal, through the responsible national authorities.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) More independent safety investigations in the event of an aviation accident, improved assistance for the families of victims and optimum protection of data and privacy during an investigation are all measures which will improve aviation safety and factors which persuaded me to vote in favour of this report. It was with pleasure that I voted for this text, which makes provision for aviation companies to produce the passenger manifest within two hours of an accident, so that families can be informed. In addition, the introduction of a European network of authorities responsible for safety investigations is a very good idea in that it will allow recommendations to be put forward on aviation policy and regulations and, more importantly, it will allow resources to be shared and good practices to be exchanged. This is an important text, and I welcome this important step forward in guaranteeing higher and higher standards of passenger safety.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Volumes of air traffic have increased steadily in recent years. This naturally brings with it increased risks of accident and it is vital that adequate processes are put in place to minimise those risks. This report goes some way to improving the legislative framework and I accordingly voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with the report because air traffic is steadily increasing year on year. The most important objective is flight safety and aviation security. Today, it is becoming particularly important to ensure flight safety for passengers, to protect passengers, crew, ground crew, the public and property from aviation accidents and guarantee the safety and security of aircraft. In the event of aviation disasters, accidents must be investigated independently to detect any safety flaws and enable measures to be taken to remove them. The disparities in the Member States’ investigating capacities must be reduced. The legislation which currently governs accident investigations is a 1994 EU directive. Therefore, as the aviation market changed and became more complex, it became necessary to bring forward new legislation on new bodies such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The new regulation must provide for a clear legal framework for the agency’s involvement in safety investigations. At the same time, the establishment of a network of national investigation offices should make it possible to reduce current disparities in investigating capacities in the EU. It could also help to improve the quality of investigations and provide a legal framework for cooperation between national safety investigation authorities. It is also important and necessary to implement at European level any proposals made with a view to improving flight safety or investigation procedures. The most important thing is to ensure aviation safety and timely and suitable assistance for the victims of aviation accidents and their families. This would provide important support for families of victims, who often feel lost when faced with a huge number of contacts and procedures when they are already having to cope with the loss of a loved one.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – With the introduction of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), there will be a greater structure between national safety investigation authorities. It will help the agencies throughout Europe to pool their resources and findings and hopefully help to prevent future accidents from occurring.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported Mrs De Veyrac’s report since I consider civil aviation safety in Europe to be one of the most important issues currently on the EU’s agenda. The objective we are setting ourselves with the new regulation is to reduce the number of air accidents to a minimum, improve safety standards, fully protect citizens and endeavour, at the same time, to build their confidence in air transport.

An important part of the measure, to which I am pleased to draw your attention, is devoted to air accident investigations, which must be carried out without any form of pressure in order to allow the competent authorities to decide with absolute impartiality. Moreover, I agree with the decision to include a series of provisions concerning the prompt provision of information on all persons (and dangerous goods) on board an aircraft involved in an accident, both for evident safety reasons and to improve the assistance offered to victims and their families. Lastly, the text also includes the opportunity for passengers to give the name of a person to be contacted should the need arise.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I think its final version provides an excellent compromise. The rights of and the provision of assistance to victims and their families will be guaranteed by the fact that every Member State will have to draw up a national civil aviation accident emergency plan and make sure that every airline registered in their territory has a plan for providing assistance to the victims of civil aviation accidents. The new legislation will guarantee that air accident investigations are conducted without pressure being exerted by the regulatory or certification authorities, by the flight operators or other authorities which may have conflicts of interest. The statements obtained by the investigating authority and recordings of voices or pictures taken inside the pilot’s cabin or the air traffic control units will be used exclusively for investigations, except for cases where there is an interest in disclosing this information to the judicial authorities. This will allow those involved to speak frankly with the investigators. I appreciate the efforts of the rapporteur on this dossier and I hope that in future, the European Union will sign the civil aviation safety agreement with non-EU states as well.

  Nuno Melo (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) The European legislation currently governing aviation accident investigation dates from 1994. Given the great changes that have occurred in the sector in recent years, this legislation no longer meets current needs. Despite the major improvements in air safety that have been seen in recent years, the constant increase in air traffic implies an added risk that air accidents may occur. It is therefore necessary to increase investment not only in safety but also in prevention, and to demand from airlines – particularly the low cost ones – that profit levels must not be achieved at the cost of safety. It is also very important to prioritise the need for victim support and assistance for victims’ families. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) This is a very important initiative, which is why I supported it. I hope that as the project is developed, incidents in which the situation did not lead to an accident or a disaster will be taken into account. I have in mind an exceptional situation where passengers are put at risk due to a human factor. I became an eyewitness to one such incident myself when, in January 2010, an Air Baltic aeroplane, on which I was a passenger, tried to take off from Riga airport three times. After the third occasion, the aeroplane was diverted for ‘additional checks’. We need to introduce into the regulation a means whereby passengers can file complaints about incidents where airlines wish to conceal damage to aircraft or exceptional situations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Nowadays, the skies are becoming increasingly congested. As a result, air safety incidents and accidents are occurring more and more frequently. Incidents of this kind must be resolved fully and, above all, quickly within the EU.

We also need to think of the families of the victims who, in the past, have often been left alone with their grief. I have voted in favour of this report because effective cooperation among all EU Member States with regard to air safety and the resolution of incidents is essential.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The establishment of a network of national investigation authorities is intended to make it possible in future to reduce disparities in investigating capacities in the EU. The intention is that, together, we will succeed in improving the quality of the investigations and providing a legal framework for cooperation between national safety investigation authorities to improve the safety of civil aviation. These planned measures should contribute to improving aviation safety. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs De Veyrac’s report because I believe it to be a considerable step forward in the sector. The aim of the proposal for a regulation on investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation is to increase the transparency of information made available to national civil aviation authorities. It also represents an indispensable updating of the standards that are currently applied, which date back to 1994.

The measures providing for the creation of an efficient communication system between national authorities with the aim of promoting coordination and better exchange of collected data are also worthy of note. Access to sensitive information is regulated with the aim of allowing the competent authorities to call on the cooperation of all those involved in incidents and accidents.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Air traffic has been increasing steadily for years, but despite considerable improvements in safety, this increase has only increased the risk of air accidents. In a situation of this kind, it is essential to ensure that accidents are the subject of independent investigations that can determine safety deficiencies with certainty and allow for the adoption of corrective measures.

The European legislation which currently governs accidents is a 1994 directive: traffic has evolved and become more complex since that text was introduced. Moreover, the emergence of new bodies, such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), have highlighted the disparities in the Member States’ investigating capacities and made it necessary to introduce new and more satisfactory legislation.

The establishment of a network of national investigation offices should make it possible to reduce current disparities in investigating capacities in the EU. It could also help to improve the quality of investigations and provide a legal framework for cooperation between national authorities. I feel that an action of this type could make an effective contribution to improving air safety.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Mrs De Veyrac’s report, which aims to improve civil aviation safety standards. It is against this fundamental backdrop that the precise causes of incidents and accidents should be brought to light. In order to do so, independent investigation must be guaranteed; in other words, investigations must be carried out with no pressure from the authorities which are in charge of regulating or certifying aviation operations and which may bear some responsibility for what happened. Networking the authorities responsible for civil aviation safety standards in Europe will also allow best practices to be promoted via exchanges of information, and the recommendations put forward by the network will improve European regulation in this sector. Finally, this text includes provisions designed to improve how the families of victims are treated in the event of an accident, such as the requirement for aviation companies to produce a full passenger manifest within no more than two hours of the accident and the ban on this manifest being made public until such time as the families have been informed and only if they have no objection. These are two important steps forward, and I welcome them.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Verts/ALE Group tabled several amendments in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, such as a better definition of ‘preliminary reports’, stronger independence of investigations, also from financial interests, better availability of flight data recordings, better info to victims’ relatives, a review of this regulation in the near future, including the disclosure of sensitive safety information to the judiciary and best practices of Member States and investigation authorities. Most of these amendments were adopted, though the wording was weakened via the agreed compromises. Given that no major changes occurred during the vote in plenary, we maintain our positive position on both the legislative resolution and the amended proposal.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There has been a sharp increase in air traffic since the European directive governing aviation accident investigation, which dates from 1994. Although there have been significant safety improvements, this increase has naturally led to an increased probability of accidents occurring. It has also been accompanied by greater technological complexity and the emergence of new players, such as the European Aviation Safety Agency.

It seems essential to me for air accidents to be subject to independent and transparent investigations with the aim of remedying safety flaws and protecting passengers. The promotion of an EU-level network of national authorities responsible for investigations could also help to reduce imbalances in investigation capacities between Member States.

Assistance for victims and their families must also be a priority for every country, making it essential to ensure that all the airlines established in each country have assistance plans. I am satisfied with the work of the Committee on Transport and Tourism’s rapporteur, as well as with the agreement obtained with the European Council at the end of June, which is why I voted for this report.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, as it is intended to make investigations of aviation incidents and accidents more independent and transparent.

I am delighted that this text has been adopted. It should speed up the investigation process and improve the information given to victims’ families, while guaranteeing personal privacy thanks to these welcome measures. This text will therefore make it possible to respond to the requests of victims’ families, who are confronted with investigations which often leave them feeling powerless.

This new EU legislation should allow for better information to be provided to the families of accident victims. The provisions will better protect personal privacy, since the information must first be communicated to families within two hours, and airlines (Community and non-Community) must forward the list of passengers on board the aircraft to the authorities.

The adopted text will also help improve and speed up investigations without any pressure from the authorities responsible for regulating and controlling the aviation sector. This is thanks to the availability of the various flight documents and the now mandatory publication of the final investigation report at the latest within 12 months of the incident or accident involving the aircraft concerned.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I was pleased to hear the results of today’s vote on Mrs De Veyrac’s report. I did, of course, endorse adoption of the document. The current system of investigating accidents in civil aviation is now 16 years old. During this time, air traffic in the skies of Europe has increased significantly. The risk of accidents has also risen. Accident investigation commissions should be guaranteed freedom from the interference of interested parties and from the pressure of time, politics, the media and judicial bodies. The first priority should be to look for the cause of the accident and ways of preventing similar events in the future, and not to find someone to blame.

An invaluable role in ensuring safety is also played by investigating the causes of accidents which could potentially have occurred. Therefore, it is important to introduce as quickly as possible the Safety Management Systems and Just Culture programmes of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which include voluntary and sanction-free reporting by pilots, cabin crew, flight controllers and ground staff of every irregularity which is noticed. Unfortunately, through fear of disciplinary or punitive sanctions, many serious problems and incidents are never disclosed.

Report: Alejo Vidal-Quadras (A7-0112/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We all remember the gas crises of 2006, 2008 and 2009. They resulted in gas cuts to millions of Europeans, who were caught in the crossfire between Russia and Ukraine. I welcome the work done by the Members on this topic. This resolution allows for networks to be interconnected and better crisis management. As far as I am concerned, this is an excellent example of what European solidarity can do. Together, shoulder to shoulder, we are clearly much stronger.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Consumption of natural gas has increased dramatically in Europe in the last decade. With a reduction in the volume of internal gas extraction and an increase in demand, dependence on imported gas is also on the rise. In September 2009, when speaking in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy at the time this draft regulation was presented, I underlined that it will be impossible to create a secure and united energy market while there are energy islands in the European Union which are entirely dependent on a single external gas supplier and which do not have access to European infrastructure. The issue of the security of gas supply will continue to be relevant in the future. Therefore, I voted for this report which aims to improve the security of gas supply for individual Member States and the EU as a whole. It is particularly important that the document notes that some Member States are becoming so-called gas islands because there is a lack of infrastructural interconnections with other Member States and this prevents the creation of an effectively functioning internal gas market. I believe that with this document, we have taken the first step towards true European energy integration, concentrating on the building of cross-border interconnections, varying sources of energy supply and routes and implementing energy efficiency initiatives.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) The European Union needs a sustainable gas market, diversification of networks, a transparent, supportive internal market and reliable monitoring of the supply from third countries.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s energy security policy should allow it to anticipate crisis situations, similar to the 2009 gas crisis, and not only to react to them. The EU’s growing dependency on external energy resources, coming mostly from politically unstable countries which behave unpredictably, could affect Member States’ economic interests. Due to the EU’s energy vulnerability, a global energy policy needs to be adopted which will combine internal and external aspects. All the measures intended to ensure that the internal energy market operates properly should be accompanied by active diplomacy, aimed at strengthening cooperation with the main producing, transit and consumer countries.

Ensuring a constant gas supply to EU states, particularly in crisis situations, must be a common strategic objective. It is absolutely imperative to draw up national plans containing preventive and emergency measures. Coordinating these plans at EU level would ensure that they are effective. In the medium term, operating an extensive, competitive internal market, benefiting from well-developed connections and infrastructures, is regarded as the most effective method of protection against supply disruptions.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Security of the EU gas supply is a crucial factor in the necessary development of a European energy strategy. In the current context of energy dependence, it is important to bring producers, distributors, consumers and public authorities together to speak with one voice and ensure that the Union is not the weak link in energy geopolitics.

In this respect, I join the rapporteur in welcoming the proposal for a regulation to safeguard security of gas supply. This regulation, together with the legislation on the internal energy market, will help reduce the Union’s vulnerability to external gas supply disruptions. It will also strengthen the leading role of European gas companies in the world.

The rapporteur points out the essential role that businesses play in the management of gas crises. I support his request to strengthen their role within the framework of an early warning system. With regard to the declaration of a Community emergency, I share the rapporteur’s view that the 10% threshold proposed by the Commission does not cover the possible scenario of 100% gas disruption in certain areas. It should therefore be possible to declare a Community emergency for a particular geographical region.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) This regulation makes a contribution to solving the gas supply crisis in Europe. It is vital to lay down rules to safeguard and improve the management of gas supplies in Europe. To improve management of Union emergency situations, I feel it is essential to ensure increased interconnection capacity between Member States, as well as better coordination of actions. Similarly, I agree with the importance that the regulation attaches to the creation of preventive and emergency plans by Member States and the Commission. The response to emergency situations should also allow for greater flexibility so as to be able to address crises that differ in duration or intensity.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The issue of the EU’s gas supply is a strategic priority, especially at a time when dependency on imports has increased significantly. The gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine and the continuing large degree of unpredictability surrounding the behaviour of these Eastern European partners are forcing the EU to take action to diversify its gas supply sources and transit routes. Unfortunately, in spite of the numerous debates on this subject, key projects, such as Nabucco, have still remained at an initial stage, which means that dependency persists and, by extension, Europe’s vulnerability in connection with this matter. I hope that this regulation, which is more effective than Directive 2004/67/EC which it is replacing, as it can be applied directly, will give some impetus to the Nabucco project and the other alternative solutions, while also providing the capability to respond promptly, in a well-coordinated and efficient manner in the event of a disruption to the supply.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Reducing the energy dependence of the EU should be the top priority of our common energy policy. We all know what needs to be done to achieve this and it coincides with the commitments made to combat climate change: we need to make energy savings of 20%, mainly by increasing our energy efficiency, and to increase the proportion of renewable sources of energy to 20% by 2020, while at the same time diversifying our energy sources. Europe also needs to guarantee solidarity with each of its members in the energy sector, by improving the management of gas and oil stocks in the Member States and making provision for the construction of infrastructures to channel energy towards countries facing a shortage. We need a European public policy, financed jointly by the European Union and the Member States, if we are to face up to the energy and environmental challenge and help to generate growth over the coming decades.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply because I believe that more coordinated action at European level is needed so that potential future crises can be better managed.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Gas currently represents more than a quarter of the energy supplied to the European Union and more than half of it comes from suppliers outside the EU. In 2020, more than 80% of the gas used will be imported and already today, some Member States are 100% dependent on gas imports.

This raises serious issues of security of supply, as the recent crisis has demonstrated. Naturally, this situation makes European measures necessary in order to ensure the existence of sufficient infrastructure with the capacity to prevent and resolve unexpected gas supply problems. It is also urgent to look at the problems that are emerging regarding security of the natural gas supply in Europe and the risks associated with transit.

The current proposal is – for good reason – founded on three fundamental issues, which justify my vote in favour: (i) the direct applicability of the new EU regulation; (ii) the establishment of the Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans in case of a disruption in supply; and (iii) the strengthening of the role of the European Commission to coordinate emergency actions and declare an emergency at EU or regional level, imposing the principle of solidarity between Member States.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) This regulation on security of gas supply and repealing Directive 2004/67/EC provides a concrete response to a real problem that the Union is facing. This situation became clear during the gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine last winter, when millions of Europeans and our economy itself were severely affected. Safeguards for energy supply, particularly gas, are essential for economic and social stability and well-being. In view of the crises we have witnessed in Europe, which normally occur at times when people need energy most in order to cope with extremely cold weather, this new European legislation ensures a response capability coordinated at European level, both to address service provision to consumers and to tackle interruptions in external supply. Implementation of this regulation will therefore help to significantly reduce the EU’s vulnerability to external energy supply interruptions and will also strengthen the dominant world role of European gas companies and the Union’s geopolitical stance as a global strategic agent. I also welcome the requirement for preventive action plans.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We acknowledge the concerns expressed about security of gas supply, with regard to which the Member States must play an active role, specifically through their respective competent authorities, but we consider the issue that was raised about gas from Russia exaggerated. If you fear problems, the solution is to negotiate and diversify sources of supply and production, and not to use this pretext for deepening European integration and furthering the concentration and centralisation of decisions, not least on infrastructure projects that support the integration of the internal gas market.

As I said in the debate, the most important issue in terms of the future is the expected oil crisis, because of which the European Union should actively promote the replacement of refined petroleum products in its fleets, and the best replacement for them is natural gas.

Moreover, it should not be forgotten that there is natural gas of non-fossil origin: biomethane, produced from waste. As a matter of fact, several European countries are already producing it, in particular, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain. It is a solution that should be incentivised with EU investment.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The key issues in this report were regional transparency, solidarity and cooperation. Security of gas supply must be ensured for the economic development and political stability of Europe.

  Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Security of gas supply depends on diversification of routes and sources of supply in order to avoid the monopoly of third countries and also to take advantage of market mechanisms and eliminate the effects of breakdowns in supply routes. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between different users of gas: domestic users, gas-fired power stations and industry. In the regulation, emphasis has been laid on the possibility of rapid fuel switching by large users. However, it should be remembered that gas turbines do not make it easy to use other fuels. Another problem is the lack of clarity over the relationship between solidarity and market principles.

There is an urgent need to specify the principles for establishing gas prices in the case of emergency supply. The EU does not have much of its own gas, but it is moving over to this fuel, while coal, which the EU does have, will soon not be used – not even in such situations – because of the European Commission’s faith in the unlikely hypothesis of the anthropogenic action of coal on the climate. Russia is not worried by this, and, counting on large external demand, is adapting its own energy system to coal and nuclear power. I endorsed this regulation, but we do need to understand that it solves only a small part of the problem of energy security.

The harmful provisions of the Climate and Energy Package will inevitably lead to the loss by my country, Poland, of the energy security which it has, today. Soon, Poland may be facing a shortfall of as much as 10% in its energy needs.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The gas security regulation is an important step towards putting the principle of the solidarity of Member States into practice over the question of policy on security of gas supply. Our region in particular, which is, in large measure, dependent on one supplier, will benefit from the measures agreed as part of the regulation. This issue is also of crucial significance for the correct functioning of the internal market. The regulation will help to avoid and resolve gas crises and, as a result, ensure that the internal market will be able to operate correctly and continue to develop. Poland will benefit from a common gas policy.

Thanks to the provisions of the regulation, Poland will be able to count on support from the Union in emergencies and, more importantly, will be a participant in EU policy on this question thanks to measures such as the preventive and emergency plans which will be developed in each Member State. Of particular importance are the provisions on the obligation to declare a Union emergency (if two Member States declare an emergency) and inclusion of the criterion of geopolitical risk in the overall assessment of risk on the question of gas security.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this report because today, ensuring a diverse, uninterrupted supply of gas and consumer protection is becoming particularly important. Millions of European citizens and the EU economy suffered greatly during the gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine. Energy security is one of the EU’s most important priorities. In order to have it, there must be a united position on EU policy and coordinated action. Therefore, there must be cooperation at regional and cross-border level and decisions must be adopted flexibly. Finally energy policy, which was previously based purely on national interests, is shifting to a European level. The energy community must be based on competitiveness, sustainability and, in particular, security of supply. This regulation will reduce significantly the EU's vulnerability to external supply disruptions and will strengthen the leading role of European gas companies in the world and the Union's geopolitical position. At the same time, Lithuania must endeavour to diversify energy sources: discussions on the construction of a new nuclear power station must have proper foundations and not simply remain talk, as this doubtless also affects energy bridges to the West and the construction of liquefied natural gas terminals. The greater the number of alternatives it establishes as regards the sourcing of energy, the more secure Lithuania will be. We must make every effort to ensure that in future, we are not consumers of Russian energy, but business partners, providing channels for energy from the East to flow to the West.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – As there is only a finite amount of natural gas in the world, it is vital that its supply to those in most need of it is secure. With this decision, a ‘Union Emergency Plan’ may be declared for a specifically affected geographical region. This will help those whose supply of gas is affected suddenly and who are vulnerable energy consumers.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Vidal-Quadras’s report on the proposal for a regulation as I consider the efforts made to extend coordination of the Member States in order to establish measures to safeguard security of gas supply to be worthwhile.

Gas consumption in Europe has increased rapidly during the last 10 years and, with decreasing domestic production and a consequent increase in imports, the need has arisen to address issues related to this sector in a coordinated manner. The European Commission felt it necessary, given this new context, to move beyond the provisions of Directive 2004/67/EC, currently in force, in order to achieve greater harmonisation of national legislation.

I agree with the central idea behind the regulation, which aims to provide undertakings and customers with a secure gas supply, including in the event of a supply disruption, by incentivising investment, not least in infrastructure.

I believe that it is fundamental to have sufficient and diversified gas infrastructure, particularly in regions that are isolated from sources of energy supply. Lastly, I would like to highlight the requirement to draw up national emergency plans and identify solidarity mechanisms to be activated in the event of emergencies at EU level.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In a world dominated recently by oil price fluctuations and disruptions to natural gas supplies, there are growing concerns in the European Union about the lack of energy security. We are increasingly aware of how vulnerable we are to these upsets. As a result, concrete steps must be taken to adopt an effective energy policy.

I voted for the report because I believe that energy security must be viewed as a key component of the European Union’s security as a whole and ensuring a constant gas supply is an EU strategic objective. Preventive and emergency measures must be drawn up as part of national plans, with a reference at the same time to the need to coordinate these plans at EU level.

Furthermore, I support the proposal for a regulation on the gas supply and repealing Directive 2004/67/EC. Implementing such a regulation in full, without delay, along with internal market legislation, will reduce significantly the extent of the European Union’s vulnerability globally.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Security of the European Union’s gas supply should guarantee all Europeans access to energy for their basic needs, such as cooking and heating, and ensure access for essential public services such as hospitals and schools. It should also guarantee the preservation of jobs.

These must be the priorities and public policies are needed to implement them. Public safety must not be abandoned to the market or to struggles to control resources. In this regard, prevention is essential, as is solidarity between Member States at times of energy crisis or catastrophe.

Energy security is proof of the importance of the decentralisation, variety and proximity of generation processes, as well as of the integration of national grids. Microgeneration is therefore seen as the best guarantee of security of energy supply for the needs of the public.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr Vidal-Quadras’s report, which sets out the new EU regulation on the security of gas supply, is certainly an effective instrument to avoid the growing risk that gas supply will be halted in the event of a crisis.

It is a mechanism which would afford a high degree of protection for families without producing any form of distortion in the market, which will continue to manage supplies. The report also deserves a positive vote for the precise way in which it addresses certain hitherto unclear key points. I am referring to the preventive measures and to the arrangements in the event of emergency. Suppliers which exploit the weaknesses of our system during times of crisis will, henceforth, come up against a much more difficult obstacle to overcome.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text makes natural gas an everyday commodity. It is not an everyday commodity. It is an energy resource and therefore a shared human asset. It is distinguished by the fact that it is a fossil fuel. For these two reasons, it must be used with the restraint needed to protect our ecosystem and in accordance with the general interest of European citizens and of humanity.

Exposing natural gas to the competitive and speculative logic of the internal gas market and trying to multiply its entry and exit points is pure madness and will only benefit gas shareholders. However, to try and impose the continuation of this logic even in the event of supply disruptions is to mock the people of Europe. It is high time we created a public energy centre to benefit European citizens.

  Nuno Melo (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) Gas is an increasingly important energy source across the EU. Past events have shown the importance of security of gas supply, since the EU is highly dependent on gas from eastern Europe, particularly Russia. Concrete measures therefore need to be adopted to establish the internal market for gas and effective competition within that market, so that the EU can achieve the highest levels of security in supplies to all Member States. To achieve that objective, we need to adopt a common, effective approach to security of supply of this fuel, which must be based on rules for transparency, solidarity and policies compatible with the operation of the internal market. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I voted for this resolution because the European Union should not have to rely on the mood that the leaders of the transit countries, Ukraine and Belarus, happen to be in. I am convinced that with this vote, we are sending out a clear signal to those who want to derive extra profit from hydrocarbons in transit by speculation and blackmail. I should also like to see the issue of a common oil price for all EU Member States examined in the context of this regulation. Currently, Germany receives gas at one third of the price that Latvia pays.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is important for the EU to achieve a certain independence in terms of its gas supply from third countries, and therefore cooperation within the Union is important where this makes sense. On the other hand, the fundamental competences in relation to energy policy should remain at national level and here, in some respects, the report goes too far. For this reason, I abstained from the vote.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because I agree with the opinion that the EU must learn from recent history and be ready in case there is a repeat of the gas supply crisis. As we can see, national measures alone will not always help to deal with supply interruptions.

The EU Member States must prepare and coordinate crisis management plans both at regional and Community level. Regrettably, in the meantime, some EU Member States are dependent on one gas supplier. In the event of a crisis, the situation would be especially dangerous for those regions which are not joined to the trans-European gas network. These ‘energy islands’ in particular need Community financial support to link gas networks to the single EU system.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I wholeheartedly support the report by Mr Vidal-Quadras. The supply of gas and, hence, energy, is crucial to the European Union and to its development and welfare.

It is therefore essential to adopt a European approach and strategy. The stakes are too high, and we cannot leave it up to individual national systems to manage the issue. I am in favour of a common energy strategy with the aim of setting up a clear and sustainable energy system capable of strengthening the potential supply.

A common approach must not, however, mean a single interlocutor for the supply. We have seen what part the energy question plays in the geopolitical arena and how it is able to influence relationships between states. To prevent crises and emergencies, therefore, I consider it advisable to negotiate and deploy all the supply channels from the East, from the Caucasus or the opposite shore of the Mediterranean. This would prevent the EU from becoming vulnerable again in energy terms and our international geostrategic role would be reaffirmed.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Among all the types of fossil fuels available, gas is the one which emits the least CO2, giving it a key role in the process of Europe’s transition to a low carbon energy system. At present, a quarter of the primary energy consumed in Europe is gas, with almost 60% of the volume of gas consumed coming from imports. Although the EU 2020 objectives for renewable sources, energy efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could help stabilise the increase in demand for gas, the fall in internal production could, however, result in a situation where the EU’s dependency on gas imports will remain at the same level or even increase. The gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine in January 2009, which led to a 30% reduction in EU gas imports for two weeks, clearly highlighted the fact that in the current situation, where the dependency on gas imports and the risks associated with supply and transit are growing, the current directive in force on gas supply security must be reviewed and the creation of a fully deregulated internal energy market must be completed, making it an urgent requirement to adopt measures which will strengthen gas supply security in the EU.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We all remember the interruption to deliveries of gas from Russia to Ukraine during the winter of 2008/2009, as a result of which 17 Member States had no gas supply, leaving a great many citizens with no heating while outside temperatures were at their lowest. We must do whatever we can to prevent this from ever occurring again. I voted in favour of the report by my fellow Member, Mr Vidal-Quadras, on the proposal for a regulation on measures to safeguard security of gas supply in Europe. I welcome the introduction, in the new legislation, of a guarantee of security of supply by the gas companies for ‘protected’ customers (for homes and essential services such as hospitals) for 30 days in the event of a crisis. This is real progress. Also, the facility for the European Commission to declare a ‘Union emergency’ or a ‘regional emergency’ will facilitate the deployment of fast, coordinated measures to resolve any future crisis as quickly as possible.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The legislation adopted today is a welcome, if overdue, step towards addressing the cyclical disruptions to our gas supply. The final text goes much further than originally envisioned. Crucially, it makes the Commission responsible for EU-wide coordination during emergencies. It also addresses the needs of individual consumers by ensuring there is a minimum gas reserve of 30 days for all European households in the event of supply disruptions, and requires ‘reverse flow’ technology for all gas interconnectors, which will allow flexibility in responding to crises. Regrettably, however, the EU lacks any coherent strategy on the role of gas in European energy policy.

Gas will clearly play a part in the EU’s transition to a renewables-based economy and the EU must be more strategic about how it deals with this. The landscape for gas is changing, whether due to new supply sources and resources (like shale gas) or to new measures affecting demand, such as EU legislation on buildings’ energy performance. The Greens believe the Commission must take stock of these developments and undertake a proper analysis of gas supply and the role of gas ahead of the EU’s ‘energy summit’ this coming February.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are in favour of the report on the gas supply because it aims to reduce the vulnerability of the European Union, while guaranteeing a supply of gas to domestic users, small and medium-sized enterprises and providers of essential social services, even in difficult situations.

The text also stresses the issue of transparency, because only by providing adequate information will it be possible to take effective decisions. Lastly, it stresses the spirit of solidarity necessary to ensure that all Member States have access to a sufficient quantity of gas for their customers in the event of a crisis. This is also the approach taken by President Buzek, who organised the meeting between the 27 national parliaments in the Union and the European Parliament on the creation of a European energy community.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – In recent years, there have been a number of disruptions to gas supplies across the EU caused by disputes between suppliers and transit countries, including the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of January 2009. These disruptions demonstrate a pressing need for the EU to diversify its gas supply. I particularly welcome the report’s call for an assessment of the benefits of LNG installations. In Wales, we have a state-of-the-art facility in South Hook, Milford Haven, which could make a huge contribution to alleviating some of the EU’s dependence on imports of gas, which often come from unstable and undemocratic parts of the world.

Report: Csaba Sógor (A7-0231/2010)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are all aware of the recent environmental disaster that has struck Pakistan, the massive damage to the land, the damaged crops, the more than 10 million displaced persons and the thousands of dead. Our undertaking is to help this country and develop solidarity-based and coordination initiatives to facilitate a swift recovery.

We must not, however, lose sight of the need to make the European area a safe place, because it has unfortunately been compromised by years of continuous flows of illegal immigration and illegal trafficking. The agreement on readmission procedures, reached after eight years of negotiations between the European Commission and Pakistan, outlines a clearer framework of cooperation and joint responsibility and is seen as a means of inhibiting illegal trading and trafficking in human beings. This agreement would prevent situations of repatriation that are unsupervised by the EU from occurring.

Member States will firstly have to comply with relevant obligations arising from international law, such as the principle of ‘non-refoulement’, which will have procedural implications, since States are required to conduct an assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in the country of origin.

We will also guarantee Pakistan our lasting cooperation and we will provide incentives for technical assistance programmes and programmes within the field of economic and social development and the fight against unemployment and social exclusion.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The conclusion of an agreement with Pakistan is a positive step which Europe must make towards a determined policy to tackle illegal immigration. Today, Europeans are asking us for tighter security and a strict policy to control the migratory flows afflicting our countries. Each text which, like this one, facilitates the procedures for the return of people who are not legally entitled to stay in EU territory, should be warmly welcomed as Europe’s collective response to our citizens’ demands.

With regard to the remarks made by some fellow Members concerning the living conditions in which returnees to Pakistan could find themselves, I think that, while this is an important issue, it should not hamper the conclusion of an agreement which, in any case, includes a commitment by the EU to obtain from Pakistan the necessary minimum guarantees with regard to human rights and the treatment of refugees in the future. Europe will have to direct its diplomatic and political efforts towards this, but that does not mean that it should refrain from guaranteeing, in its own backyard, what people are asking for: security and respect for the law. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has approved a readmission agreement between the EU and Pakistan, which will facilitate the expulsion of large numbers of Pakistani nationals residing without authorisation in Europe. Although we need agreements with third countries defining readmission procedures for people residing without authorisation in Europe, Pakistan is a special case. Islamabad has, in fact, still not ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The agreement also applies to people who transited via Pakistan, many of whom are Afghans whom it will now be easier to send back to the war-torn country which they fled. This is unacceptable. In addition, the floods this summer tipped Pakistan into one of the worst crises in its history. The current situation is such that safe return to this country, which is already having trouble with the huge influx of displaced persons, is not possible. The formulation of a humane and reasonable immigration policy is one of the basic challenges to society and must be done with due respect for the rules of law. That is why, until such time as Pakistan ratifies the Geneva Convention, I cannot support this readmission agreement.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is well known that Pakistan is the country of origin of many illegal immigrants. It is therefore worth establishing quick and effective means of contacting its authorities.

I am aware of the reservations that those on the left in this House have about this agreement, but I believe that they are confusing illegal immigration with the right to asylum and good personal sentiments with good public policy.

I agree with the tenor of the resolution. This agreement between the EU and Pakistan is not just about what is termed readmission: it is good to see that it is also a bilateral agreement aimed at the extradition or, if we wish, the expulsion of illegal immigrants from their respective territories.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) The aim of the agreement is to enhance cooperation between the governments of EU Member States and Pakistan in order to speed up the readmission process. To that end, the agreement sets out the obligation for a country, on a fully reciprocal basis, to readmit its own nationals and, under certain conditions, third country nationals or stateless persons. It also includes the necessary technical provisions regarding the readmission procedure. Pakistan is an important country of origin or transit of migrants who do not, or who no longer fulfil the conditions in force for entering, staying in or residing in an EU Member State. Although it has taken 10 years to negotiate, I welcome the adoption of this agreement, which is preferable to the previous ad hoc agreements on this matter and will have positive effects not only on EU-Pakistan relations but for the whole region.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Our vote against the signing of the agreement on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation is justified, first of all, because it creates a situation of legal uncertainty. However, the more important reason is our criticism of the immigration policy set out by the European Union.

Its legal complexity does not guarantee respect for the rights of immigrants: it criminalises them, as has been condemned by many organisations; it obliges Pakistan to receive its nationals who are in a situation of illegality; and it seeks to make Pakistan responsible for taking in any Afghans who have passed through the country.

Secondly, this agreement is another flagrant example of the hypocrisy that dominates the decisions of the EU, which wants to wash its hands of its responsibilities in the worsening situation both of the Afghan people since the US invasion and under NATO’s continuing war of occupation, and of the Pakistani people in the war that has now been extended to Pakistan.

To the EU, the people fleeing war, hunger and misery in search of decent living conditions for themselves and their families are illegal immigrants, or even terrorists. To the EU, the immigrants fleeing NATO’s crimes, lured by criminal gangs and exploited as cheap labour under conditions of near slavery, are illegal immigrants and must be expelled. This position is unacceptable.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the readmission agreement between the EU and Pakistan. This agreement is the twelfth of its kind, but the first which must be validated by the European Parliament. Despite numerous requests to the European Commission, it failed to supply any evaluation of or reports on previous agreements, which would have enabled us to have a clear idea of the conditions under which such agreements are implemented. In the case of Pakistan in particular, where the political situation is extremely fragile, this agreement attracts objection on numerous counts. Pakistan, which is not renowned for its conscientious respect for human rights, is not party to the international conventions on refugees and stateless persons. That should have been a sine qua non in the negotiations. In addition, there are still numerous grey areas in the agreement: there is no guarantee that minors are excluded from its scope, and the procedures and deadlines are somewhat obscure. In approving this agreement, the European Parliament is creating an unfortunate precedent and has missed an opportunity to present the image of an institution which is concerned about respect for human rights and demands greater transparency in such agreements.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted against this recommendation. Whilst Pakistan receives more refugees than any other country in the world, it is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention on Refugees. The EU must not be in the business of deporting people whilst having no regard for their fundamental rights; we must ensure that human rights are guaranteed.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted against this report because the EU-Pakistan readmission agreement will make it possible to send people to a country that has not signed the 1951 Geneva Convention, that does not respect human rights, and whose internal situation does not offer returning people the necessary security.

The EU will also not be respecting the right to asylum if it sends back to Pakistan citizens of other countries – Afghanistan, for example – who have arrived in the EU via Pakistan, which could make that person subject to a sequence of acts of expulsion from country to country over which the EU will have no control. Furthermore, this readmission agreement does not include guarantees or monitoring mechanisms; it is full of legal loopholes and ambiguities; and it does not adequately respect the protection of personal data.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This Parliament has condemned Pakistan on several occasions for its discriminatory policies and the persecution that is perpetrated there, particularly against Afghan refugees. Barely a month ago, dreadful floods left millions of Pakistanis homeless.

This agreement scorns all human reality. Not content with contradicting Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like all agreements of this kind, this agreement even contradicts the principles of refugee protection. Voting in favour of this text would negate international law and humanism, of which the EU still claims to be the heir. I voted against.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Combating illegal immigration has always been a priority for the EU. The negotiation of the agreement with Pakistan adopted just now has taken many years and it seems to me to be a balanced document that is aimed at only extraditing people who are in the EU illegally. It does not, therefore, deal with asylum seekers or people whose purpose is to settle in the EU and, to this end, are seeking for the host country’s authorities to regularise their situation. We cannot confuse illegal immigrants with people aiming to settle legally in the EU. It is, therefore, very important to continue to apply pressure to Pakistan for the country to ratify the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Combating illegal immigration should be a matter of course for every state, rather than a form of pressure. Readmission agreements are essential in ensuring that the transfer procedures are clear when an asylum application is rejected. Experience has shown that otherwise, the resulting disputes can last for years and the illegal immigrants can exploit this delay by going underground and disappearing. We need to combat the abuse of the asylum system and bogus asylum seekers throughout the EU and give the border security agency Frontex stronger powers. Economic migrants must be returned to their country of origin, which means that a consistent European repatriation programme must be set up and put into practice. I support the agreement with Pakistan as another step towards stemming the increasingly uncontrollable flow of economic migrants with their deluded dreams of paradise.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Readmission agreements with third countries are an important instrument for combating illegal immigration into the European Union and the help to ensure the security of the Union. Pakistan is an important country of origin or transit of migrants who do not, or who no longer fulfil the conditions in force for entry to, presence in, or residence in the EU. The aim of the agreement is to enhance the cooperation between the administrations of the requesting and requested States in order to render the readmission process swifter and more efficient. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted against this report because the EU-Pakistan readmission agreement will make it possible to send people to a country that has not signed the 1951 Geneva Convention, that does not respect human rights, and whose internal situation does not offer returning people the necessary security. The EU will also not be respecting the right to asylum if it sends back to Pakistan citizens of other countries – Afghanistan, for example – who have arrived in the EU via Pakistan, which could make that person subject to a sequence of acts of expulsion from country to country over which the EU will have no control. Furthermore, this readmission agreement does not include guarantees or monitoring mechanisms; it is full of legal loopholes and ambiguities; and it does not adequately respect the protection of personal data.

The recent floods in that country constitute a further reason for concern about the fate of people returned there. Only two weeks ago, the European Parliament was expressing its concern about the humanitarian situation in Pakistan resulting from this disaster. The hypocrisy of the right will become clear if this unacceptable readmission agreement is adopted; it will not be with my vote.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Like 385 of my fellow Members, I voted in favour of the EU-Pakistan readmission agreement governing the return of persons residing without authorisation in the EU.

After eight years of negotiations between the Commission and Pakistan, this tool complements the 11 other readmission agreements that considerably enhance the asylum and immigration policy that Europe intends to create. It is a legal framework, therefore, that is based on international law and, in particular, on the principle of non-refoulement: a person shall not be expelled to a state ‘where his freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’.

To its detractors, I would reply that this agreement at least has the merit of being consistent and effective at EU level; because there is nothing stopping the Member States from concluding bilateral agreements. Our migration policy is comprehensive, and includes the fight against illegal immigration, which must be discouraged at every available opportunity.

This is the best way of protecting would-be migrants who wish to reach the ‘European eldorado’ and who are, more often than not, victims of unscrupulous smugglers, trafficking of all kinds, and economic exploitation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I deeply regret the vote in favour of this agreement. Pakistan is the country that already accommodates the largest number of refugees in the world, and it has not even signed the Geneva Convention on refugees. With this agreement, the Member States are primarily targeting Afghan nationals: it is the height of cynicism and indecency to return the victims of a war in which the Member States are participating.

In addition, the European Commission, like the Pakistani authorities, have been unavailable to explain the feasibility and impact of this agreement to us: no one has any idea about it. It is irresponsible of my fellow MEPs to surrender our new prerogatives granted by the Treaty of Lisbon, and to blindly accept the European Commission’s third-rate guarantees of an agreement that potentially violates human rights.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are in favour of the report on the conclusion of the agreement between the EU and Pakistan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation. This agreement helps to strengthen the fight against illegal immigration into the EU, facilitating the process of expelling Pakistani citizens residing without authorisation and their readmission to their country of origin. Our aim should be to extend this type of agreement to the other countries from which illegal migrants commonly arrive as well.

At temporary asylum centres, time is often wasted on obtaining repatriation permits from the country of origin once the citizenship of the person residing without authorisation has been identified, and this leads to the maximum stay being exceeded. Agreements such as the one we have approved today will reduce waiting times, and it will therefore become easier and less costly to manage the repatriation of illegal immigrants.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This is the first time since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force that the European Parliament has voted on a readmission agreement. These agreements are symbolic of migratory policies that build a European fortress and drive out people who are forced by poverty and war to seek refuge on our soil.

Parliament now has the tools at its disposal to force the Council and the Commission to turn their words into deeds.

The agreement that has been submitted to us has numerous shortcomings and does not include any guarantee as to the situation of people who will be sent back to Pakistan. We know only too well how human rights are respected in Pakistan, which has not even signed the 1951 Geneva Convention.

The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left calls for an evaluation of the existing readmission agreements as it would highlight the devastating effects of these policies, which scorn human beings who have not had the good fortune to have been born on EU territory.

The European Parliament does not improve its standing with this vote: it has now lost the opportunity to make its voice heard on how the discourse on human rights should be applied in practice.

Report: Metin Kazak (A7-0238/2010)

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. – The amendment allows the many people in the EU, and the MEPs who represent them, to signal their unhappiness and opposition to Turkish membership and the concomitant political union. However, we do not want this to be at the expense of supporting free trade with Turkey – and without tariff barriers – so much of the report is unchanged. Many choices are invidious: free trade agreements allow tariff barriers. Customs unions eliminate them internally but continue to allow and even erect them externally. And, of course, customs unions limit and prohibit members’ freedom of commercial negotiation. Despite these concerns about customs unions as a concept, in the context of Turkey’s circumstances, we are accepting that part of the report’s content relating to the customs union because it allows those against full Turkish EU membership to register their vote. It should be noted that in the event, only 38 MEPs out of 736 put their vote against Turkey entering Political Union.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Turkey is taking great strides toward more open and democratic development of the country, not merely in economic and commercial terms, but also from the point of view of respecting principles of the rule of law.

Turkey represents a key economic and trade partner for the EU, ranking seventh in the EU’s top import markets and fifth in its export markets. Despite its unique geopolitical position and role in world trade, Turkey still persists in maintaining technical barriers to trade and still makes excessive use of safeguard measures.

Much remains to be done to combat counterfeiting, make public contracts more transparent and open to foreign businesses, and allow the free movement of goods. Similar efforts must also be made in the field of human rights. In fact, a policy of discrimination still persists towards the Kurdish minority, and women’s rights and trade union rights are still infringed. Principles of respect for the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms are therefore essential priorities, and much work remains to be done in this area.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) With Turkey having been in a customs union with the European Union since 1996, economic and trade relations between the two sides are highly developed. Turkey is the EU’s seventh trading partner, while the EU is Turkey’s first trading partner. We need to strengthen trade. However, trade must continue to be profitable for both sides. That is why I voted in favour of the amendments tabled by my group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), calling for greater reciprocity. Turkey needs to stop using the antidumping instrument for protectionist purposes, to question its technical barriers to trade and to improve the application of intellectual property rights.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because Turkey has become the European Union’s seventh biggest trading partner, while the EU is Turkey’s biggest trading partner. Turkey acts as a link between the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Asia, the Black Sea and Caucasus regions and has a customs association agreement dating right back to 1963.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The topic in question is clearly of a commercial and economic nature but, after all, we cannot ignore the fact that we are talking about a country waiting to join the EU and over whose entry objections have been raised.

What convinces me to vote against this report, despite the fact that I appreciate the positive aspects in deepening trade relations with a high-growth country, is nevertheless the political aspect. Improving economic relations with a country must not, as I fear could be the case here, turn into a Trojan horse as a means to push for a State to join the EU.

I suspect that Parliament’s approval of the recent constitutional referendum in Turkey amounts to political encouragement for the Turkish Government. I think, however, that we should seriously limit ourselves to establishing trade relations with Turkey, albeit paying due attention to the effects on our agricultural system and the danger that Europe will be swamped by an influx of counterfeit products (for which Turkey is second only to China).

Today, however, Turkey poses a greater danger than ever to Europe’s identity and political solidarity, and we should all be convinced that it is far preferable for this country to remain, as is only natural, outside the borders of Europe.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The statistics show that the European Union is Turkey’s biggest trade partner by far. However, the volume of trade has declined in recent years in favour of developing countries. Bearing in mind this volume, together with the stable ties existing between Turkey and the European Union, their commercial and economic relations ought to be given due attention.

Against this background, the necessary actions should be taken to develop these relations even further. The customs union, which was established between Turkey and the European Union 14 years ago and which is still incomplete, needs to become more effective. With this in mind, immediate attention must be given to unresolved issues, while Turkey and the EU ought to align their trade policies further, particularly in the context of free trade agreements and regional trade. These actions could create a favourable situation which both economies will stand to gain from. It is especially important that the EU focuses greater attention on Turkey as the latter’s role has expanded in recent years, in particular, through leveraging its unique geopolitical position more, acting as a link between the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Asia, the Black Sea and Caucasus regions.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Turkey is a strategic partner for the European Union. Apart from the – albeit important – direct trade between Turkey and our countries, it lies immediately outside our south-eastern borders, it is a member of the same defensive alliance as the majority of EU Member States and it allows us access to energy resources and raw materials. Moreover, the recent constitutional referendum marks a step towards its adoption of the acquis communautaire, and deserves due recognition.

This report has the great merit of focusing on the most important aspect for the Union, and it highlights its crucial importance together with the positive elements. In particular, it shows how relations with this country are played out on many levels. It is difficult to sum up their complexity in a simple decision by these institutions for or against admissibility.

All of these considerations form the basis with which to build Turkey’s path towards Europe, as well as providing a reason to regard Turkey as already being much closer than the treaties may lead us to believe. I think that it is appropriate to follow the line set out by the rapporteur, for the benefit of both parties.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report on trade relations with Turkey points out the greatest successes and difficulties in trade between the EU and Turkey. Turkey has had an association agreement with the EU since 1963, leading to the creation of a customs union in 1996. The establishment of the customs union contributed to greater market integration, and Turkey has become a key trading partner of the EU. For example, in 2009, Turkey exported goods with a value of EUR 33.6 billion to the EU, and imported goods from the EU to the tune of EUR 40.4 billion. Despite these successes, an expansion of the union to include services and public contracts, as well as the elimination of current problems such as deficiencies in the application of intellectual property rights by Turkey, would contribute to the further development of commercial and financial links between the EU and Turkey.

According to the report, Turkey’s candidacy for accession to the EU is preventing comprehensive reform of the customs union. It is therefore necessary to consider which of the previously-mentioned options for integration and cooperation would be most beneficial to both sides, and most useful in a time of economic crisis. In my opinion, the rapporteur has covered all of the substantial issues, and the report as a whole is not one-sided. For these reasons, I have voted in favour of the report.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on trade and economic relations with Turkey. The full implementation of the customs union between the EU and Turkey, in place since 1996, is going through the elimination of the remaining bureaucratic impediments along with tariff and non-tariff barriers. I believe the need for Turkey to put women’s employment at the centre of its economic and social policies to be equally important, given the low level of women’s participation in the labour market.

  Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – The amendment allows the many people in the EU, and the MEPs who represent them, to signal their unhappiness and opposition to Turkish membership and the concomitant political union. However, we do not want this to be at the expense of supporting free trade with Turkey – and without tariff barriers – so much of the report is unchanged. Many choices are invidious: free-trade agreements allow tariff barriers. Customs unions eliminate them internally but continue to allow and even erect them externally. And, of course, customs unions limit and prohibit members’ freedom of commercial negotiation. Despite these concerns about customs unions, we are, in the context of Turkish circumstances, running with the customs union because it allows those against Turkish membership to say so.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union and Turkey have already been important trade partners for many years. This partnership, which is mutually beneficial, has been hitting a number of obstacles on the Turkish side, which has been seeking to limit the access of European products to its market by imposing administrative and bureaucratic conditions.

I hope that these barriers will be lifted, that Turkey will take determined action to fight the counterfeiting of European products and defend the legitimate rights of creators to the proceeds of their inventive processes, and that trade and economic relations between the EU and Turkey will grow and become stronger.

As I have already had occasion to say, regardless of how relations between the EU and Turkey look in the future, I hope that they will converge and follow the route of dialogue and effective cooperation, and that Turkey continues the journey it has started towards freedom and democracy along Western lines.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 1963, Turkey and the EEC signed an association agreement which provided for the establishment of a customs union (CU) in 1996. This act enabled the deepening of the economic relationship through the CU. The products covered by the CU include all industrial products and processed agricultural products. In 2009, Turkey’s exports to the EU increased to EUR 33.6 billion, with imports from the EU hitting EUR 40.4 billion. According to World Bank statistics, Turkey also became the 17th largest economy in the world and Europe’s sixth largest economy; the country was the 20th largest recipient of foreign direct investment. The CU created in 1996 does not cover agricultural products and areas such as public procurement. In the field of public contracts, Turkey still offers a 15% discount to Turkish tenderers. I urge Turkey to simplify bureaucratic procedures, to remove remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers, and to eliminate unnecessary impediments to EU-Turkey trade.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report seeks to consolidate an economic and trade relationship with Turkey that, in truth, aims to subjugate that country to the EU’s interests. The references are explicit, and there are many of them: removing the remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers between the EU and Turkey, maintaining open trade and investment regimes, strengthening Turkey’s ability to withstand the temptation to be protectionist domestically, and expanding the customs union to include agricultural products, services and public procurement.

The development of these economic and trade relationships only benefits the big monopolies of the EU and Turkey and is clearly harmful to the workers, who would lose rights in order to increase competitiveness, and to small and medium-sized businesses and farmers, who face increased production costs as well as reduced incomes and lower prices for their products.

The pressure put on Turkey to respect the established agreements is, however, positive. This involves normalising relations with all EU countries, including Cyprus. Economic and trade relations must not be prioritised over the interests of the people, and any advance in relations with Turkey must be made conditional on the end of the country’s occupation of the northern part of Cyprus.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In my view, this report contains a striking inaccuracy because it states that the Turkish economy is the sixth biggest in Europe. This assertion is, in any case, categorically disproven by the geography, because nearly all of Turkey is located on the continent of Asia.

The amendment in which Parliament states its pleasure at the outcome of the recent referendum in Turkey also undermines the neutrality of the relationship, giving it more political connotations and departing from an exclusively economic evaluation. For these reasons, I fear I am unable to support the adoption of Mr Kazak’s report.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) We voted in favour of the motion for a resolution tabled by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, even though it is unsatisfactory. It does, however, clearly maintain that deepening the existing relations between the EU and Turkey will replace and render obsolete that country’s accession to the European Union.

However, any future deepening of relations between Turkey and the EU must be strictly dependent upon Turkey’s recognition of Cyprus, the existence of which it continues to deny, and part of which it occupies illegally and militarily. Turkey, a proud country and former ally against the communist threat, is a bridge between Europe and Asia. It is a bridge, but it is not a European country in geographical, demographical, historical or cultural terms.

Finally, acknowledge that the promises made in 1963 in Ankara, at the height of the Cold War and for strategic reasons, are no longer relevant, and that we – Europeans and Turks alike – would waste less time if we were to consider a privileged partnership rather than membership, which our citizens do not want and which many Turks are also against.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Turkey is an important trading partner of the European Union. In a direct comparison, Turkey is the seventh largest import country in terms of trade with the EU-27 and it is the fifth largest in terms of exports. In 2009, the total trade volume amounted to nearly EUR 80 billion. From Turkey’s point of view, the European Union is its strongest trade partner in terms of both imports and exports, and comes way ahead of countries like Russia, China and the United States. These sound economic and trade relations must continue and be developed further. The creation of the joint customs union in 1996, in particular, was an important step in this regard. Nevertheless, we need to eradicate discrepancies such as anti-dumping measures or discrimination against foreign companies on the part of Turkey, which are contrary to the agreements in force. Even in the area of enforcing intellectual property rights, there is still work to be done in order to comply with the treaties. I very definitely support the own-initiative report by Mr Kazak, which reveals the problem areas in our trade relations with Turkey and calls for these to be eliminated.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) Mr Kazak’s report would have us believe that the customs union, established by the 1963 EEC/Turkey association agreement, is a success in terms of economic and commercial integration between the present-day European Union and Turkey; that it has made it possible, among other things, to support European growth, and therefore French growth. Aside from the fact that Turkey has honoured its commitments in this process only to a very limited extent, we have observed, over the decades, the phenomenon of relocations and huge job losses. This is far from constituting, within the internationalist alliance, an economic and social asset for our country and our European neighbours. However, instead of acknowledging this, this report even goes so far as to criticise the use of national technical regulations and standards as a means to protect national markets; standards that the rapporteur considers to be excessive anti-dumping measures, which therefore curb Turkish trade with Europe. All this is, of course, intended to strengthen Turkey’s EU membership process, this time from the point of view of the industrial and commercial benefits to be had by profit-hungry Europeanists, internationalists and ultraliberals. Clearly, we reject anything that might be along these lines.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) I would like to emphasise how pleased I am that we in the European Parliament are able to agree to call for even closer economic cooperation with Turkey, in spite of a high degree of scepticism in large sections of the European population with regard to increased integration of the EU and Turkey. This scepticism is perfectly understandable. For many years, Turkey has found it very difficult to meet the requirements that the EU quite rightly sets for membership. Nevertheless, Europe must continue to press for Turkey’s future membership.

With a population of around 75 million, Turkey constitutes a huge market for European exporters, and it is already Europe’s seventh-largest trading partner. Turkey buys a large proportion of the EU’s exports, which creates growth and jobs in Europe. We buy cheap goods from Turkey, which provides our consumers with a cheaper and more diverse range of goods on the supermarket shelves. In other words, Turkey is important for Europe’s economy.

However, it is only with regard to the trade in goods that there has been increasing integration between Turkey and the EU. The service sector is lagging behind, and I would therefore call for the service sector to be included in the trade agreement. At the same time, pressure must be exerted on Turkey to remove the barriers to the free movement of goods, in particular. This is necessary to enable accession negotiations to continue. If this does not happen, it is hard to imagine us having progressively closer cooperation with Turkey. Turkey’s membership of the EU is still the long-term goal. It is therefore important that we are able to solve our mutual problems together and that Turkey fulfils its obligations as laid down in the accession agreement.

I hope that, despite scepticism regarding Turkey’s membership of the EU in large sections of the European population, we are able to retain Turkey as a close trading partner and cooperation partner, and that we do not frighten Turkey off with the numerous rejections of its future accession by the leaders of major EU countries.

We need Turkey, and not only from an economic point of view. Turkey is an important regional player in the Middle East and an important cooperation partner for NATO. So, let us not dismiss Turkey, but develop our cooperation instead, in particular, through enhanced economic cooperation.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a veritable ode to the customs union and unconditional free trade, to free trade agreements between Turkey and third countries, to the World Trade Organisation agreements, and to the implementation of the Nabucco project. We cannot support a report whose structure is incompatible with our vision, despite some improvements arising from the amendments tabled by the left, particularly on the socio-economic situation, on unemployment among young people and women, and on trade union rights, as well as the positive reference to Turkey’s obligations regarding the additional protocol to the association agreement. They want to make Turkey the 28th state in the free market, without giving the country the full rights and responsibilities of a Member State of the European Union. We are opposed to this new postponement strategy.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) For Turkey, the European Union represents its leading trade partner. Although the trade volume is therefore very great, the report does not hesitate to outline the problems which exist in our trading relations.

One of these problems, which we should absolutely not overlook, is the fact that Turkey has not yet respected the obligation to apply the additional protocol to the association agreement for the fifth consecutive year and has not removed all obstacles to the free circulation of goods. For example, its doors remain closed to goods from Cyprus.

These and other matters, to a large extent highlighted through amendments made by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), have made it possible to add more balance to a report which, in any case, rightly does not contain any reference to any deeper links of a political nature between the European Union and Turkey.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Turkey, like all states, is a sovereign state and, as such, must be respected. It is unacceptable for the European Union to take the liberty of threatening it with the suspension of negotiations on what is, moreover, a rather undesirable accession given the top-down social and fiscal harmonisation that is required.

This House would be unworthy of the friendship shown towards it by the Turkish people if it voted for a report which obliges them to destroy their agricultural jobs (50% of the jobs in Turkey) through the abolition of all taxes on agricultural produce, and which promotes the rights of investors over those of the people. I am voting against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is well known that Turkey is one of the EU’s principal trade partners. This relationship is old and dates from 1963; it was deepened through the establishment of a customs union in 1993, provided for in the original agreement. Despite everything, there are still many bureaucratic impediments that have been preventing trade and economic relations being even more advantageous for both parties. Turkey therefore needs to make additional efforts to combat such impediments, for the common good.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I should like the government of Turkey to regard this resolution as a sort of advance, which is why I voted ‘for’. If, in future, Turkey does not cooperate with EU structures over the Cyprus and Armenia issues, I shall therefore vote against any relaxation in favour of Turkey. Turkey’s failure even to recognise the fact of the Armenian genocide at the beginning of the last century, when millions of innocent people were murdered, is abnormal. The current Turkish blockade of Armenia sends out a bad signal to the European Union. The advance has been paid; now let us wait for positive changes from the Turkish side.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The question of EU membership is one that, in principle, should not even be asked, because of the diverging cultural and religious attitudes which are already threatening to put social peace within the Union at risk. EU accession concerns not only economic relationships. It also results in political and cultural issues and precisely those religious and socio-political views which are incompatible with a Europe characterised by a Western, Christian tradition finding their way into the EU. Given that Turkey has received EUR 1.3 billion in EU subsidies between 1996 and 2005 alone, it must be possible to enter into discussions on a strategic partnership. It is a waste of time to consider putting in place a more workable customs union in order to improve trade relationships with Turkey as long as the Turkish Government fails to meet its current obligations in this respect with regard to Cyprus. Therefore, I have voted against this report today.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against the report because Mr Kazak studied in France with a grant from the Turkish state, and so there is a clear conflict of interest.

I therefore consider it more appropriate to refer the resolution back to committee and replace the rapporteur. The text also describes the Turkish economy as a European economy instead of an Asian economy. I would not like to think that an increase in trade between the EU and Turkey could be taken as an excuse for the latter’s accession to the European Union. We do not want a Eurabia!

  Paul Nuttall (EFD), in writing. – The amendment allows the many people in the EU, and the MEPs who represent them, to signal their unhappiness and opposition to Turkish membership and the concomitant political union. However, we do not want this to be at the expense of supporting free trade with Turkey – and without tariff barriers – so much of the report is unchanged. Many choices are invidious: free trade agreements allow tariff barriers. Customs unions eliminate them internally but continue to allow and even erect them externally. And, of course, customs unions limit and prohibit members’ freedom of commercial negotiation. Despite these concerns about customs unions as a concept, in the context of Turkey’s circumstances, we are accepting that part of the report’s content relating to the customs union because it allows those against full Turkish EU membership to register their vote. It should be noted that in the event, only 38 MEPs out of 736 put their vote against Turkey entering Political Union.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In recent months, the EU Member States’ visa policy for Turkish businesspeople has been an important issue. After achieving a relaxation of the visa requirements with France, the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (ITO) also signed an agreement with Italy in February this year. According to this agreement, businesspeople will be granted a multiple entry Schengen visa that is valid for five years if they can produce a reference letter from the ITO. This visa allows them to travel to all Schengen states. Germany has subsequently been criticised – unjustly – for its restrictive visa policy. The EU ought instead to take Germany’s doubts regarding such visa liberalisations seriously. Within the EU, Germany is the country that has the greatest burden of Turkish migrants. The risk that the so-called ‘businessperson’s visa’ will lead to permanent residence through the back door is high. It is not the Turkish Chamber of Commerce but the country of travel that should decide in individual cases whether or not a visa should be granted for business purposes. The problem is simply that the liberal visa policy of France and Italy has also opened the door to the rest of the Schengen area. That is a serious breach of national sovereignty. The Commission ought to give urgent consideration to this problem in connection with the development of trade relations with Turkey.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The report states that, in the context of the EU accession negotiations, the customs union with Turkey should be deepened first. Hence, the customs union is to be extended to the agricultural and services sector, for example, and to public procurement. The ongoing negotiations are not only about economic relationships. They are also about political and cultural issues and diverging religious and socio-political views which are incompatible with a Europe characterised by a Western, Christian tradition. For years, Turkey has been receiving billions in accession aid, which is more than sufficient to promote a strategic and trade partnership. It is imperative that the deepening of the customs union with Turkey be accompanied by progress in Turkey on the matter of Cyprus, in the area of human rights and democracy, and with regard to the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression. Turkey still has a long way to go on these issues. I therefore voted against the report, which represents another stealthy step towards Turkey’s future full membership of the EU.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report because it contains certain points I feel to be important. This is the fifth year running that Turkey has not fully implemented the additional protocol to the partnership agreement, and neither has it removed the obstacles to the free movement of goods.

Ankara must also reinforce the protection of intellectual property rights and apply European standards to the fight against counterfeiting. Lastly, a substantial reduction in trade barriers is also necessary, particularly for agricultural products. If Turkey, in fact, wishes to continue discussions and negotiations with the aim of its accession to the European Union, it must first respect some fundamental points, the main ones being the question of Cyprus and trade guarantees and regulations.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Turkey’s role within world trade has become increasingly strong because it acts as a link between Mediterranean regions and its neighbouring regions.

In this context, the customs union (CU) has allowed us to achieve a considerable level of integration between EU markets and Turkey. The CU covers all industrial products and processed agricultural products and its success can be seen from the statistics: Turkey ranks seventh in the EU’s top import markets and fifth in its export markets. However, the CU cannot yet be described as complete, and seems to be suffering from issues concerning remaining technical barriers to trade and excessive use of safeguard measures.

In this context, considering also the importance of relations between Turkey and the EU, this proposal aims to give due attention to trade and economic relations between both sides, adopting the initiatives necessary to further strengthen the quality of these relations and make the CU more functional. These actions can bring mutual benefits to both economies.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, given the large volume of trade and the stable ties existing between Turkey and the European Union. Turkey has become a key commercial partner of the EU, ranking seventh in the EU’s top import markets and fifth in the export markets. With two thirds of overall foreign direct investments (FDI) coming from the EU, Turkey has become an investment base for European business with increasing integration into the EU’s supply and production chain, often in high value added segments. In 2009, Turkey exported EUR 33.6 billion worth of products to the EU and imported EUR 40.4 billion worth of products from the EU. I welcome the fact that SMEs make up 99% of Turkish enterprises and provide 70% of employment opportunities in Turkey. Turkey must take the initiative by swiftly implementing the Nabucco intergovernmental agreement, defining a common external energy strategy and opening negotiations on the energy chapter, which would further increase cooperation in the field of energy. I think that commercial and economic relations between Turkey and the EU must be given the attention they deserve.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a veritable ode to the customs union and unconditional free trade, to free trade agreements between Turkey and third countries, to the World Trade Organisation agreements, and to the implementation of the Nabucco project. We cannot support a report whose structure is incompatible with our vision, despite some improvements arising from the amendments tabled by the left, particularly on the socio-economic situation, on unemployment among young people and women, and on trade union rights, as well as the positive reference to Turkey’s obligations regarding the additional protocol to the association agreement. They want to make Turkey the 28th state in the free market, without giving the country the full rights and responsibilities of a Member State of the European Union. We are opposed to this new postponement strategy.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The vote today on this report underlines that, given the important trade volume and deeply rooted relations between Turkey and the EU, due attention should be paid to their trade and economic relations and, in this context, the necessary steps should be taken to further improve these relations. To date, several technical issues remain to be resolved and immediate action should be taken in their respect. The customs union has to be rendered more functional; pending issues need immediate attention; and Turkey and the EU should further align their trade policies, especially in the context of FTAs and regional trade. These actions are likely to lead to a win-win situation which will be beneficial to both economies.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) I have endorsed the report on trade and economic relations with Turkey. This report demonstrates how important trade between the EU and Turkey is. In 2008, it amounted to no less than EUR 100 billion. The report puts its finger on a weak spot and rightly brings up the fact that there are still a great many problems that need to be resolved. The present report lists them impartially. It rightly reiterates that the EU’s policy seeks to advance ‘(…) democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, (...)’. Turkey should also make efforts to fully respect trade union rights in accordance with EU standards and the conventions of the International Labour Organisation, certainly vis-à-vis the right of association, the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining.

However, the European Union must shoulder its responsibility as regards visa liberalisation, not just for lorry drivers but also for businessmen and women, tourists, students and the elderly. Our relationship with Turkey must be fair, just and sincere. That means that we must continue to repeat the message loud and clear that the EU will fulfil its promise of allowing Turkish membership of the Union as soon as this country complies with all the Copenhagen criteria.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a veritable ode to the customs union and unconditional free trade, to free trade agreements between Turkey and third countries, to the World Trade Organisation agreements, and to the implementation of the Nabucco project. We cannot support a report whose structure is incompatible with our vision, despite some improvements arising from the amendments tabled by the left, particularly on the socio-economic situation, on unemployment among young people and women, and on trade union rights, as well as the positive reference to Turkey’s obligations regarding the additional protocol to the association agreement. They want to make Turkey the 28th state in the free market, without giving the country the full rights and responsibilities of a Member State of the European Union. We are opposed to this new postponement strategy.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on trade and economic relations with Turkey because it is not only a country in the process of joining the EU but is also a strategic partner of the European Union. The customs union with Turkey is one of the closest and most advanced commercial relationships that the EU can have with a third country. The EU accounts for 88% of the total sum of direct foreign investments in Turkey. Given its geostrategic position, Turkey is one of the countries making an important contribution to the diversification of the EU’s energy supply sources and routes. In this regard, I wish to stress the importance of the Nabucco project, and we call on Turkey to implement the Nabucco intergovernmental agreement. We also encourage Turkey to invest in the huge potential offered by its renewable energy sources. The Black Sea region is of particular geostrategic importance to the EU’s energy security and energy supply diversification, given its proximity to the Caspian Sea, the Middle East and Central Asia. The EU has also become a major actor in the region following the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU. In this context, I believe that the EU should develop a Black Sea strategy in which Turkey will have a very important role to play as well.

Report: Esther de Lange (A7-0241/2010)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems is an emergency that we are ignoring, or rather, we are not giving it our due attention.

Certain studies seem to indicate that the welfare loss from the loss of biodiversity is currently around EUR 50 billion per year, but this is essentially an ecological and not an economic matter. The United Nations has declared 2010 the Year of Biodiversity, emphasising the international nature of this issue and its crucial importance, particularly in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The EU has also committed itself to ensuring that the conservation of biodiversity is included in many EU policies. Furthermore, it has adopted the Habitats Directive, which, in turn, provides for the creation of an ecological network of special protection areas known as ‘Natura 2000’.

I believe that all Member States must improve the management of and respect for biodiversity, preserving the countryside and protected areas, maintaining and developing continuity between protected land, marine or agricultural areas of high natural value. The EU must also supply more funding for studies and new initiatives and devote more attention to guaranteeing compliance with all European regulations and directives particularly concerned with the conservation of biodiversity.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs de Lange’s report because I believe that much can yet be done to conserve biodiversity. I particularly support the passage in the report which states that ‘a successful tackling of the threefold crises of food security, biodiversity loss and climate change requires a coherent approach and a future EU biodiversity strategy that is fully integrated with the strategies for combating poverty and hunger and for the mitigation and adaption of climate change’.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This parliamentary own-initiative report deplores the lack of progress made in the protection of biodiversity. On account of a lack of political will, financing, transposition of European legislation and so on, the absolute minimum objective of ‘halting the loss of biodiversity’ set for 2010 has not been achieved and has been postponed to 2020. This report then proposes a list of measures to implement in order to ensure that this urgent objective is met. As I am concerned about the state of our environment and support the approach proposed by the rapporteur, Mrs de Lange, I voted in favour of this report.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I supported this report and voted for it with complete conviction. We must act to halt the loss of biodiversity caused by human actions. We all regret that neither the Gothenburg Agenda nor Natura 2000 have achieved their objectives. I believe that farmers play an important role in achieving the biodiversity objectives. I also believe that additional financial resources will have to be made available to biodiversity conservation programmes.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The current rate of biodiversity loss is alarming. The rapporteur estimates in fact that the rate of extinction of species is 50 to 1 000 times higher than normal. At European level, the ‘Natura 2000’ network has the objective of contributing to the maintenance of biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. The rapporteur nonetheless rightly deplores the differences between the Member States in the transposition and interpretation of the directives on Natura 2000. The fragmentation of funding in the area of biodiversity is also problematic. The majority of expenditure is, in effect, shared between the funds of the EAFRD, the common fisheries policy, the cohesion policy and the Seventh Framework Programme for research. Synergies will have to be found in the next multiannual financial framework. Finally, I welcome the Commission’s recent communication on a long-term strategy for biodiversity. It would be helpful if this communication and the consultation that relates to it gave rise to the formulation of precise political objectives and the introduction of appropriate measures at European level.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The failures observed in combating biodiversity urgently require a European response and I believe that this resolution contributes to this response. I therefore welcome the clear position arguing that stopping the loss of biodiversity constitutes the absolute minimum ambition to be achieved by 2020. Various measures are necessary in order to achieve this and the resolution tables some of these, of which I would stress greater cross-border cooperation and valuing of biodiversity, not least from the environmental and biological points of view. In this area, I would first of all stress the importance of biodiversity and the resilience of ecosystems in reducing the effects of climate changes and adapting to it. Secondly, I believe that it is important for this resolution to acknowledge that sustainable economic development and the conservation of nature must not be separable. I also believe that it is important for the development of environmental infrastructure to demonstrate potential for job creation.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union benefits from immense natural resources in terms of woodland, tree species, land and sea animals, nurtured by a wide range of climate conditions and obstructed by forms of behaviour that are not always proper. Fortunately, certain limits were established some time ago and the factors that hinder the conservation of this enormous wealth have been reduced.

It is nevertheless worth considering that biodiversity constitutes an ideal mutual control mechanism between the animal, plant and mineral components of nature. It allows the conservation of the balances that facilitate dietary variety, prevent certain natural catastrophes, and help in the struggle against climate change and the greenhouse effect. I am in favour of approving this report because it is a first step away from declarations of principle, which are naturally nearly unanimously supported, towards concrete actions to safeguard biodiversity.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The figures on biodiversity trends are extremely worrying. Between now and 2050, the rate at which species are being lost may increase by a factor of ten. In Europe, 42% of mammals, 43% of birds, 45% of butterflies, 30% of amphibians, 45% of reptiles and 52% of freshwater fish are threatened with extinction. This situation is unacceptable, not only from an ethical point of view, but also from an environmental and economic angle. That is why the European Commission must ensure that biodiversity is better integrated into its various fields of activity, particularly agriculture, regional policy, industry, development cooperation and research and innovation. The Union must also aim to strengthen international efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity and thus help achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The European Parliament has almost unanimously adopted this report, and it will have to act accordingly when we debate the reform of the common agricultural policy, fisheries policy or the new financial perspective.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Halting biodiversity loss is not only part of our ethical duty, since the notion of stewardship requires us to maintain our planet in a state where it can meet the needs of future generations, but it is also a reaction to evident ecological and economic facts. Recent studies have shown that the financial costs of biodiversity loss currently amount to some EUR 50 billion per year (or slightly less than 1% of the EU’s GDP) and these could rise to EUR 14 000 billion, or 7% of estimated annual GDP, in 2050. It is vital for the EU to be able to play an active role in the decisions taken at global level on the vision and objectives for biodiversity after 2010. It was therefore necessary, as provided for in the report voted through today, to create a vision and objectives in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond 2010 within the EU.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the implementation of EU legislation aimed at the conservation of biodiversity because ambitious measures are needed that enable the loss of biodiversity to be halted and ecosystems to be restored, specifically by using an approach that cuts across the EU’s various sectoral policies and recognises biodiversity as a fundamental element in mitigating and adapting to climate change.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) To quote the rapporteur, the loss of biodiversity threatens our food supplies, opportunities for recreation and tourism, capability to deal with climate change and sources of wood, medicines and energy. I therefore agree with the need for the EU in its entirety, and particularly all those areas covered by Union policies, to find a sustainable strategy for protecting biodiversity and preserving ecosystems. I believe that this is particularly important in the area of agriculture and fisheries, for which reason I am monitoring particularly closely the reforms of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy that are being prepared. This is because the adequate and sustainable preservation of biodiversity, while essential and desirable, cannot be a brake on the sustainability and development of agriculture and fishing.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The United Nations has declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity. Unfortunately, the EU will not achieve its biodiversity objective for 2010. The loss of biodiversity is continuing at an alarming rate. It is calculated that the rate of loss is accelerating towards a level that will be tenfold greater by 2050 than it is at present. In the EU, 42% of mammals, 43% of birds, 45% of butterflies, 30% of amphibians, 45% of reptiles and 52% of freshwater fish are under threat of extinction. In its mid-term review of the implementation of the Community Action Plan on Biodiversity in 2008, the Commission noted that 50% of species and up to 80% of the habitats whose conservation is a matter of European interest are in a poor state of conservation. This loss of biodiversity is unacceptable, not only from an ethical point of view, but also from an ecological and economic standpoint, since we are depriving future generations of the opportunity to benefit from a healthy biodiversity. European policies on protecting biodiversity need to be coordinated and integrated with other sectoral policies, particularly those relating to farming, forestry and fisheries, as well as policies on the prevention of natural disasters, in order to ensure maximum biodiversity protection.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report clearly draws attention to several significant issues: the incomplete implementation of legislation, the incomplete and insufficient integration of sectoral policies, the insufficient scientific knowledge and gaps in knowledge, the lack of political will, the insufficient financing, and the lack of effective instruments aimed at dealing with specific problems, such as invasive alien species.

In general, we share the concerns and demands expressed in the report. We view the inclusion in several of its chapters of proposals that we made during the debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety as positive, particularly those relating to financing and the inclusion of biodiversity in the relevant sectoral policies.

However, we cannot fail to point out and stridently reject the inclusion in the report of the reference to possible innovative systems for the payment of ecosystem services, even if this is included merely as a suggestion for consideration. This is an unacceptable commercialisation of nature. The loss of biodiversity constitutes one of the consequences of a system – capitalism – that is based on the exploitation and commercialisation of nature and its resources, irrespective of their natural capacity for regeneration.

It will not be possible to find a solution that is fair and effective for this or other environmental problems within the framework of this system.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report because the European Union must do everything it can to halt the loss of biodiversity between now and 2020 and to restore ecosystems. I strongly regret the fact that the objective of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 has not been achieved. The European Commission must ensure that biodiversity is better integrated into the Union’s other fields of activity, particularly agriculture, forestry, fisheries, regional and cohesion policy, industry, development cooperation and research and innovation.

Public expenditure will not, in itself, allow us to achieve the Union’s principal objective, which is why corporate responsibility must also integrate this aspect of biodiversity.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) 80% of the biodiversity of the French Republic is found in its overseas territories (the outermost regions and the OCTs). Forty-two per cent of the territory of Réunion Island has just been classified by UNESCO as a World Heritage site. These are all objective reasons for the need for the European Union to make a particular effort to protect biodiversity and for this real potential to be promoted in the outermost regions and OCTs. Now, the French outermost regions and the European OCTs are not eligible under the Natura 2000 and Life+ programmes. We need to remedy this shortcoming.

That is why I proposed that there should be a specific budget line in the draft 2011 budget. This budget line will cover the setting up of a specific programme, called BEST, for the outermost regions and the OCTs, for the purpose of the protection and promotion of biodiversity. This programme had been promoted at the end of the Réunion conference and supported by the European Council under the French Presidency. It is time to make this initiative a concrete reality.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The subject matter of this report is huge and the conservation of biodiversity cuts across a vast swathe of policy areas. Many environmental issues are of a nature which justifies intervention at EU level. Equally, many issues are best managed at a more local level, and there must be full respect for the principle of subsidiarity. This report calls for clear action in a number of areas, and it is important that both the Commission and the Member States take note.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this report because biodiversity loss is a serious threat. Biodiversity, which is of crucial importance for balanced development and poverty reduction, is essential for our planet, human well-being, survival and cultural integrity. However, now, due to people’s actions, biodiversity is disappearing at an unprecedented rate. It would be possible to change this tendency if local populations were able to benefit from biodiversity preservation and balanced use. It is noteworthy that sectors mostly cause biodiversity loss because insufficient consideration is given to aspects of biodiversity in sector policy, including the conservation of natural resources, agriculture, fishing, regional policy and spatial planning, forestry, energy and transport, tourism, development and economic cooperation. It is particularly relevant and necessary to stop biodiversity loss in Europe. Various types of national, EU and European policy are helping to achieve this goal. Many of these are intended for special measures for the protection of principal species and habitats, but in order to preserve biodiversity, the most important thing is to take the needs of biodiversity into account by drafting and implementing policy in the respective sectors. I am pleased with the aim to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, restoring them insofar as possible, and stepping up the EU’s contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) 2010 is the Year of Biodiversity. With the report by Mrs de Lange, Parliament is drawing positive conclusions for the preservation of biodiversity. I support this future-oriented report because I am certain that initiatives for the preservation of biodiversity are essential in order to avoid conflicts in the future. A healthy environment, biodiversity, the protection of fertile soils and clean water bodies are the basic prerequisites for ensuring the supply of food for future generations of the global population, too. However, without farmers, biodiversity is inconceivable. Agriculture already makes a major contribution to the protection of the environment and climate, for example, through CO2 storage in soils. In order to maintain this agricultural service in the public interest, adequate recognition and support are needed in future. Against the background of the increasing asphalting and concreting over of farmland for roads, buildings and industrial installations, we need measures to safeguard agriculture throughout the whole of Europe.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution because I consider that the struggle against biodiversity loss and the continual depredation of ecosystems, through a strategy of sustainable development, must be one of the cornerstones of the European Union’s legislative activities. Biodiversity is a fundamental resource for mankind’s existence on earth and for the well-being of future generations. For this very reason, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution.

According to all the data in our possession, unless the necessary measures are adopted to halt biodiversity loss induced by Man, by 2050, nature will have been impoverished to the point of irreversible damage. The EU has set itself the minimum objective of halting biodiversity loss by 2020 by means of a strategy that is consistent with and integral to the strategies of combating poverty and hunger and mitigating climate change. We have also called on the Commission to guarantee a more prominent place for biodiversity within the other EU policies.

Apart from the LIFE programme, we also need to identify new instruments that operate in synergy with other policies intrinsic to different areas such as fisheries, agriculture and the environment in general. Lastly, I absolutely agree with the implementation of an extensive information campaign on this topic among the citizens of the European Union.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The rampant rate of man-made biodiversity loss is worrying. Biodiversity should be viewed as the most reliable barometer of the state of the environment. Therefore, as the EU is faced with alarming biodiversity loss figures in which 42% of mammals, 43% of birds, 45% of butterflies, 30% of amphibians, 45% of reptiles and 52% of freshwater fish are threatened with extinction, I believe that the legislation that has just been implemented is essential and crucial to the conservation of biodiversity, and even its reinforcement. That is why I voted as I did.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I fully agree with the authors of the report that maintaining biodiversity is not only an ethical obligation, but that it also has ecological and economic value and is of crucial significance in mitigating climate change. I think the proposals for modification of the Nature 2000 programme are just what is needed.

This applies, in particular, to those which place emphasis on creating resistant ecosystems which can react to stress and which fulfil valuable ecosystem functions, and not only to those which concentrate on the protection of habitats and species under the programme. Something which also needs to be understood is the perspective of Member States which are undertaking large infrastructural projects. Working out a sensible compromise between environment protection and infrastructure development is the need of the hour. Development must not take place to the detriment of nature. Nature, however, must not prevent development.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support Mrs de Lange’s report because it deals with a topic that is sensitive, important and fundamental to the survival of our planet and hence, of future generations. The need to conserve and preserve biological diversity from extinction also underpins policies of adaptation to climate change and the global fight against famine and to support food security.

Parliament therefore really needs to get to grips with this issue, particularly in the light of the failure to achieve the 2010 objective of halting the loss of biodiversity, which has now been extended to 2020 in accordance with Council and Commission guidelines. I agree with the warning that the rapporteur sends out to all institutions, including the Member States, which are called upon to play a leading role in introducing serious local policies to implement EU guidelines.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I enthusiastically welcome this report on the implementation of EU legislation aimed at the conservation of biodiversity. It is a product of the importance that all of us recognise that it has in the environmental, economic and social spheres, and in sectors as diverse as agriculture, fisheries and tourism, and it underlines that same importance.

Today, I would like to highlight another matter that, although not omitted from the debate, has not received significant attention. I am referring to the intrinsic value of biodiversity, and to the moral duty that we have to protect and defend it. It is up to mankind, which, with the greatest power over biodiversity, has the greatest responsibility to preserve it and transfer this inheritance it has received to future generations to enjoy and care for. Thus, the EU is carrying out its duties by legislating to conserve biodiversity. This matter, undoubtedly, deserves my support.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The loss of biodiversity is continuing at an alarming rate: worldwide, the current global species extinction rate is much higher than the natural background rate. The Commission has stated that 50% of species and up to 80% of habitats of European conservation interest are disappearing.

The aim of halting the loss of biodiversity is very important for the purposes of climate change, considering that land and marine ecosystems absorb approximately half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, in my opinion, international and European initiatives and agreements aiming to halt the loss of biodiversity have not achieved great results, and the European public do not appear to be sufficiently well informed in this respect.

This year, new initiatives have been proposed with the aim of halting the degradation of ecosystems, and the Commission has presented four policy options that also include restoring biodiversity at global level. By the end of 2010, I hope we will see the publication of a proposal for a new EU strategy for biodiversity that also includes some legislative proposals. In its conclusions of 15 March, the European Environment Council agreed on a new headline target of halting the degradation of ecosystems in the EU by 2020.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) 2010 has been declared the Year of Biodiversity worldwide. Biodiversity, as the world’s natural capital, is essential to the existence of human life on Earth and to societies’ well-being, both directly and indirectly through the ecosystem services it provides. I wish to emphasise the importance of biodiversity conservation in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, not only because of the employment potential it can generate, but also because of the contribution it makes to the efficient and sustainable use of natural resources. I am concerned about the failure to meet the global target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, as defined at the World summit on sustainable development in 2002, and to achieve the 2015 objective of reducing poverty and hunger and improving health and human well-being, in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals. I believe that the main reason for European citizens’ inaction in combating loss of biodiversity is their lack of knowledge, as highlighted by a recent Eurobarometer survey: only 38% of Europeans are familiar with the term ‘biodiversity’, whereas 28% know the word but not its meaning, while 17% believe that the decline in biodiversity is affecting them already.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Human activity is causing a reduction in biodiversity at a frenzied pace. In Europe, nearly half of all mammals are under threat, and the situation is similar for birds. If this trend continues at the rate that has been observed during the last few decades, it will leave behind a natural environment which is damaged irreversibly. As I am deeply concerned by the current situation, and while the international political agenda does not address the fight against biodiversity reduction with the urgency it should, I am supporting the report by my fellow Member, Mrs de Lange. The report proposes several ideas for intensifying the fight against biodiversity loss in Europe, and calls for the introduction of specific policies to support investments – from the public as well as the private sector – which have a positive impact on biodiversity, while those which damage it must be discouraged. In order to be truly effective, it is clear that this fight on the part of the EU must be accompanied by international action, and it is imperative that the Commission and the Member States support the integration of biodiversity protection into global processes such as the Millennium Development Goals.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) The Union must take responsibility for the miserable failure of the 2010 strategy in combating biodiversity loss. From now on, it is up to all decision makers not to repeat the same mistakes between now and 2020, and to go beyond declarations of intent and move on to action. That is why Parliament is calling, in particular, for the urgent implementation of three key measures: adopting an integrated approach in all sectoral policies (agriculture, fisheries, transport, industry, etc.); putting an end to violations of European environmental legislation by Member States; allocating 0.3% of GDP to measures for biodiversity protection.

Parliament’s vote on this report is an excellent beginning. It remains for the Council and the Commission to take it up and to ensure without further ado that the deadlock on the Soil framework directive is broken, that there is adequate funding for the management of the Natura 2000 sites, and that bio-conditionality of State aid is implemented. Let us not hide the fact that there are still deadlocks due to the fact that the success of a strategy designed to stem biodiversity loss involves revisiting in depth our model of economic development.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) I strongly endorsed the motion for a resolution on biodiversity and the diversity of plant and animal species because it will spur government leaders to action. 2010 is the Year of Biodiversity. Over the past 40 years, biodiversity has decreased by one third. Nearly half of all mammals and birds are threatened with extinction. The European Parliament wants the decline of biodiversity to be brought to a halt by 2020.

For that reason, from now on, we must test all European subsidies and policies for their effect on biodiversity, so that funds can be directed to measures that will have a positive impact on the environment. The tenth conference on the Convention on Biological Diversity will take place in mid-October. The issue with that is that the European environment ministers will determine the European position only four days before the biodiversity conference begins. As early as mid-March 2010, when the CITES conference took place, it was apparent that a more extensive advance consultation was really necessary. Agreeing the EU’s Community position four days before the beginning of a conference is really leaving it too late to forge alliances with like-minded countries. The biodiversity issue must be higher on the European priority list. Protection of biodiversity must be integrated into our agricultural and fisheries policies and sufficient financial means need to be made available for the protection of nature.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The obligation to protect the biodiversity of our resources is an ethical one, given the growing threat to ecosystems and the risk of irreversible damage to the environment. The concerns surrounding the preservation of biodiversity also have a social and economic basis, because sustainable development is linked to economic stability. It is therefore essential to integrate this objective of protecting biodiversity into the various areas of action at European level, not least into the fight against climate change, into the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy, and into the objective of creating employment. The funding needed for this must be made available.

I cannot fail to mention the essential role of fishing in a country such as Portugal, which is why I advocate that the common fisheries policy must facilitate the observance of legislation that is applicable to biodiversity and aimed at the sustainability of the sector. In other areas of activity, such as agriculture, forestry, tourism, research and innovation, which are pivotal in the outermost regions, its potential for employment requires the development of a sustainable economy and of ecological concerns, with policies for the efficient use of resources, and for sustainable consumption and production.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – It is regrettable that the EU has not met its targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, as protecting our biodiversity is of great importance for ethical, ecological, as well as economic reasons.

It is an issue that cannot merely be reliant on public spending, but should also form part of corporate responsibility strategies across the EU to stop any further destruction of ecosystems and repair them where possible. I have supported the proposal to halt biodiversity loss by 2020, particularly as my constituency, Wales, has such a huge variety of ecosystems to offer.

I also believe achieving this target will allow the EU to be a global leader in its efforts to protect and preserve our biodiversity, and demonstrate to developing nations our commitment to the 2015 Millennium Development Goals.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) 2010 was to be the year when the European Union was finally to concern itself with biodiversity. It has to be said that its strategy in this area is a miserable failure despite the commitments it has repeatedly made, since 2001, in particular, to deal with the threats of extinction to a large number of species.

I therefore supported Mrs de Lange’s report adopted by the European Parliament on 21 September. It condemns the mediocre results of the EU and calls on the European Commission and the Member States at last to move from intentions to action.

In particular, it has adopted three key measures and is calling for their urgent implementation: an integrated approach to biodiversity in all the sectoral policies in question (agriculture, fisheries, transport, etc.); the application of and compliance with Community environmental legislation by Member States; an increase in the funding for measures in this area beyond that provided by the LIFE instrument. However, currently, the Member States do not give sufficient support to the LIFE projects.

Over and above that, our citizens must be made aware of the state that biodiversity is in and the grave risks threatening our ecosystems. Only 17% of the citizens of Europe are aware that biodiversity is in serious decline.

Report: João Ferreira (A7-0227/2010)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This summer, we received countless news reports informing us of two environmental disasters that struck two different countries, Russia and Pakistan.

It is true that these are unforeseeable and uncontrollable natural disasters, but it is also true that human activities sometimes help exacerbate situations of environmental decline. Pollution, acid rain, industrial pollution, landslides caused by problems associated with urban and land planning, and the desertification of certain areas are just some of the consequences of our actions.

Considering that natural disasters compromise ecosystems and biodiversity, affecting sustainable development and placing social cohesion at risk, it is essential to disseminate good preventive practices and raise awareness of the local geographical, economic and social context.

It is also important to carry out hazard and risk mapping in Europe, encourage the use of good, sustainable agricultural and industrial practices and strengthen links between the various early warning systems. I also believe it is necessary to consider mobilising the current EU Solidarity Fund in a swifter and more flexible manner and to further simplify administrative regulations so that natural disaster situations can be managed as quickly as possible.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for Mr Ferreira’s report, which marks an important step in the management of natural disasters, because it combines the prevention of these disasters, the causes and factors which increase vulnerability to them and the creation of a common EU fund. We know that prevention is better than cure. This is why I believe that reducing the risk of disasters will help save lives.

Consequently, I have proposed an amendment, which has received support, whereby I have asked for funding methods to be devised which will support the actions involved in preventing disasters, evaluating and reducing risks before a disaster occurs, and which will be aimed at providing a micro-finance facility and macro insurance for groups on low incomes.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Storm Xynthia, floods in Madeira, forest fires in Greece – Europeans are regularly tested by natural disasters with incalculable human and economic consequences. This parliamentary own-initiative report reminds us ‘that a proactive approach is more effective and less costly than one based simply on reacting to disasters’ and provides a list of actions to be taken. I voted for this report because I think that it is very useful, and that the European Commission should take inspiration from it as soon as possible, particularly in relation to the prevention of forest fires. For me, the next step now is to set up a European civil protection force which is able to help the Member States to cope with significant natural disasters.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this document. In recent years, EU Member States have been buffeted by a considerable number of disasters. Therefore, we need to strengthen the importance of prevention. Since Member States are primarily and chiefly responsible for the protection of their citizens and for disaster prevention, heightened cooperation in the area of prevention is fully justified, as are improved coordination of efforts, enhanced solidarity and mutual assistance. I agree with the document’s proposal that it is necessary to create a suitable financial framework at EU level for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters, which would back up and link existing instruments, including those in cohesion policy, regional policy and rural development policy. It is vitally important for Member States to enhance their research and development (R&D) capacity in the area of disaster prevention and management and to improve coordination and cooperation between Member States in this field.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) This report is closely linked to the biodiversity report and I obviously voted for it. Disasters have a cross-border dimension. We therefore need a European network within which national, regional and local authorities can cooperate. I have supported with my vote the idea that the Solidarity Fund needs to be reviewed. I also voted for a common methodology for risk and hazard mapping.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) As the figures indicate the extremely rapid increase in the number of natural disasters in recent years, along with their huge economic and social cost, it is becoming imperative for Member States to show greater concern for research and development in order to prevent similar events in the future and to reduce their numbers. With the same idea in mind, Member States must initiate specific coordination and cooperation mechanisms. This is why it is important, on the one hand, to strengthen early warning systems in Member States, forge and consolidate existing links between the various early warning systems while, on the other, examine and devise adaptation measures at both rural and urban level, given the increased frequency of extreme weather events. The magnitude and recurrence of disasters are often made more likely by policies that cause a flawed relationship between mankind and the environment.

The prevention of such disasters needs to be incorporated into the important sectoral policies to promote balanced land occupation and economic development that is in tune with nature. A financial framework needs to be created at EU level for preventing disasters, which will supplement existing instruments, including those featuring in EU policies.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Over the first six years of the EU Solidarity Fund, there were 62 requests for financial aid. Almost one third of these related to natural disasters described as ‘major disasters’.

I am delighted, for example, with the intervention of the Solidarity Fund in my region, Brittany, after storm Xynthia. European solidarity is essential for the best management of the economic, social, environmental and human consequences of natural disasters.

The rapporteur reminds us that the prevention of disasters must be a priority for the cooperation of Member States in this area. Thus, a proposal has been put forward to create a network of national, regional and local authorities to exchange good practice regarding preventive measures. I also join with the rapporteur in calling for the setting up of a financial framework, at EU level, appropriate for the prevention of natural disasters, in order to strengthen and coordinate current instruments.

Cohesion policy plays an essential role in the prevention of disasters. It contributes to reducing disparities between regions in this domain, particularly by improving the capacities of regions that are especially exposed to risk.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We have been witnessing the destructive power of natural disasters on an increasingly frequent basis. This resolution, for which I voted, points out various important actions. Of these, I would stress cooperation between the Member States on sharing practical knowledge of disaster management, with special emphasis on prevention. National investigation and development agencies should also have mechanisms for coordinating at this level.

I also welcome acknowledgement of the natural characteristics and constraints of regions that are isolated, more sparsely populated or undergoing a process of depopulation, mountainous and which are located along borders, as well as the peripheral and outermost regions. In fact, these regions should be paid particular attention.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There has been a sharp increase in the last few decades in the number and severity of natural and man-made disasters recorded in the EU. According to data from the United Nations, the trend is for continued growth of this vulnerability, owing, for example, to climate change, to the intensive use of soil, and to industrial and urban development.

There are already various EU instruments covering several aspects of prevention. These instruments have been proving insufficient, however, and at times, the level of implementation has left much to be desired, calling into question the application of a truly strategic approach by the EU to disaster prevention.

While the responsibility for protecting their populations and preventing disasters is primarily that of the Member States, these are phenomena that do not respect national borders and are transnational in scale in the majority of cases. As such, it is essential for an effective, solidarity-based approach to be promoted at European level. I have no doubt that a proactive approach will bring more effective and less wasteful results than a strategy of simply reacting to disasters.

Special attention must be given to the issue of the increase in forced migrations from regions that have been affected by environmental degradation, in which this type of refugee must benefit from protection and aid for resettlement.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I believe that there is the need for representatives of the agricultural sector to play a role within the disaster management mechanism with a view to evaluating and taking remedial action appropriate to the actual situation within this sector. This is necessary for more efficient coordination of existing resources, which will help consolidate the European Union’s policy on its immediate response capacity.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After the tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004, the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010 and storm Xynthia in February, how many other tragedies will there have to be before we finally have a Community approach to preventing natural disasters? Natural and man-made disasters are becoming more and more frequent, which is why we must ensure that national measures are more effective and better coordinated, and that European measures are more flexible. As well as prevention, I want to point out again that since 2006, we have had a report by Mr Barnier on establishing a rapid reaction force for responding to natural disasters. What is stopping us from adopting it? What is stopping us from using it?

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is clear that natural disasters are occurring more often in Europe at the moment, demanding prevention, reaction and coordinated solutions at European level. I believe that the complementarity of the levels of response to these scourges must be an underlying assumption of this coordination. I also think it is important to assess the Solidarity Fund and review how it is mobilised, so that it can be more flexible and adaptable to the characteristics and differences among the regions for which it is intended.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) An increasing number of natural disasters have been affecting the Member States of the EU, many of them on a large scale. It is notable that over the first six years of the EU Solidarity Fund, it has had 62 requests for financial support from 21 different countries. These natural disasters compromise biodiversity, affect sustainable development and put social cohesion at risk. Rural flight and desertification are among the causes of these disasters and, simultaneously, these processes are exacerbated by such disasters. Climate change will make natural disasters even worse. The solution covers prevention and support for the most vulnerable regions. This prevention must be part of a logic of cooperation and coordination at European level, and a strengthening of European solidarity. I am therefore advocating a suitable financial framework for disaster prevention. This framework must strengthen and encourage links between the current instruments and cohesion policy, rural development policy, regional policy, the Solidarity Fund, the Seventh Framework Programme and the Life+ programmes. The next financial perspectives must clearly reflect this goal. I would also argue that there is a need to review the Solidarity Fund regulations, adapting the eligibility criteria to the characteristics of each region and disaster.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this report is of particular importance in a year in which several European countries were beset by disasters that had profound impacts on their populations, territories, economies and environments. This fact has contributed to better public understanding of the importance of disaster prevention and to collective awareness of the importance of strengthening it. We have collated recent experiences arising from these disasters along with an analysis of their causes and consequences, which are important elements of this report.

We sought to include in this report a wide range of guidelines and recommendations that can be applied to various types of disaster. The indisputable signal given by the broad consensus in favour of this report during discussion and voting mean that it is now necessary for the European Commission and the Council to put the measures proposed here into practice.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – I would like to thank MEP Ferreira for his initiative in putting forth a motion for a European Parliament resolution on this issue of such wide-reaching relevance and importance. As a Polish citizen, I have seen and experienced the traumatic effects of natural disasters – in particular, those of floods – on my nation’s general well-being. Furthermore, as a European citizen, I recognise the importance of a European-level, solidarity-based prevention mechanism. Let me also take this opportunity to highlight that we have concrete instruments which oblige Member States to develop prevention mechanisms against natural disasters – more specifically, the Floods Directive.

The recent example of Poland illustrates the consequences of a lack of proper implementation with regard to this legal act. Natural disasters do not discriminate, and neither should the prevention nor response effort. It is my belief that when what is at stake is human life, as well as the environment, economy, and security of any nation or region, the issue becomes less a political one and more so a moral one. It is in this line of reasoning that I would like to join my colleagues in voting ‘yes’ to this motion for resolution.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Fires in Portugal, floods in Saxony, forest fires in Greece, Xynthia in western France – these last few years have shown us how necessary it is to have a genuine European strategy for dealing with natural disasters, and how beneficial it would be: a strategy for prevention, but also a strategy concerning the European Union’s response and reaction capability in the face of such disasters. I therefore voted strongly in favour of this report, which calls for a European approach to this matter which is Community-based, global, coordinated and balanced, in accordance with the essential principle of European solidarity. I sincerely hope that the Commission will quickly put forward specific proposals to strengthen cooperation and exchanges of practice between Member States in this area, to allow for better communication between the competent authorities, to improve procedures, to speed up mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund and, above all, to ensure that disaster prevention is included in the next European Union financial perspective.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Mr Ferreira’s report highlights the numerous potential causes of disaster and, of these, potentially the most serious in the long-term are accidents involving nuclear material. Large areas of the EU are, to this day, still suffering as a result of the Chernobyl disaster and it is my belief that there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy. A number of governments across the EU are intent on building new nuclear power stations, thereby simply increasing the chances of future nuclear disasters. My party and the Scottish Government remain firmly of the opinion that our energy needs must lie in non-nuclear power.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this report because in recent years, EU Member States have been buffeted by a number of disasters which have had a considerable and lasting impact on the environment and economy of the populations affected. The damage is often hard to gauge, when talking about the loss of human life. The report highlights the need for the Solidarity Fund Regulation to be revised and stresses the need to create a suitable financial framework for disaster prevention, with adequate financial resources for preventing and combating disasters. This would strengthen and link existing instruments such as cohesion policy, rural development policy, regional policy, the Solidarity Fund, the Seventh Framework Programme and the Life+ programmes. The report calls on the European Commission to assess the possibility of proposing a more systematic pooling of available resources in order to strengthen the effectiveness of prevention mechanisms across the EU. I am delighted that it is finally being recognised that a European agricultural public insurance scheme has to be created. The Commission should come forward with a proposal for a European public insurance system to better address the risk and income instability of farmers related to natural and man-made disasters. This system should be more ambitious than the present model in order to avoid a multiplicity of different insurance schemes in the EU, creating huge imbalances between farmers’ incomes. I consider it urgent for a minimum compensation scheme for natural or man-made disasters to also be accessible to farmers across all Member States

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – The European disaster prevention framework would be very helpful in the prevention of natural and man-made disasters. The South and West of Ireland faced many disasters last year; this initiative is of vital importance. I welcome the focus that would be placed on the training and awareness-raising activities and the plans to reinforce early warning tools. This report has put a huge emphasis on prevention, and has underlined the importance of the role of national, regional and local authorities in the prevention aspect. As these are the authorities who are closest to the action when natural and man-made disasters occur and thus should be given a pivotal role in the prevention of them.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Our countries have been beset by disasters with devastating effects on communities and ecosystems. The scale of these disasters is reflected in the increasingly frequent occurrence of extreme climatic phenomena, not to mention human error in balanced regional planning. By acknowledging the decisive significance of prevention by the EU, the report is headed in the right direction. This also holds true in the insistence on the need for cooperation and coordination between Member States.

Nevertheless, it is also important to reinforce the European Union’s capacity for specific responses, namely by committing to using instruments to prevent and combat disasters at European level that are linked to those of the Member States, as well as to local and community strategies. If we want to obtain the best results with the most intelligent use of resources, no level of response must be forgotten and the responses must complement each other.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report on the Commission communication ‘A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters’ is worthy of approval without any particular comment. A continuous reciprocal exchange of information and good practice would certainly bring about an improvement in scientific knowledge and improve everyone’s capacity for intervention.

Cross-border cooperation at several levels, whether macro-regional or regional, would increase the efficacy of existing prevention methods. It is also essential to emphasise the importance of voluntary activities and for this reason, cooperation between Member States must be stepped up.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Prevention of natural disasters and, by extension, man-made disasters, should be one of the EU’s priorities, although it is not an easy task. Increasingly, the argument is being made that intensive soil use, unchecked industrial and urban growth, rural flight, desertification and the intensification of the occurrence of extreme climate phenomena, among other things, have been responsible for making the Member States more vulnerable to disasters, both natural and man-made. It is therefore important for all of us to join forces to combat the aforementioned factors so that such disasters – which cause great damage to property and are responsible for the loss of lives, which cannot be repaired – are not repeated so frequently.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) I voted for this resolution because I consider the issue of preventing man-made disasters to be extremely important. It is absolutely essential to increase the financing of programmes aimed at the conservation of natural resources in Europe. Woods, lakes, rivers – they have all become business assets. We must draw up a common EU framework in addition to this resolution, and strictly rein in this indifferent consumer attitude towards natural resources.

I have encountered such an attitude in my homeland, Latgale, where woodland is being barbarously destroyed. The Latvian Government is ‘torpedoing’ EU projects aimed at conserving lakes and rivers. Latvian legislation permits the elimination of rare species of fish, and no one bears responsibility for this. I voted ‘for’, in the hope that this signal from the EU will reach the Latvian Government.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Increasing occurrences of extreme weather conditions are causing serious natural catastrophes within the EU which hit the rural population particularly hard. It is the responsibility of the Member States to put more resources into disaster assistance and prevention.

In particular, it is important to ensure that the victims of these catastrophes receive rapid support, including financial aid, when they are in difficulties. The ideal solution would be cooperation among all the Member States in the EU to share expertise and practical measures. I have abstained from voting because, in my opinion, the report is too broadly worded and does not specify any actual action to be taken.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because the floods which affected almost the whole of Europe this spring and summer, not to mention the floods which affect certain Member States every year, have demonstrated how important disaster prevention is. I also voted for this report because it gives a key role to the relationship between natural disasters and agriculture, proposing basic solutions to some of the problems we are facing.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The Member States of the European Union have been hit, in recent years, by natural disasters which have had tragic results. Several months ago, Poland and other countries of Central Europe became the victims of a devastating flood. Not a month passes without the media reporting information about a catastrophe which has hit the residents of Europe. We must, however, make the effort to think about what steps we should take to be able to prevent natural disasters.

The report rightly shows that the basic cause of natural disasters is mankind’s flawed relationship with the surrounding natural environment. I also support the proposal contained in the report to create a suitable financial framework at European Union level for protection against man-made disasters. I think, too, that the proposal to strengthen cooperation between national, regional and local authorities in the area of combating natural disasters is well-founded.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in plenary in the European Parliament today in favour of the report on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters in the EU. This is a particularly important initiative, which will go a long way towards preventing incidents such as forest fires, floods, freak weather incidents and technological and industrial accidents. The basic objective is to create an appropriate financing framework for disaster prevention, which is integrated into the 2014-2020 financial perspective and places particular emphasis on providing support for the most isolated and sparsely populated regions. The report seeks primarily to create a balanced rural development policy by creating a European agricultural public insurance scheme designed to prevent the problems caused by the multitude of different insurance systems in the EU. At the same time, farmers in all the Member States need to be given minimum compensation if they are to be able to restore the damage caused by such disasters.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We must bear in mind that disasters tend to affect, to a greater extent, those in greatest need, who do not have the resources available to protect themselves, their families or their assets. I voted for this report as it is relevant and necessary to create a suitable financial framework at EU level for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters which will consolidate and link existing instruments, including those in the cohesion, regional and rural development policy areas. EU funding should give priority to a series of prevention measures to be implemented by Member States which are generally aimed at redressing situations potentially conducive to risks, protecting inhabited areas, monitoring the safety of major infrastructures and at drafting and reviewing building safety and land use regulations.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Our countries have been beset by disasters with devastating effects on communities and ecosystems. The scale of these disasters is reflected in the increasingly frequent occurrence of extreme climatic phenomena, not to mention human error in balanced regional planning. By acknowledging the decisive significance of prevention by the EU, the report is headed in the right direction. This also holds true in the insistence on the need for cooperation and coordination between Member States.

Nevertheless, it is also important to reinforce the European Union’s capacity for specific responses, namely by committing to using instruments to prevent and combat disasters at European level that are linked to those of the Member States, as well as to local and community strategies. If we want to obtain the best results with the most intelligent use of resources, no level of response must be forgotten and the responses must complement each other.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In the last few years, the Member States of the European Union have fallen victim to a considerable number of natural or man-made disasters: fires, storms, floods, droughts, and so on. The human, economic and social costs of these disasters, which most often extend across national borders, are dramatic. As I believe that it is essential to take a European approach to the prevention of such disasters, I endorse the report by my fellow Member, Mr Ferreira. While we need to increase cooperation between the Member States and to pool their resources in order to strengthen the effectiveness of prevention mechanisms throughout the Union, we must also ensure that the prevention of such disasters is better taken into account, in a transverse manner, in the EU’s various policies. In addition, we must promote better coordination and cooperation between the Member States on research and development relating to the prevention of natural or man-made disasters.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We, the Greens, have supported this report as it notes that natural and man-made disasters may have very serious consequences for the economic and social development of regions and Member States and points out that the main objective of disaster prevention is to safeguard human life, the safety and physical integrity of individuals, fundamental human rights, the environment, economic and social infrastructures, including basic utilities, housing, communications, transport and the cultural heritage. It stresses that a proactive approach is more effective and less costly than one based simply on reacting to disasters, taking the view that knowledge of the local geographical, economic and social context is fundamental to the prevention of natural and man-made disasters.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Leaving aside the fact that Member States are primarily and mainly responsible for civil defence and disaster prevention, I agree with the rapporteur’s approach in calling for greater coordination and greater cooperation between local, regional and national authorities in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

A Community approach should make reducing the disparities between regions and Member States in this area a central focus. It is also essential to view prevention from a cross-cutting perspective, in respect of the various Union policies, including through the introduction of an appropriate financial plan.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the resolution on the Commission communication: A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters. This year, we have had very severe frosts, floods, tropical heat waves and tornadoes in Europe. Millions of Europeans have suffered. Similar things are going to happen in the future. Faced by this increase in disasters, the optional cooperation of Member States and temporary EU help in preventing, reacting to and coping with the effects of disasters are no longer sufficient. We need a global Union strategy, as part of which a protocol will be introduced on uniform measures for particular kinds of natural disaster, especially those which often recur (forest fires, floods and droughts).

Solidarity between countries is essential, and particular attention should be paid to regions which are less privileged in terms of geographical location, population density and economic and social conditions. The strategy must be reflected in the new financial framework for 2014-2020. In this context, it is important to combine existing aid instruments, such as cohesion policy, rural development policy, regional policy, the Solidarity Fund, the Seventh Framework Programme and Life+ programmes. Pursuant to previous resolutions of the European Parliament, consideration should be given to establishing a European Drought Observatory and developing a special initiative in the area of forest protection and fire prevention. I also renew my appeal to Parliament and the Commission for the immediate drawing up of a new proposal on further simplification of administrative rules and increasing the flexibility of the European Union Solidarity Fund.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Our countries have been beset by disasters with devastating effects on communities and ecosystems. The scale of these disasters is reflected in the increasingly frequent occurrence of extreme climatic phenomena, not to mention human error in balanced regional planning.

By acknowledging the decisive significance of prevention by the EU, the report is headed in the right direction. This also holds true in the insistence on the need for cooperation and coordination between Member States.

Nevertheless, it is also important to reinforce the European Union’s capacity for specific responses, namely by committing to using instruments to prevent and combat disasters at European level that are linked to those of the Member States, as well as to local and community strategies. If we want to obtain the best results with the most intelligent use of resources, no level of response must be forgotten and the responses must complement each other.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If it is true that the principal responsibility for preventing and handling natural disasters lies with each Member State, then I believe that the European institutions should encourage cooperation between the Member States by systematising and optimising the available resources, and making actions at both EU and regional level complement each other better.

This strategy should aim to reduce inequalities between regions in terms of their capacity to protect their populations and their investment in research, prevention, anticipation and resolution of these phenomena, with particular focus on the outermost regions. In the event of a disaster, the natural constraints of these regions, which often face a combination of risks, as in the case of Madeira, should allow the various financial instruments under cohesion policy to be used, and the conditions to activate these instruments should be made more flexible.

It is clear to me that the Solidarity Fund should be revised to make mobilising it faster and its eligibility criteria more flexible. This report, which I support, reflects these concerns. I would like to remember the victims of the severe natural disaster that occurred in Madeira in February 2010, as well as their family members, and reiterate the extreme urgency in activating the Solidarity Fund for reconstruction in Madeira.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on the Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters because I believe that it is crucial for the EU to take action in this area. Investments in disaster prevention measures are necessary as the cost of preventive measures is generally much less compared to that of remedial measures.

Given the trans-border aspect of disasters, such as the floods in 2002, the forest fires in 2007 and this summer’s floods, we need a set of effective instruments for preventing, intervening and taking action to mitigate the effects of disasters. The specific measures envisaged by the Commission are intended to identify risk areas and renaturalise river beds; restore and protect river basins, wetlands and related ecosystems; clear up and reorder forests; promote reforestation; protect and defend the coastline; prevent and mitigate the effects of earthquakes and draw up a list of good practices aimed at facilitating the exchange of information between stakeholders.

One important step for improving the effectiveness of the instruments in the current disaster prevention policy must be to increase the flexibility of the procedures involved and speed up access to the EU Solidarity Fund so that the resources requested reach those affected as quickly as possible.

Report: Eleni Theocharous (A7-0192/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report. I believe that greater emphasis is required on social protection systems to prevent poverty and tackle social problems, thereby helping stabilise the economy and maintain and boost employment capacity. Priority must be given to actions intended to help meet basic social needs, foster the protection of children and vulnerable women who have been hit hard by the crisis, as well as young people at risk, low paid, unqualified and migrant workers, rural workers and disabled people.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I support the call in the report for all developing countries to be associated with the International Labour Organisation’s Decent Work Agenda and for the right to freedom from forced labour and from child labour to be upheld without exception.

According to estimates, there are 218 million children working worldwide. Of those, 126 million are engaged in hazardous work. Poverty will be the lot of children who are excluded from the education system and put to work against their will. Significant measures must be implemented to combat child labour, to create jobs for adults in place of it and to allow children to get a proper education.

The international community must be committed to making every effort to eliminate child labour and definite measures must be put in place to fulfil that commitment.

I also support what the report says about meeting basic needs of people in developing countries and about paying special attention to security of food supply and access to clean drinking water.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this report. In order to reduce poverty in developing countries, it is necessary not only to generate employment but also to create new sustainable jobs. To achieve this it is necessary to take measures to coordinate macro-economic policy and focus on the stability of real output, incomes and employment. Small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the agricultural sector, need effective financial support such as the provision of micro-credits, micro insurance and public financial support. The Commission and donor countries should review existing possibilities in terms of additional and innovative sources of financing for development and identify new ones to allow developing countries to diversify their sources of revenue and implement effective, concrete and operational spending programmes. Moreover, particular emphasis must be placed on solving one of the biggest problems in developing countries – combating child labour and giving all children the opportunity to receive primary education. This can be achieved by the implementation of the right to freedom from forced labour.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I, too, supported and voted for this report. The EU Treaty includes obligations on combating poverty. Developing countries are experiencing the greatest social challenges. I agree with the idea of governments making the protection of children, vulnerable women, rural workers and people with disabilities a priority. I also voted in support of the need for developing countries’ budgets and EU development aid to allocate at least 20% of their spending to health and basic education.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because in it, the European Parliament calls for poverty reduction in developing countries where hunger, malnutrition and the exclusion from access to food and basic public services affect millions of these countries’ inhabitants.

The other huge problem faced by developing countries is that the majority of their inhabitants have no adequate social protection coverage, although social protection systems have been proven to be powerful instruments for poverty reduction and social cohesion.

I would like to highlight the problem of child labour because it is one of the major obstacles to achieving universal primary education completion and reducing poverty, and hampers the healthy upbringing and necessary education of these children.

I therefore agree with Parliament’s call for the promotion of education aid and the implementation of child labour policy through strengthening the Global Task Force for Child Labour and Education. Furthermore, it is very important for the international community, all states concerned and the EU to commit themselves to doing their utmost to eradicate child labour as a matter of urgency. In addition, all development strategies should pay special attention to the most vulnerable and marginalised, especially women, children, older people and people with disabilities.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Now that an international summit is taking place in New York on achieving the Millennium Development Goals and the European Parliament has adopted the report on poverty reduction in developing countries, I feel it is important to emphasise the role that micro-credit can play in achieving these objectives. Micro-credit generally entails granting loans of small sums to entrepreneurs who cannot access conventional bank loans. In developing countries, it helps give practical expression to a large number of economic microprojects that promote wealth creation and, consequently, development. Basic funding of projects helps to create an economic network in the countries concerned and to involve small local players. Micro-credit thus allows these players to be made responsible for their own development and enables their dependence on conventional development aid to be reduced. By affecting sectors as diverse as agriculture, small crafts and the social economy, micro-credit can thus facilitate a tangible impact on local development. I therefore invite the European Commission and the Member States to take seriously this responsible means of development aid.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order to respond to the scourge of poverty in developing countries, these countries need to have an adequate economic situation. This report reinforces the importance of making processes less bureaucratic, encouraging the promotion of saving and of access to credit, and strengthening regional integration. It also mentions the urgency of promoting the involvement of civil society organisations in formulating and monitoring public policy, reinforcing the role of relevant representative organisations, and strengthening the legal and social status of women. I also believe that, as mentioned in the report, employment policy should include investment in ‘green jobs’ and in green industry, for example, developing renewable energy and energy efficiency. Moreover, on the challenges for donor countries, the report stresses the simplification of its aid procedures and innovative sources of financing. I consider these crucial.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The statistics circulated by the competent institutions on poverty and malnutrition are more than mere numbers. Behind these percentages and absolute values, there are individuals who struggle to make ends meet or suffer from severe diseases due to a poor or bad quality diet.

The undertaking to reduce poverty should be assumed with the greatest responsibility and cannot be reduced to a series of slogans and mindless expressions. We must study the problems with care and find solutions that reconcile the interests of less-developed countries with developed countries; the interests of companies and those of consumers, industrialists and farmers – and all the categories involved. We will certainly not allow others to fly by clipping our own wings, but by shouldering burdens proportional to our own strength and abilities. It is therefore important to demonstrate the good practices of market economy to foster mechanisms of growth and development while, at the same time, providing the right incentives and the right training to get out of the poverty trap.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) For the first time in history, there are a billion people affected by hunger. This year alone, a further 64 million people have joined the ranks of those who were already suffering from extreme hunger. This reality compels us to focus on job creation in developing countries as this is the most effective way of beating poverty and social exclusion. With this in mind, more consistent assistance is required to support the education process and halt the exodus of workers with good qualifications. The recent food price crisis has highlighted the tension caused by the lack of food security in poor countries. Therefore, greater attention needs to be focused on agriculture at a time when it offers the only means of subsistence for the majority of the population in developing countries, 75% of which is concentrated in rural areas.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this report which provides an overview of the main challenges to job creation and poverty reduction in the run up to the deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. It reiterates the call for EU Member States to meet their aid commitments. In addition, it pays particular attention on governance and capacity building, whilst trying to promote greater stakeholder participation. There is also a focus on helping Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries through establishing infrastructure and technology transfer. It is necessary not only to generate employment but to create quality jobs. All developing countries should sign up to the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Decent Work Agenda and the UN Social Protection Floor initiative in order to guarantee satisfactory labour standards and high levels of comprehensive social protection coverage that reach the poorest and most marginalised groups. Indeed, particular emphasis needs to be placed on combating child labour. This report calls for free and full access for all to educational systems, i.e. basic and higher as well as vocational education, so that the local population can become qualified skilled workers, as without education, children are condemned to a life in poverty and the economy to stagnation.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report voted on today highlights the importance for developing countries of applying international labour standards, making provision for adequate funding for micro enterprises, especially in the agricultural sector, fighting against corruption and giving social partners an interest in economic development.

It also stipulates that education should be accessible to all as the development of human resources must be part of all development strategies and is crucial to job creation. Regarding the donor countries, the report calls for the promises to donate 0.7% of GDP to development aid between now and 2015 to be honoured, as well as for the coordination of development policies between the Commission and the Member States of the EU.

As a reminder, back in 2005, the World Bank estimated that 1.4 billion people were living in extreme poverty, that is, on less than USD 1.25 per day. This primarily concerns Sub-Saharan Africa (51%). Then there is the population of South Asia (40.3%). What is more, 2.5 billion people still live in what is called moderate poverty, that is, on less than USD 2 per day.

  Harlem Désir (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Yesterday saw the opening of the United Nations summit on the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Even if progress has been achieved, we are far from the objectives set for poverty reduction between now and 2015.

In order to achieve them, the first imperative is job creation in the developing countries, as, according to a recent joint report by the IMF and the ILO, there are more than 210 million unemployed in the world in 2010, as the crisis has caused the loss of 30 million jobs since 2008. The ILO is calling for employment to no longer be considered as an outcome of other policies but as a primary objective and pillar of growth strategies.

Sustainable development, support for jobs and support for decent work demand support for the diversification of the economy, compliance with ILO standards, a set of social protection rights for all, investment in public services and addressing basic needs such as access to water, to health and to food security. More employment will also be a prerequisite for the stability and strengthening of democracy. That is the thrust of the Theocharous report.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, as it advocates reinforcement of the legal and social status of women, with the objective of preventing discrimination and exploitation of women’s potential for economic and social development in developing countries. Promoting gender equality in these countries is also an investment in ensuring better economic success. It is also important to ensure that basic education and public health continue to form the basis of development policy. The current economic crisis cannot justify any reduction in international aid to these sectors.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is impossible to deal with this topic without mentioning the European Union’s leadership in providing aid for developing countries. Despite the efforts already made, it has to be acknowledged that much remains to be done in this area and that poverty and unemployment quite obviously continue to scourge those countries. After independence, the leaders of many of them engaged in anti-European rhetoric. Such arguments, of course, are largely outmoded today. Unfortunately, the information reaching us about the levels of corruption and of respect for people’s rights, freedoms and safeguards in developing countries leaves much to be desired.

The Union does well to maintain aid levels and to fight for the adoption of best practices. It must not relax its demands, and it must certainly not deal with those who profit from other people’s misery.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Combating poverty and social exclusion makes it necessary to have a clear commitment to fully developing human beings, and to putting economic and power relationships on a moral basis. A wider definition of poverty should be promoted, which includes deprivation, social exclusion and a lack of participation, as put forward in the United Nations’ ‘Rethinking Poverty – Report on the World Social Situation 2010’. The governments of developing countries should diversify their economies, following a sustainable route to development, facilitating the emergence of companies – small and medium-sized enterprises in particular – and combating bureaucracy and corruption. Donors and partner countries should ensure that agriculture, particularly smallholder farming and small and medium-sized eco-friendly agro-industries, move up the development agenda. They must commit to education and professional training, combating child labour, and establishing satisfactory labour standards and high levels of comprehensive social protection coverage. Child labour constitutes an obstacle to the establishment of universal primary education and poverty reduction. Therefore, coordination between agencies and inter-agency coordination and alignment in education aid and child labour policy must be strengthened. I also advocate the promotion of greater efforts to ensure gender equality.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The final version of this report contains positive and negative points that contradict each other.

It starts off on the wrong foot when it subordinates strong, sustainable economic growth to the needs of business. The reason for economic growth must be the people. It is the workers who create wealth and economic growth, and production must be organised for their sake and to meet social needs, and not for the sake of profit. The organisation of material production for the sake of profit rather than people’s needs generates poverty and unemployment, whereas the alleged aim of this report is to fight that.

We can also find positive points, particularly where the report talks about a rethinking of privatisation policies concerning utilities like water, basic sanitation and services of general interest, support for public services and the need to do away with tax havens.

For our part, we believe that the proposed aim can only be achieved if economic and commercial relations are restructured, by immediately breaking with neoliberalism, the trade liberalisation agreements set up under the World Trade Organisation and the free-trade agreements already in place or under negotiation; if developing countries’ foreign debts and debt servicing are wiped out; and if the structural adjustment policies imposed by international financial institutions are abolished.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Amongst the many good points contained in this report on developing countries, there is a call for a rethink of privatisation policy, particularly in areas such as water and sanitation. I consider that such a rethink applies as much to the developed world and believe that water services are of such fundamental importance that they should be allowed to exist purely for the public good and not for private profit.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I supported the report because poverty reduction and job creation are the greatest problems the world faces today and are a prerequisite of balanced development and economic growth, particularly in developing countries. I am pleased that there are calls for a rethinking of privatisation policies, especially concerning utilities like waste disposal and management, water and heating, property maintenance and other socially important services. Public service provision must be under the strict control of councils or governments. Services must be equally accessible and of equal quality for everyone, regardless of residents’ income or dependence for social groups. The increasing privatisation of institutions providing public services, take Vilnius for example, causes much concern. It is easy to destroy existing services and their providers’ infrastructure. However, what will happen if a business stops to provide a specific service or provides it at a highly inflated price? The main goal of the interested parties is to show that the state or the council cannot provide services as effectively as private companies could, and then services are privatised. Who could say that we have not been influenced by this? Public services are too sensitive and important to people for them to be placed recklessly in private hands. Safeguarding and developing such services must be a priority.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – This report outlines the main challenges to job creation and poverty reduction in light of the financial crisis. It calls on EU Member States to meet their aid commitments as agreed upon under the Millennium Development Goals. Moreover, it seeks the promotion of greater stakeholder participation in small-scale land ownership and focuses on assisting Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries through establishing infrastructure and technology transfer.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The European Union is called on to speed up the progress of the global fight against poverty and hunger, as there are around 1.4 billion people suffering extreme poverty. The causes of this are many. The sad fact is that, due to the political conditions, shortcomings in respect of democracy and the rule of law and geographical disadvantages, developing countries are limited in what they can do to take advantage of opportunities themselves. In order to achieve real success with regard to development aid, the right action needs to be taken, targeted at the root of the problem. This report emphasises how important it is for the developing countries to expand their manufacturing sector and to reduce excessive bureaucracy and corruption, promote education, implement international social and production standards and to provide financing facilities for micro enterprises, especially in the agricultural sector. Food security is vital for a country and its population. The degree to which a country can supply its own food increases its independence and reduces the potential for conflict. The basic prerequisite for this is the maintenance and promotion of agricultural production and the protection of soil and water.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I believe that in order to reduce poverty, not only is employment generation required but also the creation of quality jobs. Small and micro enterprises, particularly in the agricultural sector, need suitable funding and micro-credits to preserve existing jobs and create other new ones.

In this regard, I support the request submitted to the Commission and Member States for them to increase the public financial support allocated to small and micro enterprises, as well as to farmers in developing countries, as called for by the International Labour Organisation’s Global Jobs Pact.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report on poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries, particularly in terms of the incentive to recognise the contribution of the social economy (e.g. cooperatives) to job creation and the promotion of decent work in developing countries, and to include the social economy in EU development programmes and cooperation strategies.

It is also important for developing countries to sign up to the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda so that the workers in these countries can at last enjoy appropriate working standards.

We must urgently stop the mindless race to exploit child labour and instead promote education as a foundation for the future of new generations.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report is acceptable. Although it does not call into question trade liberalisation and it relies on the WTO, an appreciable number of the measures proposed may well improve the living conditions of the citizens of the Southern countries.

The promotion of systems of social protection, the integration of the social economy in cooperation agreements, the defence of a quality healthcare system for all and free access for all to basic, higher and professional education, the defence of access to drinking water, and incentives by the EU to respect the electoral choices of peoples, are among the many points to the credit of this report.

It even defends the introduction of independent parliaments with real legislative, budgetary and supervisory powers. The application of such recommendations might perhaps allow the laudable intentions of this own-initiative report to be fulfilled.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As the EU is an area of solidarity, there is clear concern about poverty and job creation in developing countries. We all know that this goal will only be achieved with solid and sustainable growth in a stable environment. It is therefore necessary for developing countries to diversify their economies by developing their processing sectors, while also seeking to cut excessive bureaucracy, so as to make small and medium-sized enterprises the engine of employment and growth. By successfully transferring these values to developing countries, the EU will have a decisive role in reducing poverty and creating employment in those countries. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) We need to take part in a process, the aim of which is to train developing countries to create their national GDP for themselves, thereby encouraging the economic development of these countries. By doing so, we shall be able to halt the migration to Europe of whole ethnic groups. It is important to make the population of developing countries understand that they must build up their own homelands and not seek paradise in Europe. We must help our brothers in the developing countries to learn how to be independent and prosperous. I believe that we should share our knowledge and experience, and that is why I voted for this resolution.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The report from the Committee on Development concerning poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries takes the right approach. The Western industrial nations must put in place measures which allow the less-developed countries to supply their own needs and build up their own strong national economies. The ability to produce enough food for their own population plays a significant role in this respect. It must also be possible for these countries to diversify their economies so that they are not dependent on imports.

To achieve this, small and medium-sized businesses in particular are needed, which will create new jobs. We need to take a critical look at and, if necessary, remove some of the export subsidies in the EU which support the agricultural industry in Europe, but which are helping to destroy agriculture in the developing countries. Tax havens must also be abolished. Despite the many positive measures in the report, I have abstained, because these measures will obviously not be mandatory when it comes to determining the direction taken by development aid. Declarations of intent do not move the situation any further forward and large sums of aid money will continue to disappear due to corruption.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) On the question of poverty reduction in developing countries, the European Parliament should emphasise social standards, which affect the standard of living of the people who live in these countries. It is the obligation of the European Union to combat the phenomenon of child labour and forced labour. It should also be remembered that for millions of people who live in developing countries, the basic means of sustenance is agriculture.

My full support also goes to the proposal contained in the report to support smallholder farming. It is also worth emphasising the inclusion in the report of a call to respect the tradition of common land use for agriculture, which, for centuries, has ensured the people a relatively good standard of living.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union has the prerogative to legislate and concentrate on the needs and demands of its own territory, but it cannot and must not forget its responsibilities to the rest of the world, particularly towards developing countries.

Mrs Theocharous’s report sets itself that very aim: poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries are important for the people in those countries but they are important for our own people, too. In most cases, in fact, poverty and job seeking drive thousands of desperate people to travel in the hope of finding a better future.

I therefore believe that a strategy aiming to create certain local, in-situ conditions should be supported, and is an asset for countries on the receiving end and the European Union that supports it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The subject of this report is highly topical and pressing, as well as important and strategic. It is topical and pressing in that it is common knowledge that poverty rates have been rising around the world, and the same is true of the gap between rich and poor which has become wider. It is important and strategic because European investment in poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries plays a decisive role in social terms by promoting social contentment, in economic terms by stimulating the economy, and in moral terms by giving expression to the values in which we believe.

My endorsement of this report in its current form, however, does not detract from the need to implement the same desideratum in Europe as well. I advocate this not only for the reasons given above for developing countries but because of a rationale and feeling that we owe each other a stronger duty of solidarity, and also because I am convinced that we Europeans cannot help others if we are not in a good position ourselves.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Strong, sustainable economic growth within a stable environment helps create wealth and quality jobs, making it the surest and most sustainable route out of poverty. Hunger, malnutrition and the exclusion of millions of people from access to food and basic public services are consequences of flawed economic, agricultural and trade policies promoted and implemented in these countries. Development strategies must pay special attention to the most vulnerable and marginalised, especially women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities.

With this in mind, I believe that developing countries must: place greater emphasis on combating child labour, with a view to creating quality, sustainable jobs for adults instead and enabling children to receive a suitable education; prioritise action to help meet basic social needs and promote the protection of children and vulnerable women who have been severely affected by the crisis, as well as young people at risk, low paid, unqualified and migrant workers, rural workers and people with disabilities.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution because, inter alia, it places the emphasis on combating child labour; it calls on the European Union to recognise the contribution of the social economy; it invites developing countries to extend land ownership among the poor and dispossessed, for instance, by giving squatters in shanty towns the titles to the land they live on; it defends freedom of association for trade unions and the right to bargain collectively; it combats the various forms of discrimination; and calls for a rethinking of privatisation policies, especially concerning utilities like water, sanitation and services of general interest, and for the social role of states in development governance, including the role of state-owned enterprises as employers and social service providers, to be reconsidered.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Our abstention in the end is due to the fact that the original text of Paragraph 94 has been adopted, calling on the Commission and the Member States to ‘develop a coherent approach which respects the fundamentals of the free market and which guarantees reciprocity in the field of trade’.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Although this is a positive report, which identifies the ‘help begins at home’ approach as the best way to support poor populations throughout the world, it goes further and calls for country-by-country tax reporting, further funding against the effects of climate change and a review of farming subsidy policies.

The Chamber also approved an amendment that accuses aid to European farmers, granted by the EU, of destroying the markets of developing countries. Although I am in favour of most of the proposals in the resolution, which also highlights the need to coordinate aid in a global manner, I voted against.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report on poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries. Combating poverty is the main priority of the 2020 strategy, which establishes the direction of the EU’s efforts for the next few years. This objective extends to the 120 million Europeans who currently live in poverty. To combat poverty effectively in developing countries, it must be eliminated in Europe.

The educational aspect is important in this regard. Education and improving qualifications are the best means to finding work, and so also to breaking a life of poverty and want. In developing countries, it is particularly important to ensure access to education for children regardless of gender. Even in countries where the per capita income is relatively high, access to education is barred to certain social groups – national minorities and girls. In the poorest countries, only around half of all children attend school.

In its aid programmes, the Union should do more to ensure free educational materials, meals and school buses. Also essential is legislation on education and the social care of children and support for opportunities for students to be educated abroad, while also developing interesting programmes to encourage young people to return to their own countries, so that having qualified, they will work for the good of their own society. It is also important to run a campaign to raise awareness of the problem of forced child labour.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on this report, which contains provisions which are contradictory, to say the least.

On the one hand, it calls for a rethinking of privatisation policies, especially concerning public services, supports investment measures for their benefit, affirms the positive impact of squats and the social economy on development and notes the need to implement ILO conventions on international labour standards.

At the same time, however, the majority in Parliament has adopted a paragraph which I find unacceptable, calling on the Member States and the Commission to respect the fundamentals of the free market.

7. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13:20 and resumed at 15:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Alejo VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

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

9. Pharmacovigilance of medicinal products (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004) - Pharmacovigilance (amendment of Directive 2001/83/EC) (debate)

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

– the report by Mrs McAvan, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (COM(2008)0664 – C6-0515/2008-2008/0257(COD)) (A7-0153/2010); and

– the report by Mrs McAvan, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (COM(2008)0665 – C6-0514/2008-2008/0260(COD)) (A7-0159/2010).

  Linda McAvan, rapporteur. – Mr President, I am sure everybody in this room has taken pharmaceutical products at some time or other. The safety of those products is of paramount importance for public health.

Last week, at a meeting of experts to talk about this new legislation, we were reminded that 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of thalidomide. Anybody my age will certainly remember what thalidomide meant: the images of children born with no limbs. Lessons were learned from that experience, and, over the years, governments developed pharmacovigilance systems to monitor the safety of medicines, because it became clear that clinical trials alone would never be enough to ensure that, when we put medicines out into the public domain, we would know all the side effects in advance.

Improvements have been made. Last week, experts told us that, with the improvements we have already made, it would have taken only a handful of cases of thalidomide to actually identify the problem. In the 1960s, it took 2 000 cases before the problem was picked up.

In recent years in Europe, we have been working at European level to develop a coherent system between Member States and the European Medicines Agency in London on pharmacovigilance. It is very clear that we need to work together. With a pool of 500 million people, it is much easier and quicker to pick up an adverse reaction than working separately at national level.

The creation of the Medicines Agency, a network of agencies in each country, underpinned by EU law, has helped us to make such progress. The practical tools we have created – like the EudraVigilance database, the biggest in the world – help us to reduce the amount of time we need to identify adverse reactions.

But we need further improvements. Since thalidomide in the 1960s, we have seen problems with drugs like Vioxx and, very recently, with the diabetes drug Avandia. I believe that the package of laws that MEPs and the Council have agreed on, negotiated at first reading, and to be put to this House tomorrow, is a very good package and one which will further improve pharmacovigilance in the European Union.

What are the key changes? First, there is the creation of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, which is a beefed-up safety committee that separates medicine safety from the approval of medical products. It will include experts, not just from national governments, but also from among patients and healthcare professionals. We are improving information to patients, direct patient reporting to national authorities, and a notice on patient information leaflets encouraging people to report any adverse reactions.

There will be a black symbol on new products. At the moment, healthcare professionals know when they give you, as a patient, a new product. They know they should be looking out especially for adverse reactions but you, as a patient, do not know this.

There will be better public information: a one-stop-shop web portal on medicines, bringing together all the different information about medicine safety, the patient information leaflet – the kind of information that, at the moment, you have got to spend hours putting together. There will be gains for companies in terms of streamlining procedures, cutting out duplication in reporting and freeing up resources for more important research work. These are changes which I believe will vastly improve the whole system of pharmacovigilance in Europe.

Finally, I would like to thank the people who have helped us get where we are today, as well as my shadow rapporteurs. It is a very complex dossier and we were very lucky to have such expert colleagues amongst us. Dolores Montero, from the Spanish Council Presidency, is here with us today. She and her team did an excellent job, as did the Parliament’s secretariat, Jo Wood from the Socialist Group and my own researcher, Kiri Hanks, who made a major contribution to getting the issues clarified, on the table, and helping us.

I should also like to thank the Commission and Council secretariats, and the many organisations who sent in information and who helped us to understand the issues from their point of view – patients’ organisations, pharmacists’ groups, doctors, companies and the national regulators.

This has been a great team effort and we now have to work together to implement the legislation properly.

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Dalli is unable to attend this evening in order to address this issue in person and offers his apologies.

However, I have the pleasure of replacing him for the formal adoption of an agreement at first reading on the important subject of pharmacovigilance. May I take this opportunity to thank everyone who worked tirelessly in order to achieve this agreement, especially the rapporteurs, co-rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, especially Mrs McAvan, the rapporteur for the committee responsible. Thanks to the proposal which will be put to the vote in Parliament tomorrow, patients will be better protected against the adverse reactions of medicinal products.

In fact, the system of pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use in the European Union is to be strengthened and modernised. Not only will it offer better protection for public health; this system will also allow the internal market to function properly and current regulations and procedures to be rationalised. In addition, legislation will increase transparency and patient participation in the field of pharmacovigilance.

Finally, with the new scientific committee for pharmacovigilance created within the European Medicines Agency, the EMA will provide access to the most specialised scientific and medical expertise available for assessing the safety of medicinal products and recommending risk reduction measures.

The Commission is delighted that the institutions were able to arrive at a pre-negotiated common position before the summer recess and fully endorses the substance of the agreement reached. Within the framework of this agreement, the proposed amendment to restore the grade of director of the EMA has been deleted and the Commission is to publish the following statement:

‘Following the request made by the European Parliament and the Council on the grading of the head of the European Medicines Agency, the Commission, in order not to delay the adoption of this important proposal, undertakes to re-publish the vacancy notice for the next head of the European Medicines Agency with the grade AD15 instead of AD14.

The Commission considers that the right place to deal with the issue is the ongoing horizontal discussion on the role of EU agencies within the interinstitutional working group on agencies. The discussion on this aspect is open in the interinstitutional working group, and if this discussion leads to different conclusions at the appropriate publication level, then this grading could be reconsidered for future publications.’

  Michèle Rivasi, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (FR) Mr President, I am going to take one minute and I shall speak for a further minute afterwards. I should like to speak first as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and to thank the rapporteur, Mrs McAvan, for this report.

I should like to say that it is very important in this sector to provide patients with better protection and better information, but also to fight against the stranglehold exerted by the pharmaceutical industry, which wanted to collect reports of side effects and to analyse and interpret the results.

At the level of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – and, moreover, at the level of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – we therefore succeeding in ensuring that, when it comes to the collection of reports, doctors and patients will be the ones able to report side effects for transmission to the national authorities.

As far as analysis and interpretation are concerned, the Member States are responsible for detecting and monitoring the adverse reactions of medicinal products. It transpired, in connection with the outbreak of H1N1 influenza, that it was the Swedish national authorities which referred to narcolepsy even though, until now, the H1N1 vaccine had not been associated with such side effects. This is very important. On the other hand, I am very disappointed that we have not achieved financial independence from the national authorities.

Finally, as far as controls are concerned, there has been real progress in relation to this Pharmacovigilance Committee, which is separate from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, and I hope that there will also be more information available for patients, either on package leaflets or in terms of ultra-vigilance.

  Claude Turmes, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (FR) Mr President, medicinal products are, of course, a business worth several billions, and this was therefore a dossier which was subject to a great deal of lobbying. One very positive point in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is that we succeeded in keeping the internal market open. We worked on all aspects of the surveillance of adverse reactions explained by my colleagues and, above all, we managed, the pharmaceutical lobby notwithstanding, to ensure that controls during the placing on the market are not watered down and that patient information is guaranteed. In fact, one of the ideas being put around was to issue prospectuses or summaries, which would have been a very bad idea.

I am sorry that one idea which I put forward in my report, the idea of also testing the therapeutic added value of new medicinal products, was not adopted. Today, we face a strategy by the major companies which, whenever a patent expires, change a few molecules and launch a massive marketing campaign. Today, many companies spend more on marketing than on research and, as a result, we have new medicinal products which cost a lot of money and have almost no added value compared with existing cheaper medicinal products.

We really must examine this in detail at the next review. Our national health systems are collapsing under the cost, and every measure which can offer them relief must be taken. The fact that there is no obligation to test for therapeutic added value is a real loophole in our legislation.

  Pilar Ayuso, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to highlight the work that has been done by the rapporteur, Mrs McAvan, not only on the content of the report, but also in terms of her methods, because she has worked alongside all the shadow rapporteurs. I would also like to thank the experts from the Spanish Government for their contribution to this agreement.

The purpose of this system of pharmacovigilance in the European Union is to strengthen vigilance, transparency and communication in relation to the safety of drugs once they have been put on the market, especially with regard to their risk profiles and the adverse reactions that they can cause.

It is important to highlight the creation of the European Pharmacovigilance Committee, which will evaluate and issue recommendations to the European Medicines Agency on the safety issues that can arise in connection with medicines sold in the European Union. The solution that has been reached for both Member States and those responsible for marketing medicines to notify the EudraVigilance database of suspected adverse reactions is very important.

EudraVigilance will be the only source of information, but the competent authority in the Member State where it is suspected that an adverse reaction has occurred will be informed at the same time, which is very important.

It is also important to highlight the possibility that is being opened up of consumers being able to communicate any adverse reactions, and in this respect, the creation and management by the agency of a European medicines safety web-portal which, in turn, is linked to the portals in each of the Member States, is going to help to improve the public’s knowledge regarding the safety of the medicines that they take.

Finally, we cannot forget that given that pharmacovigilance plays a fundamental role in protecting public health, the adoption of this directive and this regulation is going to make a significant contribution to that protection by improving not only the current procedures but also the coordination of actions between the different Member States.

  António Fernando Correia De Campos, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, the fact that there is a growing trend for the safety profile of new medicines to only become fully known after they have been put on the market means that we need a more effective pharmacovigilance system than has existed hitherto.

We are facing a typical risk management problem, but we have now made it more accessible to people at a macro and supranational level.

Over recent decades, new medicines have played a vital role in public health and in advances in healthcare. Adverse drug reactions, however, remain the fifth most common cause of hospital deaths.

The proposals tabled reinforce the contribution of medicines to modern public health through an EU-wide pharmacovigilance system, thus improving coordination and transparency. Their aims are the monitoring, early detection, reporting and evaluation of adverse reactions.

New medicines will bear a symbol saying that they are still under scrutiny. Users will be encouraged to take part in monitoring them; efficacy studies will be promoted at national level; there will be a new awareness of environmental effects; and the Union’s monitoring bodies will be enhanced in the form of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).

I therefore welcome the proposals, Mr President. I congratulate the rapporteur and also the Commission on their spirit of cooperation, as well as the Spanish Presidency. I therefore welcome the proposals put forward in this legislative package and am pleased to endorse the final document to be put to the House tomorrow.

  Antonyia Parvanova, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, let me first thank Linda McAvan for the incredible intelligence with which she has tackled this very technical dossier, as well as the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council for the fruitful cooperation which has been crucial in reaching this first reading agreement, paving the way towards a safer, more efficient and more transparent pharmacovigilance system in Europe. As shadow rapporteur for the ALDE Group, I very much welcome this agreement concluded under the Spanish Presidency, and the fact that Parliament’s position remains firmly included in the final text.

One may say that we are dealing today with a less exciting dossier within the pharma package, but pharmacovigilance is actually crucial in ensuring observance of some of the key principles which have guided the ALDE position towards patients’ trust in pharmaceutical treatments. The development and smooth functioning of EudraVigilance, collecting Adverse Drug Reactions at the larger European scale, as well as the better coordination with national authorities and pharmaceutical companies, are major steps towards making sure risks relating to the use of medicinal products are duly assessed in a timely manner.

Patient safety will also be reinforced, with the possibility for authorities to request efficacy studies after a product has been authorised on the market. For the first time here, we will be able to use health technology assessment in order to avoid putting patients’ lives at risk.

Transparency has been one of Parliament’s guiding principles during the negotiations. While avoiding any misuse of the information available, more transparent communication about pharmacovigilance activities will enhance patients’ trust in their treatment, as well in the authorities that guarantee their safety.

To conclude, the changes made to the pharmacovigilance system in Europe should be a tool to reinforce European citizens’ confidence and understanding of the medicines they are taking. In this regard, I very much welcome the call for a broader and complete review of the Patient Information Leaflet. We have a public health responsibility to guarantee the highest level of safety, efficiency and transparency in the future European pharmacovigilance system to be implemented.

  Michail Tremopoulos, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs McAvan, for her well-drafted report and my fellow Member in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Mrs Rivasi, for her detailed work.

Our initial concern was that this draft underpins a tendency for medicinal products to be hastily placed on the market, without detailed clinical trials, under a fast-track authorisation procedure, the thinking behind this being that there will be an enhanced system of pharmacovigilance and risk analysis and for reporting the undesirable effects of medicinal products.

We were initially opposed to this and, in keeping with demands by civil society, we called for strict authorisation procedures before a medicinal product is placed on the market, during which a report would be submitted on the results of comparative clinical trials, together with proof of its added therapeutic value.

I believe that this compromise attempts to get round this issue by strengthening the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee of the European Medicines Agency and by strengthening the procedure for civilian reports.

The second point I wanted to raise has to do with the environmental impact and risk of medicinal products, on which we were ultimately unable to reach a compromise. The Commission should introduce a standard obligation, via the pharmacovigilance system, for the environmental impact to be monitored and reported and for these data to be compared with the results of trials presented by companies during the approval and authorisation procedure for new medicinal products.

Unfortunately, all we managed to include in the compromise text was a call for the Member States to consider the next stage for monitoring the environmental impact and for the Commission to present a report analysing the extent of the problem and whether or not the current legislation needs to be amended.

  Milan Cabrnoch, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur for the work she has done in drafting this report, as well as all of you for the attention you have given to this work.

The directive on pharmacovigilance has not been significantly amended for almost 10 years, and I would therefore like to point out that a comprehensive revision of this directive is well overdue. I am all in favour of patients always being better informed and for them to be fully-fledged partners of doctors. Availability of information undoubtedly plays a fundamental role in this change, and the information in question also includes data on medicines, their effects and their side effects.

The unification of data on the effects of medicines in one place, in the same way as the proper, smoothly functioning sharing of information between national computer systems in this area, will lead to greater awareness and greater confidence in medicines on the part of citizens, and may also help to prevent fatal consequences, for example, through the rapid withdrawal from sale of unsafe medicines. These measures will therefore help to improve health and the quality and safety of healthcare.

  Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a serious topic, which involves medicines. Medicines preserve life, but they can also harm it in a dramatic way. As already mentioned here, the adverse effects of medicines have been shown to be the fifth most frequent cause of death among hospital patients. A strong, transparent and proactive system of pharmacovigilance is therefore essential for ensuring patient safety.

I firmly believe that we have jointly achieved a major improvement in the text and better patient protection during negotiations over these legislative proposals.

I very much welcome the system of direct notification, by means of which patients all over Europe can directly submit reports on adverse effects. This system will make it possible for adverse effects to be picked up earlier, and patients will be able to submit reports on effects which they might find it difficult to talk about with their doctor, for example, because they involve psychological or sexual factors. Patients will also be able to submit information both via the Internet and by using other methods, which is good for people who do not have a computer.

We have strengthened patients’ right to information by improving access to information through the creation of a European web portal and the establishment of a European database on pharmacovigilance. Special attention was given to the protection of personal data in this area. We have achieved good results, but many things need improving: greater transparency in the decision making of competent authorities, the securing of essential resources for these authorities to do their work, ensuring that they are independent and that they have sustainable budgets, and, last but not least, adopting strict requirements over conflicts of interest in order to guarantee that decisions taken in the area of patient safety are not influenced by commercial interests. In conclusion, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent cooperation.

  Peter Liese (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to join in the thanks to the rapporteur Mrs McAvan and I would also like to thank Mrs Ayuso, the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and acknowledge her hard work. Mrs McAvan and the shadow rapporteurs have produced good results, which we will be voting on tomorrow. The safety of patients will be improved significantly and, in my opinion, the most important progress that we have made is to provide considerably better information for patients, largely without any major controversies.

The database and the web portal, which will be introduced in all the Member States in every language, will improve the information available to patients and will, in particular, be of assistance to patients who are on the move. Anyone travelling in Europe today who receives a patient information leaflet in a foreign language is at an even greater disadvantage than the average patient who also cannot understand the leaflet. If it is possible to obtain the information in every language via this web portal, that will definitely be a great help.

This proposal, which has been accepted almost without comment, will improve the information considerably more than the proposal submitted by Mr Verheugen under the title of ‘Patient information’. This is what we are working on and I have had a very positive discussion with the rapporteur, Mr Fjellner. We will, of course, have to add to what has come out of the work on pharmacovigilance, but nevertheless, Mrs McAvan and the shadow rapporteurs have made a huge amount of progress.

Finally, I also welcome the fact that we will be revising the patient information leaflets. I believe that the Commission should also make an effort in this area and take rapid action. I feel rather sad that we were unable to come to a conclusion on the summary of the patient information leaflet. The Commission made the mistake of proposing a black box, but people found the black box intimidating. Perhaps we should consider once again whether it is possible to produce a summary of the most important points in a suitable form. That is also a topic for the future. I would like once more to thank everyone who contributed to producing these positive results.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, I would also like to thank Mrs McAvan very much, together with the shadow rapporteurs who have contributed to the report.

Firstly, I would like to make an appeal to patients and to the European healthcare system. We must take the time to explain to patients about the medicines that are being prescribed for them so that they really know what they are taking and understand the possible undesirable side effects of the drugs. On the other hand, we must also encourage patients to be completely honest with their doctor or with the pharmacist who is dispensing the medicines. This is the only way that what we are calling for will work in reality, in other words, ensuring that medicines are as safe as possible.

I welcome this report very much because it is a further step towards recording side effects throughout Europe in such a way that both healthcare staff and the pharmaceutical industry can investigate and respond to these side effects as quickly as possible. Some of the Member States already have very good systems for doing this. The next step is to standardise and combine these systems. The old saying that the whole is more than the sum of its parts also applies in this case. I would be very pleased if this directive were to be adopted in plenary with an absolute majority.

  Corinne Lepage (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like, in turn, to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs McAvan, on her work. Agreements at first reading are no longer very popular in this House because, if truth be told, they often reduce Parliament’s powers, but this is, without doubt, a very good agreement at first reading. I must also say that our shadow rapporteur, Mrs Parvanova, did an excellent job.

Considerable progress has been made, especially on an aspect which I hold dear: transparency. For me, transparency should be the rule and restricted access the exception. It is absolutely vital if we want to move towards the counter-expertise which is developing. It should not be possible to exercise the right to keep information on property rights secret at the expense of information on health and the environment. That is why I tabled several amendments to guarantee a high level of transparency. I would have preferred us to have gone further, but the result we have is satisfactory.

On the text itself, one provision – which may appear anecdotal but which probably is not – is important: I refer to the request made to the Commission to address the question of water and soil pollution by pharmaceutical residues and, if necessary, to evaluate the impact of this legislation.

  Martin Callanan (ECR). – Mr President, Marina Yannakoudakis, our shadow rapporteur, sends her apologies; she is unable to be in Strasbourg this week but she has asked me to pay particular credit to Linda McAvan for the very fruitful and cooperative way that she has worked with the other groups in drafting this legislation.

The aim of it is to strengthen the Community pharmacovigilance system of medicinal products for human use and we certainly believe that we have reached an agreement which will ensure, firstly, a more robust system of risk assessment, secondly, an improved system for marketing authorisations and post-authorisation safety and efficacy studies, thirdly, a better and more efficient means of reporting of any adverse drug reactions and fourthly, of course, greater transparency and medicinal safety.

Patients will also have better access, through web portals, to information regarding potential side effects of medicines, and these measures, we believe, will be of benefit, first and foremost, to European patients and citizens, but will also clarify and simplify the roles of the Commission, Member States, and risk assessment committees and pharmaceutical companies in ensuring the highest possible levels of patient safety throughout the EU.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, first of all, I would like to start by thanking and congratulating the rapporteur, together with all the Members who have been involved in this process.

As we know, adverse drug reactions are the fifth most common cause of hospital deaths – it cannot be said too often – and a strong, transparent pharmacovigilance system is essential. We now have the opportunity to enhance the safety of those medicines that are already available by going beyond laboratory tests, which do not always catch problems before they arise.

If concrete examples were necessary to justify the importance of a new system, one need only look at what happened with the H1N1 influenza vaccine: the vaccine was rushed onto the market, but the side effects that were detected were not investigated with due care and are still delaying a full inquiry.

That is why we need to continue to improve these measures. This directive ensures that both healthcare professionals and patients will be more actively involved in identifying difficulties. Cooperation between countries and the Union may, in fact, be a plus-sum game.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, we are debating pharmacovigilance. This is an important pillar of the pharmaceutical package on which we have been working for some time, and this agreement at first reading will give patients better protection from the risks associated with the use of medicinal products. This agreement is therefore a big step forward for patient safety, because rare patterns can be picked up more quickly and unsafe medicines can be withdrawn from the market when required.

We are not, in fact, reinventing pharmacovigilance; we are simply improving the situation on the basis of improved knowledge of the risks linked to medicinal products, thanks to greater cooperation between the competent authorities. The point of this regulation is to improve our knowledge of adverse reactions, thanks to the development within the European Medicines Agency of the EudraVigilance database, which will become the single point of receipt and consultation of all medicine-related information. This will help improve communication between the competent authorities.

The national authorities will also be better able to re-evaluate the risk/benefit balance by reactively entering and integrating all signals or new data, and adapting information for health professionals and patients accordingly. However, we must also take care not to frighten patients with excessive warnings; providing too much information could ultimately prove harmful.

Medicines are complex products. We need to explain them, to provide proper information, but, above all, we must not be over-alarming. It is clear, today, that package leaflets are no longer as relevant. They are sometimes hard to read. It is now necessary to address how they should evolve, with all the partners, so as to improve patients’ understanding and, above all, give them confidence in medicinal products.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, pharmacovigilance, which involves analysing the side effects of medicinal products and calling for their withdrawal from the market in the event of an alert, incited little interest in the midst of the pharmaceutical package. It is, however, essential to the safety and quality of our health systems and, even though I am delighted to see you, Commissioner, I must deplore Mr Dalli’s absence.

I was dismayed by the Commission’s proposals, which jeopardised the pharmacovigilance systems for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies. Fortunately, thanks to the work of Parliament and the Council, the situation has been improved somewhat. Thus, it will not be possible to generalise advance marketing authorisations for new medicinal products. We can also be pleased with the progress made in terms of transparency.

However, I think that this agreement represents a missed opportunity to improve pharmacovigilance and I am concerned, above all, at the lack of guarantees regarding the independence of the system. Thus, even though the role of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee has been strengthened, it is not totally independent of the European committee which grants the marketing authorisation. We know from experience that this committee is loath to go back on its decisions. As for national structures, there is absolutely no provision on the matter. Also, I am sorry that the Member States do not have to report possible conflicts of interest of experts on the European committee.

Finally, and this is the most serious point, this agreement endorses the end of the best guarantee of independence: public funding for pharmacovigilance activities, most of which will be funded in future by private fees.

I congratulate Mrs McAvan on having improved the Commission’s initial proposal but, as there are a number of problematic issues, I question the point of closing this dossier in a single reading. If we had taken our time, we could have increased patients’ confidence in safe, high quality pharmaceutical products.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, pharmacovigilance should be to medicinal products what haemovigilance is to blood and organ vigilance is to organs: a comprehensive insurance policy. Having said which, I should, in fact, say a quasi-comprehensive insurance policy, because we know – as has been said – that taking medicinal products, even strictly in keeping with the package leaflet, is not without adverse reactions.

Sometimes, it is even fatal; 197 000 deaths a year, as our rapporteur, Mrs McAvan, pointed out in her explanatory statement, just as she also pointed out this afternoon the tragic episodes which have marked the history of this sector.

This statistic is unacceptable. It needs to be significantly reduced through more efficient collaboration between all links in the chain. That is why I support all the proposals made in this direction: better coordination through the EudraVigilance database, improved patient information and, as has been said, better information in both senses – Mrs Rivasi and Mr Turmes explained this – as well as real transparency in the work of the new European Pharmacovigilance Risk Committee.

To conclude, independent expertise – and I shall come back to this time and again – is the alpha and omega of all our policies. It is vital here in order to strengthen patients’ confidence.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – (PL) I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs McAvan and everyone who worked on the directive and the regulation on pharmacovigilance. The issues dealt with in these documents are very important for the health system but, above all, they are important for the safety of patients. Statistics show that nearly 200 000 people die every year from the side effects of medicines they have taken, around 50% of patients do not take medicines in accordance with medical recommendations and over 70% of patients would like to be able to obtain reliable information on medicines and procedures on the Internet. Therefore, it is evident that, together with the change to the principles for registering pharmaceutical products, it has become essential to introduce a system which – using the Internet – will supply reliable information about medicines.

However, without correct reporting of all side effects of medicines by medical personnel, patients and drug companies, there will not be good monitoring of the safety of pharmacotherapy. For it is first necessary to notice certain signals which are indicative of potential problems and to take action on this basis. This is a new step towards complete openness and transparency of information in the field of pharmacology.

An important element of pharmacovigilance is the posting of information about medicines on the Internet in all the official languages of the European Union in a form which will enable its content to be understood by all patients. However, attention should be drawn to the fact that the Internet, besides being a very good source of information, may also contain false information. Therefore, it is essential to conduct continuous monitoring and updating of the system, because it is paramount that the system be effective.

Also important are the proposals concerning increasing the transparency of the Union system of monitoring by using public hearings for gathering information on side effects. This is a useful tool for carrying out monitoring, especially if the whole of society and not just a small group of specialists is going to be able to participate in it, and it will certainly increase patient confidence in medicines.

  Nessa Childers (S&D). – Mr President, I congratulate my colleague, Linda McAvan, on her report. With almost 200 000 deaths per year in the EU caused by adverse reactions to prescribed drugs, I welcome the new EU-wide system to monitor the safety of medicines which have already been approved for use by doctors. Adverse reactions are the fifth most common cause of hospital death in Europe.

This legislation will set out rules and procedures for monitoring the safety profile of medicinal products once they have been authorised and placed on the market. The new powers will also equip national and EU authorities to target the growing problem of forged or falsified medicines, which pose an enormous threat to public health. The more up-to-date information available to the healthcare sector and to individual patients on the safety of medicines in common use, the better it is for the health and safety of all European citizens.

I therefore welcome the European medicines web portal, which will be created and linked to national medicines web portals in each Member State, and where patients will be able to find information about the safety of the medicine they are taking.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this measure sets out to reinforce and rationalise the system of pharmacovigilance in the European Union: these are the ambitious goals set by the McAvan reports, which aim to amend Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC respectively.

Thanks to a close and effective working relationship between the European Council and Parliament, and between the parliamentary committees responsible for this area, we have reached the point where we are able today to discuss a proposal that aims to improve the EU pharmacovigilance system, and to conclude the consistent work that the European Union has carried out in this field over more than a decade.

Simplification, transparency and rationalisation may be considered the key points of these two reports, which propose measures aiming to guarantee the best possible protection of public health on the basis of standards that are harmonised throughout Europe.

Reference is made to an extensive series of actions, ranging from better definition of the roles and responsibilities of the main national and international stakeholders seeking to ensure a new, more informed and active involvement of patients, who are given a fundamental role in the system, to the increased transparency of information concerning the safety of medicinal products and the simplification of activities involved in communicating, recording and evaluating suspected adverse reactions.

The current pharmacovigilance system must also be improved through closer cooperation at European, national and regional levels. Effective participation at all three of these levels will, in fact, ensure a profitable exchange of information on the side effects of medicinal products.

When reorganised as a network, with Internet support, the new pharmacovigilance system will be able to ensure a high level of information sharing and security to benefit patients, national authorities and healthcare professionals.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) The pharmaceutical industry is a key sector for the European Union because of both its direct links with the health of every one of us and its economic potential. I believe that the directive and regulation being debated will help improve the system for the supervision of medicinal products. This will facilitate an exchange of information between national and European authorities, which will be in constant contact with patient organisations and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. Data on adverse drug reactions must not only be accessible to the authorities and healthcare professionals, but to patients as well. Patients must be informed about all the features of the drugs which they are taking and this information must be specified clearly in the patient information leaflet.

Patients must be able to identify easily new drugs which have been authorised at a time when all the adverse effects are not yet known and which contain new active substances. Regular monitoring must be carried out and a regular report must be drafted, at least every five years, on the safety of the relevant drugs. Drastic adverse effects can be discovered even 30 years after a drug has been granted market authorisation. Last but not least, I wish to emphasise the interdependence between investment in pharmaceutical research and innovative medical technologies and patient safety and the growth of the pharmaceutical industry.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, the main aim of this proposal for a regulation is to verify the safety of medicinal products once they have been authorised for public use.

There can never be too many checks and evaluations of positive or negative reactions. An estimated 197 000 deaths per year are caused by adverse drug reactions (ADRs) within the European Union. Clinical trials can often miss side effects from drugs if they are rare, only appear after long-term use, or involve interaction with other drugs.

Tracking drug use and reporting on ADRs is, and must remain, a priority of European public health policy. A good pharmacovigilance system must make it possible for healthcare professionals, companies and patients themselves to report ADRs and also allow for signals pointing to potential problems to be detected.

These signals must then be followed up with action, which can include changes to the way a medicine is prescribed, better information on how it is used or, where the nature of the ADR is severe, the withdrawal of the medicine altogether.

The proposal to strengthen cooperation in pharmacovigilance may offer numerous advantages insofar as the pool of reported ADRs is larger, meaning that rarer patterns can also be picked up more quickly.

Therefore, unsafe medicines can be withdrawn more quickly from the market if necessary. All the Members States must remain key players in the EU pharmacovigilance system.

I shall conclude, Mr President, by emphasising the importance of allowing direct patient reporting of ADRs. Unfortunately, at present, only a few Member States accept direct reporting, and I am happy to point out that, where it exists, this system has not overburdened the competent authority.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) In my opinion, the two most important elements of this whole document are the inclusion of the patient in the information system and the fact that all information, reliable information, will be accessible in one place. These figures are truly appalling – approximately 200 000 deaths a year from the side effects of drugs.

Another issue is the fact that the recording of cases of side effects is very uneven throughout the Member States. Let us say that in my country, there are around 170 cases, but in other countries, there are at least several times that amount. The reason for this is that the patients were not directly involved in providing information. Doctors are often afraid to report relevant information, perhaps fearing that they may be accused of improper conduct.

I am especially pleased that patients concerned about their health will be able to inform national institutions of the negative side effects of medicines.

Another thing is to urge institutions in the European Union Member States to be more active in their response to relevant reports. The situation at present is such that around half of the Member States are slow to provide information about side effects. It is excellent that henceforth, manufacturers, consumers and control institutions will all be included in the medicine safety control system. A common position is required, based on responsibility, not fear.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) The aim of pharmacovigilance is to ensure that patients and hence, the relevant authorities, report everything, and not just serious adverse effects, to the EudraVigilance database. All information on the adverse effects of medicines will thus be concentrated for the first time in one place, representing a valuable research instrument. Measures can then be adopted on the basis of this, such as changes to methods of prescribing, better provision of information on the use of medicines and even withdrawals of medicines from the market.

I support proposals aimed at motivating informed patients, who will have available all the relevant information on a medicine in the accompanying leaflet. The system should not only inform patients but also motivate them to report any adverse effects. Manufacturers must not conceal any adverse side effects of a product, as happened in the case of hormonal contraceptives, for example. Both of Mrs McAvan’s reports represent progress and will be of benefit to all patients by providing access to safer medicines in the EU and a legal framework for the competent authorities.

  Anja Weisgerber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs very much for their excellent work. Effective supervision of medical products provides protection for the citizens of Europe and, at the same time, gives more power to responsible patients.

Two points in particular are very important to me: the safety web portal for medicines and the patient information leaflet (PIL). The positive news is that tomorrow’s resolution will introduce safety web portals for medicines into all the Member States, where the approved patient information leaflet and other information must be published. This will put an end to an untenable situation. In many Member States, it is not possible to publish the PIL on the web. However, this is not in line with the real lives of many citizens who make use of the right of free movement within the European Union. Now they will be able to download PILs from the web in their own language anywhere in Europe. This will also be useful for patients who have lost their PIL.

At the same time, I want the PIL to be improved and I am very pleased about the resolution calling on the Commission to submit draft legislation on this subject.

  Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to come back to the environmental impact of medicinal products.

Since 1965, Europe has established criteria for obtaining marketing authorisations. There are three criteria, namely efficacy, safety and the pharmaceutical quality of the medicinal product, but there is nothing about the environmental impact of medicinal products. As you know, the oestrogen found in river waters is changing the sex of fish. As you also know, there are high levels of residues of medicinal products in purification plants and in waste water from hospitals.

There has been a fair amount of discussion on this matter; a debate has been held and, in the Pharmacovigilance Directive, it has finally been taken into account in the form of a recital calling on the Commission to publish a report, on the basis of data provided by the European Medicines Agency, the Environment Agency and the Member States, on the scale of the problem and an assessment of whether or not it would be appropriate or useful to amend EU legislation on medicinal products or in other areas.

What I want of the Commission is a proper report based on these data, because this indirectly affects human health in that, in numerous cases, it is the consumption of water that caused the side effects identified.

  Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is important that we are discussing this subject here today and I would like to draw attention to one area in particular, which is the availability of information and, above all, the patient information leaflet (PIL) in multiple languages. I am a member of a linguistic minority and I live in one of the most popular tourist regions of the European Union. In every state, a PIL in the official language is supplied with medicines. In my region, for example, the result is that a significant proportion of people simply do not understand the PIL. This is not just irritating, but also dangerous.

This directive must now make it possible for patients to access information on PILs at home on the web and for the same information to be available in pharmacies. If we can also present this information in a brief, summarised form, it can be printed on the PIL itself in several languages without us having to include whole brochures with every medicine.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are in favour of the rapporteur’s approach because she stresses the importance of verifying the safety of medicinal products and improving the transparency of pharmacovigilance activities.

The Northern League has focused on certain aspects: allowing patients direct access to the EU database of suspected adverse reaction reports; permitting the introduction of fees, at the discretion of Member States, to be paid for pharmacovigilance assessments; and defining the composition and powers of risk assessment committees with the aim of allowing Member States, healthcare professionals and patients to play their part.

Unfortunately, in a Europe that is ever more mindful of and attentive to life expectancy and quality of life, it is easy to abuse drugs. Adverse interactions may occur between medical and plant health products used for medicinal purposes, and in sensitive individuals, these may range from the simplest allergic reactions to genuinely debilitating conditions.

One such condition that is not yet fully understood and, unfortunately, not easy to cure, is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: those who are affected by it cannot lead a normal life because they can no longer stand contact with any kind of chemical product.

It is therefore important for the European Union to take action to instruct and train the public in informed drug use.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if we look back at how we began discussing this problem last year in the last parliamentary term, we can only be full of admiration for the achievements of the rapporteurs. What they have achieved by bringing the process to a conclusion after the first reading is excellent. Well done! This is an important instrument, as many people have already said today. I was most surprised by the fact that the Member States agreed without objection to establishing a database with links across Europe.

I would like to make one additional point. We should make better use of the opportunities provided by the European Medicines Agency and the EudraVigilance database, and I am calling on the Commission to do this, in order to improve and promote the quality of healthcare and the quality of products in Europe. This is an important step in the right direction.

However, I do not want to see too much attention being paid to reports from individual citizens about side effects. We should ensure that this does not happen. The reports should only be included in the database when they have been submitted for an expert investigation. Just because someone criticises a product, this does not necessarily give them the right to have their criticism documented in the database.

  Dominique Riquet (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to take the floor briefly, first of all, to congratulate everyone who worked on this subject, and then to express my surprise, nonetheless, that one point has been overlooked, namely cross-pharmacovigilance.

In fact, vertically, from the point of view of a single product, the report is extremely exhaustive, and the work that has been done is remarkable. Nevertheless, most problems are caused by the cumulative effect of medicinal products, as, in 92% of cases, patients receive multiple treatments. A medicinal product which, vertically, has no particular side effects, could have highly toxic side effects if crossed with another medicinal product.

It is vital that we have access to a database on the cross effects of medicinal products, and it should, moreover, be made available to professionals and patients alike. This is all the more necessary given that many patients take prescription medicines and then self-medicate also, without having any information, in general, on the potential for highly toxic cross effects.

I think that this issue has been touched on, but not dealt with, which is a great pity.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to congratulate Mrs McAvan and the various rapporteurs, as well as the Spanish Presidency and the Commission, on the work done in order to reach this balanced agreement, which is so vital to all European patients.

This dossier is, in fact, a specific example of European added value in the lives of our fellow citizens, and the application of these provisions will, no doubt, allow us to revise downwards the number of medical cases caused by adverse drug reactions, a factor which, even today, as we have been reminded here, is one of the main causes of death, especially in hospitals. We have every reason to welcome this vote, at first reading, of these clear and effective new pharmacovigilance rules.

I also hope that, by the end of the Belgian Presidency, we shall be able to welcome an agreement on the other dossiers in the pharmaceutical package. The Presidency has, in fact, taken action in collaboration with Parliament and the Commission to advance what are vital dossiers both for our fellow citizens, and European patients in particular, and for the pharmaceutical sector.

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the debate we have held today with the participation of so many MEPs demonstrates the importance of the agreement that has been reached between the EU institutions.

The Commission, the Council and Parliament are sending out a strong signal to the citizens of our European Union, and this will also be reinforced by the fact files that will be approved – quickly, I hope – on counterfeit medicines and information to be given to patients. I also share the concerns expressed during the debate on the deaths caused by medicines that do not comply with the rules, as Mrs Ronzulli discussed. I also congratulate her for coming to the Chamber today with her baby daughter. This is a good sign: it means that young Europeans are growing up with a pro-European attitude.

I also agree with the words of Mr Dorfmann, and I believe it is only right for each one of us to be able to express ourselves in our own mother tongues and be able to understand what the standards guaranteeing our safety mean in our own languages, including in the world of medicines. I am a great supporter of multilingualism in all sectors, including the ones I am normally concerned with.

I would also like to reassure Mrs Vergnaud with regard to her concerns. I thank her on behalf of the entire European Commission, even though Commissioner Dalli was unfortunately unable to join us today; he will certainly be brought up to speed on this debate, and I will inform him of all the observations made by all the MEPs who took part in today’s meeting.

The Commission is sincerely grateful to you because, together, we have been able to send out a strong message to our fellow EU citizens.

(FR) As regards the issue raised by Mrs Rivasi on stronger rules on the environmental risks of medicinal products, we also consider that it is important to take account of the environmental protection aspect, and we accept Parliament’s suggestion that the Commission should present a report, where applicable, together with a legislative proposal on the environmental risks of medicinal products.

I should like to take this opportunity to remind the honourable Members that environmental aspects have already been included as an action point in the Commission communication on the future of the pharmaceutical sector, adopted prior to the present legislative proposal, within the framework of the pharmaceutical package presented in December 2008.

Annex – Position of the Commission

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (COM(2008)0665 – C6-0514/2008 – 2008/0260(COD))

Amendments:

Directly acceptable: Amendment 74 (text as a whole, Block No 1, compromise amendment). The Commission is in favour of the adoption of the compromise text by the colegislators.

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (COM(2008)0664 – C6-0515/2008 – 2008/0257(COD))

Amendments:

Directly acceptable: Amendment 41 (text as a whole, Block No 1, compromise amendment). The Commission is in favour of the adoption of the compromise text by the colegislators.

  Linda McAvan, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would first like to respond to some of the points raised.

Colleagues talked about transparency: I think that what we have achieved is a big breakthrough in transparency. The amount of information that will be made public through the web portals is a huge increase on what we have already.

On the independence of the work on pharmacovigilance: it was the amendment from this Parliament which has now separated authorisation from pharmacovigilance and makes sure it is the Pharmacovigilance Committee that will make the recommendation, which can only be overturned if there is a very strong reason. So we have done a big job in establishing this independence and improving it.

The Commission: there is a lot of work for the Commission to do after this legislation is approved tomorrow. I think we will achieve a big majority in the House. There is a lot of work to do on the patient information leaflet, with a lot of dissatisfaction from patients’ organisations and from individual patients about it. You tried to find a solution in the Commission. It was not one which found acceptance. But we want to work with you to have a good patient information leaflet.

The leaflet cannot be a repository for every possible thing that can happen to a patient, because that makes the leaflet useless in the eyes of the average patient. It has got to make sense. It has to prioritise information. We need to work with you on that.

You are going to do the study on the environmental impacts of medicine. That is very important, and we want to see the black symbol. We want that symbol developed; we do not want to see it go away, like it did on the medicines for children, the paediatric medicines. We want to see that symbol soon.

For the Member States, an awful lot of work on the web portals has to be done. We want to see these up and running and a timetable for when they are being established. It is vital, as the Commission has said, that people get information in their own language, and the Member States also have to set up their direct reporting systems. It is a lot of work for national agencies.

For the EMA, there will be an increase in work, and we have to resource it properly. We discussed this at length in the negotiations and want to see that happen.

Thank you once again to everybody concerned. I hope we will get a big majority tomorrow and then the real work can start to make a difference, on the ground, to people’s lives.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Medicinal products make an essential contribution to the health of European Union citizens. They may, however, sometimes lead to severe side effects which, according to the Commission, are the cause of approximately 5% of hospital admissions and deaths. Over recent years, cases have been recorded of medicinal products that have given rise to far from negligible secondary effects on patients despite having been marketed following the required control procedure. This situation emphasises the need for the Union to avail itself of an effective pharmacovigilance policy with the aim of protecting the health of European citizens. I believe that an efficient pharmacovigilance system must allow the timely indication of medicinal product side effects to the competent authorities and, above all, when necessary, the swift withdrawal of hazardous drugs from the market. I also support the proposals contained in the report under discussion that aim to improve cooperation between Member States over pharmacovigilance and strengthen the criteria for granting marketing authorisations to new medicinal products. Lastly, I call on the Commission to consider revising the composition of medicinal product package leaflets with the aim of also improving information on the use of a drug.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Many conditions may be tackled nowadays without having to resort to hospitalisation and even cancer patients may be treated with drugs that make home treatment feasible. Control of the drug chain therefore requires rational and clear procedures that improve the circulation of information and transparency of content, accurately defining the roles and responsibilities of the main parties involved. I fully support the setting up of a central data collection and evaluation system that is able to integrate national pharmacovigilance networks, maintaining the consistency of information. It would not indeed have been possible to exclude the filter of national networks, which are the only instrument able to guarantee the objectivity of validation, the quality of data coding, the relationship of causality and relations with those responsible for reporting. This is even more necessary when we come to open up a further channel of direct information with the patient and health professionals who will now be able to send valuable feedback quickly to the pharmacovigilance system. To this end, I must highlight the opportunity of training measures for health operators and an information campaign aimed at patients for more effective use of this instrument.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – Improvements to the current system of pharmacovigilance are necessary to have a system which operates quickly and efficiently in order to better protect consumers. The monitoring of the safety of medicines can be crucial to save lives and prevent public health crises. Further integration of pharmacovigilance at the European level is necessary because it increases the number of consumers reporting incidents of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). By increasing the pool of reported ADRs patterns, they can be assessed more quickly, thus allowing for drugs with adverse side effects to be withdrawn from the market or warnings added to the medicines. I support the amendments that seek to further protect consumers by allowing public and healthcare professionals full access to the central European EudraVigilance database. This allows all Member States to have access to the same information regarding ADRs. I agree to exclude pharmaceutical companies from the process of pharmacovigilance. In view of the facts, taking the pharmaceutical companies out of the process allows for more honest reporting of ADRs by removing the conflict of interest inherent in the process of self regulation.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. – (FI) The World Health Organisation has estimated that counterfeit medicines account for as much as 10% of the world’s pharmaceutical market. Counterfeit medicines are a matter of people’s health and welfare, and so the issue is a worrying one. It is a welcome move that improvements are now being made to patients’ access to information about medicines and their adverse reactions. In future, the information will be more easily accessible, for example, on new national and European websites dedicated to drug safety. Finally, I want to state my support for the rapporteur’s proposal that the Commission should be requested to produce a report on the environmental impact of medicines and assess whether there is a need to make further amendments to EU legislation on drugs in the near future. Thank you.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Pharmacovigilance has a very important position in public health. The side effects of medicines often have damaging effects on the health and lives of patients. Many legal cases have shown that pharmaceutical companies aim, for commercial reasons, to conceal the undesirable side effects of medicines for quite a long time. It is to be welcomed that, through adopting the proposed legislative acts, we will toughen up the criteria for ensuring the greater reliability of marketing authorisations or support the widespread use of the so-called emergency procedure. I support the measures for ensuring the quality of data in the pharmacovigilance system, and we should guarantee resources for efficient national pharmacovigilance. The whole system must be transparent for patients.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – This report is an important step on the way to a more coordinated and effective monitoring system for pharmaceutical products. Increasing the number of patients who are monitored will provide more information about new drugs, allowing the authorities and manufacturers to identify potential problems more quickly. There are many aspects of this report which will bring benefits, but I especially welcome the call for further research into the environmental impacts of pharmaceutical products, and the effects they can have on ground water, for example. Whenever we discuss health issues, I think it is always important to stress the value of preventative medicine and the importance of the principle that prevention is better than cure. Simple, health conscious decisions about lifestyle, including exercise and diet, can prevent the suffering and costs associated with serious – but preventable – diseases. We should always keep this in mind when discussing any aspect of health policy.

  Richard Seeber (PPE), in writing. – (DE) For patients, easy access to factual and independent background information on medicinal products is essential and also plays an important role in the research into adverse reactions and in the market safety of prescription medicines. The new directive and regulation on pharmacovigilance will substantially improve transparency and access to such information. The basis of, and explanations for, any adverse reactions will now be collected from the whole of Europe by the European Medicines Agency. The storage and processing of this data and the establishment of web portals to facilitate access to it will substantially improve the opportunities for patients to find out about medicines and their adverse effects. Particularly when European citizens are travelling, they will not be reliant on any particular websites but, where necessary, will be able to obtain objective information in their own language. In order to guarantee independence and objectivity, however, the information will have to be approved by relevant approval authorities. On the other hand, this will also guarantee the freedom of advertising in respect of this information. The new drug facts box will identify active substances that have been approved for the first time. All these measures will increase transparency and make it easier for patients to find pharmaceutical information in a clear and uncomplicated manner.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Pharmacovigilance is an important part of the system protecting patient health, reducing the risks and increasing the benefits of medicines. It is particularly important to assess and monitor the safety of medicines in the first years after they are brought into use. Within the framework of the licensing process, before medicines are actually put on the market, the information from preclinical and clinical studies is assessed first and foremost. However, many possible side effects cannot be discovered until after a medicine has been brought into use. In this context, it is patients who play an important role along with health workers in identifying adverse effects or the suspicion of such effects. However, it is equally important to have an expert assessment of this information, particularly in view of the frequently causal relationship between an adverse effect and the administration of a medicine. I therefore support the new element strengthening the position of patients by enabling them to get actively involved in the process of reporting adverse effects and a high quality evaluation system. In the Czech Republic, patients already have this option on the web portal of the State Institute for Drug Control, which I consider to be an example of good practice for those Member States where such an option does not yet exist.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The statistics show that as many as half of patients do not take medicines in accordance with medical advice, and around three quarters of patients would like to have easy access to reliable information on the action of medicines and possible side effects. The proposal for supervision of the safety of medicines strengthens the safety of patients and guarantees them the right to better information about the uses and action of a particular medicine. An important step towards transparency of information about medicines is the project to open an Internet-based information service, both at European and national levels. The national websites will be connected with the European one and will have to contain a description of the characteristics of each product, an information leaflet and an evaluation of the product’s effect on human health. The European Medicines Agency, in cooperation with the Member States and the Commission, will supervise this database, where it will assemble and compare information as part of its work in pharmacological supervision. I think this is an important step towards ensuring patients the right to better, reliable and objective information about pharmaceutical products.

10. Placing on the market and use of biocidal products (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Klaß, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products (COM(2009)0267 – C7-0036/2009 – 2009/0076(COD)) (A7-0239/2010).

  Christa Klaß, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, we have been discussing the Commission proposal to revise the directive concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, which was adopted in 1998, for more than a year. We now welcome this proposal in particular because we are turning a directive into a regulation. Europe must fulfil its responsibilities. This also means that the areas relating to the internal market must be governed by clear regulations.

Biocidal products are part of our civilisation, and our standard of living depends on them. They are essential in order to maintain the high standards of health and hygiene on which we insist. When used as disinfectants and pesticides, they protect us from dangerous diseases or from their carriers. Given our high population density, our society requires particular forms of hygiene to prevent germs and diseases from being transmitted. However, our international mobility enables diseases, viruses and bacteria to move rapidly around the world. It is important that infections are not allowed to spread in hospitals. The laundries must be able to control and eliminate all the germs that are introduced.

Biocides are also used to protect wood, textiles, leather, rubber, brickwork and are a component of metalworking fluids. Biocides kill moulds, germs and pests and provide us with protection against them. They must be effective and, as a result, they can be hazardous if used incorrectly. This is why we need strict regulations. The benefits and the risks must be carefully weighed up against one another. Above all, biocides must not be used excessively. We must ensure that they are handled and employed responsibly. Using a little is highly effective, but using too much can cause damage.

Therefore, we need a strategy for the sustainable use of biocides which provides information about alternatives. We must be aware of one thing. This is not primarily about protection against biocides, but about the protection provided by biocides. If someone’s hair is infested with lice, they must be able to combat the problem. However, they should first of all use a nit comb. If that does not help, then they can turn to a biocidal head lice treatment.

As nanotechnology is a new development, we must subject it to particularly critical scrutiny, because nanoparticles can get under our skin and directly into our water supplies. We must support research and innovation and not put obstacles in their path. We need to carry out more studies on biocides in water, as we currently have very little data available.

The objective of this regulation is to harmonise the internal market and introduce a streamlined procedure for approving active substances and products. For the first time, biocides will be subject to registration. It is obviously the right thing to do to organise and administer this properly on a European level. This brings genuine advantages for the internal market and for consumers. Parliament is calling for EU-wide approval of all products from 2017 and we are strongly supporting this call today. If we start drawing up a new regulation now, we must do it correctly and put it into practice within the required deadline.

The biocide market includes numerous different types of products and special applications, which are often only available in smaller quantities. We need this variety of different products in order to be able to combat the variety of harmful organisms. If we reduce the number of active substances, resistance among parasites and insects will increase, with fatal consequences. Therefore, we must ensure that the cost of registration and authorisation is kept within reasonable limits, particularly with regard to the many small and medium-sized manufacturers. Strict exclusion criteria are needed and it is right that they should be introduced. Parliament is proposing very clear exclusion criteria and defining limited exceptions in order to be able to meet the requirements of human health and the environment.

We also believe that consumer information is important. Therefore, materials that have been treated with biocides must also be included in the scope of the regulation. In future, materials sold in Europe must only be treated with biocides that are approved here. The serious health problems caused by fungicides used in the Far East on shoes and furniture which occurred last year have shown that we need stricter regulation and, most importantly, stricter import controls. This will provide protection for consumers and prevent the distortion of competition. On this basis, we have worked together to produce a compromise. I would ask my fellow Members to give their support to this compromise.

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I should like to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, the shadow rapporteurs and the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for their considerable work.

The 330 amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment and the global compromise adopted last week bear witness to their commitment to, and interest in, this dossier. These amendments support the general thrust of the Commission proposal.

Allow me to dwell on what we consider to be the main outstanding issues.

First issue: extending the EU authorisation system and related procedures. In order to reach agreement on this dossier, it is paramount that we reach a compromise on the study of the EU authorisation system and related procedures, especially the role of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

Although the Commission can, in principle, support extending the EU authorisation system to a larger group of biocidal products, it can only do so on two conditions.

Firstly, the ECHA and the Commission must have sufficient resources to be able to take on the additional workload. Without sufficient resources, delays will ensue which will compromise the advantages of the EU authorisation system.

Secondly, we need to design a mechanism suitable for gradually extending the scope of the system, for example, by staggering the introduction of types of products or by applying horizontal criteria, such as similar conditions of use.

As far as procedures relating to EU authorisation are concerned, the role of the ECHA will be essential in terms of the operation of the system. We need to ensure that ECHA resources are used for work which brings added value in terms of harmonisation or which cannot be carried out more efficiently by the Member States. I would also add that procedures need to be designed to cope with the extended scope of the EU authorisation system.

Second issue: derogations from exclusion criteria. On the thorny issue of derogations from exclusion criteria, I note that the compromise amendment allows a reasonable balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the objective of guaranteeing a high level of protection for the environment and human health and, on the other, the need to make provision for a certain degree of flexibility in cases in which there is no substitution solution.

Third issue: national derogations within the framework of mutual recognition. Although we recognise that national derogations within the framework of mutual recognition may be justified in certain circumstances, we feel that the Commission should examine such derogations on a case-by-case basis. If such derogations are authorised without making provision for supervision by the Commission, there is a risk of compromising the internal market in biocidal products, which the regulation is designed to promote.

Fourth issue: definition of low risk products. As far as the definition of low risk products is concerned, we need to make an effort to establish a pragmatic definition as the sine qua non of an effective policy on such products. Efforts would still appear to be needed before a clear definition of the criteria applicable to low risk products can be reached.

Fifth issue: treated articles. As regards treated articles, we support the amendments pitching controls at the level of active substances. As regards the labelling of such articles, we endorse the general approach of imposing different rules, depending on whether the articles have an internal or external effect, for example, depending on whether or not the product was intentionally discarded or came into contact with human beings or the environment.

Sixth issue: free riders. Although we support the compromise amendment on free riders, we have serious concerns about a number of other amendments linked to the concept of inclusion by company.

Seventh issue: nanomaterials. On the issue of nanomaterials, the Commission has abided by its policy of taking a decision on the basis of scientific factors and its wish to improve knowledge of these materials and approves the need to define nanomaterials and, if necessary, the principle of their separate evaluation.

Finally: animal tests. Although the Commission supports the objective of reducing animal tests, it considers that this should not be at the expense of a high level of protection for the environment and human health.

I shall now follow your debate on the proposal and proposed amendments closely and may include further clarification of these issues and other points in my final comments.

  Amalia Sartori, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, on her fruitful collaboration, which has enabled me to enrich her report with some important positions taken by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

I also hope she supports certain amendments that I have tabled with a view to tomorrow’s vote and which are aimed at avoiding the double assessment of risks connected to products that have already been authorised and therefore assessed, unless new information is received that would justify the need for new controls.

I am also pleased that, even though it will be introduced gradually, there will be an opportunity for central authorisation that extends to all product categories. In this regard, I would like to ask Commissioner Tajani – although you have already mentioned some of these things in your report – how, and to what extent, it will be necessary to provide the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) with the tools to smoothly and effectively handle the large number of dossiers that will be presented.

  Richard Seeber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to offer the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, and also Mrs Sartori, my warmest congratulations on the way in which they have worked with each other and with the shadow rapporteurs so successfully to produce a package that is, as I see it, politically acceptable to all the groups. It is important for us to remember that biocides are not an end in themselves. In fact, they perform many jobs in our modern society and Mrs Klaß has given us some examples of these.

The reason for using biocides is to fulfil consumers’ requirements for increased food safety and improved health. There are many areas where biocides are used and, at the same time, the manufacturers’ market is highly fragmented. I would like to focus, in particular, on the situation for manufacturers and also on the fact that the old directive was not able to meet the requirements either for improved health for consumers or for a well-functioning internal market for producers. One of the main problems is that we do not have an EU authorisation system for biocides. It is also important to make it clear that we need this EU authorisation system for as many groups of biocides as possible, otherwise the legislation will simply be a dead letter. I would like to defend the compromise reached on Article 33, which has made it possible for all the political groups to agree that the new regulation needs to be phased in and, at the same time, gives the Member States the opportunity to make exceptions in the case of particularly hazardous substances.

I believe that the package of compromises has been very carefully thought out. I would like to ask all my fellow Members to vote in favour of it.

  Dan Jørgensen, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DA) Mr President, when we hear the Commission speak and when we listen to the conservative Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), we could almost believe that this was merely a matter of finding solutions that are as simple and as effective as possible from a purely bureaucratic point of view. Naturally, that, too, is a real concern. Of course, this is also a matter of enabling the industry to market products and trade across borders. However, that is not the most important aspect. What is most important for us Social Democrats – and this is something that we will not compromise on – is health and the environment.

Nearly every day, there are new research results indicating that the overall chemical load that we, as people, are exposed to, and that our environment is exposed to, is increasing. We are seeing young girls reach puberty at the age of ten or eleven. We are seeing cancer spreading. New forms of cancer are appearing. We are seeing couples who are unable to have children. Many of these things are due to the chemicals that we are surrounded by.

Chemicals also have many beneficial effects; we do recognise that. However, if we know that there are chemicals that have extremely harmful effects, and we also know that there are alternatives to many of these chemicals, it goes without saying that we must replace the dangerous ones with the safe alternatives. This goes for biocides, too. The most important thing for us, therefore – and we seem to have achieved it to some extent with this compromise – was to get the dangerous substances replaced by safe alternatives.

We also insisted that if we allow a centralised process for approval, which may be a sensible thing to do, as it may, among other things, reduce bureaucracy, the individual countries must have the opportunity to say ‘no’ if there are special circumstances in a particular country that make it necessary to prohibit or to impose restrictions on a chemical in that country. We also said that it is not only a matter of which substances are placed on the market, but also of how they are used. We therefore insisted on new legislation being drawn up in the near future, namely, a framework directive on how to use biocides.

Finally, we insisted on there being as few animal experiments as possible. Too many animal experiments are currently used and there are alternatives. This was another of our objectives that we believe we have succeeded in achieving.

  Corinne Lepage, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, thanks to everyone’s work, especially that of the rapporteur, we have achieved at least one objective. We have, after very difficult discussions, reached agreement on a key point of the authorisation procedure.

Our position on this issue went in the right direction. Firstly, we needed to guarantee the viability of the system, to clearly prevent the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) from suddenly being inundated with requests to which it was unable to respond and, secondly, we needed to promote a system which encourages low risk products. A balanced compromise has been achieved on this point. It gives us time, as it allows four years for putting the system into place, and it offers a bonus for the least hazardous products.

For the rest, although we support the amendments to give the system flexibility, such as frame formulations, we refuse to allow this to be introduced at any price. The toxicity of certain products, such as pesticides, is clear, and I fully endorse the statements made by our fellow Member, Mr Jørgensen, about the impact of a number of products on health and the environment.

That is why we reject any provision which might call the quality of product assessment into question or detract from the system by encouraging the substitution of the most worrying substances, and why a series of amendments just tabled is completely unbalanced and cannot be supported.

Let us not deceive ourselves. This is the outcome of a position that gives priority to short-term interests over protection for health and the environment. We must never forget that health and the environment are not only values which we defend; it is also in the economic interest of society as a whole to defend them.

  Michèle Rivasi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I consider that progress has been made in this text, including on two fundamental aspects: the need for labelling if nanoparticles are present in a product and, more importantly, the fact that each of these nanosubstances will also be subject to separate evaluation, which is not currently the case. Progress has also been made in terms of the possibility of excluding endocrine disrupters from substances used, with specific and properly applicable exclusion criteria.

But – there is a but – we disagree on the actual resources for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), because that agency’s mission should be to evaluate and authorise biocidal products.

However, we have just extended the ECHA’s mission; we agree with that, but extending it means giving the ECHA the resources to really do its job. We cannot ask the ECHA to do a lot more work, to reduce substance evaluation times, while, at the same time, reducing its resources. If we do so, we risk coming up against simplified assessments, which may well be fast, but which will be superficial and therefore inadequate.

That is why I call on you, Mrs Klaß, to reconsider your budgetary proposal concerning the ECHA missions in this dossier. As it stands, I must say that your proposal is not a serious one, and this will affect the standard of work of that European institution, which is essential to the safety of European citizens and consumers.

This is an important issue. You cannot demand more if the resources are not available, or else the ECHA will just be an administrative agency which responds to the industrial lobby.

  Julie Girling, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Klaß. In my 60 seconds, I can only mention two issues in this important and complex dossier. The first is the issue of PBTs – persistent bioaccumulative and toxic substances. Biocides are, by their nature, toxic: they kill something, usually something nasty which is a danger to human health and often to animal health. So if anyone is tempted to vote in favour of Amendment 61, which would make toxicity the lone criteria for substitution, then beware: you will be cutting across the whole rationale of protecting public health and the environment.

This brings me to my second point: the substance Difenacoum. Amendment 243 seeks to restrict the use of this rodenticide to professionals only. A quick look in my local store at the weekend confirmed this active substance to be in about half of the products available, and all with clear instructions for use. Rodenticides create resistance: they need to be used in rotation to remain effective. Taking one product away will upset this balance and could lead to a major public health disaster. Please, colleagues, do not be instrumental in letting this happen.

  Sabine Wils, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, biocides form part of many cleaning products, disinfectants, insect sprays and other everyday products which people come into contact with in the course of their daily lives. There are currently more than 50 000 biocide products in the European Union. I would like to make it perfectly clear to everyone that biocides are mainly used by private citizens. Biocides are often non-biodegradable, in some cases, carcinogenic, highly toxic substances, and can cause harm to people, animals and the environment when they are being used and disposed of. People and young children in particular are especially at risk when biocides are used in the home, for example, in the form of wood preservatives and insect sprays.

It is true that the manufacturers say that their products are not hazardous if they are used properly. However, given that 400 000 tonnes of biocides are sold to and used by private individuals in the EU every year, it is important that improper use and the occurrence of accidents are taken into consideration. As this has not yet been the case, I have tabled an amendment on this subject and I would ask you vote in favour of it. This is Amendment 352.

Should the purpose of this regulation be to increase the free circulation of biocidal products within the European Union as the Commission has proposed? Or is this House more concerned with protecting people and the environment? It is essential that we introduce a strict ban on particularly hazardous substances. We must make a decision which supports the cause of consumers, otherwise we will be putting people’s health at risk.

  Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the term ‘biocidal product’ is used to designate the active substances or mixtures containing one or more active substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user, intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism by chemical or biological means. To give a clearer idea of what we are talking about here, nearly all of the fruits and vegetables that reach our tables have been treated.

Although these products are now indispensable since most animal and plant parasites are becoming increasingly resistant to their effects, they must be kept under control because they often have adverse effects on humans. For example, some of them require a specific amount of time to break down after contact with food products, and for that reason, clearly defined types must be used during specific periods of the year.

Failure to comply with these timescales has serious consequences for people who consume treated products: from sudden allergic reactions to reactions associated with long-term use, which can include serious diseases or their precursors. Genuine poisons such as rodenticides, which are sold freely for domestic use, are also considered biocides. Unfortunately, even though allowing the free trade of these products may pose risks, we cannot conceive of prohibiting their use at a time when we are seeing a considerable increase in parasite and rodent infestations in European cities.

Particular attention must also be paid to the free movement of goods within the European Union, to the use of different types of biocides, whether permitted or not in the various Member States, and especially to the entry of goods from third countries where they are not yet regulated. We must guarantee, at EU level, that these products are used with the utmost seriousness and in strict compliance with the time required for their toxicity to break down.

  Catherine Soullie (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, as our rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, reminded us, biocidal products play an essential role, be it in the domestic – and hence private – sphere or in relation to public places. Biocides safeguard our hygiene and health on a daily basis.

It is important that we achieve a coherent Community text. It needs to be coherent, first and foremost, with other European legislation. REACH legislation, for example, cannot and must not come into conflict with the regulation on biocides. It is important to avoid administrative and legislative red tape which strangles and suffocates our businesses.

On this point, I should like to express my support for the compromise achieved by our rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, on the thorny issue of exclusion criteria and candidates for substitution. Similarly, the frame formulation approach for all biocidal products is an essential element of the regulation. It will significantly increase the efficacy of the Community authorisation system.

Then, it is a Community text. The introduction of the concept of centralised authorisation in the Union, and the simplification of the procedure and the reduction in the authorisation times for certain tests relating to research and development activities, are two initial positive steps towards the harmonisation of the European market in biocidal products.

Finally, we must not lose sight of our ambitions for this text: protection, of course, but the construction of our Community market and European innovation must also be an integral part of our approach.

  Jo Leinen (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, along with industrial chemicals and agricultural chemicals, household chemicals represent the third large group of substances which are of significance for the environment and human health, and we are introducing rules covering these products in the biocide regulation. I believe that we have made significant progress since the old directive which dates back to 1998. Other speakers have already mentioned this. We are introducing a comprehensive regulation which applies not only to products manufactured in the EU, but also to imported products. This is very important. We are improving the labelling of these substances and, as Mr Jørgensen has said, we are calling for animal testing of these products to be replaced with alternative methods. We want to see animal tests reduced to a minimum or even abolished altogether in this area. In addition, we want particularly hazardous substances to be replaced with substances which are less dangerous.

All of these measures represent progress and we can explain to the citizens of Europe that they will benefit human health and the environment. I was surprised about the level of disagreement as to whether or not the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki should be responsible for monitoring and authorising these products. We want the same standards to apply throughout Europe and we want it to be possible for these products to be sold on the European market. For this reason, it is right that the ECHA takes responsibility for this area. I would like to ask Mr Tajani whether the ECHA has sufficient funding and the right organisation to be able to take on this task.

My thanks go to Mrs Klaß and to the shadow rapporteurs for achieving a consensus on this subject.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, from my point of view, Amendment 18 to Article 1 perfectly sums up what should be our philosophy: we need to ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment and, at the same time, improve the functioning of the internal market.

Clearly, no one in this House wishes to question the use of biocides, which are very useful in combating rodents, cockroaches, lice – I understand that this is the time for lice in schools – and pests in general. The challenge actually lies elsewhere; it lies in their increasing numbers, in my opinion, with manufacturers putting more and more products on the market but balking at the idea of safer solutions. As the rapporteur said, more can be less.

The other major challenge is to find risk-reduction policies, which are too often postponed by governments when they are ambitious, and yet they are essential, because users tend to forget that biocides may be familiar substances, but they are still dangerous to use. The European Parliament also needs to spread this message of precaution.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur for her hard work. The regulation of biocides and biocidal products requires a balanced approach which takes into consideration the interests of manufacturers, on the one hand, and the welfare and safety of consumers and our environment, on the other.

I wish to say a few words on one aspect of this report. I was very concerned with the initial proposal from the Commission, which may have led to a ban on rodenticides. These substances are the most widely used products in the fight against rodent infestations and are a vitally important tool in the agricultural and agrifood sector.

I have received many representations from farmers and public bodies in my constituency, and other interested parties, who are totally opposed to such a ban, arguing that it would have serious negative implications for their respective industries. While the agriculture lobby may not be 100% happy with this regulation as it stands, I was reassured to see that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety passed some amendments which will hopefully go some way towards guaranteeing the exemption of these rodenticides. In this regard, I would urge colleagues to uphold the committee’s position and vote for the relevant amendments in tomorrow’s debate.

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). – Mr President, I must say that it is quite enthusing to see that there are so many MEPs who treat this place with the contempt I do. Out of the 736, there are fewer than 30 of them here – which is under five percent – and it is half four on a Tuesday afternoon.

As usual, EU rules and regulations are running out of control. But that is nothing compared to the rats and mice that will run out of control when the EU takes away common rat poison from ordinary householders. This is what Amendment 243 of this report will do. This daft piece of legislation will ensure that only professionals will be allowed to put down rat poison, which is freely available in shops. So, if rats are in your front garden, spreading their diseases and chewing everything up, the ordinary UK householder will be forced to wait for the Council rat catcher or have to pay for Rentokil.

We are already told that you are never further than 20 yards away from a rat in a city centre in the UK. This piece of crazy legislation will only make things worse. To put this into perspective, this is a piece of bureaucracy for a rat poison that has been safely used by ordinary folk for the past 30 years – not only in the UK, but across Europe and in the USA.

I will finish by asking a question. Why are you doing this? Do you want more vermin? Do you want more disease? Or is it just about control and your obsession with trying to govern every single aspect of our lives?

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate has shown that this was a very complex report and that we have now reached a good compromise. My thanks go to the rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteurs.

The compromise compensates for the deficiencies of the existing directive. It standardises the authorisation processes, which I feel is extremely important, and it provides comprehensive protection for human health and the environment.

However, in other ways the provisions do not go far enough. The point has been clearly made in the debate today that these products are very important for our environment, for the growth of the agriculture industry and for the food sector. I would just like to mention the example of rodenticides. Products for combating rats and mice are essential in the agriculture and food industries. I have seen the evidence of the problems caused by mice and rats which farmers have to contend with in their fields. These pests cause considerable losses. Anyone here who says that all the products which would help in this situation should be banned should think carefully about how to protect our food supplies.

This report is an effective solution, because it takes action against hazardous substances. If replacements are available, then they must, of course, be used. This is absolutely clear.

I would like to ask the Commission to focus more heavily on the new form of nanotechnology in its research and to make greater use of it. It will give us the opportunity to find substances which are less hazardous and more effective.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a regulation concerning biocides that we are analysing is designed to simplify the authorisation and renewal procedures for the placing on the market of biocidal products.

This simplification will lead to a reduction in costs and administrative responsibilities for companies, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, without reducing the level of protection of the environment and of human and animal health. It was very difficult to maintain a balance between these two aspects, but I believe that some of the compromise amendments proposed by the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs, who I would like to thank for their hard work, represent an important step forward.

Precisely in order to remain consistent with the request for simplification, I believe that the comparative assessment procedure currently required for all biocides should not be required for biocides that have been demonstrated as safe for use. I hope that the amendment tabled along those lines in plenary will be adopted by my fellow Members.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, it is good to hear the UK Independence Party confirming that they do not care a jot about animal cruelty, that they are happy to have the world treated like a giant chemistry set. Thalidomide and DDT would be on everyone’s breakfast table if they had their way.

A concern has been raised here that we have seen in British newspapers, about the effect of banning anti-coagulant rodenticides and the question of whether this will lead to rat infestations in cities and towns. We have worked with the Commission; we have raised the issues brought to our attention by professionals; and working with the Commission, changes have been made. They are now in Article 5, and I believe they have the support of the Commission. That should deal with the major problem which has been expressed.

But there is the issue that Mrs Girling has raised: Article 44 about Difenacoum. I would like the Commission to explain whether it supports Amendment 243 because it seems to me that it contradicts in some ways the changes being proposed to Article 5.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). – Mr President, I am delighted that attempts to ban all anti-coagulants and rodenticides have failed. Had such a ban won majority support, it would have led – as we have heard already – to an explosion of rats and mice across Europe, with the consequent damage to stored crops, farms and domestic properties on a large scale.

It is estimated that seven per cent of all house fires and 50 per cent of all farm fires are caused by rodents gnawing electric cables. Sadly, the Environment Committee did adopt one specific ban of a widely used second generation, anti-coagulant rodenticide. As we have heard, that rodenticide is Difenacoum. I hope the House will vote against Amendment 243 so as to enable this effective rat poison to continue in use, particularly as it has already undergone rigorous scientific assessment and has been through a proper and detailed regulatory process.

  Anna Rosbach (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, various hitherto unknown allergies, people with fertility problems, an increase in the incidence of rare diseases, poisoned fish and shellfish and food from animals filled with medicine residues are just some of the issues that concern the people of Europe. More and more chemical substances fill our everyday lives to make life easier for us and to make consumer goods seem a lot more attractive. Do these chemicals do us good? No, they certainly do not. Nevertheless, with this report, we now need to find a legislative balance between driving competitive enterprise in a sensible way while, at the same time, focusing on the environment and people’s safety.

This is a difficult balancing act. I do not see a greater focus on the protection of people and the environment. Therefore, I can only recommend that we vote in favour of those amendments that set the highest safety limits. However, it will be a positive development if we can increase our chance of ensuring that EU countries do not import goods from parts of the world that do not meet our safety requirements.

  Pavel Poc (S&D). – (CS) We have to realise that biocidal medicines, while their use may be unavoidable, are simply poisons that we come into contact with on a daily basis. As such, they simply represent a risk to human health and a burden on the environment. It is therefore logically necessary to adhere to the highest levels of protection for human health, for animals and for nature. Excessive flexibility represents a considerable risk, because the risk is not only in these materials, but also in the ways of using them, and misuse as regards the quantities in which they enter the food chain. I would consider it a major success to have a complete ban on extremely hazardous biocidal medicines, including mutagenic and carcinogenic substances and substances that are toxic from the perspective of reproduction. The new legislation is and should be ambitious and, in my opinion, the ECHA is quite capable of commencing with the unified European licensing of biocidal medicines by 2015 rather than waiting until 2017.

  Holger Krahmer (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, it is good that we are looking at biocides, because they are hazardous, toxic substances. However, I am wondering why we do not base every piece of chemical legislation that we implement on the same system as that of REACH. We have passed the most comprehensive piece of chemical legislation in the world. The principles have been laid down: collect the data, evaluate it, authorise the product. Why are we using a different system for subsequent chemical legislation and defining new exclusion criteria, which ultimately also results in chemicals that we need and that, in some cases, do not have alternatives, being withdrawn from the market?

I think that we will end up in a blind alley if we draw up our policy on chemicals purely from the perspective of toxic substances. Pest infestations can be much more dangerous, in particular, for small children because of the risks of disease transmission, than the few milligrams of biocides which we use to combat them. I would like to see the situation being put into proportion and, most importantly, I would like to see regulations that can be used not only by large companies which have the resources to enter into a discussion with the authorisation bodies, but also by smaller companies which supply useful products for niche markets.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, the aim of this regulation is to protect public health and the environment. The current regime for authorisation is too slow and bureaucratic. We must ensure that the authorisation of new products is more efficient, both in time and money.

Pest control is central to the protection of human health. I welcome the amendments that will improve the availability of some products that kill rodents but, as has already been discussed, a problem remains over the treatment of Difenacoum. This is an effective and widely used rodenticide. It should be classified as an authorised substance. It is essential to the effective control of rats and mice. Its removal from Annex I by the Commission is simply irrational, and I invite the Commission to explain why this occurred. The authorisation of products should always be based on the result of scientific assessment, not by politicians seeking to grab a headline.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Congratulations to Mrs Klaß, who has prepared a balanced report on an extremely complex topic, although debate did arise in the Chamber because some Members take the question of biocide regulation seriously while others want to reduce it to a fight against rodents. I wish to point out that this is a very serious matter, and the report excels by addressing environmental protection, consumer protection and chemical industry concerns simultaneously. The new biocide regulations add greater safeguards and protect housewives and domestic workers, but not pests. Therefore, I believe that we have to support the Klaß report, and that the fears expressed on the other side of Parliament lack foundation. Yes, there is a need for increased protection and the Helsinki Agency will perform this function with distinction. 2017 suits Hungary and the new Member States.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) On the one hand, the chemical composition of biocidal products makes them quite dangerous, especially for people who are more susceptible, such as children or pregnant women. On the other hand, however, they are essential and simply indispensable for protecting human health.

Therefore, it is necessary to establish – and this, indeed, is happening – standards which are common to all EU Member States, so that people can feel safe and the firms which produce these substances will have clearly established norms which will not cause a reduction in their competitiveness. The harmonisation of legislation should cover the entire cycle of the existence of these products in the market, from production to waste management, so that they do not pose a threat to the environment or to human health. This should, indeed, be a priority. This does not mean we should not be concerned about maintaining good conditions for modern industry.

  John Bufton (EFD). – Mr President, the adoption of the report by Ms Klaß would undoubtedly see an explosion in rat populations, jeopardising sanitation in homes and on farms.

Rats carry diseases such as e-coli and salmonella and can cause significant damage to property, in some cases, leading to electrical fires. Farms, especially, fall victim to rat infestations without effective pest extermination. Anti-coagulants are the most widely used method of rat poisoning and are by far the most effective, accounting for around 95% of rodent control.

In May, I directed a written question to the Commission requesting formal acknowledgement of the implications of a ban and sought a support framework for those affected, as well as indications as to possible alternative pest control.

The Commission stated they were open to discussion with the aim of ensuring that appropriate solutions were found. What kind of solution does the Commission propose? Has there been an impact assessment into the prohibition of anti-coagulants as rodenticides? Will there be a viable support framework, and have alternative rodenticides been identified?

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, allow me to start by underlining once again how much the Commission appreciates the commitment and interest of the Members of this House on this dossier.

Although this is a highly complex proposal, it contains several important and sensitive aspects from a political point of view. The remarks you have just made and the questions you have raised illustrate just how well the Members of this House have understood the various facets of this issue.

I must also reiterate the Commission’s concerns in terms of the amendments to the scope of the EU authorisation system. Although the Commission can, in principle, support extending the EU authorisation system to a larger group of biocidal products, we consider that this should be accompanied by sufficient resources for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the Commission, and gradual implementation mechanisms. It is only if these two conditions are met that we shall be able to implement an efficient system, which is our common objective.

As regards the questions raised by Mrs Sartori and Mr Leinen as to how to guarantee that the ECHA will be able to take on this workload in future, ensuring that the resources made available to the ECHA are adequate is one of the Commission’s main concerns in connection with proposals to extend the scope of the EU authorisation system.

We are working with the sector in order to establish more precisely the number of biocidal products currently available on the EU market. Estimates vary from 9 000 to 60 000 products. It is therefore very difficult to forecast the additional workload that including a larger number of products in the centralised system would involve for the ECHA. The general objective of the proposal for a regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market in biocidal products, while at the same time guaranteeing a high level of protection for the environment and public health.

I am even going to reply to Mr Schnellhardt on nanomaterials. The Commission agrees that we need a definition of nanomaterials. It is waiting for the outcome of the public enquiry organised by one of our scientific committees and hopes to be able to propose a definition which meets the criteria in the near future.

As far as Amendment 243 is concerned, I shall reply to Mr Davies. The Commission cannot support this amendment, because it calls into question Annex I, which is based on an in-depth impact study and which has just entered into force.

I am therefore satisfied that we have done a good job. We must continue the constructive dialogue between Parliament, the Council and the Commission at second reading.

IN THE CHAIR: Isabelle DURANT
Vice-President

  Christa Klaß, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to thank all my fellow Members for the debate today. However, sometimes I think that we do not really know what we are talking about. I would like to say once again that we are talking here about products which we and our standard of living depend on, which help us to meet important hygiene standards, which combat disease and parasites and which provide protection for stored goods. All of these things are covered by the term biocide. They are essential to us and also to our future. The main priorities in all our discussions were the environment and standards of health. It is clear that we are working to achieve clear exclusion criteria, limited exceptions and objective information for consumers.

Mr Tajani, I am not completely satisfied by the answer you gave on the subject of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). ECHA has the resources, it has the hardware, it can manage the REACH system and it can certainly do a great deal with regard to biocides in future. What we need now is simply some clever ideas. We will have time for this during the phasing-in period. Let us make use of this time to come up with some intelligent ideas together. It is not possible simply to say that we have no money and we cannot do it. If we want to do the right thing for the internal market, then the future lies in an EU-wide authorisation process. I invite everyone to take part and I am also asking the Commission for its support.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The biocidal products market in Europe is estimated to be worth around EUR 890 million annually, which is about 27% of the global market. Biocides are used in domestic situations and in industry on a daily basis. These materials are used as disinfectants, preservatives, insecticides and rodenticides. When using biocides, however, particular attention should be paid to the safety of consumers, for it is important that the use of biocides should not pose a threat to the health or life of humans or animals. Therefore, we should conduct a thorough review of all biocides imported into the European Union and of their market turnover, especially as regards newly introduced products. Caution is also important when buying biocidal products, and the system developed in the Union should accomplish full unification on the question of legislation. In addition, within the Union’s structures, a programme is under way to review the active substances used in biocidal products. The Union should draw up, to cover all Member States, a unified list of nanomaterials which are being tested and which will then be able to be used in chemical production processes. This will mean that nanomaterials, which may have a major impact on technological development, will not be excluded from the market, and that the environment and the health of consumers will not be endangered.

11. Multiannual financial framework for 2007-2013 (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013 (COM(2010)0072 – 2010/0048(APP)) (A7-0248/2010).

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, we are currently faced with the difficult task of consolidating public budgets in the European Union and this is bound to have an impact on our discussions.

Under the terms of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure, we are submitting to you today an interim report on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013. I would like to explain to the Council that we are highly dissatisfied because no negotiations have yet taken place concerning the adjustment of the multiannual financial framework on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. This adjustment based on Point 4 of the existing interinstitutional agreement is as follows: In the case of a revision of a treaty which will have an impact on the budget, the existing interinstitutional agreement must be adjusted accordingly. This will take the form of a consensus between the institutions.

In addition, Article 6(4) of the Treaty of Lisbon states: ‘The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.’

In fact, the public budget of the European Union has come off badly in the public discussions. Most people do not know that we are not allowed to get into debt. Most people forget that during the period 2000-2008, there was an annual increase of 4.4% in the budgets of the 27 Member States. During this period, the increase in the European budget was 4.5%, which is at almost the same level. However, in this period, we also had to accommodate the financial enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 27 Member States. Even in this financial perspective, we have always remained well below the upper limit of the multiannual financial framework, both with regard to our commitments and, in particular, in the budgets which have been adopted, to our payments. In the 2010 budget, we were around EUR 12 billion below the multiannual budgetary perspective. You do not need to say anything to us about sensible and restrained budgetary policy.

The Commission and the Council prefer to regard the necessary amendments relating to the Treaty of Lisbon as being of a technical nature. However, should we let ourselves be tied down without the necessary political changes taking place? I do not believe that we should. We want to see the necessary political adjustments being made in order to ensure that the Union has the ability to act both internally and externally over the next few years.

As we all know, the Treaty of Lisbon has assigned new tasks to the European Union, ranging from the External Action Service to space policy. We are also currently looking at the additional financing for the ITER project. Furthermore, the European Council of Heads of State or Government has decided on a financial stabilisation mechanism, which bypasses the budgetary authority. At the same time, the Council is constantly making promises that agencies, bananas and ITER will be financed. They have put together a jumble of figures which no one can accept.

We have come to the overall conclusion in this interim report that a change is needed in the multiannual financial framework, including the flexibility mechanism in the existing regulations. It must also be obvious that we cannot have any new agencies without corresponding additional funding. We should make it clear that no negotiations need to take place without a minimum of flexibility in the budget. This will allow us to ensure that there are flexible majority decisions, in the same way as there were before the Treaty of Lisbon, with regard to the first stage of the revision of financial programming below 0.03% of the gross national income. Overall, we need a greater degree of flexibility and the creation of adequate reserves for every heading.

I would like to ask the Council not to take such a sceptical approach. This does not change the fact that we must come to an agreement during the annual budgetary procedure. However, the alternatives for the Council in the case of all these multiannual projects and new priorities are ultimately as follows: Do we want to have disputes and difficult negotiations for three years in a row on the same subject? That really is a waste of human resources. Or do we want to find a sensible overall solution to the questions to which I have referred? I am calling for the start of really serious political negotiations between the Commission, Council and Parliament on the basis of the treaties.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to take note of the proposal for a resolution of this House on the Commission proposal for a regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013.

In any case, I should like to say to you today, at this stage, that I shall do no more – and this will come as no surprise – than advise you, or advise you for a second time, of the Council’s opinion on this matter. I should therefore like to state that the Council considers that the so-called Lisbon legislative package, in the budgetary field – which includes this regulation – must be strictly limited to technical implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. In other words, the transposition of the current multiannual financial framework into a regulation should not amount to anything more than a simple transposition of the existing financial perspective. The Commission proposal is along exactly these lines, and at this stage, the Council does not wish to discuss a revision of the multiannual financial framework.

That said, you will appreciate that our positions are quite far apart, but I am convinced that in the weeks and months to come, we shall come to an agreement on this regulation, in particular, no later than during the course of our negotiations on the budget conciliation, which must be completed by the end of November.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Members of Parliament, the Commission welcomes the report and hopes that this is a step forward towards real negotiations and the final agreement of the Lisbon budgetary package.

The regulation being discussed today is only part of a package, as requested in Article 312 of the treaty, to incorporate the multiannual financial framework regulation into the Council regulation to be adopted by unanimity, after obtaining the consent of Parliament. What is left is a residual interinstitutional agreement and the revision of the Financial Regulation. Taken all together, that is the Lisbon budgetary package, and I think this is a coherent set of rules.

Now we need to agree on the package and I believe that the coming conciliation in October/November is the best occasion on which to base our budgetary procedures upon solid grounds in compliance with the Lisbon Treaty.

The major message coming from Parliament’s report, restated by Mr Böge, is very clear. Parliament would like to have more political exercise on this occasion, while the Commission has chosen to make this a transposition of rules, making as many changes as needed by the new treaty alignment methodology so as not to cause additional problems on this occasion. This was a conscious choice.

I can agree with the rapporteur that there are new responsibilities for the various institutions stemming from the Lisbon Treaty and the budgetary impact should be carefully assessed so that, should it lead to the need for additional appropriations, the Commission is ready to present proposals as in the case of ITER. This can possibly be discussed.

We very much welcome Parliament’s position in favour of flexibility, at least at the same level as it has been so far. This is needed, as was proved by our procedure, so I think both arms of the budgetary authority should be committed to a solution that cannot be legally disputed and respects the role of the institutions.

I am, of course, ready as usual to commit to the compromise. I have to repeat that the conciliation of October/November should offer this opportunity as we really need to proceed further on the solid ground of the new procedures, as this is legally undisputed and in compliance with the Lisbon Treaty.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, I would like to start with some advice for the President-in-Office of the Council. I do not believe it is very politically advisable to rely so much on the conciliation procedure in October and November when you are starting from a position such as the one that you are putting forward in this House, which is so different. There is honestly going to be very little room for agreement with a position as different as the one that you have just set out.

In any case, and taking up the arguments put forward by my colleague Mr Böge, over all these years in the Council, you have had the unfortunate habit of establishing political priorities without considering the budgetary framework. This has resulted in us doing some financial engineering in Galileo, the European Economic Recovery Plan, the Food Facility and recently, in the Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the International Experimental Thermonuclear Reactor, which are a long way from the parliamentary monitoring and transparency which you, as governments, do demand in your national budgets. The EU budget deserves exactly the same consideration as national budgets. Forgetting this is a sure route towards problems.

We do not have margins, we are unaware of the real expectations for the implementation of numerous multiannual programmes, and we reject the generalised use of re-budgeting as an alternative to exhausting those margins.

Re-budgeting does not save money on the budget but rather, it is an example of bad budgetary practices and zero planning.

A genuine medium-term budgetary review should, as the Commissioner says, result in considerations regarding flexibility and some figures. After a two-year delay, this is the least that Parliament deserves and is prepared to accept.

  Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Madam President, today we are meeting once again in this House to remind the Commission and the Council of something that they have known since 2006 when we adopted the current financial framework for the Union: the EU budget does not have enough money to finance the policies that the Council and the Commission have decided upon and which we in Parliament have also supported.

All of us knew this when we adopted the financial framework for 2007-2013. We knew that the budget was underfunded in priority areas but we adopted it in order to avoid a discussion in the Council from which there was no way out. However, the condition for adopting it was that the financial framework would be revised in 2008 and 2009 and, despite those agreements, we have reached 2010 without any proposals from the Commission.

At times, they have given us the excuse of the economic crisis, but the money that we were asking for was precisely for the purpose of reactivating the European economy. I said to you in June that we were debating such important matters as the Europe 2020 strategy. This was to prevent us from falling behind in terms of research, development and innovation, job creation, global competitiveness, and the environment. I would like to ask you again if you really believe that we are going to be able to achieve all of these objectives without increasing the EU budget, or if instead we are once again going to go no further than making declarations that sound good. I have still not heard an answer to this question.

Today, for example, in New York, our Heads of State or Government are working to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals are met, and Parliament strongly supports them. Unfortunately, however, our support is not enough and that is why we need the ministers responsible for the budgets to take on these commitments and agree to make the necessary resources available to the European Union.

We need this money now, for this year’s and next year’s budgets and, for example, to finance the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor without having to cut funding from a programme that has already been decided, such as the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

The debate on the next budget could be poisoned if the Council insists on opposing a review of the financial framework as it seems it is doing once again today. The budgetary procedure established by the Treaty of Lisbon could become a serious focus of conflict between the Council and Parliament if we do not pull in the same direction.

For all these reasons, we ask the Commission and the Council to work with Parliament to review the current financial framework so that we can finance all the initiatives that have already been named. Without that review, the European Union is not going to be able to fulfil or respond to the public’s expectations. We will not be able to meet our commitments in terms of competitiveness, growth and employment or in the area of foreign relations.

We therefore ask you to think about the problems that we have had when adopting all the budgets under the current financial framework. We have had to use available margins and the Flexibility Instrument in order to finance such important priorities as Galileo, the Food Facility and the European Economic Recovery Plan.

We ask you for flexibility, not only in order to deal with the current demands, but also so that we have sufficient margins for future needs. In short, we ask you for commitment and ambition, to join forces, to mobilise resources and to take action in order to really give the European Union the boost that it needs.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Madam President, I would like to offer my thanks to Mr Lewandowski and to the Council for making the difference between your views and ours very clear. In contrast to the previous speaker, I would like to emphasise that what we are primarily asking for in our report is not more money, but for the EU to avoid disorder and chaos. This is precisely what we will get if we do not adhere to agreements that have been entered into and to the text of the treaty. This concerns paragraph 4 of the current interinstitutional agreement and also Articles 311 and 312 of the treaty.

Several people have already mentioned that the Treaty of Lisbon provides new competences, for example, foreign policy, space and energy policy, and, in recent years, we have seen new needs arise for which funding is to be found. Galileo, the food facility and the European Economic Recovery Plan have also been mentioned. Parliament supported these new initiatives, but we did not think them up. It was you – in the Commission and the Council. I have to say that the aversion on the part of the Council and the Commission to the necessary revision of the financial framework stands in stark contrast to the fact that you are always coming up with new proposals and demanding new resources yourselves, for example, in relation to the Bananas Agreement and now for the ITER Fusion for Energy project.

To top it all, we are seeing a worrying tendency for the Member States to happily pay for joint projects, provided it is outside the EU budget. This creates additional bureaucracy and it does not ensure the democratic control of the use of the funds. Therefore, I can safely say that this debate is not just about more or less money for the EU; it is about proper control and avoiding disorder and chaos.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, thank you very much. I believe that we must keep the different problems separate from one another. When we adopted the current financial perspective, the Council promised us that there would be a change or a review and that we would have a detailed discussion together about the problems of this budget. There are two sets of problems. Our own resources system, which determines where the money for the European budget will come from is not as up-to-date or as forward-looking as it should be. We do not want any new EU taxes which put a greater burden on the citizens of Europe. Instead, we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance want an own resources system with more environmental taxes and a financial transaction tax which will result in the current payments made by the Member States being reduced. I think that this is very important. Therefore, we are not simply calling for EU taxes which would represent an additional burden for citizens. Instead, we are looking for a new, fairer and more environmentally friendly financing model.

At the time, other things were promised, because, of course, we all know that the current budget is too rigid. There are too few possibilities for reallocating items within the budget. We are faced with new political challenges and the European budget is not currently in a position to react appropriately to them. This is why the Council and the Commission are constantly suggesting new things that need financing which the budget cannot accommodate. We must find a way out of this muddle and the Council has not yet indicated that it is really prepared to do this. I believe that this is a major political problem for the European Union, because we cannot make contact with the citizens of Europe in this way.

In contrast, there are things that we need to do which also involve the Treaty of Lisbon. We want to take more joint action on a European level with regard to energy policy, we need a more effective approach to tackling climate change and we want to do more about space travel, tourism and foreign policy. However, if we want to do all this and to take it seriously, we must adapt our European budget accordingly. The Council needs to take decisive action in this respect. That means not just more money, but more flexibility within the budget and a new strategic focus which will ensure that European policy is really forward-looking and which will enable us to finance the things that we want to achieve with the Europe 2020 strategy. At the moment, we cannot do this with the current budget. Therefore, we need new strategic decisions in order to make the European Union fit for the future. Of course, we as Members of the European Parliament want to maintain our authority and we want to use the powers assigned to us by the Treaty of Lisbon, which means that Parliament must always have an appropriate level of involvement. This is what we are calling for. Thank you very much.

  Jacek Włosowicz, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) The European Union finds itself on a dangerous bend in the financial road. The maintenance of financial stability is endangered as never before in the Union’s history. We have to specify the resources which are going to be needed to continue EU projects which have already begun, as well as other resources which will enable efficient transition to performance of the new roles which have been imposed on us by the Treaty of Lisbon. We also have to include resources for new situations which we were not able to anticipate in advance.

Budgetary discipline is one thing, but life is another matter. The current economic situation is making us reconsider our priorities in order to ensure correct maintenance of budgetary discipline. We have to remember the Union’s fundamental principles. I am thinking, here, for example, of eliminating the differences between the old and new Member States, a division which, unfortunately, continues to exist. My request to the Council and the Commissioner is that we do not forget the foundations which were established by the Union’s founders, as well as the more than 50 years of EU achievement. Let us remove barriers, simplify procedures and make life easier for the citizens of Europe, taking care over each euro spent from the common budget.

  Miguel Portas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, I believe the President-in-Office of the Council made himself quite clear in his remarks. Above all, he does not want to discuss the review of the multiannual financial framework. It has to be said, however, that it was perfectly clear back in May 2006, when the interinstitutional agreements on the financial framework were adopted, that a mid-term review should be guaranteed at that time, as indeed it was.

The purpose of that review was to prompt new debate and a re-examination of Europe’s global image, and it was to cover all aspects of the Union’s spending and resources.

Between 2006 and 2010, however, the crisis occurred, but our budgets did not reflect urgent new needs or new priorities. The new treaties also came into force, but the governments did not attempt to take the implications of that into account at a budgetary level. Even the European financial stabilisation mechanism has come into being, transforming 50% of the European budget into a guarantee for third-party liabilities, but no conclusions have been drawn regarding situations of non-compliance.

The point is that the governments are simply not interested in having a review, even though they promised one, but they want the European Parliament to rubber-stamp a regulation that merely prolongs the status quo.

The report we are debating rejects this attempt to disenfranchise Parliament and I strongly hope that this House will stand firm.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the 2011 budget is shrouded in mist. Two points seem to me to be important. On the one hand, the Treaty of Lisbon requires the Union to provide itself with the means necessary to use the powers conferred on it and to achieve its objectives. This is specified in Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This ensures that the annual budgetary procedure will run smoothly. On the other hand, it is important to set priorities in the light of the current economic situation and to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the process of adopting the multiannual financial framework functions effectively.

I would like to highlight one more issue in view of the existing economic climate. I do not understand why drastic cuts are being made in education, life-long learning and social services. Money can be saved in the administrative areas, for example, where it is possible to identify and to exploit existing synergies with the home countries. The resulting savings could then be used, for example, to fund growth and jobs.

Finally, I would like to raise one point which could be the subject of a fundamental discussion. It is essential for the Member States to ensure that there is far-reaching transparency concerning their spending of European funding. This will enable us, in other words, the European Parliament and the Commission, to have as much control and as much power of codecision as possible and will allow us to achieve the necessary level of efficiency.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, I think it is very easy to prove that a review of the current multiannual financial framework is urgently needed. I think it is easy to prove that it urgently needs to be more flexible. It is the only way for us to discharge the European Union’s missions and to fulfil our goals, as well as the hopes that the people of Europe have placed in us.

I hope the Council will not stand in the way. I hope the Council will not obstruct the development and the expectations of the European Union.

Between 2007 and 2009, the maximum limits of the financial framework were reached or exceeded. Important projects such as Galileo, the Food Facility and the European Economic Recovery Plan could only go ahead by using up existing margins. These margins are already insignificant for the rest of the period, and yet they will be reduced even further because commitments have been adopted that have not yet been included in the budget.

We are all aware that the Treaty of Lisbon gave us new powers and new agencies in the fields of external action, sport, climate change, energy, tourism and civil protection. That means that the European Union has to provide itself with sufficient funds to implement its policies and reach its targets.

We have to fight the crisis. To do that and to cut unemployment, we need proactive, Europe-wide policies, and that means that the budgetary authority has to specify and cost the resulting actions and priorities, while bearing in mind the added value of the EU budget.

In addition, we cannot forget the Europe 2020 strategy, which has now been adopted. It seeks intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth that must start at once, and financial resources are needed to achieve that.

  Göran Färm (S&D). – (SV) Madam President, I would like to say a big thank you to Mr Böge, who took on board the ideas from the other groups and produced an excellent report. I think we all agree that the Treaty of Lisbon requires a number of technical amendments, but the important point is that the problem is not simply about technical adaptation. For us in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, it is now that we will see whether or not we believe in Europe.

EU cooperation is not a residual item to be considered once national policies have been decided. If we are serious about the Treaty of Lisbon, new tasks need to be financed. If we are serious about Europe becoming a world leader in research and development, climate, energy and green jobs and about it having more of a common foreign and security policy, we cannot simply eliminate this type of expenditure as soon as there are national budget problems. Projects such as ITER, climate policy, a new common foreign policy, the proud flagship projects within EU 2020 or a future enlargement – all of this cannot be financed within the current framework.

The expenditure in the EU’s budget is not merely a cost; it provides vital added value for the Member States. If we take advantage of the potential options, it can even reduce the pressure on the national budgets, and then the EU’s budget can become an opportunity, not merely a problem. It is therefore vital that the Commission and the Council now have the courage to carry out the mid-term review of the ceilings in the EU’s current long-term budget, something they have been promising for a long time, but have not done yet.

I would actually like to finish by putting a question to both the Council and the Commission. You really need to explain how you can simply disregard an interinstitutional agreement that requires an ambitious mid-term review of the long-term budget. It does not inspire confidence in the forthcoming negotiations. What was your reasoning behind quite simply disregarding the international agreement? That is my question.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, I will actually start where my fellow Member from Sweden left off. I intended to start by saying that the situation as it stands is incomprehensible and I intended to ask the same question, so I am looking forward to the response. As a new MEP in Parliament, I am also surprised to see how this has gone.

In this regard, I would also like to stress that it is not only the review that Mr Färm just mentioned that is late, but viewed from a longer perspective, for example, the interim reports, the preliminary assessment reports for, for example, the research programme and other reports, too, are also late. In the long term, this affects the whole picture in terms of the work that we have started for 2014 and beyond, but it also affects how we can work with this now and how we can review what is to happen over the next few years, as 2014 is quite a long way off.

In a few earlier speeches, there was a lot of admirable talk about the challenges we are facing with a view to Europe 2020, and it will indeed require an ambitious review of the current financial framework. There is much to be done here and I understand that the Commission does not have an easy situation to deal with in this regard. However, if we are to meet the challenges that we face, it would be wise to take a much longer-term view of this than we have done so far, and therefore we now need a proper review. I am also looking forward to sensible initiatives from the Commission.

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament is elected by people in the Member States of the European Union and it must share their fate. If the economies of most European states are going through a crisis and it people are forced to tighten their belts, this Parliament cannot go in the opposite direction and demand an increase in its own expenditure and that of the entire EU. Such a policy will undermine the seriousness and authority of the European Parliament in the eyes of our voters. The Böge report, which we are discussing today, makes the case for the European Union to get more money, referring to the Treaty of Lisbon and other agreements. Personally, I cannot agree with this. Yes, the Treaty of Lisbon gives the EU new powers and new responsibilities, but the EU can and must embrace these powers in such a way that the overall amount of money it redistributes remains the same. I firmly believe that EU finances must be based on the approved budget perspective up to 2013, and if any corrections are necessary, then they should only be such as will reflect the state of the European economy and the economic crisis in which we find ourselves.

  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I note that the Council does not wish to debate the multiannual financial framework. May I tell the Council that the European Parliament would very much like to debate it, and that the Council cannot act as if it is in a kindergarten by telling us that it will not answer our questions or comment on our proposals.

Secondly, in this connection, I must ask the Council whether it wants to have Lisbon or not. Lisbon is not a mere technical adjustment; it imposes more competences and means there are more responsibilities to discharge – and that includes answering related financial questions. Moreover, the Council has taken decisions that result in new financial expenditure. That has been mentioned by many of my fellow Members. If the Council wishes to do this, and if it does not want more money to be spent, then it must also state quite specifically where and how it wishes savings to be made, where exactly these funds are to be shifted from – and not simply propose general percentages to be redeployed while leaving Parliament and the Commission with the unpleasant task of deciding where the money is to be taken from, especially since our opportunities for redeployment and budgetary revision are extremely limited.

The additional responsibilities that you have imposed on us are so challenging that they do not involve small incidental amounts – I will merely mention the area of the financial solidarity of our Member States and their corresponding financial difficulties. If the programme is to be implemented, then we are not taking about small sums that can be redeployed without further consideration. The same applies to ITER, the same applies to matters of internal security, the same applies to significant matters relating to research, the same also applies to questions concerning Parliament’s priority areas such as youth training and research. We have to deal not only with shortcomings in implementation, but also with a lack of transparency when it comes to the disbursement of funds. We need to debate and work through all these matters quite specifically; the Council cannot simply keep silent on them.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in brief, what does the European Commission’s proposal convey?

First, a glaring lack of ambition. The Commission, supported by the Council, has refused to revise the multiannual financial framework, and has salved its conscience by proposing technical adjustments only – adjustments that were, in any case, inevitable, since they relate to the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Second, a breach of the undertakings given to Parliament. In fact, and this must be said, in 2006, Parliament accepted, albeit half-heartedly, what it had already, and quite rightly, understood to be an out-of-date financial framework, without room for manoeuvre; in short, one of resignation. It therefore made its support conditional on the guarantee of an in-depth overhaul of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) at the half-way stage. A fine demonstration of the lack of importance that the Commission and the Council attach to Parliament’s decisions, in paying no regard to them whatsoever – a Parliament, it must be remembered, that is sovereign and represents the people.

Third, this proposal lays bare a paradox, namely one of increased powers, entrusted by the States to the Union, of large-scale projects, preferably European, within a budgetary framework that the Council and the Commission will not allow to evolve, even though they know it is not fit for purpose. They prefer to call on redeployment – a miracle cure in their eyes, but to mine, a narrow vision of the European project.

What is more, how can we explain to the people of Europe without blushing that key projects are either not financed at all, such as the financial stabilisation mechanism, despite its heavy media coverage, or financed like the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), by tapping into heading 1a, which is intended for competitiveness, growth and employment, all policies meeting the public’s expectations?

We are heading straight for the wall, while sounding the horn. Parliament knows it, and it is one of the virtues of the Böge report that it says so.

  Ivars Godmanis (ALDE). – Madam President, I want to say three things. If we are talking about the next financial framework, it is very necessary to understand how we structure the added value, because if you do not analyse fulfilment of the budget in this financial perspective, we will not get a good result in the next one.

There are three things. Number one. We have to look at the implementation of structural funds because up to now, we have a system in structural funds money which is not fulfilled budget. This money is used for other needs. This is not a good planning system and it will not help us to create the next structural system for the next financial perspective.

Number two is things such as, for example, taking the money and payments from agriculture for rural development in 2009, spending it on a recovery plan, and then trying now to pay this debt back.

At the very end, I want to say only one thing. An analysis made by DG REGIO for the structural funds even shows that in some cases, the added value for using structural funds is negative, and the same analysis has also been made by agricultural people. It has to be looked at afterwards – is what we are giving now in this year 2007-2013 realistically added value, given the money in the system?

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this discussion Mr Böge has stimulated with the report presented today represents an important occasion for clearly reflecting on the future of our European Union.

We cannot continue to think that different and increasingly broader measures can be implemented with a framework of resources that is basically cast in stone. I therefore lend my full support to the report we are debating here and I applaud Mr Böge’s initiative.

It is clear that the interinstitutional agreement has not been respected by the Council and the Commission. One has to ask why this mid-term review has not been planned and why we continue to operate in this way, as we are doing with the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, as we have done in the past – last year – with the European Economic Recovery Plan, and as we have done in the past with Galileo and other projects. Instead of seriously reviewing the financial framework, the margins were used.

Today we have an additional challenge: we have the prerogatives that are being transferred to the European Union from the Member States under the Treaty of Lisbon. I really do not believe we can continue in this way. We need to stop working on the mere redeployment of current resources and on the use of flexibility mechanisms that currently exist.

I would therefore argue that an effort made in the opposite direction would be more productive. In other words, one that aims to create reserves and margins that will enable the European Union to respond in practice, not only to current needs but also, and above all, to future ones, both as regards the financial framework itself and the individual budget headings.

Finally, I would like to highlight the importance of the debate on the part of the report which calls for further thought be given to the European financial stabilisation mechanism. It needs to be directed towards analysis and forecasting and therefore at regulating the impact it could have on the EU budget.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, I, too, warmly support the report we are debating. In the present recession, the current multiannual financial framework has repeatedly proven to be inadequate when it comes to financing numerous important political priorities.

A review of the financial framework and greater flexibility are needed for the future of the Union if we really want the EU to be able to offer the citizens guarantees at a time when nearly 25 million of them are suffering from unemployment.

Typically, both the European Commission and the Council have been late in shouldering their responsibilities. We are nearing the end of 2010 and Parliament is still waiting for the other two institutions to honour the commitment which they should have honoured last year.

The financial and social crisis has brought the whole of Europe to its knees. The only possible response, therefore, is a European response via a Community budget which has all the necessary means at its disposal.

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, you have made things easy for us again today – so thank you for that – because it is rare for Parliament to be so united in its views. The particular arrogance you have displayed has contributed to achieving this united front. As a politician, I am not sure whether to congratulate you on that, because it is hardly a stroke of genius. I am actually quite pleased that the House is fairly empty, because I think our citizens deserve rather better than to watch these shenanigans. Consequently, we feel that you should reconsider your position.

Broken promises – you do not keep your word and that is a serious matter. The Commission does not have the courage of its convictions. Mr Lewandowski, a little more bravery is called for. We do not want to talk about money at all, or about more money – and nor should we. We should be talking about substance. If you look at the situation of the structural funds, for example, where the remaining liquidity accumulates to reach dizzying heights and yet still more accrues, then it is high time that we seriously get to grips with things instead of wasting our time on such nonsense.

The Commission is now pretty much in despair, because the money cannot be distributed. New instruments have been developed precisely because of this – the Council and the Commission developed new instruments – and it is only because of this that this debate is even possible. The incredible thing about this process is that keeping those promises would, in the final event, enable us to remedy the circumstances that no national parliament would put up with in its budget.

What do we do now? I would like to ask the Council to keep its word, and for the Commission to keep its word too. We have decided on a process and this process must be adhered to. Secondly, I would like us to get back to the substance. If you do not do all this, then we know how to resist. The only thing we can do then is freeze dossiers. Hostage taking is not a legitimate political tool, but if you leave us no choice, then we will have to give it very serious consideration.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) I, too, wish to add my support to the rapporteur and fellow Members in highlighting the difficult situation that the European Union is going through, which neither the Council nor the Commission seem to realise. The four years which have passed of this multiannual financial framework, the economic crisis, and the entry into force of the new treaty, are all challenges which the European Union is facing. This is why it is as clear as day to everyone that we need greater budgetary flexibility.

I therefore think that a purely technical review of the multiannual financial framework, such as the Council is proposing, is not a solution, but rather defers the reform, which the European Union needs and is having important discussions on today, for another one or two years. We must also remember that this multiannual financial framework and this framework review must prepare the discussions for the new multiannual financial framework which will come into force in 2014.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the financial framework represents a challenge in times of crisis. Where should we demonstrate greater energy, better objectives, more commitment? Where do we need to make savings, where do we need to rationalise, where do activities need to be reformed? One key topic is how to adapt our activities at European level to the needs that exist. The area of investment, in particular – when we think of the trans-European networks, research, education – these are key challenges in a crisis. We hope that we have just made a good fresh start and are on our way to building up new strengths. In this respect, however, the European Union has a very specific responsibility.

When we see that in the 2011 budget, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme is to be cut by 60%, that there are cuts in areas of research in which we can become more efficient than our global competition within a short space of time in favour of projects that will only provide an economic payback in perhaps 30-50 years’ time, then we need to reconsider where rationalisation should take place and consider where management can be improved – and, above all, where we can react more quickly and efficiently. Time is running away with us and consequently, the administration needs to catch up with things quickly.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D). – (PL) Almost a year after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union faces a budgetary paradox. The Members of the Council, who previously worked hard to achieve the treaty’s ratification, today seem not to notice the fact that the policies enshrined in it are seriously underfinanced. What is worse, the Council is not even allowing more generous funding of the Union’s flagship initiatives, such as the Galileo programme or the European External Action Service.

It should be remembered that the current financial framework was negotiated over five years ago, when, for example, European diplomacy was an absolute political fiction. Revision of the multiannual financial framework is essential, and financing important policies only from reserves will not enable the ideas of the Treaty of Lisbon to be put into effect. For the new treaty to bear fruit, a review needs to be made of the current financial framework and instruments agreed with the Council for acting upon the treaty’s budgetary provisions, and for the future, we need greater caution in creating other obligations so that the means which will be used to finance a particular policy will be specified each time on a case-by-case basis. In other words, an ambitious European Union budget requires not cuts, but greater flexibility. We cannot have more Europe for less money.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I think the two words that are most pertinent to the discussion here this evening are flexibility and added value. If we can get those two, then we will be making some progress.

Obviously, there are huge challenges, particularly if we are to meet the targets of the 2020 strategy, and for that reason, an awful lot of work has to be done. Nevertheless, there are some great opportunities. One, the Lisbon Treaty gives us an opportunity to make our mark on the world stage through the EAS, which we have not been able to do in the past. That has to be factored in.

Also, the new banking and insurance authorities are absolutely vital if we are to make our mark within Europe, learn from the lessons of the recession, and bring some control to a place where there was absolute mayhem.

There is one thing I would appeal for, though, and that is that when we are making our financial packages for these institutions, we resist any temptation to factor in bonuses for these situations. They have been the root of all evil, and a person looking for a bonus should be asked one question: ‘what would you not be doing in your job if you were not getting a bonus?’

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) The Treaty of Lisbon which recently entered into force has given the European Union many new and significant prerogatives, in the fields of external action, climate change, energy, tourism and other important areas. This obliges us to adopt the new instruments needed to implement the budgetary provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and revise the current financial perspective.

Greater budgetary flexibility is required than in the current multiannual financial framework if we want the European Union to be able to implement the commitments it has made and react more effectively to urgent and unexpected events.

As for future prospects, it is necessary to revise budget priorities, ensure the adequate funding of priority areas and provide for sufficient budget resources to support long-term investments, which are a prerequisite for the European Union’s economic recovery and growth.

  Alain Cadec (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, the Treaty of Lisbon confers powers on the European Union in new areas. It provides for the Union to grant itself the means necessary for achieving its objectives and for carrying through its policies.

However, from the beginning of the current multiannual financial framework, it has not been possible to draw up annual budgets without recourse to existing margins. As the rapporteur reminds us, the margin has narrowed significantly and will not increase before 2013; the crisis has happened. This offers no possibility, then, of responding to unforeseen requirements. Such a situation is dangerous, if not untenable.

It is therefore vital to revise the multiannual financial framework in order to guarantee the resources necessary for exercising the new powers granted under the Treaty of Lisbon. It is also important to allow for the financing of the policy priorities defined in the Europe 2020 strategy, as Mr Kelly has just said.

I should remind you, Commissioner, that the Treaty of Lisbon granted Parliament equal powers with the Council in budgetary matters. Parliament must therefore make its views count in the budget debate, as Mr Böge proposes, and I congratulate him once more on his report.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Madam President, the importance of the EU budget in supporting farm incomes in rural Ireland is immense. Irish farmers, their families, rural communities and the Irish food sector will continue to benefit from close to EUR 2 billion per annum for the period 2010-2013.

This week, our Minister for Agriculture, Brendan Smith, announced that the Irish Government had requested an advance of the single farm payment so as to maximise the cash flow to farmers between now and the end of the year. This is a very welcome and very pragmatic development. I understand that a request by the government will be approved by the Council – or perhaps has been improved by the Council at this stage today – and it is expected that payments will commence from 18 October, with the second tranche on 1 December.

The high level of annual funding allocated to the agricultural sector in my country emphasises the importance of these negotiations to Ireland, and to rural Ireland in particular.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) I would like to express my thanks for the information given by the Commissioner. However, I am troubled by something else. I am referring to the problem of European Union income up to 2013. If we are going to have a review, then let us do it properly, by which I mean this is not only a discussion about expenditures and whether they can be justified, but I think we should also be talking about whether the incomes planned for the EU up to 2013 are achievable incomes and if they are incomes of which we can be certain.

The budget which was adopted was, after all, adopted in a completely different economic and financial reality. For two years, we have been faced with an important and significant fall in GDP in the EU’s Member States. In relation to this, I would like to ask the Commissioner if he has any detailed estimates as to whether the EU’s budgetary incomes until 2013 might be lower than those which are currently planned.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, it was very clear to me while listening to the debate that the positions of Parliament and the Council are rather distant. This might be a problem as we are coming up to conciliation very soon.

What is to be on the table for the negotiations – not just the figures for 2011, as this is Lisbon package – is going to be as multi-dimensional as today’s discussion was. This was not only about regulation, with Helga Trüpel taking this possibility to contest European taxation. Helga, you know that this is not in the mandate. We need to study neutrally the revenue side and not only expenditure and nothing more; a neutral study, not prejudging whether we need new own resources or not.

There was a very clear criticism that we are very much delayed with the review of the financial perspective. This was a conscious decision by the Council. I think it was a wise decision, and democratic accountability was behind it. The matter was entrusted to the new Commission. The Commission now is very much about economic governance, which is a major lesson learned from the crisis. We are coming up to October, which worries me also as it is not a good thing to be so late with the review.

The major tone of the discussion was that, given the new responsibilities, we need a real revision of the budget. No one is more conscious of the new needs and responsibilities than me, because they are normally channelled via the Commission. We are normally about policy mix when confronted with new needs or new big projects, and that policy mix will be presented to you for your advice, for negotiations.

I am optimistic that despite my feeling that the positions are distant, conciliation in November/October will bring a positive result.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have quite clearly heard a number of you insist on the need to revise the budget, particularly where the new responsibilities of the European Union are concerned. This is an important debate, as I readily admit.

Perhaps I did not make myself perfectly clear in my first speech. I did not say the Council wished never to have a debate on the budget, but I genuinely believe that it is a long-term debate that we should be having, and for that we await, as some of you have said, the Commission document on the budget review.

It will be a case of the first phase of the review process for the Union’s budget. The Council does not reject this; it is not opposed to initiating a debate particularly focused on the next financial perspective.

Madam President, allow me to return for a few moments to the particular Commission proposal on meeting the supplementary requirements of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The Council has, in fact, taken good note of the financing plan for ITER for 2012 and 2013, tabled by the Commission at the end of July, and it is currently examining these proposals carefully.

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, I will start with ITER. What is going on there is remarkable. The Council has taken a decision – adopted a position – that EUR 1.4 billion of additional financing is needed by 2013, and now great pressure is being brought to bear that the budgetary authority must make its position clear by the end of September in order that international commitments can be met. The ITER Council has already stated that these funds will be made available subject to approval by the budgetary authority. That is not how you treat the budgetary authority, and it is not how you treat the European Parliament.

Mr Chastel, I expect us to put together an overall package for ITER and not, as the Commission proposes, to distribute EUR 540 million over a period of the next few years. Do we want to spend three years arguing about ITER or do we want to work together to get what may be a pioneering international research project properly on track? I hope we can find some common ground here.

The report that will be voted on tomorrow and the debate have sent out a very clear message. The Commission should try to augment the existing proposals for adjusting the interinstitutional agreement on the basis of this debate. It would be good if the Council could show some movement at the first trialogue at the beginning of October.

I get the impression that sometimes, there is a tendency in the Council and in the Member States to revert to the pre-Lisbon days and not to realise that there is a new balance of power now, and that we face new political challenges.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at midday tomorrow (Wednesday, 22 September 2010).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) We have to admit that during the last four years of the current financial framework, even before the introduction of the new Lisbon requirements, we could only adopt the annual budgets by resorting to extraordinary financial instruments. Thus, it is understandable that a review of the multiannual financial framework cannot be put off any longer, and additional sources are unavoidable for initiatives that were unforeseeable at the time of the adoption of the present framework. The EU’s financial decision makers are duty bound to provide the necessary means to attain EU objectives and carry out EU policies, taking into account the new areas of action defined by the Treaty of Lisbon, such as external action, sport, space exploration, climate change, energy policy, tourism and civil protection. We must also bear in mind the added European value of the EU budget, which demonstrates solidarity and efficiency by gathering together and putting to common use financial resources scattered across national, regional and local levels. Most of these support long-term investments that stimulate the Union’s economic growth. All necessary steps must be taken to make additional funds available for the European External Action Service and for other priorities of the Treaty of Lisbon, particularly for the initiatives that fall under Sub-heading 1a, ‘Competitiveness for growth and employment’, which create added value for the EU and enable it to fulfil its obligations and meet the expectations of its citizens.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The European Parliament takes its democratic oversight seriously and, in this report, calls on the Council and the Commission to carry out a comprehensive review of the multiannual financial framework. I support all of the recommendations in this report that will make it easier to plan and will lead to greater efficiency in the use of the EU’s financial resources. Only too often, the Commission unexpectedly tables new proposals for the use of unused resources. The French ITER project is just one example of where money – in this case from the agricultural pot – is siphoned off in advance for use in other areas. Agricultural funds that have not been utilised or are not set aside for agricultural emergencies should not simply be used in other areas. In the agricultural sector, it is particularly important to build up reserves. Flexibility is important, but this should, in any case, be within the relevant policy area. The use of reserves should be precisely defined in advance and be available to the relevant sector in any case.

12. Draft amending budget No 7/2010: guarantee provided by the European Union in accordance with the provisions of Article 122 of the TFEU – financial assistance to Member States (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by László Surján, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 7/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III - Commission (13476/2010 - C7-0261/2010 - 2010/2120(BUD)) (A7-0250/2010).

  László Surján, rapporteur. – (HU) Honourable Council representatives, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposed and the Council adopted the seventh amendment to the 2010 budget. What is the essence of this amendment?

Well, if we wanted to joke around, this would be a good topic. We have created a blank line, a new line in the budget, into which we will not put a single cent, let alone billions. At the same time, journalists revel in reporting that this involves EUR 60 billion. This EUR 60 billion, as the caption indicates, is none other than a guarantee, and the Commission believes that the chance of it being called in, of having to actually pay it up, is zero.

Well, the worst case scenario is not always to our liking, but the main point is that there is very little likelihood of having to move actual sums of money through this row. So why have it at all? And why as early as now, in the 2010 budget? Because what we are talking about is, in fact, part of the plan designed by the European Union to resolve the financial crisis of countries getting into difficulties in the future.

This is the item that refers primarily to the Parliament and the European Union’s budget, and has an upper limit which cannot exceed EUR 60 billion for the period ending in 2014. This 60 billion is a fixed upper limit. Why must we do this now? We must do it because this is a message. A message to the market. A message to those who doubt that we want to rescue countries which may get into difficulties in the future. At the moment, there is no need for this, so there is no point filling it up with money, but it is worth adding the line to enable us to act promptly if it is needed in the future.

This blank line is also a message to Member States concerned that we are taking more money away from them, to reassure them that this is not the case here. This story is not about Greece. It is, first of all, about the future. This is why it is not right for a Member State to try to evade the duty of solidarity by referring to the Greeks’ supposed or actual errors. The proposal before us is a plan for solidarity among Member States, and without solidarity, ladies and gentlemen, there is no European Union.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Draft amending budget No 7 is a follow-up to the decision to establish the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which is, in turn, the response to the dramatic developments of March, April and May in the financial markets. Therefore, the European financial stabilisation mechanism – up to EUR 60 billion – has been established in addition to the already existing balance of payments facility, with more or less the same philosophy.

In response to the question from László Surján, under the normal desired circumstances, even if a European financial stabilisation mechanism is mobilised, this should not have an impact on the EU budget. Under normal circumstances, that is, where the beneficiary state taking the loans repays the loans, it is activated as a guarantee but without a financial impact upon the budget.

In the highly unlikely scenario – not zero probability, unfortunately, but very unlikely scenario – that a Member State defaults on its obligations, we have to ensure that the European Union is ready in time to fulfil its legal obligations towards the lenders.

So we should be ready for this unlikely bad scenario. Put simply, that is, in a sense, what is behind Draft budget No 7. Therefore, as with the balance of payments facility, we proposed creating a structure for the new budget item on the expenditure side of the budget and a corresponding new budget article on the revenue side of the budget. These are token entries – as happened with the balance of payments facilities – and have the same logic behind them. The philosophy behind this is that we should be ready in case.

I am therefore happy that Draft amending budget No 7 has been discussed and has already been formally adopted by the Council on 13 September. Now we hope for the same decision from Parliament.

  Francesca Balzani, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amending budget we are discussing today and will be voting on in the coming days is an important document. It marks the last step for implementation of the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which was sorely needed in May to calm the severe storm that hit the euro and, therefore, the EU.

One certainty came out of that storm: there are no individual Member State problems any more, because the individual problems inevitably become the problems of them all, and so a common response is required. Europe has found the courage and the strength to provide this common response that we are, in fact, discussing here today.

This new budget line marks a clear boundary. It is the first step towards a new common approach to the financial policies and also, in the future, to the economic policies of Member States with regard to the European budget. It is the first step towards that integrated semester in which the budget decisions of the individual Member States and the EU budget will be compared more closely.

The budget is therefore once again an instrument – which has always been the fundamental implementation of EU policies – that is taking centre stage and proving to be a fundamental vehicle for building Europe after the Treaty of Lisbon as well. Above all, it draws our attention to the importance of sound and responsible management of public resources as a prerequisite for real development and for a future of real European growth.

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, it is true that we are talking here quite calmly about an adjustment to the 2010 budget and about the insertion of one line for the record, an amending budget said to be ‘technical’. We all know, however, that the calmness of this debate when compared to the previous one – which was a little less calm – is also due to a courageous and mutually supportive decision that was taken when tension was at its peak in the euro area last May.

In fact, that was a weekend when the Heads of State or Government created the first-rate European financial stabilisation mechanism, which allows the Union to borrow on the capital markets in order to provide loans to Member States that are in difficulty, subject to certain conditions.

It is truly this spirit of solidarity that allows guarantees to be provided in the interests of Europe as a whole, and which confers true added value on the European budget. There is the good example.

Unfortunately, the current own-resources ceiling, which is set at 1.23% of gross domestic product, has not been enough to create a self-sufficient mechanism. The budget’s share accounts for no more than EUR 60 billion, and the rest – EUR 444 billion – is supplied by an intergovernmental system called the ‘special purpose vehicle’, which is guaranteed by the Member States in the euro area; a system from which, by the way, Slovakia has recently withdrawn.

Today’s calm therefore certainly allows us to have a discussion, but it obliges us, above all, to go further and to do more within the framework of the future financial perspective. It is in this sense that I think we must raise the own-resources ceiling so that we can create a genuine macro-economic role for the European budget, which would, at the same time, provide a buffer or European investment plans and/or more guarantee mechanisms, depending on the state of the European economy.

We ought also to design new financial instruments. In this context, for example, Eurobonds, in partnership with the European Investment Bank, would be a very good tool.

Finally, we must, as a matter of urgency, introduce new own resources, such as the financial transactions tax, the carbon tax or a tax on businesses, which would, at one and the same time, allow us to reduce the GDP-based contributions from Member States and dispense with the infamous debate over net contributors.

So that is the enormous task that awaits us, especially in the Special Committee, but, Commissioner, these are also matters with which we must all be ready to engage.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, tomorrow we will be voting on Draft amending budget No 7, which covers the guarantee that the EU has been asked to provide for the European financial stabilisation mechanism. This mechanism, which makes it possible for the Union to borrow funds in the capital market and then loan to Member States in financial difficulties, implies that if a Member State is not able to reimburse the loan, the European budget would be used to cover the debt.

Colleagues, I call your attention to the fact that the guarantors of this financial stabilisation package are actually the Member States, many of which are themselves in the midst of a financial crisis. We are talking about EUR 60 billion. This is not a token. Where are we planning to find the money if the guarantee has to be honoured?

How can we vote in favour of such an amending budget when the Commission has not established priorities for spending from the budget in case the European Union is called to honour the guarantee? If we act responsibly in defence of constituents’ interests – even if we are being told that the risk is low – we should vote against this resolution.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), – (DE) Madam President, the assistance given to Greece was sold to us as an exception from the bail-out ban, on the basis of Article 136. However, Article 136 does not provide a basis for giving credit to Greece since it only allows measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the treaties. Not only are these not provided for in the TFEU; they are actually explicitly banned. The provision therefore does not authorise further measures, and this was also the conclusion reached by the Centre for European Politics, or CEP for short, in its relevant report. The finance ministers of the euro area decided to assist Greece by providing credit at an average interest rate of 5%. However, the CEP experts have proven that credit provided at a politically motivated interest rate that is below the market rate represents an illegal subsidy. The assistance given to Greece was thus extremely controversial from a legal point of view, if not downright unlawful.

As far as the actual implications are concerned, Commissioner, I would like to pass on to you the assessment made by the German economics expert Joachim Starbatty, which I fear is sadly correct: if the euro area countries continue to be answerable for the debts of other Member States, then in 10 years’ time, the euro will no longer exist. We have to eradicate the disease, not simply put ointment on the wound. Euro area countries that can no longer service their debt need to become competitive again by leaving the monetary union. Otherwise, I believe the euro has no future.

  Reimer Böge (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the Council has already taken flight – possibly because of the fierce criticism it met with on the previous item, although the content of the Surján report has done something to repair what was decided by the European Council during this difficult, long night on the stabilisation package. Now the Commissioner has spoken of the unlikely event of these guarantees being used in respect of the European budget. If we are optimists, then we will accept this basic assumption for the time being.

Nonetheless, we must bear in mind that where guarantees are concerned, we already have three unlikely cases in the European budget: a loan fund for the investment bank with guarantees of just over EUR 100 million. Before the euro was launched, we had a situation in which all the Member States were able to obtain assistance with supporting their balance of payments, at that time with a ceiling of EUR 16 billion. Following the introduction of the euro, this arrangement was restricted to non-euro countries, and in the wake of the 2009 financial crisis, the ceiling for non-euro Member States was expanded to EUR 50 billion, of which around EUR 9-10 billion is currently utilised as guarantees.

Now, with the Treaty of Lisbon, we have the situation that Article 143 explicitly refers to the non-euro countries. Undoubtedly, Article 352 would have been the most appropriate legal basis, but that would have meant getting Parliament involved – as well as some national parliaments – and therefore it was probably difficult to make recourse to it in the difficult circumstances of this decision. In this respect, then, Article 122 was certainly not the most correct legal basis, but it was the most politically expedient legal basis and the simplest without involving Parliament.

Clearly, there was a gap in our regulations here, but this did not result in the European Union being unable to act in a time of crisis. I can accept that. Nonetheless, the decision by the European Council on this tricky legal basis means making recourse – if necessary – to the margin between the limit of the Union’s own resources and the maximum level of the multiannual financial framework.

Article 310 of the treaty clearly states that no legislative acts shall be adopted that exceed the limit of the Union’s own resources or the multiannual financial framework. If need be, then, a revision is required. In this respect, the Council itself took a huge step without involving the budgetary authority as regards the future debate on the issue ‘What is the upper limit of a financial perspective?’. So let me say that the future upper limit of the multiannual financial framework will be the limit of the Union’s own resources, and nothing else.

We should approve the report on the grounds of political judiciousness, but we should encourage and fight to ensure that in future, we debate properly with each other the gaps in regulation that clearly exist as well as how to involve Parliament and how to close these gaps. This, too, should form part of the common interinstitutional agreement on the budget based on the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Jacek Włosowicz (ECR). – (PL) We are speaking, today, of a mechanism for financial stabilisation in Europe, and we are speaking about an amending budget. These are steps which are certainly intended to increase the security and reliability of the financial system in Europe. These measures certainly are necessary at the moment, so that we do not get into even greater financial difficulties in the future. I hope that the measures we are talking about, today, will be effective and will be, as it were, a medicine and will treat the symptoms. However, this medicine certainly will not remove the causes, and it is they which have been the main problem of recent months. Without fundamental changes to the European finance system, the measures we are now considering can only be of temporary help.

Therefore, we have to begin by making fundamental changes, so that Europe’s finances will be more stable and transparent, and so that we, as Parliament, are not used every so often as fire fighters who are called to come and put out a fire. Such measures can only be a help and not the basis for permanent future action.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, to ensure the financial stability of the euro area, a package of measures is now being launched. The question that concerns me in connection with this line is where this money is actually to come from in the event that, contrary to expectation, a Member State should make such an application.

You mention caution, Commissioner. In order that this event remains merely a hypothetical situation, I would really urge the Commission to pass measures that provide sufficient deterrent to ensure that the Member States genuinely do everything in their power to ensure they never find themselves in this situation.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, some small clarifications for Mrs Andreasen on this very issue. Draft amending budget No 7 does not involve the Member States’ guarantees; that is for the other part. What is guaranteed by the Member States is EUR 440 billion of bilateral loans. As for the structure of the budget, this is the copy of a balance-of-payments facility, and again, this is a question which has been asked already.

This is a typical arrangement for budgetary items which concern lending operations without a specific quantified guarantee fund. This is therefore a token entry. If the need arises for fresh money – so far activated in the balance-of-payments facility for Hungary, Latvia and Romania up to an amount of EUR 14.6 billion – then the Commission will put forward a proposal on the appropriations needed by means of a transfer or an amending budget.

That is the machinery, but it is nothing new – merely an extension of an existing balance-of-payments facility to the eurozone member countries – and I agree with Reimer that this is a very flexible interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.

  László Surján, rapporteur. – (HU) First of all, I owe thanks to the political groups supporting this report, and I believe that the report truly serves the interests of security. However, the critical remarks pointing out that we have an EUR 800 billion package out of which Parliament can consider or deal with 60 billion are also justified.

To some extent, this gives the impression that Parliament is not operating within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon, or does not even exist yet. However, our job is to work with this EUR 60 billion and, in that respect, I would like to make it clear again that obligations are incumbent only upon euro area Member States. Therefore, if the words of a speaker who says no, protecting his or her constituents’ interests, may be taken to mean that the UK will soon join the euro area, then this day deserves to be joyfully celebrated and written with red letters in the annals of the European Union.

Because I, unlike many others, do believe in the euro area and would like to see that my country, as well, will soon be required to take financial responsibility in this rescue plan. I do hope that the probability of this pledge being called in is zero or almost zero, since the Member State runs an enormous risk if it does not comply with its financial obligations after the rescue.

If I remember correctly, the Treaty of Lisbon even invokes the possibility of expulsion in certain circumstances. Non-compliance with financial obligations would be such a serious mistake that even this sanction would have to be given consideration. I think this is the guarantee that another speaker requested. In closing I wish to thank you once again for your attention, and I ask my fellow Members to support this report tomorrow. Let this be another source of security for the citizens of Europe!

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at midday tomorrow (Wednesday, 22 September 2010).

(The sitting was suspended at 18:35 and resumed at 19:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

13. Question Time (Commission)

  President. – The next item is Question Time (B7-0462/2010).

The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Part one

Question 21 by Vilija Blinkeviciute (H-0405/10)

Subject: Further EU action on combating violence against women

The Stockholm Programme adopted by Parliament in 2009 and the European Parliament resolution on the elimination of violence against women call on the Commission to take additional measures to combat violence against women, paying particular attention to prevention and raising public awareness. The Commission is called on to present a study and the findings of research in this area and to start work on drafting a new directive on combating violence against women.

When can the findings of this study and of the research be expected, and what are the Commission’s immediate plans as regards the drafting of a new directive?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Violence against women constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, and the Commission reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that respect for fundamental rights is at the core of our activities.

Violence against women cannot be justified on the grounds of customs, tradition or religious considerations. The Commission confirms its strong commitment to combating violence against women. This is reflected in the Commission’s communication of April 2010 on the Stockholm Programme, which puts emphasis on the protection of victims of crime, including female victims of violence and genital mutilation.

Respecting the commitments of our action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, the Commission is currently working on its strategy to combat violence against women. In the first half of 2011, the Commission intends to adopt a strategy to combat violence against women. Prevention and awareness-raising activities will be a key point in the Commission’s strategy.

Last March, the Commission strengthened its commitment to promoting gender equality and fighting violence against women by presenting a Women’s Charter. As discussed in the plenary of the European Parliament on 15 June, the Charter proposes to put in place a coordinated and effective policy framework to tackle violence against women.

We are determined to strengthen our action, with both legislative and soft measures, to eradicate violence against women, including female genital mutilation, and to use all means within the EU’s competence. Vice-President Reding announced today the strategy on equality between men and women. Comprehensive action to combat violence against women is a key point in that strategy.

The Commission sees a strong link between the dossiers of violence against women and the victims’ rights package. The protection of female victims of violence will benefit considerably from all measures included in the victims’ rights package.

The Commission has welcomed the adoption of Parliament resolutions on violence against women and on equality between women and men, including the Parliament resolution on the elimination of violence against women. The Commission took note of Parliament’s proposal for a directive on combating and preventing violence against women. One of the current ongoing studies is a feasibility study to assess the possibilities, opportunities and needs for European-level legislation against gender-based violence and violence against children. The results of this study, and of other ongoing studies, will be presented at the High-Level Conference on Violence Against Women, which is to be held by the Commission, in cooperation with the Belgian Presidency, on 25 and 26 November 2010 in Brussels.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your comprehensive reply to my question, but there is still a lack of sufficient reliable and comparable information at both national and European Union levels to evaluate the true present situation in the area of violence against women.

Has the Commission made provision for an action plan on the collection of this statistical data and the management of statistics in order to obtain comparable data on violence against women throughout the entire European Union? If we do not know the true situation, the situation in the Member States definitely will not change.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Women often keep quiet about assaults in the home out of fear. It is well known that this is an increasing problem in Islamic countries, such as Turkey, in particular. Amnesty International estimates that a third to 50% of all women in that country suffer physical violence in their families.

My question is whether, in the preparation of this study, any thought has been given to extending it beyond the borders of the EU and, in this connection, whether any light has been shed on the problems of domestic violence in Turkey.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I fully agree with the importance of collecting reliable data and developing appropriate indicators in this area. I can assure the honourable Member that the collection of data and the development of appropriate indicators will be included in the strategy which I spoke of in my introductory reply.

I can also assure Members of Parliament that we address both internal and external issues when we speak about combating violence against women. In particular, we have significant room and capacity to raise these issues forcefully with countries with which the European Commission holds accession negotiations or other intensive contacts.

  President. – Question 22 by Marian Harkin (H-0414/10)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006

Taking into account Regulation (EC) 1083/2006⁽¹⁾ and the effects of the current economic crisis combined with the effects of globalisation on employment levels throughout the EU, what specific measures or checks has the Commission put in place to ensure that when companies make workers redundant in one Member State, the same company has not received any Structural Fund monies in the last five years in another Member State?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I wish to thank the honourable Member for her question. As you are aware, the structural funds, such as the European Region Development Fund and the European Social Fund, are subject to shared management.

The managing authority designated by the Member State is responsible for managing and implementing operational programmes. Managing authorities are there to ensure that operations are selected for cofunding in accordance with the criteria in the operational programme and Member State and EU rules.

There are two references to relocation in Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund.

The first is in recital 42, which states that when appraising major productive investment projects, the Commission should have all necessary information to consider whether the financial contribution from the funds does not result in a substantial loss of jobs in existing locations within the European Union, in order to ensure that Community funding does not support relocation within the European Union.

The second reference is in Article 57, which stipulates that managing authorities or Member States must ensure that cofunded investments are maintained for at least five years after completion of the operation.

Where an operation fails to meet that requirement, the EU contribution should be recovered. Managing authorities must inform the Commission in their annual implementation reports of operations that have not met the requirements for the maintenance of investment provided for in that article, and the Commission is to inform the other Member States.

The Commission and the Member States must ensure that undertakings which are, or have been, the subject of a recovery procedure do not receive a contribution from the funds following the transfer of a productive activity between regions within the Member State or to another Member State.

The Commission is assisted in the monitoring of restructuring activities by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions with the European Restructuring Monitor. In the case of State aid schemes, there is also a requirement for the investment to be maintained for a period of five years for regional investment aid and employment aid. The Commission has set up a State aid web-based search tool which provides information on State aid cases and on block exemption cases recorded.

Lastly, in accordance with the publicity requirements, Member States sharing management of European Union funds have to publish a list of beneficiaries of operations and the corresponding amounts of public funding.

Information on ESF beneficiaries can be found on the Social Fund’s website. This provides links to the Social Fund websites in the Member States.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for your very comprehensive response. It is important that we have coherence in our industrial policy.

I have just one specific question to ask you. You talked about recital 42 and said that Community funding would not support relocation and that cofunded investments must be maintained for five years. But are there any checks in place to see what happens after funding has been given, to ensure that the specific company does not make workers redundant in any of the other 26 Member States? Are there any checks there to see if that happens and, if it does, what are the consequences of that?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I can say that there are mechanisms, there is monitoring. The ESF is present in every Member State and the various desks communicate with each other. Therefore, there is the capacity to monitor simultaneously what is going on in various Member States, and if any irregularity occurs, there is the capacity to transmit information accordingly and, if necessary, apply corrections.

  President. – As the author is not present, Question 23 lapses.

Part two

Question 24 by Marc Tarabella (H-0404/10)

Subject: Impact of the liberalisation of the energy market on consumers

At the last Citizens’ Energy Forum, the Commission pledged publicly to improve services to consumers. Yet all recently published surveys show that this market is totally lacking in transparency for consumers and that it has undergone price rises that are totally incompatible with healthy competition.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that energy bills finally become transparent and to allow the public to compare prices?

Why does it refuse to enforce compliance by the energy industry with the strict, precise terms of a charter which would reduce the astronomical number of complaints from the victims of liberalisation?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) There are various reasons for looking at energy prices and analysing the general increase that has taken place in recent times. Within the framework of European competition law, the Commission has continually taken a number of measures, most recently in the cases of the German companies E.ON and RWE for electricity and gas, in respect of GDF for gas, and in respect of the Swedish companies relating to interconnection. We believe that these will have a moderating effect on energy prices in Europe.

At the beginning of this month, I had the opportunity to emphasise to energy ministers that the provisions relating to the internal energy market set out consumer protection as a specific objective and that we want to do everything we can to define clearly the common obligations as regards quality and prices in a way that is transparent, non-discriminatory and reproducible.

Generally the billing of consumers is governed by national provisions, so the Member States are responsible for the content of the bills, their layout and structure, and can design these accordingly. The subject of billing has been debated in the Citizens’ Energy Forum with a view to exchange of best practice and benchmarking. We have established a working group there to investigate the best solutions to billing issues. The corresponding report is generally available.

The third internal energy market package also contains new provisions relating to the frequency of meter reading and on the subject of smart metering. Both are something we want to encourage. A public consultation process entitled ‘Towards a European Charter of Rights for Energy Consumers’ was started three years ago. The rights of consumers are regulated and made legally binding in a number of directives as well as in numerous national implementing measures. We will continue to work on this matter in cooperation with energy ministers.

  President. – I just want to make the point that we have to close the sitting at 20.30. We will therefore probably be able to get in the questions by Mr Tarabella, Mrs Ţicău, Mr Chountis and Mr Iacolino, but I doubt we will be able to take the others.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, a study published yesterday by the National Bank of Belgium demonstrates the extreme volatility of electricity prices in Belgium, but it also reveals serious problems in the lack of price transparency for consumers. It fully confirms the multiplicity of problems that have come about with producers following liberalisation. The Belgian federal regulator has publicly expressed its concern over the lack of competition in this market.

All this merely emphasises the urgent need for an energy consumers’ charter – which you have just announced is three years in the making – so that at last, liberalisation does not leave the door wide open to all sorts of abuses to the detriment of consumers. Dare we hope that you will take a decision to hasten the creation of this consumer charter?

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) I would like to mention the transparency of European households’ energy bills and ask you whether you intend to set up a common framework and make some recommendations on the minimum information which needs to be contained in an energy bill so that consumers not only find them easy to understand, but also sufficiently clear.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, naturally it is great that you are taking a transparent approach – or to put it more accurately, tackling the lack of transparency; for without transparency, there can be no healthy competition, and without healthy competition, there can be no satisfied consumers. Now here is my question. Some gas grid operators are refusing to make their maximum capacity available in order to make it more difficult for competitors and other players to enter the market. Is the Commission going to take action to stop this and if so, what form might this take?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) All your questions are justified and important, and indicate that we have not yet achieved our objective. The liberalisation of the energy market makes sense only if there is competition, if there is transparency, and if connections are available from the point of production to the point of consumption. Our internal market packages are therefore on the right track. A series of infringement proceedings are demonstrating to the Member States where they have not yet met their implementation obligations. We hope that with the second internal market package, we will achieve our aim in the foreseeable future. In the case of the third internal market package, we are waiting for next spring, by which time all the Member States must indicate how and when implementation will be complete.

It has been mentioned that some existing lines are not being fully utilised despite demand existing; in other words, that parties are being excluded from using them. We would be grateful for specific information about this. As far as third party access to the grid is concerned, we will doggedly pursue anyone who hinders our joint efforts to make every line freely accessible to everyone on the same terms. That also applies to gas, where the grids have a lot of catching up to do.

On other aspects, early next year, we will present an interim report on the internal market which discusses where we have got to and where we want to go, so that everyone – whether in the companies concerned, in national politics or in Parliament – is aware that in the case of gas and electricity, there is a lot of sermonising about the internal market, but in practice, during the week, this tends to be contradicted and not implemented.

Transparency in billing – that is exactly what we want. We are dependent on the Member States implementing this accordingly and will work to bring it about. I feel that alongside the internal market, other important topics include consumer education and information, as well as domestic technology for consumers including the key concept of smart metering. All three of these things – continual domestic monitoring, the appropriate competence and competition – are the three factors that will enable us to satisfy consumers’ interests in the internal market.

  President. – Question 25 by Silvia-Adriana Ticau (H-0417/10)

Subject: Regional cooperation in energy-related matters

The Commission has announced that in 2010, it will issue a communication setting out recommendations and best practices with regard to regional cooperation in energy-related matters. This year, the Commission will also publish a report on the implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan, which will also include an assessment of the state of implementation of energy-related projects.

I should like to ask the Commission whether regional cooperation measures concerning energy will also include the development of ‘intelligent’ energy infrastructure (smart grids) at the macro-regional level, thereby helping to reduce energy consumption and enabling renewable energy sources to be used in a decentralised system?

Furthermore, considering that in 2010, Member States can adjust their operational programmes, I should like to ask the Commission when it will adopt this communication?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, we welcome your interest in developing an intelligent energy infrastructure, or smart grids. At present, our practical experience of smart grids is limited, and the results of our studies must therefore be interpreted with caution. A study subsidised by the Commission two years ago came to the conclusion that smart grids could reduce primary energy consumption in the EU energy market by nearly 9% in 10 years. Based on our average electricity prices, this would result in savings of nearly EUR 7.5 billion annually. In addition to this, we see advantages for the market and for consumers in the areas of technology and security. Smart grids use intelligent monitoring to allow flows of electricity to be tracked more accurately, thereby reducing grid losses and increasing security of supply and grid reliability. They also allow consumers to check and manage their own energy consumption more effectively.

These advantages come at a cost. Massive investment – both public and private – is therefore required. Some Member States have already taken the first steps towards establishing such grids. Sweden, for example, and Italy have already equipped almost all their customers with intelligent metering systems. Pilot projects are under way in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK.

The Commission is promoting the comprehensive introduction of smart metering and the development of corresponding grids beyond the extent laid down in the new directive. To this end, in November last year, we established a working group on smart grids. Representatives of industry, regulators and consumer associations are investigating their fitness for purpose, we are looking into incentives and requirements, and investigating where there is a need for regulation, and we are looking into whether further technological standards would be helpful. The results of the working group will be presented to Parliament here next year.

The communication on regional initiatives mentioned by the honourable Member has a number of objectives and does not simply concentrate on smart grids. The purpose of the forthcoming Commission communication on this is to consult with the regulatory authorities in the Member States and with other actors on the Commission’s opinions relating to regional grids for electricity and gas. In other words, we want to achieve appropriately balanced objectives, tasks, regions covered and management of regional initiatives. In this, we must highlight the work of ACER, the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, which will start work next spring.

Overall, we want to achieve the European energy objectives not only across Europe, but also in regional partnerships. Our measures expressly support this.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Given that intelligent energy networks are also going to make a huge contribution to increasing energy efficiency and help identify areas which consume large amounts of energy and those where the energy infrastructure is inadequately developed, if it exists at all, I would like to ask you what investment prospects you are considering. I am referring here not only to the mid-term review but also to the future financial outlook.

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) As you are aware, resources for this are contained in the SET plan, which was approved by you. In the coming weeks, the Commission will need to decide – first in the review and then in the perspective – whether and for what we will propose funding in the budget for investments in the energy sector, and we will then need to consult on this and gain approval for it from you and the Member States. Without wishing to take anything for granted, I can say generally that I believe that the funding set out in the SET plan and in the recovery plans should be continued in those areas where it has proved worthwhile. In other words, I will fight to ensure that we obtain ongoing funding for infrastructure investments – not only Europe-wide investments, but also investments for retrofitting equipment locally and domestically – and I am counting on your support in this.

  President. – We now move to Question 26 by Mr Chountis which is being addressed by Mr Hadjigeorgiou. It is likely that we will be able to get to the question by Mr Iacolino, but I am afraid that Questions 28, 29, 30 and 31 will be answered in writing. I apologise in advance to those colleagues who are here or waiting in their offices.

Question 26 by Nikolaos Chountis (H-0419/10)

Subject: Liberalisation of the energy sector in Greece

During a recent visit to Greece for the purpose of evaluating the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding concluded by Greece with the EU and IMF, senior Commission officials urged the Greek Government to privatise 40% of the lignite and hydroelectric generating plant currently in the hands of the Hellenic Public Power Corporation (DEI). They also called for the unbundling of grid ownership, the declared purpose being to complete the projected measures for liberalisation of the wholesale electricity sector and initiate the rationalisation of tariffs for consumers.

What is meant by ‘rationalisation of tariffs for consumers’? Does the Commission consider DEI tariffs to be low?

Is the Commission acting within its institutional terms of reference in calling for DEI generating plant to be sold off?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) You are talking about the Greek energy sector and its restructuring. It can be assumed that opening up the market to competition will enable resources to be distributed more efficiently, thereby securing growth and jobs in the energy sector, and that this will also have an impact on other areas of the economy. It is up to Greece to decide the best way to restructure its energy sector within the framework of EU legislation on the energy internal market. Unbundling, which refers to the ownership of electricity grids and its restructuring, is an effective means of promoting competition. In the current situation, there may also be budgetary reasons for Greece to privatise the grids either fully or in part. The same applies to the sale of some of the lignite and hydroelectric generating plant and of the state electricity company. As mentioned previously, it is about revenues and competition. How this is done on the basis of EU law is a matter for the Greek state.

One relevant aspect concerns suitable measures to compensate for the fact that, as the sole operator, the Public Power Corporation currently enjoys the benefits of the power stations. Where the lignite power stations are concerned, Greece is now behind in the implementing process and must and shall meet its obligations arising from the decisions made by the Commission in the competition proceedings. We have a good dialogue with the Greek Government on this. I think that is important. The government there is currently complying with significant orders in the areas of budgets and currency, which makes it all the more necessary to ensure that a good partnership exists between EU law and the Commission, on the one hand, and the Greek Government, on the other.

Where prices to consumers are concerned, the government has specified numerous tariff categories. These are not uniform and, in many cases, do not take into account the wholesale prices; in other words, the costs of generating the power. The ministry there is therefore currently working on rationalising the tariffs. In our opinion, consumer tariffs should generally be based on costs in order to provide consumers with incentives for saving energy and to encourage supply companies to make the right investments. Electricity prices in Greece are very low at present, partly due to cost-efficient generation in lignite-fired power stations, cheap hydroelectric power thanks to heavy rainfall in the past two years and reduced demand as a result of the economic crisis. In the coming years, there will be other factors such as the increasing use of more expensive fuels such as gas and increasing environmental costs, so prices in Greece will rise. Years of normal rainfall will reduce hydroelectric capacity, as a result of which prices will also rise. These factors will drive prices regardless of the liberalisation of the market.

In view of structural price-driving factors, it is all the more important that the systems are made as efficient as possible and that any price increases for business and domestic consumers are kept to a minimum.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the updated IMF/EU Memorandum for Greece states that the government must introduce a mechanism to ensure that the electricity bills regulated under it gradually reflect wholesale market prices between now and no later than June 2013.

In other words, we are calling on the Greek Government to increase the price of electricity at the expense of consumers, especially the vulnerable members of society, and the economy.

What impact will these measures have on output and growth in Greece? Will these measures, will higher bills, get Greece out of the crisis and out from under the supervision of the International Monetary Fund?

Finally, just last week, we received a reply from Mr Rehn about spiralling inflation, which has reached 5.6%. What impact will these measures have on inflation?

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, you referred in your reply to the unbundling of transmission systems. I would like you, if you can, to confirm that Greece, like all the Member States of the European Union, is free, on the basis of the spirit and letter of Directive 72/2009/EC, to select one of the three equivalent models for unbundling the transmission system and that it is not up to the Commission to suggest to the Member States which of the three models they should opt to adopt.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Commissioner, the Hellenic Public Power Corporation is a profitable and relatively healthy company, despite a significant drop in profits this year, mainly due to the recession and reduced consumption.

I have a very specific question: before the Commission made these proposals, did it carry out any studies into the consequences that such a proposal would have in terms of the company’s standing on the energy market and in terms of the impact on employment and its profitability?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) I am following developments in Greece with great interest, and also with respect: respect for a government that is looking forward from its current position, that has taken extensive measures – savings, cuts in expenditure, reforms – and which is doing all it can in partnership with the Commission and with both European and worldwide authorities to consolidate its budget and thus make a contribution to a stable euro.

Naturally, we are looking at the overall picture, but it is clear that we cannot suspend the rules that apply to everyone in the internal market or impose a moratorium for a few years. It is therefore not my right, but rather my duty, to advance the development towards the internal market, from monopoly towards liberalisation and competition, and thereby to strengthen the position of consumers. The rules of the internal market existed long before I joined the Commission. Unbundling is some years old. I must pursue the policy accordingly.

I am certainly prepared to interpret this memorandum of understanding pragmatically rather than restrictively; in other words, to give the Greek Government as much room to manoeuvre as possible as it develops the market and takes action. In the case of unbundling, for example, we are not stating that the grids must be sold or disposed of. We are demanding transparency and we are demanding that former owners of grids which remain active in the energy sector are no longer allowed to intervene in the operating activities of a grid subsidiary, to ensure that the grid can be accessed by anyone who wants to use it – including competitors in the gas and electricity market.

All in all, the Commission is attempting to be fair to the overall interest, to the needs of Greece. That applies not only to the budget, but also to the energy market.

  President. – Question 27 by Salvatore Iacolino (H-0420/10)

Subject: Oil drilling in the Mediterranean

A few months after the incident in the Gulf of Mexico and under an agreement concluded in 2007, British Petroleum is apparently preparing to begin drilling five new oil wells in Libyan territorial waters some 600 kilometres from the coasts of Sicily, Malta and Greece. In view of the extraordinary biodiversity of the Mediterranean and the fact that it is a closed sea with limited water renewal, will the Commission answer the following questions:

Will it introduce stricter controls on drilling at sea and, if so, how? Would it be feasible to introduce a moratorium on drilling in the Mediterranean? Will it urge Libya to take account of the cross-border environmental impact of these operations?

Will it consider introducing the offence of environmental crime at European level so as to deter hazardous activities in areas belonging to the Member States?

Will it examine the possibility of binding oil companies operating in Europe to a strict code of conduct that will safeguard the public and the environment, as well as business activities of the kind successfully developed over time in the Mediterranean region?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Member, ladies and gentlemen, this topic remains very high on my agenda. Most recently, on 7 July, we debated here in plenary five key areas for action for ensuring the best possible safety worldwide for offshore operations in Europe and neighbouring regions. We are now investigating which measures are necessary and appropriate. One aspect is checks and controls. We want to ensure that the highest safety standards are consistently applied within the EU. This requires close cooperation – closer than at present – with and between national regulators in the Member States, which currently bear a substantial responsibility, and which are responsible for inspections and for the regulations and compliance therewith.

We want to ensure that the Member States apply uniform controls on offshore activities that are equally stringent across Europe. Under current law, the authorisation of offshore activities also falls within the remit of the Member States. Prior to this summer, my advice was to apply caution in respect of offshore activities and to make this subject to ongoing work or the granting of licences, particularly when working in extreme conditions and circumstances. Some EU Member States, including Italy, have decided to take this preventive approach. The Commission will then take steps to guarantee a high level of security worldwide. We are talking for the time being about European regions, specifically the Mediterranean. We have a common interest in the environment here, because an accident in EU waters could rapidly have devastating consequences for the southern coast of the Mediterranean and vice versa. We have therefore been in contact with the competent ministries in Algeria and Libya and proposed to the ministers that we actively cooperate in this area. The environmental quality of the Mediterranean cannot be divided.

The Commission is working to propose high security standards worldwide. We are therefore in discussion and in contact with US authorities and with the Capitol. In my opinion, European legislation should include clear rules on liability. Improvements can be made in this area, in particular, expansion of the geographical scope of existing environmental law in order to allow greater coverage of aspects such as biodiversity and consequential damage. The directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law will enter into force at the end of this year. If necessary, we will propose further legislation.

As regards a code of conduct for enterprises operating in the Mediterranean, then we and the Member States want to and must ensure that the industry takes all possible measures to improve security, to bring about the highest level of prevention and to develop disaster recovery plans. This should be done not just for European waters, but for all waters – including those neighbouring the EU. We must check this aspect in authorisation procedures and demand proof that the operator has the technical capability to deal with critical situations. We must also demand evidence of financial capacity; in other words, that an operator is capable of bearing the costs of the damage caused by a worst case scenario. This could be subject to mandatory insurance if appropriate.

In a few weeks’ time, the Commission will present a communication on the security of oil and gas drilling in the offshore sector containing measures such as those outlined above, in order to ensure the highest degree of security for European citizens and the environment. We will also submit this communication to the parliamentary Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, where we will be happy to engage in more in-depth consultations on this matter.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make a clarification: evidently, the guarantees offered by the Commissioner have been favourably received, and I have to acknowledge that. However, do you not think, Commissioner, that further action could be taken with regard to the Libyan authorities so that this moratorium we have discussed can really be put into effect, and do you also not think that this effective coordination could be developed even more incisively under the Mediterranean Action Plan?

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, what international instruments are available to us that will allow us to implement a competition system and authorisation procedure worldwide that gives everyone equal opportunities, but also the same risks and costs? We have seen that in many authorisation procedures, we are simply no longer in a position to create the necessary structures. We are therefore concerned that we have efficient and rapid, yet thorough and proper, authorisation procedures, but also that we have the time to implement projects. That is particularly important.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) I will be unable to put my question, but I am also very interested in the previous question. I welcome the European Commission’s efforts to establish an adequate strengthened legislative system on environmental protection and issues related to oil exploitation in the European Union.

The question is very similar: what sort of problem does the Mediterranean Sea face? My question is related to the Baltic Sea and is also related to third countries that are not part of the European Union. I trust that internally, the European Union will deal with its objectives itself, but how do we ensure dialogue with third countries and could the European Commission somehow help individual countries to cooperate with neighbouring countries?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) It is firstly a matter of making the highest standards that are technically feasible worldwide our own, either via the Member States or at a European level. I may mention here that the UK has high standards and a high level of know-how. The same is true of our partner country Norway. In the communication, we hope to propose to the Member States that the highest standards respectively in the areas of authorisation, operational safety, contingency planning, staff training and further training be recognised as generally binding throughout Europe.

Secondly, we will bring up this matter in the context of our foreign contacts relating to the energy sector. We have already done this with Libya and, if necessary, we will broach the subject again. All this can also be incorporated into other dialogues – those concerning the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, with partner countries such as Russia.

Thirdly, we want to bring our influence to bear on the European players. If we assume that an enterprise such as Shell or Total or BP has standards that it imposes upon itself and which we will stipulate as binding for deep-sea drilling in the territory of the European Union, then I believe that the same standards as are applied in the North Sea and are possible there both technically and in terms of cost are also feasible in Libya. In other words, we would not allow European enterprises to lower their standards when operating in other parts of the world. Consequently, we will attempt to ensure that European enterprises export the technical standards that they consider possible in Europe and thereby contribute to the protection of the Mediterranean and other areas.

  President. – I apologise about Questions 28 to 32 but they will be answered in writing. As I said at the beginning, we are under some time pressure this evening. We now come to questions to Mr Geoghegan-Quinn. We shall start with Question 33 by Mr Tsoukalas. I would expect that we can get through to Question 35 at least, and then we will see how we get on.

Question 33 by Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (H-0401/10)

Subject: Need for radical restructuration of the European research funding framework

The long, complex procedures required for obtaining research funding do not encourage researchers to apply for EU funding. Recent statements by the Commission on simplification of the research framework programmes seem to be based on the logic of gradual improvement. However, what is required is an administrative revolution in the way that the EU plans, finances and manages research.

What proposals is the Commission putting forward to simplify the framework programme for funding research? What does it think of the idea of linking funding to expected results? How does it view the possible introduction of a single administrative and logistical managerial framework, at both the European and national level? What specific measures is it proposing to encourage high-risk research in Europe? What does it intend to do to reverse the persistent trend towards a brain drain?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – In April of this year, the Commission adopted a communication on simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes, proposing a whole set of measures including gradual improvements but also profound changes requiring a revision of the legal basis of EU research and a rebalancing between trust and control and between risk taking and risk avoidance.

One of the options the Commission has put forward for further discussion with the other institutions and stakeholders relates to the move towards a results-based approach using lump sums for whole projects. This approach would remove the obligation to produce detailed cost statements by introducing lump sums for entire projects and linking the payments exclusively to the reporting on scientific technical progress. However, the Commission is aware that such an approach has potential drawbacks, for example, length of negotiation procedures, and it is perceived differently by different stakeholders.

The Commission therefore suggests studying all implementation details and potential impacts thoroughly before making concrete legislative proposals. The average time to grant in the Seventh Framework Programme, FP7, is in the order of 340 days, about one month shorter than in the Sixth Framework Program, FP6. While the Commission acknowledges that there is room for further acceleration of the relevant processes, benchmarking with national funders shows that for projects of comparable complexity, a time to grant in the order of one year is certainly not unusual.

Within the endeavour of creating a European research area, the administrative harmonisation between national and European research funding systems is a long-term objective which is shared by the Commission. ERA-NETS in FP6 and FP7 are contributing to this goal and the joint programming initiatives will bring more progress.

As a further step, a stakeholder’s platform for common principles for external funding in the ERA was established recently. High risk, high gain projects are, in particular, expected in the IDEAS specific programme, which is implemented by the European Research Council. Preliminary analyses show that the selection process designed by the European Research Council is successful in challenging the funding to these high-risk, high gain projects.

The Marie Curie actions are a key instrument to reverse the persistent trend towards a brain drain of researchers. Since 1994, Marie Curie actions have allowed the creation of about 50 000 new research positions in Europe at all career stages and with attractive salaries. With a total budget of EUR 4.7 billion in FP7, Marie Curie actions will equip about 50 000 researchers, including 10 000 PhD candidates, with innovative skills that will enhance their career prospects in both the public and private sector and will prepare them for the jobs of the future.

Finally, the Marie Curie reintegration grants have been restructured and simplified into a single career integration grant action which specifically addresses the issue of the brain drain.

  Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her reply. The purpose of my question was to draw attention to the fact that, despite its highfaluting and high-flying plans, Europe has yet to achieve the Lisbon targets set right at the beginning. As a result, Asian and Pacific countries have a 30% share of the bibliometrics market this year, compared with 28% for the USA and with Europe bringing up the rear.

Perhaps the high standards which Mr Oettinger demanded for soundings should also apply to research.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Commissioner, the financial framework for research has recently been the subject of intense debate in light of the ITER project. The cuts in the Seventh Framework Programme for research and in the CIP programme are being fiercely debated, and all the parliamentary groups reject cuts in this area. Can you foresee a new financial framework for ITER that is also renegotiated at international level?

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) My question relates to the allocation of a percentage, let us say 15%, of the research funds just for competition between SMEs because, on many occasions, SMEs do not have the opportunity to secure cofinancing or compete with large companies for cofinancing. I would also like to ask you whether you are considering creating a set of common rules for different sources of research funding so that universities can access these funds more easily.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Members who have asked questions. In fact, one of them – the last one – will come up two questions hence. So perhaps, if the Member will allow me, I will respond to it at that stage.

It is important to emphasise the political point that we do need an interinstitutional agreement with regard to the operation of the EU research programmes. That is why we are working very closely with the two committees in Parliament concerned – the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Budgetary Control Committee – and also together with the Court of Auditors, to put in place a common policy concerning these very important matters.

The rules that will govern the workings of our EU research programmes have to be clearly defined and, very importantly, have to be consistent. Applicants to the research programmes – whether they are third-level educational institutions, research centres or private sector companies – must know exactly how our EU research-funded initiatives are going to operate in a very practical sense for them.

That is why we have a policy in the Commission of simplification and communication, which is now under negotiation and discussion – very strongly – because we realise that we need to simplify even more the policies that we have in this area. Simplifying those programmes is a key political priority for us – for me and for the Commission as a whole – and we need to work in a very clear, determined manner and in partnership with Parliament to be able to achieve that further simplification.

On the ITER question, this is an issue that has plagued us in a way – and not just this Commission but the previous one as well. It is an issue that needs a comprehensive response. A proposal has been made by the Commission. That proposal is under discussion, and I am very much aware of the feeling in Parliament regarding where the financing comes from in relation to ITER, but it is a project that is ground-breaking and can bring incredible benefits – not just to Europe, but to the world as a whole – if it is successful. It is also a project that does not involve just the EU, as you know, but one in which we have international partners.

So we are working very carefully, strongly and coherently with our international partners to be able to move this project forward. I have no doubt that we will be able to do that with your cooperation and your support.

  President. – As I have said from the outset, we are under some time pressure and I am going to move at 20.15 to questions to Mr Hahn. I fear, Mr Kelly, that we will not get to your Question 36, or indeed to successive questions thereafter, that is, Questions 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41.

Question 34 by Georgios Papanikolaou (H-0407/10)

Subject: Assessment of the operation of the European Research Council

The work of the European Research Council was officially launched in Berlin on 27 February 2007. The European Research Council, whose basic task is to finance frontier research programmes, has a budget of EUR 7.5 billion up to 2013, within the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme. The fundamental objective is to encourage inventiveness – and ultimately new products and services – so the EU economy remains globally competitive.

Would the Commission answer the following questions. Given that the European Research Council has now been operational for three years, what tangible results has it produced to date with regard to an increase in European competitiveness? Has the Council’s work made it possible to increase innovation and inventiveness at European level?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – The Europe 2020 strategy is designed to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The European Research Council (ERC) has a part to play in delivering all three. Most obviously, smart growth means developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation. This requires us to strengthen every link in the innovation chain, from blue sky research to commercialisation.

The key to Europe’s future prosperity rests on the quality of its ideas and the ability to turn them into products, processes and services that people from all over the world will want to buy.

In order to achieve the creation of an innovation union, the first condition to be fulfilled is reinforcing our knowledge base and promoting excellence, and this is precisely what the ERC is already doing.

In a remarkably short time, the ERC has gained world-wide recognition as a world class research funding agency. This was acknowledged in the independent review carried out in July 2009 by a panel of six eminent experts, and although the first projects did not begin until the second half of 2008, many are already showing highly promising and exploitable results.

For example, researchers at Imperial College in London published groundbreaking results on the quality of bone-like materials grown in laboratories that can be implanted with real bones to help repair them. They have created a start-up company which is developing bioactive materials that can be used instead of bone grafts to treat bone diseases and difficult fractures.

A research team at Frankfurt University published important results showing how to improve blood circulation by blocking certain genetic fragments. This has huge potential for new therapy for heart attacks, and the researchers have applied for a patent on their method.

So projects that are designed to answer fundamental research questions generate the radically new ideas that will drive new innovation and are also necessary to tackle society’s grand challenges.

Last but not least, the ERC has also been successful in serving as a benchmark for the competitiveness of national innovation systems. It has been instrumental in catalysing reforms of national funding systems in a number of countries such as France, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. By establishing world-class benchmarks of excellence in its peer review and in the research it funds, the ERC will raise the status, visibility and attractiveness of European frontier research.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Thank you, Commissioner, for your reply. Research is indeed directly linked to innovation and innovation is a prerequisite for growth. Following on from what you said, I should like to ask you this: you referred to London, Poland, Sweden, if I remember correctly, and, of the countries in southern Europe, you only referred to Portugal.

Is there any more information available, especially in relation to the countries of southern Europe, on promising new ideas and on the take-up of Community funds for research? Bearing in mind that these countries have very low indicators, are we putting the emphasis on growth? I refer, of course, to Greece, Spain and other countries in southern Europe.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – Unfortunately, I do not have the specific information that the honourable Member asked for in relation to the countries of the south. However, I should say that the European Research Council bases its response to applications purely on excellence. It does not refer to which country, which research centre – none of those issues come into its response and its decision in relation to awarding grants. It looks at things purely from an excellence point of view.

That is, I feel, the reason why they have gained such an internationally known reputation very quickly, because it is recognised that their decisions are based purely on excellence. That is something we have to encourage and develop further. Also, the European Research Council should continue to further cooperate with European businesses.

I should say that the European Research Council will launch next year a proof of concept funding option that has the objective of bridging the funding gap in the earliest stages of the innovation process, where, for example, a potential commercial concept needs verification through testing or prototypes, or indeed through the identification of an appropriate market, or through the creation of a protectable intellectual property right. It is certainly very important to encourage the European Research Council to develop and to be this catalyst throughout the world.

It is also interesting to see that a number of Member States, including in the south, are now looking at the concept of the European Research Council in deciding that perhaps they themselves should look at establishing a research council within their own territory.

  President. – Question 35 by Pat the Cope Gallagher (H-0409/10)

Subject: Participation of SMEs in EU research programmes

Can the Commission outline what it is doing to increase the level of participation of small to medium-sized enterprises within EU research programmes?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – The Commission is committed to increasing the participation of small- and medium-sized enterprises in EU research programmes and to help them ultimately bring the fruits of their innovation to market. This is a priority for the Commission and will remain so for the remainder of its mandate.

First, the Commission is determined to make the programmes as accessible as possible to SMEs by simplifying procedures as far as possible while, of course, ensuring sound financial management. In this regard several concrete steps have already been taken, such as reducing the need for audit certificates, fewer ex-ante financial capacity checks and protective measures and streamlined project reporting. But more is needed.

The Commission has brought forward a communication on simplification that was formally transmitted to Parliament and Council on 29 April this year, and in which several new short- and longer-term measures are suggested, including the introduction of lump sum payments to cover the personnel costs of owner-managers of SMEs.

The Commission will bring forward these measures as rapidly as possible and propose changes to the legal framework if necessary.

Secondly, the Commission has introduced in the latest seventh framework programme, published on 20 July last, a number of measures specifically targeting SMEs, including earmarked budgets.

The budgetary share of SMEs is forecast to grow from the current 14.7% to 15.7% of the cooperation programme, slightly above the 15% target in the framework programme legislation. Of course, there is still scope for improvement and the Commission will continue to monitor closely the progress of these new measures.

Thirdly, another initiative that equally supports SMEs is Eurostars, a joint research and development programme with Eureka involving 26 Member States and six associated countries. It targets R&D-performing SMEs in projects close to the market.

Fourthly, the Enterprise Europe network, set up in 2008 within the competitiveness and innovation programme, provides services to SMEs, encouraging their participation in FP7.

More precisely, this network, together and in full complementarity with the national contact points, assists SMEs – providing support for awareness-raising, capacity building for participation in FP7, engaging new SMEs and FP7 proposals, partner search, joint actions addressed to SMEs and conducting consultations for inclusion of SME-related call topics in work programmes.

Through these measures and actions it is expected that around 20 000 SMEs will benefit directly from FP7 by the end of the programme.

Finally, an e-learning platform specifically designed for SMEs is planned to go on line in 2011. It aims to facilitate SME access to R&D projects and the exploitation of its results by providing free online training, customised information and a communication forum.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – (GA) Thank you Commissioner for that comprehensive response. Small businesses and small enterprises are the backbone of the European Union’s economy. Support for this sector, as you know, is vital if the European Union is to improve the economic situation in the future.

Europe 2020 put research and entrepreneurship at the heart of Europe’s economic strategies.

Is it not true, however, that it is particularly important to improve the level of participation of SMEs in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development? I would ask the Commissioner therefore, what else the European Commission can do to boost the ability of this sector to obtain funding under the annual research programmes of the European Union.

  Brian Crowley (ALDE). – Three points immediately jump out: 90% of the new products which are coming forward from research-oriented programmes are from small and medium-sized enterprises, yet one of the biggest difficulties they face is in the whole area of intellectual property rights protection.

Are there plans, or is there coordination between your directorate and other directorates, to deal with that? Secondly, are you looking specifically at new areas of quantum physics and technical storage data as new opportunities for research and development funds as well?

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Firstly, I think that the Commissioner might have been able to come to my question, but I have no problem because it is related to this.

It has come sooner than expected.

My question is as follows – where do you see the quick winds in terms of delivery for the great work that you are doing and the enterprise you are showing in meeting your job specifications so that people can see that the work you are doing is beneficial and, of course, so that we can create jobs and industries as quickly as possible?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – (GA) Firstly, I would like to say to Mr Gallagher that I am delighted that he has given me the opportunity, on the occasion of my first visit to question time in this Parliament, to answer a question in my native language.

One would expect that the Research Executive Agency, which was granted autonomous status in June 2009, would contribute greatly to the speed and efficiency of the decision-making process and that it would improve the services of the framework programme falling within the agency’s remit. Obviously, this applies, in particular, to the empowerment programme for SMEs

Specific new policies have been implemented under the Agendas for Cooperation 2011 and these policies should induce small and medium businesses and their research partners to participate. The progress of these policies will be closely monitored and these efforts will continue under Agendas 2012 and 2013.

Further possible ways of simplifying the rules and procedures can be found in the Communication on Simplification of 30 April – I already mentioned that, of course, a while ago. Certain policies can be applied immediately, under the current legal and regulatory framework, the ‘Research Participant Portal’ as it is known; putting that into operation, improving the structure and timing of the professions and restructuring consortia with regard to size, for example.

The Commission itself is currently studying a second set of policies, such as possible modifications of Commission rules allowing for broader average personal costs, the use of common principles rather than specific rules, and a review of the rules regarding usurious accounts.

The honourable Member, Mr Crowley, is, of course, correct when he talks about the large number of new projects coming on stream, and says that one of the many difficulties which SMEs face is that of intellectual property rights.

I chair a Commissioners’ group on innovation and one of my colleagues, of course, is Commissioner Barnier, who is particularly concerned with this whole area. We have worked very closely together – as I hope you will see when the innovation policy flagship is published at the beginning of October – to try and find a solution to the many problems that SMEs – and indeed others – have, specifically relating to intellectual property rights.

On technical storage data, of course there are, as you said, many opportunities which can be exploited and, indeed, many private companies who feel that this is an area of opportunity for them to be able to exploit those opportunities. We would like to see, when the innovation policy flagship is published, a serious attempt to put forward bold and daring proposals from the Commission – that, of course, will then have to be debated, as we know – but which will deal with and face these issues and problems and barriers head on.

I am hopeful that those companies that are interested in these kinds of issues will see that the Commission is prepared to respond in a positive way, and we need them on board to support us.

Mr Kelly mentioned the quick wins and terms of delivery. Well, the quick wins in terms of delivery will come from the innovation flagship. I think you will see issues dealt with here that include standards, regulations, intellectual property and patents. I think you will find that when the flagship policy is actually published, we have tackled all of the issues – including venture capital, which is a very difficult issue at the moment for many small companies – that we have discussed with research centres, universities, public and private companies and Members of the European Parliament, in relation to what should be in the flagship.

Putting forward a policy, however, does not resolve matters. We then have to monitor it, we have to support it, we have to ensure that those who avail themselves of those policies are prepared to engage with us, and that includes very much, of course, the Members of the European Parliament.

  President. – Question 42 by Bernd Posselt (H-0400/10)

Subject: Danube strategy and Euroregions

What role does Bavaria and Austria’s cooperation with the Czech Republic play in the Danube strategy and how much account does the EU take of culture and tourism when providing support for the Euroregions concerned?

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Thank you for your question. The prospect of a partnership between Bavaria and Austria and the Czech Republic is indeed an excellent opportunity to develop further this region, which, overall, is home to 5 million people. The cultural and tourism policy dimensions in particular could play an outstanding part in promoting this Euroregion. This region also has a particular role to play in the Danube strategy; it has already been consulted as part of preparing the strategy. Particularly great attention has been paid to the subject of tourism in this region. There have also been interesting suggestions in the area of cultural cooperation; for example, on the matter of intercultural dialogue.

As far as assistance for these regions is concerned, there are various cooperation programmes for this region of the Czech Republic, Austria and Bavaria that have been awarded nearly EUR 430 million in subsidies in the current period. That is a good amount, and it is now up to the regions concerned to make the most of it. The idea of creating an EGCC structure in the near future seems to me to be a good way to extend this cross-border cooperation.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) I am much obliged to the Commissioner for his very good answer. In the meantime, something new has arisen: in 2015, Pilsen is likely to be the European Capital of Culture. I would simply like to ask whether the cultural dimension of the Euroregion can also be specifically strengthened and whether you consider the Euroregion to be the right platform for such activities.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Honourable Member, certainly. I am one hundred percent convinced that cultural cooperation, in particular, requires cross-border regional cooperation, because the cultural world crosses the administrative boundaries of regions. I would therefore very much welcome it if this were to become one of the focal points of the regional cooperation in the Danube-Vltava Euroregion. Pilsen being nominated as European Capital of Culture provides an additional incentive that can only be seen as a good thing.

Question 43 by Brian Crowley (H-0412/10)

Subject: Application for flooding relief by the Irish Government

What is the status of the European Solidarity Fund application for flooding relief submitted by the Irish Government to the Commission in January 2010?

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Honourable Member, I am pleased to be able to tell you that a few days ago, the Commission was able to make a positive statement on this matter in that financial assistance in the order of just over EUR 13 million is being proposed – I say proposed, because, as you are aware, it now requires the approval not just of Parliament, but also of the Council.

I would like to give a very brief recap of what happened, if I may. The first damage was reported and took place on 19 November 2009. The application was received on the last possible date, on 27 January 2010; in other words, just before the ten week deadline. Various inquiries then needed to be made. Accordingly, on 24 March, the Commission sent an inquiry to the Irish authorities, which was duly answered on 15 June. The problem was that the overall damage established did not reach the threshold for a national disaster. It was therefore a matter of seeing whether it could be classified as a regional disaster. That required further such investigations and assessments, which have now been carried out.

As I said, we now have a positive result from all this. We were able to forward this proposal on 14 September under which, subject to approval by Parliament and the Council, a figure of just over EUR 13 million would be made available by the European Union to cover the costs incurred by the public sector in the wake of this disaster.

  Brian Crowley (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his response as well. I think that one of the biggest difficulties being faced is the ongoing cost of the damage because there was a further series of floodings shortly after the November one was an issue and discussed. In my own home town of Bandon, which has a population of 5 000 people, there are still 19 businesses which have failed to reopen because of the difficulties of the flooding and the damage they have suffered. So maybe we should look at long-term management plans as well as just immediate funding.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for your answer and also for the funding which you gave despite the fact that we had not reached a national threshold.

Because of that, would you consider changing the criteria for the national threshold, because, with the same criteria for every country, a smaller country, depending on the catastrophe, would obviously be much different from a larger country?

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – I merely want to thank the Commissioner, his predecessor and his officials, who worked very closely with the Irish officials both in Brussels and in Dublin, and, in particular, her finance minister, who signed off, as you said, almost on the last hour.

While it is small, it is very much appreciated: thirty million that we might not have had. But I would also like to think that you might recommend to your colleagues that we should possibly change the threshold, because the threshold in Ireland is almost one billion, and, of course, we were a long way below that.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Thank you, gentlemen, for your words of recognition, which I am particularly happy to pass on to my colleagues who have worked so hard on this. The rules of the Solidarity Fund state that the threshold value is 0.6% of gross domestic income, which, in the case of Ireland, would currently be EUR 935 million. There is also cover for EUR 3.5 billion of damage, which particularly applies to four of the five largest Member States, which would otherwise only be covered for damage of another dimension altogether. That is one of the reasons why, in 2005, the Commission proposed that the Solidarity Fund be adapted, principally in two respects. The first was that the threshold value or values be made more uniform, resulting both in a lowering of the national threshold and also in the combining of the two categories of national and regional disasters. I have no intention of concealing the fact that on average, we receive twice as many applications for compensation than we are actually able to grant – not for financial reasons, but because the assessment does not allow the European Union to participate in refinancing the costs incurred. Consequently, our aim was to simplify the process, and this should also accelerate it.

As you have seen – including in this case involving Ireland, for instance – it can take eight, nine or ten months. In the case in question, it will probably take a few weeks more for the amount to be actually paid out, so by then, a whole year will have passed. That is partly related to the fact that this Solidarity Fund is an extra-budgetary fund.

Our second objective was to expand the criteria for a disaster. At present, the Solidarity Fund covers only natural disasters. The idea is to expand this to also include technological disasters.

These various proposals were rejected by the Council in 2005. Due to the unfortunate number of disasters that have occurred, I have now embarked on a new initiative. My service is preparing a revised proposal that also takes into account the experiences of the past five years. I hope that some countries that have benefited in recent months from this European solidarity aid will now assist with any amendment, and that we can then have a broader but, above all, faster reacting Solidarity Fund in Europe in the future.

  President. – Question 44 by Richard Howitt (H-0445/10)

Subject: Cash gap for local groups depending on EU regional funds

The British Government’s decision to disband the UK Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) means that European funding under the ERDF, the European Social Fund and rural development programmes which, in my East of England constituency, had previously been delivered by the East of England Development Agency, will now have to be delivered in an alternative way in the UK.

As any changes in the management and control system for EU programmes have to be approved by the Commission, can the Commission say what consultations have already taken place with the UK Government on this issue and confirm whether EU payments may be suspended pending Commission approval of any changes to the management and control system? What interim arrangements might be put in place to ensure that local people and community groups who benefit from these European funds in my own and other UK regions will not suffer from a cash shortfall stemming from the UK Government’s decision to abolish the RDAs?

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) The new British Government is committed to an economic model with a strong local focus. It is not yet clear what form the new structures will take. I cannot therefore give you any definitive answers as yet. We will see what form the new structures – the managing authorities – take and, if necessary, the relevant programmes will have to be adapted accordingly. I do have some concerns, but I hope that this will not result in excessive delays in implementing projects.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Thank you, Mr President, as ever, for your great impartiality and support for this democratic process. I will be quick and also respect the timing.

Commissioner, in my question, I asked what consultations had already taken place between the Commission and the UK Government about their new plans. This is a very factual question. Has any consultation taken place at all, and if so, what? I think it right to put that before you.

Will you accept today, in this Chamber, that the Structural Fund Regulation’s requirements, both for additionality and for partnership, are fundamental, and that you will ensure without hesitation that they will be respected in any new structure?

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) The answer is quite simple: there has been no contact in this respect to date. The concept of cofinancing – if that is what you meant – must continue to apply in the future.

  President. – Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 20:30 and resumed at 21:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

(1) OJ L 210 of 31.7.2006, p. 25

14. European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on the European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, one might almost think that Europe was an alpine island. However, I am pleased that the European Parliament has an ongoing concern for the economic and social development of regions with special needs; special areas such as mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas.

The Treaty of Lisbon reinforces the importance of territorial cohesion. It is set out as one of the objectives of the Union in Article 174. For this reason, the Commission presented the Green Paper on territorial cohesion in order to initiate a comprehensive process of debate. One of the main results of this consultation was that it is not necessarily new and additional financial resources that are required, but rather we should emphasise the importance of integrated territorial development concepts and give greater consideration to the strengths of the various regions.

As far as I am concerned, the particular characteristics of a region can fundamentally be a strength. Such regional peculiarities – whether it is its status as an island, the fact that it is a mountain region or that it is a sparsely populated area – therefore do not automatically create problems or require greater assistance, especially since these areas are in no way uniform. There can therefore be no ‘one size fits all’ solution for these regions that might seem to belong together.

The Commission considers it of the utmost importance to ensure the harmonious common growth of the regions. I am therefore concerned that we implement our joint Europe 2020 strategy in all regions, rather than applying different strategies to differently structured regions – which might jeopardise our joint efforts rather than supporting them. We therefore feel that there is no need for a separate policy on regions with special circumstances; on the contrary, we must strengthen the integrated approach of our policy in conjunction with other policies, and the regions must try harder to create programmes tailored to their particular needs. We need to strengthen the way the territorial dimension is both designed and implemented in all policy areas.

This gives rise to four priority areas of action. The first is to take regional policy closer to the citizens and into the regions. In the interests of our objective of territorial cohesion, we need to strengthen the consistency of the policy areas at the various levels. That also means really taking the multi-level governance approach seriously and bringing in all the relevant stakeholders when we design and implement our policies. However, it also means making more intensive use of the existing opportunities for cooperation provided by interregional, multiregional and multinational partnerships in order to give greater consideration to the challenges shared by certain areas, such as large mountain regions like the Alps or the Pyrenees.

Secondly, we need to coordinate policies better for the regions. Territorial cohesion also means giving greater consideration to the complementarity and coherence of regional policy and sectoral policy. We need to be clear about how each policy will impact the regions. The Commission has therefore created the Inter-Service Group on Territorial Cohesion, which includes representatives of the various Directorates-General. Its principal task is to analyse the individual sectoral policies and their effects on the regions, and especially on regions facing particular geographical challenges.

Thirdly, we need territorial cooperation to strengthen European integration. Cooperation is of particular importance to regions with specific geographical challenges. It is a matter of finding cross-border solutions to shared challenges, whether in the form of macro-regional strategies such as the Baltic Sea strategy, interregional networks or the exchange of good practice.

Finally, we also need to make greater use of regional knowledge. If we are to achieve a goal-oriented regional development policy that is based on the principle of subsidiarity, thereby supporting the objectives of Europe 2020, we need to know more about the situation of the regions and the effects of political measures. We need an even better monitoring system that is also better able to process the existing data, and we need goal-oriented indicators to ensure our policies are correct. That can only be done jointly with the regions, with regional business and with citizens.

Honourable Members, we need a strong regional policy for all the regions that takes into consideration the differing needs and characteristics of all regions. I am pleased that I will soon be able to have a debate with the European Parliament on the future of regional policy, including these special areas, based on the Fifth Cohesion Report.

  Jan Olbrycht, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) We are beginning a discussion, today, on the subject of regions which have very specific and particular characteristics. They are regions in which many activities involve additional costs. Islands as well as mountain regions are burdened with additional costs which are determined by geographical factors. Today’s discussion is also significant in another sense, which is very important for the further measures the Commissioner has spoken about. I am referring to the fact that today’s debate opens up discussion on the subject of cohesion policy after 2013.

The resolution we are talking about, today, concerns not so much an expression of the will to support particular territories – this is contained in the treaty – but concerns very specific measures and raises specific questions about how we are going to organise cohesion policy after 2013. Please note that in the resolution, attention is primarily focused on the integration of regional policy with other policies. It raises the question of indicators and the justification for using cohesion policy and gross domestic product. It says that other policies, too, should be used to support these regions, including – we are not talking about this, here, but we should bear it in mind – agricultural policy. It speaks of territorial cooperation and better use of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, which we worked on in the previous financial framework. In other words, we are at the first stage of a serious discussion about future cohesion policy. We are beginning this discussion with specific regions, but it is a beginning which shows that cohesion policy is, and must remain, one of the European Union’s key policies.

  Georgios Stavrakakis, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Mr President, first, I should like to thank the Commissioner for being here.

All mountain regions and islands are areas in which coordination, at both policy planning level and at programme implementation level, are absolutely vital. They are areas in which various policies, such as rural, regional, transport, environmental, fisheries and employment policies, need to resolve combinations of multi-faceted problems.

The European Union has developed a multitude of actions for these areas under various policies. What is lacking, in my opinion, is coordination. For a country such as Greece, for example, where most of the land is mountainous and there are over 200 inhabited islands, it is easy to see that social and economic cohesion cannot be improved unless there is coordination at all levels.

Thus, the European Union will have a twofold benefit: on the one hand, we shall avoid funding identical actions under different programmes and, on the other, we shall promote growth by increasing the benefits to citizens, wherever they live.

That an integrated approach to policy planning and implementation is needed for mountain regions and islands in the European Union should be a statement of the obvious, not wishful thinking.

  Riikka Manner, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the compromise we have achieved in this resolution is an excellent one, so my thanks go to all my fellow Members who were involved.

It must be one of our main priorities to straighten out the situation in the areas affected by the financial crisis, and that applies to regional policy as well. These areas are indeed northern, sparsely populated areas, mountain and border regions and islands. This resolution will serve as a very strong plea from Parliament to the Commission to also focus special attention in future financial frameworks and the next programming period on areas that suffer from permanent natural handicaps.

Aid for sparsely populated regions will be very important in this forthcoming cohesion policy if it is to continue as a properly comprehensive one. I would also like to remind my fellow Members who support the resolutions that they must ensure that this objective is also implemented at a practical level – not simply by voting for this resolution, but also by seeing to it that funding is actually set aside for these special areas in future financial frameworks.

I am pleased that this document highlights the importance of exploiting the potential that these regions have to offer. It is important that we also take a look at the very precious resources to be found in these areas, and not just consider their problems. Only by exploiting their true potential can we make real headway in their development. Their traditional sources of livelihood, energy, and the areas given emphasis in the Europe 2020 strategy, such as research and development, are crucial for these special areas.

I await the Commission’s Fifth Cohesion Report with interest. It will be intriguing to see how the Commission actually takes account of the objectives of Europe 2020, and how the special skills clusters in these special areas are exploited across Europe.

  François Alfonsi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, drawing up a European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas is truly essential.

Article 174 of the Treaty of Lisbon at last embodies the European Union’s awareness of these territories, which have permanent handicaps that they need to overcome. From now on, therefore, the Commission must propose specific strategies suitable for guaranteeing the people in these territories equality with other European citizens, so that they are effectively compensated for the handicaps that they endure in their daily lives as well as in their economic activities.

In this connection, the per capita gross domestic product, which is the continually prioritised criterion for structural funds, is not sufficient by itself. These regions suffer depopulation and, by dint of this loss, the residual population could even achieve an ever higher per capita GDP. We must therefore take a more sophisticated approach for these territories, and our group wants to insist on this point.

Article 174 of the Treaty of Lisbon, Commissioner, recognises the special nature of these territories. We must therefore put in place specific measures for developing and treating specific problems. These measures must qualify for structural funds, especially where the problems take a particularly acute form, such as the effects of global warming in the islands and mountains, for example, energy supply, accessibility, transport problems, and so on.

We also call on the Commission to provide for specific funds allocated to these territories in the next financial perspective, which will cover the 2014-2020 programming period. We also want to see that instruments such as the European groupings for territorial cooperation are followed up and applied more widely, by insisting on the removal of the obstacles to cross-border cooperation that have been put in place.

  Oldřich Vlasák, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is more than two years since we debated the issue of the disadvantaged, more remote regions in the European Parliament. When I re-read my original speech from that period, I had to admit that it was still very applicable and that I would not change a single word. Unfortunately, I have to say on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group that we do not support the joint draft resolution, and there are four reasons for this.

Firstly, we are against the idea of social engineering and excessive interference by public authorities. We have to understand that some of the problems of island, mountain or sparsely-populated areas cannot be resolved. These are the specific problems relating to their geographical and structural characteristics, which we cannot change.

Secondly, we do not agree with the idea that all island, mountain or sparsely populated regions form a homogenous group with common features. What does the French mountain centre of Chamonix have in common with the Greek island of Lefkada or the Finnish region above the Arctic Circle in the area of Rovaniemi?

Thirdly, we have completely lost sight of the border regions in the proposal and in the actual debate. Clearly, I must not remind anyone here that, under Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, special attention should be paid within the framework of cohesion policy to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which are seriously and permanently disadvantaged as a result of natural or demographic conditions. While an island will always remain an island, and a mountain will always be a mountain, borders, or at least administrative ones, can disappear. Greater emphasis on border regions would therefore be significant.

Fourthly, we consider it premature to be debating specific new legislative measures, regional development programmes and financial resources for these areas. It is clear that the debate on the European funds and their use after 2013 has begun to intensify. It is clear that individual states, regions and territories are trying, within the framework of this debate, to draw attention to their problems and the needs they would like to finance from European sources. It is beyond dispute that disadvantaged regions deserve different conditions when it comes to cofinancing, the rules for public assistance and the regulation of the internal market through the application of customs rules. The European framework should also take account of this, making it possible to retain the specific nature of these regions while mitigating their limiting circumstances.

However, it is a question of the extent to which complicated European programmes are effective in this case. European structural policy should rather be driven by the idea that financial resources must go primarily to the poorest regions, where there is the most need. This should apply regardless of whether an island, mountain or sparsely populated region is involved.

  João Ferreira, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, including a few noble principles in the treaties and in the European Union’s varied legislation is no guarantee that they will actually be put into practice, as we know. Territorial cohesion – like economic and social cohesion, in fact – is a very telling example of that. What these objectives lack more than resolutions and strategies is a general political and macro-economic framework, as well as concrete measures to promote and implement them.

Unfortunately, the policies that the European Union has been pursuing have brought about not cohesion but greater asymmetries: economic, social and also territorial asymmetries. There is a very real risk that these asymmetries will become even greater in future, as a result of the even more restrictive implementation of instruments such as the Stability and Growth Pact and the serious constraints that it imposes. This is a very real risk, given the inadequacy of Union budgets, which fall far short of what is needed to put territorial cohesion and economic and social cohesion into practice. What is more, these funds are also often unfairly distributed.

Even though mountainous regions, islands and sparsely populated areas differ from each other in their own particular ways, they all struggle with a number of perennial difficulties and problems that they have in common. Some common policies have, I repeat, made these problems worse instead of solving or mitigating them. That is also the case with the common agricultural policy and its successive reforms, the profoundly negative consequences of which need to be addressed and corrected. The specific features of the socio-economic fabric of these regions and their productive systems make them vulnerable to the market deregulation that the EU has been pursuing.

We have made a number of proposals to remedy this situation and promote economic and social development in these regions. We need to help mobilise their intrinsic development potential by supporting local production, by stimulating local and regional markets, and by stimulating and increasing public and private investment in productive activities in order to maintain job levels and to create more jobs with rights and fair wages.

Nor can we forget that some of these regions, such as the island regions, often complement each other in terms of their production and markets. We must learn to make good use of such complementarity and enhance it. We must also recognise the added difficulties they face in accessing Union programmes and financing in areas such as research and development. We have to apply positive discrimination to these regions to improve their access.

A topic discussed here today – the prevention of natural and man-made disasters – is also relevant. We must acknowledge the fact that these regions are more vulnerable to disasters and that disaster prevention needs to be reinforced, as the report we adopted here today points out.

Once again, we sound a warning that we have voiced on several occasions: these regions, especially the outermost regions, must be kept among the convergence targets so as not to aggravate a series of structural weaknesses from which most of them still suffer, as in the case of the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores in Portugal.

  Fiorello Provera, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow’s vote is important to the over 90 million Europeans who live in mountain regions. Article 174 of the Treaty of Lisbon recognises the importance of mountain regions and specific regions. However, this article must be implemented by means of a specific policy. We need to move from words to deeds. Mountains are not just about clean air, nature and holidays. Aside from this, there are real problems that the people who live in mountain regions must face every day with great difficulty.

The lack of infrastructure makes it more difficult for people and goods to move around, and accessing services is made more difficult because of extra costs for businesses and citizens. In order to prevent depopulation of mountain regions, we must guarantee that the people who live there have decent living conditions with modern services and adequate healthcare, just like all other European citizens.

Mountain regions also offer a great opportunity for clean energy production, energy saving, and quality agriculture that is environmentally friendly. To achieve all this, money must be invested in a framework programme that touches on every aspect of mountain life. This initiative is supported by all of the political groups and by European mountain region organisations such as Euromontana and the European Association of Elected Representatives from Mountain Regions (AEM). It also fulfils a wish expressed by President Barroso himself.

It is now up to the Commission to implement this request promptly and involve the regions in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. I would like to conclude by specifically proposing the appointment of an Acting Commissioner for the mountain and specific regions to effectively coordinate this new European policy.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, around 18% of the total population of the Union live in mountain regions. These regions are characterised by a common focus on agriculture and forestry and also, of course, on tourism. Farmers in mountain regions work very hard for relatively low incomes. However, they make a very important contribution to maintaining the Alpine region, and thus to sustainability. We must not allow the Alpine region to become an arid steppe; rather, we want it to remain a well-maintained, cultivated landscape. EU assistance must take into consideration the topographical, climatic and also the cultural peculiarities of mountain regions. It makes no sense to apply a uniform template all the way from Gibraltar to North Cape.

What is it that we need? We need an area premium, an animal husbandry premium, to support farmers in their efforts concerning species-appropriate husbandry after 2013 as well. We need increased investment subsidies that take into account the fact that costs are higher than in valley areas, and we need high quality foods from the Alpine region to be labelled, protected and certified.

The EU must therefore get on track now to ensure that mountain farmers, and thus the entire Alpine region, can have a decent future after 2013.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – (NL) First of all, I would like to thank the Commissioner for answering our question. After all, the purpose of the question was to re-examine the policy we previously outlined, now that we have the treaty firmly in place. It is, indeed, true that regional policy, in all its facets, can bring us closer to our citizens and to the reality of their lives.

Secondly, territorial cohesion does, indeed, constitute that new dimension and we have reports confirming that. Territorial cohesion also has everything to do with how we ought to deal with vastly differing situations in countries like France or Spain. This is not merely about allocating more and more specific funds. No, there is a clear trend towards greater cohesion and more balance between national states. If we then look at the new financial framework, that is the new post-2013 policy framework, we can see the things that are driving this forward and Europe’s added value.

In the context of that, it is a good thing that we are taking this action today. With some hesitation, I feel compelled to point out that we need to be given more funds, but it might be too early for that. This might be a specific policy but, surely, it should also be possible to achieve this through reallocation within national Member States, for example. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), on whose behalf I am speaking, will also ask for a split vote. We will have to wait and see what happens after that, regardless of whether we declare ourselves in favour of our own financial and legal framework

To conclude, allow me to add that I am from the Netherlands. We have no mountains or sparsely populated areas, but we do have islands. May I put the following question to the Commissioner: now that our kingdom has undergone changes and the islands of Saba, St. Eustatius and Bonaire have been granted full autonomy within the Netherlands, can we hasten to proclaim these islands as outermost regions? We have been looking forward to doing that for a long time.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, if we want to achieve the objective of territorial cohesion that was introduced in the new treaty, all the territories of the Union need to be able to enjoy the same rights and freedoms.

We should therefore be very proud of the agreement reached in Parliament to promote the adaptation of European policies to the particular needs of islands, mountain regions and sparsely populated areas so that those regions can develop their full potential and compete with equal opportunities.

In this respect, there is something very important that I would like to highlight: currently, some island regions do not have funding for cross-border cooperation projects simply because they are more than 150 km away. This is an irrational and unfair criterion which increases their isolation and which we propose removing.

Ladies and gentlemen, as Mr Schulz rightly said, I live on a European island and I know first hand that being an island has a cost. As legislators, we have an obligation to alleviate that cost. As the Commissioner rightly pointed out, Article 174 of the treaty gives us the opportunity to do so.

  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, discussing the problems of sparsely populated areas and of the outermost islands in this Chamber – especially in the light of my parliamentary commitment to mountain regions – is the first step towards creating a network to preserve these regions, in which European citizens live in completely unique conditions and often on low incomes. These are sparsely populated areas with low population density in which there is a phenomenon of ageing populations, because the young people often leave, and a percentage of graduates that is below the national average.

These criteria, particularly GDP, but there are others too, need to inspire a European support strategy for mountain regions, which have fewer services, infrastructure problems and which are particularly vulnerable due to the agricultural crisis and climate change. Mountains are places in which people live and which they study, and today they must also become a political laboratory, because they are an immense resource for cultural, clean energy and quality agriculture development, and for the quality of life that is indispensable for guaranteeing greater well-being among urban populations.

Beyond the Commission, the Member States and the local authorities, it is the responsibility of local communities, too, to understand how to control their own destiny in 21st century Europe, with an integrated approach and especially active participation in decision making.

I speak from experience when I say that in mountain regions, it is better to organise 10 local sporting events than one single World Cup, and this should be the working method for everybody: we should increase the number of widespread initiatives and demonstrate greater political creativity, starting with the creation within the College of Commissioners of a specific delegation for mountain regions and islands.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the intergroup on islands and mountainous and sparsely populated areas.

I would pay tribute to colleagues across the Chamber who have worked so hard to bring this subject onto the agenda because, Commissioner, while I very much welcome your presence here and welcome your statement, all the action in terms of actually setting the pace on implementing Article 174 and making it useful has taken place within this Parliament. You have a very enthusiastic partner in making Article 174 work for our citizens, because it sets us a challenge in terms of demonstrating real EU added-value for some of the most diverse and disparate communities we have within our Union.

I stress communities, because it is important to recognise that it is the communities that we are looking to assist. The geography – be that being an island, be that having mountains, be that being sparsely populated – is actually irrelevant. We are talking about a common problem created by different geographical specificities. That is where we need to make sure our categorisations actually fit – and they do not at present. The rules that we are operating with do not fit the specificities of the communities we are talking about and they often deliver perverse results. That is where we had a particular problem with the Regional Policy DG paper ‘Territories with specific geographic features’. I hope you will take to heart the criticism in paragraph 2 of the motion for a resolution by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, because we mean it. We need a better system of classification than we have.

This is not about giving more money to poor, handicapped areas. There is more than enough dynamism, excitement and enthusiasm across our islands in Scotland, mountainous areas and various places to help them heal themselves. However, we need to make sure, in particular, that State aid represents an addition rather than a hindrance to their lives and, if we sweep the hindrances away, we can work together to make their lives better.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, a Europe without economic, social and territorial cohesion is not a Union. Mountainous regions, islands and sparsely populated areas have their own difficult challenges that have to be overcome for the sake of a Europe of its peoples. However, we have to go beyond statements of intent otherwise, we will have the opposite effect and will reinforce inequalities.

These regions are huge reservoirs of important resources. Biodiversity, forests, wetlands and countryside provide an essential service for everyone, yet suffer from the resulting limitations on the regions’ economies. We have to give something back. We must all offer the people living in these regions our solidarity and support.

I would like to make two proposals. The first one concerns their potential contribution to science and development. The natural riches in many of these regions make them genuine open-air laboratories, but they do not have equal access to research funding. Why, then, do we not equip them with research centres of excellence, thus creating quality jobs and reviving their economies?

My second proposal concerns energy. These regions can and must act as seed projects showing the potential for energy self-sufficiency and sustainability, particularly through microgeneration using local sources. That would reduce dependency, increase equality and create jobs.

Lastly, I would like to point out that using gross domestic product as the sole or main indicator for allocating aid funds can only result in further injustice. It is therefore crucial to use additional data, particularly data portraying the social and economic reality of these regions.

At this point, I must say a special word about the peoples of the Azores, Madeira, the mountain regions and the depopulated inland areas of Portugal. Through their efforts, they contribute a great deal to development and the quality of life of all Europeans.

These and all other regions have their own contexts. Social, economic and territorial cohesion must not be seen as charity. This is where we decide whether or not we want a real European redistribution policy. For all these reasons, I consider this resolution to be an important step, but only the first of many.

  Timo Soini (EFD). – (FI) Mr President, Finland is a large country, with an area around the size of Great Britain, but there are only 5.3 million of us. I think that this is something that enriches our lives enormously: the land is no longer being developed anywhere. The world and Europe are becoming crowded, but clean water and nature are a vital necessity. Taxes are levied on people in the back of beyond, so everyone is entitled to basic services. Sparsely populated areas are as important as the towns and cities, because everyone and every life has value.

In Finland, my country, Lapland, eastern Finland and the central parts of the country are sparsely populated, but they all make a contribution to the country’s infrastructure and are a part of Finland as a whole, a country where, furthermore, we have been and are able to engage in commercially sustainable activities. We in the EU, which I view with scepticism, must also be able to see that activities must be economically viable. Moreover, there also needs to be development in these regions.

We also need to ensure that we do not increase the rate of rural depopulation as a result of Union legislation. It is with respect to this point that I take an especially critical view of the imminent Postal Services Directive. Those gentlemen would do well to go off to these sparsely populated areas to check what time the mail comes. These are the sorts of things that I wish to emphasise, and if we make any headway, I might even become a bit less critical.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian, my main preoccupation in respect of this report is with the position of those living in mountain regions. As has already been established in the declaration, agriculture is a key economic sector in these regions. Statistics show that 13 farmers give up farming in Austria every day. Small farms are particularly vulnerable. Overall, we now have only half the number of farms that we had in 1950. Mountain farmers have the added disadvantage that they cannot be anywhere near as productive as farms in the valleys. Their products can scarcely compete in the market because of the high transport costs imposed by their location. Tradition obliges.

The life of farmers and their families bear witness to how generations have lived and worked together. In our current society, that is somewhat unique, and it is something that we must not allow to be lost.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, territorial diversity is an asset for Europe. Our duty, as European institutions, is to ensure the conditions for this asset to work for Europe, for its culture and for its economy.

The treaty calls on the Community to take into account in its policies territories with specific features which entail particular development challenges, both in terms of problems to be solved, and of opportunities to be exploited. In this context, let me raise three issues.

First, territorial impact assessment. This issue has been on the European agenda for years. I would like to call on the Commission to include the territorial dimension in the impact assessment procedure for European initiatives. Territorial impact assessment could be an excellent horizontal tool to address effectively the specific needs of those territories. I would like, therefore, to strongly support the idea of territorialisation of the impact assessment instrument. Reaching out through the model of strategic environmental assessment could be of help here.

Secondly, you spoke, Commissioner, about the Inter-Service Group on Territorial Cohesion. I am convinced that there is still potential in the Commission to raise awareness in many relevant policy areas about the development challenges of specific territories. Through the work of DG REGIO with all other relevant services, the territorial sensitivity of all European policies should be identified. In particular, I believe transport and energy policies should be territory-proof. Territory proofing should become part of good practice in the Union.

Thirdly, I would like to ask the Commission to look carefully into EU 2020, and especially its flagship initiatives, to identify priorities of particular importance for these territories with specific developmental features.

In conclusion, let me use this opportunity to say more generally that European citizens can but benefit from EU 2020 flagship initiatives being taken to the local and regional level.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, for the first time in the history of European integration, the Treaty of Lisbon has incorporated the regional dimension and territorial cohesion as a defining objective of the Union.

I am taking part in this debate as another MEP from an island area, the Canary Islands, which is covered by Article 174 of the treaty when it specifically refers to islands, and by Article 349 as it is an outermost region. I am doing so, however, with an awareness of the fact that in addition to their territorial fragmentation, owing to the fact that islands are always the external border of the European Union, they are especially vulnerable to energy, transport and infrastructure strategies and, above all, to strategies concerning the internal and external security of the Union against threats, and, in particular, against illegal trafficking.

I therefore ask for strong support for this resolution and, above all, for its translation into tangible policies – which should fill it with content and which we cannot discuss in detail – and especially for its transfer to the financial perspectives for 2014-2020. We must have a budget that matches the objectives and gives financial support to the ambition to give Europeans who live on the Union’s islands full and equal rights and opportunities to those who live on the mainland territories of this vast area of European integration.

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Mr President, could I, too, welcome the report that is here before us today to discuss. As an islander living on the west coast of Scotland, I am very well aware of the challenges that face many of our outermost areas, and indeed our island areas. The fundamental challenge that faces islands, and indeed our mountain regions, is, of course, the cost of transport. It makes us uncompetitive, leads to a lack of opportunity and to a lack of jobs in these areas, and ultimately to the loss of our young people.

Paragraph six of the report refers to the need to make areas more competitive, which seems to me to be the fundamental challenge that faces regional cohesion policy in the future in addressing the concerns of islanders and those living in mountainous areas.

Allow me to bring up a particular issue that I wanted to take up with the Commission, and to draw the Commissioner’s attention to it. In Scotland, we had a worthwhile initiative brought forward by the Scottish Government three years ago which attempted to lower ferry fares for the islands to see if it gave a boost to those particular islands. The pilot project ran for three years and has now come to a conclusion. Some of the islands received the benefit of that subsidy, others did not. We expected, once the evaluation had been done, that the programme would be rolled out across all the islands in Scotland.

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government has chosen to roll the programme out again only for the Western Isles, and the rest are not to receive any benefit.

Commissioner, my constituents in Argyll believe this to be unfair and unjust; some of them believe it to be nothing more than an electoral bribe. If I write to you and the Transport Commissioner, I wonder if you would respond to their concerns and examine the unjust situation that many of my island constituents face.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Alps are one of the most heavily built-up mountain regions in Europe. They contain the most important water resources, but their current economic situation makes them vulnerable to global warming.

The Alps could play a fundamental role by becoming carbon-neutral by 2050, as defined by the four Environment Ministers of the German-speaking Alpine countries in June this year. They could become the region of choice for creating renewable energy and contributing to achieving the 20% target for 2020.

(The speaker broke off)

  Giancarlo Scottà (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon devotes particular attention to regions with severe and permanent handicaps. This is why I support Mr Provera’s initiative concerning the agricultural, environmental and cultural rehabilitation of these regions. I therefore call for the Commission to set to work as soon as possible on implementing a policy for mountain regions that will tackle the difficulties, declining population and abandonment of mountain regions, with the environmental degradation that that entails.

It is crucial to provide for the agricultural activity, quality of life and cultural heritage of those living in disadvantaged conditions, and it is fundamental to ensure that the actions undertaken by the Commission, the Member States and regional and local authorities are in harmony with one another.

A fundamental principle of the European Union is subsidiarity, an instrument that is crucial to promoting the development of disadvantaged regions through lasting and well-targeted measures resulting from regional proposals. This is a significant challenge, and the task will be to keep people in these regions, or, better still, to encourage them back there.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the goal of territorial cohesion, which is now enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, embodies the value of European solidarity and the commitment of the Member States and the Union to reduce current disparities between the various regions.

It is not enough, however, to declare the goals we want to achieve in the text of the treaties. There are regions of the Union that suffer from permanent handicaps, which severely constrain their economic and social development. Specific programmes therefore need to be put into practice to fully and effectively overcome the lack of development in these regions by adapting their development models to their potentials and resources, thus helping to achieve the EU 2020 targets.

This incentive to these regions should come not only from regional policy resources, through structural adjustment instruments such as the Cohesion Fund and the four Structural Funds, but also from a change in use of the various sectoral policies, which have a significant territorial impact in each of the regions and can therefore provide a boost to their economies.

We should certainly keep gross domestic product (GDP) as the main indicator for determining eligibility for European assistance to these regions. However, in view of their natural disadvantages, other measurable criteria, such as unemployment rate, population density or education level, should also be used to provide a more realistic picture of their level of development. That is the only way to obtain a more complete portrait of the complex reality of the least favoured regions.

In this respect, we should note the case of the outermost regions, whose status is recognised in the new treaty. They form a group of EU regions that have specific characteristics and also deserve special treatment. While they are linked together on account of their particular attributes, the outermost regions, too, differ in their levels of development. These regions also require the use of indicators in addition to GDP that can provide a more complete description of their specific realities and thus contribute to a more accurate assessment of their level of development.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, I welcome this motion for a resolution, which points to the need for a European strategy that can translate the principle of territorial cohesion – which we gained with the Treaty of Lisbon – into opportunities enabling the inhabitants of areas burdened with various permanent natural handicaps to participate in the European project.

I come from a region, the Azores, where these handicaps mount up and are more acute, as occurs in other areas known as outermost regions of Europe, according to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Following the 2008 Commission communication entitled ‘The outermost regions: an asset for Europe’ and the extended debate in which the outermost regions themselves played an active part, we are now expecting our own version of this strategy, which will have to take into account not only our handicaps but, above all, our potential.

I therefore call on the Commission to table its proposals quickly so that we can establish the best strategy in advance of the debate on the new financial framework, because we must first define the content of our policies before allocating the funds needed to implement them, as has happened with the Union policies that are now under review.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Mr President, as many colleagues have said, Article 174 of the treaty refers to territorial cohesion as a new objective of the European Union. Therefore, the Union must pay greater attention to the economic and social needs of people living in mountainous regions, small islands and remote areas. I strongly believe that the EU must now respond by introducing concrete measures at an early date.

Under the resolution, I suggested that there should be a greater emphasis on the important economic sectors on which these communities rely heavily. I am particularly concerned about those fishermen who operate from small vessels off our coasts and islands. These small vessels are of extreme importance to peripheral areas, where there is no alternative source of employment.

In Ireland, the majority of these vessels are less than 15 metres long, catching quantities of fish that have no significant impact on stocks. However, they must abide by regulations that are established for larger boats that bear no comparison.

I call on the Commission, when reviewing the common fisheries policy, to recognise that reality and to have a segment within the new policy for those areas off the coast and the islands which depend on fish.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) The policy for mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas should be comprehensive, integrated and balanced, and should recognise the diversity of these areas and the corresponding right to a specific method of development in local, regional or national legislation. The policy should recognise the disadvantages experienced by inhabitants, local authorities and businesses, and should define specialised actions for preserving traditional forms of employment, supporting multi-year complex programmes aimed at upgrading the capacities of traditional forms of production, supporting diversification of the economic activities of the population through the development of resources for visitors or tourists as a supplement to traditional forms of livelihood, maintaining and improving access to services and technical infrastructure, implementing measures to stem the outflow of young people, preserving the specific identity and cultural values that are specific to every homogenous region, and, of course, last but not least, preserving the biological and environmental equilibrium.

Caring for these regions requires a specific approach and exceptionally sensitive implementation of the selected measures. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the way forward for these specific European regions.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, during the volcanic ash crisis, it took me two days to get home to my own country because of the fact that there is no land link and no tunnel between Ireland and England. It brought home very clearly to me the particular difficulties of people living on islands without any connection to the mainland. The same applies to those living in sparsely-populated mountainous and hilly regions and other areas of disadvantage. That would apply to my own situation in the south of Ireland, all the way up along the west coast to Pat the Cope’s Donegal. Certainly, these areas do need every consideration.

I would like to raise three points. Firstly, Nuno Teixeira pointed out that, under paragraph 3, Member States can allocate funds for other than GDP considerations. That is something we should encourage for these regions, because they are special.

Secondly, these regions are the richest in the whole of Europe in terms of biodiversity, environmental protection and the delivery of public goods. That is something that must be factored in very strongly in the upcoming CAP negotiations.

Thirdly, under Article 195 of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union now has some competence for the development of tourism. These regions offer great scope for the development of strong and sustainable tourism. They are areas of scenic beauty, and have a good traditional way of life and very friendly people. If we make an effort, particularly here at European Union level, to help them, not only are we helping them to survive, but we can also help them to help themselves. I suppose that is ultimately the best support we can give them.

  Alan Kelly (S&D). – Mr President, to be frank, the areas that we are talking about tonight have been suffering for generations economically and socially and now, due to the effects of modern globalisation, they are faced with increased challenges.

I represent an area that has many islands and that has the largest mountain range in Ireland. Like the previous two speakers, my colleagues from Ireland, I know the areas that have been suffering for many generations. Populations are shifting to urban areas; there is a lack of economic opportunities for young people – we could go on all day about the issues facing them.

I believe that it is time that we recognise that cohesion policy, despite many successes and very noble efforts, has not fully succeeded in providing economic development across the Union, especially for these areas. I would hope that the response of the EU to this problem will lead to real, concrete differences by addressing the basis of this inequality and, very importantly, by adapting to modern needs such as the communications area, and especially next-generation broadband, which I believe is a huge issue. Access to communications is going to be the next big challenge; it represents a huge challenge at the moment.

It is time to ensure we give these communities an economic lifeline. I would like to remind us all that we are obliged to do so under all the treaties.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE). – (BG) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mountain regions are found in most European Union Member States, making mountains an integral part of Europe’s geography. In Bulgaria, for example, the mountain regions are almost as populous as the flat regions. This is why the large number of ecological, social and territorial issues relating to these regions deserve to be closely examined by the European legislator.

From the perspective of the environment, with its rich ecosystem, diversity and impressive size, Europe’s mountains provide the ideal conditions for developing and preserving the exceptional biodiversity. However, fragile mountain ecosystems are particularly delicate and vulnerable to changes brought about by the impact of human actions.

The European Union must learn how to use the mountain regions’ economic and ecological assets in the best, most responsible way. These objectives can be achieved by funding and promoting eco-efficient activities, such as upland hill farming, traditional animal husbandry in Alpine regions and integrated forest resource management.

Fellow Members, I believe that these measures will yield many positive results in terms of the European Union’s territorial and economic cohesion.

  Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) Sustainable economic and social development is achieved through utilising the various territorial assets which are available. This notion is one of the main points in the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion. The principle of this cohesion has been reinforced by the regulations governing the Structural Funds for the 2007-2013 period and it is one of the European Union’s key objectives introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. The provisions of Article 174 should be translated into specific development strategies and concrete measures aimed at overcoming the handicaps and tapping the potential offered by mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas. This could be achieved through a European political framework and could generate added value through utilising the various local assets.

Research and development policies would result in a better use of the vast natural potential of these regions, with a direct impact, for instance, in the areas of sustainable energy and tourism. This would allow us to turn specific geographical features into benefits.

One important aspect which we must focus on is demographic shifts. We must encourage specific demographic policies aimed at the inhabitants of these regions, offering them different facilities according to the specific features of the area. The disadvantaged mountain regions in my country, with their population in steady decline, expect measures for improving their economic situation so that their inhabitants are encouraged to stay in these settlements and contribute to their development.

I have another extremely important point to make. I believe that GDP must continue to be used as the main criterion for determining eligibility for regional policy assistance. Introducing other indicators would complicate and ruin, in the long term, the actual development process in these areas, as well as the cohesion policy as a whole. However, these indicators can be used by Member States to redistribute the funds between regions, up to the limits of the packages which were allocated to them, just for the benefit of the areas mentioned.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, mountain regions, islands and remote areas are a source of strength and wealth to Europe. European policy on these areas should focus on strengthening their positive aspects and mitigating their negative aspects, so that there is nowhere where European citizens feel that they are cut off from their fellow citizens and so that people have equal opportunities for prosperity everywhere in Europe.

The gross domestic product of an area does not give a true reflection of this diversity. There are what appear to be rich islands and mountain regions with no productive base which are locked into service sectors on the brink of collapse and which are therefore in need of investment. In addition, averages for islands with different levels of growth fail, by default, to do justice to all of them.

Other important factors, such as the labour market and the accessibility of an area, the increased cost of passenger and freight transport and the infrastructures and networks needed, are elements which need to be taken into account within a more global approach to the regions, both in terms of regional policy and in terms of the starting point for laying down broader criteria.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, the motion for a resolution correctly points out that mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas are faced with serious challenges and therefore need special regional development programmes and support. The proposal suggests GDP as an indicator. In this context, it is important to emphasise that we must continue to use GDP as the gauge of a Member State’s eligibility for regional political aid when it comes to apportioning EU funds. GDP is a key measure of development, progress and the effect of regional development actions, and it is an indicator that can also be linked to other yardsticks.

However, all this does not mean that we may disregard the social and environmental consequences of economic decisions, since growth can only be useful if coupled with social development and improved quality of life. At Member State level, each country’s decision makers can take into account other indicators when allocating development funds among regions, such as when determining Member State support for mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas. However, I would also like to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that at EU level, we must continue to use GDP as a fundamental indicator of eligibility for support, to ensure continued efficient use of support by less developed Member States.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Mr President, I come from Wales, which has mountains, islands, sparsely populated areas and much more. Therefore, I welcome the proposals in the motion for a resolution.

In my short contribution, I wanted to focus on the role of local government and regional government, because it is clear that, whatever strategies, projects or programmes are put in place, they will be prepared, implemented, delivered and managed by regional and local authorities.

That is right, because this is the level of government which is closest to the ground and the closest to the people. Therefore, it is also right that they are involved at all stages of any programme or initiative.

So I would hope the Commission would bear this in mind and put in place mechanisms to ensure the full involvement of local and regional government, and I am sure that they, in turn, will ensure the development of our communities and regions.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE). – (DE) Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, I have a problem with some of this debate. Listening to some of the contributions about mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas, I get the impression that these are exterritorial and directly subject to the European Union. That is not the case, however. Each of these areas belongs to a sovereign Member State. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the implementation of European decisions and objectives remains a matter for the Member States.

At European level, we have always paid particular attention to precisely these regions – mountain regions, sparsely populated areas, islands – in Commission communications right up to the Treaty of Lisbon. Here in Parliament, too, many decisions have been made that support these regions. When I hear so many here complaining that these areas are still in a poor state, then I have to ask myself what the Member States have done with the initiatives that we provided at European level. What have the regions themselves done with them? How have they used the European assistance provided? What is called for here is a new strategy, and I feel sorry for the officials of the Directorate General on Regional Policy who have to integrate the multitude of problems suffered by islands, mountain regions and sparsely populated areas into one strategy. At the same time, there is such strategy inflation – strategies for the Danube, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, for climate change and suchlike – that we will soon need a strategy for the strategies if we are to maintain an overview of them all.

Joking apart, ladies and gentlemen, what it is really about – as has been said here today, and I am grateful to Commissioner Hahn for mentioning it – is that we need to fight to ensure that we still have a cohesion policy and a regional policy at European level after 2013. That is what our work should focus on, and we need to convince our fellow Members of this. Mountain regions, islands and other areas would all find their place in a continued policy on cohesion and regional policy beyond 2013. There is no point in wasting our time on individual motions for resolution on this subject.

  Patrice Tirolien (S&D) . – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I very much welcome this debate today. It once again shows the need for the Union to appreciate and make the most of its regional diversity.

At this time when we are negotiating the new 2014-2020 framework programmes, I think it important to emphasise the amendments from which specific regions must benefit. Issues of continuity and territorial cohesion must be at the heart of our concerns.

The development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas, however, requires more than just a set of derogations. We must adopt a horizontal approach. We must put in place instruments capable of making Union action in all areas coexist in synergy, thereby increasing their added value.

Moreover, as a representative of an outlying region, I look forward to the new Union strategy on the outermost regions, which the Commission services have promised for early 2011.

  Damien Abad (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our Europe is the symbol of the Union in its diversity: a diversity of distance, of cultures, of approaches, and also the diversity of our territories and regions.

Although the European Union is made up of completely diverse components, the objectives of territorial, economic and social cohesion must remain as the pillars of all our actions, and the Treaty of Lisbon recognises this explicitly, moreover. It is in this context, therefore, that we must pay special attention to mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas.

I was elected from the large South-Eastern region, which also includes islands – I have Corsica in mind – as well as Savoy and the département of Ain where a number of areas are sparsely populated, and I see from my work on the ground that we must have a clear imperative, which is to reconcile Europe with these regions.

For this to be the case, we must firstly identify the difficulties faced by these regions. I have in mind, for example, services of general interest, including social services of general interest. How do we arrange things so that we can assure all our citizens, wherever they may be, a minimum level of social protection?

We must equally develop all the potential of these regions so that they may be able to enjoy the benefits of the single market and economic development. Besides, it is very easy to see that, currently, Union policies for islands or mountain regions are not being applied in an efficient way.

On the one hand, there is a real failure to take specific local and regional circumstances into account, and on the other, a risk that these regions, in being completely overlooked, are left to their own devices, without any assistance in combating depopulation, threats to the environment or economic slowdown. It is exactly there that, with due respect for the principle of subsidiarity, Europe could bring added value.

I count myself as one of those who believe that Europe must set itself specific objectives for these regions. First of all, to review the different Union policies that have an impact on these regions in order to include a horizontal clause enabling these specific circumstances to be taken into account. I also believe that, beyond regional policy, there must be a review of the common fisheries policy, with safeguards for small-scale and local fishing, agriculture and rural development, with better targeting of small-scale production with an increase in direct aid, following which, we should apply the same procedure to transport and energy.

In conclusion, I should like to say that where there is a will, there is not necessarily a way. Ambition should not limit itself to fine words. A few months from now, we shall have a crucial opportunity that we must take advantage of, namely, the negotiations on the next financial perspective.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Commissioner, the European Union must use its cohesion policy to focus particular attention on the regions affected by natural and demographic handicaps, such as the regions in the north of the continent, more sparsely populated areas or islands, cross-border and mountain regions.

More than any other regions in the EU, these regions face particular challenges posed by difficult access, climate change, regional integration and demographic changes. In addition, they have a common set of features which require specific regional development programmes to be drawn up and implemented for them, as well as the indicators for allocating funds to be adapted, as they need to take into account the specific features of each region. Indeed, consideration must be given to the low population density and access to professional training programmes, which subsequently enable the population to access the labour market and influence the unemployment rate in these areas.

The population in these areas should not live off assistance programmes as part of national public schemes. These areas must have resources and the capabilities suitable for sustainable development and for accessing services of general interest.

  Richard Seeber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon has given us a new legal basis, and Article 174 in particular gives us the task of promoting territorial cohesion. What that specifically means for regional policy and for the Commissioner for Regional Policy is that he must look after this policy area and also those areas with special topographical characteristics, such as mountain regions and islands. We must therefore create a specific policy for this group. As Mr Zeller has said, this must not simply result in us having lots of programmes and providing money for these, but rather should involve incorporating the necessary flexibility into the European programmes. This relates to the indicators to be provided but, above all, also to the policies that we particularly want to promote.

However, it is not just down to Commissioner Hahn to push through decent policy in this area, because policies for mountain regions have a role to play in all areas of European policy. Agricultural policy has already been mentioned. Here, too, the particular circumstances of mountain regions call for assistance or balancing by special measures. It plays a part in transport policy – I myself come from a country that faces particular challenges and problems in connection with international goods transport. Here, too, we are trying to incorporate the necessary exemptions into the Eurovignette Directive. The Member from Finland mentioned the Postal Services Directive. If he had read it carefully, he would have seen that we incorporated solutions to these problem areas very well in the last legislature.

As representative of the regions, Commissioner Hahn has a particular responsibility to ensure that these special characteristics have resonance in all the policy areas of the European Union. Only then will we be able to ensure that our objective of territorial cohesion, as laid down in the treaty, is truly achieved.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank all those who signed this motion for a resolution, which is welcomed extremely warmly by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and in Spain, the country that we represent.

We have the legal framework, which is Article 174(3) of the Treaty of Lisbon. We also have territorial cohesion, which is the new pillar that is set out in that treaty, and therefore we have the legal basis to step out and help these regions: mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas.

In the case of mountain regions – as has been said here – we are talking about 90 million inhabitants; in the case of islands, there are 21 million people living on islands in 14 countries, and many millions more live in mountain regions.

All of these areas share a very similar set of problems in terms of culture, education, transport and the environment. Specifically, there is one disadvantage that unites us all, which is in terms of transport. I come from the Balearic Islands, where the additional cost of transport has been calculated at 20%. This undoubtedly has repercussions on our industry, agriculture, strategic sectors, tourism and, in short, on the whole business sector: the entire economic fabric. It therefore affects our competitiveness.

Therefore, if we then focus on resources, such as drinking water or land, which is limited, or raw materials such as energy or the living spaces in those areas, we will see that they undoubtedly result in a phenomenon of shortages and of a lack of economic diversification.

We are therefore calling for the new financial perspectives to take into account the specific characteristics of these areas and for us to move from words to action – as has also been said here – which should be translated into budgets, and hence into greater territorial cohesion.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the remote areas of the European Union, particularly the outermost regions (including the Azores, the region I represent here), mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas, suffer from natural and geographical handicaps that are difficult to overcome and have great social costs.

By way of example, I could mention difficulties of access, the high cost of basic public service provision, energy supplies, etc.

We should also remember that only 7% of people in the European Union live in cities and that 14 million Europeans live on islands.

A Union founded on and organised around values such as solidarity and social justice has a political and moral duty to foster the economic and social development of its remote areas. Indeed, that is the main raison d’être of the European cohesion policies: territorial cohesion and economic and social convergence.

Hence, the inclusion of territorial cohesion as a new objective for the Union merely reflects its natural process of evolution, and the economic and social convergence strategies are a requirement of its growth.

The EU decided to take this approach a long time ago and it has brought highly positive results in many regions, as they have moved from Objective 1 to Objective 2. In fact, even before these regions reach Objective 2, even while development levels in these remote areas of Europe remain below the European average and they lack proportional support, they still make an irreplaceable contribution to the wealth of European diversity, each with its own particular attributes.

These remote areas of the European Union have a duty to make maximum use of all the development instruments available to them, particularly by focusing on their own specific assets. It is the EU’s duty to ensure the effective integration and cohesion of all its areas; otherwise, its very project for growth will be discredited.

In this context, the Commission must take the lines of action put forward in this proposal into due consideration as a valuable contribution to the success of the European integration project that we all share.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the Structural Funds are an essential EU financial instrument in our endeavours to reach the 2020 targets. They are especially important in the sparsely populated northern regions, and I wish to make the following four points. First of all, these special areas will be the first to encounter a multitude of problems, and they will be the hardest hit by them. As the population of working age has, in many cases, moved away in search of employment, many sparsely populated areas will be the first to face the problem of an ageing population.

I obviously know about the situation in Finland best, and I can tell you that eastern and northern Finland will soon have areas where more than half the population are retired. By 2020, the proportion of older people to the working population, that is to say, the so­called dependency ratio, will be at its most critical in eastern Finland, Italy and eastern Germany. The degree of polarisation between the regions will increase dramatically and the number of areas whose dependency ratio is more than 25% above the EU average will rise to 40 by 2020. That is why it is important to take account of the demographic criteria connected with an ageing population in regional and structural policy, and not just allow GDP to be the only significant factor.

Secondly, these regions must no longer be allowed to lose their population of working age. Instead, what is needed is a focus on competitiveness in these areas, to lift them out of the economic crisis and for them to achieve the EU 2020 objectives. What is needed is the development of innovation and expertise, and stronger competitiveness. They need to achieve more with less money. The selection criteria for funding for innovation should be genuinely good results. The focus needs to be on themes that promote competitiveness and employment best in each area, and there is also a need for new social and service innovations.

Thirdly, we need regional programmes that integrate measures under the Structural Funds and whose results can be measured and evaluated. The administrative burden that results from management and inspection systems in the Member States must be in proportion to the amount of funding available. The funding must be made conditional on results and linked to structural reforms in the economy and responsible economic policy.

Finally, my fourth point is that we need cross­border cooperation between the regions, especially where it concerns projects connected with business, industry and the environment. A good opportunity presents itself in the context of the Baltic Sea and Danube macro­regions, for example, which have already been mentioned in the debate here. Cooperation is needed between the EU’s neighbours, but the Baltic Sea, for example, also needs Russia to participate in regional cooperation. Europe’s only indigenous people ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, as an inhabitant of the Massif Central, of the Auvergne, of Limousin, I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for what you have done in your communication. Thank you to all the political groups that have signed the resolution and which have, moreover, enabled the creation of the mountains and islands intergroup. Thank you to our partners Euromontana and to the European Association of Elected Representatives from Mountain Regions.

At last, we have the word ‘mountain’ in a European treaty, in Article 174. We must make the most of our assets: agriculture, forests, tourism, industrial plants. Commissioner, I should like to put particular emphasis on agriculture. We have quality products, which are delicate and useful. Please discuss them with your colleague, Mr Cioloş. We must provide equal opportunities with regard to all infrastructure, motorways, high-speed trains, energy, education, health and digital technology.

Mr President, in wars, we have had equality of duty. We mountain people also believe in equality of rights.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – Mr President, the harmonious development of the Union is a precondition for its sustainable economic growth and social welfare. The principle of territorial cohesion obliges the EU to come up with concrete measures to overcome existing handicaps and to exploit the potential of those regions.

A European policy framework would be very useful and would bring long-term added value for disadvantaged regions, helping to shape and adapt unique development models which would make them more competitive and capable of coping with challenges.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, maintaining the population in sparsely populated areas is the best way of guaranteeing their preservation. The strategy uses the word development, but I would like to highlight three principles:

Firstly, the business models that generate development in these areas must be aimed towards profitability and high quality production, and the new activities linked to the low carbon economy are the way to promote them.

Secondly, the social economy is the best approach for linking these populations to shared projects relating to their welfare.

Thirdly, the people who live in these areas must have an equivalent level of public health and education services, as well as transport infrastructure, to the rest of the public. It is better to invest in this than to invest in production subsidies.

This is what I want for Euskadi and, Commissioner, this will only be possible if Europe counts on the regions and the local governments, if it clearly sets the objectives of the funds, if it evaluates their impact, and if it takes into account the different situations of the areas.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) The need to have a good correlation between the cohesion policy and common agricultural policy has already been mentioned by a number of my fellow Members. I, too, wish to stress this fact along with the important role which the European rural development funds play in the economic and social development of mountain regions. We are debating at the moment the future of the common agricultural policy. We must bear in mind that this reform must be implemented in a way which will unlock the potential offered by mountain regions in terms of their development and even in their contribution to economic growth.

The diversity of local products and tourist activities, for instance, could provide a source of wealth for many regions. However, for this to happen, the regions in question need to have access to public services, infrastructure and transport. The common agricultural policy should be able, through its second pillar, to continue to guarantee access to such services and, at the same time, the conditions ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, matters such as unemployment, rural development, agriculture, fisheries, transport, promoting renewable energies and protecting the environment are essential to our islands, mountain regions and sparsely populated areas.

We need an integrated and coordinated strategy to consistently contribute to their development. These areas have huge potential for economic and social development that we cannot waste.

At the same time, in order for this to be possible, we must compensate for the disadvantages arising from their specific geographic or demographic situations. In this respect, a measure that is necessary within the context of regional policy is the elimination of some of the limits on participation in cross-border cooperation programmes, such as the requirement for there to be a maximum distance of 150 kilometres between cross-border regions, which is an obstacle to greater cooperation between island regions and with bordering maritime regions.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, if we are talking about territorial cohesion, we have to talk about islands, mountain regions and also the outermost regions. It means talking about their problems and difficulties, their natural disadvantages and their structural handicaps. However, it also fundamentally means talking about how we can remove the obstacles that prevent their development. It means talking about strategies for converting those disadvantages into opportunities. Improving connectivity, an adequate neighbourhood policy and stability in policies and in the Structural Funds are issues that we need to tackle without hesitation, on the basis of two major premises: territorial cohesion and the principle of solidarity.

There are people who do not believe in strategies. I do believe in them, and this resolution should be proof of Parliament’s commitment to these regions and of its demand for the Commission to make political decisions that take into account the needs of these vulnerable areas, whose problems become even more harshly evident in times of economic crisis such as we are experiencing at the moment.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Although it is half past eleven in the evening, we are still talking here about this interesting and important topic, because mountain regions still lag behind and receive insufficient attention, despite the clear potential of their natural resources and unique flora and fauna.

These regions require specific measures and specially adapted development strategies to enable them to overcome persistent disadvantages and exploit their natural potential, while the completion of road and rail infrastructure is a matter of survival and prosperity for them. For this reason, I fully support the creation of a special, European integrated framework for solving the issues of mountain regions, in accordance with the principle of territorial cohesion, which is one of the main objectives of the European Union, but I would like to emphasise, however, the need to supplement the political framework with a concrete legal dimension linked to the release ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) Competitiveness and prosperity depend on the ability of the citizens of a particular area and the ability of the businesses located there to make the best possible use of its resources. European Union policy should stimulate such activities, placing particular emphasis on reducing the disproportions in levels of development between regions which have specific natural and geographical conditions. Support for harmonious development is intended to strengthen the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union.

Efforts should concentrate on developing strengths and looking for potential areas of competitive advantage of mountain regions and islands. This is a particular kind of bridge building between ecological stability, economic efficiency and social cohesion in order to ensure opportunities for development for everyone in these difficult regions. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union is obliged to seek such solutions.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to echo these thanks, and I would also like to thank the honourable Members. We have had 47 speeches – I have counted them – which bears witness both to the vitality of Parliament and to the importance of this subject. I am particularly pleased that only a single one of these 47 speeches was negative, and that was regarding whether there is any sense in having a policy on cohesion. That should encourage us that this is a very important policy area and one that is capable of reaching out to the people of Europe and making Europe visible, even – and particularly so – in the regions that are the subject of today’s discussions and debate. As it has not yet been mentioned, I would like to point out that in this new period, we now have the possibility of using a modulated cofinancing system to create balance within regions. With respect to what Mr Zeller and others have said, we have created the opportunity to react locally – and very much in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity – to particular needs based on the knowledge of those responsible. We also have a range of very different options in the area of state subsidies – in the area of competition policy, for example – and we should use these opportunities in the interests of the people concerned.

Many of the speeches concerned the matter of indicators, which is something that we frequently encounter in the debate on regional policy. I agree with Mr Deutsch and others who feel that gross domestic product must still be used as a central indicator. However, I fully understand that there is a need and a desire for supplementary indicators to be used. There are already various projects, for example, under ESPON. One such project is the EUROISLANDS project, which is about defining supplementary indicators that are mainly and specifically designed to enable us to draw up better policies in these regions jointly with those who have the primary responsibility. These should not, and cannot, be used primarily to develop new financial indicators, but are there to enable us to tailor our policies in these regions more accurately and more precisely to the needs of the people.

I would particularly like to thank those speakers who mentioned the latent potential of the regions and what can still be done in areas such as research and development. We have some regions in extraordinary locations where very specific research activities are taking place. Thinking of the Canary Islands and their observatories, for example, the research that is being carried on could not be carried on anywhere else, because nowhere else has these precise geographical, topographical and climatic conditions. We must make better use of such factors, including in the renewable energy sector. I would also add my voice to those who have specifically mentioned Internet access. This is indeed something to which we must devote particular attention in the future, because it must be acknowledged that there is still much potential to be realised here.

Once more, thank you for all the contributions to the debate. Regional policy has a major job to do, not just in balancing out discrepancies in the regions but also in meeting the needs of the eight out of 10 people who we know want to have a prospect of getting work in the region where they were born and, in broad terms, of growing old there. For this reason, we should and must pursue a policy that takes precisely these needs into consideration, and that is what we are doing. Our policy is based on people and their needs, and we hope to reach them by this means. It is a never-ending task that needs new impetus time and time again. To this extent, today’s debate and, above all, this report have made a significant contribution to our basis for decisions. I can only assure you that for us in the Commission, we consider it not just a duty and a responsibility to work intensely on such matters, but also a pleasure.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  President. I have received six motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, 22 September, at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This resolution, which will be put to the vote in Parliament tomorrow, helps to make institutional actors sensitive to the difficulties faced by these regions, and I am pleased about that. I will stress three important aspects of this report, which are at the heart of my concerns and which, in themselves, justify my signature. Coming from a mountainous region, the Pyrenees, I am sensitive to the problems encountered by this type of territory. Owing to their geographical and demographic constraints, mountains require ‘specific programmes of regional development’, and I hope that cohesion policy after 2013 will take account of that. The defence and promotion of European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) is at the heart of my political battle. I hope that the success of the EGTC in my region, that of the Puigcerdá hospital, can serve as an incentive for other projects of this type in Europe. Finally, the abandonment of the 150 km criterion for islands is an important proposal which has been called for by many local stakeholders. In fact, some islands still cannot benefit from cross-border programmes because of their remoteness. They therefore suffer from an even more obvious type of isolation, and we must remedy that.

  Edward Scicluna (S&D), in writing. – I am delighted to see the Parliament and Commission debating the question of mountain regions and islands. As a Maltese Member, representing two islands, Malta and Gozo, each having fewer than 500 000 citizens, this is an issue that is inevitably close to my heart. There can be no doubt that islands and small regions deserve to be treated at EU level according to their specific needs. For example, there are significant economic disparities between the island of Gozo and the rest of Malta, with Malta’s Office of National Statistics showing that Gozo’s GDP per capita is now under 75% that of Malta. In such cases, the Commission should grant special recognition and eligibility to aspects of EU regional policy, other than funding which too has not materialised, for Gozo. Of course, mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas in the EU share common features that differentiate them from other regions. They tend to suffer from poor transport links leading to a lack of employment opportunities and accessibility. Statistically, they are also more likely to be poorer than the rest of their Member State. We cannot afford to ignore them.

(1) See Minutes

15. Inclusion of aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (debate)

  President. – Τhe next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Peter Liese and Mathieu Grosch, on behalf of the PPE Group, Saïd El Khadraoui, Kathleen Van Brempt and Matthias Groote, on behalf of the S&D Group, Chris Davies and Holger Krahmer, on behalf of the ALDE Group, Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group, and Satu Hassi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, on aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (O-0127/2010 - B7-0463/2010).

  Peter Liese, author. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in 2008 – following intense negotiations – we resolved to include aviation in the emissions trading system. I was the rapporteur at the time, and some of the shadow rapporteurs are also present here. We did not do it to annoy the aviation industry or third countries; we did it because we have a major problem. There has been a dramatic rise in greenhouse gases, and emissions of greenhouse gases from aviation have doubled since 1990. In 1997, the global community delegated the task of reducing these greenhouse gases to ICAO in the Kyoto Protocol. I regret to say that ICAO has produced no concrete results to date.

We felt that it was important when drafting legislation to include all airlines that take off or land in Europe. Whether they are European airlines, US airlines or Chinese airlines makes no difference; all must be included. That is important for the climate, and naturally it is also important from the point of view of fair competition. All this was approved in the codecision and Parliament made great compromises compared with its original proposals. It is therefore important to communicate this to third countries. The compromises cannot be easily changed because they were agreed in the codecision procedure.

Naturally there was already resistance at that time from third countries and this is now being articulated in the run-up to the ICAO General Assembly, which commences next week. I believe that legally, we are very much on the safe side; as rapporteur, I repeatedly took great care to ensure that the legal basis was correct. Like everything, however, it is also a political issue. We therefore need political support for our lead negotiators at ICAO, for Commissioner Kallas and for the Belgian Presidency.

I think the position of the US is particularly precarious. Last week, I met the US lead negotiator and asked her whether she was actually aware that the climate legislation approved by the House of Representatives and for which President Obama is constantly declaring his support will also be affected if the US succeeds in getting ICAO to allow a system based on mutual recognition. That would make the Waxman-Markey Bill illegal. The Americans had no answer to that, so that may be the way we can stop them in their tracks. President Obama should not just talk about protecting the climate; he should actually do something.

  Matthias Groote, author. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we have gathered here today at this late hour shortly before midnight to debate the subject of climate change. It is a subject that has moved into the background somewhat. We have had a financial and economic crisis – in fact, we are still in it – but nonetheless, this subject is an important one. That is also why my fellow Members have asked what line the Commission intends to take at the forthcoming ICAO negotiations.

As Mr Liese has just outlined, here in Parliament, we have long grappled with reaching a compromise on the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading system. We have conducted delicate negotiations with the Council. I feel that we also need to make this clear to the outside world – indeed internationally. As far as ICAO is concerned, and as far as reducing CO2 emissions from aviation is concerned, my feeling is that so far, a lot of time has been invested in this, but with minimal results. We therefore need to defend our proposal on the international stage in the same way as it was defended here in Parliament, where it was adopted with a large majority.

The European system will come into effect in 2012 and we have included third countries in it. That means that if an aircraft takes off in Washington and lands in the European Union, then it will fall within the emissions trading system of the European Union.

Climate change is a global problem, and consequently, it is a problem that must be tackled globally. If we are serious about doing so, then we need to develop fiscal instruments. We have imposed duties on small vehicles, such as cars and lorries. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to develop uniform tax rates in Europe. I am therefore under no illusions that there is any possibility of developing an international CO2 tax. Instead, the second best solution is therefore emissions trading, ideally globally, with rules covering third countries. These rules on third countries must also be defended tooth and nail by the European Commission and by the Council, which unfortunately, is not present at this late hour.

The US is an international player. The Obama administration initially set its sights high where climate legislation is concerned. To date, however, this has not been followed up by action. The ball is now in the US’s court as regards getting climate legislation under way and harmonising and fine-tuning it internationally. This is very important.

The UN climate conference in Copenhagen was a flop, as we all know. It was not crowned with success. I fear that ICAO and Annex 16 of the ICAO Agreement, which regulates environmental measures, will also be a flop. Therefore, my question to the Commission is as follows: if no agreement is reached this time regarding the inclusion of aviation in emissions trading, is the Commission actually prepared to continue negotiating at ICAO level? Is there a Plan B in this event? How will the European Commission and also the Council react in this event?

  Holger Krahmer, author. – (DE) Madam President, I regret to say that we are debating a failed strategy here. Even at the time we adopted the directive, some voices of warning could already be heard asking whether including third countries in emissions trading without any consultation had really been thought through. Even today, we are ignoring the international situation. We imagine that we only have to grit our teeth and then everything will work out in Copenhagen, subsequent conferences and ICAO. However, it is not that simple. Nonetheless, we have an EU directive that has to be implemented. I would like the Commission to tell me how it intends to do this. I have four specific questions on this and I eagerly await the answers.

Firstly, what steps is the Commission planning to take if third countries or third country airlines refuse to participate in the EU emissions trading system? Secondly, what measures are planned to bring about the inclusion of airlines in emissions trading? Thirdly, is it correct that the Commission is investigating or planning the withdrawal of EU flying rights from those airlines or third countries that refuse to participate in the EU emissions trading system? Fourthly, if such flying bans are imposed, how does the Commission expect the third countries concerned to react?

May I remind you that the European Court of Justice has received actions from third countries that are simply refusing to be included in the EU’s emissions trading system. It is high time that we took a careful look at the day of reckoning that will come in 2012. I want to know what will happen then. What will we do then?

Debating what position we are going to take at ICAO is of secondary importance to me right now. When it comes down to it, ICAO is nothing more than an assembly of the governments of the world that are acting from exactly the same vast differences in interest as they were in Copenhagen and, I suspect, as they will be in Cancún.

My question to the Commission is therefore as follows: how are we going to get out of this dilemma? We are trying to implement a law that already exists, but which, in fact, cannot be implemented.

  Satu Hassi, author. – (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, emissions from air traffic have increased faster than those in any other major business sector. Mr Liese has already said that they have doubled in 20 years. If society as a whole cut greenhouse gas emissions the way it should, but flight emissions were to continue to increase at their present rate, in 20 to 30 years’ time, air traffic would account for the entire emissions quota permitted for Europe. There would be nothing whatsoever left for anything else.

At Kyoto, the ICAO was commissioned to establish an international system for limiting flight emissions. It did not do so; on the contrary, it concluded that air traffic had a right to a free ride. That is precisely why the EU decided on its own flight emissions trading scheme. Our true objective, of course, is a global system, but the EU’s flight emissions trading scheme alone will also have a global impact. Flights departing from Europe and arriving here account for a major share of the entire world’s flight emissions.

We must not now bow to pressure from the United States of America. On the contrary, we need to condemn this pressure in no uncertain terms. Most of us no doubt feel immense sympathy for President Obama. We can understand his difficulties in getting climate legislation through the US Congress, but we cannot accept a situation where the US administration tries to block EU action on climate change. We definitely cannot allow the United States the right of veto concerning our own steps to limit flight emissions.

The sole mandate that the Commission and the Presidency have is to adhere to the directive that we have agreed on together. A similar problem also relates to emissions from international shipping, and I would remind the Commission of what we have agreed on in connection with our own climate legislation.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to express my thanks – also on behalf of my colleague, Mrs Hedegaard, who has already clearly set out our position on this matter – for the question, which is a very pertinent one. Unfortunately Mrs Hedegaard cannot be here today because she is currently in New York on business relating to the ongoing climate negotiations.

As you are aware, the ICAO Assembly will take place from 28 September to 8 October, and fundamentally, climate protection is right at the top of the agenda. The ICAO Council met last week to prepare a resolution on aviation and climate protection, but I regret to say that it did not succeed in this task.

The unilateral commitment that the EU has voluntarily made to reduce CO2 emissions to 20% below the 1990 level also includes emissions from aviation. These have not been included in any other international reduction targets to date, and that is what we want to change. Emissions from aviation have almost doubled since 1990 and, in all probability, will continue to rise. The current assumption is that levels in 2020 will once again be 70% higher than in 2005. By 2050, levels are expected to have increased by between 400% and 500% compared with 2005.

The measures by the European Union to counter the effects of aviation on climate have been a focal area since the European Parliament and the Council resolved in 2008 to integrate emissions from aviation into the EU emissions trading system with effect from 2012. This affects all flights into the EU and out of the EU. Airlines all around the world have already started making preparations for this. All of them must make a contribution to climate protection in the European emissions trading system unless their home countries recognise comparable systems for reducing emissions from international aviation.

The EU’s position at the forthcoming ICAO negotiations was confirmed by the Council in early September as follows: the ICAO must adopt a greenhouse gas reduction target for international aviation of 10% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels and must create a common framework to support market-based measures to reduce emissions from aviation. The EU is prepared to exempt flights from third countries from the ETS on a bilateral basis if the countries concerned take corresponding climate protection measures in respect of aviation.

As you are aware, our position on the issue of emissions from aviation does not coincide with that of the US and other ICAO members. The US call for a mutual agreement – in other words, the mutual recognition of climate protection measures – is directly aimed at preventing implementation of the European measures. However, we cannot allow EU legislation to be undermined by our partners, especially when we are convinced that this measure, which will encompass a third of worldwide emissions from aviation, is a key contribution to the fight against climate change. We cannot accept those who want to do more to counter climate change having to get the permission of those who want to do less. There is no veto on the climate protection legislation of other states.

However, neither can we allow genuine climate protection measures to create a competitive disadvantage. If we were to apply EU rules just to European airlines, then this would be discrimination on the grounds of nationality. It would also harm the fight against climate change and would be pointless economically.

Mutual agreement is just a way of disguising continuing to do nothing in the fight against emissions from aviation and climate change. The European Union must and will stand firm in the forthcoming negotiations. We cannot accept any result that would run contrary to the EU legislation adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. On the contrary, if we are to reduce emissions from aviation enduringly in the long term, then we need a common way forward and a global reduction target.

  Saïd El Khadraoui, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, to start with, I would like to thank you for your clear answer and your very clearly expressed views. As Parliament, we must send out a very clear message and that message is one of support for the Commission.

Whether we now think that the directive has gone too far or has not gone far enough, that it has arrived too late or a little prematurely, the fact of the matter is that a majority of this House has, together with the Council and the Commission, adopted something that now has the force of law and that must be put into effect. As the Commission, you have the task of ensuring that that legislation is unambiguously implemented. In terms of clarity, this piece of legislation leaves nothing to be desired. It is extensively referenced and I will reiterate here, once again: from 1 January 2012, all flights departing from, or arriving at, an airport situated in the territory of a Member State will fall under this directive. Therefore, this will also include flights originating from third countries, whether outward or return.

It is important to stress this last point because there are some airlines which are casting doubt on this. We cannot have a situation where third countries are required to pay for only half of their flights, namely, either the outward or the return flight. That would distort the competition between European airlines, on the one hand, and other airlines, on the other. Surely, that cannot be the correct interpretation.

Third countries which have problems with this legislation should be told once again that their airlines could escape the provisions of this directive if these countries put in place their own measures to cut CO2 emissions in this sector. In other words, it is not our intention to secure potential profits – on the contrary. If everyone copied what we are doing, we would certainly make less money out of this, but we would definitely achieve our environmental objectives and that is the essence of this piece of legislation.

As a result, our American friends and others who are trying to prevent the inevitable through legal means or all kinds of manoeuvres within ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, would do better to formulate constructive proposals, so that we can reach a worldwide agreement that would, on the one hand, lead to a level playing field for everyone, which is something that we all desire, and, on the other, bring about more sustainable aviation.

Besides, as far as the United States are concerned, I should add that in the second aviation agreement between the European Union and the United States, which was finalised last spring and is currently at the approval stage, the United States implicitly recognised that it ought to be possible to create market-based instruments relating to emissions. In particular, Article 15 of this agreement states that the joint committee can make recommendations for eliminating any potential overlaps or inconsistencies and avoiding any duplication of measures and costs.

Therefore, there is no doubt that the agreement the two aviation blocs have negotiated will pave the way for mutual recognition of this type of emissions trading scheme. Consequently, I would like to urge you once again to stick to your guns, to communicate very clearly, and to make it clear that there is no way back.

  Michael Cramer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Commissioner, thank you very much for your clear statements. I hope that you will be able to see this through in the negotiations. After all, one of the reasons why Copenhagen was such a flop and a disaster was that the European Union had no objectives. It was like a game of ‘pick-up sticks’; whoever is the first to move loses. That is indeed what happened and we need to change that. The European Union’s position must therefore be quite clear.

To recap: the emissions trading system was introduced and accepted by most airlines as a way of avoiding a kerosene tax. We also know, however, that European taxpayers hand the airlines EUR 30 billion every year in waivers of VAT and kerosene tax. This means that if the airlines and the other countries do not want to take part in emissions trading, then we need to introduce a kerosene tax. That would be much more expensive, and that is what this is really all about.

Nonetheless, we know that aviation is very dangerous, and emissions in the air are three or four times as harmful as those at ground level. Despite this, it is vehemently supported by European taxpayers. There are no airspace access charges; these exist only over Siberia. Why not? The railways have to pay track access charges. Ticket prices, compensation rights for passengers – on the railways, you get your money back, or part of it back, after just one hour. For flights, it is only after three hours. Moreover, we have not forgotten that in emissions trading, 85% of certificates are given to airlines without charge. The railways get nothing given to them – they have to buy every single one. These unfair framework conditions need to be changed, otherwise we can forget about our climate targets. Nobody wants that.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) The global economy is increasingly dependent on air transport. Statistics produced by the European Environment Agency indicated that in 2005, 20% of all carbon dioxide emissions were generated by air transport.

Research into new engines and new fuels will obviously be able to reduce these emissions. According to a recent study, the energy efficiency standard for an A380 airplane engine is 3 litres of fuel per 100 km/passenger, which makes it ideal for comparing with the standard for a modern diesel car.

In order to open up the air transport services market, the European Union negotiates framework agreements with third countries on certain aspects of air services. One example of this is the agreement signed recently between the European Union and Canada. I believe that these agreements need to contain explicit provisions about reducing aviation’s environmental impact.

Article 25a(1) of Directive 2008/101/EC stipulates that where a third country adopts measures for reducing the climate change impact of flights departing from that country which land in the Community, the Commission will consider options available in order to provide for optimal interaction between the Community scheme and that country’s measures. I ask the Commission to give us examples of such successful interactions.

Similarly, Article 25a(2) of Directive 2008/101/EC mentions that the Community and its Member States will continue to seek an agreement on global measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. In the light of any such agreement, the Commission should consider whether amendments to this directive are necessary. Commissioner, is the Commission considering such amendments?

  Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to add my support for this oral question, as I find it totally unacceptable for the United States, Canada and Mexico to be seeking to challenge the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading system. In any event, many people believe those aviation conditions from 2012 to be modest in comparison to what we should and could have been able to achieve.

For example, this sector will still be allowed to access carbon credits from other industries, and the cap on aviation emissions is nowhere near as challenging as that demanded from other sectors. Including aviation here is at least a step in the right direction, and ends the legislative vacuum it has enjoyed for too long, to the extent that it is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions. Surely the principle of the polluter pays has never been more well deserved than in this instance.

In closing, I would say that we must not let established EU decisions be jeopardised by third countries. I urge the Commission and the Council to clearly state that they intend to fully respect the properly adopted EU law in the upcoming ICAO discussions.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) The European Union is committed to transforming its economy in order to use energy efficiently and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The inclusion of the aviation sector in the EU scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading is an important step towards reducing the negative impact of aircraft on climate change. It is particularly important for this directive to also be applied not only to European Union airlines but to those registered in third countries operating flights to EU airports. This will facilitate the prevention of competition distortion and the improvement of eco-efficiency. Such fundamental EU commitments as combating climate change undoubtedly require coordinated and united action by the EU. The agreement with third country airlines must promote optimum interaction between the EU system and the measures applied by these countries to ensure proper competition and a reduction in pollutants. Therefore, it would be beneficial for the Commission to play not just a coordinating role, but to ensure the compliance of measures employed by third countries with the requirements of the directive.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, what I have heard here this evening is pretty astounding and somewhat depressing: the increase in emissions from aviation over the past number of years and the likelihood this will continue, particularly with the development of countries like Brazil, India, China, Russia, and a growing middle class, leading to more travel and trade and all that goes with it, and even with our own policies of youth on the move, freedom of labour, developing tourism, and with an ageing population moving around more, etc.

The question I want to ask particularly is what plans do we have at European level to reduce emissions by way of research and innovation, as we have done, or are trying to do, with electric cars, energy efficient buildings and so forth? Such plans are the answer to the problem we have in the long term.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Including aviation in the EU’s ETS is a major step forward in the fight against climate change because these changes are occurring at a global level and the current legislation must apply at this level. The application of the directive in its current form from 2012 will facilitate this task.

The request submitted by some third countries to the ICAO to participate in a scheme only on a voluntary basis only serves to hold up progress in this area. Granting this request will result not only in a decline in European airlines’ competitiveness, but also in obstructing the fight against climate change. It will also present an obstacle preventing the EU’s attempt to reach a global sectoral understanding with the aim of cutting the aviation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.

I call on the Commission and Council to involve the European Parliament in the negotiations with third countries so that airlines from these countries are obliged to be included in the emissions trading scheme. This will also prevent a decline in the progress achieved through creating the single European sky, which will reduce the number of air routes, thereby again facilitating the reduction in fuel consumption.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) I agree that reductions of emissions must continue, and if we have rules which will contribute towards their reduction, let us try to enforce those rules properly.

If our friends from the United States do not want to accept our solution, we will have to sustain a patient, matter-of-fact dialogue with them, and look for creative solutions that will achieve the desired objective. The inclusion of aviation in the system of emission quota trading is really not such a burden that air transport cannot be reconciled to it and cannot continue to develop. It is necessary to realise that other forms of transport must also respond to various restrictions in connection with the need to reduce emissions, and we therefore expect aviation to shoulder a fair share of responsibility for reducing emissions.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate has demonstrated that Parliament supports the EU adopting a clear position at the ICAO negotiations. I am grateful for that – although, to be honest, I would not have expected anything else. I will pass on your support, as well as the various aspects that have been raised in the debate, to Mrs Hedegaard and to Mr Kallas, as it is after all their services that will be representing the Commission at the ICAO Assembly.

Regarding the questions raised: as far as I am able to give immediate answers, I would reply as follows. Of course the Commission will apply the EU legislation adopted by Parliament and the Council. The EU legislation covers all operators without discrimination on grounds of nationality, and that means operators from third countries – in other words, even the US – can also apply for free certificates. The directive adopted by Parliament and the Council provides for flight bans as a last resort if operators do not respect the legislation. In this event, the Commission would naturally support the Member States in the corresponding implementation of such bans. We are also confident that the European Court of Justice will confirm our legislation accordingly, because we investigated the legal aspects of the directive in great detail.

Let me conclude by clearly stating once again that the Commission will not accept any result that undermines the EU legislation on the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading system, as supported by this Parliament in 2008 with an overwhelming majority of 640. That is our duty, and we will act accordingly.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  András Gyürk (PPE) , in writing. – (HU) The International Civil Aviation Organisation has created a conflicting situation. ICAO forcefully opposes the EU bid to extend its emission trade regulations to flights of non-European-based airlines. The inclusion of air transport in the ETS is a correct step, provided that it does not affect EU airlines only. Therefore, the EU has to be consistent in the implementation of the principle of geographical neutrality. The environmental regulations protecting the European sky must apply to third-country flights too. If the strict standards were applied solely to European companies, they would give an unjustified competitive edge to third country airlines. The not inconsiderable competitive handicap would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the aviation sector. We cannot disregard the environmental consequences, either. With a one-sided regulation, we would have to continue to rely on voluntary pledges by the industry, which have not produced the desired results so far. The much touted pledges for fuel efficiency improvements are obviously worth little if, in the meantime, air traffic multiplies several times over. The ICAO estimates a four-fold increase in fuel consumption by 2050, which is a telling figure. Consequently the EU has to take vigorous steps to make ETS directives binding for all flights crossing the European sky. If this is not done, the EU will lose the chance to lead by example and spur other areas to take strict climate protection measures in the aviation industry.

16. Use of Community trade marks in the internal market (debate)

  President. – Τhe next item is the Commission statement on the use of Community trademarks in the internal market.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, trademarks are of real importance in modern commerce. They enable the origin of products and services to be identified, they guarantee a constant level of quality, and they convey the image of the business. Access to the Community trademark is an issue for the development of our businesses and for the fight against counterfeiting.

You are concerned at the decisions taken by certain national trademark offices. These decisions would seek to limit the use of the Community trademark by invoking a requirement under which the use of a Community trademark in only one Member State would not constitute genuine use thereof. I should like to thank those Members who have drawn the Commission’s attention to this matter, which we are following very closely.

The great merit of the Community trademark is, in fact, to offer all businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, an effective means of protecting their trademarks at European level. Until now, the rule that all genuine use of a Community trademark by the owner is sufficient, regardless of where in the Union it is used, has always been considered by its users as one of its principal advantages. This rule is consistent with the unitary character of the Community trademark. It is also consistent with the very principle of the single market. Any new restriction on the use of the Community trademark could therefore have serious consequences for the fight against counterfeiting, which will be one of the particular subjects – and I point this out to Parliament again – of the draft Single Market Act, and of the Commission’s commitment to an action plan against piracy and counterfeiting.

What are these consequences? First, the introduction of a new requirement that could put a brake on the fight against trademark infringements. The Community trademark is an effective weapon in the fight against counterfeiting, as I have just said, because it provides unfailing protection across the whole of the Union and at all of its external frontiers. It is indispensable for enabling the seizure of counterfeit goods – which are currently being imported in massive amounts from third countries – under the Community customs regulations at the external frontiers of our Union.

Besides, the introduction of such a requirement could make access to the Community trademark more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises and for start-ups. These companies often operate at national level and do not begin exporting, and expanding their activities cross-border, until their business has proved itself to be successful. It could thus become more difficult for these businesses to grow, if they were no longer in a position to obtain and use a Community trademark before expanding their activities. This would also be contrary to a number of our policies that rightly seek to encourage the development of small and medium-sized enterprises which, I remind you, constitute 95% of all European businesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I want to confirm to you, or assure you, that my services will follow these developments in the Member States very closely. At this stage, we are confident that the national courts will not uphold these decisions, which we feel do not comply with the unitary character of the Community trademark and with the principles of the single market, as I have already said.

  Małgorzata Handzlik, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) I am extremely pleased that despite the late hour, we have, today, the opportunity to hear the Commission statement on the use of Community trademarks in the internal market. It was my political group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which initiated this idea. As you well know, Commissioner, this matter is particularly important to the members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Legal Affairs.

The PPE Group has always been convinced that the internal market began with the concept of removing barriers between Member States, and we have made it our aim to fight for the removal of more of these barriers. This, too, was the idea behind establishment of the Community trademark. The advantage of the system is, among others, a guarantee to businesses of uniform protection across the Union. Geographical differences ought not to play a large role in this regard. Businesses do, after all, operate in a single European market. Therefore, it is with anxiety that we view the decisions made by some national offices for intellectual property protection.

I welcome, therefore, your declaration, Commissioner, that in the opinion of the Commission, these decisions are in contravention of the principles upon which the common market is built. My political group is going to watch further development of the situation and will support measures which are based on a Union approach and serve the interests of businesses. Finally, I would like to ask the Commissioner what options are available if the jurisdiction of Member States does not share the approach represented by the Commission. In your opinion, might it be essential, in order to clarify the situation, to revise the Council regulation on the common trademark and the directive on the harmonisation of Member States’ legislation on trademarks?

  Marc Tarabella, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the Community trademark, established 16 years ago now, has enabled us to fight effectively against counterfeit goods and to offer consumers the guarantee of a quality product throughout the European Union.

Community trademark protection is the same in every country in the European Union, whether we are talking about protection of the trademark itself, of the products and services with respect to which rights are claimed, or of the owner. What is more, it is a genuine solution for the single market: it costs little and is particularly suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises, as you made clear, Commissioner.

It is therefore a real step forward, as in a single market, only a Community trademark can guarantee really widespread protection. What is more, its ease of administration and favourable cost make the Community trademark the ideal instrument for extended protection in Europe. It is equally an important tool for the markets and customs supervisory authorities.

On 14 September, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that a sign consisting of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result cannot be registered as a Community trademark. This was its response to the application of the Lego company, which had requested registration of its toy brick as a Community trademark. The Court therefore rejected its appeal, thereby demonstrating that the use of the Community trademark must be strictly controlled.

This decision by the Court sheds light on the new challenges that must be faced by Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trademark. Would it not be judicious for the European Commission to update this regulation in view of new technological developments, notably the development of the Internet and globalisation? One can never overemphasise that the primary objective of this regulation is, above all, the guarantee provided to consumers of a quality product and of complete, clear and comprehensible information throughout the European Union.

  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Madam President, Commissioner, I am pleased that we are able to have this important debate this evening, despite the late hour. One of the biggest advantages of the European Union is that it has provided, and continues to provide, vast opportunities for us to lower the thresholds and open up trade between the countries of Europe. This will generate the prosperity and growth that our continent so desperately needs, particularly after the economic crisis.

Europe will not become strong in the 21st century through initiatives from us politicians. We need to accept, to a greater extent, the truth that growth is created by companies and entrepreneurs. Europe can only be strengthened by entrepreneurs and by them having good opportunities to establish companies that can grow, employ people and be profitable. This particular system of the Community trademark is a very effective way of tearing down barriers to trade and generating growth. Particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which we want to be able to grow and become larger, it is crucial to be able to enjoy trademark protection throughout the European Union without inconvenience and bureaucracy.

It is therefore with great concern that I have received information that Member States, as far as I can tell, completely contrary to their obligations, are trying to introduce a requirement that a Community trademark should only be granted if it is used in several countries. It should, clearly, be sufficient for a trademark to be used in one Member State in order for that trademark to be protected throughout the EU.

The action of these Member States is a serious threat to the Community trademark system, and I hope, Commissioner, that you will deal with those Member States that are trying to introduce this new criterion and are jeopardising the chances of having effective trademark protection throughout the European Union.

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, on behalf of my group and also as the Chairman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I want to thank the Commissioner very much indeed for making it absolutely clear that the behaviour of the two trademark offices concerned – in Benelux and in Hungary – is absolutely unacceptable.

I emphasise that very strongly, because this is clearly an attack on the fundamental principles of the internal market. I am pleased that all colleagues here have spoken in support of the decisions that the Commissioner will make. I would say, from a practical point of view first of all, that it is a remarkable coincidence that both those trademark offices are operating in the country of the current Presidency and the next Presidency.

The first thing my committee intends to do – and I will make sure it happens – is that, when the Minister for the Internal Market (and indeed the Hungarian Minister, from January onwards) comes to my committee, we will make sure that we ask this question and ask them to go directly to their trademark offices and say this is not acceptable.

Why is it not acceptable? Because it is a fundamental attack on the basic principle of the internal market that there should be no discrimination of any kind on companies, wherever they operate in a single uniform unitary market. In this case, it is even worse, because this proposal – or proposed actions, if they were to be upheld – actually discriminates against small enterprises as opposed to larger enterprises. It is small enterprises that will be most affected by this because they may register a new trademark for a product across the European Union – taking advantage, by the way, of a fantastic internal market revolution and a very cost-effective way of protecting their intellectual property. It may take them more than five years to get that product into the marketplace – and what would they find? When they come to the Hungarian market, they would find that the Hungarian trademark office has given their trademark away to someone else. This is absolutely not acceptable.

I cannot understand why it is that, after all the time that we have had the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (the trademark office) in operation, we suddenly find these two trademark offices doing this. Perhaps it is because the cost of registering a European trademark has come down, because they are operating it so efficiently.

Of course, these two trademark offices, in trying to sustain these objections to allowing people to register trademarks, will be requiring the companies concerned to register in their own jurisdictions. This is naked self-interest on behalf of these organisations. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is fundamentally against the principles of the European Union and, by the way, it also undermines – as the Commissioner rightly says – a major priority for this Commission, which is innovation, getting new products into the market and making the internal market work better.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I very much welcome the fact that the Commission will, within one year, modernise the Community regulation on trademarks in such a way that it simplifies and reduces the cost of registering trademarks, in other words, protection for the trade names of companies, the names of their products and so on. This is an additional instrument for combating counterfeits.

Personally, I value the fact that the Commission has undertaken to include the proposal to create European trademark protection in the regulation, as I have been supporting this for some years. Today, it is possible to abuse certified product quality marks and safety marks with impunity. For example, in third countries, dealers attach our CE trademark to products for their national markets, which do not meet our standards at all.

There is a need to protect certified marks. We are guaranteeing product standards for consumers, and we are not only protecting businesses against unfair competition but also opening up the possibility of expanding our standards by licensing other businesses. Such protection is possible without additional costs and institutions, because it is possible just to expand the registration powers of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Alicante to include certified marks.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I note we are pretty unanimous in what has been said. Obviously, the development of Community trademarks is a natural extension of the development of the internal market and it offers great scope for developing trade for SMEs, helping to stop counterfeiting and piracy, etc. So it is difficult to see how anyone could object to it. In particular, all political pressure, and possibly sanctions, must be brought to bear on Member States who are not embracing it, to bring them to their senses in this regard.

On the wider front, I would say also that Community trademarks and similar initiatives help to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and make it more relevant for the development of business within the European Union.

Finally, I would just like to say I am also looking forward to the development of the Europe-wide patent, and the sooner that can happen the better.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, as Mrs Wikström said, it is quite late to be discussing this topic, but I nevertheless believe it to be an important topic, in common with everyone else who has spoken.

The Chair, Mr Harbour, reminded us to what extent the European trademark has been a proof of identity and a source of protection for businesses. It has also protected innovation.

I therefore believe, as Mr Kelly has just said, that we must go yet further, towards other forms of protection, and that is why, Mr Kelly, we and the Belgian Presidency shall act with determination to finally complete the project of the European patent.

Therefore, I say to Mr Harbour that, for all the reasons he and others have pointed out, the Commission will not allow one of the key elements of the internal market to be unravelled. Furthermore, as you also said, Mr Harbour, if we were to allow this unravelling, based on these quasi-protectionist temptations in one country or another, to happen, it would be small and medium-sized enterprises that would be the first victims.

We are therefore determined to say ‘No’ to these temptations, for all the reasons you have mentioned. From that point of view, I should like to thank Mrs Handzlik and her group for having demonstrated vigilance and expressed that vigilance in asking this question.

Mrs Wikström, like Mr Tarabella, reminded us what the Community trademark means for businesses, and of how it is consistent with the single market. I should like to confirm that, as Mr Tarabella wishes, within the framework of this revising objective, we are on course to modernise the current system.

Following the Lego decision, which you referred to, Mr Tarabella, it is clear that the regulation on the Community trademark must be brought up to date. We are on that course with a concern that you yourself expressed to take into account the consequences of modern means of technology and, obviously, of the Internet in this review, this update. It is in this spirit that we shall update and revise this regulation.

I should also like to thank Mrs Roithová for having mentioned competition, as I did myself; competition that would, moreover, be increased if we were again to be heading towards a fragmentation of trademarks. We must show resistance, we must be capable of cracking down on or preventing the entry of products. To this end, the action plan that I shall be presenting in a few weeks’ time against counterfeiting and piracy will include this desire to train personnel from the various Member States at our external borders, and to strengthen the technical means at our disposal to combat counterfeiting and piracy.

I also believe that there must be a bilateral effort, particularly with the countries from which these counterfeit goods come, and the plan of action that I shall propose to you will therefore contain more positive measures for cooperating with certain third countries and helping them to adopt their own trademark policies and policies for combating counterfeiting.

Finally, Mrs Handzlik asked me an important question: what would happen if the national courts upheld the position taken by their national trademark offices? At the time of speaking, we are not there yet. We must first of all wait, and not prejudge the outcome of the cases before the national courts. What is more, as I told you, I am confident that these courts will themselves rectify the situation. The possibility of infringement proceedings, which was just mentioned, will be borne in mind, but only in the light of the outcome of the appeals that have been entered.

These are the answers, Madam President, to this important problem, which is one of the key constituents of the internal market, and I should like to say so at this point when, together with you and the Council, we are preparing to give a boost to the internal market, to reinforce it, to give it a more specific approach for the benefit of small and medium-sized enterprises and of our citizens.

It is certainly not at this point that we shall accept this unravelling based on the Community trademark issue.

  President. – The debate is closed.

17. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

18. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 23:40)