Index 
Verbatim report of proceedings
PDF 4965k
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 - Strasbourg OJ edition
1. Opening of the sitting
 2. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes
 3. Preparations for the European Council meeting (28-29 October) - Preparations for the G20 summit (11-12 November) - Financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken - Improving economic governance and stability framework in the EU, in particular, in the euro zone (debate)
 4. Voting time
  4.1. Revision of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission (A7-0279/2010, Paulo Rangel) (vote)
  4.2. Adaptation of Parliament's Rules of Procedure to the revised framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission (A7-0278/2010, Paulo Rangel) (vote)
  4.3. Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities as regards the European External Action Service (A7-0263/2010, Ingeborg Gräßle) (vote)
  4.4. Amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Communities (A7-0288/2010, Bernhard Rapkay) (vote)
  4.5. Draft amending budget No 6/2010: Section II - European Council and Council; Section III - Commission; Section X - European External Action Service (A7-0283/2010, Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
 5. Formal sitting - Mid-term address by Jerzy Buzek, President of Parliament
 6. Voting time (continuation)
  6.1. Draft amending budget No 3/2010: Section III - Commission - BAM (Banana Accompanying Measures) (A7-0281/2010, László Surján) (vote)
  6.2. Draft general budget of the European Union - 2011 financial year (vote)
  6.3. Parliament's position on the 2011 draft budget as modified by the Council - all sections (A7-0284/2010, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska) (vote)
  6.4. Parliament's calendar of part-sessions – 2012 (vote)
  6.5. Improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (A7-0032/2010, Edite Estrela) (vote)
  6.6. Combating late payment in commercial transactions (A7-0136/2010, Barbara Weiler) (vote)
  6.7. Role of minimum income in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe (A7-0233/2010, Ilda Figueiredo) (vote)
  6.8. Financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken (A7-0267/2010, Pervenche Berès) (vote)
  6.9. Improving economic governance and stability framework in the EU, in particular, in the euro zone (A7-0282/2010, Diogo Feio) (vote)
 7. Explanations of vote
 8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
 9. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
 10. Instrument for Stability - Financing instrument for development cooperation - Financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide - Financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised countries - Financing instrument for development cooperation (debate)
 11. Ukraine (debate)
 12. Question Time (Council)
 13. Composition of committees: see Minutes
 14. Aid for Pakistan and possible implication for the European industrial sector (debate)
 15. Indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries (debate)
 16. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (debate)
 17. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes
 18. Closure of the sitting


  

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

 
1. Opening of the sitting
Video of the speeches
 

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

***

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – Mr President, yesterday, we had a discussion on the budget. It was clear during the debate that the report by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) had not been received by the relevant services. We checked the issue. The report was completed and sent properly, so probably some mistakes occurred during the procedure.

However, it is not important to find who is responsible and what happened exactly. What is most important is that we wish to be sure that our report, which was also our base for the trialogue, and where the biggest difference lay as compared with the Council paper, is sent to the Council official documents. I therefore brought it with me and deliver it to you, as well as to the Council. We kindly ask you to make sure that the proposal by the ITRE Committee, which was adopted unanimously, will arrive at the Council in due time. Thank you very much for your support in this matter.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – We will do what you want. It is great. The beginning of today’s discussion is fantastic!

 

2. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

3. Preparations for the European Council meeting (28-29 October) - Preparations for the G20 summit (11-12 November) - Financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken - Improving economic governance and stability framework in the EU, in particular, in the euro zone (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

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

- Council and Commission statements on preparations for the G20 summit (11-12 November),

- Council and Commission statements on preparations for the European Council meeting (28-29 October),

- report A7-0267/2010 by Mrs Berès, on the financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning measures and initiatives to be taken (mid-term report), and

- report A7-0282/2010 by Mr Feio, on improving the economic governance and stability framework of the Union, in particular in the euro area.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Council, I would like to thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to talk about the preparatory work being carried out within the Council for the next European Council.

This European Council will have a busy agenda. Its focal point will, without doubt, be economic governance. As you are aware, the task force chaired by President Van Rompuy met on Monday and approved its final report.

This report contains important and specific recommendations and proposals that should enable us to make a qualitative leap in European economic governance. In particular, its recommendations seek to improve fiscal discipline, broaden economic monitoring, develop and broaden coordination, strengthen the crisis management framework and strengthen institutions.

All these recommendations can be implemented quickly through legislation. Naturally, we hope the European Council will be able to endorse them in order to enable the Commission, Parliament and the Council to make swift progress on these highly important matters. This would, in any case, send a positive signal as to our intention to take the measures necessary to address the important economic challenge ahead of us.

It is true that some people have raised the issue of exploring other options that go further than these recommendations and beyond the scope of the treaties. I am talking here about issues such as suspending voting rights or introducing new voting rules such as reverse majority.

Clearly, these are not easy issues, either technically or politically. They will be discussed at the European Council next week.

Another important item on the European Council’s agenda is the preparations for the G20 summit. Indeed, the European Council shall have to define the Union’s position on the basis of the preparatory work carried out yesterday by the ECOFIN Council. Generally speaking, it is important for the Seoul G20 summit to mark a speeding up of the efforts to implement the framework laid down for promoting stronger, more sustainable and more balanced growth. In particular, we need to address the major global economic imbalances which can compromise growth.

Since 2008, with the onset of the crisis and the measures taken to deal with it – in other words, since the G20’s long-awaited rise to prominence – things have changed radically. The reason is very simple: relevance. The very nature of many decisions that have direct consequences for our fellow citizens has shifted within the space of a few months from the local or national level to the international level. Globalisation means that we now have to act simultaneously at European level and at international level on most issues.

We all know that the European Union needed time to reach an agreement on a new treaty that was also meant to strengthen the Union’s role on the international stage. It took us the best part of the last 10 years to deliver this treaty but only the last 10 months to realise how important it is.

The G20 has proved somewhat successful since its inception, but I believe that the hardest and most important test is the one awaiting it in the next few weeks and months, when we will have to confront the serious risk of losing momentum.

The European Union is currently preparing two important meetings, both in Korea, the first in two days’ time. This is the meeting of G20 finance ministers and governors of central banks, and the second one is the G20 summit in mid-November.

In terms of substance, the Union’s contribution to strong, sustainable and balanced growth is based on: 1) growth-friendly and differentiated fiscal consolidation plans; 2) the Europe 2020 strategy for structural reforms necessary for supporting, among other things, job creation; 3) the programme for reforming the financial sector and markets; and 4) the strengthening of the Union’s economic governance. On this last point, we could present the findings of the task force at the November summit, once they have been adopted by the European Council.

I would add that the European Union is very interested in the peer review process within the G20. As Europeans, we are used to this type of exercise and we know how interesting and useful it can be. Clearly, everyone must play his or her part and show a genuine willingness to contribute to the framework for growth.

The war against protectionism is not won in a single battle but by maintaining a general state of alert, day after day. For the rest, although the work of the technical bodies, such as the Financial Stability Board chaired by Mario Draghi, is progressing well, and overall integration, particularly in certain areas, is, in my opinion, going in the right direction, it is also important to carry out a long-term reform of the International Monetary Fund.

The Europeans are ready to honour past commitments, particularly those made last year in Pittsburgh, to ensure that the new IMF is more representative of the new international economic reality and hence, that emerging economies play a bigger role and have more of a voice. However, let me be clear on this: Europe cannot be expected to make all the concessions in this regard on its own.

All developed countries must contribute. We have already made known what we are specifically willing to negotiate on, in terms of representation, governance and share of the vote. We believe this is a good basis for reaching a compromise. So, let no one blame Europe if nothing changes in this respect.

As a Union, we have negotiated among ourselves on all this and on a number of key issues and terms of reference for the G20 finance ministers’ meeting, which is due to take place this week. We have done so to ensure that Europeans not only speak with one voice but also focus on defending and promoting that which represents their most important interests. The Presidency and the Commission will do everything in their power to defend and support these interests resulting from our common position, which is the fruit of several months’ work by all the Member States.

With regard to climate change, in theory, the intention is not to have a detailed discussion at the European Council, since the Environment Council already adopted, on 14 October, a very comprehensive text with conclusions establishing the European position. It is becoming ever more urgent to progress with the implementation of an ambitious scheme for combating climate change after 2012, and to that end, the European Union continues to defend a step-by-step approach which is based on the Kyoto Protocol and the results of the Copenhagen conference and which paves the way for a comprehensive and legally binding global framework, by taking into account the political guidelines outlined in the final Copenhagen document.

The Cancún conference must achieve a balanced result which addresses the parties’ concerns and enables us to establish the progress made up to now. The Union has expressed its preference for one legally binding instrument which would encompass the main elements of the Kyoto Protocol. It could, however, envisage a second period of commitment under the Kyoto Protocol on several conditions. This should take place within the context of a broader agreement to which all the major economies would subscribe and which would embody the ambition and effectiveness of international action and would fulfil the urgent need to protect environmental integrity.

I would like briefly to mention the preparation of the European Union’s position in view of the summits with the United States, Russia and Ukraine. This will be the first time that the preparations for the summits with the Union’s key partners have been discussed by Heads of State or Government, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 16 September. The idea is for the Heads of State or Government to have an open debate on the main challenges in our relations with our partners. Without wanting to anticipate this debate, let me briefly expand on the key issues of these forthcoming summits.

It will certainly be important to focus the summit with the United States on a few key issues. Generally speaking, it will have to mark a strengthening of transatlantic cooperation, which is a fundamental vehicle for devising effective solutions to the common challenges ahead of us. Furthermore, the day after the G20 summit, the Europe-United States summit will represent an important opportunity for taking these results on board and developing a common approach to several current economic issues. We should also seek to develop a common approach in relation to the emerging economies.

The summit should also – at least we hope – make it possible to revive the Transatlantic Economic Council by turning it into an economic forum that goes far beyond purely regulatory issues. The Council could usefully examine ways in which to tackle the crisis and to promote growth and jobs, on the basis of a strengthened mandate.

We also intend to use the summit to prepare for Cancún, and we are obviously expecting an important positive signal from our US partners.

Finally, important foreign policy issues will also be on the agenda, notably with regard to Sudan and Iran.

Concerning the summit with Ukraine, another debate is planned this afternoon with the High Representative, so you will forgive me if I do not say any more on this matter this morning.

At the summit with Russia, the European Union intends to express its full support for the partnership for modernisation, which will enable us to strengthen our cooperation in all areas, particularly in key areas such as innovation and energy.

Those, Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, are the main points due to be discussed at next week’s European Council: a busy and important agenda indeed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, today, we are debating first of all the issues that will be addressed next week by the European Council. I will concentrate on what I believe are the most important topics: economic governance in the European Union, of course, and externally – apart from the very important summit with the US and also the summit with Russia – what I believe are the critical summits: the summit in Seoul of the G20 and also the Cancún conference on climate change.

The reform of our economic governance is a cornerstone of our sustainable recovery and our credibility. This is why the Commission has taken a very ambitious approach since the beginning of these discussions. The proposals submitted by the Commission last month seek to translate the urgency deriving from the crisis into an ambitious legal reality. They tackle the key issues of giving the European Union real clout in economic policy through adequate coordinated fiscal surveillance and addressing macro-economic imbalances, so, as we have very often said, now creating a real economic Union in Europe.

I very much welcome the attention that this Parliament is paying to these proposals. An early first reading agreement would prove that the European Union is committed to putting its new vision into action. We should look to have these rules in place by the middle of next year. I therefore urge Member States to go all the way towards these important goals and to pursue this agenda as a matter of urgency.

We have, by now, moved towards a stronger consensus on key areas for action, reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact and dealing with macro-economic imbalances, thanks also to the proceedings of the task force under the Presidency of Herman Van Rompuy.

Once all discussions are finished and all decisions are taken, the result of this combined process should be a vision for economic governance which will be much more comprehensive, much more attuned to the need to prevent problems in the first place, and much more solidly based through the use of sanctions.

But let me be clear. The overall result must represent a real change from the current situation. We must show to our citizens that the European Union has been drawing all the conclusions and the lessons from the crisis.

Some other matters still need to be settled. One issue of particular importance is how to replace the current crisis mechanism agreed in May with a mechanism of a more permanent nature once it comes to its end in 2013. We will do everything to avoid facing such crises ever again, but we will also do all we can to be better prepared for critical developments than we were last time. Preparedness and the presence of a robust and permanent crisis mechanism can prevent such developments from arising in the future.

The Commission takes good note of the views expressed by Member States that favour a treaty change, for which, as everyone knows, the unanimity of Member States is required. At this stage, the Commission will concentrate on the substance. By this, we mean the design of a permanent mechanism that can provide defence in critical moments, whilst minimising moral hazard and making sure that such an instrument will only be used as a last resort in the common interest.

If and when realised in full, the result of all this work will be what we need: a system that provides incentives for Member States to conduct sound economic and fiscal policies, and a system that provides incentives for investors to observe responsible lending practices.

Overall, I believe we are on track. We have been learning lessons from the crisis. For the sake of its citizens, the European Union is putting in place a system of governance that is completely renewed when compared with the state of play before the crisis, and now we are putting all this system on a much sounder footing.

Our track record on economic governance, but also on Europe 2020 and financial regulation, will give us the right platform to go forward to the G20 in Seoul. This summit comes at a critical time. It will be a real test of whether the G20 can deliver the coordination the world economy needs through cooperative solutions at global level. I believe it can, and I believe that the European Union will play a key role in making Seoul a success.

What do we want to achieve in Seoul? First, we need to remind ourselves that the G20 did play an important role in addressing the crisis. It did so through acting collectively, and as we move into a new phase, we need to continue to act collectively, cooperatively. That means accepting that global imbalances are a concern for all and that all major economies play a part in finding the solution. And yes, we cannot ignore the reality that exchange rates are an important factor here.

Second, we need to see action on the international financial institutions as well. IMF reform, in particular, is overdue. We need others to match the flexibility the European Union has already shown.

Third, with the support of this Parliament, we are in the midst of a fundamental reform of our own financial system, and once again, I want to thank you for the emphasis you have put on the need to achieve this as soon as possible.

We need to keep up the momentum on the G20 as well. Progress has been good, but now we have to be sure that it carries through into implementation.

I want the financial sector to play a part in this. That is why the European Union should remain committed to push for a financial transaction tax at global level. In the meantime, the Commission wants to explore other ways of ensuring that the financial sector makes an equitable contribution at European level, such as the financial activities tax.

The next G20 will also include development as an agenda item for the first time. A multi-year action plan will be adopted to guide our common effort in this area. The Commission has, from the beginning, been a strong supporter of this idea, together with the Korean chair. We need to show that the G20 growth agenda also encompasses and benefits developing countries. At the same time, we want to engage emerging economies in an international development framework which is in line with key principles of development policy and allows for greater coordination.

Yesterday, when I spoke here in Strasbourg with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, he specifically mentioned this point to me and he was very grateful for the support of the European Union for this agenda.

Finally, the G20 needs to take a lead in pushing ahead the trade agenda. Far from being an alternative to the WTO, our agreement with Korea should inspire our partners to push ahead to a rapid conclusion of the Doha Round negotiations by seizing the moment.

On the run-up to Cancún, I want to say a word about this very important conference. We need to stay focused on our goals here, to be ambitious for Europe, and also ambitious for the world. We need to move the international process forward. This is not easy. We know that in some of our key partners, the pace of change has slowed rather than accelerated.

Let us not forget that in the meantime, we are putting in place the most concrete and effective system for cutting emissions in the world. This is our strongest card and the closer we get to implementing the new Emissions Trading System, the stronger it gets. We have credibility second to none, grounded in a strong consensus between this Parliament, Member States and the Commission on what we have to do.

When we get to Cancún, let us not be distracted by arguments about form. We should go into the UN process with plenty of confidence and determination. Cancún will not be the end of the story, the final breakthrough, but it can be a very important step on the road. The EU needs to convey a clear and consistent message in order to move the negotiations forward. We should aim at a set of concrete action-oriented measures which can deliver confidence and trust in the process and bring us closer to our final goal.

That is why I wrote to the Members of the European Council last week. I set out what I believe to be a balanced, realistic position – one which continues to drive us forward without creating unrealistic expectations. This is a time for Europe to take the lead by setting out how Cancún can make a series of important steps forward, delivering on important commitments like the fast-start finance and, above all, by making clear that we are continuing to set an example.

The European Union economy will grow more this year than previously foreseen, but recovery is not yet firmly established; there is no room for complacency, as we have said several times, particularly when one sees the still very high figures for unemployment.

We all know that we have faced real challenges in the past months as expressed in a clear way in the report that you are going to discuss now from Mrs Berès. I welcome the ambition and large consensus in this House on these important issues, but we all know that this is a time when unemployment is hitting hard, when public spending is being squeezed. Our citizens show their concerns and we must take them into consideration.

We also, however, know that we have been able to find answers as the European Union. We have proposed some important pieces of legislation on economic governance. We have come forward with Europe 2020. That is, I want to remind you of that point, a strategy for growth because growth – smart, inclusive sustainable growth – is the answer. These concerns are also echoed in the excellent report by Mr Feio.

We have proposed a wide range of financial market regulation measures. Let me welcome the agreement of the legislator on our proposals on financial supervision. The reality is that if most observers were asked two years ago whether the European Union was ready to have a European supervisory system, most would say ‘no, it is not possible’. Now we have shown that this is possible.

We are pursuing a holistic approach to covering the different dimensions involved. Let me therefore also underline the agreement reached yesterday by the Council on the Commission’s proposal on hedge funds. I hope that this position can now lead to conclusive negotiations in the European Parliament so that the European Union can finally benefit from this long-awaited regulation and, once again, we will be in a position of leadership on that matter in Seoul.

We are also making progress in other areas because we have to look at the real economy. Let me also congratulate this House for the work in favour of a new directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions. The directive will give better protection to creditors, in most cases SMEs, while respecting the freedom of contract. Public authorities will have to pay within 30 days or else pay an interest rate of 8%. You know how much this regulation is awaited by SMEs that remain the most important sector of our economy.

Our work is not yet complete. All proposals need to be carried through to their end, but they are starting to show their results. The objective is to get us out of the crisis and through recovery, achieving again the growth rates that create employment and make sure that our social market economy will be fit for the 21st century. Many thanks for your attention.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur.(FR) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Mr Barroso, the financial, economic and social crisis that the world has been in for several years now is going to cost USD 60 trillion worldwide, which is the equivalent of one percentage point of annual growth. We have to do something about it. It will result in an 11% unemployment rate in our European Union by the end of the year. It is unfolding against the backdrop of a new currency war, caused by the risk of a double-dip recession, in the words of our economists.

Faced with this situation, I have sensed the feeling, in this House, that it is our duty to send a strong message to the other institutions, to the Commission and the Council, to say that we must join forces again around the added value of the European project, and that the issue at stake can be summarised in a few words: we have a collective responsibility and we need to implement an EU-wide strategy that will enable us, in the area of energy, to be strong on the inside and thus, strong on the outside. We must count on our own strength and, to do so, we need the European level.

However, Mr Barroso, to our mind, economic governance is not a vision. It is a means of furthering this strategy, and it is on the basis of this strategy that we decide which resources are needed. These are, first and foremost, financial resources. There is the challenge of bringing the review of the financial perspective into line with this focus on a strategy for a European energy community. There is the need to harness a proposal that you are rejecting: the taxing of financial transactions. There is the need to grant a substantial European loan to finance long-term investments. There is the need to restore the balance of taxation in Europe so that it promotes work and jobs instead of capital, and so that it is environmentally friendly. There is the need to coordinate the Member States’ budgets with the European project so that efforts are aimed in the same direction.

In terms of governance, we suggest appointing a ‘Mr Euro’ to ensure harmonious and balanced economic governance. We also suggest not focusing exclusively on the situation of countries in debt but balancing it with an assessment of countries in surplus. Moreover, we suggest that, in a monetary union, debt should also be managed in common and that we should be able to envisage mutual debt issuance. We would like financial reform, which you are working so hard to achieve Mr Barroso, to focus on the needs of Europeans and not only on financial stability objectives. We want to see the financial markets reformed in a way that revives the notions of ethics and moral values, that aids job creation and long-term investments.

No European project can succeed if it is not backed by the Member States. The only way for the European Union to show the best it can do is to make the Member States want to support it. A debate that is focused solely on the drudgery of imposing sanctions will not make Europeans want to get involved again with their Member States in the project. What we are asking for is strong action based on the added value of the European project so that we can lift Europeans out of this recession and ensure that, in the future, everyone in Europe has a job, is out of poverty, and can once again have faith in the European project.

That is our ambition. I hope, Mr Barroso, that you will be able to share it and take up many of the suggestions that we are making here, on behalf of this entire House.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diogo Feio, rapporteur. (PT) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Rehn, I should like to congratulate you in particular on the positive dialogue that Parliament has held with the Commission. Representatives of the Council, I should like to start by thanking everyone who has worked on this report and made it possible, especially all the shadow rapporteurs, with whom I had the opportunity to exchange opinions and build consensus. Consensus building was often difficult, with several tendencies within Parliament: from left to right, advocates of more sovereignty or a more modern type of sovereignty, and advocates of certain institutions. So many opinions were given, but they were given with one goal in mind: that of finding solutions to the current crisis.

The crisis demonstrated that Europe did not respond in time and often did not respond well. The crisis showed that many governments within the European Union were still upholding a policy that was not based on the true facts. It is for precisely that reason that solutions are necessary, and the European Parliament must put forward these solutions with an appropriate and firm voice. Some of these solutions will be short- and others long-term.

We are essentially tabling eight recommendations. The idea of multilateral surveillance of macro-economic developments in the Union and in the Member States is being tabled, so as to better achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, to achieve a Europe of growth, and to strengthen a pact that is about stability, but also about growth.

Proposals are also being made to strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact and look in particular detail at what is going on regarding debt, to enhance economic governance in the euro area by the Euro Group, and to establish a robust and credible excessive debt prevention and resolution mechanism for the euro area, which could involve establishing a European Monetary Fund. The ideas of reviewing the EU budgetary, financial and fiscal instruments, of financial market regulation and supervision with a clear macro-economic dimension, and of improving the reliability of EU statistics, have also been tabled.

Finally, it has been suggested to better represent the Union in the area of economic and monetary affairs. Parliament is demonstrating or could demonstrate a firm voice on all these issues. We are aiming for better institutional coordination between the European Parliament and the national parliaments. We can contribute to this solution being able to provide better solutions to future crisis situations or difficulties. From now on, Europe has the instruments to respond better in the field of economics; Parliament contributed greatly to this and will continue to do so.

We are currently starting a legislative debate on six proposals that have been tabled by the Commission and, regarding which, I believe Parliament will maintain its own position. It is for this very reason that I would also express my surprise that there was no mention of Parliament’s position and the dialogue that this House had with the Council in a recent Council document tabled just yesterday.

However, I would finish by saying one thing: the European Parliament has its own positions, irrespective of our differences. The European Parliament is committed to a strong Europe and better economic governance, with more growth and better prosperity.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marta Andreasen, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, in my opinion on Mr Feio’s report on governance and the stability framework, I emphasised three points.

The first was the need to be serious about sanctioning Member States that breach the Stability Pact. Just a couple of days ago, the French Prime Minister and the German Chancellor even agreed to change the treaty to bring in tougher sanctions against countries that threaten the euro’s stability. I also emphasised the need to prioritise spending in the budget in case a Member State has to be rescued. Finally, I raised awareness about the need to evaluate the impact on the credit rating of the European Union since it acted as guarantor of the European financial stabilisation mechanism.

The relevant paragraphs have been amended and no longer form part of my opinion. I feel obliged in these circumstances to disown my opinion.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Casa, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. (MT) There is no doubt that the European Union was exemplary in the way it chose to proceed with the regulatory and supervision measures. This is reflected in the new supervision package which allows for certain systematic risks to be identified and for this to be done in a timely manner.

On the other hand, when it comes to the concept of economic governance, nobody can deny that there is still a long way to go. Any Member State that ignores its obligations and responsibilities, particularly with respect to the Growth and Stability Pact, creates serious problems for other Member States. Therefore, we are obliged to do our utmost to encourage serious observation of the rules that were agreed upon so as to guarantee stability within the Member States, both financially and physically.

I am very satisfied with the opinion recommendations I put forward to the Employment Committee and pleased that these have been taken into consideration. I believe that the report has made a case for better job surveillance in the European Union, and for the strengthening of the Employment Committee.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  António Fernando Correia De Campos, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all acknowledge that monitoring of the short- and long-term macro-economic variables in the European Union has failed, not least regarding budgetary frameworks and accumulated national debt. The crisis has made all the more pressing the need to strengthen the single market, taking into account the proposals of Mr Monti and Mr Grech. It is essential to develop e-commerce and transnational trade, simplify online payment procedures, standardise products and services, and harmonise fiscal instruments, so as to reinforce consumer confidence and boost the economy.

The Union must emerge from the crisis in a way that is sustainable, guaranteeing robust growth and responsible budgets, but also employment objectives. It should be mandatory for indicators such as the unemployment rate and the rate of employment among the active population to be part of the oversight system.

The indicators that will measure the progress of the 2020 strategy cannot be forgotten either. The feasibility study on issuing joint Eurobonds could constitute an opportunity to examine in greater detail financial instruments for defending against speculation, and to put them into practice.

We would like it if this could be more than just a study. The creation of the European Monetary Fund deserves our support and we see it not as simply a disciplinary instrument but, above all, as a means of reducing the speculative manipulation of the sovereign debt markets. Our cooperation with the rapporteur, Mr Feio, has been profitable and has made it possible to achieve a text that is comprehensive, balanced and rich.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Schulz , on behalf of the S&D Group.(DE) Mr President, if you look at your list of speakers, you will see that the next speaker is my colleague, Mr Jáuregui Atondo. Before he takes the floor, please permit me, as chair of our Group, to inform the House that this morning, Mr Jáuregui Atondo, was appointed by the Spanish Government as its Minister for the Presidency. As you can imagine, that is quite an honour for our group. I offer him my sincere congratulations.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.(ES) Mr President, I would like to thank my friend Mr Schulz very much. I only have one minute to tell you that I believe that in the last few months, Europe has made extraordinary progress in terms of economic governance.

Curiously, the summit between France and Germany the day before yesterday also opened the door to a new hope: the possibility of revising our frameworks and treaties on economic governance.

I know that this is an issue that scared the Member States a little. However, I believe that as pro-Europeans, we know that in order to achieve the economic governance that we need to build, there will probably need to be reforms, which will have to be agreed reforms.

I sincerely believe, however, that this agreement between France and Germany opens up the opportunity for the Feio report, which we will adopt later – as proposed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs – to consider the need to adapt our constitutional framework to governance that is not only a stability pact. This is in-depth governance, in order to bring together the economies in a way that seeks to be competitive, create jobs and produce the redistribution to which we, as social democrats, have always aspired.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group.(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the common thread between the meetings of the European Council and the G20 is the need to make the necessary adaptations after the financial crisis.

For the European Union, these adaptations consist of putting our respective national and EU public finances in order and protecting our currency, the euro, by consolidating it internally and defending its value against the other major currencies. The European Council will be dominated by discussions on Europe’s economic and financial governance. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) welcomes the initial lines that the Van Rompuy task force has taken, including the plans for a system of sanctions against Member States that do not adhere to the criteria of the Stability Pact.

However, there is still more work to be done, with more Community method and less intergovernmental method. I welcome the work that the Commission has done along these lines. I would ask the Council to remember that this Parliament is now colegislator and will play a full role in defining the forthcoming reforms. The more Parliament is brought on board in the early stages, the more chance we have of achieving a satisfactory and timely outcome. I call on President Van Rompuy to heed this message.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe must make its voice heard in the debate on relative currency values, and the European Council must establish our position on the subject next week, before the Seoul G20 summit. Europe must join with its partners, in particular, the United States, in reminding the emerging countries of their responsibilities. Currency dumping and the social consequences it entails must no longer be allowed.

Three major subjects will be on the table at the Seoul Summit: reform of the international monetary system of course, but also the stability of commodities – especially food and energy – and global governance. Europe has a message to deliver on each of these subjects, but this message will only be credible if we put in place effective internal, Community-wide instruments to govern and manage our public finances.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will not be able to influence global governance and will not really have a place on the international stage unless we can make the often unpopular effort to clean up our finances and unless we stick to our priorities of combating climate change and development policy.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group.(DE) Mr President, I would like to quote a passage from the statement made by the Heads of State or Government at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh held on 24-25 September 2009 – in other words, a year ago. The Heads of Government committed themselves at that summit to the following: ‘To launch a framework that lays out the policies and the way we act together to generate strong, sustainable and balanced global growth. We need a durable recovery that creates the good jobs our people need’. Great! I presume that a similar passage will be written again this year at the next summit, and also at all the other summits. This leads me to ask what has been done in the meantime to bring about the strong, sustainable and balanced growth that will bring the jobs our people need. The description is correct, but what is being created is a philosophy at European level – in the European Council – that says that unilateral cuts in public services through budget reductions are a cure-all for stabilising our continent, rather than giving consideration to the fact that investment that stimulates growth is a basic prerequisite for creating more jobs and, through greater economic growth, bolstering state revenues – as is so urgently needed to consolidate state budgets and enable states to perform their duties. What we are seeing in Europe is that as a result of a more or less black-and-white Manichaean process under which all expenditure is bad and all cuts are good, we find ourselves in a situation in which the countries worst affected by the crisis – Ireland and Greece – are in recession or have zero growth. What is actually being done in practice is achieving the opposite of what was described here as the objective. That is a dramatic development. It is all the more dramatic when those who were at the source of the crisis, who caused the crisis – the financial sector, those who speculated with wild abandon – have not been held accountable by being made to contribute to state revenues through measures such as a financial transaction tax. This may have been advocated at European level, but even at the time it was being advocated, it was already being put on ice on the grounds that ‘We’ll never get it though the G20’. Of course we will not get it through the G20 if we do not even try it first at European level!

This is an injustice that is particularly dramatic because the lack of action on the part of the Heads of State or Government – the fact that they are leading us in the wrong direction of social imbalance – is continually being reinforced. The people in revolt on the streets are right in that social imbalance in Europe is not being fought against, but rather is being intensified further by incorrect policies. It is the job of this Parliament to make this apparent and to develop strategies to counter it. That is why we insist on the financial transaction tax. The report by Mrs Berès and the report by my colleague, Mrs Podimata, will show us whether this House is prepared to say: ‘We know that it will not be easy, but we insist that the European Union makes a start at levying taxes transnationally on the financial sector if it cannot be taxed at national level’.

There is a further worrying development. What happened in Deauville between Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel turns the institutional structure of the European Union on its head. I ask myself when Mr Van Rompuy will draw the appropriate conclusion. He has been asked to work with his task force on detailing the necessary reforms – that should really have been your job, so it was a bit of a cheek to ask Mr Van Rompuy to do it – but to cap it all, the poor man is working on it in secret and before he can present anything at all, our charming couple in Deauville waltz up and announce: ‘We have already decided everything’. What Nicolas and Angela did – this self-appointed Franco-German management committee – is an assault on the institutions of the European Union.

(Applause)

If I were Mr Van Rompuy, I would tell them where they could stick their job. You cannot keep being a doormat for ever and putting up with such abuse. There is one more thing, however: if our fine couple had glanced across the channel from Deauville, they would have seen the white cliffs of the British coast, where a referendum is required for their amendments to the treaty – at least, if Mr Cameron is to be believed. Does anyone really think that Mr Cameron would accept the amendment without incorporating further brakes into the treaty to slow down European law? That really would open a Pandora’s box. I do hope that our charming couple do not come crashing to the floor.

I therefore repeat: Europe is being led in the wrong direction, both institutionally and in substance.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, perhaps I may begin where Mr Schulz left off. Maybe we could ask for a convention now if they want to change the treaty. Normally, what we have to do is to ask for a convention. That is the first thing to do, but things are not that far advanced, I think. What we need now is to make an urgent deal in the European Council on economic governance and on strengthening the Stability Pact.

It is now nearly a year since the start of the Greek debt crisis. It started in December 2009, and it is now time to arrive at a conclusion, an agreement, on this. There are, in fact, three proposals on the table at the moment. Let us be clear about that. We have received the proposal from the Commission, the proposal from the task force and, yesterday, the proposal under what we call ‘the deal of Deauville’. That is the third one on the table. And it is good, I think, that this Parliament is analysing the differences between the three proposals to decide if they are appropriate.

The Commission made what were, I think, good, bold and coherent proposals a few weeks ago. The task force proposal differs from them in that it proposes that the Council should act on the basis of recommendations and not proposals from the Commission. That is a big difference, because recommendations can be changed and proposals from the Commission cannot. In addition, there is a more lengthy procedure for analysis in the task force proposal, which also sets it apart from the Commission proposal.

However, we have to say that the task force proposal keeps the semi-automatic character of the sanctions and maintains the reverse majority rule that was proposed by the Commission.

As of yesterday, we have a third proposal, ‘the deal of Deauville’. I have to say that an agreement between France and Germany can often be helpful for Council business, but that this time, on the contrary, it is not. This is because the Franco-German Deauville proposal simply relies on keeping the old-school QMV within the Council, so rather than needing to find a majority to block the automatic Commission sanctions, their proposals require such a majority for the sanctions proposed by the Commission to be initiated. I think that is an enormous difference, because the semi-automatic character of sanctions in the Commission proposal is not present in the Deauville proposal.

I do not know if you know Deauville, but, aside from the beach and some beautiful hotels, there is a casino. We should, therefore, perhaps be speaking not of the Deauville deal but rather of the Franco-German casino compromise, because a casino compromise is what it is. Under this proposal, Member States are allowed to go on playing with the euro and the euro area.

If you have enough support in the Council, you can go for it; you can do exactly what Greece did. If you have enough support in the Council, go for it. Faites vos jeux! You can go for it.

The first part of the Deauville deal simply weakens not just the task force proposal but, above all, the Commission package. I find this completely incomprehensible, certainly from Germany. For ten months, they have been asking for bolder sanctions, and yesterday, they did just the opposite. It amounts to a weakening of the bold proposals of the Commission. And this comes at precisely the time when Mr Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank, is asking for bolder solutions, for bolder proposals, even bolder than the initial proposals by the Commission.

My conclusion is that this Parliament has one mission: to reverse the Deauville deal, or the casino compromise. Let us stick to the good proposals from the Commission and carry out our necessary legislative task.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.(FR) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Verhofstadt has worn himself out today! However, what he had to say is important, as was Mr Schulz’s speech. I have my own thoughts for you also.

Do you all know the film ‘Jules et Jim’? Well, there is a woman – Mrs Merkel. We know who Jules is – it is Mr Sarkozy. The trouble is who is Jim? Is it Mr Cameron or Mr Barroso? That is the dilemma for the Commission.

I think Parliament and the Commission need to speak to each other frankly now, because the Council’s policy – Mr Verhofstadt is right on this point – and that of its Franco-German board of directors is anti-European Union. Their policy does not reflect the essence of the EU, and our role today is to go beyond the differences that pit us against each other – Mr Daul is right on this point – and to save the European Union and the Community method. To do this, the Commission, this Parliament and all of us need to understand that there will be no winners in this game unless we find a common approach between the Commission and Parliament, Parliament and the Commission.

Mr Barroso, I believe you when you say that you want a tax on financial transactions or on financial activities. This is not the problem; the problem is, how do we actually do this? It is not enough to say ‘I want’. My four-year-old son says ‘I want’. The issue is to work out how we can achieve our goal, and I think the Commission should not be asking for yet another study, as the Environment Council did yesterday to find out if climate degradation is really so bad that we should be stepping up Europe’s CO2 reduction – even though it is utterly ridiculous to ask for a new study. No. What would a major study on financial transactions bring to Europe, and what would a tax on those transactions bring? A 0.01% tax on financial transactions would be worth EUR 80 billion. If you set aside EUR 30 billion for a reduction in national contributions and hence a reduction in national budgets, you get an extra 50 billion for the EU budget. EUR 120 billion minus 30 billion makes 90 billion, plus 50 makes 140 billion. So, it is possible to implement the European policies we need to implement post-Lisbon, and the Member States and Europe will be the winners. However, this presupposes that we have a European vision.

Secondly, Mr Barroso, about the deficits: in my opinion, there are deficits and then there are deficits. It is like cholesterol: there is a positive marker and a negative marker. A deficit which invests, and therefore provides a country, or Europe, with prospects, is not a negative thing. If we invest, as we have done before, in the industries of the past which are unproductive – I am talking about coal – we are investing in something that throws money away because it is futile, and therefore we lose out. However, if we invest in the energies of the future and the production of the future, we gain.

Therefore, what we need to do, and I am asking this of the liberals also, is not simply to talk about ‘stability, stability’, but also to differentiate between what we should be doing and what we should no longer be doing; not simply to talk about a ‘deficit’, but to say, ‘this is productive’, or ‘this is not productive’. If we agree, though this will be difficult, if we manage to come to an agreement, we will be in a position to oppose the Council’s constant manipulations.

The problem today is that many governments want to reduce the European policy aspect, whereas our role is to defend and to increase the European policy aspect, because without it, we will not be able to get ourselves out of this.

You see, Mr Barroso, we have a common interest, but we need to take it to its conclusion. It is not Parliament that you should be putting pressure on, but the European Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – As you can appreciate, I have been quite flexible about the timing, partly because all the speeches have been very agreeable as well as very powerful – the IMF, casinos and cholesterol – all great fuel for this discussion.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński, on behalf of the ECR Group. (PL) We have all been recounting various anecdotes during these debates today, which also brought an historical association to my mind. For 18 years of my life, I lived in a country of real socialism, where Party congress after Party congress kept setting new economic targets and the citizens of my country – and the same goes for other countries of real socialism – were told by party congresses that things would get better, and how they should get better. What is more, there was a ministry of domestic trade in my country at that time, even though there was no domestic trade.

Listening to some of the speeches today, my impression is that the proposal we heard from the European Commission is one which aims to reinstate the priority of economic over political thinking. Over that political mindset which would stifle any sound economic action, because today, politicians at national level and – as we hear – for populist considerations, really like to point their finger at Europe. They say that we need to cut down on Europe and that Europe is not the solution, as this, to some extent, gets them off the hook in the eyes of their voters. If we do not implement something which will make countries realise that they there will be harsh consequences if they conduct economically irrational policies, we will not get anywhere. What is also needed here is solidarity, however. In the Franco-German proposal, I see the real danger of ending up in a situation where the stronger countries will have greater leeway, and where Greece will be unable to go beyond certain limits. Greece will have to cut expenditure, but when it comes to the stronger countries, their luck will be in, and suddenly we will find that they will be allowed to break these rules on political grounds. What I want to say is this: we need European solidarity, and that is why we need European solidarity.

In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to say that I know that you stand guard over this European solidarity. The latest decision of the European Commission on the gas agreement between Poland and Russia – for which I would like to thank you – is a fine example of how the Community aspect is something that works, and which works in the interests of countries like Poland. I would like to say once again, Mr President, that we cannot wave away reality with a magic wand. If we reach a point where the political solutions, compounded with the dose of populism that exists in some parts of Europe today, dominate over economic thinking, then your ambitious plans to intensify the market – which I consider a very good plan (sentence unfinished). I believe that as MEPs, we are well aware of how far we still are from a common market, just from the mobile phone roaming bills we get every month. If we have a common European market but we still have to pay roaming bills, it shows quite clearly that we still have a long way to go before we achieve our aim of economic integration.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(FR) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Mr Barroso, if I have understood you rightly Mr Barroso, we are starting from completely opposite analyses, since you said that the economic crisis is behind us, whilst our group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, believes that it is getting worse. To resolve the crisis, you are recommending austerity with the Stability Pact and now, the reinforcement of sanctions. I think we should be doing the opposite: improving working wages, a new fiscal approach to help support these and a tax on financial transactions, improving social welfare, protecting public services and a bold employment policy.

Sadly, I fear your strategy could land the European Union in deep trouble. Have you not heard the strength of the peoples’ protests throughout the European Union? For the sixth day yesterday, millions of people marched throughout France, with the backing of 70% of the population. Can you not see the danger that is threatening us today? The European idea, because it is based on competition and a policy of completely free trade, is colliding head-on with money in these economic wars, and now these currency wars. Why do we not look at a new system: a human and social development fund instead of the Stability Pact, in conjunction with the European Central Bank, which should be able to refinance the Member States’ debts and the national banks through money creation, at interest rates that would be favourable to social criteria?

The way I see it, the European Union must take the initiative in creating a new global monetary order, starting with taking up China’s proposal for a common international trade currency. Like Thailand and Brazil, why does Europe not start by introducing a tax on foreign currency, to ease currency tensions?

Commission President, representatives of the Council, I think the time has come for us to think of new initiatives and to listen to our people.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, well President Barroso, you are certainly flexing your muscles, using the powers given to you by the Lisbon Treaty which you pushed through using illegitimate means. You now do everything you can on the world stage and within the EU to acquire all the attributes of statehood.

Nowhere could that be more apparent than in your recent proposal for a direct tax to be levied by the European institutions on the peoples of this continent.

Of course, in previous times, there was a very successful independence movement that campaigned on the slogan of ‘no taxation without representation’ and you certainly are not a representative. We have not voted for you and we cannot remove you, so I think with this direct tax, you have actually made a mistake.

And what an expensive club it is becoming. Just two years ago, Britain’s net contribution was GBP 3 billion a year. This year, it is GBP 6 billion. Next year, it will be GBP 8 billion. The year after that, it is due to be GBP 10 billion and now, we hear that you want to take away the British rebate. You want to get rid of the British rebate, which will mean by 2013, our contribution will be GBP 13 billion. It will have quadrupled in the space of six years.

The taxpayers of Britain, realising all of this, seeing your direct tax, will simply conclude that we cannot afford the European Union.

But I do see a ray of hope: the Deauville deal between Merkel and Sarkozy, the thing that you are all so terrified of today. I hope it happens. Let us have a new treaty. You yourself seem to be almost supporting it. Let us have a new European treaty and let us put it to a referendum in lots of countries, particularly in Britain, and the British people will conclude that this is a very bad deal for Britain. They will vote for us to leave the European Union and begin the unravelling.

Thank you. We are happy to go.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Schulz (S&D).(DE) Mr President, I have a question for you, Mr Farage. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer it for us. You are so concerned about the British tax coffers. Just like me, at the beginning of this term of office, you had the option of choosing from which coffers your daily allowances would be paid: from the UK coffers or from those of the European Union. Please would you tell the House whether your daily allowances are paid from the EU budget or whether you have opted for the national system in the UK?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nigel Farage (EFD). – Mr President, I think we ought to do away with this notion of European money. Prior to there being a direct tax, there is, as we speak today, no such thing as European money: it is our money. We are a massive net contributor to this European Union for no single economic benefit in return whatsoever! It is our money!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, I do not usually intervene, but there is a point of order that I want to make.

It is not the first time that Mr Farage has said when addressing me ‘You have not been elected’. I have certainly not been elected by you, but I have been elected by this Parliament.

(Applause)

I was elected by this Parliament in a secret ballot, and you belong to this Parliament. I consider that repeatedly saying that I, or the Commission, have not been elected constitutes a lack of respect for the Commission and for the Parliament to which you belong.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI).(ES) Mr President, we will see if I can bring a little calm to this fierce debate.

It is regrettable that along with the European Union, some of its Member States are still part of the G20. Despite this anomaly, which certainly weakens Europe’s image in the world, it would be good if at least there was an overall common position in this global forum.

In my view, what would that common position be? In my humble opinion, I believe the following: firstly, the adoption of a global agreement to tackle the consequences of the crisis cannot be delayed by adopting just a financial agreement; secondly, Europe must maintain the euro as the benchmark currency or, if it is preferred, as an anchor to prevent turbulence in the market from dragging us along and causing us to repeat the errors made throughout the 20th century; thirdly, the euro must herald what Europe must represent in the world of democratic values and public freedoms.

In summary, we need to be aware that, in a global world, in this global game, those who only play national cards lose.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Othmar Karas (PPE).(DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, this debate shows one thing: the Deauville deal hinders us from overcoming the crisis, the Deauville deal is a backward step for the European Union and the Deauville deal shows us that neither member of this charming couple has learnt anything from France and Germany’s inappropriate behaviour in 2002 and 2005 when these countries began undermining the Stability Pact. Instead, we are now seeing a continuation of such inappropriate behaviour.

We want to overcome the mistakes of the past. We want a European answer to the nationalism and the vetoes that have been built into most European regulations. We did this in the case of supervision of the financial markets. We are doing so with the report in response to the crisis. We are doing so with the Feio report and we are doing so with our daily legislative work. Let us concentrate on that and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked further, including in this debate. We need to move forward. We need to find the answers. The report by the five groups sends a clear message. We have not yet overcome the crisis. Fiscal and monetary policies are no substitute for structural reforms. We are clearly stating that we want deficits to be reduced as a prerequisite for securing the future. You cannot reduce deficits by simply taking a pair of shears to them. It has to come about as a result of reforms, investments, savings and changes. This report sends a clear response that we want to have more Europe as part of the solution. Let us break through to the next step in integration – the creation of an economic union, the creation of a social union, the creation of a defence and security union, and let us make the internal market the home market of all our citizens. The community of Europe – the initiative of the European Union – is the answer. The task force and the Deauville route have failed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). – Mr President, as we have heard, the task force chaired by Herman Van Rompuy has now produced its report. It contains proposals for crisis resolution and budgetary discipline: in other words, only part of the picture.

I would emphasise that these are only proposals. I am sure the ECOFIN Ministers who dominated the proceedings of that task force would like it to be the end point, but it is not. It is the beginning. We are right at the very beginning of the legislative process. I hope all of the institutions will realise that the work of the European Parliament on the Commission’s legislative proposals will now need to be conducted in a fully democratic process with the Council.

The task force said that its aim was to achieve a quantum leap in terms of more effective economic governance. I think what it is proposing is actually more like a potential step back in terms of prosperity and well-being for Europe. It is proposing a strengthening of instruments, but only instruments that focus upon fiscal discipline. That is a problem. Economic coordination is more than fiscal discipline and economic union will not be achieved as long as that balance is not properly recognised. It will inevitably lead to distorted economic policies which take insufficient account of other worthwhile policy objectives for the conduct of macro-economic policy, and by that I mean growth, investment and employment.

President Barroso, we do not need another task force to come up with a balanced set of policy measures. We need the Commission to use its right of initiative to bring forward the proposals that will address growth, investment and employment.

Regarding the proposals now on the table, I believe that Parliament has an enormous responsibility in the coming months. We need to make some changes along the lines of the Feio report to be voted on today. I think we need three main changes there: the excessive balances procedure has to be broad enough to cover labour markets, including unemployment levels, and therefore the Employment Council needs to be included wherever relevant; the qualitative assessment of public debt levels and developments in the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact should pay full attention to levels and developments in public investment as well; and the linkage with 2020 throughout the new system needs to be explicit and operationalised as fully as possible.

On governance, I would mention only two points at this early stage. The Council needs to guide the system and assume ultimate political responsibility throughout, as well as ensuring the due involvement of all relevant Council formations – not just ECOFIN – wherever that is necessary.

Finally, the European Parliament needs to be fully involved throughout the process in order to ensure the highest level of democratic legitimacy. Just look at the proposal for the European Semester to see to what extent the role of the Parliament is missing in all of this. Some of us across the political groups are working on strengthened proposals for parliamentary involvement. I hope they will be accepted by the other institutions to give this process the democratic legitimacy it needs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE).(SV) The last year has shown that the EU can take important decisions in difficult situations. Unfortunately, the last few days have been a disappointment. When the EU needs clear and stringent budget rules, France and Germany hesitate. This causes us concern. Our message is: leave Mr Rehn’s proposal alone!

I would like to thank unreservedly Mrs Berès and my colleagues in the Special Committee on Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, who have shown that we in the European Parliament can reach across the party boundaries and find common solutions in the interests of Europe. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has proposed an amendment to the effect that if a financial transaction tax is introduced, it must, of necessity, be done on a global scale. It is important in this case that it is done at a global level.

Nationalism must not be allowed to gain a foothold in Europe again. It is a market economy with clear boundaries and free trade that creates prosperity. We need a more unified Europe, a more open Europe, a stronger Europe – we quite simply need more Europe.

The proposed penalty options will initially apply only to the countries of the euro area. In this regard, we would like to see a wording that includes all 27 Member States. I would therefore like to present an oral amendment to the Feio report which I hope that Parliament will be able to support. The rapporteur and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have stated that they are willing to do so. I will read the text in English:

As far as possible, all 27 Member States should apply to the maximum all the economic governance proposals, recognising that for Member States outside the euro area, this would be done on a voluntary basis.

(SV) Today is not the time to create an EU that is in danger of tearing the Union apart.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pascal Canfin (Verts/ALE).(FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Rehn, I genuinely hope that you will look at the work done by the European Parliament on the subjects we have been dealing with today – the Berès report and the Feio report – because, of course, we are now working as colegislators on economic governance. I can tell you that together with four pro-European groups in Parliament at least, we have made a genuine effort to work on compromises that will achieve something. We have just come from the discussions to try to tie up the problems.

Some people are talking about the budget, some are talking about tax measures, and some are talking about governance. What we need today is for the Commission – and it is your role to do this, we are trying to do it and it is your role to do it also – to propose an overall package: something in the spirit of the Monti report that is also along the lines of what Michel Barnier has been trying to do in the context of the internal market. I am waiting for an overall package from Mr Barroso, which should show us how to get ourselves out of the economic crisis. It should not just be about macro-economic governance, but should be along the lines of reading three or four dossiers on macro-economics, tax and the budget and then saying ‘here is the package’.

I am sure that if you do that, you will have a very large majority in the European Parliament to support the initiative. If we only look at the issue of public finance, for example, two or three years ago, the Commission and its departments were themselves saying that, of all the countries, Spain was sticking to the Stability and Growth Pact most closely and that Spain’s public finances were in order. The problem is that the instability came from elsewhere and now Spain is in a terrible situation, as is Ireland. We can clearly see that focusing on public finances alone will not help us resolve the crisis.

The compromises that we have proposed in the various reports that have been presented today, which will be voted on tomorrow, represent the sum of these issues. They are a way of saying that, yes, we do need to strengthen budgetary discipline. Of course we do. However, to ensure that this budgetary discipline does not lead to social breakdown, but only to public expenditure cuts, we need, at the same time, a European budget package that will finance investment and a tax package that will allow Member States to impose certain taxes.

My last question for Mr Rehn, and for Mr Barroso especially, is therefore: are you genuinely in favour of the common corporate tax basis? Do you genuinely support it? It has been shelved by the Commission for 10 years now and for 10 years, you have failed to deal with the matter. It is now time that you did so.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberts Zīle (ECR). (LV) Thank you, Mr President, Mr Barroso (who has left the Chamber).

First, I should like to thank the rapporteur, my fellow shadow rapporteurs and the chair of the committee, Mr Klintz, for the compromise that we at last managed to arrive at. I shall only speak in relation to two items in the report, with which I am not satisfied, and they concern neither Germany nor France. Firstly, as the result of aggressive cross-border investment, since 2004, private household debt and business debt in many new Member States has grown, even by as much as 10 fold. Moreover, the absolute majority of these loans were taken out on terms that left all the exchange-rate risk with the borrower. This, in turn, means that the governments of these countries have little room for manoeuvre in their macro-economic policy apart from cutting public spending and raising taxes. At the same time, the primary concern of households is solely to make loan repayments in euro terms. Unfortunately, there is scant reference to this in the report.

My second point, which is linked to the first, is this. Let us picture such a new Member State, whose GDP has fallen back to a pre-accession level, to a pre-2004 level, only with a private debt 10 times as large and public debt five times as large, and this Member State can deduce from this report that even cohesion policy may be altered, altered in such a way that the main criterion will no longer be per capita GDP but crisis management in a specific territory, which could have extremely significant political consequences. Thank you.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL).(PT) Mr President, the declarations by Germany and France in the so-called Deauville agreement are unacceptable and show the true faces of those who are calling the shots in defence of economic and financial interest groups. These declarations also demonstrate impatience, arrogance and aggression towards the response of the workers and populations hurt by their neoliberal and anti-society policies – the Stability and Growth Pact and competition policy – in Greece, France, Spain or Portugal, where there is already a general strike planned for 24 November.

It is time for those who run the European Union to acknowledge the failure of these neoliberal policies: increasing unemployment, social inequalities and poverty, and which are causing recession in the countries with weaker economies, where the EU’s impositions could provoke a real social disaster.

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. All the promises to bring an end to tax havens, to properly tax financial transactions, and to bring an end to speculative financial products, have collapsed.

That is why we are protesting here: giving a voice to the many millions of workers threatened with poverty, to the unemployed, to older people with pathetic pensions, to the young and jobless, and children at risk of poverty to whom they want to deny a dignified future.

It is time for a break with these policies so that we can have a truly social Europe: a Europe of progress and development.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD). (LT) I would like to say a few words about the work of the Special Crisis Committee. It really has done a great job and has made good recommendations and proposals. Of course, ideally, there would be a place for all of these in the documents being drafted by the Commission. It is essential that the Commission does not forget the fundamental and most important issues. One of these is the establishing of a regulatory and supervisory system, which leaves no financial market, no financial instrument and no financial institution off the record book. The Commission should target its actions for the creation of new jobs and link them with measures to combat poverty and social exclusion. All efforts in this direction must, above all, be focused on employing young people. Emergency infrastructure decisions on renewable energy sources, green power, energy efficiency in the transport and building sectors, and a European energy network, are necessary to overcome the crisis. It would be good if, exactly one year on from this meeting today, the Commission could come and say: ‘The provisions of the resolution you proposed did not just remain on paper; we adapted these specific proposals by the Special Crisis Committee and they have already had a real impact’.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). (HU) As was the case in the previous major debate of this week here in the European Parliament, namely, the debate on poverty, the politicians of the European Union are once again surprised and sad to see that the situation of Europe’s citizens is not improving, but rather constantly deteriorating. Poverty is growing steadily, and so too are misery, unemployment and homelessness. And they are so surprised at this, as if it were the consequence of regrettable natural disasters or tsunamis. No, this is the result of decisions taken by European politicians. The increasing misery and poverty stem directly from the neoliberal policy which you – excepting those who opposed them – pursued, and this trend will continue. Poverty and misery will continue to rise if you do not opt for a different value system.

These two reports can be likened to a scenario where a medical panel determines that the therapy used for a patient so far has caused him harm and made his condition worse, and then proceeds to say that the therapy prescribed on the basis of the diagnosis must be continued, that they must continue what they had done before, but with stricter supervision and punishing the patient if he does not comply, if, for instance, he fails to take his medication. What is at stake here is a conscious choice between value systems. So far, the European Union has deliberately chosen a value system where it always pursues the right decision from the perspective of money and profit, the right decision from the point of view of multinational companies and banks, and never from the perspective of people and the community. It has always looked for what is right from the point of view of an unbridled competition that is not restrained by concerns for justice and morality, and never for what is right from the perspective of social justice and solidarity. This needs to be changed, and from now on, good decisions must be taken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). (NL) Mr President, despite some positive signals, the risk of the crisis worsening has not gone away. The banking system remains unstable and a number of Member States face the threat of government deficits getting out of hand if nothing is done. Therefore, we urgently need an economic union.

Mr President, the task force has yet to deliver any concrete results but, as this House’s rapporteur for the Stability and Growth Pact, I would like to tell Commissioner Rehn: we are able to work quickly. I address those words to the Council as well. We are able to work fast, but only on the basis of the Commission’s proposals. Is the Council prepared to accept that?

I would also like to sound a note of warning against the change in the treaty which has been requested, because that could be a decoy which will only force us to put off the necessary measures until another day. We must now do everything that is possible under the Treaty of Lisbon. Parliament now has a new colegislative role in the Stability and Growth Pact and it will take full advantage of that role in order to bring about a robust economic union, with a robust Stability and Growth Pact.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis has had a very great impact on society in all European countries. If we look at the consequences from a social viewpoint, we swiftly reach the conclusion – one that is driving much of the Commission’s work – that the worst is yet to come. Unemployment is set to increase and the weak signs of recovery noted in some countries are not enough to guarantee the creation of new jobs. We must therefore accept that it will be essential to face up to the most acute social aspect of this crisis, which was born out of the financial system but which has rapidly spread into economic and social realms.

For this reason, we must arm ourselves with other instruments to defend the people who are hardest hit. We are about to discuss a proposal for a framework directive on a minimum guaranteed income in all European countries, which I consider very important for combating poverty, on the one hand, and for helping those who will be struck by the sting in the tail of this crisis in the coming weeks and months, on the other.

The best way to combat a crisis, however, is through policies of growth. Growth needs resources, targeted investments and a clear agenda of priorities towards which a significant proportion of the available resources should be directed. The Union budget is not enough. For this reason, the Commission clearly stated a need for additional resources to be spent on infrastructural investments and investments earmarked for competition quality and employment. This path leads to the creation of Eurobonds and a tax on financial transactions. There is no alternative. This is why the solutions we have indicated – and I hope that Parliament will approve their formulation – are important as well as innovative.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE).(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the height of the financial crisis, the G20 countries promised joint action to stabilise the financial markets. Today, two years later, we are still a long way away from a global answer. In many instances, the measures adopted pursue national interests and considerations. The initial energy has dissipated and all too often we are back to ‘business as usual’. Mervyn King of the Bank of England put it succinctly when he said: ‘The need to act in the collective interest has yet to emerge’. In its interim report, the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis makes it clear that Europe is at a critical crossroads. We need to intensify our integration, we need to harmonise our economic and budgetary policies more, we need European infrastructure projects in the areas of energy, transport and telecommunications. We need a functioning internal market and labour market, and we need the resources required in order to achieve the demanding growth targets set out in the EU 2020 strategy. We need innovative sources of financing if we are to be able to exploit the potential of the SME sector. We need more Community method and less intergovernmentalism. A standstill here is a backward move; it will not preserve the status quo.

The debt crisis in Europe clearly demonstrates that stability and confidence are not achievable without discipline. The proposals made by Commissioner Rehn and by Mr Van Rompuy’s task force are intended to ensure that the Member States act in a disciplined manner. I regret to say that in Luxembourg the other day, the finance ministers cast aside these proposals at the behest of our Franco-German couple – a missed opportunity and a bad day for our citizens, who quite rightly feel betrayed by politics yet again.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the combined topics of this morning’s debate have a strong common theme of our continued response to the financial crisis and to finding ways to make our management of the risk more effective, whether it be risk management of public debt, risk management of our financial markets and products, or the risk management of global imbalances. Whether it is the behaviour of our banks or the behaviour of Member States’ treasury departments, we need to ensure a common high standard of behaviour with respect to adhering to an agreed set of rules.

Stronger financial and fiscal discipline by both the private and public sectors needs to be enforced. We need to ensure that, in the search for growth opportunities by the EU, the financing tools used by the EU and the individual Member States are of the highest calibre and as transparent as possible. The use of innovative financing needs to be approached with caution, and the moves by the EU to leverage its own budget need to be taken into account, knowing all the risks and the potential for moral hazard.

The European Financial Stabilisation Fund is a large off-balance sheet vehicle reliant on a credit rating. To leverage the EU budget in the issuance of project bonds by the EIB needs to be subject to intense scrutiny. As we all know, complex financial instruments and leverage bring their own risk. There is no free money and there are no short cuts.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL).(EL) Mr President, speaking on the Berès report on the crisis on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, in order to explain why we shall not be voting, I wish to say, as there is a surfeit of historical references, that today’s text, compared with the initial text submitted by the rapporteur, looks like an old papyrus, like an old parchment on which the initial text has been scratched out and the new text written, leaving traces of the previous text; what we call a palimpsest. The savage ‘scratchings out’, by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the European right, of the rapporteur’s initial, honest and honourable attempt to map the causes of the crisis and provide bold proposals, have given rise to a text which is no longer a text of the European Parliament, the only democratic institution in the European Union; it is a Commission text, a text which conceals the cause of the crisis and commits EU policy to the Merkel, Sarkozy and task force initiatives.

We made proposals to improve the text. We criticised the Stability Pact and the functioning of the European Central Bank. We tabled amendments in order to see if everyone talking even today about the European Union taking a wrong turn meant the same thing. Our proposal was inspired by today’s demonstrations in France, by the demonstrations by workers in Germany, whose incomes are being cut so that Siemens has money for bribes, by the demonstrations by workers in Greece, who are currently being treated like guinea pigs, a text, in other words, which has ended up in a form which we cannot accept.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we should have listened to the advice of the Nobel laureate, Maurice Allais, who called for a clear separation between business banks, credit banks and speculative banks, in accordance with the principles of the Glass-Steagall Act, which is not discussed in this report.

As far as the proposal to tax European taxpayers is concerned, my response is ‘No tax in Europe!’ If this European Union proposal goes ahead, you can rest assured that we will have our own Tea Party here as well: there will be a mass protest. The European public has no intention of paying for a service they are not getting and they are perfectly right.

We are continuing to fund the banks. However, what are the banks doing in the midst of this economic and financial crisis? They are buying securities, even ones that contain dodgy derivatives and so on. They are still buying them. And what is the ECB doing while this is going on? The ECB – set up to be an unchallengeable body – is letting it go on. It seems clear to me that this is a Europe for bankers. If even the Masonic leaders claim this to be true, I do not see why we cannot claim it too.

We believe that there is only one way to combat speculation effectively: transactions carried out at the same time as negotiations are paid for, and only in cash. Mrs Merkel dared to say it and she was shouted down. There must be some reason for that.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Mr President, it is only two years since the financial crisis broke out and only six months since the Greek issue, and we are seeing all willingness fading away in our nation states.

Today, we have a clear message from the European Parliament in the Berès report and the Feio report. We need more current economic and financial policies. We need more Europe, and a better Stability and Growth Pact with its mechanisms strengthened. The most recent decision by the ECOFIN Council is a slap in the face for European citizens. This is not adequate. We need to strengthen the strategy for growth, so that in this environment, it is sustainable and socially responsible, and we need better governance mechanisms for EU 2020. We need more and better European economic governance for national actions to support this line, including the financial transaction tax that I urge the Commission to look at very carefully, including in a European context. We need a better and stronger united Europe speaking with one voice at global level. We need a better financial regulation and there is a long way still to go.

To conclude, we need a Commission initiative. We need the Commission to act in the interests of European citizens, instead of a number of task forces.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Udo Bullmann (S&D).(DE) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, this could actually have been a time of great answers, but in hindsight, it does not look like it. What is on the table for the so-called reform of the Stability and Growth Pact is no great answer; once again, it is the lowest common denominator – the small morsel that could actually be agreed upon. I congratulate the Commission. You are still at the table – the Member States are not quite going it alone. I also congratulate the Council. Success has been achieved, France and Germany have an agreement – we do not know whether it is a good one or a bad one, but at least they are no longer stuck in the quagmire.

What does all this mean? It means that next year, if the growth figures collapse again, we will stand up in front of everyone and have no answer to the economic situation. Where is the section, the legal statute, in which you propose how we can together learn to drag ourselves out of the debt crisis? That is where my group feels there is a gap and that is the debate that we are going to have in this House. Yes, we agree with those Members who want greater commitment to reform. That is something that we want too. However, we then need to discuss the substance. If you are not prepared to provide a more solid foundation for the actual orientation of our budgetary policy, then we can see no reason to continue discussing EU 2020. It is already a paper tiger – we can throw it in the waste paper basket today if you will not debate the substance of it with us more forcefully.

We want to make a difference. Yes, it makes a difference whether we invest in limping bureaucracy or in the energy sources and jobs of the future. Where is the point in your proposals where we can make this difference? That is what we are waiting for. This debate has yet to take place. That will be the decisive thing for us.

Moreover, we will not accept a catalogue of indicators that is based on the legislation. This Parliament will not have the wool pulled over its eyes. We want to debate whether employment and unemployment are an important feature of budgetary development or not, and we want to do so before the legislation is passed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Mr President, the current financial crisis offers the opportunity to make clear headway in the process of European integration. I want to focus my intervention on the creation of a European common treasury for the eurozone countries. This would be a clear improvement of the institutional framework for European economic governance.

I know that this is a very delicate issue for some countries, but we will have to deal with it in the coming years. The European treasury would improve the coordination of the stimulus policies implemented by Member States. The European treasury would also be able to issue eurobonds to finance the construction of European infrastructures. The EU needs its own resources in the context of future diminishing budgets in the EU Member States. A European common treasury collecting some taxes at European level would allow the reduction of national transfers to the EU.

Without real autonomy in income, there will not be real autonomy in expenditure. The creation of a European common treasury is a political decision. The sticking point in this discussion is the lack of political will or, to be more precise, the lack of political will on the part of Germany. In the 1990s, Germany had the political vision to push for the launching of the euro, despite the difficulties faced with its reunification process. In my opinion, Germany should lead now and move towards a common European treasury.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivo Strejček (ECR). (CS) If you have been listening to this debate here from early on, then I think that all those who say that the European Union is at a crossroads are correct. On one side, are those who advocate a strong Community approach. On the other side, it is fair to say, are a minority in this Parliament who think that the European Union should henceforth work more on an intergovernmental principle. The proposal to introduce various forms of European taxes also fits with this, even though it is called innovative financing. This echoes calls for the strengthening of the European Union, transferring more powers to the European Commission at the expense of the Member States. It is a shame that no one has yet said that the European Union and the European Commission should start reducing their programmes, reducing the number of its often controversial agencies and reforming the common agricultural policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL).(DE) Mr President, economic governance as it is being developed here focuses solely on savings and competition policy. As has just been mentioned by the honourable Member from Spain, the problem of Germany’s orientation towards exports has not been addressed at all. Yet this is clearly a central problem, both in the euro area and in the European Union as a whole. German competition policy is being conducted to the detriment of internal demand in Germany. This is not being discussed at all. Above all, however, it is also being conducted to the detriment of wages. It is a wage battle – a wage competition. This wage competition is exerting enormous pressure on our neighbouring European countries, on European trade unions and on European workers. Neither the Commission nor the Feio report have addressed this problem. Any economic governance worthy of the name must take corrective action in this area rather than remaining silent.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE).(FR) Mr President, Mr Chastel, Commissioner, in 1968, our fellow Member Mr Cohn-Bendit’s friends wrote, ‘words, not deeds’ on the walls of Paris. Today, citizens are asking for the opposite: deeds, not words. We are hearing a lot of words, but our fellow citizens are not seeing results. The European Union’s slowness to respond is not good enough given the imperatives we need to deal with.

We need to move forward together, with a united European spirit. In this respect, I would like to say a word about the role of Parliament. Here too, there is still work to be done in terms of upholding the codecision principle. The President of the Commission thanked Parliament several times for its support, but Parliament is not here simply to play a secondary, support role, or to ratify decisions taken by the Council without having the chance to discuss them first. Parliament is on a par with the Council. It is time we recognised this, and the debate on economic governance will be a test in this respect.

Finally, as regards the forthcoming G20 summit, the European Union must present a united front to ensure that this international body plays the role that is expected of it and does not merely indulge in endless talk.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: STAVROS LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D).(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by thanking Mr Feio for his cooperative efforts and the spirit of compromise with which he has imbued his report. However, the conclusion that we reached was that on certain issues – and this also happened with financial supervision – Parliament is able to unite and take up a strong position in defence of the public interest, and that this strong position has to be acknowledged by the Commission and the Council. This issue is particularly relevant at a time of launching a legislative package of six proposals which are extraordinarily sensitive and on which Parliament has codecision powers.

We will be equally active, but without concessions. Our spirit is one of dialogue, but not of going beyond the objectives that we intend to defend. Mr Feio underlines some aspects that are related to this issue in his report. One of these is that economic governance is more than just a set of penalties. Growth and employment need their own initiatives. Initiatives are needed to combat the growing internal divergences in the European Union. Specific proposals are needed on the European Monetary Fund. Stable solutions are needed for sovereign debt.

We are at a point when confidence depends on the ability of the Commission and the Council to respond to the public’s real anxieties, and those are unemployment, growth and cohesion.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, better economic governance is required with earlier warnings and earlier actions. Traditional debt and deficit targets have been breached by many countries, but would not have warned us about the crisis pending in Spain or Ireland. Other measures are needed too.

Economics, however, is not an exact science and it is not just about numbers. Soviet history reminds us that central counting of tractor production does not, in itself, bring a strong economy, and centralised taxes or a centralised treasury are not a Utopian solution either.

There are many questions about what actions to take now. Threatening to fine a nearly bankrupt nation feels like an empty threat, and promises of continual eurozone bailouts will always bring moral hazard. I am aware that people are concerned about Franco-German deals, but perhaps they have a point. If the market lends the money, then maybe the market should take the loss, not the taxpayer.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, as usual, there is both good and bad in our reality and in what we do. It is important to understand the past and the causes of the crisis, and I think the Union has done its homework on that, but today, the focus must be on the future. The global and European economic governance we build is for tomorrow, so it is not just a question of addressing this crisis.

Europe does not exist in a vacuum. When fixing Europe, we are doing so against the backdrop of a world which is very different today from 2008. The G20 was united in favour of the fiscal rescue two years ago, but its unanimity was driven by fear. Today it is divided. The common global good does not exist. There are many forces at work in leading the global recovery and rebalancing the world economy. A major role is played by fundamental structural change, which strongly influences European competitiveness. However, the role of currencies and exchange rates as global adjustment mechanisms has skyrocketed. A new global monetary system is emerging at an unprecedented speed, and the number of players is increasing.

To avoid the disaster of asymmetrical adjustments, we urgently need dialogue and collective action. If we achieve this, the question is whether Europe will be able to play its role in this collective action. What is clearly lacking for this is a bold, streamlining reform of the external representation of the euro area. By delaying this reform, we are foregoing potential influence. In the current global circumstances, Europe cannot afford to do that.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Robert Goebbels (S&D).(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is in a bad way and the world is not fairing any better.

Earlier on, the President-in-Office of the Council stressed that globalisation means we have to act at European level and at international level. However, if we look at what is going on in the European Union and internationally, it is quite clear that it is precisely this concrete action that is lacking.

Summit after summit, the great and the less great who are supposed to be governing us parade their inflated egos and wallow in their own pompous words, whilst the main conclusion of each summit is that it will meet again.

What is more, this so-called global governance that the G20 is supposed to embody has absolutely no basis in international law and operates outside the United Nations system. The G20 is self-proclaimed; it operates without written rules and is a club of rich nations which have surrounded themselves with a few so-called emerging countries, including such exemplary democracies as Saudi Arabia.

Earlier, Martin Schulz quoted an extract from one of these hollow declarations by the G20. We could do the same with the statements published after our European summits. Endless promises and empty words, never followed up with action. To crown it all, Europe is subjected to Franco-German mini-summits where this strange couple Merkel and Sarkozy claim to be showing us the way.

Guy Verhofstadt spoke just now about casino games. I am tempted to add, ‘no more bets!’ The Commission and Parliament need to unite so as not to squander Europe’s chips and to preserve the Community method.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Regina Bastos (PPE).(PT) Mr President, I will begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Berès, on the report we are discussing today, as well as everyone else who worked on it. As part of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, I made a contribution on the issue of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), stressing their crucial role as a driving force for the European Union’s recovery, and its future growth and welfare.

In fact, there are more than 20 million SMEs in the European Union. Therefore, if each of those could create one job, that would mean an equivalent reduction in unemployment. This report sets out recommendations as economic strategies for emerging from the crisis: I will now highlight the main ones.

The first is the need to strengthen the social market economy, avoiding restrictions to competition and ensuring access to credit for SMEs. Then there is the awarding of fiscal incentives and even subsidies to SMEs in order to maintain and create jobs. Next is the creation of a new Small Business Act with a stronger social dimension. Then there is the establishment of a European network of senior consultants to spread their knowledge. Next is innovation as the most powerful engine for economic growth and, therefore, the essentiality of a fundamental link between industry and innovation. Then there is the establishment of new partnerships between industry and the academic world. Finally, there is the creation of an education system that meets the demands of the labour market, but also that of the need to create new qualifications for new jobs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). (FI) Mr President, Commission President Barroso said at the start that economic governance has made such very rapid progress that just two years ago, no one could have even forecast it. That is correct, and that is why it is always worth checking to see if the train is on the right tracks, when speed is not an end in itself. The Berès report conducts such an analysis, and it is excellent.

Now that Mrs Berès’ Committee is continuing its work, it may also be worth listening to the economic policy dissidents: for example, the Nobel prize winner, Paul Krugman. He claims that finance ministers are witch doctors who are sacrificing jobs at the altar. We should listen to these people if we want to move away from an imaginary economy to a real one, and then we also need indicators of the real economy, which are employment and poverty.

I was disappointed with Mr Schmidt’s suggestion that capital transfer tax could not be tried out and introduced across Europe. That is a big disappointment, especially as his conclusion was ‘more Europe’.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE).(BG) In the report from the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis we call, above all, for a European response, strong political and intellectual leadership with a European dimension, far-reaching integration and completion of the single European market for the benefit of European citizens.

We reached a compromise of paramount importance on key issues such as the Stability and Growth Pact, its penalty mechanisms, the path of structural reforms, budgetary consolidation and the European Union’s strategic investments. The priority actions of particular importance include those relating to the cohesion policy and small and medium-sized enterprises.

The cohesion policy must be one of the basic pillars of our economic policy. It will support the development of energy efficiency and trans-European networks which, in turn, will help revitalise the European economy and promote its sustainable growth. Small and medium-sized enterprises are, for their part, vitally important to our future development, growth and prosperity. A new definition must be coined for small and medium-sized enterprises which will also provide opportunities both for a more targeted policy supporting entrepreneurship and for proper action to be taken to reduce the administrative burden and red tape.

I sincerely hope that our proposals and recommendations will be reflected in concrete actions taken by the European Commission and mainly by Member States because we have no time to lose. We owe our citizens a suitable, rapid response so that we can emerge from the crisis more quickly and strongly.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivaylo Kalfin (S&D).(BG) The economic recession hit Member States with varying degrees of severity. However, the difference does not extend beyond the borders of the euro area, which might be assumed to be the case from an economic perspective. Unfortunately, the single currency has not resulted in economic alignment so far. In fact, precisely the reverse has happened. There are currently far more differences between the countries in the euro area than there were when the euro was introduced. This is extremely dangerous.

The Stability and Growth Pact indicators are clearly not accurate and do not work. This is why automatically imposing sanctions will not, in itself, yield positive results. This will have even less of an impact on all 27 European Union Member States. Even the opposite might happen, with the economic stereotypes which are ends in themselves creating new problems.

The solution is clear. Member States’ economies must converge as far as possible so that the same measures can be used to achieve the same results everywhere. This means more EU-wide policy, more instruments for European institutions, a higher budget and greater budgetary independence for the European Union, including through increasing the proportion of its own revenue.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frank Engel (PPE) . – (FR) Mr President, the crisis is far from over and the unrest in countries such as France is a witness to this. In Europe, I think the crisis has become one of integration. A perfect example, once again, is the ‘Deauville deal’, which undermines the Community method and is a reflection of the delusions of grandeur still had by some Member States. At the end of the day, however, which of us is still great?

In 2050, I understand that Europe will still account for 6-7% of the world’s population, and its economic power will be crumbling. Will continuing to compete with each other in this way help us to take up the challenges of international competition, or will it be by allowing ourselves to be governed by the Community method and acting together that we will be able to meet these challenges? Europe will need resources in order to do this: new and innovative resources. The debate on the future financial perspective is a good opportunity to discuss these resources and try to identify them: in terms of research and development, and in terms of the external action service also.

What is the point of creating a 28th European diplomatic corps if it is just added to the existing bodies without thinning these out? We should do this to allow Member States some slack so that they can consolidate and we should give Europe the resources it needs so that it can finally conduct policies that mean something to our citizens. This is what they want from us.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Burkhard Balz (PPE).(DE) Mr President, without wishing to appear presumptuous, listening to the debate here this morning, I think we can conclude that some amount of work has been done in recent months. The Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis has also completed a great deal of work in the past year. That is apparent from the 1 600 amendments to the original draft report that have been tabled. The Committee has now been extended by a further year. In my view, this is quite correct. The crisis is far from at an end. Ireland has only just escaped bankruptcy, the state budget in Greece is certainly not yet back in good shape and the overall situation gives no reason to sound the all clear. The financial and economic reforms must therefore continue and it is too early yet to bring to a close the debate on the causes of the crisis and the conclusions that must be drawn.

It would therefore be incorrect to declare the work of the Crisis Committee more or less done and to end its mandate. Instead, we must carry out further work based on what has been achieved to date. That is why I feel that the interim report that has been tabled is acceptable to all. This is also demonstrated by the broad approval it has enjoyed in the Crisis Committee. Certainly, the text could have been worded somewhat more concisely and succinctly at some points, but we should see the report for what it is – an interim answer.

What is much more important than the wording of individual passages is that in the second half of the Committee’s work, we build on the preliminary work that we have done. We need to consider how and where the discussions of the Crisis Committee can be supported in the forthcoming debates by the legislative committees.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Antonio Cancian (PPE). (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I listened to the various speeches this morning very carefully but I believe we could do with shedding a little more light to distinguish between instruments, that I incidentally consider to be well-defined and aligned, and strategy and our internal unity as the European Union.

As far as instruments are concerned, I believe that decisive progress has been made and that we are therefore going in the right direction. What I cannot understand is the strategy. In other words: are we all following the same approach? We have always spoken about stability but now, the time has come, in fact, it is overdue, to speak of growth. I am fully in agreement when we speak of stability and sacrifices but if we do not aim for growth at the same time by creating employment – the crucial topic during this period – I believe that we will not have done a good job.

President Barroso came here not long ago to give a State of the Union address, and I think we should remind him of this, clearly stating the Union’s strategy with regard to the financial market. This morning, I have not heard anyone talk about this strategy.

Allow me also to say that it would be an unpardonable error to seek to camouflage the obvious anarchy between Member States behind the concept of subsidiarity, which is referred to all too often and usually inappropriately.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE).(LV) Mr President, Commissioner, members of the Council, in the last two years, very many people in the European Union have suffered, suffered directly as a result of the crisis. No small number of people in my own country, Latvia, have also suffered. A 20% reduction in economic turnover, and an equally steep increase in unemployment. My countrymen and women understood that in these extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary solutions had to be adopted. What have these solutions been? In order to restore our public finances, the people of my country, Latvians, have patiently suffered a reduction in salaries of more than 30%, coupled with tax increases. As a result, stability in our finances has been brought about in Latvia. So why my indignation? I am indignant when I read today that Germany and France, far from wishing to strengthen financial supervision in the European Union, wish, in fact, to weaken it. Would this then mean that my countrymen’s and women’s work would have been in vain? Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot allow such a situation, in which some large Member States wish to continue to live irresponsibly, to prevail. We must strengthen the Commission’s proposal, so that Europe can have strong financial supervision. Thank you for your attention.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, I think we should be clear about one thing, namely, that the global economic crisis is mainly focused on the US and European economies. There are high levels of growth in other parts of the world, but not in Europe and not in the US. More than anything else, this is rooted in overspending and lack of growth. I think that is one of the most important challenges.

We need to kick-start growth but, in doing so, we need to have stability in public finances. That is why I find it worrying – adding to what has already been said by previous speakers – that some European leaders are now talking about more lax and flexible rules regarding the Stability Pact, and opting for a change to the treaty. I do not think that what Europe needs is a decade of discussions about treaty changes. That is more of a policy for disintegration than integration and competitiveness.

We need to strengthen the Stability Pact with as many automatic sanctions as possible. We need to ensure that budget deficits are reduced, in confidence and in good order, at the same time as we are reforming in order to open ourselves up for more economic growth – opening up European borders and opening up for more competition. That is the way ahead and what we should stand up for in the G20. That is also the aim for the European agenda.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Theodoros Skylakakis (PPE).(EL) Mr President, the Berès report on the economic crisis, which is the subject of one of our debates today, notes in paragraph 32 that some Member States, obviously implying my country, Greece, do not currently have opportunities to create real recovery plans and that all the options until the year 2012 are limited to public expenditure cuts, tax increases and debt reduction. This position is of huge significance to Greece, and others, because there are forces within the country which are arguing the very opposite.

I personally would like to support this position in the Berès report, as countries which have a huge deficit and debt and, in particular, countries which no longer have access to the international capital market, must reduce their deficits before recovery can take hold. There is no other way. Without deficit reduction, there can be no access to international markets. Without access to international markets, there can be no recovery. It is a bitter pill to swallow, especially for the citizens, but we must have the courage to tell the citizens the truth.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, one minute it shall be. There were two statements made here this morning that I want to focus on. One by Danuta Hübner when she says that Europe does not exist in a vacuum, and the second by Mr Chastel who said Europe cannot grant all concessions alone.

I think it is time for the European Union to get tough, particularly with the G20 countries and the United Nations. We are in a position where we have 11% unemployment, 20% youth unemployment, massive public debt and millions in poverty, and unless the other countries around the world are prepared to share the burden, then we should say we are not going to allow our countries to become uncompetitive and increase poverty within the European Union.

Secondly, I want to say that, within Europe, we not only need to speak with one voice but also act as one body; the self-appointed board of governors which was mentioned here this morning cannot be allowed to continue. They have an opportunity to make their case to the Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). (PL) I would like to begin by expressing my satisfaction with the report on improving the economic governance and stability framework of the Union, and my gratitude for the outstanding work the rapporteur, Mr Feio, has put in. I am convinced that new initiatives, such as the financial supervision package and the European Semester, will allow us to avoid future crises, or at least dampen their impact.

However, I believe that the key issue is persisting with measures aimed at improved coordination and increased transparency of political strategies concerning the economies of the Member States. I would like to underline the importance of creating a good framework for budgetary cooperation at EU and Member State level, including the alignment of spending categories of the national budgets with those of the EU budget. This would make it possible to carry out insightful and systematic analyses of European public expenditure.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D).(FR) Mr President, to begin with, I would just like to say a few words about the Franco-German proposals. I think our reaction should ultimately be a positive one. We are often saying that since 2007, our Franco-German engine has been missing. At the same time, it is regrettable that there is an element of enslavement for France in these Franco-German proposals, given that they were devised to help prevent France from getting into difficulties in view of its poor financial and economic health.

It is also important to point out that, unlike the Berès report, these proposals make no positive suggestions that would actually allow us to have genuine economic governance in the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). (SK) Crisis is a very complex phenomenon; so allow me just a few comments since there is little time.

Firstly, too great an emphasis is placed on the criterion of public debt within national economies when other indicators are equally important. At the same time, a certain amount of public debt is inevitable in times of crisis, inasmuch as the governments must compensate for deficits in the private sector with economic activity in the public sector, or more precisely, by public stimuli for the private sector which may slow down growth in unemployment. This is because, ladies and gentlemen, in all these numbers, we are forgetting about the people who did not cause the crisis; we are forgetting about unemployment and the worsening social situation. I would also like to emphasise the fact that without Europe-wide coordination on economic policies and finance sector regulation, the way out of the crisis will be very difficult.

In conclusion, I have one final appeal or request. Commissioner. For several years, I have been calling for real action to be taken as regards the situation concerning tax havens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – Mr President, I propose that in future, we have one representative for economic issues. We should have a high representative for economic affairs in the same way as we have a High Representative for Foreign Affairs. In future, we could merge Mr Rehn’s and Mr Barnier’s posts.

On another issue, it is a shame that we cannot speak with one voice at the G20 meetings. The European Union is helping France, Sarkozy and the chair of the G20. In future, the European Union should have one post, one person at this meeting, and we should speak with one voice.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, yesterday evening, I was really suffering with Mr Rehn during the press conference when I saw how he had to present this deal, which was not really based on his proposals alone. After what we learned from the supervisory package, I think we have seen how Parliament and the Commission can work together in order to get a good result. I think this is really what we have to do now.

When we look at the deficit and debt procedures, as well as your good proposals on macro-economic imbalances, it is really crucial, in order to have a good deal, for countries with both surpluses and deficits to bear their share in order to get the euro back on track. I can only say that a majority in this House is ready to support the proposals you are making.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL).(PT) Mr President, as the Franco-German directorate is no longer seated in this Chamber, I will direct my three questions on the recent frenzy of penalties to the Commission and Council.

The first is on the idea of deposits with interest: how on Earth do you rationalise adding one deficit to another deficit in order to combat the deficit?

The second question is on the possibility of suspending the Structural Funds, the only consequence of which will be jeopardising medium- and long-term growth, thus increasing the interest on the debt, thus increasing the short-term deficit.

That leaves me with question three: how about having penalties for stupidity and the sin of arrogance?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, we have been promised economic growth, but the competition that European countries face from the developing economies will lead to the destruction of the manufacturing bases and jobs of our countries.

We can only compete with them by driving down the living standards of our workers. We must reject globalism, protect our economies and stop building up the strength of our competitors.

We have been promised improved economic governance in Europe. However, the economies of Member States are very different and a single economic prescription will not suit 27 different countries. Each country must prescribe the form of governance that it needs.

The economic crisis started with the activities of the banks, but the response of governments has been to rush to their rescue. We need to control the credit-creating activities, i.e. the money-making activities, of the banks. The banks must serve our economies and not be allowed to follow their own agenda, and they must certainly not be our favoured beneficiaries.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). (HU) We have experienced the most serious social and economic crisis in the history of the European Union, the chief causes of which include global inequality, lax financial regulation and the permissive financial policy of the United States. I think that the European Union was a little late in responding to the consequences of the crisis. The first reactions of Member States were not in harmony with each other. In future, we will need appropriate economic management mechanisms in order to deal with times of crisis. For the sake of our security, we must ensure that the European Union can rely on its own strength. In my opinion, the work of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis is still necessary, since the crisis is not yet over and the financial markets have not yet stabilised. Member States must harmonise their budgetary policies and share these with each other. The internal market is one of the indispensable levers of growth, and hence the EU 2020 strategy must focus on long-term investments and employment. We need to strengthen the position of SMEs, since their essential work is the driving force behind research, innovation and growth.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D).(EL) Mr President, the European Union is indeed at a crossroads. The international economic crisis has limited growth and exacerbated unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. The rescue measures were positive, despite serious weaknesses. However, we clearly need more Community solidarity and coordination between national recovery plans.

The European Parliament wants more Europe from the Commission, less bureaucracy, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, more new jobs, more funds for financing projects in vital sectors and a stronger system for regulating, supervising and coordinating the economic, fiscal and social policies of the European Union.

I, too, support the establishment of a common Monetary Fund for the purpose of effective control of European economic governance. Finally, I am so proud of the Cypriot Nobel prize winner, Christoforos Pissalides, that I call on the European Parliament to invite him to present his views as to how unemployment and the challenges of our times should be addressed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE).(FR) Mr President, I would like to address the Commission and the Council, simply to highlight the three failings, as we see it, in the European governance proposals.

The first failing is that there is extremely strict discipline concerning deficits and debt and extremely loose discipline concerning investment, and I am thinking about Europe 2020. We really need equally strong discipline in both areas, as austerity on its own will not regenerate economic activity.

The second failing is that if we are so keen to exercise control over expenditure, we should also ensure that we are bringing in the necessary income. I have emphasised this many times before: we cannot have coordination on the budget if we do not have coordination on tax.

The third failing is what we see to be a democratic failing, and I find this particularly striking in the proposals by the task force. It appears that as far as the task force is concerned, Parliament does not exist, and I find this unacceptable.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Constance Le Grip (PPE).(FR) Mr President, I should like to focus my speech on the preparations for the forthcoming G20 summits. The previous speakers have said everything there is to say on European economic governance, the need to strengthen European economic governance, to strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact, and to involve the European Parliament and, of course, also the national parliaments more closely in the process.

I should like quickly to mention two challenges facing our nations and the members of the G20; challenges that must, in my opinion, be tackled during the course of the forthcoming G20 meetings.

Those are the currency war and commodity price volatility. As regards these two issues, which pose a genuine threat to global growth and which cause significant imbalances on our planet, I believe that the European Union must unite around common positions, so that it is able to speak with one voice at the forthcoming G20 summits, both the one in Seoul and also at those that follow, and in a more all-embracing manner on the world stage.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE).(RO) The effects of the crisis seem to be far from over at the moment. This is why I would like to remind you, in this context, of the important role played by the economic and social cohesion policy and, last but not least, of the absolute prerequisite which it represents.

This policy has become a key feature of the economic recovery package, providing added value and supporting efforts promoting modernisation and sustainable economic growth, thereby demonstrating European solidarity at the same time. I think that we require, first and foremost, major investments in every kind of infrastructure, be it transport, energy or telecommunications. We need significant capital investment from a number of funding sources, both public and private, as well as through public-private partnerships, which, I feel, are still not used to their full potential.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE).(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to congratulate our colleague, Mr Feio, on the quality of his report and the ambitious proposals that it contains. This also demonstrates that the European Parliament is playing a full part in a debate that is decisive for the future of Europe, and we can only be pleased that this is the case.

Furthermore, the Greek crisis has revealed the shortcomings that are undermining the economic governance of the European Union. On this point, I therefore take note of Mr Feio’s proposal to establish a permanent mechanism for financial stability. We must also deal with this problem at its source.

I believe that the solution for this also lies in strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact and particularly its sanctions. That is essential if we wish to achieve a lasting rehabilitation of national budgets, something that is not always popular. It is restrictive, but we have no choice.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). (LT) The financial, economic and social crisis has affected every citizen of Europe. However, the hard times have highlighted even more the fact that the various national economic recovery plans were poorly coordinated and not effective enough. Furthermore, certain Member States really did not have opportunities to create genuine national economic recovery plans, including measures to stimulate growth and employment, because they reduced public spending even more during the recession and increased taxes in order to reduce national debt. Unfortunately, in some Member States, this is being done at the expense of ordinary people. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the crisis highlighted very clearly the social inequality between different social groups. For instance, women are at much greater risk than men of finding themselves below the poverty line. Thus, the European Union must learn the lesson of this crisis and implement the initiatives it adopted in all fields by coordinating joint action with the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI).(DE) Mr President, scarcely have we half regulated the financial sharks of the stock market monopoly than we are faced with the problem of a global race to devalue currencies which, despite China’s slight accommodation today, has not yet been averted. Something that is anathema to us in Europe – namely, devaluation or intervention in the currency markets – is now a problem forced upon us by globalisation. The US wants to reduce public debt, the Japanese want to boost the economy and the Chinese want to increase exports. This soft currency policy conducted by other economic powers naturally harms Europe, as well as other countries, and therefore must, in my opinion, be an important topic of debate at the G20 summit.

After all, flooding of the world’s markets with cheap Chinese imports is easy if the currency is artificially undervalued. This kind of enduring intervention distorts the market; an extremely dangerous game which, in a worst case scenario, could bring the entire global economy to its knees.

Even if the prospects of success are doubtful, it is essential that plans for a financial transaction tax are broached at the summit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur. (FR) Mr President, I should like to thank Members who spoke for their contribution. I should like to reply to two or three of those speeches.

First, to Mr Zīle. I think that what he said is very important when we come to reform cohesion policy. We must make an assessment of this cohesion policy, to establish whether, over the course of the years that have elapsed since accession, the gamble that internal inequalities could be partly evened out by the application of these funds has proved to be correct, and to make an objective assessment so that we can learn lessons for the future.

Many Members – and I thank them – have spoken about the representation of the European Union and about world governance. This is entirely a question of strategy for our European Union, again at a time when currency wars seem on the verge of breaking out. We need to speak with one European voice, both internally and externally. Let us use our internal strength to be strong and united in our representations to the outside world.

Next, to echo what my colleague, Robert Goebbels, said, it is true that the G20 is not the solution we ultimately aspire to for world governance, where everyone has his or her place and where there is room for the arbitration authorities that we need. This harks back to the speech made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations yesterday, to the effect that we must follow our future course within the United Nations, through a root-and-branch reform of that institution and its governance.

Finally, Mr President, to round off this debate, I should like to return to the topic of public investment, and come back to what my fellow Member, Mr Lamberts, was saying. In our report, we call for an annual review by the Commission of public and private investment needs and for the introduction of performance indicators that will actually enable us to have a long-term investment strategy for the benefit of jobs, and hence, for the benefit of European citizens. This strategy would be founded on a sustainable vision and the concept of solidarity, which is at the heart of the European Union.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diogo Feio, rapporteur.(PT) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking all the Members who have been contributing, even those yet to speak before the end of the debate. It is time to move from words to actions. From now on, following this vote, which I hope will be in favour, Parliament will have its own position on the subject of economic governance. This position will advocate the spirit of the Union: greater transparency and more publicity. It will advocate economic governance as a goal for the growth of all 27 Member States of the European Union and better coordination between them, with greater economic and monetary union.

In short, it will advocate a Europe of greater solidarity, preparation and effectiveness; a Europe for all, with different voices but singing from the same hymn sheet; a Europe with Council, Commission and Parliament positions. The Europe of economic governance is not the Europe of two-party summits: it is the Europe of institutional voices, of the European Parliament and of the public having a voice.

What stands out is the crucial role that this House and the national parliaments must have in this area. They must have their own vision on the necessary macro-economic supervision of Member States, they must have their own voice regarding how the Europe 2020 strategy is implemented, and they must pay close attention to the issue of reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact. Parliament has a series of different proposals in relation to the other institutions.

Therefore, we have reached – Mr President, I will stop here – the time to debate the issues on the table in a strong and unified way.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me start by thanking rapporteurs Berès and Feio and the honourable Members for this very substantial and substantive debate.

I do appreciate that the volume of the contributions corresponds to the importance of the issues discussed. I want to make a few comments, responses and remarks on the debate and reports, and I will begin with the international scene.

In the world economy, the pre-crisis imbalances are re-emerging, which threatens a sustainable recovery and job creation. It is therefore essential that the G20, first the ministerial meeting this week, and then the summit in two weeks, is able to pursue effective international policy coordination to rebalance global growth.

All countries must play their part in rebalancing: surplus countries by reinforcing domestic demand, and deficit countries by focusing on export growth. This is a matter of millions of jobs in the world economy and in the European Union.

The European Union is working for a strong and stable international financial system in which exchange rates should reflect economic fundamentals. This is an essential element of the G20 goal of rebalancing global growth for the sake of sustainable recovery and job creation.

For the same reasons, it is essential for the EU to reform and reinforce its own economic governance. The reports prepared by Mrs Berès and Mr Feio are important contributions to this effect, and the Commission’s legislative proposals, once adopted, will make a quantum leap towards a true and effectively functioning economic and monetary union.

There were some questions about the Commission’s views on levies and taxes on financial institutions. I discussed this with President Barroso and we thought it would be useful to clarify our position in this regard because there were some confusing statements made concerning this issue.

We are in the midst of a fundamental reform of our own financial system and we need to keep up the momentum at the G20 as well. The Commission has put forward a proposal, first of all, on a stability fee or a bank levy so that the private sector, the banking and financial sector, would and will participate towards the costs caused by the crisis and towards the resolution of future crises.

This is on the table and, in some Member States, this is being implemented.

Secondly, the Commission wants the financial sector to play a part in covering the costs of the crisis and that is why the EU – and the Commission – are committed to pushing for a financial transaction tax at global level.

Thirdly, the Commission has, in the meantime, tabled as one option for own resources in the EU budget a proposal that the financial sector should make an equitable contribution at EU level, such as a financial activities tax.

This is our view. We have proposed a bank levy or stability fee; we have raised the possibility of a financial activities tax as a source for own resources; and thirdly, we are committed to pushing for a financial transaction tax at the global level.

In the report by Mr Feio, there is a proposal on establishing a European monetary fund. The Commission is in favour of establishing a permanent mechanism for crisis prevention and crisis resolution which must have two sides, two elements, two dimensions. There needs to be an accent on crisis prevention as well as on crisis resolution, because it is better to be safe than sorry.

As regards crisis resolution, we have clearly stated already in May that a robust framework for crisis management for the euro area is necessary, and the Commission intends to make proposals for a permanent crisis resolution mechanism in due time.

A few general principles have emerged, especially that crisis prevention and resolution must go hand in hand and that any financial assistance must be subject to strict conditionality.

Such a permanent mechanism must minimise moral hazard and provide incentives for the Member States to pursue a responsible fiscal policy and incentives for investors to pursue responsible lending practices.

Mr Schmidt proposed an amendment concerning voluntary participation of non-euro area Member States in the sanctions regime. You know that at the first stage, we are proposing a regime for the euro area Member States and, at the second stage, for all 27 Member States. The Commission can accept and endorse this amendment, which aims at involving the non-euro area Member States in the sanctions regime on a voluntary basis.

We have made satisfactory progress in the context of the task force and achieved convergence towards the Commission’s initiatives to reinforce economic governance, notably focusing on prevention and pre-emptive action, putting an emphasis on debt sustainability, agreeing a method to address macro-economic imbalances and establish an effective enforcement mechanism.

Even though there has been a convergence of views towards the Commission’s proposals in the task force, the normal legislative process is only just starting. So far, we have only seen the beginning. We are perhaps at the end of the beginning, but now the real normal legislative process is just starting, and the European Parliament, as the colegislator, has indeed the crucial and decisive role.

We want to work together with you, and we call on the Council and Parliament to deliver the legislative decisions by the summer of next year so that we can have the new system of economic governance in force by next summer, 2011, when we have the next major round of assessment of effective action.

This is really a matter of credibility for the European Union in terms of reinforcing economic governance, and I fully agree with you that it is indeed the Community method that makes the European Union work and deliver.

I listened to you very carefully on this. I appreciate your firm commitment to the Community method, starting with the speeches by Mr Daul, Mr Schulz, Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Cohn-Bendit, although I cannot stretch to such oratory elegance as the ‘Deauville deal’ or the ‘casino compromise’.

Anyway, let us demonstrate together once again that the Community method can deliver, and now it must deliver, the new system of economic governance, and let us thus complement the strong monetary union by a strong and effective economic union to make a real and complete economic and monetary union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Mr President, I shall be brief and begin by thanking the two rapporteurs, Mrs Berès and Mr Feio, on behalf of the Council. They embody Parliament’s involvement in a subject area as important as this. I should also like to say that I urge you to analyse without delay initiatives in relation to economic governance – Commission initiatives that should enable us to implement European economic governance – and particularly in relation to the principle of codecision.

I consider the Council to be at Parliament’s disposal so that real progress can be made on these proposals.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, Wednesday, 20 October 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), in writing. (IT) I would like to express my appreciation for the important contribution that this work will make in identifying a set of measures to be taken to overcome the current crisis and prevent the possibility of further crises.

After the limits of a system of self-regulation were highlighted to a worrying degree by the recent financial crisis, it is becoming increasingly necessary for us to choose a global control system. The current phase of economic and financial instability, the most severe for decades, has led to an employment and social crisis on such a scale that decisive action is required to eliminate its negative repercussions and prioritise the opportunities that open up in a globalised economy.

The crisis in recent years has sorely tried most of the advanced economies. Recovery is still slow for some countries even today, and the ongoing fragility of financial markets makes global coordination and the choice of appropriate economic and industrial strategies key aspects in combating the financial crisis. Global supervision should, in fact, promote the stabilisation of solid financial markets and sustain the current recovery, guaranteeing strong growth in demand and employment levels.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing.(RO) The current economic crisis proves that the economic governance model currently used in the EU has not worked sufficiently well, thereby failing to achieve full convergence between Member States. This situation requires an improvement in the economic framework and the development of ambitious monitoring instruments which are more clearly defined and better targeted. It is vital for Member States to abide by the regulations and decisions stipulated at European level, especially those relating to the Stability and Growth Pact. With this in mind, I wish to welcome the initiative tabled by Mr Feio, intended to encourage such actions as devising more controls and monitoring more closely trends in public debt and revenue.

I would like to end by adding that the Romanian Government recently adopted its fiscal budgetary strategy for 2011-2013, which includes the measures required to restore the budget deficit to under 3% and maintain debt below the 60% mark. This reform process will create the conditions required for economic recovery.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dominique Baudis (PPE), in writing.(FR) The financial, economic and social crisis has now been raging for two years. It has resulted in an unemployment rate of more than 10% in the EU and in the risk of a new recession. This is a crisis that we are unable to bring under control.

The next G20 summit will take place on 11 and 12 November in Seoul, under the Presidency of France. Establishing the G20 was the brainchild of President Sarkozy, who believes that nowadays, the global economy is no longer regulated by the 8, but by all the major developing countries, too. This framework allows for the development of an ambition grounded in a long-term vision. This crisis demands that we have genuine economic governance, rules restricting social dumping in developing countries, financial regulation, and a reform of the international monetary system. To achieve this, Europe must know how to speak with one strong and determined voice.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. (NL) Mr President, one of the most eye-catching features in these recommendations is the tax on financial transactions. Such a measure will enable us to kill several birds with one stone: it is an effective instrument against speculation and the revenue will enable us to address government deficits and the funding for pressing social projects (the environment, development aid, infrastructure projects, etc.). Parliament has now made it clear that we in Europe must persist with this action, even though the rest of the world may, for the time being, be holding back because they have got cold feet. The next step is the European Commission carrying out a feasibility study. What we have decided on today is a specific intervention and an answer to the financial crisis. It also sends out a clear signal to European citizens that we have learned from all the things that have gone wrong over the past few years and that we are tackling the crisis in order to make Europe stronger, in the interests of European citizens, in particular.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing.(RO) The regulatory structures which existed prior to the economic and monetary crisis in the European Union and United States showed a lack of consistency and were overwhelmingly based on disparate macro-economic analyses. Due to the lack of any global consistency in these regulatory structures, countries responded off their own bat. They failed to take into account that, in a globalised world, monetary policies adopted nationally have a significant impact on other economies. The creation of the European Systemic Risk Board and European Financial Supervisory Authorities strengthens financial supervision within the EU. However, there are still insufficient regulations available at international level for managing crises in the finance sector. The EU must stress at the G20 meeting in November the importance of having a supervisory and regulatory system whose actions will include making it compulsory to register financial transactions and instruments. We have a responsibility to the economy and we must first of all be strong at European Union level to enable us to lead the way globally.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing.(PT) Once and for all, the EU and its leaders will have to recognise that the severe crisis we are experiencing did not come from the US! It is a systemic crisis resulting from capitalism in its current phase of development – neoliberalism. In view of this, the crisis in the EU comes from the very foundations of the EU itself, which has neoliberalism as one of its main tenets. Faced with the disastrous results of its policies, the powers that have essentially determined the direction of the EU are showing signs of a worrying arrogance and aggressiveness, seeking to impose unacceptable setbacks on progress, particularly for workers and people from the most vulnerable countries, through an intolerable attack on their sovereignty. This is the meaning of the joint declaration that Germany and France decided to make in Deauville before the meeting of the G20 and the European Council. They seem to be ignoring the fact that forging ahead on the path that brought us here can only lead to disgrace. This is the message that is echoing across Europe in the protests of workers and the public. It is time for them to listen! The real response to the crisis lies in giving value to work and in a fairer distribution of income, namely through taxation, thus benefiting work as opposed to capital.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – We are in the middle of a crisis, which has, to a large degree, damaged the financial, economic and social sectors and has had a negative impact on the integration process of the internal market. The single market might be the necessary catalyst to initiate a real European economic and financial recovery from the crisis and rebuild much needed confidence among the citizens. The crisis, in itself, may serve as a window of opportunity to implement measures which will stimulate economic growth, competitiveness and social progress in Europe by putting citizens at the heart of the European economy. I support the rapporteur’s commitment to give clear indications for a way out of the crisis: taking concrete measures and initiatives focusing on the importance of the internal market, employment and the role of SMEs. Moreover, a new holistic and inclusive approach has to be adopted whereby citizens’ goals, particularly those related to economic, social, health and environmental concerns of citizens, are fully integrated into the economy. We need a new paradigm of political thinking, making the European citizen the main political variable in the determination and formulation of Union legislation and policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing.(RO) The economic recovery is under way in Europe. However, the climate remains uncertain. Global economic recovery is still fragile, with the pace of the process varying from country to country. The top priority is still to create a stable basis which will systematically promote sustained, balanced economic growth. To this end, we must create a system which will support simultaneously the response to the crisis, prevention and medium- and long-term cooperation. The European Union must be a strong partner, capable of not only applying its experience in economic and political integration, but of also making a significant contribution to global economic governance. We need to devise credible and viable economic policies in the medium term and coordinate a macro-economic policy which will be based on a framework for sustained, balanced growth, drawn up by the G20. A strategy for the EU’s economic policies must include the following: an action plan on using the structural reforms to reinforce economic growth and employment, consolidated fiscal reform and increasing economic governance of the EU and euro area. A G20 development agenda must be adopted, with a multiannual action plan, which will promote economic growth and flexibility for developing countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing.(LV) In the situation that has developed, the major and most important thing is to find a diagnosis and the causes that led us to the crisis. People in various EU states have experienced the fall-out from the crisis in different ways. It is essential to pinpoint the mistakes, malpractice and unprofessional conduct of national governments in order to prevent the situation their people find themselves in from getting worse in the future. Latvia’s government has, for example, already borrowed an amount exceeding twice its annual budget from international financial institutions. With each passing day, the Latvian Government adopts measures relating to the tax system and fiscal policy in general that disadvantage the people and are leading to business liquidations and the emigration of Latvian entrepreneurs. The Latvian Government is constantly trying to amend the pensions legislation so as to reduce payments to pensioners. This is leading to a social explosion and comprehensive injustice. We have to send a strong signal to national governments that reducing social payments and pensions in a time of crisis is a crime against the population. I am convinced that the unprotected and needy strata of society must not bear the responsibility for the mistakes of governments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. (PL) I would like to thank Mr Feio for his work on the draft report. It seems to me that we are returning to business as usual rather too quickly as far as the threats facing Europe are concerned. We are not giving proper attention to the warning signals from the financial markets, or from people such as President Trichet, who indeed called the Commission proposal a good but inadequate step towards strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact. Our role today, as the European Parliament, is to defend the European Commission’s proposals against the governments of the Member States which have not, apparently, learned any lessons from the crisis.

If the European Council had properly adhered to the provisions of the pact, the scale of the European crisis in public finances would have been much smaller. If, today, we allow governments and, in particular, the governments of Germany and France, to water down the Commission’s proposals, the crisis will deepen, and we will have to wonder whether the entire common currency project has any point in its current form, and whether we will inadvertently prove that the euro was a failed experiment. Parliament faces a major task. We must defend the euro, and oppose any short-term political aims. We must force all Member States to conduct responsible budgetary policies, painful though it may be. Thank you for your attention.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) The word ‘crisis’ comes from the Greek word Krino that literally means ‘to decide’, ‘to choose’. It therefore indicates a moment that separates one stage from another. We must look beyond and consider the past in order to implement the structural changes that will make our small and medium-sized enterprises more competitive and able to face up to the greater pressure that will come from a globalised environment.

In doing this, we must also guarantee employment for a good proportion of the more vulnerable part of our workforce and their families. The European Union needs new economic governance that will ensure the stability and rigour of national public finances. A financial and economic crisis such as the one we are currently experiencing must never happen again. Europe’s new economic governance must take into account not only the level of government debt, but also its sustainability in the medium to long term. Private debt and the sustainability of social security systems are just as important as government debt as such for the stability of public finances. Indeed, countries that controlled government debt have plunged into a deep crisis precisely because of the serious indebtedness of families and companies, while countries with high government debt have come through well.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Seeber (PPE), in writing.(DE) The economic and financial crisis has revealed all too clearly the shortcomings and weaknesses of the existing instruments and methods for coordinating economic and currency policy. In the past, some Member States, particularly France and Germany, were too hesitant at introducing stricter regulation. Overcoming the economic crisis is one of the greatest challenges we have faced and one to which there can only be a European answer, not a national answer. This also applies to sanction mechanisms, which are still being blocked by some Member States. Under the new rules of the internal financial market, however, it is high time that the currency union were strengthened and, at the same time, public debt, in particular, reduced in order to secure the future of the European economic area. The national parliaments, in particular, need to be more intensively involved in this process in order to Europeanise the debate in the Member States. Only then can a European answer be found with which to overcome the crisis and achieve a robust, strong economic union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D), in writing.(DE) Since the financial crisis of 2008, the G20 Heads of State or Government have been meeting regularly every six months to discuss economic and financial issues and to bolster cooperation in order to achieve stable and sustainable growth for the world economy for the benefit of all. However, I believe that, in order to find a sustainable and appropriate response to the financial, economic or social problems of the crisis, we need a broader-based approach and a more balanced perspective on these problems. The Finance Ministers of the Member States are not in a position to evaluate the situation on the labour market and to come up with answers to the pressing labour and social policy issues that give due consideration to the needs of workers or the people in general. I therefore call for regular meetings of the Ministers for Employment and Social Affairs in the G20. Moreover, I call on the EU and those Member States that are also members of the G20 to develop this idea further and to cooperate more closely with one another in the field of employment and social policy and to aim for a more balanced approach at summit level. We cannot allow competition to undermine the protection of workers’ rights. We need to enforce these rights, not only for the citizens of the European Union, but also for the citizens of other countries around the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The EU, with its 500 million citizens, accounting for 7% of the world’s population, produces 30% of the global GDP. The latest statistics show that the EU posted a trade deficit of EUR 17.3 billion in August 2010. During the first half of this year, the EU recorded the highest increases in exports with Brazil (+57%), China (+41%) and Turkey (+38%), while the highest increases in imports were with Russia (+43%), China and India (both +25%).

In order to achieve the EU 2020 strategy objectives, the EU should reduce its energy dependency on its traditional suppliers. During the first half of this year, the EU-27’s trade deficit in the energy sector rose by EUR 34.3 billion compared with the same period last year. Furthermore, the European Union needs an eco-efficient industrial policy which will guarantee the link between innovative capacity and the EU’s production units, thereby helping create jobs across the whole EU and maintain its global competitiveness.

This is why the European Council should include on its agenda, during its meeting on 28 and 29 October, future industrial policy and EU energy security, as well as proposals on how to reduce the impact of climate and demographic change.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). (PL) Yesterday, in Łódź, Poland, an employee of a European Parliament constituency office was murdered at work. He was my assistant, Marek Rosiak. What the murderer said while he committed the crime left no doubt that his motive was hatred for the Law and Justice Party, Poland’s main opposition party. The hate campaign waged against this party for some time now has culminated in tragedy. Apart from the crime itself, the European Parliament must also condemn hatred and violence, which have no place in European politics and European democracy. Mr President, I ask you to hold a minute’s silence in memory of Marek Rosiak, a man who died while working for the European Parliament.

 
  
 

(The House rose and observed a minute’s silence)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). (NL) Mr President, we have just shown how dignified we, as a Parliament, can be. However, on entering the Chamber just now, I was, first, harassed by people who think that we ought to sign certain resolutions and, then, surrounded by balloons promoting certain amendments. Mr President, I find such behaviour detrimental to the dignity of this Parliament and I would ask that you think twice about this and look into how we can keep the corridors clear.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Mr President, may I ask you to make a ruling please? We see that balloons are displayed in the Chamber. Can you make a ruling on whether that is permissible or not. If it is not, may they be removed? If it is, my colleagues and I have some very tasteful UKIP balloons in purple and yellow which we would like to bring along next time.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Dear colleagues, we will vote today on this very important issue. This issue is connected with your demonstration here. I ask you to leave this demonstration until the vote, which will be in about 40 minutes’ time. I ask you to do that. It is a small gesture for all of us. Generally speaking, I support you, but please do not demonstrate in the Chamber.

(Applause)

 

4. Voting time
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

 

4.1. Revision of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission (A7-0279/2010, Paulo Rangel) (vote)

4.2. Adaptation of Parliament's Rules of Procedure to the revised framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission (A7-0278/2010, Paulo Rangel) (vote)
MPphoto
 

  President. – I would like to mention that this has been the result of our lengthy negotiations with the European Commission. I would like, above all, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Rangel, and also Mr Lehne, who negotiated on our behalf with the European Commission. Mr Swoboda, Mrs Wallis, Mrs Harms, Mrs Roth-Berendt and Mr Rangel also took part in the work, and I would like to thank them very much for the outcome of the negotiations. My thanks also go to President Barroso and to Vice-President Šefčovič. We were all very frank with one another. The result has been very good, so I congratulate both sides. I am looking forward to good collaboration in the future.

 

4.3. Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities as regards the European External Action Service (A7-0263/2010, Ingeborg Gräßle) (vote)

4.4. Amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Communities (A7-0288/2010, Bernhard Rapkay) (vote)

4.5. Draft amending budget No 6/2010: Section II - European Council and Council; Section III - Commission; Section X - European External Action Service (A7-0283/2010, Roberto Gualtieri) (vote)
MPphoto
 

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, we have now completed the legislative process on the European External Action Service. Above all, I would like to thank the many people who are now with us in the Chamber, the MEPs, for their exceptionally hard and challenging work. The chairs of several committees of the European Parliament played a leading role in this work. I would like to thank the chairs for their sound work, but would like to extend my thanks, in particular, to a number of people who represented this House both as negotiators and as rapporteurs, and whose names I would like to mention here. Their names are: Elmar Brok, Guy Verhofstadt, Roberto Gualtieri, Ingeborg Gräßle, Crescenzio Rivellini and Bernhard Rapkay, as well as the MEPs who worked on the budget, László Surján and Sidonia Jędrzejewska.

I have named them, in particular, because they put an enormous amount of work into ensuring that we obtained a good agreement on the European External Action Service. We believe that this agreement will be useful to the European Union. I would like to congratulate everybody but, in particular, let us also congratulate Lady Ashton and those who negotiated alongside her, and congratulate the Council on the result. Also among us is Ambassador Christoffersen, who also took part in the negotiations. Applause, please.

(Applause)

 
  
 

I have some flowers for Lady Ashton, but she is not present. As usual, it is necessary to wait for the ladies! I did not expect that but we must be prepared for that – we as men have to be prepared for everything!

(Applause)

 

5. Formal sitting - Mid-term address by Jerzy Buzek, President of Parliament
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – Colleagues, I have a short speech, as I promised you one year ago.

We are at the mid-way point of my Presidency. At the very beginning, I promised that I would inform you of my activities.

As the President of the European Parliament, I represent all of you. Wherever I go, whatever I do, I have always felt the honour and responsibility of acting on behalf of this prestigious Chamber.

But this speech is not about me: this speech is about you and about your activity. It is about all of us, what we have achieved together at the European Parliament in the last 15 months, and what is ahead of us.

 
  
 

Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, the crisis. What our citizens expect from us politicians, above all, is to overcome the crisis: to fight poverty and social exclusion, and especially so this year. The crisis did not start in Europe, but it is here, in Europe, that it has to be overcome. This House has demanded ambitious reforms from the European Commission and the Council. Above all, however, we have adopted key financial reforms such as the Financial Supervision Package, regulations limiting bankers’ bonuses and concerning requirements for the capital held by the banks. In doing so, we have laid the foundations of the walls which will protect our citizens from future crises.

We must do more, however: we need to integrate our European markets better, because that is what will guarantee economic growth and lower prices. Professor Monti’s report must become law. It is worth noting that important parts of the report came from your initiatives – the initiatives of Members of the European Parliament and our committees.

When I represented this House before the European Council, I said that we must be honest with people about the need to tighten our belts in this difficult time, the need to work longer and retire later. That is the only way we will be able to maintain Europe’s prosperity. It is a long-term programme of structural reforms, which cannot be achieved from one day to the next. This will help us to implement the Europe 2020 strategy and to secure competitiveness and jobs, which are the most important things for our citizens. Recovering from the crisis and proceeding to long-term development are our most urgent tasks.

Second, solidarity. The crisis has shown how important European solidarity is. I have been to the places which have been particularly hard hit – Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Greece. I gave messages of solidarity, but also stressed that there is no solidarity without responsibility. We have managed to head off the crisis to a large extent. We have saved the patient, but now we have to make sure he can leave hospital on his own two feet. What we need, therefore, as I said earlier, is a long-term strategy for getting out of the crisis. We also need proper economic management. We need structural, social and educational change. At times of crisis, we have to show realism, but also sensitivity.

Third, energy policy and climate change. Energy is a major commodity in the economy. Energy and climate protection are some of our main priorities, and key political drivers for other economic initiatives. Energy security, coupled with environmental protection and electricity that is as cheap as possible, has become the main challenge of the 21st century, as we are all well aware. That is why, on 5 May 2010, together with Jacques Delors, we announced the Declaration on the creation of a European Energy Community. We would like that name, ‘European Energy Community’, to become a hallmark of all EU enterprises operating in this field. I repeat: the Commission, Parliament and the Council have already done a lot of work in this area, and work is ongoing on these topical issues, but it is also important to give an additional stimulus and provide these activities with an ‘umbrella’ which will allow them to be put into effect properly. I am pleased that today, I will be signing a new regulation on the security of gas supplies which we have adopted together.

Much work still needs to be done before the energy market becomes a single common market. I will continue working on this with you. The most important thing is for our activities in the field of energy also to protect the climate. We are leaders in this field, and want to remain the leaders. We, as the European Parliament, have signed an agreement on the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), thereby creating a ‘green parliament’ which will save energy and start using alternative sources of energy.

Fourth: external affairs. As MEPs, we are ambassadors of democracy and contribute to the organisation of free and fair elections as part of our mission. Not a week goes by without one of us promoting our fundamental values alongside our business interests. We are the world’s largest economy and the greatest donor of aid, but we are not making full use of our strengths. We need to revise the way in which we achieve our aims, and we have to incorporate support for democracy and human rights in our trade negotiations. We should not apply double standards, regardless of whether our negotiating partners are large and powerful or small and weak.

My role as President is to strengthen our common voice and to communicate our citizens’ views beyond the borders of the EU. We have thus strengthened our parliamentary diplomacy. I have represented you at the G8 parliamentary meetings. I have made official visits to China and the USA. Our relations with the US Congress, where we have a representative office, have improved in quality. I was the first President of Parliament to visit Russia in 12 years.

Thanks to our common efforts, we have set up a Secretariat for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean and are successfully cooperating with Latin America through EUROLAT. However, we should admit that we still have a lot of work to do before we get parliamentary cooperation under way in EURONEST, which is part of the Eastern Partnership.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have just finished voting on the European External Action Service. Soon – and this I deeply believe – it will become our great strength and create our European potential. We negotiated firmly with the Council to make this a modern Service which represents the Union point of view and the common interests of Europe. However, we must acknowledge that all parties were very open to compromise, and so our congratulations must be mutual. All of us took part in the discussions.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us stay with foreign affairs for the time being, and let me go back over what we have done this year: we rejected the SWIFT agreement. This was an exceptionally important moment. The US Government has seen that the post-Lisbon Parliament means business. In future, not only the USA, but the governments of many other countries will find this out. When future historians come to evaluate this vote, they will say that we did the right thing in the interests of our citizens. We struck a balance between security and the protection of personal freedom. This is important because, as MEPs, we represent our citizens.

Fifth: human rights. They are a priority for our Parliament, and they are mine, too. I always raise this issue wherever necessary. I know that 735 defenders of human rights stand behind me, and that behind them are 500 million citizens. In Russia, I asked President Medvedev about the murders of human rights activists and journalists such as Anna Politkovskaya and Sergey Magnitsky. When Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Prize, I repeated my appeal for his immediate and unconditional release. Tomorrow, we will decide who will be awarded the Sakharov Prize this year. I am resolved to use the Sakharov Network of Sakharov prize winners, as well as the forum of former presidents of the European Parliament, as an effective tool in our struggle for human dignity, human rights and democracy throughout the world. Human rights activists can be certain that their fate matters to us. They matter to us! The European Parliament is a place where people matter.

Sixth: Women’s rights. I have repeatedly called for more women to be elected to the highest EU positions. I have had overwhelming support from all Members of this House. I also supported the initiative to introduce quotas on electoral lists. A political system which cannot ensure proper representation for 52% of its population in decision-making bodies loses contact with society. Europe must be united in a coalition for work and, at the same time, family life. It is important, particularly at times of economic crisis, that maternity does not become victim to insecure working practices. We have just held a debate on this issue, and it is also related to overcoming the demographic crisis in Europe. As I confirmed 15 minutes ago, I decisively support any such action in this House, although the Chamber is possibly not the best place for such action.

Aristotle said that excess and defect are characteristic of vice, and the mean of virtue. We must ensure the equal participation of men and women in public life. Let us follow in Aristotle’s footsteps.

Seventh: institutional reform. Since I was aware of the importance of the Treaty of Lisbon, I was in Ireland, as were many of you, convincing the Irish people to endorse the treaty. I was also with President Klaus in the Czech Republic, calling for its ratification. We worked hard to bring the treaty into force, and we succeeded.

Ladies and gentlemen, one of the most important changes has been to strengthen the legislative power of our Parliament. We now have new rights, but also new responsibilities. The treaty, in strengthening Parliament’s role, still allows us to take many decisions using the intergovernmental method. For this reason, we still need to promote the Community method as an effective tool for citizen scrutiny. Yet let us remember that the decisions on the direction the European Union is to take still depend largely on the Member States, on Heads of Government, presidents and chancellors. The possibility of cooperation with a view to strengthening the European institutions which have given Europe strength in the past is very important, and I am convinced that this will happen in future, too.

As President of the European Parliament, I have put all my energy into strengthening the position of our House with regard to other European institutions on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. I did this because we represent the citizens and we are directly elected by them, so we also owe them full representation before the European institutions.

We have made substantial progress towards increasing the answerability of the Commission to this House. We have also introduced changes in the way Parliament itself operates. For the first time, we will have a monthly question-and-answer session with the President of the European Commission, the first debate on the state of the Union has already taken place, we have regular meetings of the Conference of Committee Chairs and the College of Commissioners, and I also hold meetings with the Commission and the College of Commissioners.

We have initiated dialogue with the Council Presidency on legislative planning. I regularly meet the Head of the Government in charge of the rotating Presidency. For the first time, the President of the European Council has not just appeared at a plenary session, but also met with the Conference of Committee Chairs immediately after the European Council. Finally, and I consider this to be extremely important, we are building a close partnership with the national parliaments. I would like to thank, as we all would, the national parliaments for their willing cooperation. We will now be jointly responsible for legislation at European level. It is our common responsibility for the future of Europe.

Eighth, and this is my final point, the budget – our most important task for the future. It is our duty to make sure that the 2011 budget contributes to economic growth. The budget’s structure determines the list of political priorities. We must take great care that it contains the money promised to our citizens. The ‘cuts’ must not be dictated by empty populism. They must not deprive our citizens in fields such as education, training, scientific research or infrastructure projects. We must always ask questions about the financial repercussions of less expenditure at European level. Will the financial repercussions mean less Europe?

Our late fellow Member, Egon Klepsch, a former President of this House, when discussing Parliament’s first vote on the budget, said that Parliament was defining the European ‘public interest’, which, he said, was the real test. We now face just such a test, all of us, today.

I shall now proceed to the conclusion.

 
  
 

We have a lot of urgent legislative work ahead of us. At the end, I would like to speak once again about the most important ones. Our goal is to come out of this crisis and to safeguard our citizens against another one. I repeat: this crisis was not born in Europe, but it has to be eradicated here in Europe. We cannot overcome the crisis using traditional methods. This is why in Europe, debates – very wide debates – and the imagination of its citizens are so important.

Besides the single market, it is important to strengthen the market of ideas, of our fundamental values. We have to discuss the role of the state and the future of Europe, the transfer of knowledge, alternative systems of social security, new education methods, culture.

As your representative, I had the privilege of taking part in important events: the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the 60th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, the 30th anniversary of the creation of the Solidarity trade union, and the 20th anniversary of the reunification of Germany. Let us say, from the total nightmare of war to the spirit of solidarity and the reunification of Europe.

In my discussions with our partners from outside the European Union, I see that our European model is respected around the world. Let us be proud of our community method of cooperation – for the past sixty years, it has given us peace and now a united Europe.

If we believe in Europe, we have to believe in ourselves. In order to dissuade any doubts about the European Union, we have to go back to its roots. Then we will understand that peace, stability, prosperity and an open society are not given to us once and for all. The dangerous and unthinkable could happen again if we do not contain populism and do not care for our basic values of freedom and solidarity for all.

In remembering the past, let us arrange the present and let us think of the future. Our political forefathers chose the right path. Now it is up to us to shape how the 21st century will be in Europe and in the whole world. This is a battle which is worth fighting for. With colleagues like you, I am not afraid to take this battle on.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITELLA
Vice-President

 

6. Voting time (continuation)
Video of the speeches

6.1. Draft amending budget No 3/2010: Section III - Commission - BAM (Banana Accompanying Measures) (A7-0281/2010, László Surján) (vote)

6.2. Draft general budget of the European Union - 2011 financial year (vote)
 

- Before the vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, rapporteur. – Mr President, in the Committee on Budgets, we voted on more than 1 600 amendments to the 2011 draft budget. Inevitably, there are some technical adjustments that should be voted in the plenary. As far as the integration of Letter of amendment No 1 for 2011 in Parliament’s reading is concerned, some technical adjustments need to be made in both the new European External Action Service section and that of the Commission, following the proposed transfers of appropriations between sections.

In the European External Action Service section, these concern notably the budgeting of the 1.85% salary adjustment for the new Service, as is the case for the other institutions. The amounts affected by the letter of amendment in the Commission section will also need to be modified accordingly. This also applies to some Parliament amendments on administrative lines, which need to be aligned with the final amounts presented in the budget lines of Section III.

For the agencies, the remarks following certain agencies’ budget lines will be technically adjusted to make them consistent with the final figures adopted. In line 02 01 04 04, remarks adopted in Amendment 996 should be added as such to Amendment 1010 on operational line 02 02 01 (as part of the package on pilot projects and preparatory actions). In line 19 05 01, the words ‘other than the United States’ should be deleted from the heading and the remarks, as decided by the Committee on Budgets. In line 19 09 01, an oral amendment adopted in the Committee on Budgets should be inserted in the remarks. The following words should be added: ‘part of this appropriation is intended to support, amongst others, initiatives such as the EU-LAC Foundation decided at the summit of EU-LAC Heads of States and Governments and the Biarritz Forum’.

It is necessary to renumber some budget lines in order to avoid contradictory numbering of some lines created and to follow nomenclature rules. This will affect neither the multiannual financial framework headings nor the budgetary chapter of the amendments adopted in the Committee on Budgets. This concerns Amendments 386, 389, 521, 833, 997, 998, 999, 1016, 1018, 1021, 1022, 1023 and 1024.

 
  
 

- Before the vote on Amendment 700:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D).(ES) Mr President, I am sorry, but it is impossible to follow the vote at the speed at which you are reading the amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I am only too happy to go more slowly … We will try to reconcile the need for speed with the rights of all MEPs to discharge their duties and to vote.

- Before the vote on block 3:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  József Szájer (PPE). – Mr President, I ask the forgiveness of the House but the PPE Group’s voting list is wrong regarding Amendment 967. The right vote is ‘yes’.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – This applies to a subsequent vote. Very well. This is internal information for the group.

- Before the vote on Amendment 987:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Göran Färm (S&D). – Mr President, like my colleague from the PPE Group a little while ago, I also have to point out a mistake in our voting list. The S&D voting list should read: minus, plus, plus. Nothing else.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – This is also internal group information.

- After the vote on the budget:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this satisfaction is due to the fact that you have just passed amendments to the Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 3/2010 and on the draft budget for the financial year 2011.

As a result, I have taken due note of the differences between our two institutions and, in accordance with Article 314(4)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I do, of course, agree to the Conciliation Committee being convened by the President of the European Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – This is not a case of the Council granting a favour but of observing the terms of the treaty. We, as Parliament, will obviously play our part in full.

 

6.3. Parliament's position on the 2011 draft budget as modified by the Council - all sections (A7-0284/2010, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska) (vote)

6.4. Parliament's calendar of part-sessions – 2012 (vote)
 

- Before the vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joseph Daul (PPE).(FR) Mr President, yesterday evening, my group discussed amendments that the services have told us are unacceptable. As a result, and following the discussion I had this morning with the heads of delegation and the group leaders, I request that the vote on the calendar be postponed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Schulz (S&D).(DE) Mr President, we have had no opportunity to discuss this as a group. I was informed about it by Mr Daul a few minutes ago, during this morning’s debate, and I have discussed it with the chairs of other groups, namely Mrs Harms and Mr Verhofstadt. I also want to address this point to my group, as we have not, so far, had the opportunity to discuss this. I believe that, with a postponement, there would be a very good chance of reaching a broad consensus over the calendar for 2012. I therefore believe that we should vote through this postponement today.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Schulz spoke in favour of Mr Daul’s proposal. I will now give the floor to Mr Fox, who is against this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, I was in the Chamber on Monday evening when the Green Group asked for a postponement. Mr Daul and Mr Schulz were here and they both voted against that postponement.

(Applause)

So what has changed? Is it really some important legal issue, or is the truth that they realise they are in severe danger of losing Amendment No 4 and they want to postpone it so as to apply pressure to members of their own groups?

(Applause)

This has nothing to do with the fictitious reason we have been given, and I would urge colleagues to vote against this delay and vote in favour of Amendment No 4.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I will put the request to postpone the vote tabled by Mr Daul to the vote.

(Parliament approved the request to defer the vote)

 

6.5. Improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (A7-0032/2010, Edite Estrela) (vote)
 

- Before the vote on Amendments 50 and 125:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE).(SV) There are several translation errors in the Swedish version of this report. Among other things, there is confusion between the terms barnledighet (parental leave) and mammaledighet (maternity leave). However, in Amendment 125 in particular, there is a very serious translation error. The Swedish version of Amendment 125 states that paternity leave should be on full pay. It does not say this in other versions. This means that there is no difference between Amendment 50 and Amendment 125 in the Swedish version. It would be good if this could be corrected.

 

6.6. Combating late payment in commercial transactions (A7-0136/2010, Barbara Weiler) (vote)

6.7. Role of minimum income in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe (A7-0233/2010, Ilda Figueiredo) (vote)

6.8. Financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken (A7-0267/2010, Pervenche Berès) (vote)

6.9. Improving economic governance and stability framework in the EU, in particular, in the euro zone (A7-0282/2010, Diogo Feio) (vote)
 

- Before the vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – Mr President, this is an important oral amendment: ‘whereas, as far as possible, all 27 Member States should follow to the maximum all the economic governance proposals, recognising that, for non-euro area Member States, this will in part be a voluntary process’.

It has been accepted by the PPE Group, it has been accepted by the S&D Group and even the Commissioner has accepted it. I hope that you all can accept this oral amendment. It is important for me, it is important for the ALDE Group, and it is especially important for my country, Sweden, if we are ever going to join the euro.

 
  
  

(The oral amendment was accepted)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – That concludes the vote.

Because the voting has gone on so long, as a result of your excellent work, I would like to ask those who have requested to give explanations of vote to change these explanations from oral to written or postpone your turn until tomorrow, because 62 requests have been put forward and we are unable to deal with them all.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – Mr President, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent job you did today. I really appreciate the way you exercised your chairmanship today, and I hope you will share your wonderful skills with other vice-chairs of Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I have voted today and my constituents can see how I voted today, so therefore, they should have the opportunity to have my explanation of vote today.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I made a request that you should change your oral explanation into a written explanation. This will still allow you to give your constituents the reasons that prompted you and others to vote in a certain way on the various issues. We do not wish in any way to deprive you of any rights. I only ask you to join the other MEPs who are giving up their right to make an oral explanation in order to give a written explanation. That is all.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barbara Matera (PPE). (IT) Mr President, I will comply with your request: Mr Mastella and I will put our explanations in writing. Secondly, I join my fellow Member in again congratulating you, Mr President.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). (IT) Mr President, if you agree, and to keep everyone happy, we can defer the oral explanations to tomorrow.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Yes, I most certainly agree. If Mrs Sinclair is also in agreement. I count on the goodwill of the MEPs, calling on them to make oral explanations tomorrow or written explanations today and we will allow Mrs Sinclair the opportunity to make hers now.

 

7. Explanations of vote
Video of the speeches
  

Oral explanations of vote

 
  
  

Draft general budget of the European Union – 2011 financial year

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I have the following comments for my fellow MEPs.

Today was the first time post-Lisbon that we have voted on the budget. You all applauded yourselves and you think you have done a good job but, in fact, while countries across the European Union are having to cut public services and having to cut their public budgets, you wanted to increase yours.

You have increased your entertainment budget by EUR 2 million, an 85% increase. Is this the real message that you want to send to the people of Europe? You have also passed provisions on maternity pay that are going to have a severe impact on my constituents within the UK. This is going to cost jobs; this is going to affect public services. I hope you are proud of yourselves today. This is not the way to run Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). (IT) Mr President, at this point, for the sake of fairness, I will give an explanation of vote in favour of the result achieved on the Estrela report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Let us not draw this out any longer now, however. We have given the floor to two MEPs. For the other explanations – there are 61, we still have 59 to go – decide either to give them in writing or give them tomorrow at the end of the vote.

 
  
  

Written explanations of vote

 
  
  

Report: Paulo Rangel (A7-0279/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the revision to the framework agreement which will govern relations between Parliament and the Commission, in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon, as I believe that this revision creates a relationship of greater transparency and dynamism in the relationship between Parliament and the Commission. Before the Treaty of Lisbon and in accordance with the legal basis of Article 295 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the treaties did not explicitly encourage the EU institutions to conclude interinstitutional treaties. I therefore believe that this revision to the framework agreement reflects the institutional balance that has been created by the Treaty of Lisbon, and consolidates the achievements made with this new treaty. This text thus represents a compromise between the two parties and ensures a more coherent and sensible implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) In all democratic systems, parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of the executive is a fundamental issue, just as concentrated reciprocal communication between government and citizens’ representatives is of great importance. This interinstitutional agreement between Parliament and the Commission satisfies – as far as is possible in a complex and continually evolving system like the European Union’s – some requests legitimately put forward by Parliament regarding the European Commission. It is therefore a good thing that Parliament’s scrutiny of the Commission is facilitated, as the latter is a technical body that cannot be the political brains of an entire continent and must answer for the substance, reasons and methods of its actions. It is also, without doubt, positive that the chance for yet greater involvement of the Commission in Parliament’s work is being sought, in particular, in plenary sittings, in order that it may respond to the requests of representatives of citizens of the European Union and answer for the position of the Commission on current political, economic, social and international issues in a timely fashion. What is certain is that if the EU wishes to move towards a democratic structure different from that of today, relations between the Commission and Parliament will have to improve and intensify. I voted in favour of the report by Mr Rangel.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) This proposal achieved the first constructive framework agreement. The European Parliament’s increased powers following the Treaty of Lisbon are very important for further cooperation with the European Commission and for future relations regarding the implementation of further agreements. Thus, this document lays down further guidelines for cooperation between these two institutions. The European Parliament and the Commission will be able to develop a close dialogue on the Commission’s Work Programme and international agreements. Parliament will have the right to obtain confidential documents. Parliament will be informed on the progress of international negotiations and, furthermore, Parliament will also be able to become an expert to provide proposals to the Commission on these issues. The framework agreement also provides for comprehensive Parliamentary scrutiny, strengthened provisions on the election of the President of the Commission and of the latter as a body, and on its composition, its possible modification and reshuffling. Parliament is striving for better and more transparent cooperation with other institutions. I welcome the fact that closer cooperation between these two institutions will help the Member States to transpose European Union legislation into national law as quickly and effectively as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. (IT) The constitutional architecture of the European Union is increasingly taking on the form of a nation state. Besides the resulting considerations about the future of the Union, we need to acknowledge the acceptance of this similarity. In fact, the modelling of relations between the Commission and Parliament is – rightly, in my view – derived from this, in the manner that has already been tested and whipped into shape over decades (if not centuries) in each of the Member States. In particular, the supervisory and interrogatory role of Parliament should be appreciated, as it helps reduce the so-called democratic deficit and makes the relationship between citizens and the Commission more transparent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. (PT) I welcome the success of the negotiations and the compromises reached in this new framework agreement, the fifth interinstitutional agreement between Parliament and the Commission. This new agreement undeniably marks an important step forward in terms of relations with the Commission. Although the agreed compromise falls short of all that Parliament was aiming for, we have an agreement that ensures a coherent and sensible implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. I would like to highlight the importance of the negotiations on the interinstitutional dimension of the EU’s international relations, allowing Parliament to be fully informed in good time so that it can have a say on the international agreements during the negotiation process. Lastly, with regard to the duty to supply information, I would like to emphasise that early cooperation with Parliament in relation to requests for legislative initiatives based on citizens’ requests will be crucial to securing the bond between Parliament and the public. I am therefore voting in favour of the bulk of the proposals in this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing.(CS) The draft report on the revision of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission aims to achieve the institutional balance between Parliament and the Commission advocated in the Treaty of Lisbon. Although the interinstitutional agreements do not alter the enactment of primary law, in this case, they clarify relations between EU institutions. The final version of the proposal is, according to the rapporteur, a balanced compromise between the views and positions of both institutional parties, whereas the trickiest negotiations were in the EU’s international relations. Parliament should be fully informed so as to facilitate the awarding of consent, and so that we do not once again have a lack of international agreements. Negotiations on them have already been completed.

Parliament acquired new powers from the Treaty of Lisbon for the better and closer monitoring of the transposition of EU legislation into national law, and its application, which is very welcome. Common European legislation does not mean much if certain Member States fail to implement it at national level. I agree with the wording of the report, and I will vote in favour of its adoption.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The interinstitutional agreements within the European Union are crucial for effective monitoring, control and balance of powers. Thus, following the necessary adaptations established by the Treaty of Lisbon, I am pleased to see Parliament’s increased powers in its relations with the Commission. As reflected in the report, this means greater and more effective control over the Commission’s proposals, along with greater transparency in the legislative process.

This was therefore one more step towards effectively wielded democratic power, and it will contribute to a Europe that is closer to its citizens. In addition, I should not neglect to point out the great powers of negotiation that this proposal required, particularly on the part of the rapporteur, Mr Rangel. I would like to offer him my congratulations at this point.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) I welcome the adoption of this report and the excellent work accomplished by the rapporteur, Mr Rangel. This report reflects and gives form to the institutional balance established by the Treaty of Lisbon, resulting in a clear and important improvement in relations with the Commission. The revised draft framework agreement on the relations between Parliament and the Commission is the fifth agreement of its kind to be signed between the two institutions. In terms of the legislative process and scheduling, it is important to point out the changes relating to the ‘Better Regulation’ approach and the announcement of a revision of the interinstitutional agreement on this issue, along with the new regulations regarding the impact assessments carried out by the Commission. Regarding the interinstitutional dimension of the EU’s international relations, Parliament’s aim is having the right to be informed so that it can give its approval with full knowledge of the facts, and prevent the non-agreement of international agreements when negotiations have already been completed. I would also like to point out the allocation of observer status to MEPs at international conferences, who can now also attend all the relevant meetings. This role is crucial for strengthening Parliament’s democratic powers, especially during the negotiation of major international conferences such as United Nations conferences on climate change.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Last Wednesday, we voted for the revised framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, a revision that sets, within this agreement, Parliament’s new powers resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon.

These new powers of the European Parliament are essential and represent a radical change in the European institutional procedure. Enhanced parliamentary control over the Commission, Parliament’s approval power for international agreements, Parliament’s participation in the Commission’s working programme, Parliament's participation in electing the President of the European Commission are so many crucial developments in the building of a more democratic European area.

What also appears fundamental to me are the additional guarantees that we are obtaining in terms of obligations to inform Parliament: we will have better access to confidential documents relating to international agreements and negotiations. The European Parliament must and should be involved in these ‘international procedures’, before and afterwards. This agreement therefore lays down a new balance for a more democratic European area and it is a good thing that all this is drawn up in an official agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. (FR) Passed with a large majority, the revised framework agreement signals indisputable progress in relations between the European Parliament and the Commission.

It is indeed time for the institutional balance put in place by the Treaty of Lisbon to be rigorously reflected. Among the key elements of this revision, we especially need to welcome the equality of treatment between Parliament and the Council, particularly when exchanging information and accessing meetings. In this respect, I can only be glad about the provisions introduced concerning the negotiation of international agreements. How could Parliament give its approval in full knowledge of the facts if it is not informed throughout the negotiation procedure?

MEPs are well and truly determined to implement fully the increased powers at their disposal since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force: evidence of this was the rejection in February of the Swift agreement. One thing is certain; we will have to remain vigilant in order to maintain this new institutional process.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. (DE) The Treaty of Lisbon allows the European Parliament a considerable measure of new powers of codecision. As a result, there should, not least, be a deepening of democracy in the European Union and improved participation by European citizens.

By codifying and realising these rights, the new framework agreement takes account of these entitlements and the new balance between the Commission and Parliament. This is very much to be welcomed, as Parliament will now be better able to do justice to its role as the representative of the EU’s citizens. It is now up to us to use these new rights responsibly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – This is a great achievement for the Parliament and a positive framework for relations between Parliament and the Commission. I particularly welcome the acknowledgement of Council and Parliament’s ‘equal footing’ and the implications that has for Parliament's access to confidential documents, its right to be informed of Commission meetings with national experts and its participation in international conferences. I am also pleased that Parliament will have a strong role in legislative programming and will have frequent opportunities to debate and question these issues with the Commission in plenary and committee.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) Relations between Parliament and the Commission have been much altered following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, with greater powers for Parliament in various matters, particularly those that relate to ordinary legislative procedure and budgetary issues, and a stronger role as regards EU foreign policy. These changes mean that the European public now has a new role in relation to decision making at EU level. It is therefore necessary and expedient to review the framework agreement that governs relations between Parliament and the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. (LV) I fully agree with Mr Rangel’s report. Until now, the European Commission has, on many occasions, taken no notice of the resolutions of the European Parliament. This, to my mind, is unacceptable. For example, the resolution of the European Parliament of 11 March 2004, in which the European Parliament recommends that the Republic of Latvia grants non-citizens the right to vote in local elections and simplifies the naturalisation process for elderly people has hitherto not been implemented. I should like to know why the relevant European commissioners have yet to address questions to the Latvian Government. Why is this resolution of the European Parliament being ignored? Perhaps as a result of the signature of the new agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission, this type of inactivity on the part of the Commission will be appropriately judged by the European Parliament, and people who do not do their work properly will, on the next occasion, be excluded from membership of the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I warmly welcome the preparation of the report on the revised framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission. I also welcome its adoption in plenary, to which I contributed, as an essential framework for the further democratisation of the European Union through a division of powers between the Commission and Parliament which better respects their respective abilities.

This framework agreement is particularly important as it is the first since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which gave increased powers to Parliament, especially at a legislative level.

I believe that under this new framework agreement, Parliament is a more active partner in building the European project, as it can fulfil its powers more completely, effectively and responsibly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. (FR) Despite the significant measures that Mrs Figueiredo’s resolution is proposing on the role of a minimum income in tackling poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe, I regret that the majority of the European Parliament was not more ambitious. As a socialist, I do believe that a framework directive is indispensable for effectively tackling poverty, which affects 17% of the European population.

This framework directive, proposed by my colleague, Frédéric Daerden, would lay down the principle of a suitable minimum income in Europe, established on the basis of criteria that are common to all Member States and in accordance with national practices for collective negotiation and with national law. It is our duty to be ambitious for a more social Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) Before the Treaty of Lisbon and the new legal basis for Article 295 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, treaties did not specifically encourage European Union institutions to conclude interinstitutional agreements. These agreements cannot alter the provisions of primary law but they often clarify them.

I am convinced that this draft strictly reflects the institutional balance established by the Treaty of Lisbon. I give my consent because this agreement represents a clear and significant improvement in relations with the Commission. Like all agreements, the final text tends to be a compromise between both parties; this final compromise nevertheless offers a balanced judgment and a reasonable and consistent application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Rangel report points out the most important achievements for the European Parliament contained in the revised framework agreement with regard to the following:

On ‘Legislative procedure and planning: mutual cooperation’ it includes improving the involvement of Parliament, the review of all pending proposals at the beginning of a new Commission’s term of office, taking due account of the views of the Parliament, and the commitment by the Commission to report on the concrete follow-up to any legislative initiative requests pursuant to Article 225 TFEU.

On ‘Parliamentary scrutiny’, it includes new rules of participation of Commissioners in election campaigns, the Commission’s obligation to seek Parliament’s opinion when it intends to revise the Code of Conduct, and nominees for the post of executive directors have to come before the responsible parliamentary committees for a hearing,

It also sets out the obligations to provide information and requirement for the Commission to be present in Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. (PL) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has given both the European Commission and the European Parliament new rights. The draft of the amended text of the framework agreement is an expression of a more effective implementation of the changes arising from the treaty based on the relations between the two institutions. It introduces beneficial changes to legislative procedure, parliamentary scrutiny and the obligation to provide information. It represents major progress in relations with the Commission and is an important step towards closer cooperation. Exchanges of information and constructive dialogue will allow us to achieve more effective and transparent results, which is a key issue from the point of view of the EU citizens whose interests we represent. That is why I regard it as so important that priority is given in the agreement to the participation of members of the Commission in plenary sittings and other meetings related to Parliament’s activities. I am particularly pleased that the Commission has undertaken to cooperate closely with Parliament on motions for legislative initiatives proposed by citizens at an early stage.

Thanks to this, we in Parliament can be closer to our citizens, which will strengthen our democracy. Nevertheless, in order to operate effectively in the interests of EU citizens, the Commission should give MEPs observer status at all international conferences and, where possible, facilitate our presence at other significant meetings to an even greater extent, as well as inform Parliament of the negotiating positions adopted by the Commission at such meetings and conferences.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Rangel report A7-279/2010. However, I strongly disagree with the rapporteur’s assumption that ‘the Treaty of Lisbon significantly deepens democracy in the EU, giving to citizens of the Union, mainly through the Parliament, a reinforced power of scrutiny of the Commission’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. (LT) This new framework agreement on relations may potentially consolidate the achievements of the Treaty of Lisbon and this could represent a significant breakthrough. Particularly important are the amendments improving legal procedures and strengthening parliamentary scrutiny. I agree with all the amendments which contribute to improving information exchange and promoting the effectiveness of relations between the European Parliament and European Commission. It is important to ensure that this institutional partnership has as little red tape as possible. The new framework agreement on relations regulates the ‘special partnership’ between Parliament and the European Commission. We must not forget that the most important partnership of all is the partnership between the European Union and its citizens. The European Union must try harder to find common ground with its citizens and prove its importance in their daily lives.

The rapporteur rightly indicated that this agreement represents a ‘new interinstitutional balance’, i.e. a healthy compromise. However, there are some issues on which the European Union cannot negotiate – fundamental human rights and freedoms. Greater powers mean greater responsibility. It is one thing to talk of common values, but implementing and defending these values is a different matter. Unless this is achieved, the various branches of the European Union institutional system will be unable to fully realise their potential. To be a cohesive force, the European Union must have credibility.

 
  
  

Report: Paulo Rangel (A7-0278/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. (PT) Now that the revision of the framework agreement on the relations between Parliament and the Commission has been adopted, a subsequent adaptation of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure to the aforementioned framework agreement is a natural step. I am therefore voting for this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) I agree with the amendments to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure with a view to their being adapted to the revised framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission. Given the Commission’s openness in giving more information to MEPs, there is agreement that MEPs are obliged to respect the rules of Parliament on the handling of confidential information. The openness of the Commission in providing more information to MEPs requires the chairs and rapporteurs of the committee responsible and of any associated committees to jointly take appropriate action to ensure that Parliament is provided with immediate, regular and full information, if necessary on a confidential basis, at all stages of the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements, including the draft and finally adopted text of negotiating directives.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) Relations between Parliament and the Commission have been much altered following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, with greater powers for Parliament in various matters, particularly those that relate to ordinary legislative procedure and budgetary issues, and a stronger role as regards EU foreign policy. These changes mean that the European public now has a new role in relation to decision making at EU level. It is therefore necessary and expedient to adapt the Rules of Procedure to the revised framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The adaptation of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure to the revised framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission follows on naturally from the revision of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, allowing the framework agreement to be passed immediately so that it can be put into effect as is required, and as will thus be ensured. The background and agreement that the two reports share also warrant my approval of the latter.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Rangel report points out the most important achievements for the European Parliament contained in the revised framework agreement with regard to the following:

On ‘Legislative procedure and planning: mutual cooperation’, it includes improving the involvement of Parliament, the review of all pending proposals at the beginning of a new Commission’s term of office, taking due account of the views of the Parliament, and the commitment by the Commission to report on the concrete follow-up to any legislative initiative requests pursuant to Article 225 TFEU.

On ‘Parliamentary scrutiny’, it includes new rules of participation of Commissioners in election campaigns, the Commission’s obligation to seek Parliament’s opinion when it intends to revise the Code of Conduct, and nominees for the post of executive directors have to come before the responsible parliamentary committees for a hearing,

It also sets out the obligations to provide information and the requirement for the Commission to be present in Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Rangel report A7-0278/2010. However, I strongly disagree with the rapporteur’s assumption that ‘the Treaty of Lisbon deepens significantly democracy in the EU, giving to citizens of the Union, mainly through the Parliament, a reinforced power of scrutiny of the Commission’.

 
  
  

Reports: Paulo Rangel (A7-0279/2010), (A7-0278/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bairbre de Brún and Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Rangel reports A7-0278/2010 and A7-0279/2010. However, I strongly disagree with the rapporteur’s assumption that ‘the Treaty of Lisbon deepens significantly democracy in the EU, giving to citizens of the Union, mainly through the Parliament, a reinforced power of scrutiny of the Commission’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I abstained in the votes on the Rangel reports A7-0278/2010 and A7-0279/2010. Despite supporting many measures mentioned in the reports, such as increased role for the Parliament in the drawing up of the Code of Conduct for Commissioners and the enhanced role of the Parliament in international negotiations, I strongly disagree with the rapporteur’s assumption that ‘the Treaty of Lisbon significantly deepens democracy in the EU, giving citizens of the Union, mainly through Parliament, a reinforced power of scrutiny of the Commission’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Rangel reports A7-0278/2010 and A7-0279/2010. However, I strongly disagree with the rapporteur’s assumption that the Treaty of Lisbon significantly deepens democracy in the EU, giving citizens of the Union, mainly through the Parliament, a reinforced power of scrutiny of the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. (LV) Mr Rangel is proposing very important amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. It is possible that, directly as a result of these adjustments to the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, the problems that we debate will be resolved more quickly. I should especially like to see that the decisions and recommendations of the European Parliament are carried out in EU Member States. Only when we put our own house in order will the EU’s recommendations to third countries carry considerably more weight. For example, the recommendations in the European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2004 on the situation of non-citizens in Latvia have still not been implemented. I hope that the revised Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament will help EU institutions to form a clear picture of the violations of basic human rights taking place in Latvia.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) Through this agreement, Parliament has ‘improved’ and strengthened itself and the democratisation of the European Union has been reinforced. The adoption of this report is a strong signal of the desire to consolidate the principle of separation of powers. The framework agreement is of great importance since it defines the relationships between Parliament and the Commission at a time when Parliament has obtained greater powers, particularly in the legislative process, now at the same level as the Council. Indeed, notwithstanding the supplementary and application treaties and protocols, further legislation aimed at specifying and better defining some issues was required. In particular, I applaud the fact that the framework agreement clarifies the points relating to the political responsibility of both institutions, the circulation of information, external relations, enlargement and international agreements, the implementation of the budget, the political and legislative programme of the Commission and the European Union’s multiannual programme, the legislative competence of the Commission and the exercise of its specific powers, monitoring the implementation of EU law and the participation of the Commission in the work of Parliament.

 
  
  

Report: Ingeborg Gräßle, Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0263/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), in writing. (RO) I voted in favour of this regulation. This includes technical, financial and administrative details and explains the interinstitutional relations which this European service and its structures need to have. It has been, and still is, our desire for the EU to be a powerful, acknowledged player in foreign policy. To achieve this, we also need rules and European regulations tailored to the job.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. (FR) When the European External Action Service was set up, it was necessary to amend the financial regulation in order to improve control and follow-up of the EEAS’s implementation.

The Gräßle-Rivellini report increases budgetary and financial responsibility, improves transparency and promotes the EEAS’s effectiveness. The proposed improvements will contribute to creating a culture of financial integrity necessary for promoting confidence in the proper functioning of the EEAS.

I also welcome the parts of the report demanding that Parliament be granted significant power of control. Thus, I agree with the rapporteurs in asking that Parliament be able to exercise its discharge rights fully and that the heads of delegations submit their budgetary implementation reports to the Committee on Budgetary Control.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. (PT) I am voting in favour of the bulk of the measures proposed in this report, which aim to give the European External Action Service (EEAS) a culture of financial integrity necessary for trust in the smooth and unquestionable future functioning of the EEAS. The different backgrounds of the staff members will make the EEAS a melting pot of corporate cultures, and it will gradually have to establish a culture of its own. In defining the structure of this new service, it is important to establish its financial rules and ensure the maximum safeguards from the beginning in such a way that financial probity will be ingrained in the corporate culture of the EEAS. I would also like to stress that in order to ensure democratic scrutiny and improve the confidence of European citizens in their European institutions, every year, Parliament should be presented with a statement of assurance on the internal management and control systems put in place in the Union Delegations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) The European External Action Service (EEAS) is now well set to become an operational diplomatic corps. Parliament ensured that 60% of staff are to come from other European institutions, which will ensure a certain degree of independence from Member States. The principle of geographical balance was introduced so that a suitable and significant presence of nationals from all Member States is guaranteed.

This vote has strengthened Parliament’s role: the heads of delegations of the European Union appointed in ‘strategically important’ regions will indeed be heard by Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, Parliament will have a right of scrutiny on how the EEAS’s budget is used and its staff will have to follow specific training on budget management.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. (FR) The European Parliament has been asked to give its opinion on the proposal for a regulation tabled by Ingeborg Gräßle and Crescenzio Rivellini pertaining to the creation of a general budget of the European Communities for the European External Action Service (EEAS).

It is impossible to support the creation of a future European diplomatic service that will be under the administrative, budgetary and political control of the Commission. France, which can pride itself on having the oldest diplomatic service in the world, will have to yet again hand over diplomatic prerogatives to a European Union whose citizens are totally indifferent to the positions it adopts.

This diplomatic service, for which the Commission has called so enthusiastically, will be a total departure from national heritages. EEAS officials will be unable to receive instructions from Member States and will have to work for the ‘greater’ good of a European Union that is a reference only for Eurocrats themselves.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – Mr President, I have always been opposed to the creation of the EEAS – nothing would have changed my opinion on it. But I am aware of the assurances given as the EU went about its campaign of persuasion, garnering support for the EEAS.

We were told that the EEAS would be budget-neutral. Yet where are we now? Budget neutrality is now but another EU promise whistling in the wind. We are now 34 million over the planned budget due to demands for yet more staff and other start-up costs, and the EEAS isn't even operational!

The EEAS represents yet another example of wasted taxpayer’s money, for a service my constituents do not want but have forced upon them by bureaucrats who seek to squeeze more and more power away from national governments towards the EU. Such bureaucracy is unacceptable and must be cut back in these times of economic crisis, not enhanced.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The proposal for a regulation aims to amend the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Communities due to the institutionalisation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) resulting from the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon by the Member States. This new entity lacks a budgetary framework, hence the need for this amendment. The assimilation of the EEAS as an institution allows it to have budgetary autonomy and gives it the power to deal with its own administrative expenses, subject to the discharge to be made by Parliament.

I hope that the EEAS will carry out its activities in a competent, effective, complementary and, above all, non-competitive way with the diplomatic representations of the Member States. On this matter, the Commission has stated that it wishes to ensure that the EEAS can fulfil this task of a unified external action without leading to a weakening of sound financial management, accountability and the protection of the financial interests of the Union. I hope that this will come about.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. (DE) The European External Action Service (EEAS) will be the future foreign policy mouthpiece of the European Union. In this service, our different positions will find one voice – communicating a strong message – and it is important to give it our support. In order for the EEAS to be able to work effectively, efficient financial control is necessary. Only if the EEAS forms part of the Commission can the best possible control be ensured. The clear distribution of rights and obligations will allow it to work smoothly. I support Mrs Gräßle’s and Mr Rivellini’s successful report, and I have, of course, voted in favour of this constructive contribution from the European Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Gräßle and Mr Rivellini establishing the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities as regards the European External Action Service (EEAS), because I believe that the promotion of financial integrity is important in order to ensure that the European institutions are managed properly and transparently. The creation of this new diplomatic service, as provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, represents a great step for the European Union, which can finally benefit from a single diplomatic body that has the task of facilitating actions aimed at making the European Union’s external relations more coherent, safe and efficient. Lastly, it is important to emphasise that the European External Action Service will manage its own administrative budget and will also be responsible for those parts of the operating budget which fall under its mandate.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The new European External Action Service, created following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, requires a budget in order to carry out its activities and achieve the objectives outlined in the treaty. In view of this, it is necessary to amend certain provisions in the appropriate financial regulation, with the aim of taking account of the changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (ES) I voted against this European Parliament legislative resolution, because creating the service that they want to finance represents another step towards the militarisation of the European Union’s foreign policy. As well as my opposition to this militaristic foreign affairs philosophy, my reason for voting against it is that the most basic principles of transparency and democracy have been absent throughout the process of creating the European External Action Service (EEAS). The organisation and financing of this service do not include the necessary strict control over staffing and financing by the European Parliament, meaning that the EEAS is worryingly lacking in democracy and transparency. It is therefore no surprise that the proposed structure for the EEAS relegates the European Parliament to a secondary, irrelevant position in EU foreign policy, which my group and I firmly reject. I have therefore voted against it. I cannot be in favour of the proposed budgets for this type of service with its militaristic tendencies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) In addition to the duplicated structures that will be created by the European External Action Service (EEAS), personnel costs will also rocket in the wasteful and bureaucratic way that is typical of the EU. Of the 1 643 posts that the EEAS will start off with on 1 December, 50 are, believe it or not, director-general posts, and during the initial phases, there will be barely more than 30 members of staff under one director-general. When the final structure is complete there will not even be as many as 80. The aforementioned directors-general will, on average, earn EUR 17 000 per month. Below these directors-general, there is another level containing 224 directors and 235 heads of unit. In addition, we are still waiting for specific tasks and objectives to be defined for the EEAS staff. We want the EU to have a strong voice in the world, but this surely does not require a bloated administrative apparatus that will cost EU citizens billions as a result of duplicated structures and members of staff who will enjoy a very lucrative source of income. I therefore voted against this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. (LT) In negotiations with representatives of the European Council and the Commission, Parliament and, in particular, negotiators from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, managed to ensure that the budget for the EU’s new diplomatic service would be used more transparently. Parliament will approve its budget discharge annually and the Commission will have to provide MEPs with detailed information about its expenditure on a regular basis. I voted for this report because it underlines that when employing citizens of EU Member States, greater geographical coverage would be ensured along with proper and meaningful representation for the citizens of all Member States.

I agree with the rapporteur that we must aim to ensure that employees are chosen according to their abilities and also that gender equality is taken into account. It is important for the European External Action Service due to be launched on 1 December to quickly become effective and to embody, above all, the EU’s interests and, where necessary, national interests.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) The European External Action Service (EEAS) will manage its own administrative budget and be responsible for it. In fact, in establishing the new service, and particularly in drawing up its financial rules, it is necessary to provide the appropriate economic safeguards from the beginning.

Therefore, in order to promote their financial probity, it is important to ensure the smooth interaction of the various services responsible for supervision of financial matters, especially in EU delegations. By means of strengthening these safeguards, we hope to enhance the confidence of European citizens in European institutions. Consequently, the structural improvements presented in this proposal aim to impose the financial integrity necessary for trust in the smooth and unquestionable functioning of the EEAS.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – It has been a bumpy ride, but thanks to Parliament’s efforts, the EU’s External Action Service now has the potential to be the driving force for a more effective and more legitimate EU foreign policy. We welcome that key Green concerns – such as on gender balance and common training to create an ‘esprit de corps’ – have been largely addressed, and that Parliament will have greater democratic scrutiny on the functioning of the EEAS, notably through the introduction of individual budget lines for the EU’s major overseas operations. The EP also succeeded in safeguarding the Community method and, thanks to Green pressure, development priorities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) In order to be able to represent the interests of European states on the international stage in a more effective manner, foreign policy actions must be discussed in advance and then communicated to the outside world with one voice. An attempt is now being made, through the European External Action Service (EEAS), to bring the Union’s external policy instruments into a coherent framework – the existing resources are being brought together and complemented by new resources. In view of the novel nature of this structure, ambitious provisions with regard to transparency and budgetary and financial accountability need to be applied. Since Parliament’s budgetary authority includes the EEAS, the service must be integrated into the Commission structure. Otherwise, it will be impossible to grant discharge within the meaning of the treaties. The annual activity reports are also provided to the budgetary authorities.

 
  
  

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0288/010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), in writing. (RO) I, too, believe, as my fellow Members do, that the EEAS needs to have autonomy within the staff regulations for European officials. I support the provision which stipulates that EU officials and temporary agents who come from Member States and diplomatic services must enjoy the same rights and be eligible to apply for new posts. I hope that recruitment on the widest possible geographical basis, and by that, I am alluding to the new Member States, will become a reality.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European External Action Service is an essential instrument for an EU that is more open to the world and able to establish fruitful contacts with many different regions and countries. In order for this service to function, it is essential to give its officials proper roles and to clarify their status and that of temporary staff from the national diplomatic services who have a role within it. This amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Communities shows that it is, therefore, fully justified. I hope that the service will operate in tandem with the national diplomatic services and act as a positive factor to enhance their performance. I hope that the main priorities of European policy will not neglect their external component and that, in the course of their action, the service does not neglect the crucial role of European languages in universal communication, nor the global European languages which are most suitable for establishing direct communication with large parts of the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European External Action Service is now an integral part of the European administration: it is open, efficient and independent, under the terms of Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In the modification of the Staff Regulations and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, I would like to highlight the equal status given to EU officials and temporary staff from the diplomatic services of the Member States, in particular, with regard to eligibility to take on all tasks under equal conditions and in promoting equal opportunities for the underrepresented gender.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I abstained on the occasion of the final vote on the Rapkay report on 20 October 2010. I fully support the formation of the European External Action Service and value highly the efforts of Elmar Brok and other MEPs who have managed to successfully balance the original draft presented by the High Representative. My intention was to draw attention to the fact that the amendment on geographical representation, which was supported by the AFET and BUDG committees, has not been adopted in the JURI committee. As a result, there are doubts whether the final version of the report can provide the European Parliament with a legal basis with regard to geographical balance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE), in writing. (BG) I wish you, Lady Ashton, and the new EEAS, on which we are pinning great hopes that yet another European dream will come true, every success, and hope that Europe will address the world with a strong, authoritative single voice. This is what a huge section of our Parliament wants. You can be sure that we will help you.

I wish to explain why I abstained from voting on the amendment to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. I think that indicative targets for geographical balance are beneficial to the new institution. We need a highly qualified diplomatic service which has people from every Member State so that they can enhance the representation of the EU in the world.

I am sure that the service will be a success if it can benefit from the experience of all Member States. I realise that the number of Member States has increased more than fourfold since the start of the European integration process. It is understandable that the countries recently admitted lag behind at this stage in terms of level of representation. However, there must be determination and clearly defined legislative texts to overcome this.

I believe in your desire and determination, which you have expressed to us on numerous occasions, to work towards genuine, suitable geographical representation for the new service so that you can be the High Representative of the whole EU. We will follow its activity closely.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. (CS) I appreciate the fact that we managed to put some safeguards, in the form of amendments, into the report, which will guarantee that when it comes to filling positions in the European External Action Service, officials from certain Member States will not have an advantage over officials from other states. European Union foreign policy is, after all, only one specific area, and therefore, in addition to qualifications and broad geographical representation, a principle must apply according to which state officials from all Member States will be appropriately represented among the staff of the European External Action Service. I therefore think that it is very important that Parliament has proposed to delete provisions that allowed the transfer of officials from the Council or the Commission to the European External Action Service without competition for the vacancy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European External Action Service works in collaboration with the diplomatic services of the Member States and is made up of officials from the relevant services of the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission, as well as staff seconded from the national diplomatic services of the Member States. Thus, for the purposes of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the EEAS should be treated as an EU institution. In view of this, EU officials and temporary agents from the diplomatic services of the Member States should have the same rights and obligations and be treated equally, particularly as regards the eligibility to assume all positions under equivalent conditions. The amendment provided for in this resolution is therefore necessary.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing.(HU) I supported this report which was preceded by very serious debates, primarily as regards filling the posts of the European External Action Service. The principle of geographical balance was the main cause of these debates, a principle that – along with the priorities of institutional and gender balance – was eventually included in the report in a much attenuated form.

The new Member States are undoubtedly not entirely satisfied, but it is nevertheless a good thing that a compromise has been reached, and we trust that in future, this may be revised to be even fairer. To this end, we must do everything possible to ensure that the diplomats designated by the individual Member States have comparable and high qualifications. We should be pleased, however, that we have taken an important step towards a unified and effective foreign representation of the EU, since given the current and future challenges, this is one of the most important aspects of EU policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We have adopted with a big majority the compromise package reflecting the Green position, to which our group has substantially contributed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  György Schöpflin (PPE), in writing. – To those of us from the new Member States, the omission of any legally binding commitment to geographic balance in the European External Action Service is a disappointment. It is true that there have been several political statements promising that the interests of the new Member States will be taken into account. However positive a political commitment might be, the absence of a legal provision is regrettable. Without legal provision, it is hard to see how voters in the new Member States will feel that they own the service. This is why a number of us have had misgivings about giving our full support to the Rapkay report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. (PL) We are coming to the end of the rather tumultuous work on the form to be taken by the European External Action Service, on which we are about to vote today. We have talked a lot about sustainable development in terms of gender and geography and a lot about transparency of recruitment based on pre-defined rules and regulations, but the most important issue is how good and effective the EEAS will be, which is why meritocratic criteria are so important when it comes to staff recruitment. I would like to stress the requirement, indeed the necessity, of ensuring that employees from the Directorates of the European Commission that are relevant in terms of subject matter, as well as from the Council and Parliament, participate in these services.

The point is not the representation of European institutions, but the fact that these persons should have the right qualifications in various spheres of EU activities, such as complex aspects of energy, trade, agricultural and other issues, not to mention human rights or terrorism. I have concerns that most of the people involved in the EEAS will have general diplomatic skills, but no familiarity with the complex factual issues they will have to deal with.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing.(PL) Abstaining from voting is not a solution. Those who are absent are always in the wrong. I think that in the resolution as a whole, there are many more good measures than those which are of less value. We need the European External Action Service. It should begin its work as soon as possible, to increase Europe’s importance in the world.

The resolution which has been adopted says that all Member States will be represented in the service. Now we have to take care that this does really happen. This creates confidence in the process of establishing the External Action Service. It should be remembered that it was on mutual trust that the European Union was built, and that Poland has greatly benefited from this. I am going to be watching the process very carefully.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing.(PL) Only a year ago, introduction of the concept of geographical balance to the debate on the European External Action Service met with huge opposition, even from within the European Parliament. Today, no one at all is in any doubt that this is a problem and that it has to be solved. The commitment found in all the most important documents related to the EEAS to take steps to ensure equal representation of all the Member States of the European Union in the new Union diplomatic service is a success. The review planned for 2013 will allow us to judge if these steps have been taken.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE), in writing. – The results of the vote on the Rapkay report show that a considerable number of MEPs from new Member States either abstained or voted against it. I was one of the MEPs who abstained. My main concern was the lack of ambition of its wording on the principle of geographical balance within the employment policy and staff of the future European External Action Service (EEAS). The report failed to introduce a legally binding commitment to geographical balance in EEAS, thus relying only on political promises made by key EU decision makers on foreign affairs. This is why most new Member States do not feel reassured by the proper application of the principle of geographical balance in the future EEAS. It is regrettable that the rapporteur chose such a minimalist line, while the reluctance of the Council to explicitly accept this binding commitment raises even more concern. I am calling on the Council and the Commission to examine the voting result on this report closely and deliver on their promises of respecting the geographical balance principle while recruiting the future staff of the EEAS. It will be one of the MEPs’ priorities to monitor this process closely in future.

 
  
  

Report: Roberto Gualtieri, László Surján (A7-0283/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Parliament resolution as I agree that it is vital that the EU is able to use all of its external instruments within a coherent structure, and that the provision of budgetary resources in 2010 in order to establish this structure, in its initial phase, is the political purpose of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I voted against the report, which refers to the European External Action Service set up on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon. Financial and any other form of aid for this service is unacceptable because it deploys political and military resources for misguided actions under the Union’s foreign policy, ultimately resulting in further militarisation of the European Union. At the same time, it moves Europe away from the independent and pacific role which it should play in settling international problems. This makes it part of the tension and a participating force in divisive, military interventions in war zones.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) It is becoming necessary to adapt the budgetary instruments to the new reality of the European External Action Service (EEAS). However, I believe that efforts to ensure adequate funds for its capabilities and efficient and effective operation in line with what was intended, along with the effective monitoring of its costs, are broadly justified.

In the early days of its effective existence, the European institutions and Member States should pay special attention to the EEAS so that they can properly monitor its activities and identify its main problems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This proposal for an amending budget comes under the realisation of the Treaty of Lisbon in order to facilitate the implementation and operation of the European External Action Service (EEAS). I therefore support this initiative, and it is important to ensure that it is implemented within the principles of efficient management of European resources, while highlighting a good relationship between cost and benefit, along with the requirements of budgetary restraint, due to the impact of the economic crisis on public finances.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Our vote against this report, which represents another step towards establishing and employing the European External Action Service (EEAS), is a position consistent with our opposition to the creation of this service. A central point of the Treaty of Lisbon and a fundamental element of federalism in the European Union, it will involve more than 5 000 people in the future 130 EU embassies in various countries.

A diplomatic mega-structure that will inevitably subordinate the representatives and interests of the Member States, imposing on them, and here too, the interests of the powers that have been determining the course of the EU. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the EEAS will not be linked to military and intelligence structures. There is, therefore, the prospect of a worrying militarisation of the EU and of international relations, which we will fight vigorously.

It should also be asked, as the EU’s budget is extremely reduced, where will the contributions come from to cover this expenditure? All this at a time when the effects of the crisis are getting worse, with the so-called ‘austerity’ policies putting enormous pressure on national budgets; when salaries and social security benefits are being cut, and taxes on income from work are being increased.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) Following the amendment to the Staff Regulations and an amendment to the Financial Regulation so that the creation of the European External Action Service is encompassed in those documents, it is now necessary to approve a budget for its proper functioning. Hence, for this service to function properly and achieve the objectives for which it was created, it must be given a budget that is sufficient to provide the human and material resources necessary for it to perform its activities well.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (ES) I voted against this European Parliament legislative resolution, because creating the service that they want to finance represents another step towards the militarisation of the European Union’s foreign policy. As well as my opposition to this militaristic foreign affairs philosophy, my reason for voting against it is that the most basic principles of transparency and democracy have been absent throughout the process of creating the European External Action Service (EEAS). The organisation and financing of this service do not include the necessary strict control over staffing and financing by the European Parliament, meaning that the EEAS is worryingly lacking in democracy and transparency. It is therefore no surprise that the proposed structure for the EEAS relegates the European Parliament to a secondary, irrelevant position in EU foreign policy, which my group and I firmly reject. I have therefore voted against it. I cannot be in favour of the proposed budgets for this type of service with its militaristic tendencies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) Consideration surely does need to be given to the precise form of the European External Action Service (EEAS) that is to be established. A system in which each of the 50 directors-general would initially have 30 and later a good 80 staff members would mean bloated and expensive administration.

Similarly, the establishment of the EEAS is expected to bring with it a wave of promotions. A few issues have not yet been cleared up sufficiently. Possible effects on the building costs must be subject to prior scrutiny. Other factors, such as actually giving proper weight to German as a working language, as laid down in the treaties, have been ignored. For these reasons, I feel that, in its present form, the funding for the EEAS must be rejected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Parliament resolution as I agree that it is vital that the EU is able to use all of its external instruments within a coherent structure, and that the provision of budgetary resources in 2010 in order to establish this structure, in its initial phase, is the political purpose of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The setting up of the European External Action Service (EEAS) necessitates an amendment of the 2010 budget and of the proposed 2011 budget. A new Section X has to be created in the budget and the 2010 budget has to be modified in order to provide 100 additional posts in the EEAS establishment plan and a financial envelope for financing an additional 70 contract staff. The bulk of resources necessary will simply be transferred from the sections of the European Council, Council and Commission. The prevailing feeling in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) is that the HR, Baroness Ashton, has not entirely lived up to the promises she made to the EP on the setting up of the EEAS. AFET considers that the EP should be consulted on staffing priorities within the service (e.g. when it comes to geographical balances) and that the issue of gender balance would be better addressed in the recruitment procedure for the EEAS. From a Green/EFA point of view, the fact that until now, Baroness Ashton has not transferred the Commission staff in DG RELEX dealing with peacebuilding and crisis response to the EEAS is considered a major shortcoming, especially as the HR has given messages of assurance to the EP on this transfer.

 
  
  

Reports: Ingeborg Gräßle, Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0263/2010), Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0288/2010), Roberto Gualtieri, László Surján (A7-0283/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. (FR) We firmly oppose the creation of a European External Action Service. Foreign affairs and diplomacy come under national sovereignty, and that is why we voted against all the reports on this matter.

A common foreign policy conducted in the sole interest of the European Union will necessarily find itself, sooner or later, in contradiction with the fundamental interests of one, several or all Member States. For instance, if there is a conflict where countries are asked to get involved, but their citizens are opposed. Or if a policy that is particularly hostile or particularly favourable towards a country or group of countries is promoted, going against the age-old traditions of some diplomatic services or the vital interests of some Members.

Worse still: the treaties already stipulate that, whatever happens, all this will be subject to other commitments or constraints on an even greater, possibly global, scale: NATO, the UN, goodness knows what else. Therefore, it is not even a strong and independent diplomatic service that is being proposed here, but an instrument of submission to non-European leadership.

 
  
  

Report: László Surján (A7-0281/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) Given that the annual allocation for financial assistance for monitoring measures in the banana sector amounted to EUR 75 million in 2010, where the major portion of this financial assistance stemmed from a reallocation of heading 4 of the budget, which equated to EUR 55.8 million, and that in 2011, this heading is only EUR 875 530, we agree with Parliament’s proposal to invite the Commission to submit a new proposal to deploy the flexibility instrument for the remaining amount of EUR 74 124 470. This proposal is justified by the fact that there is a need for financial assistance for monitoring measures in the banana sector, particularly when we consider that EU financial assistance to ACP banana supplier countries affected by the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) liberalisation in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) must be ensured if the EU wishes to maintain its influence as a global player. We should also mention that it makes complete sense to implement this proposal, given that these measures are provided for in point 27 of the interinstitutional agreement on the use of the flexibility instrument.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution as I agree that EU financial assistance to ACP banana supplier countries affected by the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) liberalisation in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) should not be questioned, and that the budgetary effort is not held up. I therefore agree with the Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1905/2006 in order to allow the financing of Bananas Accompanying Measures (BAM) over the years 2010 to 2013, with an overall budget of EUR 190 million, with a potential supplementary EUR 10 million, if margins allow.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) The banana sector is a vital sector for some EU regions, especially the French overseas départements and territories; that is why, faced with competition from Latin American countries exacerbated by agreements under negotiation, Parliament has adopted funding measures aimed at helping this weakened sector.

MEPs would like to see the flexibility instrument mobilised to the tune of EUR 74.12 million. This is a strong signal from Parliament to the Commission and the Council, which only made provision for 18.3 million. Similarly, it is an opportunity for Parliament to point out that it is time to stop dipping into the budget for EU external action to finance the Banana Accompanying Measures. The EUR 190 million in aid promised for the 2010-2013 period shall have to be financed by new funds, which is what Parliament will demand during the new financial perspective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Commission is proposing an amendment to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1905/2006 in order to finance Bananas Accompanying Measures (BAM) over the years 2010 to 2013, with an overall budget of EUR 190 million. The proposed annual breakdown provides an amount of EUR 75 million in 2010. It is worth noting that the margin available under heading 4 is only EUR 875 530. The most important part of this financial assistance in 2010 comes from a reallocation within heading 4 of the budget, namely EUR 55.8 million from a total of EUR 75 million, which affects instruments and actions that the EU, and Parliament in particular, deem to be of major interest. In addition, the need for financial assistance linked to accompanying measures for the bananas sector was not provided for in adopting the multiannual financial framework (MFF) in force. However, EU financial assistance to ACP banana-supplying countries affected by the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) liberalisation in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) should not be questioned, and the fiscal effort should not be held up. I therefore agree with the change to the draft amending budget No 3/2010, as proposed by the rapporteur.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report aims to establish the measures necessary for financial assistance to countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) that will be affected by the liberalisation of the banana trade between the EU and 11 Latin American countries, under which the EU is committed to not applying quantitative restrictions or equivalent measures on banana imports to its territory.

When the Geneva Agreement was signed, which provides for this liberalisation, the EU committed to channelling EUR 200 million to ACP countries by way of compensation for the impact that this measure would have on their exports to the EU. We criticised this agreement at the time, as it will mainly benefit the US multinationals that dominate the global market in the sector.

Several ACP countries, as well as several banana producers in those countries, expressed their concern about the agreement’s consequences, believing that the sum of EUR 200 million will not offset all its effects. Now, the report provides for ‘an overall budget of EUR 190 million, with a potential supplementary EUR 10 million, if margins allow’. Furthermore, there were no proper warnings of the impact on the banana-producing countries and regions of the EU, such as the Autonomous Region of Madeira. For these reasons, we abstained from the vote on the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) The European Parliament proposal for a resolution on Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 3/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission, allocates new resources to finance the Banana Accompanying Measures for ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) countries. The Commission proposal, made in fact without the involvement of any branch of the budget authority, provides for an appropriation of EUR 75 million to be entered into the reserve pending the adoption of the relevant amending regulation. I am bound to point out that Parliament and Council have failed to reach an agreement over this matter. Parliament had, in fact, considered using the flexibility instrument, which has proved excellent for dealing with similar situations, because the funds in question are ready for mobilisation and have a legal foundation. Council, on the other hand, had a different idea, due to the reluctance of Member States to use the flexibility instrument, which led to an increase in their contributions as a consequence For these very reasons, the Committee on Budgets acknowledged the impossibility of reaching an agreement over the 2010 budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The EU has always focused on helping developing countries, particularly the ACP countries. The specific case that is being handled in this amending budget proposal is that of the ACP banana-producing countries. This special aid takes the form of the liberalisation of the banana trade between the EU and 11 Latin American banana-producing countries. This kind of aid is, in our opinion, better and more effective than direct aid whereby funds are applied without discretion. By helping the banana sector in these countries, we are helping them develop their economy, create jobs and fight poverty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) The thinking is that, in order to overcome the economic crisis, as much money as possible should be made available to fund the EU’s priorities for 2010. This was made possible by reallocating budget funds. Financial support for accompanying measures for the banana sector were not envisaged when the current multiannual financial framework was being drawn up.

To cushion trade liberalisation at the WTO level and the associated reduction in most favoured nation status tariffs, we are told that EU financial support for ACP countries that supply bananas is now to be maintained. Especially in times in which the EU itself is wrestling with the economic crisis, this kind of utilisation of the flexibility instrument must be rejected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Due to changing trade arrangements, notably the liberalisation of trade within the WTO, the reduction of the preferential margin for ACP banana-exporting countries has had a negative impact.

The European Commission proposes therefore to support the main ACP banana-exporting countries by establishing Banana Accompanying Measures (BAM) with a budget of EUR 190 million over 4 years (2010-2013). The objective of this assistance is to help ACP banana exporters to launch adjustment programmes. Although the banana question is a long-standing issue, financing the BAM remains problematic.

The Commission and the Council did not integrate it into Heading 4 of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2007-2013, and the Committee on Development considers that the proposal is not compatible with the ceiling for Heading 4 of the MFF and asks the Commission to make substantial amendments or replace it with another text.

 
  
  

Draft general budget of the European Union – 2011 financial year

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I am pleased with the 2011 draft budget, which is being discussed today, as it dwells precisely on the stated priorities. For the first time, Parliament is on an equal footing with the Council on these matters. This is the first budget following the Treaty of Lisbon. For this reason, and due to the crisis that Europe is experiencing, it is important that the reconciliation process is successful. It is vital that the EU is given a budget for the implementation of priority areas and the new powers that were bestowed upon it by the treaty. It is important to fight for our convictions and for a budget that is visionary in a time of crisis. Parliament’s proposal reflects this ambition. On the other hand, the values proposed by the Council mirror the austerity of budgets adopted at a national level within the EU. The EU, however, must have the ability to react to policy changes caused by major challenges. The EU has a duty to present an ambitious European budget which can assist economic recovery. Only by strengthening areas such as science and innovation, and by contributing to economic growth and to more and better jobs, can we make Europe a more attractive place to live and work.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. (DA) We, the Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament, have voted in favour of Amendments 700, 701 and 706 to the budget. We have done so, even though the comments contain a passage stating that the EU should move towards a low carbon economy. We are well aware that the supporters of nuclear power are attempting to use this term to conceal the fact that they are really talking about an economy in which nuclear power plays a prominent role as a source of energy. We would like to stress that we believe it to be a very bad idea to spend EU resources on nuclear power, and it is with this proviso that we voted in favour of the amendment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), in writing. (DA) In the vote on the EU’s 2011 budget, the Danish Liberal Party voted against a number of amendments relating to the removal of money for export refunds. The expenditure for export refunds is determined by law and will therefore be paid regardless of what amount is specified in the budget. However, if the expenditure is not specified in the EU budget it will have to be paid out by the individual Member States. At a time when the national budgets are being cut back, it would be economically irresponsible to burden the Member States with this significant additional expenditure. The Danish Liberal Party is pleased about the considerable reduction in the EU’s export subsidies in recent years and will continue to work to bring about a change in the underlying legislation so that the phase-out can continue. The Danish Liberal Party also voted against a statement that prevents the payment of a special male bovine premium for bulls used for bullfighting.

The reason why the Danish Liberal Party voted against this proposal is that this premium is only paid in Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia, where, as we know, bullfighting does not happen. Finally, the Danish Liberal Party voted against allocating DKK 300 million to a European dairy fund. Dairy prices have risen over the last year and, against that background, the Commission has concluded that, under the current rules, it will not be possible for money to be paid out from such a fund.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. (FR) I voted in favour of the amendment on the budget which places a portion of the 2011 budget for the European Police College (CEPOL) in reserve. I welcome the vote in plenary which, with 611 votes for, 38 against and 6 abstentions, strengthens Parliament’s position on CEPOL. Indeed, Parliament will release the appropriations set aside if it receives satisfactory information from the agency on the follow-up to the 2008 discharge.

These requirements are clear: inform Parliament of the results of the OLAF inquiry; publish the list of members of the Governing Board; provide a final external auditor’s report on the appropriations used to finance private expenditure; and ensure that changes are made within the Governing Board in order to avoid a repeat of this situation in the future. I very much hope that CEPOL will react swiftly and provide evidence of its willingness to cooperate fully with Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. (SV) A strong and modern Europe needs a future- and growth-oriented budget, while, at the same time, the economic situation demands reflection and restraint. We have therefore chosen to keep to a budget-restrictive line with the focus on broad investments in research, development and innovation that create growth and jobs in accordance with the Europe 2020 strategy. Since we want to see a Europe that is sustainable from the point of view of the economy, social matters and the climate, we voted in favour of investments in the environment and in human capital and control of the financial markets, but always within the bounds of existing resources.

An unjustifiably large proportion of the budget is still utilised for the EU’s agricultural policy, and tomorrow’s challenges will not be met by applying yesterday’s policy. We therefore voted against the proposed dairy fund of EUR 300 million and our own proposal to abolish the EU’s export subsidies for agricultural products, for example, as well as subsidies for tobacco cultivation. Since everyone has to do their bit in these difficult economic times, we also voted in favour of reducing the EU’s administration costs.

 
  
  

Report: Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Helga Trüpel (A7-0284/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) In view of the fragile recovery of the euro area and the weak public finances in many Member States, if the budget is used wisely, it can stimulate economic recovery, but it is necessary to know how to make the most of it. With regard to citizens, it is worth noting the increase within the Competitiveness for growth and employment heading and the ‘Cohesion for growth and employment’ heading, although there is a reduction for education and training. There is a notable increase in the European Social Fund (ESF), but it is regrettable that only 1.4% of the funds are earmarked for the implementation of social policy, in which health sees a reduction of EUR 15.77 million in relation to 2010. In the field of regional development, there is an increase of about 3.2%, which is considered essential. Regarding agriculture, it is worth noting the extreme volatility of the dairy sector, highlighting the need for a permanent approach to address this issue, namely, through a fund for the dairy sector. With regard to fisheries, there is a regrettable reduction in the allocations to the common fisheries policy (CFP).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) The EU budget for 2011 is designed to underpin the profitability of big business and the savage attack by the monopolies and bourgeois governments on workers’ labour and social rights. It provides even more hot money, subsidies and facilities to monopoly groups, in addition to the 5 trillion or so already given to them by national bourgeois governments, in order to bolster their position in the inexorable competition between the imperialists, with a clear view to reviving the capitalist system. Its basic approach is, on the one hand, to give out money to capital and, on the other, to slash any – already paltry – spending on workers, small commercial and handicraft enterprises, poor medium-sized farm holdings and young people, and to provide even more money for imperialist intervention by the EU and for the mechanisms which it uses to repress and persecute the people.

The first budget approved by the European Parliament, with its allegedly enhanced powers under the Treaty of Lisbon, is worthy of its reactionary nature. It proves once again that the European Parliament is faithfully serving the needs and interests of the monopolies and is deeply hostile to the workers and grassroots needs. The working and grassroots class movement needs to step up its fight, so that the workers do not pay the price for the capitalist crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Liam Aylward, Brian Crowley and Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. (GA) There has been increasing volatility in international dairy markets in recent years. The EUR 300 million of exceptional funding given to the dairy sector in the 2010 budget was especially beneficial for dairy farmers, who were suffering greatly because of the crisis. We voted in favour of a new budget line, so that there would be a dairy fund to support innovation, diversification and restructuring and to increase the bargaining capacity of dairy farmers in order that imbalances in the food supply chain could be addressed. In addition, we welcome what the report says on the support being given to the School Milk Scheme, and the Commission’s proposal in relation to increasing the funding of this scheme and the funding of the School Fruit Scheme.

The aim of the common agricultural policy is to ensure the security of the food supply, to protect the environment and biodiversity, and ensure a proper income for farmers. In this regard, we welcome what the report says about asking the Commission to include a cash buffer in the 2011 budget lest there be increased market volatility in 2011, to reduce red tape, and to improve and clarify access to funding.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), in writing. (RO) I agree with my fellow Members who do not support the budget reductions proposed by the Council. The best argument against this is the situation of the Member States which have proceeded with this action domestically. I am referring in particular to Romania. The pressure exerted on consumption by restricting it has not brought us out of the crisis, but has actually created unprecedented social pressure. I agree then with the EUR 300 million increase in the milk fund. I have adopted the same stance in support of additional financial allocations for this product throughout the entire period of the European crisis. I strongly support the idea of the European stabilisation mechanism and the need for the two new budgetary lines created to be specific, with figures provided and not blank, as is the case now, so that this European intervention instrument can become a reality rather than just a theory. I hope that Parliament’s viewpoint will be respected during the conciliation, that an agreement will be reached with the Council and that we will be able to vote ‘yes’ in November to the 2011 EU budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. (CS) The European Parliament, for the first time in its history, has discussed the draft general budget of the European Union for 2011 according to the new rules under the Treaty of Lisbon. A number of changes that Parliament’s plenary has made clearly show that the degree of control and the democratic functioning of the European Union has increased. With regard to the improvement of democratic procedures, but also with regard to the structure of the budget, I supported this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Parliament resolution as I agree with Parliament’s horizontal priorities for 2011 in the areas of youth, education and mobility, which require, under the various policies, specific cross-sector investment as a means of promoting growth and development in the EU. I agree with the proposed increase in funding for all programmes related to these priorities, namely the Lifelong Learning, PESSOA and Erasmus Mundus programmes. I also agree that the mobility of youth employment is an essential tool for ensuring the development of a competitive and dynamic labour market in Europe, and as such, it needs to be strengthened. I welcome the increase in funding for the European Employment Service and therefore strongly support the launch of the preparatory action ‘Your First Job Abroad’, which aims to help young people enter the labour market or gain access to skilled jobs in another Member State as a first step towards a specific non-academic programme for the mobility of young people.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. (FR) This budget does not measure up to what the European Union needs for it to come out of the recession, bring about recovery and face up to its responsibilities in terms of solidarity. In this respect, I regret the fact that the proposal by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament for creating a line of ‘own resources’ funded by a tax on financial transactions was quite simply rejected by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). This inconsistency between what the right says and does is outrageous given that they have been saying for months to citizens and to the media that they support such a tax. However, when it comes to voting, and when the European Parliament has the power to make it happen, these are the very people who want to see this proposal buried. While the EU is expanding, and more and more powers are being entrusted to it, the resources at its disposal are dwindling. This is a bad signal for the recovery of growth and employment in Europe, in general, and for European citizens, in particular.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. (SV) We would like the EU’s priorities for the budget to be focused more on the future, increased competitiveness, investments in infrastructure and research, rather than propping up agricultural policy. We have today adhered to our priorities by voting for legal certainty, increased appropriations for research and more money for climate measures, but also for a reduction in appropriations for agricultural subsidies, export subsidies, tobacco cultivation and dairy funds. Even though it did not contain all of the priorities that we would have liked to have seen, we have, of course, voted in favour of the EU budget for 2011.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) We have just adopted the 2011 budget that the European Parliament wanted. This vote has enabled us to reaffirm our priorities towards the poorest, for whom a EUR 100 million package has been requested, and also towards dairy producers for whom we would like to see the milk fund continue.

Struggling businesses should also carry on receiving support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund which should be permanent and have its own budget. Finally, we would like to see the European budget be given its own resources and a tax on financial transactions finally introduced.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. (FR) At a time when States, local communities, taxpayers and businesses are accepting financial sacrifices, the Union cannot exempt itself from this virtuous process. Disproportionate increases in the Union budget, which some wish to see, are not acceptable. That does not mean that the time has come to cut strategically essential expenditure, such as the common agricultural policy, thanks to which we enjoy independence in terms of foodstuffs and benefit from a source of exports (and hence of earnings).

On the other hand, this would be a good time to question the contribution derogations enjoyed by certain States for historical reasons, and which have no grounds to exist today. The idea of a European tax cannot be contemplated in the present context: the fiscal pressure bearing on Member States should be reduced first.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. (FR) The European Parliament has spoken on the draft legislative resolution on the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011.

The European Parliament’s examination of the general budget of the European Union has always provided an opportunity to see more clearly how this Union’s powers have been extended over the years and, vice versa, how the Member States’ sovereignty has been lost.

This report lays open the fiscal pressure that will be brought to bear on taxpayers. Even though citizens’ disillusionment with the European Union is clear, the latter is still increasing its budget by 6% to finance policies that it has arrogated to itself. Why this increase, when 10% to 15% of resources remain unused and the Commission is demanding restraint in all Member States?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – I believe any proposal to increase the EU budget to be unacceptable, on the basis that I cannot justify to my constituents increasing EU spending by nearly 6% in 2011. Today, the UK Chancellor is outlining drastic public sector cuts – cuts that the EU have urged Member States to make. Yet, at the same time, the same EU deems it appropriate that the budget of this place increases by 6%. Do as I say, not as I do, seems to be official EU policy. I find that unacceptable.

I could not look my constituents in the eye, some who will undoubtedly lose their jobs as a result of cuts in UK spending, and say that MEPs spent even more of their money wisely – and remember it is their money – by boosting the coffers of the EEAS, Europol and regulation of financial services. And I certainly could not justify increasing the entertainment budget of this place either. That is why I voted against this budget. It is for others to justify why they endorsed it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lena Ek (ALDE), in writing. (SV) A strong and modern Europe needs a future- and growth-oriented budget while, at the same time, the economic situation demands reflection and restraint. I have therefore chosen to keep to a budget-restrictive line and have focused on broad investments in research, development and innovation that create growth and jobs in accordance with the Europe 2020 strategy. Since I want to see a Europe that is sustainable from the point of view of the economy, social matters and the climate, I therefore voted in favour of investments in the environment, in individuals and in control of the financial markets, but always within the bounds of existing resources.

A large proportion of the budget goes to the EU’s agricultural policy. Unfortunately, the current structure of the common agricultural policy is rarely focused on meeting the challenges of the future. Thriving rural areas are very important. However, continuing with export subsidies and subsidies for tobacco cultivation are not the right way to go. What we need instead are reasonable conditions for food production in Europe, decent animal protection and incentives for farmers to produce green energy. Since everyone has to do their bit in these difficult economic times, I also voted in favour of reducing the EU’s administration costs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have today voted in favour of the draft EU budget for 2011. It is a restrained budget, but it also contains necessary investments in research, energy and initiatives for young people, and it enables the establishment of the EU’s new External Action Service and new authorities for financial supervision.

However, it is also a budget in which many of the EU’s new priorities lack reasonable financing, for example, the EU’s new strategy for growth and employment (EU 2020), climate policy and the EU’s foreign policy and aid policy, particularly the aid for Palestine.

In order to keep the budget down, we proposed more cuts in the EU’s agricultural aid, but this was rejected in the vote. We also voted for an examination of the system of the EU’s own resources, including a tax on financial transactions. Irrespective of the form that a new system for the EU’s revenue might take, it must be budget neutral and respect the Member States’ competence in the sphere of taxation.

With regard to Parliament’s own budget, we believe that those committees that are gaining a heavier workload as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon need to be strengthened. This justifies an increase in staff for Parliament’s and the groups’ secretariats. However, we do not believe that MEPs need more staff. Parliament has now decided to maintain the appropriations for an increase in the assistants allowance in reserve, and this should not be released unless all conditions are met. We would have preferred to have seen Parliament’s resources being increased by means of redistributions and measures to increase efficiency, rather than increasing the total budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The EU budget is vital for the development of EU activities, and, especially in times of crisis, for the effective allocation of funds relating to cohesion policy.

I believe that the Council should not reduce these funds arbitrarily, as observed for priorities such as funds allocated to innovation, and for objectives of growth and competitiveness. The Council has cut commitment appropriations by 0.55% and payment appropriations by 2.77%, approving a final budget of EUR 141.8 billion for commitment appropriations and EUR 126.5 billion for payment appropriations, which may be especially critical if it impacts on European growth and competitiveness.

I therefore support Parliament’s maintaining of the initial funding allocated to these areas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the distinction between compulsory expenditure and non-compulsory expenditure has been suppressed, which means that Parliament and the Council are becoming jointly responsible for all EU spending, and that they decide upon it together. In addition, the annual budgetary process is becoming a special legislative procedure with the budget approved through a regulation, which is liable to be seen as a special codecision procedure or, to avoid confusion, as a joint decision by Parliament and the Council. The 2011 budget which Parliament is proposing is ambitious, intelligent and respects the commitments which it has taken on in a rigorous and realistic way. We are making a priority of policies concerning young people, education, mobility, training, research, competitiveness and innovation. I would like to emphasise the preparatory action in which I was personally involved: ‘Your First Job Abroad’. This will boost the mobility of young people in the EU and help to combat unemployment. This EU budget continues to amount to about 1% of gross national income. This clearly demonstrates the need to revise the multiannual financial framework, given the tight margins for its headings, and particularly for headings 1A, 3B and 4. It is also clear that a debate urgently needs to take place on the necessity of new resources for the Union budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We agree with the criticisms made of the arbitrary cuts and reductions effected by the Council on the draft budget, leaving it almost EUR 7 billion lower in 2011 than was agreed in the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2007-2013. This is all the more unacceptable as the sum agreed in the MFF is already an extremely small amount, which compromises any economic and social cohesion right from the start. Hence, it accentuates the damaging effects of the policies that the EU has been pursuing.

We are, therefore, also of the opinion that a substantial reassessment of the budget is absolutely necessary, along with an immediate review of the maximum limits of the current MFF. However, this criticism cannot lead us to accept the intention of ‘lisbonising’ the budget that is mentioned in the report which would keep it subservient to the Treaty of Lisbon’s fundamental pillars: neoliberalism, federalism and militarism. In other words, essentially keeping it subservient to the same policies that caused the profound crisis that the workers and peoples of Europe are currently facing. What is needed – starting with the necessary reinforcement of the Union budget, based on contributions from the Member States in proportion to their gross national income – is a break with these policies and a genuine commitment to cohesion, social progress and environmental conservation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. (FR) The Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December last year. It confers new powers on the European Union: hence, new opportunities for spending money. No one or hardly anyone here has the decency to highlight that there is something scandalous about asking for an increase in resources allocated to the European Union or the creation of a new tax when Member States are being ordered to practise austerity and to slash their social protection.

In France, Europe has an enormous direct cost: EUR 8 billion per year, a figure that is increasing all the time. In other words, it accounts for a major part of the social security deficit, for example. The indirect cost is even greater, in terms of unemployment, weak growth, relocations, and so on, linked to European policies. The European budget is not complementary to national budgets; it competes with and raids them. With structural policy cofinancing systems, which are nothing other than a sprinkling of patronage, it is also an incitement to spending. An aggravating circumstance is this: for 15 years, the European Court of Auditors has been unable to approve the management by the Commission of these tens of billions of euro. I believe it is time to have done with all this.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. (FR) I supported the European Parliament resolution on the draft general budget of the EU for 2011. If we want to be able to take on the political priorities of the European Union, the new expenditure made necessary by the economic crisis and the new powers conferred by the Treaty of Lisbon, we must support an ambitious draft budget, capable of delivering the investments required for more jobs and a return to sustainable growth, or, in other words, a budget that lives up to the Europe that we want.

The Council would like to reduce the Union’s budget, because Member States are facing substantial deficits. That is why we have introduced a new budget heading for the Union’s own resources, so that the budget does not depend so much on national contributions. We deplore the fact that the amendment calling for the establishment of a tax on financial transactions has once more been rejected by the right.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. (DE) I support the European Parliament’s proposals for the draft 2011 budget. The important political areas and the individual opinions have been taken into account in the report. Parliament acknowledges that in future, the European Union cannot manage to fulfil its extensive and varied tasks with fewer financial resources. That applies, above all, to agriculture. The Opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the 2011 budget already expressed the concern that, in the planning and utilisation of unused resources, the Commission’s assumptions are too optimistic. Large-scale European research projects are financially coupled to recoveries, the amount of which no one knows in advance. The Commission is called on to ensure the long-term financing of research and development in future and to draw up precise financing plans. Financial recoveries from the agricultural pot should be used for their original purpose.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report as the European Parliament identifies the most important priorities in its policies in the areas of young people, education and mobility. I, too, have maintained on a number of occasions that they are vital and necessary components of the EU economic recovery strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy. Young people, education and mobility require specific cross-sector investments within the suitable policies in order to promote the EU’s growth and development.

I therefore support the need to increase the loans for all the programmes relating to these priorities, such as ‘Lifelong learning’, the ‘People’ programme and Erasmus Mundus. It is also just as important to increase the loans for the European network of employment services. To this end, I support the launch of the preparatory action ‘Your first EURES Job’, which aims to help young people enter the job market or access specialised jobs in another Member State, as a first step towards a specific non-academic youth mobility programme.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – On individual votes, I voted against provisions which I believe have negative consequences for EU citizens and people in developing countries. This includes EU funding for tobacco production, as well as EU agricultural export subsidies which harm developing countries. I also voted against increases in budget lines relating to expenses, travel and administrative costs. However, I welcome the positive elements of the Parliament's first reading, including funding for economic development in our regions, support for crucial research and development and increased overseas aid in line with the UK’s target to increase development assistance. I believe the EU budget is needed to provide long-term stability against the severe austerity measures which are being introduced by national governments in Europe. While national governments implement drastic cuts, in some cases, with a short-term vision, the EU budget can provide stability and long-term planning to help – through funds such as the structural funds and cohesion funds – create jobs, provide job training and boost European economies through the recovery, particularly by providing structural funds to deprived areas hit the hardest.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. (IT) For the first time since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, the European budget has been adopted on a single reading. This is also the first time that Parliament has exercised greater decision making impact than Council. This increased power must, however, be accompanied by a high sense of responsibility and realism imposed by the persistent economic crisis.

In this regard, the Committee on Budgets has sent out a clear signal by opting to respect the margins imposed by the current financial situation and implementing a tough policy based on priorities to encourage growth with the emphasis on research, innovation and young people. I welcome this Chamber’s decision to follow the guidelines of the Committee on Budgets and the Member States, which are often forced into debt following excessive EU cash advances.

The Union Budget must nevertheless be reconsidered in the light of the new powers arising from the Treaty of Lisbon and the need for own resources. These matters require firmness during conciliation in order to provide adequate financial support to such an ambitious project as the EU 2020 strategy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has strengthened EU policies and created new areas of competence – notably, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), competitiveness and innovation, space, tourism, the fight against climate change, social policy, energy policy, justice and internal affairs. These new powers presuppose a budget that will allow them to be put into practice and thus require all bodies with budgetary authority to be coherent and consistent with respect to their increased financial powers. We therefore have to provide the Community budget with the necessary funds to make it able to achieve the objectives outlined for 2014, so that the Europe 2020 strategy is not compromised. Of course, in this situation of crisis, the Member States are putting up some resistance to the increase in contributions, but they must acknowledge the intentions of the EU and the need not to jeopardise everything that has been achieved in terms of cohesion and integration.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) One of the things that the Treaty of Lisbon changed was the financial structures of the EU, in particular, the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the annual budgetary procedure. The treaty gives the MFF binding legal status and states that it is to be laid down by the Council, acting unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. There is no longer a distinction to be made between mandatory and non-mandatory expenditure, for decisions on which both budgetary authorities are now jointly responsible, with the process being simplified accordingly. The fact that Parliament now has the right of codecision on the entire budget reinforces democratic control.

Some further steps to simplify the bureaucracy are also envisaged. It is important that the European Parliament, as the EU’s only directly elected institution, has its budgetary rights strengthened so that it can influence important EU decisions such as the demand for cost savings in the new External Action Service. However, I cannot support tendencies to centralise.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the draft budget because I approve of its general position and its contents. I agree with the re-established ceilings in relation to the cuts made by the Council. I believe that this vote is extremely important and I applaud the position expressed by Parliament, which really makes use of the new prerogatives. Indeed, thanks to the new budget procedure brought in by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament can assert its importance and its powers in relation to the Council, defending a strong and ambitious budget, which, at the same time, is tough, in awareness of the fact that in order to relaunch the economy of the European Union – sorely tested by the recent economic and financial crisis – important investments in key sectors such as research and technological innovation are required.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) The initial draft budget tabled before the Committee on Culture and Education by the Committee on Budgets fell short in that it failed to adopt ambitious measures to achieve the primary targets of the EU 2020 strategy in education, training and mobility. To be precise, the competent committee initially adopted the position of the Commission and the Council and proposed a freeze on appropriations for lifelong learning, education and young entrepreneurship programmes. However, it is comforting that, in the wake of the opposition and concerns expressed by the members of the Committee on Culture and Education on the downgrading of policies on education and training, especially at a time when unemployment is on the rise and is causing problems in numerous Member States of the European Union, the Committee on Budgets tabled the necessary amendments, which I supported, and increased the initial planned appropriations (for example, in the case of Article 150202 on lifelong learning programmes).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Parliament resolution as I agree with Parliament’s horizontal priorities for 2011, especially in the areas of youth, education and mobility, which require, under the various policies, specific investment between sectors as a means of promoting growth and development for the EU. I agree with the proposed increase in funding for all programmes related to these priorities, namely, the Lifelong Learning, PESSOA and Erasmus Mundus programmes.

I also believe that the mobility of youth employment is an essential tool for ensuring the development of a competitive and dynamic labour market in Europe, and that as such, it needs to be strengthened. I therefore welcome the increase in funding for the European Employment Service and strongly support the launch of the preparatory action ‘Your First Job Abroad’, which aims to help young people enter the labour market or gain access to skilled jobs in another Member State, as a first step towards a specific non-academic programme for the mobility of young people.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. (FR) EUR 142 650 billion – that is the budget for the financial year 2011, adopted by the European Parliament at midday today. A tight budget, which is virtually identical to that proposed by the European Commission and adopted against a background of austerity. However, we all know that Europe cannot do more and better with less money.

That is why I, along with several other Members and also the Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget, Mr Lewandowski, am entering a plea for the European Union to award itself its own resources. A financial mechanism that would guarantee autonomy and room for manoeuvre with regard to the Member States which, crisis situation or no, have long since abandoned the idea of giving Europe the means for its ambitions. I see at least two reasons for not cutting back on the European budget.

The first derives from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the new powers for Europe in the fields of foreign policy, energy, financial supervision, to mention only a few. The second relates to the new 2020 strategy, which is intended to put Europe back on the track to sustainable growth, major projects and innovation. New challenges and powers which will need to be well funded. This leads us back to the one and only solution – direct financing of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This year’s budget debate again underlines the need to agree a meaningful system of own resources for the EU. The annual squabbling over the budgets between the European institutions leads to chaotic decision making and creates an acrimonious diversion, which could be so easily avoided through an own resources system, such as allocating part of the revenue from an EU financial transaction tax, a tax on aviation fuel or a carbon tax to fund the EU budget. Despite this, today’s vote broadly strikes a balance between responding to the extra demands created by the Lisbon Treaty, whilst limiting the growth in the EU budgets, in response to current budgetary difficulties.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL) , in writing. (SV) I have chosen to abstain in respect of the decision regarding Parliament’s draft budget. The enhancement of the Daphne programme dealing with violence against women is gratifying. I am also pleased that Parliament is rejecting the Commission’s and the Council’s proposal for cuts in financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority. However, I would also like to point out that I think that Parliament is acting irresponsibly by granting the EU system and itself such large sums in the form of programmes and subsidies and aid for bureaucracy, while the Member States are being forced into making brutal cuts in order to meet the requirements of the Stability Pact – in other words, the neoliberal pact that the majority of Parliament wholeheartedly supports.

The main winner is agriculture, particularly the establishment of a dairy fund of EUR 300 million. This decision will be embarrassingly difficult for us MEPs to explain to those struggling people who are demonstrating in one country after the next. Why should they suffer while the EU system’s budget expenditure is completely unaffected by reality?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) This is the first EU budget that has been voted upon in accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Lisbon at the very first reading. Although some sensitive points still remain for conciliation which deal with issues that I consider to be of the utmost importance, such as an allocation for cohesion and agriculture, I welcome this proposal.

The approved document restores the Commission’s initial proposal relating to the section on cohesion for growth and employment after the Council had reduced the amount allocated. Although the amount for 2011 is already set out in the multiannual financial framework (MFF) with an upper limit of EUR 50.65 billion at current prices, it is worth noting that the rapporteur states that this heading will require a higher level of payments.

I also welcome the allocations in the competitiveness section for growth and employment, which includes provision for funding for most of Parliament’s proposals, such as those relating to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and programmes for young people, education and mobility.

I am voting in favour of this document, although it does not include the proposals made by the European People’s Party (EPP) on intervention measures on the storage of cereals, milk and dairy products and powdered milk, which were unfortunately rejected by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing.(PL) Abstaining from voting is not a solution. Those who are absent are always in the wrong. I think that in the resolution as a whole, there are many more good measures than those which are of less value. We need the European External Action Service. It should begin its work as soon as possible, to increase Europe’s importance in the world.

The resolution which has been adopted says that all Member States will be represented in the service. Now we have to take care that this does really happen. This creates confidence in the process of establishing the External Action Service. It should be remembered that it was on mutual trust that the European Union was built, and that Poland has greatly benefited from this. I am going to be watching the process very carefully.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the positive elements of the 2011 budget, which include funding for economic development in Wales, support for research and development, and overseas aid. I recognise that extra expenditure resulting from the European External Action Service and new European supervisory authorities is required and is supported by all Member States, including the UK, in the Council. However, I am concerned about expenditure in a number of areas that do not reflect value for money or have negative consequences for EU citizens and people in developing countries. This includes EU funding for alcohol and tobacco production, which conflicts with the EU’s health objectives, and EU agricultural export subsidies, which harm developing countries, as well as increases in budget lines relating to expenses, travel, publications and other administrative costs. In the current economic environment, it is more important than ever to justify expenditure on our priorities by tackling all wasteful and excessive spending in other sectors. I did not feel able to oppose this budget. During challenging economic times, voting against vital funding for a wide range of priorities would be counterproductive. However, I also believe that some increases were not justified and therefore I took the decision to abstain.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) The key points in the EU budget for 2011 are investment in training, research and innovation – a necessity given the current situation on the labour market. The reduction in current unemployment in Europe needs to be at the heart of every decision – including when it comes to actually implementing the ambitious Europe 2020 targets. Prioritising youth in connection with the training and mobility programmes is a very worthwhile investment, with good opportunities for development for the labour market. There are some increases, but also cuts – the budget is a compromise, like every multi-party decision. Redirecting money into nuclear research, however, cannot be in the interests of the people of Europe and this money would be better spent, for example, on renewable energy sources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – The EPLP welcomes the positive elements in the Parliament’s first reading position, including funding for economic development in our regions, support for crucial research and development and increased overseas aid in line with the UK’s target to increase total overseas development assistance. We also recognise that extra expenditure resulting from the European External Action Service and the new European supervisory authorities is essential to implement these important new activities, and is supported by all Member States, including the UK, in the Council. However, we are deeply concerned about expenditure in a number of areas that do not reflect value for money or have negative consequences for EU citizens and people in developing countries. This includes EU funding for alcohol and tobacco production, which conflicts with the EU’s health objectives, and EU agricultural export subsidies which harm developing countries, as well as increases in budget lines relating to expenses, travel, publications and other administrative costs. In the current economic environment, it is more important than ever to justify expenditure on our priorities by tackling all wasteful and excessive spending in other sectors. The EPLP voted against the final budget resolution at this stage, to send a clear message ahead of negotiations between the institutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. (PL) I have great pleasure in congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Jędrzejewska, on her excellently prepared report. Today, for the first time, we have adopted an EU budget under the provision set out in the Treaty of Lisbon and, also for the first time, we have not exceeded the financial limits set out in the current financial perspective. I believe that the solutions proposed by Mrs Jędrzejewska express a realistic and pragmatic approach at a difficult time of economic crisis. I am also pleased to note that the budget adopted today strengthens Parliament’s priorities in financial terms.

 
  
  

Report: Edite Estrela (A7-0032/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) The extension of maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks should be considered a fundamental right. This new period should not be seen as a threat, even taking into account the introduction of rights for fathers. Its implications for the legislative framework of the different Member States are negligible, including their impact on the economy, when, for instance, we consider the possibility of creating temporary work vacancies at a European level which promote professional mobility, which can stimulate the sharing of best practice and the continuation of the professional duties of women on maternity leave. The guarantee of a monthly salary of 100% while on maternity leave, along with the extension of the period prohibiting dismissal from six months to a year should not be called into question, taking into account both the demographic concerns and the current economic climate. Other simple yet significant measures are, for example, the possibility of flexible working hours in the period following maternity leave, preventive measures with regard to health and safety, and the extension of these rights to couples who adopt children, thus promoting a fairer legal framework.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. (IT) Unfortunately, in Europe, the birth rate varies from country to country and often depends not only on the guarantee of rights being protected but also on the social services available to working mothers, such as nurseries, for example. We still have a lot to do to reconcile working and family life.

The maternity protection system in force in Italy is, on the whole, in line with the new parameters proposed in the directive, not only with regard to the number of weeks of compulsory maternity leave, but also with regard to the payment of 100% compensation to cover income during the period of absence. It is significant that the directive clearly introduces paternity leave: an important objective to guarantee equality of rights between men and women and strengthen the responsibilities shared between parents.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), in writing. (RO) I agree with extending the period of maternity leave to a minimum of 20 weeks with full pay, while providing, however, a certain flexibility to the states which already have provisions for this kind of leave. Workers who take their maternity leave must receive their full salary, which is 100% of their salary in the last month they worked or the average of their monthly salaries. The amendments adopted will prevent pregnant women from being sacked from the start of their pregnancy up until six months after the end of their maternity leave. Furthermore, women must have the right to return to their job or a job with the same remuneration, professional category and career path as they had prior to going on maternity leave

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Extended maternity leave, improved working conditions ... women have been at the heart of the debate today in the European Parliament. Eighteen years after the first directive on pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth and/or are breastfeeding, the economic and demographic situation in Europe has certainly changed. We have therefore voted today in plenary to amend the legislation in force on maternity leave, in order to encourage the employment of women while enabling them to have a family in the best possible conditions.

Enabling women to reconcile their family life with their professional life, but also fulfilling gender equality objectives: that is what we are protecting today for all European women. The European Parliament has, by a majority, supported a fully paid 20-week period of maternity leave. We shall therefore now have to negotiate with Member States to reach a compromise on this text.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. (ES) If we had to give a title to the results of this initiative having found out the results of the vote, it would be Rebellion in the halls. Before the vote, we were aware of the resistance among Members from the various groups to adopting the extension of maternity leave to 20 weeks, the need to pay people in that situation 100% of their salary, extending the measures in the case of disabled children, and the inclusion of paternity leave. All the signs were that these measures would not be adopted, but that was not the case. The fact that many Members did not comply with their group’s voting lists made the miracle possible. Today, Parliament has lived up to the expectations of the men and women of Europe. This is also one more step forward along the road towards equality, which we are still a long way from achieving, but which we have to make a reality by working together as men and women.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I welcome the fact that following much anticipated discussions, today, the European Parliament approved this very important directive. On the basis of this new directive, the length of maternity leave will be extended from 14 to 20 weeks on full pay. Today, in order to solve as soon as possible the demographic problems we face due to the low birth rate and ageing society, we must share family commitments. Therefore, it is very important that this directive should lay down the right for men to take at least two weeks paternity leave. A child also has an undisputable right to bond with both parents. This proposal will allow us to create a better balance within families and will improve integration in the labour market. Parliament has shown that it can achieve the objectives laid down in the Europe 2020 strategy of enabling families to balance work and personal life better while striving for economic growth, welfare, competitiveness and gender equality. I really hope that this directive adopted by Parliament will also be approved by Council as soon as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The EU is currently facing demographic problems caused by the falling birth rate and rise in the number of elderly people. Improving the provisions promoting a work-life balance is one of the ways which can be used to respond to this demographic decline. Gender stereotypes obviously persist in society, which pose an obstacle preventing women from accessing jobs, especially high quality jobs. Women are still regarded as being the principal carers of children and other dependants, which means that they are faced on many occasions with the need to choose between motherhood and a professional career.

Women are frequently seen as ‘high risk’, ‘second class’ or ‘unsuitable’ workers, given the strong likelihood of them getting pregnant and exercising the right to maternity leave. It is therefore fundamentally important that the new forms of leave do not reflect or confirm current stereotypes in society. Parents’ involvement in their children’s lives, from the very first months after they are born, is of paramount importance to the child’s healthy development from a physical, emotional and psychological perspective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. (IT) The birth rate in many Member States is still undoubtedly very low. The institutions must therefore encourage births by means of an appropriate family support policy. I voted in favour of Mrs Estrela’s report as it heads in this direction. I consider it right, in fact, that we should harmonise maternity rights between Member States (always taking into account first and foremost the health of the new mothers and their newborns) in order to avoid discrepancies and a reduction in the competitiveness of States that adopted advanced measures to protect motherhood some time ago.

In this regard, I appreciate the proposal to extend maternity leave to 18 weeks in all EU countries, a practice which is already in force in several Member States: in Italy, for example, twenty-one and a half weeks’ leave are granted. Lastly, I consider it essential to guarantee the right to resume the same job or be allocated an equivalent working position.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – I am against the concept of 20 weeks at full pay and voted against that particular amendment. Nevertheless, I decided to vote in favour of the final text as amended because of the insertion of a clause that was negotiated by the PPE, allowing for a degree of flexibility during the last four weeks. I have thus decided to support my political group in the attainment of this compromise.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. (FR) I am pleased that the European Parliament has made progress on this matter since the debate on the demographic challenge for which I was the rapporteur in 2007. This vote proves that it is still possible these days to achieve new social acquis: with mobilisation and political action we can protect the achievements of past victories, but also obtain new rights. Today, we have strengthened women’s rights, but also those of men, with this paternity leave. The latter represents a real change in attitudes and, over the years, will contribute to improving the allocation of roles between parents.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton, William (The Earl of) Dartmouth and Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – Regarding Amendment 9: UKIP voted in favour of this amendment which merely stated that ‘All parents have the right to care for their child’. UKIP by no means supports the legitimacy of this directive, as it should be for elected national governments to decide welfare and social policies. However, the UK Government is far too cavalier in taking children into state care, so voting in favour of this recital will be a shot across their bow. Regarding the proposal in general: UKIP do not accept the legitimacy of this directive as it should be for elected national governments to decide welfare and social policies. This directive will bring unbelievable costs to employers and the government, which we can ill afford at this time. This will also further the discrimination of women by making them even more costly to hire than they already are, especially for small businesses, which are the backbone of the UK economy. UKIP is furthermore sympathetic to parents with disabled children and those choosing to adopt. However, the EU has no right to create such rules on maternity and cannot be allowed the legitimacy to do so. UKIP voted against this directive to ensure that legislation is accountable through the ballot box and not through Brussels bureaucrats.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I voted in favour of the report because it is very important for gender equality and to the defence of the rights of workers – men and women – in terms of maternity and paternity rights. This is an important step forward in defending and promoting women’s rights and equality in general in the workplace, given that, according to the report, ‘the vulnerability of pregnant workers and of workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding makes it necessary for them to be granted the right to maternity leave of at least 20 continuous weeks, allocated before and/or after confinement, and renders necessary the compulsory nature of maternity leave of at least six weeks allocated after confinement’.

I also voted in favour of the report on the basis of an additional, very important element in it: the recognition of the father’s right to two weeks’ paternity leave.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Roland Clark and Paul Nuttall (EFD), in writing. – Regarding the proposal in general, UKIP do not accept the legitimacy of this directive as it should be for elected national governments to decide welfare and social policies. This directive will bring unbelievable costs to employers and the government, which we can ill afford at this time. This will also further the discrimination of women by making them even more costly to hire than they already are, especially for small businesses which are the backbone of the UK economy.

UKIP is furthermore sympathetic to parents with disabled children and those choosing to adopt. However, the EU has no right to create such rules on maternity and cannot be allowed the legitimacy to do so. UKIP voted against this directive to ensure that legislation is accountable through the ballot box and not through Brussels bureaucrats.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. (PT) This proposal aims to improve the conditions of security and health associated with parenthood. On this issue, I would argue that the asymmetries between men and women must be reduced, and that a balanced reconciliation of professional life with family and private life must be promoted. This will be the only way to promote parenthood with shared responsibilities. Starting from this presupposition, I agree with the rapporteur’s proposal and believe that extending maternity leave to 20 weeks, six of which must be after giving birth and which may be shared between the parents, would make it an appropriate period.

I also welcome the proposal included in the report that aims to guarantee payment of the full monthly wage during maternity leave, which is 100% of the last monthly salary or the average monthly salary. Finally, it would seem appropriate to me to apply the same measures in cases where a child younger than 12 years old is adopted, and to apply them to self-employed women.

I declare that I voted for this report for the reasons outlined above.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. (IT) Gender equality is often a slogan, an empty statement of rights that is not always accompanied by the shouldering of responsibilities and solid arguments. This draft directive, on the other hand, strikes a correct balance between the biological role of the woman and the rights owed to those who perform that role to the full. With demographic matters that are coming more and more to resemble an emergency and an economy that demands higher and higher female employment rates, these measures are a common sense response. Recognition of equality is complete when certain rights are also extended to fathers, allowing family undertakings to be shared in the most appropriate manner, and when flexibility of organisation is left up to each family.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted to improve the safety and health at work of pregnant workers out of respect for the principle of equal gender rights and non-discrimination based on gender, as well as to encourage women to become more involved in the labour market.

One of the upshots of this measure is to create a work-life balance for women. In addition, women need this legislative support to protect their health and children. Another important aspect of this measure, aimed at job security for women, is the ban on making them redundant during the period from the start of their pregnancy until at least six months after the end of their maternity leave. A salary ceiling has also been set for the maternity leave period, which again is intended to meet social security needs.

Last but not least, one crucial argument in support of this vote is to increase the birth rate, which is a particularly serious problem facing EU Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. (RO) According to the statistics, the birth rate is falling in the EU. This low birth rate, combined with an ageing population, will pose a real problem for us in the future in terms of paying for pensions and medical care charges in Europe. Families, particularly women, should not be penalised if they want to have children. Pregnant workers and workers who are breastfeeding must not carry out activities which, based on assessments, pose a risk of exposure to certain agents or particularly harmful working conditions that jeopardise the safety or health of these workers. This is why I support the notion of implementing measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. These measures must not put women at a disadvantage in the labour market or be detrimental to the directives on equal treatment for women and men.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Michel Dantin (PPE), in writing. (FR) France is one of the countries of the Union with the highest birth rates. This is due to a set of measures contained in an all-embracing family policy. The resolution as it stands after the votes on the amendments does not bring about any real improvement. On the contrary, it will throw everything into question because the budgetary burden of the measures cannot be borne at this time. Those are the reasons that led me to withhold approval from the text, which is, incidentally, well meaning.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. (PT) I broadly agree with the measures proposed in this report, as I believe that this issue is one of the major challenges that Europe will have to overcome in the coming decades: the ageing population. This is the case in Portugal, for example, where I see it at close hand. However, like other EU countries, the birth rate is not high enough to ensure that generations are replaced, and this harsh situation is jeopardising the future. I believe that more flexible policies with regard to maternity and paternity leave can help to reverse these trends. It is therefore vital to send families a consistent message of support for motherhood and fatherhood, with concrete measures for the better reconciliation of professional, private and family life. Meeting this challenge is vital in order to achieve the economic and social objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy and as a way of trying to reverse demographic ageing on our continent. In Portugal, too, maternity leave is already paid at 100% of earnings for 120 days. I would therefore argue that women’s salaries should be assured during maternity leave in the manner described in this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. (IT) The vote for a legislative motion for a resolution amending Directive 92/85/EEC was taken not only to support new and better measures for the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding but also, more generally, to support new measures to promote a better work-life balance. Even though the Italian legal system is more innovative, the increase in the number of weeks of maternity leave at European level represents a strong boost in favour of family assistance to newborn babies. The support for paternity leave is also a step in the same direction even though making this compulsory is not perhaps the best way to pursue the laudable aim of ensuring the greater effective presence of both parents at the most demanding time for the new household and ensuring the father is more aware and involved. Support for and extension of the rights of adopted children allows a reinforcement and, it is to be hoped, also a simplification of the adoption process. Finally, with a view to striking a better work-life balance, I feel it is also important to have supported the call to Member States to strengthen childhood services with care facilities for children up to the age of compulsory schooling.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) The vote on the Estrela report on the rights of pregnant women and young mothers at work will make it possible to harmonise the length and pay of maternity leave with a minimum level. The European Parliament has chosen to have a strong position to negotiate with the Council and has therefore supported the principle of a 20-week period of leave paid at 100% (may I point out that in Sweden, maternity leave can be as long as 75 weeks, with 14 weeks exclusively for the mother, and the remaining can be shared with the father).

This is a strong gesture in favour of European parents and as a result, women and men will be helped in finding a better balance between family life and work life. It is now up to European governments to look into the budgetary possibility for taking on such a change and accepting it. In the end, it is likely that the minimum leave will be the one proposed by the European Commission and supported by the MODEM delegation, namely, an 18-week period of leave, which would be in line with recommendations from the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. (FR) I believe that this vote, which has passed by a large majority, is a strong signal that is being sent to the Council: in addition to the extension of maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks on full pay, we have voted in favour of the introduction of two weeks’ paternity leave. It is our duty to ensure that no one will have to choose to give up children for work or work for children.

What is more, I welcome the fact that Parliament has voted for measures that will allow adoptive mothers to be treated equally in law with birth mothers. This is a parliament that has, at last, given equal rights to adoptive mothers and biological mothers. Adoptive parents are parents in the full sense of the word and deserve to be treated as such. Legislation cannot continue to discriminate against this type of parenthood.

This is therefore a great day for the many families that are unable to reconcile their family life with their professional life. Furthermore, the difficult economic conditions were no reason to decide to leave all those families that also make a significant contribution to our society in the lurch for more decades to come.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. (FR) Extending the period of maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay is a false friend. Such a legislative measure will harm the employability of women in businesses, which will regard it as too great a burden to bear in the event of maternity. It will, furthermore, compromise a woman’s return to work in exactly the same position as she held before going on leave. Finally, opting for 100% remuneration over a long period represents a cost for social security systems (in a context in which the European institutions are calling strongly on States to reduce their budget deficits).

It is for these reasons that I have been unable to support this report, and why I consider that we should retain a sense of realism and allow Member States to keep a certain degree of flexibility on this matter.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Harlem Désir (S&D), in writing. (FR) Parliament has just voted at first reading for extending maternity leave to a minimum of 20 weeks all over Europe, paid at full salary, except for high earners, and the possibility for fathers to take at least two weeks’ leave following the birth of a child. This is a victory for the proponents of a social Europe and a step towards more equality between men and women in Europe.

A section of the right used the future cost of these measures as an excuse to reject this progress. Yet helping parents to reconcile family and work life will make it easier for parents to go back to work, will boost European birth rates and will safeguard the health of mothers and babies.

The left of Parliament, with Portuguese Socialist rapporteur Mrs Estrela, held strong, the European right was divided and the move towards progress won the day. The battle must now be won at the Council, where several governments are threatening to block this directive. Members of national parliaments should take this up and intervene with their government so that governments do not undo what the European Parliament is proposing for a Europe that protects its citizens’ rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – Whilst I support the rights of pregnant women, I cannot, in this current economic climate, support this report. The impact assessment estimate for the UK, if maternity leave is extended to 20 weeks, is almost GBP 2.5 billion per year on average. This would result in the cost of maternity leave in the UK doubling. Evidence shows that women are currently benefiting considerably from the provisions already in force within the UK, 9 out of 10 women taking the 20 weeks maternity leave, as well as 3 in 4 women taking all their paid leave. With such a high uptake, it is clear that more European red tape on top of the current legislation is unnecessary in the UK.

In addition, the proposed requirement for 20 weeks’ full pay would result in social regression. This is due to the fact that women on the highest salaries will receive the highest compensation. I fully support the need for adequate, flexible maternity leave, but I believe it is for the elected UK Government to decide, with an input from parents and their employers, how much our own economy can afford to give and how a maternity package is to be delivered.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lena Ek, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. (SV) Working to achieve a society in which men and women are equal is a matter of principle that is extremely important – no one should be discriminated against on account of being a parent. We should add that it is extremely important from a socio-economic perspective for women and men to be able to combine family and working life in order to achieve a high level of employment.

We therefore think it is regrettable that the report does not constitute a clear step forward for equality in Europe. It reflects an outdated view of equality where the mother is to take the main responsibility for the children instead of both parents sharing the responsibility. It is also wrong to propose, as the report does, that it be compulsory for mothers to be prohibited from working for six weeks after giving birth.

We have therefore chosen to vote in favour of those parts that we believe to be positive, such as the amendment that protects national systems that have more ambitious parental insurance, the increase in the minimum length of maternity leave and the inclusion of paternity leave in the directive. However, we abstained from voting on the report as a whole, as we believe that it is too vague, ambiguous and outdated. The main reason is the lack of a clear and unambiguous gender equality perspective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats chose to support Mrs Estrela’s report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding.

We would have liked the directive to focus on parental leave rather than maternity leave. We would also have liked it to be less detailed and more flexible – particularly as this is a minimum directive – for example, with regard to the level of remuneration and the time limit for the period immediately after confinement. However, we believe that the report is important in terms of improving the current directive, which provides very limited possibilities for combining work and parenthood in many EU Member States. With this decision, we now have a first bargaining offer, with regard to which the Council must adopt a position.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Democratic and Social Centre – People’s Party (CDS-PP) has long seen the birth rate issue as a state priority and recognises that it is impossible to stimulate the birth rate without protecting parenting. The chapters dedicated to the family and the birth rate are not a new inclusion in our programmes. Likewise, our defence of the rights of mothers and fathers to raise a family without this being seen as an extra burden or a cause of work difficulties is nothing new.

Policies that support families and the birth rate, like those that we advocate, are, however, cross-sectional and are not confined to extending maternity leave. Nonetheless, this is a measure that we applaud, having advocated an extension of parental leave to six months in our 2009 government programme. That is why we would like to see the Socialist Party at our side in Parliament defending mothers and fathers. This would be a very different position from the one that this party has taken in national politics, where it is cutting child benefit, the reimbursement of medicine costs for the chronically ill and income tax deductions for spending on education and health, and where it is drastically increasing the tax burden on the public, particularly lower income families with children.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The EU is facing a demographic challenge marked by low birth rates and an increasing proportion of elderly people. The improvement of provisions to promote a balance between professional and family life helps to address this demographic decline. In Portugal, the birth rate is not high enough to ensure that generations are replaced, and this situation is jeopardising the future. I would therefore argue that in order to counter this trend, improved health and safety should be encouraged for workers who are pregnant, who have recently given birth, or who are breastfeeding, which calls for the promotion of a balanced reconciliation of professional life with private and family life. I agree with the position of the rapporteur and with the changes introduced, such as the extension of the minimum period for maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks, the principle of pay equivalent to complete earnings, the establishment of health and safety requirements in the workplace, and the prohibition of dismissal. I also agree that, if adopted, the right to divide a period of parental leave between both members of the couple should be recognised.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The vote in favour of the report on improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, is the culmination of a long discussion process in the European Parliament, which was already left over from the last session and in which we have actively participated, contributing to the report’s adoption.

Although we are still in the first reading of the directive’s proposal, it is positive in the area of women’s rights because of the signal that it sends out, particularly to the countries that still do not have 20 weeks of maternity leave on full pay and that are still not applying two weeks of paternity leave, also with full pay.

The adoption of this proposal for negotiation with the Council acknowledges the fundamental social value of maternity and paternity, respecting the rights of working women who want to become mothers.

The adoption of this proposal also represents a victory over the most conservative positions that still exist within the European Parliament, meaning that the struggle to defend women’s rights, maternity and paternity rights, and the rights of children, will continue.

We hope that the Council will now accept the European Parliament’s position, which increases the Commission’s proposal from 18 to 20 weeks, and aims to amend the directive that is currently in force and which only sets aside 14 weeks for maternity leave.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. (FR) I supported my colleague, Mrs Estrela’s, calls for an improvement in the health and safety at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. Woman is the future of man, wrote Louis Aragon. Children are precious. They must be protected. So must their mothers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. (FR) By voting in favour of a 20-week minimum maternity leave (it is currently 14 weeks) with full pay, and by endorsing a compulsory two-week paternity leave in the European Union, the European Parliament has moved in the direction of undeniable social progress.

Having said that, I voted for extending maternity leave to 18 weeks rather than 20 weeks. Indeed it seems to me that a 20-week period, although an extremely generous proposal, is liable to backfire on women and be used as an additional argument to not recruit them or to complicate their return to work. Moreover, I regret that the provision that planned the possibility of extending maternity leave in the event of complication (premature birth, disability, etc.) was rejected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. (FR) I regret the outcome of this vote. We all share the desire to enable new mothers to form a strong bond with their babies during the period of convalescence after giving birth. However, I am deeply concerned about the economic impact of such a measure, which will cost our country EUR 1.5 billion.

During this time of economic crisis, it is not demagogy that will pay the bill. Businesses will not be able to pay it, Member States’ budgets even less so. Such measures could penalise certain careers or put a brake on the employment of young women. Perpetuating a traditional system in which the father brings home the pay and the woman looks after the children, as some would like, is a step backwards. Freedom of choice is also a right for women.

The negotiations that will now begin between the 27 Member States in the Council will be difficult.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pascale Gruny (PPE), in writing. (FR) I did not wish to support this report insofar as an increase from 14 to 20 weeks on full pay would have catastrophic financial consequences for several Member States. The OECD study shows that there will be very substantial costs for the social budgets of Member States.

For France, the annual amount is EUR 1.3 billion, and for the United Kingdom GBP 2.4 billion. In the current economic situation, increases in these budgets cannot be absorbed. What is more, businesses would have to bear these additional costs, which is impossible. However, supporting women during maternity is essential. Applying these measures poses a very great risk to the employment of women. The OECD study also shows that extending maternity leave would result in a decrease in female employment.

In wishing to help women, there is a risk of penalising them in the job market. I wish to help women in their employment and to support them during maternity. The increase from 14 to 18 weeks proposed by the Commission was a real step forward. Another advance would have been to have progressive measures concerning childcare methods.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. (FR) I voted for the Estrela report and I am glad that Parliament has taken such a progressive position towards mothers, future mothers and fathers. The extension of maternity leave to 20 weeks is undeniable social progress, which embodies the social Europe that we earnestly desire. This text improves the balance between family life and work life.

The introduction of a compulsory two-week paternity leave is also a big step forward in the change in attitudes and in the division of roles between parents. The argument of additional costs that this measure would incur would be valid if women did not already supplement their maternity leave with sick leave and/or paid leave. Businesses and social protection systems are already paying these costs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Richard Howitt (S&D), in writing. – I am proud to have voted for the extension of maternity rights and condemn Conservative and Liberal Democrat MEPs who first conspired to obstruct parliamentary agreement of this directive and today voted to deny decent rights to working women. I want to record the fact that I wished to vote for a different compromise on the length of the period for maternity pay but respect that this option fell because a majority in Parliament supported 20 weeks. I recognise there will be a further negotiation on this point before the directive is finally agreed, and that it was vital for this Parliament finally to agree a text to enable the process to move forward. I fully agree with my British Labour colleagues who seek to protect low paid women in particular and, in this respect, call on the British Government to fully respect the non-regression clause in the directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE), in writing. (SL) The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has pointed out that many of the proposals (amendments) put forward exceed the scope and purpose of the directive. I do agree with them but, in deciding how to vote, I have made an exception this time. The position of women in the EU in terms of employment, wage levels, exposure to poverty ... is significantly weaker than that of men. I believe that equal opportunities are one of the basic principles underpinning the work of the EU and, for that reason, I will be using every opportunity to make the positions of women and men equal. Today’s vote is not a final one, but it will give us a strong negotiating position in the Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. (RO) Extending the period of maternity leave to 20 weeks with full pay for this duration are measures which restore the dignity of mothers. This is why I voted unreservedly for the proposal in the report, in the confidence that Member States will heed our decision and incorporate it into their national legislations.

Apart from supporting mothers, this report also recommends states to introduce fully paid parental leave, thereby recognising the role of both parents in bringing up children. We have sent out an important message with our vote today, which calls for a decent living, extending beyond ideological limits and national social systems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. (FR) I did not wish to support this report because extending the period of maternity leave from 14 weeks (as provided by the current directive) to 20 weeks on full pay would have a considerable financial impact on Member States (EUR 1.3 billion for France) at a time of economic crisis that is hardly favourable to budgetary growth.

Second, the additional costs for businesses in Member States where the latter partly finance maternity leave (for example, Germany) would be very high. Third, the negative consequences for the employability of women are real, not least when it comes to returning to the job market.

Finally, the European Parliament, in adopting measures that are not financially practicable and which could even be counterproductive in terms of women’s participation in the job market, is damaging its credibility in the European decision-making process. Extending maternity leave to 18 weeks, as proposed by the Commission, would have been an important step in improving the situation of women, by avoiding the pitfalls in the text as finally adopted by the European Parliament, when what is really important is to enable women to reconcile their professional life with their family life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. (PL) In the face of an ageing population and the difficulties with which the European economy is dealing, we have to use all opportunities available to us to encourage women to have children and to make it easy for them to return to work. Many women are eminent specialists in their fields, and Europe’s economy cannot do without the services of this highly qualified workforce. The situation is similar with women living and working in the countryside. Often, they are not given maternity leave in the full meaning of the word, but have to return to work as soon as possible. This obviously puts both their health and their child in jeopardy. That is why they should have the same privileges as women working outside agriculture.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. (LV) I voted in favour of extending the minimum obligatory period of maternity leave to 18 weeks, but against extending it to 20 weeks. I fully appreciate the need to ensure appropriate conditions for mothers who have recently given birth. However, in the long term, extending the minimum period of leave to 20 weeks would be disadvantageous for young women planning to have a family and a professional career. What is more, Member States will currently simply be unable to meet the additional costs from their budgets. Businesses have objected to a minimum 20-week period of maternity leave because it will cause additional costs that cannot be met in the current economic situation. There is therefore a risk that many employers will simply not hire young women. We can already see that it is difficult for young people to find jobs, and extending maternity leave will reduce women’s ability to compete with men in the job market still further. I believe that we must not allow this to happen, and that we must think for the long term. Fixing maternity leave at 20 weeks would mean billions in budgetary costs throughout Europe. Those are costs that neither national governments nor taxpayers can currently afford. Of course, we shall come under criticism from one part of society, but we are here to work and to make decisions that are as good as they can be and that are in the interests of all Europeans.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), in writing. (EL) I expressed a different opinion in the votes on the question of leave. I prefer the Commission’s proposal of 18 weeks.

The proposal is realistic and balanced in relation to market conditions, not only because of the economic crisis, but also because of the demands and professional obligations and ambitions of working women themselves.

Women should not be over-protected beings shunned by the labour market.

Moreover, as I have consistently argued, efforts to reconcile family life with work and raising children basically require social infrastructures and corporate social responsibility throughout a woman’s working life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. (FR) I voted against the Estrela report because extending maternity leave to 20 weeks is, in reality, a good idea only at first sight. Indeed, this extension is portrayed as granting more rights to women, whereas in my opinion, it would have negative repercussions for women trying to access the labour market.

It is to be feared that this proposal, if it were to be implemented, could backfire on women and would, as a result, make them less employable. Contrary to what the rapporteur and those who support this text are claiming, there is no obvious connection between birth rates and the length of maternity leave.

What is more, the proposal to extend from 14 to 20 weeks with full pay is not a financially acceptable position for many countries. Indeed, the extra costs incurred by this extension can be afforded neither by businesses nor by Member States. The initial proposal by the European Commission, namely the increase from 14 to 18 weeks, was a big enough step forward.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. (PL) I would like to underline that on Mrs Estrela’s report, I voted in favour of the rules on 20 weeks’ maternity leave, protecting women from unfair dismissal six months after returning to work and in favour of full pay and protection of women while breastfeeding, but in this case, without specific recommendations, as I believe that these rules should stay within the competence of the Member States.

In the case of multiple births, I believe that leave should be extended correspondingly. I am always in support of any ideas that will help women have a safe maternity experience and guarantee them better conditions for returning to the job market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Toine Manders (ALDE), in writing. (NL) The delegation of the Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) to the European Parliament has today voted against the proposal for a directive extending (paid) maternity leave to 20 weeks. We are of the opinion that the previously established minimum of 14 weeks is sufficient. Women who find that they are still unable to return to work at the end of their maternity leave can take leave under the provisions of their countries’ Sick Leave Act. This proposal would entail an extension of social security, which is a matter that Member States should be able to decide on themselves, certainly in times such as these, when all the Member States have to economise. There are other, less rigorous ways in which measures allowing a better balance between work and private life could be put in place. The proposal carries the risk that young, talented women might be left with fewer opportunities in the labour market, because employers will not want to run the risk of having to pay many months’ maternity leave to their female employees. Nor does an increase in birth numbers in the EU, which is the desired solution to the problem of an ageing population, have to be regulated at EU level. As far as the VVD is concerned, EU rules to regulate exemption from work for breastfeeding purposes are superfluous. The VVD Group in the European Parliament: Hans van Baalen, Jan Mulder and Toine Manders

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report. As all EU citizens have the right to live and work throughout the EU, it is vital we afford women a minimum entitlement to maternity leave wherever they are working at the time of having a baby. Decent maternity leave is part of a wider issue of female participation in the labour market and tackling the financial implications of an ageing society. The EU goal is for 75% labour participation by 2020, and a crucial element of this will be giving all mothers the ability to take maternity leave which they can afford and then return to work. In an ageing society, where the demand for social care is increasing and the number of people providing the care is decreasing, more realistic leave such as maternity leave is needed. Women should not feel that having children is incompatible with their work – our policies need to enable care for younger and older persons. The implementation of this will not come into force for at least 5 years. Furthermore, with an increase of just 1.04% of women’s participation in the labour market, the additional costs of extending maternity leave would be covered.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) One of the priorities laid down in the EU’s social agenda is the need to promote policies to facilitate a work-life balance, aimed at women and men alike. A better work-life balance is also one of the six priority areas of action set out in the 2006-2010 ‘Road map for equality between women and men’.

Improving these provisions is therefore an integral part of European policy in response to the dwindling population recorded of late. Motherhood and fatherhood are certainly inalienable fundamental rights for the purposes of social balance. It is therefore to be hoped that the review of the directive in question will be to the advantage both of working women and men who wish to take responsibility for their families.

We cannot separate respect for a better balance between the principle of protecting health and safety from that of equality of treatment. These and other aspects persuade me to support the need, however, to leave Member States plenty of room for flexibility in establishing rules on leave when necessary. This is only for reasons of economic sustainability, in order to cover the additional costs arising.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report adopted proposes maternity leave of 20 weeks without any loss of earnings. This measure alone could mean a big social improvement in women’s lives in about two thirds of EU countries. This is the case in Portugal, where women are only entitled to 16 weeks fully paid. The inclusion of two weeks of paternity leave is also an important step in the struggle for equality between men and women. More importantly, this report has been approved even though it goes against the measures that have recently been adopted as a result of austerity policies which favour cuts in public spending and the reduction of social rights. I therefore hope that this report can contribute to the strengthening of work and social rights across the EU and in all the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The unanimous view within the EU is that one of its main problems is low population growth due to low birth rates. Anything that can contribute to changing this situation is therefore important. The protection of pregnant and breastfeeding mothers in the workplace and the reduction of imbalances between men and women are important steps in that direction. In spite of the crisis that we are currently experiencing, the measures approved here today are very important in reversing the decreasing population trend that the EU is facing in the near future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (ES) I voted in favour of the European Parliament legislative resolution on ‘the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding’, because I believe that improving women’s rights in the workplace is a real step towards gender equality in an area in which, unfortunately, many barriers exist. The discrimination suffered by women in the labour market is very worrying because, in most cases, it is they who must take charge of domestic duties and juggle them with their professional employment. This situation is exacerbated in the months before and after childbirth, requiring greater protection in order to prevent the discrimination women currently suffer. It is my understanding that the increase to a continuous period of maternity leave of at least 20 weeks allocated before and/or after confinement, with a compulsory minimum of six weeks after childbirth, is a step forward in terms of a woman’s right to reconcile family and professional life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Extending the period of maternity leave is an important project in terms of the place that is given to babies and parenthood in our society. I support the proposal to grant 18 weeks of maternity leave and also the principle of paternity leave. We must avoid the adverse effects of measures that are too generous and risk bringing about discrimination in employment. I am, moreover, a supporter of more freedom of choice for pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. They must be able to decide when they wish to take the non-compulsory part of their maternity leave. That should help them to achieve a better work-life balance and to remain employable.

It is equally important to create a proper status for women who wish to return to work after taking a career break. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that the right to parental leave and the guarantee of the same job to come back to must be workable for employers, in particular, in small and medium-sized enterprises, or else they may well hesitate to hire or promote women of child-bearing age.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. (SK) In view of the far-reaching demographic changes and the ageing of European society, the European Union must actively adopt measures to support parenthood.

The extension of the minimum time period of maternity leave will, in my opinion, make provision for the fact that the first months of a child’s life are crucial for his/her healthy growth and mental balance. Therefore, I support the payment of salary in full for the duration of the maternity leave. This should have a positive effect on women so that they may become mothers without worrying about the risks of poverty and social exclusion. The right to return to the same work position or an equal position with equal working conditions after birth must be guaranteed. Moreover, the possibility to apply for a change of working hours or working arrangements must be granted, as well as the possibility to refuse overtime work shortly after giving birth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. (FR) I am opposed to the project of extending maternity leave to 20 weeks with full pay. The adoption of this scheme would have major consequences on the budgets of the Member States and businesses; for France, the additional annual cost would be EUR 1.3 billion, an unbearable financial burden at a time of budgetary cuts. Although it is a nice idea, the consequences on women's employment could be negative. We would not want this measure to mean a step backwards for women. Women returning to work following their pregnancy and young women seeking work run the risk of being heavily penalised by this measure. In contrast, the proposal for a maximum of 18 weeks was still socially fair. I am calling for innovative ideas to be implemented as quickly as possible with regard to childcare and work-family balance, in order to enable mothers as well as fathers to play their role of parents fully.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) My decision to vote in favour of this proposal arises out of the need to improve the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. The amendment to the directive is, in fact, aimed at promoting gender equality in the world of work, promoting a better balance between women’s working and private lives. Women are frequently perceived to be ‘at risk’ or ‘second choice’ individuals given their high probability of becoming pregnant or taking maternity leave. It is important to support certain forms of leave to combat certain prejudices and stereotypes. We must not, however, forget that motherhood and fatherhood are essential rights if we are to ensure the possibility of achieving a work-life balance. There are clearly certain points connected with some amendments on which I have voiced a contrary opinion. I believe, in fact, that European law must establish a general framework that offers minimum guarantees and safeguards within which Member States can be left room to decide on the most suitable measures at their own discretion. There are, in fact, differences linked to culture, to welfare and to social security systems that must be taken into due consideration, and also by virtue of respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. Two important factors determined my vote on certain amendments: firstly, the vital importance of guaranteeing the safety and health of young or future mothers and, secondly, the fact that Greece has specific legislation to protect pregnant women.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the proposals on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, which include 20 weeks maternity leave and two weeks paternity leave, both without any reduction in earnings.

These are social measures that fit with the Europe that we want, with the aim of supporting the birth rate, the family, the health of babies, and parents’ jobs.

However, this is a project that is difficult to carry out, and it may, perversely, exacerbate discrimination against women in the world of work because: (1) it puts extra pressure on social security systems, which, in many cases, are already only just sustainable; and (2) it introduces new constraints on the labour market, which already no longer meets the needs of the current workforce. I am afraid, therefore, that these measures to support working parents may lead to increased levels of unemployment and/or precarious work among young mothers.

Parliament’s negotiations with the Council have to be realistic and pragmatic, and also ambitious, if the future law, when it comes into force, is to really fulfil and promote the values of the proposal that was voted upon in plenary this week.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) With my vote, I call for a new global approach that will make it possible to send a powerful message to companies to the effect that human reproduction concerns men as well as women. The framework agreement on parental leave is an important aspect of the equal opportunities policy that promotes the reconciliation of working life and private and family life, but limits itself to setting minimum requirements and may therefore only be considered a first step.

I agree with the communication that considers children’s rights to be a priority of the Union and calls on Member States to observe the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols as well as the Millennium Development Goals. As far as this directive is concerned, this means guaranteeing all children the possibility of receiving care appropriate to their developmental needs as well as access to appropriate, high quality healthcare.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. (RO) Today, the European Parliament has made an investment in the European Union’s future by promoting motherhood through extending the period of maternity leave to 20 weeks, with full pay. This can be described as both a quantitative and qualitative improvement. The simplistic argument of short-term economic benefits did not stand up, with the sustainability of European society prevailing, which is impossible to achieve without healthy demographics and therefore, by extension, without greater protection for mothers and their children.

I drafted the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and I voted in favour of: motherhood not being penalised and full pay being given; pregnant workers not being sacked during a period from the start of their pregnancy until six months after the end of their maternity leave; mothers being entitled to return to their job or an ‘equivalent position’, which means with the same remuneration, professional category and career path as they had prior to going on maternity leave; going on maternity leave not affecting their pension scheme; female workers not being obliged to work at night or overtime during the 10 weeks prior to the date they are due to give birth and for the remainder of the pregnancy if this is required for the health of the mother or foetus, and during the whole period of breastfeeding.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted against this resolution because I believe that maternity pay is a matter which must be decided at national level, based on the principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, I think that, at a time of crisis, adopting this measure may have the totally opposite effect, as it will act as a factor dissuading companies which want to employ women.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. (DE) I support improving the European minimum standard for maternity protection. However, in the end, I voted against this report, as I come from a country that has established a particular combination of maternity protection and waged/unwaged parental leave. Alongside 16 weeks of leave on full pay and an absolute ban on working, women also have the right to unwaged maternity leave with child benefit. The amount of child benefit drawn during unwaged maternity leave depends on its duration and the most recent level of income. The Austrian rules go far beyond the minimum standards stipulated in this report.

Moreover, I am also in favour of introducing fully paid paternity leave, although a different legal basis should be chosen for this. I believe that such paternity leave should not be regulated by the directive on maternity protection, but should instead be regulated by a dedicated directive that is not aimed at the protection of the health of mothers and children.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. (FI) I voted in favour of maternity leave lasting 20 weeks. Longer periods of maternity leave are important for the development and welfare of children, who represent society’s best form of capital. In Finland, there is a viable system for maternity and parental leave. A system like ours is not, however, available to everyone in Europe. For this reason, it is important to ensure that women do not have to suffer financially if they decide to have children. Businesses alone should not be saddled with the financial burden of maternity leave: the public sector must unquestionably share the costs. Small and medium­sized enterprises, in particular, are at risk of facing difficulties. Neither should the female dominated sectors have to bow to excessive economic pressure. The position of women regarding pay is alarming. It must not be made any weaker. It is vitally important to see that that does not happen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. (ES) Finally, Parliament has done a little justice for working mothers in the European Union, although it is not all the justice that they deserve. It has been a long process. At the end of the last parliamentary term, we were on the verge of adopting a text in Parliament that would have meant a giant leap forward for the rights of working mothers. We could not vote because the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (PPE Group) and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE Group) joined forces against it and decided to return the report to the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality.

After months of work, today, we once again voted on a text which, although not as ambitious as the one previously rejected by the PPE and ALDE Groups, is quite brave: it allows mothers to maintain their salary during maternity leave; it increases their legal protection against redundancy; it allows greater flexibility in terms of working hours in order to better balance motherhood with work; it extends maternity leave to at least 20 weeks (although some of us would have liked it to be 24 weeks, as the World Health Organisation recommends); it facilitates the mobility of working mothers within the EU and it makes progress on joint responsibility for fathers, although not as much as some of us would have liked.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. (IT) Today’s vote encourages workers who wish to become mothers, marking an important step forward toward greater protection that will help millions of European women to reconcile the role of mother with that of worker more effectively. Economic interests have not helped: now we are embarking on a path that goes towards meeting the needs of new families. The outcome of the vote looks toward a society that places growth, training and education at the centre of political action. I believe that fears that extending maternity leave on full pay from 14 to 20 weeks will penalise women are unfounded: it is our specific duty to protect the weakest workers, allowing them the right to stay at home with their children. Today’s victory in Parliament also represents a personal satisfaction due to the efforts I have personally made with the aim of ensuring that no breastfeeding workers have to carry out heavy or dangerous duties, exempting them from overtime and night work. Now we pass the baton to the Member States and I hope they will commit themselves to it to the full. With today’s decision, the European Parliament has shown that it no longer wants women who are on the horns of a dilemma but women who are free and aware of their role in our society.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. (IT) In an ageing Europe, policies favourable to women who choose to have children are essential. With legislation as fragmentary as it is today, there are too many differences between Member States in supporting motherhood, which prevent many women from being able to become mothers. This directive establishes a minimum period of maternity leave of 20 weeks, of which at least six will be on full pay.

It is obvious that in countries such as Italy, this law is superfluous because the period on full pay is much longer than the minimum period laid down by the directive, and the periods when women can be absent from work to look after their children extend up to eight years of age. In other countries, however, this finally means laying the basis for guaranteeing dignity to mothers. The proposal also envisages that fathers may have two weeks of paid leave so that they can be with their wives during the period immediately following birth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – Today, I voted to support improved rights and a better work-life balance for working parents. Of special importance in this report are the provisions for women who are breastfeeding at work. Breaks for breastfeeding allow mothers the time they need to provide the best and most natural form of nutrition for their developing child. Nutrition is a key determinant of health throughout life. I am pleased that this report is favourable to those mothers who have gone back to work and still choose to breastfeed their child and provide them with the nutritional benefits.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carl Schlyter and Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) We believe that well-developed statutory parental leave is of the utmost importance for every country. In the final vote, however, we did not want to vote in favour of Parliament’s legislative proposal because it went against several principles that are very important to us. Firstly, the proposal wants to introduce a mandatory six weeks’ leave just for the mother.

We believe that parents themselves should be able to choose how they take their parental leave and that this proposal would be a step in the wrong direction for gender equality in Sweden. Secondly, we do not believe that it is reasonable to set the level of remuneration for parental leave at full pay. As far as Sweden is concerned, this could force a reduction in the length of parental insurance in order to finance such a costly system. We are of the opinion that the organisation of social security systems is a matter for the national parliaments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brian Simpson (S&D), in writing. – The EPLP wholly supports the need to increase protection for women who are pregnant, have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, and therefore voted in favour of a number of the directive’s key proposals. These include the extension of maternity leave to 20 weeks, full payment for mothers for the first compulsory six weeks after childbirth, and two weeks fully paid paternity leave. However, the EPLP is concerned that the proposals adopted by Parliament could have unintended consequences in countries which already employ a more complex set of maternity provisions. In particular, we are concerned that the proposals could allow a regressive government to cut its maternity provision so that the lowest paid working women could actually lose out over the period of their maternity leave. While some aspects of this report will form an invaluable improvement in Member States with very low levels of maternity provision, these amendments may lead to social regression in other countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. (PL) Today, the European Parliament has adopted a report to ensure the health of pregnant mothers and those on maternity leave. By adopting a common position in this form, we are sending out a clear signal that we support changes to improve European standards for the protection of young mothers. Women are guaranteed a minimum duration of maternity leave, which will henceforth be on full pay. By preventing unfair dismissal, we have also increased protection for the jobs of women returning to work after their maternity leave.

The changes the directive introduces are a step in the right direction, guaranteeing women in Europe a minimum entitlement to maternity leave. I am also pleased that fathers will be encouraged to care for their children by introducing a two-week paternity leave.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Soullie (PPE), in writing. (FR) The vote on Mrs Estrela’s report is vitally important. The position adopted is purely demagogic and irresponsible. By demanding 20 weeks of maternity leave, we are discrediting the European Parliament. We are the citizens’ voice; to adopt such unrealistic positions would not do justice to them. Very significant costs for the social budgets of Member States would be incurred: as regards France, for instance, the amount would be EUR 1.3 billion.

The current economic situation does not allow us to absorb this kind of increase within state budgets, not to mention the consequences for our companies who will have to bear part of these additional costs. We need to support and encourage women to better reconcile maternity and work, not scupper their chances of finding a job.

The increase from 14 to 18 weeks proposed by the Commission was a real step forward; a step that could have been built on by giving some thought to new childcare options. The message conveyed by this text carries huge responsibility: maternity would clearly become a barrier to personal development in the workplace.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report on the proposal for a directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, and of measures aimed at helping workers to achieve a work-life balance. We have made maternity leave longer and better paid, and we have, for the first time in European history, introduced paternity leave. This vote will stand out in the history of the fundamental rights of European mothers and fathers.

To all those who wanted to sacrifice social rights on the altar of the economic crisis, I tell them to go and get the money where it is and not to penalise citizens further. An improved maternity leave and the introduction of paternity leave; these are also fights for a more human society, whilst the family is increasingly becoming the final safeguard against the upheavals of life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of a legislative proposal guaranteeing enhanced and extended paternity/maternity pay in Parliament today. I did so after lobbying from supporters and opponents. I am well aware of the financial conditions in the UK, which will be further worsened by recent budget announcements of more spending cuts. Nevertheless, the European Parliament was in favour of 20 weeks’ maternity leave at full salary, and 2 weeks’ paternity leave, and I believe that this is a sensible investment in the economy, helping reach the EU target of 75% labour participation by 2020. It improves the health of babies and protects the health and welfare of mothers. It is a step to close the existing gender pay gap. On average, in the EU, women earn 17% less than men. If we do not guarantee decent wages during maternity leave, women are punished in their earnings for having children. It is also a positive encouragement to increase fathers' involvement in caring for children. Apart from death and taxes, birth is the only certainty in life. Our children are the future and the improvements voted through today will provide a better and more secure start to their lives.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we need to get more men and women into work, and ensure they stay in work, if we are to preserve our prosperity and be in a position to afford to pay out pensions. In addition, at a time of stiff international competition and budgetary stringency, we must therefore have the courage to take measures which invest in families and which take some of the pressure off the task of juggling work and family. Extending maternity leave is one of the means to that end. For this reason, I support an extension to maternity leave. However, at a time of budgetary difficulties, we have to be realistic. A twenty-week maternity leave period on full pay is not a feasible solution for our social security systems and government budgets. On those grounds, I have abstained from the final vote, even though I support an extension to maternity leave. On the other hand, I do support the Commission’s original proposal for an extension of maternity leave to 18 weeks, provided the current capped compensation scheme is enforced. I hope this proposal will stand a better chance in the second parliamentary reading.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted for the report on the proposal for a directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding.

I believe that it is of paramount importance for workers on maternity leave to be paid their full salary and that the maternity allowance should be 100% of their last monthly salary or average salary, if the monthly salary is lower than this. This means that women will not be penalised for the period of maternity leave they have taken when it comes to their retirement pension.

Given the demographic trends in the EU, the birth rate needs a boost by means of specific legislation and measures aimed at contributing to a better balance between professional, private and family life. In order to help workers achieve their work-life balance, it is vital for longer periods of maternity and paternity leave to be provided, including for the adoption of children under the age of 12 months. Setting the statutory period of maternity leave to 20 weeks is in line with the recommendation made by the World Health Organisation on 16 April 2002 on a global strategy on infant and young child feeding.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. (DE) I voted against this report as it fails to stringently observe the principle of subsidiarity and interferes with national payment arrangements and the obligations of the Member States. Furthermore, it also contains elements such as abortion and the freedom to reproduce for which I am unable to share in the responsibility on religious grounds.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, women must not be punished because they have decided to have a family. It is not simply an ethical question, but also a strategic one – the EU is currently experiencing demographic changes due to the low birth rate and greater numbers of elderly people. During these difficult times in particular, we must not frighten women away from the labour market. We need more working women if the EU wants to increase its competitiveness globally. The time has come to combat stereotypes that have taken root in society. Working women are often perceived to be ‘high risk’ or ‘second rate’ workers. It is essential, therefore, that the new leave arrangements presented in this report should help break these stereotypes. We should also offer more help to women who have been abandoned by society. EU statistics show that in Lithuania, single mothers face the greatest risk of poverty. The risk of poverty for working people in this group is 24%. It was a long road until the EU legally guaranteed gender equality. However, we must achieve even more and turn theoretical gender equality into real, tangible gender equality, which is applied in everyday life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frank Vanhecke (NI), in writing. (NL) I have voted in favour of the Estrela report because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about the following: it goes without saying that women have particular needs during and immediately after pregnancy, that it is very much in the interests of society as a whole that these needs are met and that society, therefore, must also bear a great deal of the responsibility for this. However, I would ask some questions of principle. First of all, is it really reasonable for us to impose, from our European ivory towers here, mandatory rules which would apply throughout the whole Union, including in Member States which, in economic terms, still have a long way to go?

Who is going to foot the bill for that? That brings me to my second fundamental comment: is it reasonable to impose the burden, so to speak, of these measures exclusively on the shoulders of employers? Will this ultimately not lead to a situation which is the precise opposite of that intended; that is, there will be fewer jobs available for young women, because employers will simply not be inclined to bear all on their own the consequences they risk entailing should their young female workers get pregnant? It is all very well to vote ‘socially’ in this House, but we are not the ones who have to carry the burden of social voting.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. (FR) The directive on maternity leave has finally been adopted today, 20 October, by the European Parliament. I voted for this text, which represents genuine progress for women.

The directive has yet to be accepted by the Council. The text passed today aims to confer on women in the European Union the right to 20 weeks’ maternity leave, which is four weeks more than in France, where women currently have the right to 16 weeks’ maternity leave.

The text we have adopted also provides a right to 20 days’ paternity leave (more than the 11 days granted at the moment in France).

The directive also provides that women must receive the whole of their salary during their leave: a significant signal in the current crisis situation.

Moreover, the text includes a social non-regression clause, which means that where the law in Member States is more generous on certain points, it will continue to apply. This is certainly a case of progress therefore, and I welcome it.

 
  
  

Report: Barbara Weiler (A7-0136/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report, as there is a wide disparity in many countries as regards the payment terms to businesses when the state, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and large companies are involved. We are well aware that in the current economic crisis, and with its increased difficulties, companies are increasingly struggling with liquidity problems, and that in many Member States, they are even exposed to an increased risk of bankruptcy. The directive which attempted to regulate this matter had a limited effect, and the proposal that we have now adopted represents an important step in setting and meeting deadlines for payment, not only in relations between the companies and public bodies, but also in the relationships that companies establish with one another. We will now have legislation that offers us greater effectiveness in meeting payment deadlines, with a clear system of penalties for late payment, and that also represents an effective improvement in counteracting the frequent abuse by the state and large companies of their dominant position over the SMEs. This directive must now be implemented quickly by the Member States, so that the serious problems caused by the establishment of long payment terms and the dragging out of payments are finally resolved.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. (IT) Fulfilling contractual obligations in commercial transactions by both public and private administrations is not merely a question of civic duty, but also of taking responsibility for a set of negative conditions that could afflict creditor companies, particularly SMEs. Being able to count on prompt payment means guaranteeing these enterprises stability, growth, job creation and investments.

Unfortunately, according to European Commission data, late payments represent a frequent occurrence in Europe and damage competitiveness. Public authorities are particularly to blame for creating difficulties, often due to incorrect management of their budgets and cash flow or as a result of too much red tape in their administrative machinery. Sometimes, a decision is also made to work on the basis of new expenditure structures, without taking into account undertakings made previously, which should be honoured within the contractually agreed terms.

I therefore consider it our duty to adopt measures that make up for the shortcomings in the previous Directive 2000/35/EC, seeking in this way to discourage the phenomenon of late payment by adopting measures that induce debtors not to pay late and other measures that allow creditors to exercise their rights fully and effectively in the event of late payment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. (GA) I voted in favour of this timely report and for the establishment of a 30-day target period for paying bills. SMEs are a cornerstone of the European economy; these smaller enterprises constitute 99.8% of all EU enterprises, and they create 70% of all employment in the EU. The measures for tackling late payments contained in the report are practical measures for supporting SMEs and for ensuring that smaller companies do not lose out because of unpaid bills.

The new rules could create better conditions for investment and should enable SMEs to focus on innovation and development. In addition, I welcome what the report says about ensuring that new measures do not increase the existing level of bureaucracy and that no extra bureaucracy or administrative problems are created for SMEs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report and am pleased that the European Parliament and the Council managed to reach this agreement, which is very important, particularly for small enterprise. While small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation for European Union competitiveness and the largest creator of jobs, the crisis has shown very clearly that, at the same time, the owners of small and medium-sized enterprises are the most vulnerable, and the policy pursued by the Member States is not especially favourable to promoting and developing them, because EU legislation, such as the Small Business Act, is not being fully implemented and applied. Many companies went bankrupt during the crisis and this is a huge loss. I am therefore very pleased with this step which, although small, is of great significance to small business, providing clarity on payment periods. We will begin to really create an environment that is clear and understandable to small enterprises and will help to establish a business culture.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. (IT) With the adoption of the new directive against late payments, a measure that represents tangible support to companies, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, the European Parliament is making a decisive contribution for the benefit of citizens and the European production system. The recast directive in fact lays down categorical payment terms and appropriate penalties to encourage prompt payments within the Union by both public authorities and private companies. According to estimates, this measure should put back approximately EUR 180 billion into circulation in the economy: this is the actual sum owed by public authorities to the enterprise system in the Union.

The late payment problem is particularly keenly felt in Italy, where public authorities take 128 days on average to make payments as opposed to a European average of 67 days. The negative effects of late payments in commercial transactions are therefore considerable. I hope that this directive is implemented as quickly as possible by national governments in order to remove one of the greatest obstacles to development in the European internal market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) At last, we have got here, after months of postponement: we have voted on the report that is a real breath of fresh air for the future of our companies. Late payments represent a phenomenon which, especially in Italy, has brought tens of thousands of companies to their knees, costing the Italian economic system in the region of EUR 30 billion, according to calculations by professional associations. Leaving aside specific considerations and national situations, I am voting in favour of the report, which sets out black and white rules once and for all for both public and private operators. The economic crisis has already caused dramatic numbers of bankruptcies and closures of plants, companies and the cessation of business activities. Through this measure, Europe can really give a hand to many small businesses that are permanently strangled by bank loans due to the crisis and may already be sailing through stormy waters due to unpaid receivables that are late in arriving. When this directive is applied, at least we will avoid many cases where companies are forced out of business due to debt caused by other public or private operators.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) In an unstable economic climate, late payments can have an extremely adverse impact on small and medium-sized enterprises which need money to pay their employees and suppliers. The new regulations on late payments in commercial transactions, which Parliament and the Council agreed on, on 5 October, should facilitate and speed up the process for companies to recover the money they are due. It is small and medium-sized enterprises which keep the economy going, even during a crisis. This is the case in every European economy. The European Parliament has ensured that all parties will be on an equal footing and that the rules will apply to all, which will benefit many European SMEs.

Thanks to this agreement, SMEs will stop operating as banks for public enterprises or large companies. Along with the European Parliament’s recommendation for SMEs to be charged VAT only after invoices have been paid, setting a definite deadline for paying invoices will help those who are worried about their survival at a time when markets are in decline.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the report because I feel it is of fundamental importance to deploy all possible actions with the aim of strengthening the competitiveness of SMEs. Furthermore, combating late payment in commercial transactions, which represents an unacceptable abuse, must be pushed forward, particularly at a time of economic recession such as the one we are experiencing. The negative effects of late payment are considerable, representing considerable costs for creditor companies, reducing cash flows and the possibility of investment, and impacting on the competitiveness of SMEs.

This directive rightly includes measures to discourage debtors from paying late, measures that allow creditors to exercise their rights, and also identifies specific and precise rules such as default notices, compensation for recovery costs and the 30-day deadline, unless particular derogations apply, for the payment of debts. These put public authorities under an obligation and discourage them from forms of behaviour that could have negative impacts on SMEs, compromising the credibility of policies adopted.

Fast payments are also a necessary and preliminary condition for investment, growth and job creation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. (FR) I also declare myself satisfied with the solution found regarding payment deadlines and I am pleased that the proposal by the Socialists and Democrats allowing a longer timescale for public health services, where complex budgetary procedures result in longer payment deadlines, has been taken up. Furthermore, if contractual freedom between private businesses is respected, a substantial safeguard is introduced by prohibiting excessive payment deadlines towards creditors, who are often SMEs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I abstained in the vote on the report because it reinforces the Commission’s efforts to put pressure on debtor states, by proposing strict measures at a time when their public finances are in poor shape. The pressure for debts to be settled immediately, with the threat of serious monetary penalties in the form of interest, mainly serves the interests of the businesses taking advantage of the crisis to seek cutbacks in social protection and a freeze on or cuts to workers’ wages. The argument that this will help small and medium-sized enterprises does not stand up because, with the figures quoted in the regulation, the enterprises in question are not small and medium-sized enterprises. This sort of action would be warranted if preceded by bold support for the real economy of wage-earners and action to promote social and economic cohesion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. (IT) I support the need to reinforce Directive 2000/35/EC and identify instruments necessary to eliminate or reduce late payments in commercial transactions. My focus is on the SMEs that represent an essential part of the European market in creating wealth and jobs. This political choice by the European Commission is a step in the right direction, with the aim of making the business climate more favourable for SMEs. With regard to the deterrent 8% interest rate, I am somewhat concerned about the results from certain regions of my country and other European states that are really struggling to respect the new rules. I hope that this new approach can be a real opportunity for change. Now we must concentrate on monitoring implementation of the directive within internal legal systems, with the involvement of regional and local authorities, to ensure that this is carried out everywhere in a standard manner.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. (RO) I hope that the entry into force of the directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions will benefit most the European Union’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which will therefore be afforded more protection and be provided with resources to increase investments and create new jobs. At the same time, I hope that the directive will facilitate the development of debt-collecting mechanisms, as late payments from public authorities cause imbalances in the operation of small and medium-sized enterprises and, by extension, of the market too.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. (IT) Late payments in commercial transactions between undertakings, and between undertakings and public authorities, are one of the things currently hampering the recovery of economic growth. Approval of the new directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions represents a major innovation that will require appropriate preparation, above all, of the public sector, in both political and administrative terms. In political terms, so that financial and budgetary planning can take account not only of the impact of European Union rules on the Stability and Growth Pact, but now also of the impact of the new rules on late payments, which, if not satisfactorily managed, could have both a direct and reflex effect on the room for manoeuvre of governments at various levels. In administrative terms, appropriate preparation is required for the correct financial management of public bodies, beginning with the ratio between liabilities and expenditure, so that tax revenues and, hence, the people, are not weighed down by burdens such as interest payments which could have a significant effect on public finances. Finally, it seems important for there to be particular awareness and flexibility regarding several sectors, such as the health sector, in which the public authorities have run up significantly late payments owed to undertakings, for regular goods and services provided.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – In the current economic climate, it is hard enough for small and medium businesses to survive without the added burden of late payments in commercial transactions. Therefore, any mechanism that helps to protect these businesses from the added costs and financial implications surrounding late payment should be welcomed.

However, I believe it is up to the British Government to regulate on this issue, not the European Union, to ensure firms and government bodies live up to their payment obligations. This report, while with merit, does require further clarification on certain aspects and therefore I have chosen to abstain on this vote at this time.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on combating late payment in commercial transactions because it will enable the adoption of harmonised measures, which could be particularly important to the performance of companies – small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular – in the current situation of economic crisis. However, I consider guaranteeing a system of abolitions for the health sector to be positive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) Delayed payments are a problem with extremely serious consequences for the health of the global economy and a particularly devastating impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The effects of this are even more pernicious in the current period of economic and financial crisis. The bad example given by public administration is unacceptable, as is happening to a particularly severe degree in Portugal. Measures are needed to rein in late payment in commercial transactions so as to protect the good health of the European economy, avoiding situations where production structures are financially stifled and there is overcharging on financing products, thus increasing dependence on the banking sector. I would like to highlight the particular case of agricultural producers, who often see settlements that are owed to them delayed by supermarkets and distributors. The maximum period of 30 days – which may be waived to up to 60 days – for payment after services have been rendered and billed is quite reasonable for the balance of commercial relations, and it will be key to fostering a culture of timely fulfilment of commitments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – The adoption of the Weiler report today marks an important shift in the threshold of the payment dimension in business relations. Currently, it is common practice – and, more worryingly, an accepted practice – for public authorities to pressurise SMEs to sign off agreements allowing the delayed payment of bills.

Malta is a case in point. Numerous SMEs, which account for over 70% of employment in the private sector, have encountered serious cash flow difficulties due to delayed payments from undertakings, especially from public authorities, including the government.

In a number of Member States, the 60 day capping on public authorities will serve as an important protective clause for SMEs and citizens. However, for this provision to be truly effective, there must be correct transposition and implementation of the directive in each Member State coupled with stringent monitoring on the part of the Commission. It is only then that this new rule can be truly translated into tangible benefits for citizens and SMEs in particular.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. (PL) Payment terms in business transactions are a priority issue for the proper functioning of the European economies. Unfortunately, there are considerable disparities between Member States when it comes to complying with terms of payment, and this makes it necessary to verify carefully Directive 2000/35/EC of 8 August 2002, which is currently in force.

Lack of discipline in transactions is a particular threat to small and medium-sized enterprises in countries which have been hit by the economic crisis. Late payment frequently causes difficulties both on the internal market and in cross-border trade. For this reason, I support the rapporteur’s proposal to tighten up legislation, introduce instruments to protect enterprises and introduce mandatory compensation to enforce the late payment of invoices and interest.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. (DE) I welcome the decision of the report to stand firmly on the side of small and medium-sized enterprises. Late payment is a massive economic problem in commercial transactions within the EU. In the agricultural sector, too, it is a serious matter if liquidity problems are shifted on to agricultural undertakings. Clearly defined payment deadlines will put a stop to these methods. I support the 30-day payment deadline as standard proposed in the report and also the introduction of a general upper limit of 60 days. I find it incomprehensible that, in many Member States, payments of public money in connection with transactions with public administrations are delayed. Late payments seriously impair the business environment and the internal market and have a direct effect on the Member States. The flat-rate compensation that has been called for, which is to be paid from the first day on which the payment becomes late, represents a tangible method of preventing this.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Weiler’s report because I believe it is essential to safeguard the creditors of public administrations, which largely consist of small and medium-sized enterprises. This measure will allow approximately EUR 180 billion of liquid funds to be put back into circulation: this is the amount of the overall debt owed by public administrations to businesses throughout the EU. This is a truly important step because enterprises will be granted the automatic right to demand the payment of overdue interest and also obtain a fixed minimum amount of EUR 40 as compensation for the costs of recovering the debt. Enterprises will also, in any case, be able to demand reimbursement of all reasonable costs incurred for this purpose. I believe that this initiative will serve as a spur to Member States to draw up prompt payment codes. They may, in fact, maintain or introduce laws and regulations containing provisions that are more favourable to creditors than those established by the directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. (IT) Among the many proposals contained in the Small Business Act, the one regarding amendment of Directive 2000/35/EC was among the most urgent, in my opinion. Late payments have become a routine practice for public authorities in many countries (and this certainly includes Italy). If the European average is 180 days from the due date, we can only imagine the extremes of lateness in some cases and the consequences for those who manage small and medium-sized enterprises.

The paradox is that a State demands prompt payment of duties and taxes, handing out penalties and applying interest from the first day of lateness, but ignores its own commitments when it is the debtor. The amendment we are voting for is very important, above all, at this time of severe economic difficulty, but it will not be enough on its own to resolve the problem. If individual Member States do not amend their procedures for recovering debts from public authorities in order to make them shorter and more effective, the approved provisions will be ineffective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The late payment of commercial transactions, whether between companies or between companies and public entities, is responsible for cash flow problems in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and, in turn, often contributes to further delays in payment, thus starting a vicious cycle that is difficult to counteract. We are sure that the implementation of the new rules proposed here will represent an important step towards ending this situation and thus help companies to face this period of economic and financial crisis. The proposed penalties are proportionate and necessary, and it is hoped that they will discourage the improper commercial practices that have been adopted by commercial operators.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing.(HU) It was essential that the resolution on the Late Payment Directive be accepted, and that is why I voted for the resolution. The debate this morning also revealed that the effects of the crisis, which, in the recent past, did not spare our Member States, either, are still closely felt. We need to make numerous changes in view of the smooth operation of the internal market. As part of these changes, the report rightly recommends the transition to a culture of timely payment. This will make it possible for payment delays to incur consequences which will make them disadvantageous.

According to the impact assessment preceding the review, the authorities of several Member States are known for poor payment practices. I sincerely hope that today’s decision will be able to change that as well. Finally, making life easier for SMEs can be at the forefront of our concerns in this regard as well. The proposed alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can offer a solution, as can making public the practices of Member States. Making the most of the opportunities offered via the European e-Justice portal can help creditors and enterprises operate with fewer worries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. (SK) I welcome the Commission’s proposal tackling the problem of late payments which is becoming a serious issue, particularly in cross-border commercial transactions, because it violates legal security.

In order for the consequences of late payment to be such as to discourage it, it is necessary that fast-acting procedures for the recovery of undisputed outstanding debt related to late payment be introduced within the establishment of a culture of prompt payment. The amending proposal, aimed at the enforcement of payment of such claims against an enterprise or a public authority via a broadly accessible on-line procedure, will be a positive step towards the simplified and speedier recovery of this kind of outstanding debt. It will be beneficial primarily to small and medium-sized enterprises which suffer most from late payment and laborious recovery procedures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) Outstanding debts represent a considerable financial risk, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. A lack of a payment moral, especially in times of crisis, can severely restrict liquidity. There is certainly a benefit to be gained from measures that lead to a greater consciousness about payment. I have abstained because I am not convinced that it makes sense to regulate this at the pan-European level or that doing so would have a positive influence on the payment moral.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. (IT) The report tackles the problem of late payment, a problem that destabilises the market and, above all, damages small and medium-sized enterprises, for which I have a particular regard. My vote in favour of the report should be seen as a hope for the birth of a new commercial culture which is more prone to timely payment, and in which late payment is considered as an unacceptable abuse of the client’s position and a breach of contract, and not as a normal practice.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) I voted for this legislation because I believe that better handled payment arrangements are beneficial to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and business culture in general. I believe that one of the provisions put forward in this document is particularly progressive: the call to publish lists of reporting entities quickly. These measures would not only encourage companies (particularly SMEs) to pay one another on time, thus reducing the risks of liquidity problems, but would also increase the credibility and, in turn, the competitiveness of such companies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Weiler’s report, inasmuch as I believe that it is essential to establish a maximum ceiling under which enterprises must be paid.. This need is even more pressing and essential at these times of crisis. Small and medium-sized enterprises, together with entrepreneurs, play a significant role in all our economies and are key generators of employment and income and drivers of innovation and growth. Unfortunately, all too often recently, we have seen situations of companies that are owed several millions by public authorities but are unfortunately forced to close down or declare bankruptcy due precisely to these late payments. I therefore hope that at the implementation stage, other factors are also considered, establishing a loosening of stability pact ties for public authorities and, at the same time, a gradual reduction in payment terms. This would bring both requirements together and the entire system of the country would benefit. I hope that the directive is quickly transposed by the Member States so that it may be applied as soon as possible. It is a duty on the part of we law makers and a right owed to creditor companies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Late payments can result in financial difficulties, and even bankruptcy for some businesses, especially SMEs: according to the European Commission, late payments cost the European economy around EUR 180 billion every year. Other studies talk about EUR 300 billion per year, an amount equivalent to the Greek public debt. In the current economic climate, I am glad that the Council and Parliament have been able to agree from the start on an ambitious review of European legislation in this area. The European Parliament’s contribution was substantial in this matter. We were successful in making sure the final text is inspired by the many improvements voted for in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, in particular: higher legal interest rates payable in case of delay; for business to business transactions, a default 30-day rule and an extension to 60 days which can be prolonged under certain conditions; for public institutions, a maximum of 60 days; greater flexibility for public health institutions and for public medical and social institutions; and finally, a simplification of the compensation for recovery costs (a flat rate of EUR 40).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) I would like to congratulate Mrs Weiler on her outstanding work. The European Parliament has given the green light to new laws to limit late payment by public authorities to their suppliers, the majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. Parliament has provided that public authorities must be bound to pay for services or goods acquired within 30 days. If they do not do this, they must pay interest on late payment at a rate of 8%.

The principle of paying for work on time is a fundamental principle of correct behaviour but is also of crucial importance in determining the solidity of an enterprise, its available funds and its access to credit and finance. This new directive, which will now be implemented in national legal systems within 24 months of its adoption, will therefore benefit the entire European economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Given that late payment is a phenomenon with numerous and interlinked causes, it can only be combated with a wide range of complementary measures. Parliament therefore considers that a purely legalistic approach with the aim of improving remedies for late payment is necessary, but not sufficient. The Commission’s ‘hard’ approach with a focus on harsh sanctions and disincentives must be broadened to include ‘soft’ measures with a focus on providing positive incentives to combat late payment.

In addition, practical measures, such as the use of electronic invoices, should be encouraged in parallel with the implementation of the directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marco Scurria (PPE), in writing. (IT) Italy is the country where enterprises suffer most due to late payment by public authorities, with an average period for payment to suppliers of 180 days as opposed to the European average of 67 days. This leads to financial problems, a drastic reduction in investment opportunities and a loss of competitiveness, particularly for SMEs.

The directive we have voted for today discourages debtors from paying late and allows creditors to protect their interests effectively against such lateness, introducing the right to legal interest caused by late payment even when not specified in the contract. It also forces public authorities to pay within a maximum of 60 days from the payment request, provided the service has been performed satisfactorily.

The adoption of this directive is truly a great help for our enterprises: nowadays, one company in four closes down as a result of problems of insufficient financial liquidity. These new rules on payments will mean that companies will regain their market competitiveness and no jobs will be lost.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. (FR) By adopting with a resounding majority the report by my colleague, Barbara Weiler, on the proposal for a directive on late payments, the European Parliament has introduced balanced and clear rules which promote solvency, innovation and jobs. Small businesses and public hospitals will benefit from the measures that we are proposing.

The former will no longer be faced with financial issues following late payments and the latter will be able to benefit from an extended payment period of 60 days because of their special status, with funding coming from reimbursements in accordance with social security systems. Moreover, the agreement that we should get with the Council will allow a speedy entry into force of the directive and transposition by Member States as early as January 2011. I welcome the effectiveness of this vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Salvatore Tatarella (PPE), in writing. (IT) Over recent years, late payments have become an increasingly important burden in the financial management of businesses. They represent a serious and dangerous problem that drags down the quality of the tender system, seriously undermining the survival of small businesses and contributing to the European economy’s loss of competitiveness. The statistics are alarming, above all, with regard to Italy, where the average payment is made at 186 days, peaking at 800 days in regional government with regard to the health sector. It is a real disgrace, which has very often forced many SMEs to close. Through this report, we are taking a great step forward by setting 60 days as the limit for payments from the public sector to the private sector. Of course, the adoption of this legislation will not solve the problem as if by magic, but it definitely represents a starting point to set off a virtuous cycle, above all, with regard to dealings with public authorities. The efficiency and immediacy of public authorities in paying invoices is an important step that will also have benefits for the European economy. I hope that the Member States, above all Italy, transpose the legislation very quickly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report has made a significant contribution to resolving the problem of late payments in commercial transactions between companies or between companies and public entities. The initiative is aiming for greater liquidity among the European Union’s companies through harmonisation. The struggle against late payments is particularly welcome in the current period of crisis, since long delays have negative repercussions on companies’ activities. The measure aims to contribute to the smooth operation of the internal market by urgently reforming the deadline required and the penalties to apply where it is not respected.

In this context, I welcome the legislative proposal, whose stipulation of a general deadline of 30 days for paying for transactions between companies and between companies and public entities – with the latter able to benefit from 60 days in exceptional cases – garnered widespread support in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), of which I am a member.

I also view positively the establishment of an interest rate to be applied, where payment is late, based on the European Central Bank’s reference rate plus 8%. In my opinion, this measure equates to a strong boost for the economic activity of small and medium-sized enterprises, which often see their economic performance seriously damaged because of bureaucratic obstacles.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have just voted on the revised directive on combating late payments in commercial transactions. I have thrown the full weight of my support behind this agreement. Excessively long payment periods and, indeed, late payments, are a threat to healthy company management, they affect competitiveness and profitability and could ultimately jeopardise the company’s continued existence. As the current directive does not appear to be effective enough in discouraging late payments, I also support the strengthening of the existing rules. As far as maximum payment periods are concerned, we will be putting in place additional guarantees for companies because, in principle, payments have to be made within 30 days. This is of particular importance for payments between companies and government bodies. After all, from now on, Member States and governments will themselves have to lead by example. This is a question of credibility, that is, a question of European institutions in future being required to comply with the same legal deadlines as everybody else. The fact that the directive clearly stipulates that any contractual deviation from standard payment terms will only be possible for objective and fair reasons will be an important factor in its enforcement. To conclude, I hope that the fixed compensation in respect of recovery costs will force late payers onto the straight and narrow path and, better still, keep them there. That would be good for our companies and good for jobs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Weiler’s report on combating late payment in commercial transactions.

Business activities are greatly hindered by debts or late payments that often represent the reason why otherwise solvent enterprises fail due to a kind of domino effect. Late payments represent a frequent event in Europe that is damaging to enterprises, particularly small enterprises.

Furthermore, in most Member States, public authorities customarily pay late in situations of financial difficulty. A need has therefore emerged to strengthen existing legal measures by undertaking to combat late payment to support companies, particularly SMEs, and establish exact terms and appropriate penalties for those who are in breach.

 
  
  

Report: Ilda Figueiredo (A7-0233/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report, as poverty is a very serious problem which affects 85 million of our fellow Europeans, so no one should remain indifferent to it. It needs to be at the forefront of our priorities, and it merits a collective response which ensures that those who find themselves in a situation of social vulnerability have a modicum of dignity. Poverty affects our young people and our elderly, but also, increasingly, our workers. 6 million jobs have been lost in the last two years alone, along with a worsening in the low level and instability of workers’ wages, even if they manage to stay in their jobs. We need a systemic approach that addresses and resolves the causes of the problems, nipping incipient problems in the bud. However, at the same time, we cannot currently provide immediate and urgent responses to their consequences. In view of this, ensuring that those who are vulnerable in our society receive a minimum income for living and are given immediate responses to enable them to get out of this situation is not only a necessity, but also a requirement that we should endorse, and one that must be achieved within a framework of responsibility and exigency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. (IT) The EU has shown its commitment to combating poverty in Europe within the framework of initiatives promoted for 2010, the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, and with regard to achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Considering the severity of the economic and social crisis and its impact on the increase in poverty and social exclusion, some vulnerable population groups such as women, children, old people and young people have experienced the negative effects of the situation more keenly. In this situation, even though a minimum income may constitute an appropriate system for protecting such categories, it does not take into account the principle of subsidiarity and, therefore, the fact that this subject is the responsibility of individual Member States.

Because inequalities exist between wages and social levels in Europe, it is difficult to establish a minimum common income threshold. I believe that it would instead be useful to encourage individual Member States to improve policy responses to combating poverty, promoting active inclusion, an adequate income, access to quality services and a fair redistribution of wealth. Above all, however, Member States should be encouraged to make better use of the Structural Funds at their disposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The international community has confirmed its commitment to combating poverty on several occasions. Such a global approach is required because poverty is not confined to the underdeveloped countries in sub-Saharan Africa or Asia, but to 17% of the EU population as well.

I believe that last month’s UN summit marks an important development, leading to the adoption of a specific action plan for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The EU, for its part, has suggested a 25% reduction in the number of people living in poverty by 2020 and an allocation of 0.7% of gross national income to development aid. Moreover, the European Parliament is encouraging, by adopting this report, the active inclusion of disadvantaged groups and providing effective economic and social cohesion.

I would like to mention the large contribution made by Romania to the UN programmes for combating poverty, amounting to EUR 250 million. As development aid must be reciprocal, my country will continue to observe its commitments. However, I think that more attention must be focused on groups at a high risk of poverty, such as the rural population or the Roma ethnic minority.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. (ES) The aim of this initiative is for various measures to be adopted at European level to eliminate poverty and social exclusion. The economic crisis has exacerbated the situation of many Europeans. Unemployment has risen and, under these circumstances, the situation of the most vulnerable people, such as women, children, young people and the elderly, is more precarious. This is why we need to adopt measures at European and national level, and minimum incomes are a good tool for ensuring that those who need them can live in dignity. The ultimate objective, however, is full integration into the labour market, which is what enables genuine social cohesion. In this respect, I hope that we will be able to ensure that economic development is accompanied by social development and, in particular, to influence the development of the social economy. I also hope that we will be able to fulfil the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty by 20 million.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted for this report because, despite all the statements on combating poverty, European citizens continue to live in poverty, social inequalities have increased and the number of poor workers is also increasing. The European Union must take more active measures to combat poverty and social exclusion, paying particular attention to people in precarious employment, the unemployed, families, elderly people, women, single mothers, disadvantaged children and people who are ill or who are able-bodied to varying degrees. Minimum income is one of the basic measures for combating poverty, helping to lift these people out of poverty and ensure their right to have a decent living. I would like to draw attention to the fact that minimum income will only achieve its objective in combating poverty if the Member States take concrete actions to guarantee minimum income and implement national programmes for combating poverty. Furthermore, in some Member States, minimum income schemes do not meet the relative poverty threshold. Therefore, the European Commission should address good and bad practices in the evaluation of national action plans. Hence, minimum income – the main element of social protection – is undoubtedly important in ensuring the protection of people facing poverty and their equal opportunities in society.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) Almost 300 000 families in Romania receive a guaranteed minimum income from the state, under a law which has already been in force since 2001, and for which a fiscal effort of almost EUR 300 million is made available. Against the backdrop of the current economic crisis, whose impact is especially being felt by citizens from those countries less developed economically, the recommendation made by the European Parliament for a minimum income scheme to be introduced in all Member States provides an obvious solution. Although no one can argue against the need for such a guaranteed minimum income scheme, it may obviously be open to abuse.

A good timeframe and control framework for the scheme are required because there is a risk of this scheme encouraging people not to work. Precisely to ensure that this does not happen, it is recommended that anyone receiving this income is also able to provide some hours of work for the benefit of the community. As of the end of 2008, 85 million people were living below the poverty line throughout the EU. These figures highlight the need for support, especially when we are talking about young or elderly people.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. (FR) The economic crisis has made poverty considerably worse. Over 85 000 people are currently living below the poverty line in the European Union. In the context of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, I welcome the political commitment taken by the European Parliament to ensure economic and social cohesion that is strong and effective.

The Figueiredo report points out that introducing a minimum income at national level is one of the most effective ways of tackling poverty. However, I am against having a minimum income at European Union level. Such a measure would be demagogic and totally ill-suited in the current situation. The Structural Funds, too, play an essential role in tackling social exclusion. The European Social Fund, in particular, is a strong European investment designed to make the labour market more accessible to those experiencing difficulties. It should remain a strong instrument of the cohesion policy during the 2014-2020 period.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I voted in favour of this extremely good report, because it insists on the need to take specific measures to eliminate poverty and social exclusion, by promoting a fair redistribution of income and wealth, thereby guaranteeing an adequate income and giving real meaning to the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. It calls on the Member States to ‘take a fresh look’ at policies to guarantee an adequate income, knowing that decent and viable jobs need to be created in order to combat poverty. It considers that social objectives should form an integral part of the crisis exit strategy and that job creation must be a priority for the European Commission and the Member State governments, as the first step towards reducing poverty. It considers that adequate minimum income schemes must set minimum incomes at a level equivalent to at least 60% of median income in the Member State concerned. It also stresses the importance of the existence of unemployment benefit that guarantees a decent standard of living, and also the need to reduce the length of absences from work, inter alia, by making state employment services more efficient. It also stresses the need to adopt rules on insurance, so as to establish a link between the minimum pension paid and the corresponding poverty threshold.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. (DA) We, the Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen), have voted in favour of the own-initiative report on the role of minimum income in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe. We believe that all EU Member States should adopt poverty targets and introduce minimum income schemes. At the same time, we believe that these targets and schemes should be adapted to the circumstances of the individual Member States. We believe that there are many ways to assess poverty and it ought to be up to each individual Member State to find the best way to do this and to construct a minimum income scheme that is tailored to that Member State.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. (PT) The current economic crisis has had an enormous impact on increasing unemployment, on unchecked impoverishment, and on the social exclusion of people all over Europe. Poverty and social exclusion have attained unacceptable levels: almost 80 million Europeans are living below the poverty line, 19 million of whom are children – the equivalent of almost two in 10 children – and many others are facing serious obstacles in terms of access to jobs, education, housing, and social and financial services. Unemployment has also reached unprecedented levels in all the Member States, with a European average of 21.4% in which one in five young people is unemployed. This situation is unacceptable and we need to do everything in our power to help resolve the tragedy that these people are living.

To this end, 2010 has been designated the European year for combating this scourge with the purpose of strengthening the EU’s political commitment and taking measures that have a decisive impact on eradicating poverty. I agree that there needs to be a minimum wage in every Member State, accompanied by a social reintegration strategy and access to the labour market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. (IT) Economic and social cohesion is a fundamental prerequisite of any common policy, in Europe as in smaller contexts. Where there are differing interests, objectives will also diverge and it will be impossible to plan anything shared. Raising the living standards of those living beneath the poverty threshold is a priority. Public resources put to use in this context are, without doubt a medium-term investment since, if they are well distributed, they trigger instances of growth which feed themselves. Transferring fixed sums of money is always an uncertain business, if they are not part of a wider programme of incentives. Two situations require a different approach. The first situation, relating to social welfare, is where a worker is unable to earn enough to lead a dignified life due to physical or mental disabilities, or other related reasons. The second situation, relating to legal and economic issues, involves the rigidity of the labour market, which does not adequately equate productivity and salaries, or which does not allow you to work as much you would like or in proportion to how much you want to earn in order to lead a decent life. In these two situations, the public sector can and must intervene, leaving an incentive to hard work to be created in the others – and never the other way around.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. (RO) Approximately one fifth of the EU population lives below the poverty line, with increased rates of poverty among children, young people and the elderly. The proportion of poor employees is growing hand in hand with the proliferation of precarious, low paid jobs. In 10 Member States, the material deprivation rate affects at least a quarter of the population, with the proportion exceeding half of the population in the case of Romania and Bulgaria. All these factors add up to the EU facing a poverty problem exacerbated not only by the recession, but also by the anti-social policies implemented by right-wing governments. The minimum income can guarantee social protection for broad groups of the population who are now living in poverty. This minimum income has an absolutely paramount role to play in preventing tragic situations caused by poverty and in halting social exclusion. In order to combat poverty effectively, there is also a need to improve the quality of jobs and salaries, introduce the right to an income, as well as the wherewithal to provide social welfare benefits, pensions and allowances. 2010 is the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, continuing the campaign for an inclusive society, adopted by the Treaty of Lisbon. This provides another reason for me to vote in favour of this campaign.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. (RO) I believe that action needs to be taken at both European and national level to protect consumers against unfair terms for repaying loans and credit cards and to establish terms for accessing loans which will prevent households from getting into excessive debt and, consequently, from facing poverty and social exclusion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) In Europe, 20 Member States have got national legislation which sets a minimum wage and differences between countries can be very substantial. Thus, the minimum wage in Luxembourg is approximately EUR 1 682, whereas in Bulgaria, it is only EUR 123.

That is why the European Parliament has reiterated its call for a European minimum income. This minimum income could be one of the solutions to explore to prevent millions of Europeans from sliding into poverty. We feel it is important to point out that guaranteeing a minimum income should naturally be accompanied by an overall social strategy including access to basic services such as healthcare, access to accommodation, education, lifelong learning, and this for all ages and in a way that is suited to each country.

MEPs have highlighted that the real aim of minimum income schemes should not only be to assist but also to support beneficiaries so as to enable them to move from a situation of social exclusion to a working life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. (FR) My support for this report highlights the importance of solidarity within our European societies, particularly in this European Year for Combating Poverty.

Certain Member States, such as France, have played a pioneering role by creating a ‘minimum guaranteed income’ 20 years ago. However, experience has taught us that this system can generate adverse effects and, for example, encourage idleness in some. That is why the Union must consider measures which, like the French revenu de solidarité active, or earned income supplement, create a sense of responsibility in recipients and encourage them to seek employment, which is the first real element of social inclusion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. (FR) I have always called for, and I already included this in my election programme for the 2009 European elections, the introduction of a minimum income equivalent to 60% of the average income for each citizen of the Union. Today, however, this House has unfortunately voted against this legislative proposal at Community level.

In this European year 2010 for combating poverty, I am convinced that a framework directive on minimum income could have served as a reference text for national policies and legislation.

I believe this was the most effective way to reduce poverty and to bring 20 million people out of poverty by 2020. As a reminder, 80 million people are living below the poverty line in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I think that the risk of poverty exacerbation in Europe must be avoided at all costs as it can have an extremely adverse structural impact in the long term, from both a social and economic perspective. I voted for this report because I believe that a reasonable minimum income must be guaranteed to ensure a decent level of social protection, in particular, for the most vulnerable groups of people who have been hit hard by the austerity policies implemented by European governments during the current economic and financial crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Without being insensitive to the severe consequences of the current crisis on the public, as it is creating or exacerbating a situation of poverty for many Europeans, I do not agree with the statist view that aims to solve this problem with more social benefits, as in the case of a minimum income that is fixed at a European level.

More social benefits require more money from the state, and as this does not create wealth, it can only be achieved by increasing tax revenue. This means more taxes on everyone, making everyone poorer and more dependent on the leech-like state itself.

The fight against poverty must be carried out by employment policies and economic competitiveness. If Portugal were not seeing several companies closing week after week, it would not be seeing so many Portuguese people unemployed and living in poverty. I therefore believe that the fight against poverty should be carried out by stimulating the economy and the market, not by way of subsidies, which will always have to be funded by taxes which, as we know, stifle taxpayers and the economy and are an obstacle to economic competitiveness.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) As I said in this House a year ago, I advocate a new concept of sociality within the European Union which is able to ensure that everyone has a basic standard of living. In a Europe that is socially conscious, fair, evolved and cohesive, it is imperative to ensure measures that eradicate and minimise the risk of social dumping and the degradation of living conditions for its people when faced with the devastating effects of the current economic crisis. In order to make Europe stronger and more united, we must ensure the protection of basic rights for people throughout Europe. I understand that minimum standards are needed in the areas of healthcare, education and social pensions, and even at the level of pay, ensuring greater uniformity in employment conditions. In the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, I welcome this report for its contribution to encouraging all Member States to fulfil their responsibilities for active inclusion by rectifying social inequality and marginalisation. I would like to stress that there should be a realistic balance and respect for the subsidiarity principle. In view of this, I am voting for this report and against the proposed amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) I would stress the importance of the adoption by the plenary sitting of the European Parliament of this report proposing the introduction of minimum income schemes in all EU Member States, for which I was responsible. It was adopted in this Chamber by 437 votes to 162, with 33 abstentions, and has emerged as a specific measure of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.

As this report says, ‘introducing minimum income schemes in all EU Member States – consisting of specific measures supporting people (children, adults and the elderly) whose income is insufficient by means of a financial contribution and facilitated access to essential public services – is one of the most effective ways to combat poverty, guarantee an adequate standard of living and foster social integration’.

The adopted resolution argues that minimum income schemes must fix minimum incomes at a level equivalent to at least 60% of median income in the Member State concerned. It urges the Commission to draw up an action plan, designed to accompany the implementation of a European initiative on minimum income in the Member States. It calls attention to the increasing number of working poor and to the need to tackle this new challenge, and it calls for a fair redistribution of income.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. (FR) Rarely have I come across such a demagogic and unrealistic report. Demagogic, because its aim is to introduce a minimum income equal to at least 60% of average income in all Member States and for everyone, without any nationality requirement. Is that gross average income or net average income? Is that the average standard of living which is used to calculate the poverty line? In my country, that is tantamount to encouraging assisted inactivity and to creating a powerful magnet for immigration.

Because, according to the definition used, this income could be higher than the minimum wage, which is what 15% of French workers earn; a record among developed countries. It is not assistance that Europeans need, but real jobs that pay a decent wage. Yet, and this is the unrealistic part, the report is silent on the true causes of poverty: the pressure on wages brought about by the external competition of low cost countries where social dumping is practised, and by the internal competition of non-European immigration; and the explosion of unemployment, relocations and business closures caused by unfettered globalisation. It also overlooks the extremely worrying case of the impoverishment of Europe’s middle classes. Priority must be given to fighting these causes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – Even though the European Union is one of the richest areas in the world, one still finds a high percentage of European citizens facing the problem of income poverty, limiting their ability to afford the basics in relation to food, health, energy and education. Poverty affects 85 million people in Europe. Moreover, following the current financial and economic downturn, there is a higher risk of poverty mainly affecting children, the young and the elderly, putting many households at a higher risk, reducing their access to medicine, healthcare, schools and employment. We have to ensure that wealth is evenly distributed among rich and poor Member States, among small and big countries, and among their citizens.

More funds have to be allocated to different studies and analyses relating to poverty and social exclusion, comparing the systems of the 27 Member States and identifying which policy works best. We have to continue combating poverty and social exclusion in Europe and around the world by taking urgent action and, more importantly, by working in solidarity despite the different fiscal or political pressures we might face.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Currently in Europe, 17% of the population, equivalent to around 85 million people, are living below the poverty line. Behind these figures, extreme poverty is the most worrying and is making progress, especially in these times of recession, which is why a minimum income is crucial.

As 2010 is the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, and following the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, we voted, in the European Parliament, for a resolution that calls for a European minimum income equal to 60% of average income in each Member State.

Our report emphasises that introducing minimum income schemes in all Member States is one of the most effective measures to fight against poverty, ensure a decent standard of living and encourage social integration, and I welcome the adoption of this resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. (FR) I supported the report inviting Member States to tackle poverty by introducing minimum income schemes on the model of the RSA [‘revenu de solidarité active’ - earned income supplement], formerly RMI [‘revenu minimum d’insertion’ - basic guaranteed income], in France. This type of tool has been clearly recognised as being very useful when tackling job insecurity.

The text proposes that this kind of minimum income amounts to 60% of the average salary for each country and, above all, is part of a comprehensive strategy for integration, with a lasting return to work and access to public services, primarily accommodation.

The text was adopted, but unfortunately, the alternative versions proposed by the left-leaning political groups, calling for a binding framework directive for implementing the minimum income throughout the Union, were rejected. The position that we have taken in favour of these minimum income schemes is therefore encouraging, but is likely to be insufficient.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. (PL) Current data show that poverty levels in the European Union are increasing. In many Member States, poverty hits children and elderly people the hardest, and the increasing use of short-term job contracts and low, unsecure incomes bring the risk of deteriorating living conditions across the whole of society. Add to that the demographic crisis that is affecting some countries, and we have a recipe for guaranteed economic decline. It is our job to secure a decent life for all citizens.

We cannot allow our children and grandchildren to live under the threat of hunger, unemployment and social exclusion. We must guarantee future generations decent wage levels, career stability, access to public services and social integration throughout their lives – from the earliest age until retirement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – There are an estimated 85 million people throughout the EU suffering from or at risk of poverty and I believe that at a European level, everything possible must be done in order to tackle it. It is vital that procedures such as this are introduced to help reduce the number of people at risk of poverty in the EU, in order to ensure that the EU 2020 goal of removing the risk for 20 million European citizens is met.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) The economic and financial crisis has exacerbated the situation which the labour market is in across the whole of the European Union. Just recently, approximately 5 million jobs have been lost, which has caused poverty and social exclusion in Member States. I firmly support this report because I believe that urgent measures are needed to reintegrate those affected into the labour market, as well as the guarantee of a minimum income which will be able to ensure a decent standard of living and a life worthy of human dignity. I think that we must develop relevant indicators to enable us to introduce minimum income schemes in Member States, thereby ensuring an adequate standard of living fostering social integration and promoting social and economic cohesion throughout the entire European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. (PL) One effective tool for fighting poverty is guaranteeing citizens of the European Union a minimum income which includes salaries, pensions and benefits. A minimum income should be a universal right, and not depend on contributions made.

We should pay particular attention to social groups which are particularly susceptible to poverty and social exclusion, which include, in particular, disabled people, large families and single-parent families, the chronically ill and the elderly. An analysis of the experience of several Member States shows us what an important role minimum incomes play in fighting poverty and social exclusion, and that is why I voted for Mrs Figueiredo’s report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. (IT) Nowadays, it is essential to include the prevention and combating of poverty and social exclusion in other EU policies with the aim of guaranteeing the respect for fundamental human rights, universal access to essential public services and the right to health, to education and to vocational training.

All this requires social sustainability of macro-economic policies, which implies changing monetary priorities and policies, including in the Stability and Growth Pact, and also all competition policies, internal market policies, and budgetary and fiscal policies. This report uses the term ‘minimum income’, which is a controversial term defined as an instrument that makes it possible to accompany beneficiaries in moving from situations of social exclusion to active life; it also underlines the importance of broader policies that also take into consideration other needs: healthcare, education, training, social services and housing.

I voted in favour of this report because I support the idea of the need for a European coordination strategy. I nevertheless believe that the minimum income is a responsibility of individual Member States, based on the principle of subsidiarity. It is difficult to establish a minimum threshold in the various Member States when great differences exist between wages and the cost of living in general.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. (IT) The contents of the Treaty of Lisbon, the provisions of the 2020 EU strategy and the principles included in the Millennium Development Goals do not seem to be reflected, even in terms of future prospects, in the disconcerting reality, which is that great numbers of people live in misery even today. In Europe alone, nearly 80 million citizens live in conditions of poverty, 19 million of whom are children. The ambitious policies that the international community has set itself for poverty eradication have all too often proved ineffective and difficult to implement or amounted only to social welfare measures.

The objectives must instead be achieved by considering a more structural approach, evaluating specific initiatives coordinated at European level that have an impact on income, on social services and on healthcare with the aim of alleviating the impact of a financial crisis that has hit those who are most at risk in the labour market, namely women, older women in particular, and young people. I believe that the valuation of European initiatives aiming to establish a minimum income might represent one of the ways for combating poverty provided the principle of subsidiarity is observed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The implementation of minimum income in all the countries of the European Union is a pivotal measure for combating poverty. I am therefore voting in favour of this important report.

The minimum income is, however, calculated for each country, and thus does not contribute to social convergence within Europe. National inequalities are being maintained in the crisis that we are experiencing at present. More cross-cutting social policies are therefore needed at a European level in order to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. This is an important part of the EU’s role.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. (IT) The European Union has always proclaimed ‘social inclusion’ as one of its founding principles. It is difficult to combat the many situations that lead to marginalisation, removal and abandonment. Among these, poverty must certainly come high up on the list. Unlike causes such as disease, anti-social behaviour, race or gender, this represents a condition for which civilised countries should organise ordinary preventive measures.

A minimum income for citizens is a remedy, not a solution. In the resolution, I support the Commission’s call to include State actions within a framework of European coordination and ensure that the minimum income is accompanied by an integrated approach that includes healthcare, education and housing. I also add my own personal appeal to the Commission, in other words, that actions to support inclusion with the aim of prevention should be prioritised in the ‘Platform for combating poverty and social exclusion’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Member States cannot be insensitive to situations of extreme poverty, and they must ensure that no one is simply left to their fate in situations that are often deeply degrading. Extraordinary and exceptional help should be considered in these precise cases.

Nevertheless, experiences such as the Portuguese one of awarding minimum incomes without truly effective monitoring, but with an enormous number of people who are registered as beneficiaries, who could and should work, but neither work nor try to, are a perversion of the approach that must be addressed. I therefore abstained because of the fact that the aspects of proper monitoring of the system that I have described call it into question, both from a financial and a moral point of view.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Member States cannot be insensitive to situations of extreme poverty and must ensure that no one is simply left to their fate, in situations that are often deeply degrading. Extraordinary and exceptional help should be considered, strictly in these cases.

Nevertheless, experiences, such as the Portuguese one, of awarding minimum incomes without any truly effective monitoring, but with an enormous number of people who are registered as benefit claimants who could and should work, but neither work nor try to, constitute a perversion of the logic that should be contemplated. That is why I abstained: because of the fact that the described aspects of proper monitoring of the system call it into question, both financially and morally.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (ES) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the role of minimum income in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe, because I agree with most of the requests and opinions it contains; for example, the fact that Member States, the Council and the Commission need to implement ‘concrete measures to eradicate poverty and social exclusion’ and that ‘combating poverty begins with the creation of decent, sustainable jobs for groups at a disadvantage on the labour market’. On that point, I consider its advocacy of the establishment of a minimum income threshold in all Member States to be of great value, so that everyone, whether or not they are employed, can live with dignity. I supported this resolution because, in general, it demands greater social intervention to combat the poverty suffered by millions of citizens. To that end, it demands that Member States and the European institutions establish concrete measures to promote reintegration into the labour market worthy of those people who are living in poverty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. (ET) As a female Member, it particularly disturbs me that in the present economic crisis, women in the EU are threatened by extreme poverty much more than men. If you look at the figures from Eurostat, 27% of women today, before receipt of social security, are at risk of poverty. In European society, the sustained trend towards the feminisation of poverty shows that the existing framework of social security systems and the various social, economic and employment policy measures adopted in the EU are not designed for the needs of women or for abolishing the existing disparities relating to women’s employment. I therefore support the rapporteur, who says that women’s poverty and social exclusion in Europe require concrete, diverse and gender-based policy solutions, and accordingly, I also supported the raising of this issue with my vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Figueiredo’s report. Work represents the greatest priority for the population. The solidarity on which the European model of social market economy is based and the coordination of national responses are vital. The initiatives undertaken by individual states will be ineffective unless we have coordinated action at EU level. It is therefore essential that the European Union speak with a single strong voice and have a common vision, subsequently allowing individual states a choice over the concrete application of measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. In the social market economy enshrined in and fostered by the treaty, the public authorities must implement settlement measures with the aim of accelerating and facilitating the achievement of balance in order to prevent difficulties for the public or at least minimise them. We need social policies to protect families, limiting inequality and the impact and the effects of the crisis. We need to improve systems of social protection by implementing long-term policies, also with regard to jobs, giving greater stability to employment while avoiding unsustainable burdens on our national budgets.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution – Amendment 3 – (Article 157(4) of the Rules of Procedure) to replace non-legislative motion for a resolution A7-0233/2010 on the role of minimum income in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe. This provision, especially in the present times of economic crisis, does not conflict with the principle of a social market economy, a principle to which I subscribe unreservedly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) Poverty is a major social problem all over the world, and unfortunately, the EU is not immune. Moreover, the already protracted financial and economic crisis that we are experiencing has exacerbated the poverty of people within Europe, creating a new wave of poor in some countries, such as Portugal, and even affecting what is commonly referred to as the middle class.

The allocation of a minimum income is an important social measure with a significant impact in economic terms, and many see it as a moral obligation. The crucial thing is that this minimum income is regulated in such a way that it acts as a lever to elevate people in poverty to an acceptable standard of living, and that it can never be an incentive for people to act passively in a difficult situation, namely by potentially lacking commitment in looking for a job.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. (RO) Poverty is a reality which affects people whose income is insufficient to provide them with an acceptable living, with the number of people in this situation on the increase due to the current crisis. In 2008, 17% of the EU’s population (approximately 85 million people) were exposed to the threat of poverty. The at-risk-of-poverty rate was higher for children and young people up to the age of 17 than for the total population, reaching 20% in the EU-27, with the highest rate being recorded in Romania (33%). The at-risk-of-poverty rate for those in employment was 8% on average in the EU-27, with the highest rate again in Romania (17%).

I voted for the need to adopt a system for calculating the minimum income (equivalent to at least 60% of median income in the Member State concerned) in every Member State, consisting of specific measures supporting people whose income is insufficient with a funding supply and by facilitating access to services. This step could be one of the most effective ways to combat poverty, guarantee an adequate standard of living and foster social integration.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Lifting 20 million European citizens out of poverty by 2020, such is the ambitious target set by the EU 2020 strategy, a target that could well remain a pious hope if Europe does not come to grips with the growing impoverishment that now affects more than 80 million citizens.

That is why the introduction at European level of a minimum subsistence income or its expansion to all Member States is important. Designed to be the ‘last safety net’, minimum income already plays a role in combating social exclusion.

We now need to increase its effectiveness while bearing three main things in mind: we must keep the differential between minimum income and guaranteed minimum wage, because work must remain attractive and being in employment is still the best way not to fall into poverty; we must make minimum income a part of a coordinated and comprehensive policy for helping vulnerable people (access to accommodation, healthcare, childcare and homecare); and we must cross out heading I concerning the integration of objectives that are assigned to it, and harness minimum income as a means to assist financially, at a given time, a person or family experiencing hardship.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Eighty-five million people are threatened with poverty in Europe. The economic crisis that we are going through is making young people (of whom one in five is unemployed), women and single parents even more vulnerable. Precarious conditions among workers are also increasing: the number of those who are affected by poverty is currently 19 million. Whereas 2010 was declared ‘European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion’, a recent Eurobarometer survey on citizens’ opinion of the EU showed that 74% of them expect the EU to play an important role in this area. Let us listen to them and act. I supported the resolution on the role of a minimum income in tackling poverty and in promoting an inclusive society in Europe. Unfortunately, the 27 Member States do not all have a national minimum income. Consequently I supported the invitation made to the Commission to use its right of initiative in order to propose a framework directive establishing the principle of a suitable minimum income in Europe based on common criteria, although this invitation was unfortunately rejected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. (FR) With our proposal for a framework directive on a minimum income, Parliament today had the chance to provide Europe with an essential tool for truly combating poverty and for giving every young person, adult and elderly person the right to an income high enough to lift them out of poverty and to enable them to live in dignity at last. This required political boldness and courage, to put an end to the outrageous scandal of long-term poverty.

However, due to its cowardice and political inconsistency, the European right will carry the heavy responsibility of the failure of the EU 2020 strategy and will cause yet more disillusion among our fellow citizens and among all those organisations that fight day in day out for the most vulnerable.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. (IT) In a modern society populated by honest and active citizens, it would be an excellent thing to introduce a minimum income for those who happened to be unemployed. In actual fact, guaranteeing an income to those who do not work leads to a distortion of the world of work. Many people would, in fact, prefer not to seek jobs, supplementing their minimum guaranteed income with undeclared work or turning to petty crime.

Such negative situations would certainly affect population groups less well-equipped for survival, particularly non-EU families who often have to make do with sharing small and therefore low cost accommodation with one another. The guarantee of widespread welfare will clearly lead the poorest peoples of the world to try and live in Europe because even though very little would be guaranteed them, this would certainly be better than nothing. I am firmly opposed to the report on those grounds.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. (PL) Poverty and social exclusion are a manifestation of lack of respect for human dignity. Combating the phenomenon is a priority of the European Union, and is also enshrined in the Millennium Development Goals. What can we do, and what tasks should we undertake in this respect? The most important factors are education and ensuring conditions for development, since these are solutions that would teach people how to deal with the problem of poverty themselves by using their own potential, supported by systemic solutions. In other words, we should give them the know-how they need.

In developing countries, it is important to support infrastructure building, particularly giving people access to clean water. Development aid must be linked to the creation of conditions for developing trade. Facilitating development and new jobs is the best way of combating poverty in various regions of the world, rich as well as poor. Poverty cannot be effectively tackled merely by means of administrative regulations, even those which set minimum incomes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) The economic crisis has been aggravating the social inequalities in the EU. At the end of 2008, almost 17% of the European population – that is, 85 million people – were living below the poverty line. The effects of the crisis, namely increased unemployment and fewer job opportunities, have been leaving many people in a difficult situation. It is essential for Europe to involve itself in promoting a more inclusive society using poverty-eradication measures. 2010 is the ‘European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion’, and one of the Europe 2020 strategy’s objectives is reducing the number of people at risk of poverty by 20 million. The truth is that the level of poverty does not just affect social cohesion, but also the economy.

Therefore, and taking into account Parliament’s commitment to participate in the fight against poverty and social exclusion, I believe the minimum income scheme based on 60% of median income in the Member State concerned is an important contribution to economic and social cohesion. I voted in favour for the above reasons, and because I believe that the report highlights the need for concrete action towards more effective social and economic cohesion that respects subsidiarity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. (DE) I voted against this report because it turns budgetary consolidation by the Member States on its head and contains the usual flowery Communist dross about inter-State transfers. Moreover, there is a very clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity in the social sphere. In the Federal Republic of Germany, social assistance and the State-guaranteed income via Hartz IV long-term unemployment benefits are already so high that for low-end jobs, it is not worthwhile working. In this connection, there needs to be a mandatory minimum separation between welfare payments and income. The prerequisite for all prosperity remains, as it always has been, healthy economic growth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, despite all the declarations on poverty reduction, social inequality has increased – approximately 85 million EU residents are at risk of poverty. This is a huge problem for Lithuania, since 20% of our population is at risk of poverty. We need a strong employment policy which would stimulate growth and competitiveness in the European social market economy and would prevent macro-economic imbalance and guarantee social inclusion.

However, that is not enough to combat unemployment. Simply having work does not offer protection from poverty. The increase in precarious employment and low wages means that the percentage of workers at risk of poverty is rising.

According to EU reports, the incomes of more than 20% of full-time workers in Lithuania are less than 60% of average incomes, whereas the EU average is 14%. An increase in the minimum monthly wage would help reduce poverty, but would not guarantee a society without isolation. Mostly young people leave Lithuania, not just because of a lack of money and work (last year, unemployment among Lithuania’s young people reached almost 30%), but also because they feel abandoned and powerless against decisions taken that have an impact on their daily lives. This must change.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Despite efforts around the globe and commitments from many international institutions, the EU included, the fight against poverty is still far from won. The percentage of people living in poverty in Europe increased from 16% to 17% between 2005 and 2008. Across Europe, there is consensus among governments and people alike that we must fight to eradicate poverty. As we consider the Europe 2020 commitments, we must once again think about what measures can be taken to fight poverty.

I support the Figueiredo report, which calls for a re-evaluation of the EU’s commitments to fighting poverty and social exclusion and for the inclusion of challenging but achievable and clear objectives in the Europe 2020 Agenda. I echo the call of the European people to put an end to poverty and inequality through the implementation of effective, inclusive and forward-looking strategies that fight proactively against global poverty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) Around 85 million people in the EU are currently facing the threat of poverty. This includes various different groups: children and young people up to the age of 17 have a higher risk of poverty, which, in specific terms, means that one in five children and young people are victims of poverty. Elderly people also face a higher risk of poverty than the general population. In 2008, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for people aged 65 years and over stood at 19%. However, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for those in employment was 8% on average in 2008 – the so-called ‘working poor’. The concept of a minimum income will contribute significantly to the social integration of groups that are at risk. However, in the drawing up of the directive, the greatest possible attention needs to be paid to maximum control and avoidance of any possible ‘exploitation’ of this social assistance. If we just look at the number of people receiving unemployment benefits, there are 23 million people who need to receive unemployment benefits in order to be able to live with dignity.

 
  
  

Report: Pervenche Berès (A7-0267/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it supports the continuation of the work carried out by the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis which, since its creation, has reached a conclusion and made specific recommendations on certain points. However, more in-depth work is still needed to reach an exchange with the national parliaments on this basis, to transform these recommendations into legislative proposals and to translate the resulting objectives into a programme of work. Putting a stop to work by this special committee would give the impression that the crisis had been overcome, when the financial market situation has not been stabilised and the economic and social effects of this huge crash are still unknown, with a profound, long-term impact. All the files opened or to be opened now, namely, the Europe 2020 strategy and new directives, economic governance, financial perspectives, regulation and supervision, reform of global governance and EU representation, should start by acknowledging the crisis of the current model. Among other things, such a continuation would allow this multiple agenda to be followed up in depth, and the analysis and political recommendations to be developed based on a programme of work to be defined, and on that basis, would allow a follow-up report to be drawn up for the second half of 2011.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I voted against the report because the attack on the working class by the capitalist system and its political representatives is a blanket attack which has nothing to do with either financial deficits or excessive debt. The stand taken by Community officers and in the European Parliament resolution confirms that. The infighting between the imperialists cannot be overcome and will get progressively worse. The EU and G20 are making simple plans to slash grassroots incomes, to put grassroots property into the hands of big business and increase their profits, to increase the exploitation of the working class and to cut insurance and labour rights. The blanket measures decided strengthen the monopolies and shift the burden of the capitalist crisis on to the workers’ shoulders; at the same time, the EU and the plutocracy are trying to gild the pill by promoting new models of economic governance and green economies and are promising that there is light at the end of the tunnel in order to generate vain hope and wheedle assent out of society. The massive demonstrations in Greece, France, Italy and other countries are blatant proof that the choices made by the capitalist system are rejected by the workers. This rejection can – and must – become a rejection of the monopolies and imperialism and must be turned into a fight for grassroots power.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. (GA) The EU 2020 strategy is critically important for the competitiveness, sustainability and social characteristics of the Union and I voted in favour of what the report says about directing more attention towards initiatives related to the energy, research and innovation sector, as well as health and education matters in the years ahead. I totally agree that education matters should be at the core of the Union’s economic strategy and that there should be more support for programmes such as ‘Lifelong Learning’, ‘Erasmus’ and ‘Leonardo’ for education and training abroad and that the people of Europe should be given greater access to these programmes. Research and development is crucial for competitiveness, and students and researchers must be given support and encouragement when trying to avail of cross-border mobility, while access to funding must be transparent and simplified.

I also support what the report says about improving the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to obtain credit, reducing the bureaucracy associated with public procurement contracts for SMEs, and establishing a one-stop shop for addressing those companies’ administrative issues.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. (ES) There have been a variety of factors in the current crisis: the speculative behaviour of the financial markets, and the development of internal demand over recent years based on consumer credit, among other things. There are many reasons, which we have discussed a great deal in Parliament, but we need to look to the future. The future is part of fulfilling the content of this initiative. In order to do so, Europe needs to overcome the problem of the ageing population. It must regulate, reorganise and supervise the Union’s financial market, improve its coordination, and use this strength to play an active role at global level. It must adopt measures to improve coordination between the different levels of governance, define a new model of economic growth that goes hand in hand with human and social development and focus on European solidarity, improving competitiveness, quality, improving education, innovation, new technologies, and on knowledge. This is the only way that we will be able to ensure that Europe is a great opportunity for the world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) We have voted on an extremely long and very complicated report, with an intricate text and structure. There is one thing, however, that is quite unconvincing: the real, deep-seated cause that unleashed the economic crisis we find ourselves in was not given adequate attention, although it is included in the recitals of the text. The cause was not contingent, but structural – and not just in economic terms. The financial crisis was caused, primarily, by the illusion, cultivated by the world’s financial and political elites, that in the third millennium, the economy and wealth could be based more on finance than on the production of goods, more on the astonishing creation of products of financial engineering than on that which is really created, produced, sold and marketed by hundreds and hundreds of millions of enterprises across the world. Unless we recognise the economic and political importance of restoring the real economy, rather than the virtual economy, the report runs the risk of making a fatal mistake: suggesting ways out of the crisis which would ultimately not be a real solution. Europe does not need further centralisation of economic powers at EU level. Europe needs enterprise and less bureaucracy. I have therefore voted against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted for this report because the current financial crisis that has affected the economic and financial sectors has caused a general economic and social crisis in which European citizens continue to live in poverty, social inequalities are becoming even more pronounced, and the number of poor workers is also increasing.

I would like to underline that the recession was further exacerbated by the fact that the various national economic recovery plans are insufficiently coordinated, because it is highly likely that with coordination at European Union level, it would be possible to have a greater impact than that which can be achieved with most programmes at national level. According to the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union has committed to combating unemployment and increasing employment and reducing poverty and social exclusion, but this strategy must be a concerted effort – part of the crisis management and post-crisis strategic planning process.

I agree with the position of Parliament that this European Union strategic objective should also be pursued by cooperating closely with national governments, social partners and civil society, and that the European Parliament should be involved to a greater extent in its execution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. (IT) The adoption of this complex report represents a very important step for the European community who are calling loudly for clear responses and quick solutions to overcome this difficult economic crisis. I voted in favour because the text adopted today includes principles that have always formed the basis of my group’s economic policy. I refer, for example, to the need for greater budgetary consolidation, reinforcement of the Stability and Growth Pact and completion of the single market.

I am, in fact, convinced that Europe needs radical transformation to double its growth potential and this result can only be achieved by greater coordination of Member State’s economic and fiscal policies. Before this, however, I consider it necessary to review the financial regulation sector that has proved not only fallacious but one of the main causes of the crisis. The EU must also quickly face up to various challenges, beginning with employment, the demographic challenge and the pension system. Even before this, we need to implement policies to support SMEs, the driving force and economic heart of Europe, above all, by promoting fiscal packages and incentives that allow easier access to credit.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this report as I agree that the Commission should take responsibility for ensuring the monitoring and funding of projects in the following areas: new investment in research and the development and deployment of renewable energy, in energy efficiency, especially in the European building stock, as well as in resource-use efficiency more generally; strengthening the European energy network by interconnecting national networks and distributing power from major centres of renewable energy production to consumers, as well as introducing new forms of energy storage and the European High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) ‘super-grid’; promoting EU space-based infrastructures in the area of radio navigation and earth observation in order to foster the provision of new EU services and the development of innovative applications, as well as to facilitate implementation of EU legislation and policies; providing fast Internet access throughout the Union, ensuring the rapid execution of the EU’s digital agenda and providing all citizens with reliable, free access.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. – This report takes a detailed and thorough look at the causes of the economic crisis and the developments that have been made at EU level in order to prevent, pre-empt or at least diminish the impact of future crises. The conclusions that have been established in the report are well balanced and present an accurate overview of the causes and effects of the crisis. The report also adds value to the current debate concerning the possible ways forward in this regard. I have thus decided to vote in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. (FR) Whereas the recession that we have been through since the summer of 2007 will have cost USD 60 trillion, and the recovery is not guaranteed, I voted for this text because through this vote, together with fellow MEPs, we wanted to prove that political responsibility and ambition can go hand-in-hand. As an alternative to the cacophony between the Commission, the Van Rompuy working group and the Merkel-Sarkozy tandem on economic governance, we are suggesting a clear proposal: creating a Mr or Mrs Euro responsible for the internal and external consistency of the Union’s economic policy choices.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Berès report because of my support for the vast majority of its contents. There is, however, a need for continued detailed debate on one issue in particular, a CCCTB. I agree it is necessary to ensure that different corporate tax regimes do not enable companies to evade their responsibilities to support society by a share of their profits through a fair corporate tax regime.

However, particular attention needs to be given to the negative impact that a CCCTB could have on small countries such as Ireland, whose prosperity and employment levels depend, to a large extent, on its capacity to attract foreign investment. I wish to note also that the Irish Labour Party does not support a CCCTB.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I voted against the report, because the left cannot accept a report born of compromise between the socialists and the European right, a report which does not get to the heart of the problem, namely, the basic causes of the economic and social crisis. The report binds Parliament politically to the disastrous neoliberal proposals by Merkel, Sarkozy and the task force to tighten up the treaties and the Stability Pact, which will break up the social state and disenfranchise the workers.

Our side criticised the anti-social, anti-growth Stability Pact, the institutional and political weaknesses of EMU, the anti-democratic way in which the ECB functions and the unbalanced growth within the EU, and proposed ways of getting out of the crisis which respected labour and social rights. Unfortunately, however, the spirit and letter of the text remain faithful to disastrous neoliberal policies which work to the detriment of the workers, lead to recession and unemployment and are exacerbating the crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. (IT) The crisis has taught us a tough lesson and it still has much to teach us about the static and dynamic aspects of economic policies. It is our task to learn from these lessons and put them in practice in order to get going again. We need to avoid the mistakes that were made in the past and recognise the phenomena that had not been identified before, but, above all, we need to be thorough in establishing the relationships between the real economy and finance, protecting employment and general welfare from shocks of this kind. However, the European Union must do more. It must create added value, strengthen the instruments that have worked well (such as the currency), refine those that can be improved (such as the coordination of fiscal and budgetary policies), and create economies of scale for a rapid and long-lasting recovery. I find it very positive that Parliament is reflecting on these issues and that it continues to monitor the situation, as long as these signs are translated into tangible and effective measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. (SV) We voted in favour of this report, but we voted against, and are strongly opposed to, the recommendation for the introduction of a financial transaction tax and the distribution of the debt amongst the countries of the euro area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted to adopt this report for two reasons. The first reason is that its authors have done a wonderful job, reflected in an extensive analysis of the causes and impact of the economic crisis on the global economy, on the one hand, and on the European economy, on the other. The second reason why I voted for it is that the report contains a series of important recommendations featuring in the section of the report entitled ‘The future – a Europe of added value’. We must acknowledge that a short-term, narrow focus on profit has led to the loss of a huge number of jobs in Europe in industries offering high added value, while creating precarious and poor quality jobs. It is time to reverse the trend and reindustrialise the European Union and restore its ability to be innovative and create jobs in sectors linked to R&D and new technologies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. (FR) I welcome this vote for it was important to mention at last the issue of sanctions for non-compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), which the Member States all too often happily disregard.

We need to create an effective system of incentives and penalties relating to the implementation of the SGP which would help ensure that the current crisis does not become any worse and that any future crisis is averted. That is why I supported the paragraph in which the Commission is asked to introduce a binding system of penalties unequivocally under its control to force Member States to comply with SGP rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Harlem Désir (S&D), in writing. (FR) The crisis has revealed the shortcomings of Economic and Monetary Union: it nearly brought down the euro and has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs throughout the continent. With Pervenche Berès’s report, the European Parliament has just adopted a coherent strategy proposal to lift Europe out of the recession and to address the latter’s financial, economic and social repercussions.

This proposal includes the introduction of real financial supervision, which we have started to implement, but which will have to be considerably strengthened; the taxing of financial transactions in order to regulate the markets and finance public assets, and to reduce public deficits; the coordination of Member States’ economic policies and budgets for the benefit of sustainable growth; the appointment of a Mr or Mrs Euro to be in charge of the euro area and to unify its representation at the G20 and IMF; and the creation of the European Energy Community.

It is now time for Europe to get going again. This is what the public expects. In a constantly changing world, inertia is tantamount to decline. That is why we now need to move on from this report and take practical action.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on the financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning measures and initiatives to be taken, because it sets out concrete measures for overcoming the economic and social crisis through the construction of a genuine European social market economy, with a view to sustained growth, employment and social inclusion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The effects of the economic and financial crisis are persisting well beyond what we might have hoped, with ever more serious social repercussions. As I have argued, and as this report also substantiates, this crisis has shown that we need more Europe. In a large area that has borders open to free movement and an internal market, it has become unacceptable to allow the resistance of a system of mediation, monitoring and supervision based on the power of individual states, which is small and limited in scope given the situation in Europe and the rest of the world. The strengthening of economic governance, financial supervision and the power to coordinate policies and economic and monetary matters on the part of the EU institutions will ensure greater stability and a greater ability to act swiftly and efficiently. I would like to highlight the recognition of the importance of the Europe 2020 strategy, where research and innovation are central to the competitiveness of companies and job creation. I would like to reiterate the importance of the internal market and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for the revival and dynamisation of the economy, to which end measures are being deployed to promote their consolidation and sustained development.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) I voted against this report because the rapporteur’s initial proposal has been distorted, and positions have been included that urge the application of measures that were at the root of the crisis. It also calls for penalties for Member States that do not comply with the Stability and Growth Pact. Although it has kept the odd proposal here and there in the social field, its general direction is negative.

By contrast, the proposals that we were endorsing in the plenary sitting were rejected, specifically in the following areas:

- The rejection of the Commission’s recent legislative proposals on economic governance, including penalties – which will have depressive effects on the already weak growth rates in the Member States – while advocating an ambitious European plan of investments to foster jobs.

- The welcoming of the widespread participation in the European day of mobilisation against austerity and insecurity organised by the unions on 29 September 2010, stressing its important political significance and expressing support for their demands, demanding secure jobs for a living wage, strong social protection and protection of purchasing power, the guarantee of better pensions, and the guarantee of high quality public and social services that are accessible to all.

- The strong condemnation of the role played by tax havens in encouraging and carrying out fraud, tax evasion and capital flight.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI) , in writing. (FR) As is usual when faced with the economic, social and financial crisis in this Chamber, the report by Mrs Berès overlooks the main issues and concentrates on saving the system rather than fundamentally calling it into question. This report even adds a profession of faith among the self-regulating virtues of the market, which it pretends to believe can be made more ethical.

It believes in the benefits of global competition and of the free and unrestricted movement of capital and goods. Supervising a system that does not work will not enable us to avoid its worst aberrations. The banking system has demonstrated its cynicism by repaying in advance the State aid that did, after all, prevent it from going under, so that it can avoid having to change its behaviour, including its most scandalous practices.

The entire global financial system, such as it exists today, is harmful to the real economy. It encourages speculation and the creation of complex products, products that are often opaque and potentially toxic. It produces wealth founded on hot air. It forces businesses to follow extremely short-term strategies, and it favours shareholders at the expense of other economic stakeholders. Pretending to supervise it is not enough. It must be changed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Beyond the loss of millions of jobs across the European continent and the various threats to the Euro, the recession has had the effect of highlighting the absence of strong and harmonised economic governance within the European Union and the failings in financial supervision.

So if I voted in favour of this resolution, it is because it intends to remedy these ills and promotes the introduction of a tax on financial transactions which would have the advantage of limiting speculation on financial transactions, of regulating the markets, of financing public assets, but also of reducing public deficit. This is a powerful measure that I have been earnestly calling for for a long time and I welcome it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. (FR) I supported the report by my French socialist colleague, Mrs Bérès, on the financial, economic and social crisis. This ambitious text proposes many ideas and solutions for coming out of the recession, securing a sustainable recovery and preventing similar financial crises from happening again through governance and supervision mechanisms.

With this vote, the European Parliament proves that political responsibility and ambition can go hand-in-hand. Priority is given to employment, since the economic recovery is in danger of taking place without a reduction in unemployment. The text calls for establishing a true European Community for energy. The appointment of a Mr/Mrs Euro responsible for the economic and monetary choices of the Union would also be a major advance. Finally, the text reminds us of the need for a tax on financial transactions so that those responsible for the recession are made to contribute at last.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gay Mitchell, Mairead McGuinness, Jim Higgins and Seán Kelly (PPE), in writing. – The Fine Gael MEPs do not support the proposal for a directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base but did not see this as grounds for voting against this important report as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), in writing. (DA) The Danish Liberal Party abstained from voting in the final vote on the Berès report on the financial crisis as it positively recommends the establishment of a financial transaction tax.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – I, along with my Labour colleagues, voted in favour of the Berès report because of my support for the vast majority of its contents. There is, however, a need for continued, detailed debate on one issue in particular, a CCCTB. I agree it is necessary to ensure that different corporate tax regimes do not enable companies to evade their responsibilities to support society by a share of their profits through a fair corporate tax regime. However, particular attention needs to be given to the negative impact that a CCCTB could have on small countries such as Ireland, whose prosperity and employment levels depend, to a large extent, on its capacity to attract foreign investment. I wish to note also that the Irish Labour Party does not support a CCCTB.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE), in writing. (EL) The Berès report covers issues of importance to the stability of the euro area, which I voted for.

However, I abstained in the final vote, because I believe that, firstly, a general and simplified approach is being taken to the economic and financial problems of the EU and to the measures that need to be taken and, secondly, it refers to the Commission proposals on sanctions for undisciplined Member States, such as other fiscal or financial measures, which the European Parliament has not yet debated and on which it has not yet reached any conclusions.

I therefore reserve the right to express a specific opinion at a later date.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the Berès report because I believe in the need for effective cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission to find a way out of the economic and financial crisis.

The International Monetary Fund recently made public an analysis of the current state of the world economy, showing that the recovery process is still fragile and patchy. In effect, we are facing two different scenarios: on the one hand, a stage of strong growth for emerging countries and, on the other, high levels of unemployment and an overall slow rate of recovery in economically more advanced States.

I therefore believe that it would be useful to embark on a path with the aim of guaranteeing appropriate solidity of public finances to maintain confidence in the markets and ensure that the public can again believe in the worth of the European project.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. (DE) I voted in favour of the report by the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, which represents a constructive compromise between all the groups involved. We do not need less Europe, we need more of it! Our national economies are closely intertwined – national egotisms will only intensify the crisis. This report calls for Europe to be unanimous on essential issues. Sustainable EU financial, economic and employment policy needs to be the cornerstone of our action. The recommendations for action show a clear way forward: in future, businesses must have their credit ratings assessed by an independent EU ratings agency. An end must be put to high risk speculation through a financial transactions tax. The Stability and Growth Pact needs to be better connected to the Europe 2020 strategy. We are unambiguous in calling on the Commission to create a balance between growth, equality of opportunity and financial market stability. There is a need to reduce the taxation on work in order to strengthen investment and thus, Europe’s competitiveness. Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, need easier access to credit.

In the social sphere, the advancement of human resources – through real, tangible measures to get people trained and qualified – takes top priority. Numerous public hearings, workshops and analyses have enabled us, as committee members, to make well-founded, fact-based contributions to the public debate. It is important for Parliament to offer clear answers to crises. Only in that way can we strengthen our credibility and reliability in the eyes of the citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. (IT) My vote in favour of the report is entirely due to the new agreement obtained thanks, above all, to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). The draft initially tabled by the rapporteur was a clear ideological provocation and therefore had to be altered in its entirety. According to the International Monetary Fund, the priorities are to correct the remaining fragilities in the financial sector, ensure strong growth in demand and employment, maintain debt sustainability, work for greater equilibrium in world growth, and to resolve the challenges deriving from widespread and volatile movements of capital. The report, in which the contingent necessity of ensuring adequate solidity in the public finances to maintain confidence in the financial and real markets is recognised, is perfectly in tune with the last budget approved by the Italian Government, which aims to reduce the deficit to below the 3% threshold.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The constitution of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (CRIS) was aimed at diagnosing the factors that led to the crisis, determining what the EU failed to notice which meant that the crisis was unexpected, and devising future measures and initiatives to avoid similar situations and to be able to revitalise economies and definitively halt the crisis scenarios that persist in some Member States. I believe that the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis has carried out its tasks well and that in this document, it sets out new paths, measures and initiatives which will allow the EU to be much better prepared for any crises that might occur in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. (FR) I support Mrs Berès’s report, which calls for more Europe and not less, for more efficiency and less bureaucracy, and for one European Union voice on the international stage.

Despite the return to growth, we should not be mistaken in believing that the recession is entirely behind us, and, above all, that we have solved its causes. If there is one lesson to be learnt from this crisis, it is the absence of world governance (absence of a world State). We need a fairer distribution of wealth between countries and within each country. Therein lies the real crisis. That is why I am in favour of the European Council convening a G20 summit exclusively dedicated to this issue.

With respect to development, I would stress – as Mrs Berès does in her report – that it is important for Member States to honour their 2005 commitments in terms of official development assistance (ODA). Nothing justifies a reduction in official development assistance. Official development assistance should carry on increasing and should not suffer the consequences of the financial crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) The financial crisis put an end to the fairytale of self-regulating financial markets. In particular, the non-transparency of financial products and high-risk packaged structures, together with the United States’ soft currency policy and conflicts of interest in terms of ratings, gave rise to a global financial crisis. The Member States of the EU and their populations have plenty of food for thought in connection with the resultant economic crisis, with its growing rate of unemployment and social service sector cuts. The rescue packages were only able to arrest the downward spiral in the short term. In the long term, they only displace the underlying problems. The crisis must absolutely not be used to extend EU competences.

Eurocracy and bureaucracy are no answer to the crisis. Rather, thanks to their enforced conformity and the fact that they ignore cultural differences, they helped to create it. I am all in favour of better coordination and consultation at the EU level. European-level economic governance, on the other hand, must be rejected in the strongest terms, and I therefore definitively reject this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the mid-term report of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis. As a member of this Special Committee, I took an active part in the proceedings and contributed to the production of this report. In particular, I believe that within the social market economy, as recognised and made an objective by the treaty, the public system should make some adjustments aimed at accelerating and facilitating the reaching of an equilibrium, in order to avoid losses and difficulties, or to limit them to the minimum level. Instead of leaving the search for new paths to take to the production sector, which must undergo radical change, we need to address transformation plans, credit, changes of direction and other suitable means. Europe must once again attract investment and production, establishing itself as a worldwide model for innovation and growth. Public and private financial institutions must do their best to ensure that the markets work to benefit the real economy and small and medium-sized enterprises, in order to put them in a position to contribute to the economic recovery and growth in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), in writing. (EL) I abstained on the Berès report, because the proposals on European economic governance do not address the structural problems of incomplete economic union and do not alleviate the asymmetry between ‘truncated’ economic union and full monetary union. More to the point, I abstained because they do not Europeanise economic policies and the economic risk. They only Europeanise the penalties, which are now even stricter. There are no strategic guidelines whatsoever to safeguard balanced growth and stimulate the competitiveness of all Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that the Commission should ensure the steering and financing of projects in the following fields: (1) the research, development and deployment of renewable energy; (2) strengthening the European energy network, along with using new forms of energy storage and the European High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) ‘super-grid’; (3) promoting space infrastructure in the EU in the field of radio navigation and earth observation; (4) providing fast Internet access; (5) developing EU leadership in the field of e-Health; (6) completing the development of, and creating common standards for, electric mobility. In terms of financial regulation, Parliament should seek to establish a system of regulation and supervision that does not leave out any financial market, instrument or institution. The following should therefore be significant: (1) introducing more counter-cyclical regulation; (2) reducing systemic risk posed by large institutions and derivative markets; (3) strengthening pan-European and global regulation and supervisory structures; (4) investigating the use of off-balance sheet transactions; (5) introducing a tax on financial transactions; (6) introducing new standards on statistical data on the financial sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mario Pirillo (S&D), in writing. (IT) This mid-term report on the financial, economic and social crisis represents a useful tool for analysing the current financial situation in Europe but, above all, it indicates the main road that Europe must boldly take to prevent situations such as these from happening again.

I believe that to do this, as the report rightly says, Europe must immediately set up strong and authoritative bodies that are able to offer standard governance for economic policies in all States. I am convinced that Europe can no longer stand by and watch Member States come up with fragmented and inconsistent responses to economic crises whose consequences are a real threat to the growth potential of our economies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. (RO) The process of Member States converting the EU 2020 strategy into national programmes must help establish a more competitive, social and sustainable European Union, which places citizens and environmental protection at the heart of policy making.

Member States’ priorities must be focused on high quality jobs and ensuring that labour markets operate properly, as well as guaranteeing the existence of appropriate social conditions with a view to improving employment performance. The rate of unemployment among the EU population is 10% on average, reaching 20% in some countries and more than 40% for young people. This highlights the importance of high quality, responsible public spending combined with fostering the entrepreneurial and innovative potential of the private sector in order to drive economic and social progress.

I voted to support the need for Member States to draw up viable programmes which will boost the labour market by improving incentives and conditions for workers, while also making the incentives more attractive for employers to recruit and retain staff. At the same time, emphasis must be placed on decent work, which includes combating undeclared work, and on providing access to the labour market to people who are currently excluded from it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) I was sad to vote against the Berès report. Frankly, the first version was promising, in terms both of its analysis of the causes of the crisis and of many of the proposals for overcoming it. However, the demands of the groups on the right have distorted the original report on critical issues. Although it is true that several good proposals are retained – such as the creation of a European Credit Rating Agency – it is also true that, with regard to economic governance, the report has been returned to the ‘Brussels Consensus’. As the choice is between deficit and public debt or growth and employment, and as the report is undecided on this crucial issue, I cannot support it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree that the Commission should take responsibility for ensuring the monitoring and funding of projects, particularly in the areas of new investment in research and the development and deployment of renewable energy, and also the provision of fast Internet access throughout the Union, ensuring the rapid execution of the EU’s digital agenda. In terms of financial regulation, Parliament should seek to establish a system of regulation and supervision that does not leave out any financial markets, instruments or institutions. In order to reach such an agreement, pan-European and global regulation and supervisory structures will need to be strengthened.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carmen Romero López and Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I am glad the report was adopted by an overwhelming majority but overall, because the attempt by ALDE to weaken the paragraph on the financial transaction tax failed and the text based on our amendment, calling for the introduction of an FTT at EU level as a first step, passed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. (IT) This report is the outcome of a compromise because no fewer than 1 625 amendments were tabled on it and it is divided into a series of key points covering the causes of the crisis, ranging from the property bubble to unsecured bank products, the lack of European tax harmonisation and the failure to observe the Stability and Growth Pact. We are all able to see the effects for ourselves: reduced wealth and unemployment.

The answers can only be to create new employment by promoting enterprise and research and development, adopting measures that reward transparency and foster common European rules, for example, on tax, VAT and indirect taxation.

The only thing that is dubious is the introduction of a new tax on financial transactions, which would effectively become the first European tax directly financing the Union budget. We cannot accept the fact that Europe should put its hands into the already empty pockets of its citizens during a time of crisis such as the one we are experiencing at the moment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European Union is currently experiencing what must be its most serious economic and social crisis since it was founded. This sets the great challenge of finding responses to the current situation, with a view to long-term prospects.

I welcome the creation of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, as well as this report. I advocate the need for economic governance mechanisms, not least by coordinating and supervising the policies of the Member States regarding the sustainability of public finances.

However, I find it regrettable that the European Parliament is not more involved in this strategic exercise of seeking solutions to the crisis: it is desirable for both the European Parliament and the national parliaments to be more closely involved in the future. I would stress the importance of cohesion instruments in this process.

Firstly, the EU needs to strengthen coordination, and make better use of cooperation between the various levels of governance and the different policies. Second, territorial specificities and the asymmetrical impact of the crisis should be taken into account. As is stressed in the report, in fact, the strength of the cohesion policy in establishing a link between recovery and long-term growth is exactly as follows: establishing strategic guidelines, and giving the Member States and regions cause to implement them, and grant the instruments to pursue the objectives.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, Europe has become a victim not just of the financial and social crisis. We are also experiencing a huge crisis in public confidence. Both in Lithuania and throughout Europe, we must regain public confidence in our financial and political institutions and establish a viable and sustainable financial system, which would offer protection from future crises. We need a transparent, multi-level regulation mechanism, based on healthy morality, which would serve the general public.

The financial crisis dealt Lithuania a particularly severe blow – in 2009, our economy shrank by 15%. In drawing up a crisis exit strategy, we should take regional features and the varying impact of the crisis into account. I welcome the fact that the special committee stresses the importance of cohesion instruments crucial for providing assistance to the EU regions that need it most. They may help us overcome the consequences of the crisis by supporting essential investment in infrastructure, businesses and job creation.

The success of the recovery also depends a lot on the success of the EU 2020 strategy. It is important for any long-term EU investment strategy to be concerned with maintaining competitiveness and strengthening the internal market (one of the main engines of European growth).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Recent years have shown how our economies are interdependent, and the problems that can be caused by lack of legislation regulation or cohesion of economies across Europe. As we steer our way out of the crisis, we must look to European solutions that promise to build a stronger European economy and better-integrated financial systems that benefit the people of Wales and the whole European Union.

I therefore voted in favour of the recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken following the financial, economic and social crisis as present in the Berès report. We must look towards common solutions to Europe’s problems, whilst respecting the choice of each EU Member State by allowing them to decide how we progress. The Council, Commission and Parliament must work together to ensure that we build a stronger, more robust, global economy that works for the European Union as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. (FR) The European Parliament has adopted today, Wednesday 20 October, the report by its Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis.

We in the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left voted against this report, because the proposals it contains are somewhat surreal and totally ignore the social rallies that have been taking place for several months in EU Member States against austerity plans, anti-social measures and the dismantling of social security systems and public services: these are the only measures envisaged to limit the Member States’ budget deficits.

This report follows on from the pension counter-reform put forward by Nicolas Sarkozy and his government, which the French protest movement has been fighting against and condemning for several weeks now.

This report thus continues to praise the Stability Pact and the measures and policies that we have been condemning for years and which our fellow citizens increasingly regard as a failure.

The very large majority (501 votes for) that voted for this report obviously does not understand the message of those citizens who have been protesting across Europe for several weeks against the austerity plans and their associated counter-reforms.

 
  
  

Report: Diego Feio (A7-0282/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the report that was presented and discussed here today, as it represents a step forward for the EU by advocating the establishment of an institution like the European Monetary Fund (EMF), and thus leading to the establishment of an overseer of sovereign debt developments to complement the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) as a mechanism of last resort for the Member States. It is also worth highlighting the proposal to establish a high-level policy group chaired by the Commission with a mandate to study potential institutional changes within the ongoing economic governance reforms, including the possibility of creating a European Common Treasury (ECT), with the objective of endowing the EU with its own financing resources and reducing its dependence on national transfers, as well as producing a feasibility assessment in order to establish, in the long run, a system under which Member States may participate in the issuance of common European obligations. Thus, with a proper impact assessment and by spelling out the different legal alternatives, along with a clear definition of the objectives and financing for European infrastructure, the long-term strategic projects for building a stronger EU will be easier to achieve.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. The current economic, financial and social crisis has shown that the existing economic governance model in the Union has not worked as effectively as it was envisaged. In recent years, there has been insufficient convergence between Member States, and macro-economic and fiscal imbalances have remained and even become larger in the last decade. The surveillance framework was too weak and the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact were not sufficiently respected, in particular, as regards preventive provisions. I agree with the proposals given in the document that we must aim to better coordinate actions with and between Member States, particularly in order to prevent a repetition of the situation that came about recently. It is crucial for Member States to apply in full the rules and decisions agreed at EU level, such as the rules and instruments of the Stability and Growth Pact. The greatest attention must be paid to long-term sustainable growth, providing the conditions for the creation of quality jobs, rather than short-term profit, which has done huge harm to the financial stability of European markets.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. (ES) The current economic crisis has demonstrated that coordination of economic policy has not worked in the Union, nor have the frameworks for governance, for economic supervision or for regulating financial services. All this has sown instability and decline in Europe. In this respect, I would like to highlight and express my thanks for the recommendations that accompany the proposal, which are aimed at: establishing a coherent and transparent framework for supervising macro-economic processes in the Union and in the Member States, and improving supervision; improving the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact; improving economic governance; establishing a strong mechanism for preventing and resolving excessive debt in the euro area; and revising the budgetary, financial and fiscal tools. I would like to point out that I entirely agree with improving the external representation of the Union in the field of economic and monetary affairs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. (IT) I would like to thank Mr Feio for his excellent work in drafting this complex report. I voted in favour of it because I consider it of fundamental importance to improve the economic governance of the European Union. The financial crisis has indeed highlighted the lack of true political and economic coordination between Member States and the inefficacy of the various control instruments. It is now therefore time for Europe to set up a more reliable legal framework that observes the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy while also implementing greater control over debt and public income, fiscal incentives for SMEs, internal market development and integration of labour markets. In the light of recent agreements, I do not, however, support the introduction of numerical rules that could prove too mechanistic for some Member States and difficult to achieve. We should not forget that toxic assets and, to an even greater extent, excessive personal debt (sub-prime mortgages) lie at the root of the financial crisis. In other words, the crisis was caused by imbalance in the private and banking sector, not by state public debt. Lastly, I agree with recommendation 3 on enhancing state coordination by means of annual euro area surveillance reports.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree that a coherent and transparent framework must be established for multilateral surveillance of macro-economic developments in the Union and in the Member States. I would like to call for an annual debate between Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the representatives of national parliaments on the Stability and Convergence Programmes (SCPs) and the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), as well as on assessing national economic developments as part of the European Semester. I would also like to call for the establishment, at a national level, of a mechanism to assess the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy priorities and the achievement of the relevant national targets included in the National Reform Programme in order to support the annual evaluation by the EU institutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. (EL) I voted against the report which, for the sake of economic governance of the European Union, adopts a sovereign perception and policy on strict discipline in the Stability Pact and supports preventive sanctions to the detriment of the Member States ‘in breach’ of the Maastricht indictors. It proposes the objective of budgetary stability and strict supervision of national budgets and ends up adopting harsh measures to the detriment of workers’ incomes, pensions and labour and insurance rights. All this, despite the fact that we can see the effects of these policies in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere. All this, at a time when the workers in numerous countries in Europe have come out on to the streets in protest against becoming the victims of the crisis and the neoliberal counter-attack being launched by the EU, the ECB and the IMF.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. (IT) Adopting the euro was a gamble of fundamental importance for the EU. The main risk factor is associated not so much with matters of monetary technique, where the European Central Bank is doing an excellent job, but with economic cohesion and the link with the real economy. The problem really made itself felt during the crisis: the single currency makes less and less sense for a market that is still fragmentary and with fiscal policies that are not always sufficiently homogeneous. Considering these issues should not be, and must not be, a mere exercise or excuse for claiming legal sovereignty over matters that are currently the responsibility of individual nations. Instead, it is useful to apply consistency and a systematic approach to economic action in the face of increasingly complex situations, where currency challenges are not the same as in the past and require different instruments and objectives where the responsibilities shouldered by the technicians must be backed by ongoing and consistent monitoring as well as political direction based on a considered view of the future and an eye to resolving contingent problems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark, Anna Ibrisagic and Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. (SV) We voted in favour of this report without relinquishing in any way our opposition to a European tax. We will also continue to say ‘no’ to the establishment of a high-level group that is to discuss the possibility of creating a European Common Treasury (ECT) with the objective of endowing the European Union with its own financing resources. On other points, too, we have used our vote to express a different view.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. (RO) The issue of economic governance at European Union level is a tricky matter and the reticence shown by some of its Member States with regard to new transfers of sovereignty are understandable. The crisis in Greece has highlighted the limitations of the current intervention mechanisms, not to mention the inadequacy of the instruments required to enforce compliance with the convergence criteria, especially in the countries belonging to the euro area. Establishing a coherent, transparent framework supporting the multilateral monitoring of macro-economic trends in the European Union and Member States, along with consolidating fiscal supervision, as proposed within the document, marks a step forward in the right direction, even though it may entail a partial amendment to the Constitutional Treaty. Overall, the recommendations in this document are important and address real issues, offering relevant solutions. This is why I voted in favour of adopting the document.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. (PT) It is with satisfaction and a sense of responsibility that I am voting in favour of the recommendations to improve EU economic governance suggested in this report. Given that the EU is facing fierce competition from emerging economies and that the stability of public finances is vital for consolidating opportunities, fostering innovation and stimulating economic growth, which are fundamental elements of a European knowledge-based society, and considering that economic growth and sustainable public finances are a precondition for economic and social stability in the EU and for long-term fiscal consolidation, the current rules of the Stability and Growth Pact combined with their poor implementation have proved insufficient to ensure sound macro-economic and budgetary policies. It is therefore important to support a more rigorous application of preventive measures and sanctions, as well as encouraging improved monitoring and economic governance through more accurate and comparable statistics on the policies and economic positions of the Member States, particularly in the euro area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) By adopting the resolution on economic governance, the European Parliament is reaffirming its main objectives for the negotiations on the Commission’s six legislative proposals.

MEPs deplore the fact that implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact is inadequate and propose the creation of an effective mechanism of incentives and sanctions, as well as stressing the importance of investment in energy, research, innovation, healthcare and education.

To end the recession, we need to plan the required funding at European level, and the idea of own resources should be put into practice. We maintain that introducing a tax on financial transactions would reduce speculation and would improve the functioning of the internal market. In addition, the income generated by this tax could help finance global public goods and reduce budget deficits. This tax should be established on the largest possible basis, and certainly at European Union level to start with.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – It is timely indeed that Parliament addresses this matter only days after the agreement between President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel to seek to change the Lisbon Treaty in order to provide for an orderly handling of future sovereign debt crises in the eurozone. Of course, this is all set against the continuing crisis in the eurozone, as each day goes by evidencing the folly of the single currency model. But it does something else. Clearly, if this goes ahead, there would be an onus on the coalition government in the UK to hold a referendum.

That has been the assurance given by David Cameron, and unlike his cast-iron guarantee of before, he must hold to this promise. If France and Germany can seek changes to the Lisbon Treaty, it is vitally important that the UK Government use the renegotiation process to win back powers to our sovereign parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the Feio report, which is the result of successful negotiations between the political groups of the European Parliament, and is based on a broad consensus on the need to reinforce growth and employment policies, with a view to improving economic governance that will enable the crisis to be overcome and the European economy to recover.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) In the wake of the current economic, financial and social crisis, Parliament has taken on a leading role in providing the European Union with mechanisms to ensure effective intervention which cannot only stem further crises, but, above all, ensure the stability that is necessary for sustainable development and cohesion within Europe. This report by Mr Feio fleshes out Parliament's responsibility for the institutional consolidation of the EU for greater unification in Europe and in terms of the global economy, in the interests of the European public and their well-being. The proposed recommendations are a very significant qualitative development in improving economic governance within the EU, highlighting the strengthening of rules to promote the stability and growth of the states and the Union, as well as mechanisms for preventing and also correcting and solving problems and challenges to the strategy for EU development. The reliability of EU statistics is also an important element in providing structures and authorities with better capabilities for assessing and determining intervention. I would also like to highlight the concern with the need to prevent situations of public debt, apart from public deficits.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. (FR) This is not about improving economic governance at EU level, but about holding sway over Member States’ economic, budgetary and taxation policies, which are subject to the essential requirement not of creating economic prosperity, but of safeguarding the interests of the single market and of Brussels. It is also about the reactivation and worsening of the Stability Pact, which continues to cause harm.

This is not acceptable, and nor is the creation of a common public treasury responsible for managing a European tax and the institutionalisation of a European economic government (to do what?). Admittedly, the level of public deficit and public debt, most of which is held abroad, is dangerous both financially and in terms of sovereignty. However, this deficit and debt would no doubt be lower if it were not for your policies and the obligation for States to borrow on the markets. Nearly a sixth of the French State’s budget is spent on paying interest on its debt. As long as we are paying that, we cannot use that money for anything else.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. (DE) The economic and financial crisis has clearly shown us that there is an urgent need to improve economic cooperation within the European Union. To do this, the Stability and Growth Pact must be reinforced and expanded to include suitable and effective sanctioning options. There is also a need, however, to keep a closer eye on the national budgets and the competitiveness of the Member States.

In future, we need to identify imbalances between the countries of the euro area and any shortcomings in competition earlier and we need the ability to demand effective countermeasures. The object must be to make the monetary union and the euro durably strong and robust in order to be able to prevent a crisis like the one in Greece.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), in writing. (DA) The Danish Liberal Party voted against one particular amendment to the Feio report, which recommends that a study be carried out into the advantages of establishing a European tax collection system. The Danish Liberal Party voted in favour of the overall report, which was otherwise a well-balanced one.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – It is very important that the rules of economic governance are reinforced, especially in light of the economic crisis that many EU countries are still going through. However, I agree with the Parliament’s amendments that remove the recommendations on automatic sanctions on Member States that incur an excessive deficit because, as this crisis has shown, it is necessary, in extraordinary circumstances, to exceed the deficit requirements in order to stave off more serious economic effects of a crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) The report with recommendations to the Commission on improving the economic governance and stability framework of the Union, in particular, in the euro area, that we have just voted on, is part of a wider debate, that has been going on for several months, on initiatives to combat the financial crisis. A need is clearly emerging for strong economic governance of the European Union, especially after what happened in Greece a few months ago.

Any day now, we will see the final report by the European task force on economic governance, set up by the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy. Even now, however, we can state that there is an absolute need to identify rules for surveillance of economic policies, rules that are not mechanistic but realistic and sustainable, able to strengthen fiscal policy and improve European governance as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) One observation which could be made during the recent period of economic and financial crisis was that monitoring and economic coordination at EU level needed to be strengthened significantly. Major macro-economic imbalances were noted and some states are faced with a major rise in public debt and its proportion of their GDP. I voted for this report because I strongly support all eight recommendations made by the rapporteur with the intention of reflecting good governance and economic stability in the European Union.

I believe that we are going to face major challenges in the years to come. We must be able to set definite priorities and make some difficult choices in order to support the EU’s economic growth potential and consolidate public finances. EU-level coordination will be vital in this respect and may help eliminate the adverse effects.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. (FR) The joint debate on the European Council, the G20, the report by the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, and the report on European governance, have not produced clear guidelines or pertinent recommendations regarding the financial crisis. Everyone had their say and gave their own personal interpretation of what are confused and woolly texts. This is, unfortunately, the reality for these own-initiative reports, which bring large majorities together but, at the same time, do not say a lot.

The Feio report was discussed much too late in the day, the European Commission having already tabled the directives that will reform the Stability Pact and the governance of the euro area. What is the point, in these conditions, in voting on recommendations to the Commission?

Parliament should equip itself with far more stringent rules of procedure and abide by them. Its effectiveness and credibility are at stake.

The reform of the Stability Pact and governance of the euro area will have its decisive moment when the legislative texts are analysed. Along with colleagues, I will get down to this work, with an open mind and with diligence. It is important that Parliament supports a realistic yet ambitious reform so as to build the monetary union on new foundations. It is through painstaking work that an institution earns its legitimacy within the European structure, not by ...

(The explanation of vote was cut short pursuant to Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. (IT) Without rules or supervision, you cannot make any progress. Applying the rules that we have imposed upon ourselves during this time of crisis, to improve coordination and surveillance in economic matters, is the least we must ask of ourselves and of the Member States. In this vein, the report by Mr Feio allows us to focus on some considerable distortions, seeing how ‘recent economic developments have shown clearly that economic policy coordination within the Union and, in particular, in the euro area, has not worked sufficiently well and that, despite their obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Member States have failed to regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern’. My vote is therefore, without doubt, in favour of the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The current financial and economic crisis has demonstrated that the EU needs increasingly strong economic and monetary governance so that the stability of the euro and the monetary union itself are not undermined. Thus, the Europe 2020 strategy should seek to promote economic growth and create jobs, as the sharp fall in GDP, the drop in industrial production and the high numbers of unemployed are a major social and economic challenge which can only be overcome by strong, harmonious and united governance. Mr Feio’s report points out ways and defines strategies towards a real strengthening of economic governance and the EU’s stability framework, with the main focus on the euro area. Examples of this include the establishment of a coherent and transparent framework for surveillance, the strengthening of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and the strengthening of economic governance in the euro area, among others.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. (FR) The economic, financial and social crisis has shown the limits of the European model of economic governance. That is why we need an agreement at the next European Council on economic governance and on the Stability Pact. There is an urgent need to adopt reforms that will enable us to take a big step forward in quality terms with respect to economic governance and to introduce transparent and targeted supervision instruments.

I am in favour of Mr Feio’s report because it supports the Commission’s proposal, which, to my mind, is a balanced compromise proposal. I am in favour of greater parliamentary involvement in the Union’s economic governance and of the centralisation at European level of the exclusive supervision powers of the major cross-border financial institutions. I also think it would be useful to provide the Union with its own financial resources in order to help it plan its actions and activities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. (LV) To my mind, the Feio report is the most professional report we have had in the last three months. All the issues and solutions detailed in the report are extremely timely. The lack of information, distorted reporting and, occasionally, downright lies from EU states’ governments, has led to dreadful results. By fearfully concealing the glaring gaps in their budgets, Greece, Latvia and Hungary have shaken confidence in the euro. The European Commission and the European Parliament must strictly and effectively react to any distortion of the facts and concealment of the truth. It is essential to draw up measures in respect of dishonest politicians, on whose account the EU has ended up in crisis. In order to come out of this complicated economic situation, we must draw up not only regulations for supervision and statistics, but also a plan for overcoming the crisis. That means, firstly, clear criteria for fiscal policy, and deadlines and guarantees for taxpayers. We must also ensure that this tax legislation not be amended every day at a nod from investors. Unfortunately, today, the Latvian Government amends its regulations as the mood of the officials from the International Money Fund and the European Bank takes them. I hope that the Feio report will act as a signal to the European Commission that the time for getting down to work has come.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Feio, but as I have already had the chance to emphasise, Europe badly needs major reform in this area even if Europe’s new economic governance cannot consider solely the sum of the public debt. We do not need mechanisms to tackle debt that are excessively automatic and pro-cyclical, which risk failing to meet the objective and, if anything, risk hindering actions to boost economic growth. Instead, I favour the adoption of surveillance mechanisms equipped with flexible, reasonable formulas, which can be easily implemented by the Member States. The results and benefits for the budget of important reforms in social and economic matters, above all, pensions reform, are not seen in the following financial year but, after a number of years in the medium and long term, in the sustainability of the public finances. In any case, these are the most important and necessary reforms. Therefore, we must give more and better consideration to the structural reforms required to stimulate competitiveness and economic growth in Europe. Competitiveness brings economic growth and growth brings more tax revenues and effective financial consolidation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), in writing. (EL) I abstained on the Feio report, because the proposals on European economic governance do not address the structural problems of incomplete economic union and do not alleviate the asymmetry between ‘truncated’ economic union and full monetary union. More to the point, I abstained because they do not Europeanise economic policies and the economic risk. They only Europeanise the penalties, which have been made even stricter. There are no strategic guidelines whatsoever to safeguard balanced growth and invigorate competitiveness for all the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that: (1) a coherent and transparent framework for multilateral surveillance of macro-economic developments in the European Union and the Member States should be established, ensuring an annual debate between Parliament, the Commission, the Council and representatives from national parliaments on the Stability and Convergence Programmes (SCPs) and the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) and on assessing national economic developments; and that (2) a mechanism should be established at national level to assess the implementation of the Europe 2020 priorities and the achievement of the relevant national targets included in the National Reform Programme in order to support the yearly evaluation by the EU institutions.

I also believe that the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact should be strengthened, with a view to: (1) taking the debt level, debt profile and debt dynamics more strongly into account in the pact of convergence towards Member State-specific Medium Term Fiscal Objectives (MTFOs) to be included in the SCPs; (2) encouraging the establishment of early warning budgetary control mechanisms at national level; and (3) establishing pre-specified and pre-emptive measures within the euro area, both for the preventive and the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report by Mr Feio is dedicated to the central issue of European economic coordination. It seeks to guide the Commission’s legislative documents and is being discussed 24 hours after the position of the Franco-German directorate became known. The positive suggestions included in the report are fatally coordinated, whether because of the Franco-German position, or because of the proposals for automatic penalties which were already present in the Commission’s and Council task force’s texts.. The report does not break with the fashion for disciplinary penalties in the Brussels Consensus, seeking only to water these down. This consensus cannot be reformed: it can only be replaced with another that puts employment and the correction of serious inequalities at the centre of economic coordination.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree that a coherent and transparent framework must be established for multilateral surveillance of macro-economic developments in the Union and in the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The global economic crisis has challenged the current mechanisms of economic policy coordination in the EU and has revealed some of its weaknesses.

The functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union has been under particular pressure, due to earlier failures to comply with the underlying rules and given that existing surveillance and coordination procedures have not been comprehensive enough. This INI report intends to set out the position of Parliament as regards the legislative package on economic policy coordination (six proposals, including four under Codecision) released by the Commission two weeks earlier. The Council’s position is foreseen for the end of October through the final report of the Van Rompuy task force on economic governance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. (IT) Following the economic and financial crisis, the European Parliament has approved a series of reports and Commission directives on its outcomes and ways to combat it. In order to avoid repeats of the speculative bubbles like the one we are currently struggling to escape from, it is indispensable to establish a series of measures and checks amongst and together with the Member States. For example, it is essential to respect the Stability and Growth Pact. Serious, far-reaching monitoring would probably have avoided the extreme situations in Greece and Spain.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) The current economic, financial and social crisis has demonstrated that the European Union’s economic governance model has not worked as well as would be ideal. Therefore, it is necessary to find solutions for better and more efficient economic governance in Europe so as to prevent the already serious effects of the crisis from getting worse.

In this context, the rapporteur recommends that the European Commission establish a coherent framework for economic surveillance, strengthen the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and economic governance in the euro area, and review the EU budgetary, financial and fiscal instruments.

Moreover, it is also proposed to establish a robust and credible excessive debt prevention and resolution mechanism for the euro area. Finally, it is suggested improving the reliability of EU statistics as well as the external representation of the Union in the area of economic and monetary affairs.

Subsequently, it is necessary for the Member States to fully respect the rules and decisions of the European Union. I would also stress the importance of aligning the reform with the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, not least in the sense of strengthening the internal market and the role of small and medium-sized enterprises as essential motors for economic growth.

I am voting for the report for the reasons given above.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, the current Stability and Growth Pact regulations and the weak system of implementation have failed to sufficiently ensure a strong fiscal and macro-economic policy. The recommendations provided in this report are a good start. The rapporteur is correct to observe that we need to proceed with structural reforms regarding social policy and the integration of labour markets, and fiscal incentives to small and medium-sized enterprises. The process of reducing long-term deficits must be combined with other efforts stimulating the economy, such as improved preconditions for investments and an improved internal market, providing increased competitiveness. I also welcome the fact that the rapporteur recognises that any new proposed measures should not have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable Member States, in particular, the Baltic countries. That would impede our efforts towards economic growth and cohesion. Last year, enthusiasm for the euro waned slightly in non-euro Member States, including Lithuania. Therefore, it is important for us to appreciate that decisions taken in the first half of the year to safeguard the stability of the euro are only temporary and will need to be supported by a better economic governance framework at EU level.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – The EU 2020 objectives re-establish the need for closer integration between Member States’ economies throughout the European Union in order to encourage productivity, competitiveness and growth. The current economic crisis has demonstrated that the present economic governance model does not go far enough and cannot allow for progressive integration that will ensure the stability of EU economies.

It is for that reason that I am voting to support the recommendations of the Feio report, which highlights the need to strengthen EU economic provisions and to review and improve them in the longer term. I understand that Europe needs to look critically at its current economic and financial stability plans in order to move forward together, towards a stronger, more closely intertwined economy that fulfils its potential as a global economic superpower.

 

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
 

(The sitting was suspended at 14:00 and resumed at 15:05)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: STAVROS LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

 

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

10. Instrument for Stability - Financing instrument for development cooperation - Financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide - Financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised countries - Financing instrument for development cooperation (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – Τhe next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- the report by Franziska Katharina Brantner, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability (COM(2009)0195 - C7-0042/2009 - 2009/0058(COD)) (A7-0066/2009),

- the report by Gay Mitchell, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation and Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (COM(2009)0194 - C7-0043/2009 - 2009/0060A(COD)) (A7-0078/2009),

- the report by Kinga Gál and Barbara Lochbihler, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation and Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (COM(2009)0194 - C7-0158/2009 - 2009/0060B(COD)) (A7-0188/2010),

- the report by Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 establishing a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high income countries and territories (COM(2009)0197 - C7-0101/2009 - 2009/0059(COD)) (A7-0052/2010) and

- the report by Charles Goerens, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (COM(2010)0102 - C7-0079/2010 - 2010/0059(COD)) (A7-0285/2010).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franziska Katharina Brantner, rapporteur.(DE) Mr President, we have a number of financing instruments to deal with today. We have already debated one aspect this morning, but I am going to start by talking about the Instrument for Stability. This instrument was created in 2006 and is the best funded instrument in the areas of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, conflict prevention, civil post-disaster support, civil peacebuilding measures and also for justice and policing in the anti-terrorism sphere. Despite this, the size of the funding is relatively small. So far, it only amounts to EUR 1.4 billion in the financial perspective. This is not a lot of money, but it is good money, as it can be used relatively flexibly. Consideration has repeatedly been given to cutting this, but so far, we have always managed to ensure that it has not been cut in the budget. What is the mid-term review of this instrument about? What is up for debate? Well, there are a small number of points, but some of them are important in terms of content. First of all, the long-term measures under Article 4(3) are designed to make it possible to put in place measures to promote women in political processes, in particular, with regard to the media. What we are actually talking about here, therefore, is the transfer of an already very successful field into Article 4(3). So far, support has been given for media appearances by Afghan women standing for parliament. We would like to have this incorporated into the long-term measures, rather than only being in the short-term measures, so that these women can continue to be supported in this way over the longer term.

Secondly, we want to see the peacebuilding partnership explicitly mentioned in the directive, not only in order to reward the development of formal dialogue with civil society, but also in order to bring the concept into the new era of the European External Action Service. It should not be allowed to disappear, and we therefore think it is important that it should receive specific mention.

Thirdly, we are voting in favour of the increase in the proportion of funding for long-term measures under Article 4(3) from 5 to 10%. However, I would like to remind the High Representative, once again, that the Committee on Foreign Affairs did endorse this increase at the last minute, as we were promised that, in future, extensive measures would be undertaken under the auspices of the Instrument in the fight against landmines, cluster bombs and leftover stocks of ammunition. In other words, this increase in the long-term measures of 5% of the overall budget line to 10% was agreed on a conditional basis and we expect that you, Baroness Ashton, and the External Action Service will stick to this agreement and that the strategy paper for 2012/2013 will reflect that. This is important to us, in other words. To do otherwise would not be in the spirit of the agreement.

If Parliament and the Commission prevail, however, the biggest innovation in the content of the text in the mid-term review will be the explicit expansion of the remit to include small arms and light weapons (SALWs). At this point, I want to call on the Presidency once again to accept this idea. The European Court of Justice has ruled in favour. I know that it still pains some to accept this, but I hope that, with the External Action Service, we will now perhaps be able to overcome this disjunction between the Council and the Commission and to obtain agreement on how to proceed on the issue of small arms and light weapons. I found this to be a very important point.

My final point concerns the issue of delegated acts. We have already discussed this issue this morning. I believe that we need a political solution in this regard and not a judicial one, which would represent a dead end. One final very brief point: when it comes to the Instrument for Stability and programming in the External Action Service – we are truly convinced that planning and programming must continue to rest with those people who have been responsible for this up to now and that those people must not be downgraded to ‘financial management’ but instead must continue to carry out content planning.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI).(DE) Mr President, I would like to voice my displeasure about the fact that, while we are today dealing with important topics such as funding, development aid and democratic principles, only 14 Members – I believe I have counted correctly – have been able to make it, obviously thanks to some competing or unfortunately-timed event, as everyone else has been disciplined enough to attend the other event. It is unfair on those making presentations and on those acting as rapporteurs today, as well as on fellow Members, and I am not even going to mention the staff and the representatives of the Commission who have to sit here in front of an empty Chamber.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Colleagues, this is not a point of order: it is an interesting point and it might play on some local TV, but it is not a point of order. Kindly do not interrupt the session with such points.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iva Zanicchi, rapporteur. (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteur for the Committee on Development, Mr Mitchell, has asked me to substitute him because he could not be present today. I would like to thank him for the work he has carried out with his customary punctuality and for the quality of his proposals, which received a favourable opinion – I would say unanimously – from the Committee on Development. For the reasons I will state, but, above all, for the work that Mr Mitchell has carried out up to today, I am convinced that the report can be voted through with a broad majority.

I now turn to the report. During 2009, the European Commission tabled a proposed amendment to Regulation 1905/2006, which establishes a financing instrument for development cooperation. Through this proposal, the Commission asked Parliament to adopt an amendment that would allow non-governmental organisations to benefit from tax relief when operating in developing countries. We accepted the request.

However, the regulation for development cooperation also contains implementing rules for the European Union’s development policy. These rules provide that when the Commission accepts financing, it must follow comitology procedures. This means that Parliament can examine these financing proposals and, if the Commission oversteps its authority, Parliament may adopt resolutions to ask the Commission to change the decisions in question.

Merely between 2006 and today, Parliament has felt that the Commission had exceeded its executive competences in at least 12 cases, but only in three of these did the Commission in fact amend or withdraw its draft decision. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Committee on Development proposed the application of the procedure for delegated acts established by Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The adoption of this procedure would mean that Parliament would have a more significant role, at least in the strategic financing decisions that the European Commission has to adopt. In effect, according to the Treaty of Lisbon, in some well-defined cases, Parliament can delegate the power to take strategic decisions to the Commission, but what could these decisions be? In our opinion, the legislature is responsible for choosing which countries the European Union should supply with development aid.

There is then this question over which sectors to give funding priority to: education, health, environmental protection, capacities for good government or development of small businesses? Also, how are we to ensure transparency in the management of development aid?

These are the choices and the subjects in which the European Parliament must play a more important role than it has in the past. In these sectors, it must be the legislature that gives precise indications to the executive. In the end, I believe that this is the way that the requests of European citizens are going. I sincerely hope for the greatest possible consensus on this report by Mr Mitchell.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kinga Göncz, rapporteur. (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the European instrument for democracy and human rights is the financing instrument that supports human rights, the rule of law, the protection of democracy and the prevention of conflicts around the world. The beneficiaries of this financing instrument are, in the first instance, civil society organisations, those civil society organisations and individuals which fight for human rights in the most difficult conditions, in third countries. The great advantage of this financing instrument, as opposed to other geographic instruments, is that it can be paid out without the consent of the government of the country receiving the aid. Therefore, its role is of great importance. Nevertheless, in the case of this instrument, it has not been possible to finance the costs relating to VAT payments out of Community funds. Therefore, the European Commission’s initiative suggested a technical amendment that would have helped the work and operation of civil society organisations in third countries using these funds. Since such organisations are of crucial importance for the promotion of human rights in these countries and for developing political pluralism, it is very important not to make the work of these organisations, which already face difficult situations, even more difficult. We therefore welcome the Commission’s initiative and, with the consent of my fellow rapporteur, Mrs Lochbihler, we lend it our full support. However, this is only one side of the coin.

On the other side is the political significance of this matter. The issue of the financial instrument has become part of the interinstitutional struggle which has been going on for a year now. It is precisely because the instrument for financing human rights is essential for civil society organisations that it is important for the European Parliament to have a part in shaping the strategic and multiannual framework programmes. What we are fighting for is that the European Parliament should have a say, insofar as it deems it necessary, in the elaboration of strategic plans for the financing instrument, through annual reviews rather than at seven-year intervals, at the time of the budgetary cycles. This is the purport of the amendments which we hereby wish to support. The Treaty of Lisbon confirmed the European Parliament’s right of oversight, which is, in effect, the institution of a ‘delegated act’ which my fellow Members have already mentioned, and which we think we need to enforce and implement in this case. The matter at hand is indeed the first example of the increased role of the European Parliament since 1 December 2009.

Following the discussions we have had so far and the parliamentary debates, we, the rapporteurs on the financing instruments, have reached the joint conclusion that the dossier should be sent for second reading, and we are sending a serious political message to the institutions, because now, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we should act in the spirit of the treaty. We believe that these are the very instruments for which it is most crucial that Parliament truly exercise its democratic right of oversight.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barbara Lochbihler, rapporteur.(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights is a very recent instrument. It can already be said, however, that it does a lot of meaningful and important work. You can see that from the feedback that we get from representatives of civil society, both within and beyond the EU. It is also a very positive complement to our human rights policy in the European Parliament and in the EU as a whole.

Work on human rights often takes place under very difficult conditions. It is therefore particularly important that these instruments provide the ability for the EU to grant financial support to civil society establishments without the government in question having to give its consent, and potentially without it even having to be informed of the financial support in question by the EU. We should stress a number of times that this aid is to be retained and – where necessary – extended.

Like my co-rapporteur, Mrs Gál, I can endorse the Commission proposal that there should be a tax abatement in those countries where payments from this financing instrument are still taxed. That, too, would significantly ease the work of the NGOs in question.

However, I see it as a constant challenge in work with this financing instrument that, on the one hand, we also have complaints or negative feedback in this connection that makes quite clear that it leads to more red tape for civil society organisations that seek support from this instrument. On the other hand, of course, there is the necessity for transparency with regard to what money is spent on and whether and how it is used. However, we should take seriously the repeated complaint by small organisations, in particular, that they are put off from using this support and this is an issue we need to tackle now.

By the same token, I see it as a challenge that it is difficult to reach a lot of local organisations in the countryside, rather than in the metropolises of the global South, in other words, to make them aware that a financing instrument of this nature exists and how they can administer it. Imagine the following situation: in a rural area where there is not always electricity, paper trails are perhaps an exception rather than the rule – that makes it necessary for particular attention to be focused on achieving these initiatives. I see an opportunity in enlarging the EU embassies on the ground at this point – and it is, of course, actually settled that there are also to be responsibilities, and staff on hand, in each local EU embassy to speak up for human rights and democracy – in these civil servants – who I will now refer to as human rights agents – intensively engaging in taking on precisely this role as a mediator and this remit to provide information and communications, and also in getting through to local initiatives that perhaps do not have the ability to communicate in English, French, Spanish or another EU language.

It is still far too early, at present, to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the Instrument. The timeframe is much too short – the results would not stand up very well. In a few years’ time, however, we need to very intensively devote ourselves to a comprehensive evaluation of this kind. By evaluation, I mean not only looking back at what went well, but also considering what new ideas we should adopt and how we can further develop the financing instrument.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs – Ms Brantner, Ms Gál and Ms Lochbihler, as well as Mr Mitchell, Mr Scholz and Mr Goerens.

The proposals before us result from the mid-term review conducted by the Commission in 2009 at Parliament’s request. That review concluded that the instruments are working well. This is very positive and it gives a stable framework for our external relations until 2013. In some cases, the Commission proposed only technical amendments in order to bring them into line with the other instruments. We are glad that we have your support on these technical issues.

The big issue identified in the review was Parliament’s objections concerning aid under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) which could not be considered to be official development assistance. Here, the Commission took the views of this House fully into account. We tabled a proposal broadening the industrialised countries’ instrument to cover activities which cannot be eligible as official development assistance. This is about engaging with important bilateral partners and global players with whom the European Union has a strategic interest in promoting diversified links, such as India, China or Brazil. These countries are also interested in engaging in economic, academic, business and scientific exchanges with the European Union.

This amended instrument, called ICI Plus, is a short-term solution for three years. We do not prejudge the future revision of external action financial instruments for the period after 2013. Parliament has already approved a budget for this instrument in 2010. In order to implement the budget for 2010, the instrument needs to be adopted now, so I very much welcome the work done by the rapporteurs in finding a large measure of agreement.

On the instrument for stability, the Commission proposed to include EU action against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, following the ruling of the Court of Justice in 2008. We are discussing the issues raised in Council and must find an agreed solution. I can also assure you that funding for civil society under the crisis-preparedness component of the stability instrument will further increase this year.

Moreover, funding is scheduled to double over the years 2011-2013 for the peacebuilding partnership. This will provide ample scope for funding civil society actions. Even more important is the share of 22% for civil society funding under the crisis response budget since 2007. This shows the capacity of NGOs in peacebuilding and crisis response. It is an excellent example of the added value the stability instrument has brought to comprehensive EU action in fragile and conflict-affected countries worldwide.

Since the proposals concerning the mid-term review, another amendment to the DCI was presented on 17 March 2010. The so-called Banana Accompanying Measures have a clear objective: to support the adjustment of 10 ACP banana-exporting countries to changing EU import tariffs for bananas.

Bananas were the subject of the world’s longest-running trade dispute. The EU had to find a solution and conclude an agreement in compliance with WTO rules. The Banana Accompanying Measures are an integral part of this agreement and the tariff reductions are already in place.

I would very much like to thank again the rapporteur for his very constructive attitude. I think we now have an effective programme that could start as soon as we have adopted it. The tariffs are already in place and the ACP countries are urgently looking for the financial support the EU promised during the negotiations.

Now we come to the most debated issue. Committees have all adopted amendments in order to treat strategy papers and multiannual programmes as delegated acts under the new treaty procedure in Article 290. As you know, the Commission and also the Council do not share this point of view. We think these strategy papers and multiannual programmes do not fall within the scope of Article 290 since they do not supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act.

However, we fully agree with the necessity to ensure Parliament’s strong involvement in overall strategic decisions. It is also in the interests of us all to ensure that programming can be done in a practical and smooth way. So far, Parliament has been involved through the democratic scrutiny procedure which was agreed in 2006 as regards the strategic papers and multiannual programming. Through these procedures, the Commission engages in dialogue with Parliament on the content of the strategies. This consultation process goes beyond the strict bounds of comitology.

Let me be clear: we definitely need to find a solution now. The Commission is open to discuss with Parliament in order to find a way forward that addresses Parliament’s concerns. The three chairpersons last week sent an invitation for an informal meeting between the steering committee in charge of this issue in Parliament, the Commission and the Council.

We very much welcome this invitation. The High Representative, a representative from the Council and myself met the steering group this morning. It was a very fruitful meeting and it very clearly confirms that it is necessary to find a solution in the shortest possible time so as to give full effect to the Treaty of Lisbon by also respecting pressing practical concerns, not least as regards the budget.

I feel confident that we can find a solution if we act together.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner Piebalgs, honourable Members, I too, on behalf of the Council of course, should like to thank the rapporteurs for their work and their involvement. Allow me to add a few words to Commissioner Piebalgs’ comments, which the Council naturally fully endorses.

The Commissioner rightly drew attention to the main issue that remains unresolved, namely, Parliament’s wish to see the strategic papers and multiannual programming treated as delegated acts. I do not intend to present in detail the Council’s position here this afternoon, but I will just say that the Presidency is obviously more than happy to reach an agreement that satisfies the three institutions and that enables us to adopt the financing instruments as quickly as possible. Admittedly, I am thinking more specifically in this context of the previously mentioned ICI Plus and of the Banana Accompanying Measures.

I am delighted with this morning’s meeting with Baroness Ashton, Commissioner Piebalgs and the rapporteurs. We feel that this meeting is a clear testament to the genuine will of our three institutions to secure an agreement, and the Presidency believes, as you know, that the current debate on the financing instruments should be kept separate from the negotiations under way between Parliament and the Council with regard to the committee procedure and delegated acts.

For the time being, you are aware that the Council is still examining these two issues and that any possible solution must indeed be endorsed by your Parliament. That is why, in view of the urgent need to adopt the financing instruments, we must take the exceptional step of developing a solution that is specifically tailored to them.

The Belgian Presidency will ensure, for its part, that the work which was asked to be carried out following this morning’s meeting makes swift progress and produces tangible results that will allow us to reach an agreement as soon as possible. This morning’s meeting leads us to believe that Parliament fully shares this objective.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barbara Lochbihler, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.(DE) Mr President, I am speaking on the subject of the ICI+ Instrument. The Instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high income countries and territories (ICI) was launched in the previous parliamentary term. In an opinion, the Committee on Foreign Affairs called for a financing instrument for foreign affairs to be created that had no connection with development aid but was aimed at the countries of Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. The Commission then created the little instrument that is the ICI Instrument. Unfortunately, the Commission saw this as an interim solution. It replenished the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) countries but otherwise, produced little that was new and treated it as a trade instrument. The Committee on Foreign Affairs therefore put forward an amendment concerning the title of the instrument that clarified the original intention to identify it as a foreign policy instrument. The new title is a ‘Financing instrument for cooperation with countries in the Middle East, Asia, the Americas and South Africa’. We ask for your support for this. It would be worse than regrettable if the EU had no foreign policy financing instrument that was actually named as such.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nirj Deva, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – Mr President, we must look at how the financing instruments – the DCI, the stability instruments and the human rights instruments – are important for the soft power that the European Union exercises around the world. That soft power is growing, as demonstrated by our election monitoring, observation, democracy campaigns, and so on.

Parliament gave up 16 scrutiny instruments when it created the DCI. We had 16 core decision powers which we gave up to the Commission in order to control the DCI instrument and facilitate greater cooperation. This is working well. Now we have a stability instrument for post-crisis development. It needs to be fortified with a substantial amount of money, as there are many civil crises, civilian crises and military crises around the world. There are currently 36 civil conflicts.

In the same manner, I think the human rights instrument needs to have oomph. It is just not good enough for us to talk and talk and talk: we need to have people on the ground, instruments for monitoring elections, good governance and all the other things for which we require funds. I am very pleased to support this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivaylo Kalfin, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets.(BG) Allow me to begin by expressing my full agreement with the conclusions from Mr Goerens’s report on the need for the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and its benefit to the European Union’s policies to continue.

I also agree that the European Union must find a way to continue supporting banana-growing countries, even after the World Trade Organisation banned the granting of soft terms from the start of this year. Incidentally, the Commission has not, strangely enough, carried out even once, between 1994 and now, an assessment of the assistance’s impact on these 12 countries, which is something that must be changed in the future.

The point which the Committee on Budgets is insisting on and which we do not agree with is resources being cut from other policies so that the EUR 190 million in question is allocated for the next three years. There is a principle which we insist must be protected, namely, new policies must be funded using new resources. This means that this new policy, even though it could be provided for in the financial framework from the European Commission, ought to be provided for in the budget and not funded at the expense of other programmes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tunne Kelam, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, High Representative, Commissioner, I would like to welcome first of all Commissioner Piebalgs’ detailed and positive statement on the situation and his conclusions that the financial instruments are working well.

I think the stability instrument has been very useful in addressing conflicts and crises and we should, therefore, focus more on prevention and follow-up. This also means robust support for civil society building. Here again, the announcement of a substantial increase in funds for peacebuilding is to be welcomed.

We also welcome the news of, and understand the need for, the rise in the ceiling of measures under Article 4(1) from 7% to 10%. At the same time, it is crucial to ensure that the different EU instruments and programmes are used coherently and with an understanding of complementarity.

The Lisbon Treaty has to make the EU more coherent and efficient. We have understood in this Parliament the need for technical modifications. The question is rather about the political solution, as has been pointed out. This concerns delegated acts and the European Parliament’s right to scrutiny.

Today, I am encouraged by the statements of openness on the side of both the Council and the Commission. This is a sign that you are prepared to reach agreement in the shortest possible time. I very much hope that we can reach such an agreement guaranteeing the rightful balance between the EU’s three institutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gianluca Susta, on behalf of the S&D Group. (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Scholz for drafting this report, which establishes a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised countries. It is right that this instrument is managed by the Committee on International Trade because, above all, it relates to cooperation with industrialised countries and emerging countries, so there is a certain difference compared to other instruments.

First and foremost, I think it is necessary to emphasise the role of Parliament. We have lost too much time in a tug of war with the Council and the Commission on an obvious issue after the Treaty of Lisbon. We must defend the centrality of Parliament, in regard to both delegated acts and executive acts. Secondly, I think it important to underline the strategic importance of this whole game and, thirdly, the need to intensify collaboration with developing countries and emerging countries, without taking money away from the poorest countries.

We must make an effort, within the budget of the European Union, to divert more resources to the poorest countries, bearing in mind that the problems with emerging countries are mostly to do with rules, rather than financing. In any case, innovation must also be supported, but with additional resources that have not been taken away from the poorest countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. (NL) Mr Chastel, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, today, we are debating various financial instruments that enable the European Union to act in foreign affairs. All these instruments are of a relatively recent date and are, moreover, of quite an original nature. We have previously had nothing comparable and, elsewhere in the world or in other international or supranational institutions, there are, in fact, very few models of the kind of instruments that the European Union is developing. Because of the groundbreaking nature of this body of instruments, we wisely agreed that we would evaluate them after only a few years and, where necessary, adjust them. That is what is keeping us busy here this afternoon.

However, there are other important changes which have occurred in the meantime. These days, we have a High Representative who is also Vice-President of the Commission. During this sitting, we have been asked to approve the basic texts on the subject of the European External Action Service, which is, so to speak, a diplomatic arm of the European Union. That, too, is a very important innovation.

Last, but not least, the powers of this House have been considerably extended. We have, so far, had ample opportunity to exploit those powers and, as tends to be the case with young institutions, you push as far as you can to assert those new powers to the maximum. Therefore, we are currently discussing with the other institutions where exactly lines need to be drawn.

I am also pleased at what both Commissioner Piebalgs and the President-in-Office have said about there being a will to reach an agreement. Given that I used to be part of the executive power in my country in a former life, I understand all sides of the argument and I hope that we reach an agreement. I also dare to hope that this House will not overplay its hand, as the English sometimes say.

To conclude, as regards the Instrument for Stability – I still have a few seconds – I would like to say that I very much welcome what Commissioner Piebalgs said, that, indeed, the intention is that we should concentrate, among other things, on the fight against the trafficking of small arms and light weapons. That the intention is to involve NGOs more closely in the working of the Instrument for Stability and to make full use of the even more groundbreaking body of instruments for peacebuilding. If that becomes a reality, you will be able to count on the full support of our group.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franziska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to raise the issue of the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) in which I, and also colleagues from the Committee on Development, see an urgent need to strengthen the scrutiny power of Parliament. That is because Parliament has the duty to control where the Commission spends the money and whether it is spent as intended, in this case, on Official Development Assistance (ODA).

We have, in the past, found bad examples of where money was not spent in accordance with ODA criteria or where we found that it did not comply with the goal of poverty eradication. Merely having the right of consultation, our proposals and our ideas were not taken up. This clearly shows that we need a stronger position. We need the power to codecide on where the money goes.

Not only the Commission, but we too as a Parliament have an obligation as regards policy coherence in development. We also need to make sure that the money that is spent goes in the right direction and that other policy fields also work towards the eradication of poverty.

Parliament also has a responsibility towards the citizens of the European Union. We must better control where the money is spent, namely, on poverty eradication. European citizens are in favour of development aid. They are even in favour of providing more development aid – as surveys have shown – but we also have to show clearly how we spend it and that we spend it to the benefit of poor people.

Therefore, the Committee on Development and I urge you to accept delegated acts for the DCI.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the EU is the world’s largest multilateral donor of development aid and humanitarian assistance. It also plays an important political role supporting the promotion of human rights and democracy in third countries.

My group, the ECR Group, strongly believes that properly structured new EU financial instruments are therefore essential. They ensure a more efficient and effective way of disbursing EU taxpayers’ money and enable Parliament, particularly post-Lisbon, to scrutinise spending and strategic policy in a more open and transparent manner.

This democratic accountability is vital, especially at a time when Member States are themselves making severe cuts to their national expenditures. Investment and development, democracy and human rights are potentially an important way to support, through soft power in particular, the EU’s wider foreign policy goals and could also contribute to reducing inward migratory pressures on the EU’s external borders. Strong mechanisms to prevent corruption and misuse of EU money are, however, fundamental and we should also be careful not to force our own western liberal values, in particular, so-called reproductory rights, on to others ill-equipped or reluctant to absorb them under the guise of human rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sabine Lösing, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(DE) Mr President, it is important to make clear at this point that, when it comes to the EU’s foreign policy financing instruments, the Treaty of Lisbon abolished the European Parliament’s right of supervision. In so doing, the competency for these financing instruments was fully transferred to the Commission and to the High Representative, and with her, to the European External Action Service. I find it completely unacceptable that Parliament and the Council are to be ignored, despite the fact that what is at issue is the European Union’s far-reaching foreign policy measures and their implementation.

We support Parliament’s cross-group efforts aiming to re-establish parliamentary supervision of the financing instruments. Accordingly, we will support the amendments to the delegated acts in this regard, which, of course, were discussed earlier. All the same, I would like to close by expressing my major concern in respect, in particular, of the Instrument for Stability and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, as I believe that these instruments are used in an undemocratic and non-transparent way and, in some cases, against the will of the countries in question, which gives them the character of an interventionist EU foreign policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, there is an anecdote going around the bazaars of Karachi roughly as follows. A thief holds up the President of Pakistan and says: I want your money. The President of Pakistan says: I am President Zardari, your President. The thief says: in that case, I want my money!

This is relevant to the debate today because it emphasises the key point. The European Commission has no money. All the Commission’s money comes from the taxpayers of the Member States or, to be precise, the taxpayers of the 14 Member States which are net contributors. Even if the Commission gets its own resources some time, which, on the basis of the votes earlier today, looks depressingly likely, the money spent by the Commission would still be money from taxpayers.

I therefore leave you and ask you to consider very carefully this question: can you really suppose that hard-pressed European taxpayers and UK taxpayers, especially in today’s environment, really want an extra EUR 2 billion to be spent – because that is what these proposals provide for – just so that the EU Commissioner can strut about on the world stage?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI).(DE) Mr President, as ever, the funding bodies of the EU are having some problems. Financial aid is difficult to obtain due to its complexity, while the monitoring systems continue to be designed in a less than optimal way. One example of this is pre-accession aid, which, as we all know, is awarded to potential candidate countries, but which it only makes sense to pay if the states in question are getting to grips with their corruption problems or if the necessary structures are actually established. I hope that, in this connection, the EU has learnt from its overhasty enlargement of 2007. When it comes to the Instrument for Stability and development cooperation, the budgetary funds far too often do not reach, or only partially reach, the local institutions for which they were intended. This is partly due to the weak institutions in the recipient countries, but it is also due to faulty incentive structures and a lack of documented accountability. There is food for thought in the fact that, according to an IMF study, the public expenditure of 33 countries is more than 50% dependent on international development aid. When it comes to financial aid from the EU, of whatever kind, the monitoring needs to be tightened up.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE).(DE) Mr President, I would like, first of all, to offer my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Scholz, for the positive and open cooperation that we enjoyed. In the trialogue, in particular, there was not always agreement, but we did enjoy a constructive atmosphere for discussions.

Expanding the financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high income countries and territories will give the EU the opportunity to establish cooperation with the crucial emerging and developing economies on an equal footing. This includes educational exchange programmes under the Erasmus Mundus scheme, and supporting entrepreneurial or cultural cooperation, and is something that I very much welcome. There is one point that I would like to draw your attention to, and that is that, given the EU’s current financial situation – and that of every Member State – the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) does not find it acceptable to demand new, not currently available funding to realise the measures just described. There needs to be a financial evening out with the financing instrument for development cooperation, the resources of which were only intended to be for all the emerging and developing economies. I have therefore tabled an amendment on behalf of the PPE Group that makes it possible to achieve such a financial equilibrium.

I also want to say a quick word about the delegated acts. This is an important issue – it has already been mentioned twice this morning. There is absolutely no doubt, as far as I am concerned, that Parliament must have a right of supervision and veto over the whole package on the financing of foreign cooperation currently under discussion by means of delegated acts. The spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon needs to make itself felt here. There can be no compromise on the issue of whether delegated acts are or are not to be included in the financing instruments.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Mr President, the European instrument for democracy and human rights is crucial for an EU foreign policy seriously committed to the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights worldwide. It is the only instrument that we can now mobilise to help those who stand up for democracy and human rights in countries where basic freedoms are restricted. We can do it without the consent of their respective governments. Obviously, such a valuable instrument must be under proper European Parliament scrutiny, and this is why we demand the delegated acts procedure.

However, we should realise that this instrument is rather limited in terms of the funding available, and a sizeable part of it actually pays for the EU election observation missions: 22% for the period 2011-2013. This means that the budget allocated to the European instrument for democracy and human rights must be significantly increased.

I would like to use this opportunity to point out a new tool which the European Parliament should help create, and which this instrument could fund in order to assist even more efficiently and with more flexibility the people who often risk their lives in fighting for democracy, rule of law and human rights in countries with dictatorships or oppressive regimes, and in countries seeking a transition towards democracy, but where they meet violent anti-democratic forces and where they need much more assistance in terms of building capacities to defeat these anti-democratic forces.

What we need is a cross-party non-governmental European foundation similar to the National Endowment for Democracy established by the US Congress.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor. My question to Mrs Gomes on her excellent proposal is to ask her what she thinks we could actually learn from the US models for this kind of more flexible and, let us say, less bureaucratic, financing of democratisation and human rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Mr President, it is exactly in the flexibility that the beauty lies. Having a cross-party foundation, we would be able to identify particular cases which, on a broad basis, we would see as needing particular assistance, bypassing obstructive governments or authorities or forces, to build capacity for those who are fighting for human rights. I think that the example of the NED in the US is indeed a very enlightening one, and we should not be shy of following what works from other parts of the world, in this case, from our American partners.

We already have the foundations of the different parties working in Europe, but often with different agendas, and certainly there are many cases where they should converge and would then be more efficient in providing assistance to those who are fighting for democracy and human rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – You deceived me there, Ana. I thought you were finishing, then suddenly you continued your speech, so I did not know whether or not to bang the gavel. The fact is that in the blue card procedure, the questioner has 30 seconds and the person who answers has only 30 seconds.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Louis Michel (ALDE).(FR) Mr President, I am very embarrassed because I would have liked to have taken part in this discussion. I very much doubt that the US model is more effective than the European one. The US model, when it deals with human rights, is essentially selective and completely self-serving because, in truth, the US model is first and foremost about active bilateralism.

I would like to congratulate my colleague, Charles Goerens, on his work, since he has succeeded in strengthening the development dimension of the approach, and I would, of course, like to thank Commissioner Piebalgs for the careful and favourable attention he has paid to this request.

For my part, I would like to make three brief observations. Firstly, dismantling the Community preferences system too quickly can and will have dramatic consequences in some ACP countries that still export bananas. Some of these consequences will directly affect the ability of ACP countries to promote sustainable development. That is why I would like to argue in favour of a reasonable and slightly flexible interpretation of the criteria for allocating aid. Aid should be allocated as a priority to those ACP countries that wish to maintain their banana sector because of the latter’s impact on their country’s sustainable development. In this respect, it would have been helpful – this was requested but not obtained – to have already had an ex ante impact assessment on the situation of banana exporting countries.

I have two other general observations, and I will certainly come back to these in the following weeks. From my point of view, the best way to channel this aid is, without a doubt, general budgetary aid wherever possible, and sectoral aid wherever desirable. It would have also been helpful perhaps to have had a debate on the quantity of aid and on honouring the commitments made in 2005 by Member States. This is central to the debate. Moreover, what I have heard from some fellow Members here is deeply worrying. Evidently, selfishness is king. I must say that this is rather surprising.

Finally, to answer a number of questions, I would also like nonetheless to revive the idea of including the European Development Fund in the budget, since this would obviously enable us to monitor the Commission’s political action directly.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE).(FR) Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Goerens for having taken into account international standards concerning the health and safety of workers and international environmental standards, especially those which relate, of course, to exposure to pesticides.

This report’s defence of small producers is crucial in my view because, need I remind you, in the end they receive only 1.5% of the price paid by the end consumer. It is worth remembering, as you already know, that every year, millions of small farmers are forced to move into shanty towns.

Now that the fight against pesticides and large-scale exposure to pesticides has been addressed in this Chamber, I feel it is crucial to apply the same requirements to the French West Indies, where chlordecone is used, and to the outermost regions. I call on the Commission to do just that.

To conclude, although I welcome the progress made, I would like to reiterate that the fundamental problem with the banana trade is obviously the agricultural model, which should be rethought because it is geared towards exporting only. The agricultural model should be reshaped towards greater self-sufficiency.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). (PL) I fully agree with Mrs Gomes that the issue of human rights is one of the most important issues with which we have to deal, which is why I completely fail to understand Mrs Lösing’s statement that money spent on human rights is sometimes, if not frequently, misspent. Human rights are our constitutive, if not our most important task as a European Community.

I would also like to refer to one of the instruments for supporting democracy and human rights throughout the world, and to the statement that these instruments should be introduced and made operational regardless of whether third parties and other public authorities have given their agreement. This, I believe, is a key statement which illustrates our duty. We sometimes have to help build democracy and strengthen human rights despite the governments of some countries. I believe that it is a worthwhile exercise, particularly and, above all, in places where the right to freedom of expression is violated. It is our duty.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, there is an air of unreality about much of this debate. All these reports concerning the promotion of democratic and human rights worldwide and financing instruments for development cooperation must be seen in the context of the chilling statement made yesterday in this very Chamber by the United Nations Secretary-General. He said that 65 million more human beings will be plunged into extreme poverty in our world this year alone.

That is the harsh reality that flies in the face of fine words by government and the Commission. Outside the doors of this Chamber, huge banners with EU logos proclaim: Halt poverty. At the same time, the EU Commission – and indeed the major groups in this Parliament – are pushing neoliberal economic policies that slash budgets and public services, savaging the living standards of ordinary people, while transferring massive resources in bailouts to banks and speculators.

On financing development cooperation, the Commission congratulates itself on the new tariff reductions for bananas agreed with Latin America banana producers, but, in reality, this new arrangement is for the benefit of powerful transnational corporations. The huge banana exporters, like Chiquita and Del Monte, will gain hugely but African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and small producers will be devastated. Of course, the subsidy to small banana growers who face ruin because of the new agreement must not come from established social funds but from elsewhere in the EU budget. Trade should be for the benefit of small producers and working people – the majority – not major transnational corporations.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD).(EL) Mr President, I fear that the European Union budget for 2011 has erred, both in the provision for medium-term review and by establishing direct revenue from new taxes which, in the final analysis, will be paid by end users, in other words, by European citizens. I feel that this is not the right time to levy these taxes, while Europe is sinking into recession and workers are losing their jobs, their purchasing power and, more importantly, their insurance rights. Instead of giving to European consumers, we are taking away from them. It would appear once again that, in our efforts to achieve budgetary discipline, we have put aside our plans for growth and that, in applying economic theory, we have forgotten political theory.

We must convince European citizens, by example, that we are taking care of them in the best possible way. At this particular juncture, therefore, we should not behave like Marie-Antoinette. I therefore have two specific proposals: firstly, our pay as MEPs should be cut by EUR 1 000 in 2011 and we should each use that money to recruit a young unemployed European citizen from our own country. Secondly, we should cut our travel costs by flying economy class.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nick Griffin (NI). – Mr President, as is so often the case with EU proposals, these financial instruments include measures which have great emotional appeal. All decent people like us want to stop drug smuggling, people trafficking and the supply of small arms to conflict zones, but it is very easy to be emotional and generous with other people’s money.

Thus, while ordinary people in Greece, France, Ireland and Great Britain are having their societies ripped apart by cuts and their backs broken by taxes, the Scholz report will add EUR 176 million to the EUR 172 million already committed to help third-world capitalists gobble up even more of our jobs. The Goerens report will blow EUR 190 million, including EUR 17.4 million for a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries. It may have escaped your attention, but food prices are soaring in our constituencies as well.

Worst of all, however, is the Brantner report. Here, on page nine, it speaks of a financial envelope of EUR 2 062 billion by 2013. This is, of course, a misprint. I hope to God it is a misprint, but the fact that such a ridiculous error could slip past all the experts and MEPs who have read this report speaks volumes for the careless abandon with which the European Union spends money.

This money does not grow on trees. It is not handed out by a giant tooth fairy. It is not the Commission’s money; it is not MEPs’ money. It is taxpayers’ money and a hugely disproportionate amount of it is British taxpayers’ money.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maurice Ponga (PPE).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for many years, the European Union has maintained a special and strong relationship with ACP countries. This special relationship has resulted, in particular, in the granting of tariff preferences. Such is the case for the banana sector, in which ACP countries have benefited from a preferential trading arrangement for their exports to the European Union.

This preference has been challenged at the WTO, especially by the Latin American countries, which are large exporters of bananas. Therefore, in order to comply with WTO rules and to end a long dispute, the European Union accepted to reduce its tariffs in the banana sector in December 2009.

On account of the privileged partnership that it maintains with ACP countries, the European Union nonetheless wanted to help banana-producing ACP countries to cope with this increased competition. Consequently, Europe has pledged EUR 190 million until 2013 to help banana-producing ACP countries to adapt, be competitive and restructure their sector if need be.

In the report on which we will vote tomorrow, the European Parliament is reaffirming its commitment to, and support for, banana-producing ACP countries, and I very much welcome that. Thus, we have suggested, among other things, that the European Union could adopt complementary measures after 2013 if necessary.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Thijs Berman (S&D). – Mr President, we need to push for a maximum of transparency and accountability on the budget as this will contribute highly to the legitimacy of the EU’s external policy.

We are talking about significant sums spent on the basis of regulations which leave a considerable margin of manoeuvre for the Commission. This is all right, but we need to exert our full scrutiny on strategy papers, multiannual indicative programmes and the like, as they are of a general scope and supplement the financial instruments by defining priority areas and objectives.

The Commission should show its result in an annual report to Parliament with particular attention to the ODA eligibility of all projects. Programming and planning should be carried out by the same expert people who are doing this now, but the External Action Service itself needs more development and human rights experts to understand and work with these instruments in Brussels and in EU delegations in third countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL).(EL) Mr President, I should like to refer briefly to the issue of democracy and funding to support it abroad. We consider that democracy is a human achievement that needs to be safeguarded. Is, however, democracy as we know it the democracy that we want to – and must – export? I am absolutely certain that the first thing we need do is to improve democracy at home. When we have a country in which abstentions exceed 50%, how can we talk of democracy? When millions of people are unemployed, can we talk of democracy? When, instead of being expressed through elected representatives, democracy is mainly expressed through and, at the same time, is controlled by the media, then what can we say? Is this the sort of democracy that we can be proud of and want to export?

I believe that there truly are nations that need help in order for their rights to win proper support and acceptance from their governments. Surely, however, this should be done with caution, following lengthy investigation of any potential negative, rather than positive, results? Can anyone say that funding democracy in Afghanistan pushed democracy forward? I think that there is far more we can do to make our democracy an example to be copied, rather than paying people to copy us.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alf Svensson (PPE).(SV) With the Treaty of Lisbon and the new External Action Service, we have the possibility of a greater presence on the world stage. With this, of course, also comes an increase in responsibility.

We have a particular responsibility in all sorts of relations with countries that are not democracies, whether it be in relation to aid or trade. Europe and the EU should and must take the lead. The EU must show the way. Among the financing instruments that we are now debating, there are building blocks that provide us with the prerequisites to really make a difference. The prerequisites are there, but this does not automatically mean that we will succeed. In order for every euro in aid to have the optimum effect, our development work needs to be constantly permeated by democracy promoting initiatives and opinion forming. This may seem self-evident but, in fact, it is not for everyone.

In the United Nations, it is the EU that takes up the cudgels. It is the EU that stands up in the negotiations against totalitarian regimes, and it is we who consistently and unswervingly stand on the side of the vulnerable, and, of course, that is how it should be. It is therefore disappointing to see that, globally, the direction of change is not the one we would like when it comes to democracy and human rights, and I have a feeling that some Members of our Parliament do not fully appreciate the importance of democracy as the most significant and fundamental building block for development.

At regular intervals in the Committee on Development, we see attempts to initiate texts that subtly, between the lines, or even quite openly, give a degree of concession to totalitarian regimes. It was recently claimed, for example, that the main problem in dictatorships is that there is a risk that healthcare will be privatised. The fact that widespread starvation has never occurred in a democracy is seldom pointed out by anyone.

This attitude is quite simply not tenable. In order for our financing instruments within the aid budget to function in an optimum way, we must place the promotion of democracy at the centre of all our external relations, and this must not only happen in formal contexts and verbally, without any practical action being taken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Patrice Tirolien (S&D) . – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to focus my speech on Mr Goerens’ report, which deals with the ACP Banana Accompanying Measures (BAM).

As I myself come from one of the only European regions to produce bananas, I can only show solidarity with the ACP producers in question. Solidarity, first and foremost, because a strong historical link unites the European Union to these countries, and we should do our utmost to ensure that they, too, are able to maximise the benefits of globalisation, of which they are, more often than not, the first victims.

Solidarity, also, because the trade concessions generously granted by the Commission to the WTO are in danger of dealing a fatal blow to this agricultural sector in our ACP partner countries. Solidarity, but definitely not naivety, lastly, since the proposal for a BAM regulation as tabled by the Commission put much too much emphasis on the economic diversification aspect.

Given the loss of tariff preference that resulted from the WTO agreement, this programme’s main goal is clearly to ensure the sustainability of ACP banana exports and hence, to help make them competitive.

Furthermore, let us be honest, the funds set aside by the BAM are by no means enough and do not extend over a long enough period to make diversification happen.

Finally, I would add that, if we are aware of the urgency of the situation, we can accept these accompanying measures being financed through the extensive redeployment of heading IV of the budget. The Council must be responsible and work towards finding a viable solution for the multiannual financing of this programme.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). (PL) The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights is, in my view, an instrument that is used and approached too technically at present. It should be a political tool of the European Union to a greater degree, as it has a huge potential to support and promote democracy. However, this would require a change in the way this European financial instrument is approached. To date, the question of supporting democracy has been overshadowed by the issue of human rights. Of course, these are extremely important, but I believe that supporting democracy itself, which is a different matter, should be given a much higher status and much greater weight.

That is why we must also strengthen non-governmental institutions in countries with authoritarian governments. We should focus on grassroots democracy in those countries, building it from the bottom up. This means focusing on civil society organisations which offer innovative methods of expanding the public space. In order to succeed in this, we must first introduce regular monitoring of the impact of those organisations which receive European funding. We must also, as the organisations themselves agree, set up a forum at which regular meetings are held to facilitate communication between donors and recipients, and not only donors from the European Union, but also from elsewhere. Our application forms need to be simplified. At present, they are simply beyond the understanding of many. Finally, the Commission must work to relax financial regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kader Arif (S&D).(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the title of this debate is likely to create a certain optimism because in theory, it is about defining the procedures for helping banana-producing ACP countries. The reality is entirely different, and I have to say that the way they have been treated throughout this report is quite simply unacceptable. We must first and foremost bear in mind the fact that the banana sector is vital for many African and Caribbean countries.

Yet, despite this, they have made the effort to accept, at the WTO, an agreement which lowers the European customs tariff to EUR 114 per tonne, in order to put an end to a long-standing dispute with Latin American producer countries. However, the Commission seems to have forgotten to inform them of the bilateral negotiations under way with these same countries on a far lower tariff: EUR 75 per tonne. In other words, the commercial consequences of these agreements will be deeply felt in a context in which the lion’s share of the European banana market is already held by multinationals based in Latin America.

Faced with this situation, during the last plenary session of the ACP-EU Assembly in Tenerife, all the members agreed to adopt as one a declaration calling for support measures tailored to producers’ needs to be implemented without delay.

Back in Brussels and Strasbourg, I see that, unfortunately – and this is no surprise – the right is backtracking and even opposing any reference to this declaration. I am tired of this double-dealing, but, above all, I fear that this weariness is shared by our historical partners, who no longer believe in our will to truly support their development.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this mid-term review of the European Initiative on Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), commend the work of the rapporteur and welcome the changes allowing tax payments to be made. Two-thirds of human rights organisations have been unable to obtain local exemptions, so this loophole which has diminished the real needs of the projects will now be filled.

To the Commission, I welcome the structured cooperation which has allowed Parliament to be consulted on your annual programmes, and I support the further amendments today on delegated acts. I also remind you of the need to integrate the findings of the electoral observation missions into follow-up in the country.

And, to the Member States, I remind you that when it comes to the next financial perspective, do not be tempted to cut the EIDHR. It has been tried before and failed, and this Parliament would ensure it would fail again.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE).(RO) I would like to highlight the implementation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights in the separatist Transnistria region in the Republic of Moldova. Transnistria is committing serious violations in the areas of democracy and respect for human rights. In this regard, using this instrument offers a good way to promote democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in this region.

Projects have been launched as part of the instrument, including the one launched in 2009 on capacity building and promoting human rights and democratic institutions in Moldova’s Transnistria region. It entailed the involvement of the region’s civil society in the democratic process. However, experience has shown that this instrument has not been used to its maximum capacity as there have been frequent implementation delays and transparency problems. I must stress the need to review this instrument with the aim of devising effective implementation strategies in this region.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). (SK) With its budget of EUR 1.1 billion for the period 2007-2013, the European instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights contributes significantly to the upholding and advancement of human rights and the strengthening of democracy worldwide.

I am pleased that the set of additional amending and supplementing measures takes into consideration and simultaneously makes provision for the changes ensuing from the Treaty of Lisbon by appropriately strengthening the right of Parliament for control in this area. I also consider the explicit stipulation of the possibility to object to the delegated act within the period of two months from the date of notification a substantial asset for Parliament. I believe that the empowerment of the authority of Parliament will help make this instrument more flexible, comply with the new requirements stipulated in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and better face the challenges involved in the protection of human rights and democracy worldwide.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Corina Creţu (S&D).(RO) The common denominator which the three reports we are currently discussing actually have is that they examine the instruments intended to fund development cooperation and the actions taken to promote democracy and human rights globally.

I believe that it is natural for us to carry out such evaluations of the instruments for funding development cooperation, just as I think it is natural for us to exercise our right of control as part of the comitology procedure and highlight a series of problems linked to the way in which the Commission has implemented the instrument and interpreted some of its basic provisions.

I wanted to speak in support of the proposals tabled by the Committee on Development, which will supplement the accompanying measures proposed by the Commission, especially for the banana sector. On the other hand, I would like to remind everyone that the purpose of the European Union’s development policy is to reduce and, in the long term, eradicate poverty. I, too, believe that, in addition to human rights and the promotion of democracy, we must not forget this fundamental objective of eradicating poverty.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). (SK) The proposal of the Commission, amending and supplementing the instrument on cooperation with industrialised countries, relates to the extension of the geographic jurisdiction from the original 17 countries to a further 46 countries, to which, thus far, the financing instrument for development cooperation has applied.

I am glad that the European Union has decided to extend cooperation in accordance with the programme of the instrument on cooperation with industrial countries by adding more countries. However, I do not understand the motivation for including some of the countries in this list. I admire the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for tolerating and withstanding the long decades of abuse by the military regime, but I fail to understand the Commission officials who, in the submitted proposal, indirectly recommend to us that we help Kim Jong-Il improve the technological base of his military industry so that he may intimidate and threaten neighbouring countries more efficiently. I firmly believe that modernisation of the Korean democratic people’s army should not be a priority to which the citizens of the European Union should make financial contributions, and that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea does not yet belong to the list of countries proposed in the appendix by the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI).(DE) Mr President, before I start, I would like to thank you for the constructive way in which you chair our session and for your fairness in naming who is to speak and who is not to.

The OECD countries pump over USD 100 billion per annum into development aid. This means that they make up 90% of the publicly funded development aid in the world. The EU is the world’s biggest donor of development aid. However, every year, EUR 3 billion worth of aid gets lost due to qualitative defects. What can be done about this? In future, we expect monitoring that ensures that the funds are employed in a way that is traceable and durable.

We also expect the recipient countries to be reminded of their obligations, for example, with regard to cooperation in the repatriation of illegal migrants. It is absolutely possible to use development aid as a means of applying pressure to conclude readmission agreements. Uncooperative countries of origin for millions of illegal migrants must not be allowed to continue to look forward to millions in development aid. I expect clear words in this regard at the forthcoming EU-Africa summit in November.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financing instruments for development cooperation and for the promotion of democracy and human rights should be flexible in order to prevent stalemate situations of the kind we have already experienced many times.

The European Union is, in fact, releasing substantial funds. These funds should not be made inaccessible because procedures are too complex. Above and beyond the flexibility given to these instruments, however, I would like to stress the importance of really ensuring that small organisations and structures, too, can benefit from these grants, because nowadays, we are unfortunately too often faced with situations in which only large NGOs benefit from them, and only for a short period.

Indeed, I believe that prioritising small NGOs over longer periods could produce far better results. These days, there are many small grass-roots organisations that do excellent long-term work at local level. They are the real conduits of change, and that is why they, too, should be able to benefit from this aid.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, giving money from one’s own pockets is an act of generosity. Giving money out of other peoples’ pockets, those of the taxpayer, is both less generous and less honest. The additional EUR 176 million will not just be given to the poorest countries, but also to emergent countries whose exports are already and increasingly destroying our manufacturing bases and the jobs of our taxpayers.

A desire on the part of the EU to promote democracy and human rights in the Third World might be admirable, if it were not for the fact that European Union countries can, and do, imprison people who have committed neither acts of violence nor theft, but simply expressed heretical or dissenting opinions on political or academic subjects.

European Union countries can, and do, ban political parties openly, as in Belgium and Germany, or by the back door by civil action, as in the United Kingdom. If we wish to spread democracy and human rights worldwide, we would do so more effectively and more cheaply by setting a good example.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this has been a fascinating debate. In a way, it very much coincides with yesterday’s speech here by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, when he clearly said that the EU and the United Nations share responsibility in this world in the fight against poverty, the fight against climate change and the fight against nuclear proliferation. It is a common challenge that we face.

On the whole, our citizens today are not too worried about this issue because they believe that we take care of this issue and also promote our values. Transnistria was mentioned. It is not thousands of kilometres away from us; it is very close. Concerning peace and security, it is true that we do not have too much conflict, but that is because we have an extremely active external policy in order to prevent any conflict as soon as it starts.

I believe that we have experience that we can be proud of. Financial instruments definitely help us to address these challenges. I believe that today’s debate was basically very positive about the experience that we have had from the financial instruments. At the same time, I would emphasise that we have full accountability, and that it is taxpayers’ money. Whenever we start a project, there are ex ante controls and there are ex post controls afterwards. There is a Court of Auditors of the European Union that looks not only at whether the money is spent correctly, but also at the political reasoning behind this. The Committee on Budgetary Control is quite tough with regard to any Commission spending, so I can assure you that taxpayers’ money is very much valued and is spent with good purpose.

We always discuss how to be more effective, but I can assure you that we follow policy objectives that have been agreed with this House. Today’s debate has already started the next debate, because ambition concerning the revision of financial instruments has been rather humble until now. We wanted just to adopt them until the year 2013, with some particularities.

Some of you address the challenge for countries that will have particular issues because of our agreement on the banana trade. It is necessary to adopt banana accompanying measures as soon as possible. It is not only our credibility which is at stake; countries really face a challenge. That is the reasoning behind it. I believe that this House was very supportive of it. We have started to debate what will happen after 2013, and I would draw your attention to the fact that this is the beginning of the debate. We are not prejudging what will happen after 2013. The budget review was adopted by the Commission yesterday; it will be considered in this House.

I intend to discuss the Green Paper on modernisation and development policy within the Commission. I believe my colleagues will also come forward with issues. We need to agree on policy priorities and also financial instruments well in advance so that we do not need to make an adjustment later if we find that there is not sufficient money in one instrument and we try to cover some of the priorities with reallocation.

I understand that this is not the best possible way, but it means that before adjusting the financial framework, we should agree what we would like to achieve, which instruments should be applied, and what scope we would like to see.

I would like to emphasise that, as a Commissioner, I have two budgetary authorities. One is definitely this House, but the other is the Council. I believe this means that, for all the scrutinies that we will carry out and on which we should agree, we need to follow the letter of the Lisbon Treaty, with the political willingness to find the right compromise so that democratic scrutiny can be fully emphasised to show that it is efficient, swift and effective.

This is exactly what we have discussed today in the meeting that I mentioned in the first speech. I have every reason to believe that we will find the necessary compromise. It will not be easy; it will require a lot of political will. On the Commission side, we definitely have the political will because I know what the stakes are, particularly for some of the measures where we need a swift conclusion of this process.

Thank you very much. I very much commend the work of the rapporteurs, which was very much appreciated from our side.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franziska Katharina Brantner, rapporteur. – What will happen after 2013?

As regards the stability instrument, we have seen that it is wonderful because it is more flexible than other instruments, but that also occasionally leads to misuse for food crises, for humanitarian and natural disasters. That should really be stopped and we should clarify, for the period after 2013, that this is really for conflict situations, and maybe add more flexibility to other instruments in order to address more emergency situations.

Then there was another thing that I would like to highlight. The recent British defence review puts conflict prevention at the core of the External Action Service. I find that quite interesting and correct. I think it is the right way forward to say that the External Action Service should become the hub for conflict prevention, in the interest of internal coherence. The tools that it needs include the stability instrument. I see others, like a mediation cell, being created within the appropriate structures. I think we should build on this when we look at the period after 2013, and ask: What do we need in terms of money and resources so as to really become a driving force for conflict prevention?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iva Zanicchi, rapporteur.(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to offer a heartfelt greeting to Commissioner Piebalgs and appeal to him to take an active part, as I believe he sincerely will, in the measures to be voted on tomorrow, because it is a matter of great importance for the European Parliament, which will have greater power after the Treaty of Lisbon. Thank you, Commissioner Piebalgs.

I should also like to thank all the speakers who gave their support during today’s debate. I sincerely hope that tomorrow’s vote will obtain a very broad majority, if not unanimous approval, thereby ensuring a great victory for the report by Mr Mitchell, precisely because it is important that the European Parliament has greater powers after the Treaty of Lisbon.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kinga Göncz, rapporteur. (HU) I would like to thank my fellow Members for participating in this debate. Your comments have actually drawn attention to the same question that we, the rapporteurs, have had to grapple with in the past period. I would like to thank the Commissioner for his constructive approach to this debate. What we have seen today is that – as almost all speakers confirmed – the European financing instrument for democracy and human rights is a very important and perhaps the only instrument of the European Union for the democratisation of third countries and the defence of human rights designed in such a way that civil society organisations can receive it directly. It can be paid out directly to organisations working in the field, without the support of the third country. This is why it is important and we consider it necessary to promote every technical facilitation that will enable these organisations to access the aid that is often crucial to their survival.

At the same time, and for this very reason, since this programme involves such a priority area and we are talking about an instrument that is intended directly for these NGOs and civil society organisations, it is important that Parliament has a say in the elaboration of the strategy and long-term programme, and it is essential that Parliament should see how these funds are used, and not only at the end of the seven-year financial framework. This is why we consider it important to emphasise Parliament’s democratic right of oversight and its right to have a say. I believe that a joint solution will be found, especially after the meeting this morning with both Mrs Ashton and Commissioner Piebalgs, and I, too, seriously believe that if the political will is there, the legal obstacles will be overcome. This, then, is the view we should take as we look ahead to the coming weeks.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barbara Lochbihler, rapporteur.(DE) Mr President, the cooperation between the Commission and Parliament in relation to the Instrument for democracy and human rights was good; the relationship was very cooperative, in fact. Occasionally, MEPs were invited to take part in an exchange of opinion between the Commission and civil society on specific programmes. The debate, too, has shown that there are hardly any problems in administering the instrument. That does not mean, however, that we can rule out occasional problems in application in future. That is why Parliament’s right of supervision is very important. However, the one point on which we have not been able to reach agreement so far is the establishment of a binding right of supervision for Parliament, which the Treaty of Lisbon allows for. I therefore join the multiple others who have expressed the hope that we reach a compromise – in other words, a political solution – quickly and one that takes full account of Parliament’s rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Helmut Scholz, rapporteur.(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Piebalgs, ladies and gentlemen, as the debate draws to a close, I would just like to express my sincere thanks, once again, to the shadow rapporteurs and to Mrs Lochbihler, for the constructive and results-oriented cooperation stretching back over a year of working together.

The debate today has demonstrated that financial issues, the use of budget resources, planning and the issue of the political control of the instruments are highly political issues. To close this debate, I would therefore like to summarise what form the instruments are to take. How we realise them has much to do with how European citizens perceive the European Union and thus, also with how the use of resources for one instrument or another is accepted by citizens. I can therefore only repeat what I said to Baroness Ashton and to you, Commissioner, this morning during the briefing of the steering committee for the working group on delegated acts, which was that I think there is an urgent need to quickly reach a solution in relation to delegated acts, whilst preserving the legal and political responsibility of the legislator and the Commission. The Instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high income countries and territories (ICI) is being fundamentally amended in this parliamentary term. We plan to release up to EUR 348 million for cooperation in the fields of science, academic exchanges, the Erasmus Mundus programme, culture, environmental protection and renewable energy sources and the stimulation of bilateral trade relations. The aim is for particular consideration to be given, here, to small and medium-sized enterprises.

I have the following to say to the empty benches facing me, including because Mr Griffin is no longer there: I believe this to be a very important contribution towards the European Union’s openness to the rest of the world and towards its acceptance, both by its own citizens and by other countries with which we enter into exchanges.

In conclusion, then, we have started this financing instrument on its way through successful compromise negotiations between the Council and Parliament and attempted to adapt it to the challenges of the future and to reach agreement on all the issues of content. I hope that, with the vote in this House tomorrow, we will take a decisive step forwards.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Goerens, rapporteur.(FR) Mr President, I make no secret of the fact that the provisions set out in the Banana Accompanying Measures are a gamble on the future, for various reasons.

Firstly, the general trend of reducing trade preferences, from which ACP countries have benefited until now, is not going to change any time soon. Negotiations under way are already aiming at tariffs close to EUR 75 per tonne of bananas, whereas we are working here on the basis of EUR 114 per tonne.

Secondly, the Commission had no other choice but to agree to negotiate a tariff reduction agreement with the countries competing with the banana-exporting ACP countries. The alternative would have meant leaving the Dispute Settlement Body to sort out the problem. Personally, I believe that a negotiated solution is the lesser evil for ACP countries, and this is the spirit in which we must also approach the Banana Accompanying Measures, since they would not have been the automatic outcome of a judgment by the Dispute Settlement Body.

Thirdly, since the world is not going to end in 2013, which is the year when the Banana Accompanying Measures will end, we continue to believe that it is important to start preparing right now for the period after 2013.

Indeed, the EUR 114 tariff paid at the borders of the European Union on each tonne of bananas is already soon going to be exceeded in practice. I said at the outset that we were already talking about EUR 75 per tonne.

I feel it is wise, therefore – and this is my fourth point – to preserve the European Parliament’s supervisory powers. We must ensure that the right to oversee strategy papers, laid down in Article 290, does not become a dead letter. I think we can safely say that, in this instance, our cooperation with the Commission has been extremely fruitful. This Parliament is not a troublemaker; on the contrary, it is forever enriching the debate and helping the Commission move forward on this matter.

Finally, Mr President, this is a personal observation, but I am making it as rapporteur, even so. Once more, we are witnessing here a squabble between emerging countries, on the one hand, and least developed countries, on the other. Moreover, were it not for the European Union acting as an ally of the weak in order to mitigate the likely effects of a trade agreement, in all its brutality, the least developed countries would feel even more isolated.

I invite the Commission to start thinking right now about the period after 2013, because I believe that the measures which will be decided on now and which, I hope, will come into force before too long, will suffice to make banana production sustainable in the countries concerned. I hope that these measures can help ensure the long-term survival of the banana sector and that those who are unable to keep producing can find alternatives.

I think that, post-2013, as I have already said, water will continue to flow under the bridges over the Rhine and the problems with regard to the banana sector will still be there. We already need to be thinking about a post-2013 strategy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 21 October 2010, at 12:00.

 

11. Ukraine (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Ukraine.

Baroness Ashton was not able to remain with us today. Commissioner Füle will present the matter on her behalf.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this opportunity and I apologise on behalf of Catherine Ashton, who asked me to share with you what she intended to tell you.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a statement on the current situation in Ukraine. I should like to make my remarks in the light of three important upcoming events: the EU-Ukraine Ministerial meeting which will take place in Luxembourg on 26 October, the local elections which will take place on 31 October, and the 14th EU-Ukraine Summit which will be held in Brussels on 22 November.

In recent times, Ukraine has enjoyed a high level of political freedoms. Successive elections have been recognised as having been conducted in accordance with international standards. Ukraine has developed a dynamic and diverse civil society and media environment. There have been consistent improvements across the board with regard to respect for human rights.

As a consequence of these developments and of the commitment of successive governments to the path of closer ties with the European Union, relations between the European Union and Ukraine have acquired considerable momentum. This is reflected most clearly in the ambitious and far-reaching European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement which we are currently negotiating, and which aims at achieving the twin goals of political association and economic integration with the European Union.

President Yanukovych’s government has undertaken a number of important economic reforms in recent months, which should be commended. These include the adoption of a public procurement law, which should play an important role in the fight against corruption and in increasing competitiveness.

The adoption of a gas sector reform law, which paves the way for Ukraine’s imminent accession to the Energy Community Treaty, as well as the agreement it recently reached with the IMF for a standby agreement, are also critical steps in securing macro-financial stability, transparency and a return to growth. These reforms go in the right direction and must be sustained.

The Ukrainian Government has also managed to achieve a level of stability which has eluded Ukraine’s political establishment in recent years. This is an important and necessary development in ensuring effective governance of the country. Nonetheless, we are concerned at consistent and widespread reports of a deterioration in respect for fundamental freedoms and democratic principles in Ukraine. Particularly worrying are complaints related to freedom of the media, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

Respect of these fundamental values is essential. They are the best guarantors of individual freedoms. They ensure a genuine competition of ideas. They are an essential component of truly open, innovative and competitive societies.

On 1 October, the Ukrainian Constitutional Court handed down a judgment which overturned constitutional changes made after the 2004 Orange Revolution. This decision only increases the need for Ukraine to achieve wider constitutional reform through an inclusive constitutional reform process and, to a great extent, takes up a key theme of the European Parliament’s resolution of 25 February this year. Such a process should seek to establish an effective and lasting constitutional system of checks and balances in accordance with European standards.

For the European Union and our Member States, respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law are fundamental principles that bind us together. They are principles that cannot be compromised, so too for our relations with key partners such as Ukraine. The pace and depth of our rapprochement with Ukraine will be determined by full respect of these values.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the people of Ukraine have come out impressively in favour of a European future for their country again and again. Disturbing reports from Ukraine, however, indicate developments that distance the country from Europe. That is why we are having this debate ahead of the municipal elections. We will be able to discuss economic reforms in November in connection with the EU-Ukraine summit.

We therefore need to talk about intimidation by the secret police and restrictions on the freedom of the press and the ability to take part in the elections unhindered. Developments like this cannot be balanced out by positive news in the economic sphere. ‘Economic prosperity through authoritarian rule’ is a Chinese approach, not a European one. Those who hold power in Ukraine today should not be allowed to believe that they can escape just because the broad European public takes no notice or because the previous government admittedly did have failings in relation to good governance and combating corruption. These things are true, yet there was no atmosphere of being watched, there were no visits from the secret police, as has been experienced by the rector of the Catholic University of Lviv and by young people involved in NGOs and opposition parties. Cutting off power to businesses, seizing computers, occupying party offices on the grounds of supposed risks of attacks – the whole gamut of the déjà vu is on show in Ukraine. There is method to it. The secret police is headed by Mr Khoroshkovsky, who actually runs a media empire and is now also a member of the committee to appoint the most senior judge in the country. That, too, distances Ukraine from Europe. There is little left of equality of opportunity in the political contest before the municipal elections. The opposition is being partially excluded from the elections, while puppet parties are being spontaneously formed and authorised to take part in the elections by compliant local authorities. In Kiev, the district councils are being unceremoniously abolished so that no elections are taking place there – the governing party knows that it will not win there are the moment. The power vertical has the objective of achieving control over regions that have previously been inclined to disagree with it.

We put forward our European experience as an alternative. Our Member States took important decisions in democratic consensus between government and an opposition ready to take responsibility – for European reforms, for the rule of law, for a competitive market economy, for European integration. We want Ukraine to continue down this road with us.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR).(PL) Thank you for allowing my question. It is always good to be able to start such a debate. You have actually painted a rather gloomy picture of what is currently going on in Ukraine, even going so far as to compare it with China. Do you really believe that the current situation in Ukraine is so dire that we should hurl such grave accusations against the country? What are your views on Russia in this context? Is equating Ukraine and Russia not doing Ukraine an injustice?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE Group.(DE) Mr President, I said that looking to achieve economic prosperity through authoritarian rule is not a route that we in Europe can go down. We know this from China. I did not make a comparison, I merely stated that that would be the wrong route to take, that it would not be a European route. The image that I sketched is a very realistic one, I think, for the people on the ground. The supposed economic achievements there still need to demonstrate their effectiveness.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adrian Severin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Ukraine is a very important country to us. It is a country which faces a lot of challenges. I would like to thank the Commissioner for a perfect description of the situation, as well as a perfect description of our expectations.

A new government was elected through free and fair elections, recognised by all of us. Today is the right time to leave this government to deliver, and not to prejudge its achievements or non-achievements from the first minutes of its mandate. The real problem of this debate is a problem we have here. We were too fast in dividing that country into pro-westerners and pro-easterners. Now we have a problem, since the pro-westerners are not in power, in recognising the pro-easterners’ capacity to deliver and to help the country promote its European expectations. This is the real problem with this debate today and we should understand that the real pro-Europeans are the pro-Ukrainians – those who are able to bring the rule of law, democracy and European modernisation to their country.

I would conclude simply by asking colleagues to decide to postpone the resolution we are expected to adopt, because the Ukrainians are facing elections and they face negotiations with us. We should not adopt resolutions in the middle of a political process and before we have the facts on the basis of which we can indeed draw conclusions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adina-Ioana Vălean, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, we seem to have difficulties in knowing how to deal with our Eastern neighbour, Ukraine.

It is just as difficult for Ukraine, which treats Europe one day as an ally, another day as a problem. This is why I believe we should be pragmatic, recognise the realities on the ground, and find common items on our agendas to reach agreements.

Economic cooperation has always been Europe’s most powerful engine for greater integration and Europe has owed its success to this pragmatic approach since 1956.

So we must continue to focus on both institutional and economic reforms to be undertaken by Ukraine in parallel. This two-track approach is the only one possible if we want to create a virtuous circle that could lead to democratic stability in this country and in the Eastern neighbourhood.

A priority should be to support a healthy business environment and the achievement of a functioning market economy in Ukraine by encouraging their property and VAT reforms and their efforts to combat high-level corruption, among other priorities.

This is why I see the association agreement as a powerful instrument of reform, and it is why we should continue our negotiations on the establishment of a deep and comprehensive free trade area and on Ukraine’s accession to the Energy Community Treaty.

In that context, I welcome Ukraine’s accession to the WTO, which should be seen as an important step in Ukraine’s acceptance of European economic standards.

I hope that we will be able to overcome the continuous postponement of the FTA and encourage the virtuous circle of mutual trust, which is beneficial to the whole region and to Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that I share the concern about the intensification of the situation and the undemocratic developments in Ukraine. There are more and more reports about the repression of the freedom of expression of journalists, regular threats to committed individual members of the NGOs and people working for democratic development. The role of the secret police, too, gives real cause for concern. However, I do not believe that the altercations about freedom of the press and democratic development in general begin with the last election, rather – and I have said this here often – all the leading players in Ukraine have repeatedly abused their power for purposes including bringing their own interests to fruition. This abuse is getting worse and that really must concern us.

We would be doing ourselves no favours if we were to adopt this resolution without being worried about certain economic developments in Ukraine. I am watching with just as much concern how Russia’s influence on the Ukrainian economy, its energy sector, but also other sectors, has been systematically expanded. I would therefore also advise that we do not have to vote tomorrow but instead after the delegation has visited Kiev – a delegation is going there the weekend after next – and before we have the summit here, after careful preparation in all areas to agree what the European Parliament’s position actually is regarding the situation in Ukraine.

I have gone down this path from the pre-democratic times to the new times with numerous Ukrainian friends. Ukraine was on a very good path. It was our impression that the last elections took place in accordance with democratic conventions. If the situation should not now improve, but instead worsen, we should nonetheless consider very carefully how we intervene and how we do not intervene. In any case, I would advise against making a decision before our next visit to Ukraine. Our voice will be louder if we bring up the debate on the things about which we have spoken in the resolution over there.

As I say, I really am concerned. I am receiving a lot of reports that everything is heading in a negative direction. However, we would be doing ourselves no favours if we were to rule out debate on the ground over there and make too fast and too hasty a decision.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński, on behalf of the ECR Group. (PL) Many of us here played an active role in the Orange Revolution by helping the Ukrainian democrats at a time of hardship. However, we always stressed the fact that the aim of our involvement in Ukraine was not to support any particular political force, but to help make Ukraine a democratic and free country. Today, we should remember that the European Parliament did not play a role in Ukraine’s internal politics, but acted as a guardian in two very important ways: on the one hand, by upholding and assisting Ukrainians’ European aspirations and, on the other, by upholding democracy, human rights and all the values we regard as European values in Ukraine. I say that the tone of the proposed resolution is not one which will help those who regard themselves as friends of Ukraine. Today’s resolution will only push Ukraine closer to Russia, and to those who say, ‘you will see, there is no room for us in the West. It is closing its doors to us’.

We have to be open to Ukraine, we have to tell it what European standards are, and we must keep up the pressure to ensure they are observed, while, on the other hand, we must absolutely prevent Ukraine from returning to the East. I would like to ask Mr Gahler, whose involvement in human rights and international politics I value greatly, why he finds it necessary to use such damning words about Ukraine. I would like to hear from him whether his colleague, Angela Merkel, used such damning words about Russia during her recent meeting with Mr Putin.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. (NL) Mr President, at the beginning of this week, Ukraine made headlines in the Dutch press – and I will say it in this auditorium – not very flattering headlines, unfortunately. That was on Monday. In brief, Ukraine is the Wild West of Eastern Europe. Foreign investors are said to fear the lawlessness that reigns in this country where, last week, no fewer than 3 000 buildings and companies were expropriated through fraud and violence. This process involves wide boys acting in cahoots with the country’s politicians to dupe entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, Member States of the EU have been the largest direct foreign investors in Ukraine since 1991.

Commissioner Füle, are you aware of these major concerns which affect European investors in Ukraine and what specific steps has the Commission taken to protect legitimate, legal European business interests in the Ukrainian economy? That would be showing commitment. We have nothing against Ukraine. My party even strongly advocates Ukraine’s eventual membership of the European Union, but we do have to maintain a sober perspective, of course. We are witnessing worrying developments, not only in the field of human rights, but also in the fields of economy and business.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI).(DE) Mr President, within a few months of the presidential election in February of this year, in which Mr Yanukovych celebrated his comeback, the democratic accomplishments of the Orange Revolution are clearly being lost. When, however, even the financial markets judge the new government to be more stable and predictable than the government put in place by the Orange Revolution, that is probably a sign that democracy according to Western – according to our European – preconceptions cannot be transposed on a one-to-one basis to every country, including to those of the post-Communist sphere of influence. The current decision by the Constitutional Court would indeed strengthen the position of the President and weaken that of the parliament, of that we can be sure. Those who know the region say that a de facto presidential system was already in place before the pro forma court judgment. Growing restrictions on the freedom of the press and of opinion put Mr Yanukovych’s reassurances that democratic standards will be maintained in doubt. If the President succeeds in both reinforcing his own power base and achieving an economic recovery by carrying out central reforms in Ukraine, which is, of course, one of the poorest countries of this continent, he will perhaps keep himself on his presidential throne for longer and I believe that that would be something that, plainly and simply, the European Union would have to take note of.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Mr President, developments in Ukraine clearly illustrate the old saying about how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The present ruling élite has been exercising power since the election of President Yanukovych and much of what has been done points in the direction of favouring the concentration of power.

This is all the more striking if we recall the results of the presidential elections which gave Yanukovych a small majority and demonstrated that he had strong support in the south and east of the country only. Yet – and this is the striking feature of Ukrainian politics currently – there has been a steady movement in the direction of marginalising alternative centres of power. The media, rule of law, the opposition, the autonomy of the state administration, have all been affected. What is particularly worrying is that the secret police have acquired the capacity to intervene very extensively in the affairs of the country.

All this augurs badly for the future, especially if Ukrainians genuinely seek a European future, because the system being built by Yanukovych points away from Europe, not towards it.

The most that can be said for the changes is that they have brought a degree of stability to the country, but increasingly, this stability foreshadows stasis and immobility. At the same time, it is true, Yanukovych has certainly improved relations with Russia, but has thereby accepted a degree of subordination to Moscow that is new. Whether Ukrainian society will accept this transformation in the longer term is an open question.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). (PL) Let us ask ourselves what has actually happened in Ukraine: a coup d’état, or a military coup, perhaps? Those would be the only situations in which we should sit up all night drafting resolutions, sitting down at the negotiating table the next day. We are negotiating in such a way that the absolute majority simply dominate the way the resolutions are worded and what they say. The language of the draft resolution by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is the language used to condemn African dictators and South American regimes. This is not the right kind of language to use for the situation in Ukraine. I would like the members of the PPE to decide whether we should describe Ukraine using the language of Commissioner Füle, who says ‘yes, but...’, or in other words that some things are good, but there are a lot of things we do not like, or whether we should use negative language, whereby there is nothing we like, and everything is to be condemned.

Ukraine was in chaos for five years. We witnessed this chaos. We helped the democrats and we helped everyone who wanted to move towards the European Union. We have had six months of consolidation, consolidation which may have a negative outcome, and our job is to point out these negative outcomes, but not now and not in this manner. I understand the PPE’s regret that Yulia Tymoshenko lost the elections, but I say to you: it is unfortunate, maybe she had a chance of winning, but she lost. Now she has lost, let us acknowledge what is really happening and let us keep the Ukrainian authorities under careful observation, but let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). (PL) I am very grateful to Commissioner Füle for his constructive attitude. It is one which will bring great changes in relations between the EU and Ukraine. I also thank Mrs Harms for her balanced position, and her wise – as ever – words on the subject of Ukraine. All information from the OSCE shows that Ukraine is one of the few countries of the former Soviet Union in which proper elections have, to date, been held. This is an achievement of Ukraine, both on the orange and on the blue side. It is an achievement that we cannot question before the next elections are over. It would be a serious political error on the part of the European Union and our Parliament if we listened to the voice of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and threw doubt on the fact that elections can be held successfully in one of very few countries in the East. Let us help Ukraine conduct normal elections. Let us not make any judgments before they have been held.

I would like to address the Ukrainian guests present in this House today: Ukraine’s place is here, in this Chamber, and that is why we are subjecting you to the same standards that we apply to the countries of the European Union. That is what you fought for together, whether blue or orange. Every issue, even the tiniest one, to do with human rights or press freedom will be scrutinised here. Do not be surprised – I am talking to our Ukrainians brothers. That is because you are being treated as a European country, according to European standards.

My last appeal to you is to act together in your dealings with the European institutions and Parliament. We believe that in the future, you will be among us. We know that it will not happen soon, but we want to help you with this. I agree with Mrs Harms that the time for resolutions is after the elections. It is then, before the EU summit, that we will be able to discuss the issue frankly and draft a position with which to present the European Parliament’s common position.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, Ukraine is a country of great strategic significance for the European Union. That is why we cannot be indifferent to what happens in that country. On 1 October, tens of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets to protest against the constitutional changes initiated by Yanukovych and confirmed by the Constitutional Court, the composition of which was changed shortly after the election of the President. These reforms were carried out without democratic debate and without the agreement of the Venice Commission. The changes weaken the balance of power and threaten the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine. Economic reforms are also put under threat. Our Ukrainian friends have expressed concern over the organisation of the coming elections, over the excessive representation of the ruling coalition in the Central Electoral Commission, the restrictions on non-governmental organisations and state interference in the activities of opposition parties. This is precisely why this resolution is needed today. Unfortunately, the ruling coalition rejected the opposition motion in the Ukrainian parliament to make membership of the European Union a priority of Ukraine’s foreign policy. We must, however, continue to stress the importance of cooperation with Ukraine and monitor the implementation of agreements that have been concluded. The European Union must demand that corruption be fought and, at the same time, help in that fight, and that press freedom be ensured. A situation in which a media magnate at one and the same time both heads the state security service and is a member of the High Judicial Council, which has the power to appoint and dismiss judges, is not characteristic of a democratic state. In conclusion, we also need to take positive steps, providing not only for the introduction of a visa-free regime in the future, but also economic cooperation, especially in the energy sphere, while, at the same time, we await the democratic development of Ukraine. That would be the objective of the next resolution, which we should draw up after the election, and should cover energy, the economy and other issues of significance for Ukraine. Thank you.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). – Mr President, I have a very simple question. Maybe this is an interpretation problem, but you said that the current Ukrainian Government rejected future membership of the European Union.

As far as I know from the declaration of the President and the official statement of the Ukrainian Parliament’s long-term policy, membership of the European Union is one of their top priorities.

So the question is whether I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood the President of Ukraine.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Inese Vaidere (PPE).(LV) Yes, I shall gladly clarify this point. Clearly, that was an inaccurate translation. The President of Ukraine has announced a willingness to continue convergence with the European Union. Nevertheless, membership of the European Union has, according to the decision of the Ukrainian Parliament, not become the first priority.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE).(DE) Mr President, I would like to ask Mrs Vaidere: now that we have put down in black and white all the points concerning our consternation in relation to the misuse of power and the repression in Ukraine, what objection can there be to taking this text to Kiev in a fortnight’s time in order to discuss it and then to decide how we proceed from there? I would like to know the answer to this question, as, from the previous experience of our delegation, I think this is the best and most productive way to move forwards, especially if we want to gain democratic influence.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Inese Vaidere (PPE).(LV) Yes, I am happy to reply. Personally, and yet I do not know why, Mrs Harms, nevertheless I am personally worried, even after our participation in the Ukraine summits, about these signals that we are currently receiving from our Ukrainian friends on the composition of the Central Electoral Commission, media freedom and the restrictions on non-governmental organisations. These all exist, and it is precisely if we express our concerns about this that the regional elections could, in my opinion, take place in a much better atmosphere. There is no one to prevent us from going to Ukraine next week, even with our resolution. No one is preventing us from drawing up another resolution, as I said, on economic issues. We must definitely do this, but as regards these concerns about the deterioration of the democratic situation, we must unfortunately, that is, I think we ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – Mr President, I would say that the quality of the debate today shows that it was not prepared. We did not need this debate and now is not the time to adopt resolutions on Ukraine, neither today nor tomorrow.

I must remind you that six months ago, the country was in freefall and on the verge of falling into chaos. We had political, economic and financial instability – even a deep crisis – but now we have a very different picture. We have to recognise that in the space of a few months, the Ukraine Government has succeeded in bringing the country back to normal; back to political, economic and financial stability.

There are problems. We do not deny that. But we must admit that they are listening to our voice; some corrective measures have been taken, for example, on the issues of electoral law and some electoral practices. In this sense, our voice will be heard there as long as we do not cry out on each occasion, but adopt a decent approach to Ukraine.

That is why I think we are doing a disservice to our parliamentary committee which is going to Ukraine in 10 days time; we are doing ourselves a disservice in undermining our own role by adopting such resolutions 10 days before the elections. Such a move has never happened before. It is a clear attempt to influence the elections. We should not allow our parliament to be part of this game.

Therefore, I propose that we postpone the adoption of the resolution, and that we ask our colleagues in the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee to check with the colleagues there, to discuss those issues …

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE). – Mr President, the new Ukrainian authorities are new only in name. A regression towards authoritarian practices is sweeping the country. The legal framework for the forthcoming local elections has been altered and could jeopardise the participation of the opposition parties. The Constitution has been changed, and a de facto presidential regime is back in place. The media and civil society are under constant pressure, and the Ukrainian secret service seems to be reliving its Soviet days.

It is time for us to clearly express our concern through a resolution. The Ukrainian authorities should get the message that closer ties with the EU cannot be guaranteed by friendly declarations alone. An undemocratic Ukrainian Government cannot be a reliable partner for the EU, especially in the strategically sensitive area of the Black Sea.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D).(DE) Mr President, I think we all need to live up to our responsibilities. The government in Ukraine needs to implement the rule of law and the freedom of the media, and it needs to do so effectively, but the opposition, too, needs to show that it is responsible and must not give out false information. When I look at how many of the claims contained in your draft resolution were then immediately denied by the people in question, it shows how much false information is often passed on here. We, too, need to show that we are responsible. We cannot allow ourselves to become embroiled in the internal political argument. Ladies and gentlemen – and I address this in particular to Members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) – there is no point in us defending one group or another in Ukraine on party-political grounds. That is not our job.

Next week, we will be having discussions with the Foreign Minister, then we have the elections, then the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, which is travelling to Ukraine, and it has always been the case – Mr Gahler, I am appealing to your sense of fairness here – that we say whether or not things went well after the elections, rather than pre-empting the elections by saying that things will not go well. That is not our job, and I am appealing to your sense of fairness – something that you normally always demonstrate – and I beg you to remain fair in this case, too.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). (PL) Only those who have lived under the socialist system can fully understand the nations which experienced lack of personal freedom, lack of press and media freedom, or the difficult road these nations had to follow. I understand those who are today raising their concerns and speaking of the lack of respect for people’s rights and the multifaceted problems that Ukraine is grappling with today. Yet we must also acknowledge the small but positive changes, such as the recent democratic elections at which we, as representatives of the European Parliament, were observers.

I appeal for sensitivity to the situation of millions of citizens of Ukraine and hundreds of young Ukrainians. They are counting on the European Union, on our help in building democracy, and on our help in building a civil society. It is very easy to criticise, but as a Polish woman, I remember that we were once helped.

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D).(EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to add my voice to those who have argued that there is no reason for such a quick resolution, especially before the elections, before the visit and, more importantly, before the European Parliament is present in Ukraine. This government was elected just recently; it is a fact that there are problems, but we need to recognise that it was democratically elected and allow it to pursue its efforts. A resolution would only make sense after the forthcoming elections in Ukraine.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE).(ET) I had a question for my colleague, Mrs Vaidere, but I would like to speak about what is on my mind. The fact that we want to adopt the Ukraine resolution now and not tomorrow is not well-timed, and the Ukrainian people, who are looking to the European Parliament with recognition, would not understand us. This is because what we have today in the draft is firstly not the best in terms of tone, it is not the most accurate, and there are also some factual errors.

Mrs Vaidere mentioned here that the Chair of the Venice Commission has criticised the amendment of the constitution. I have a letter by him with today’s date in which he says he is astonished that this point appears in our resolution, and he says clearly that he did not do this, here, there or anywhere else.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). (PL) Unlike Mr Vigenin, I believe today’s debate has been excellent, and very useful. It is rare for such an interesting debate to be conducted in this Chamber, for which I would like to thank everybody. Mrs Łukacijewska’s speech shows that even the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is divided on this issue, which is good news. We should thank the socialists, and particularly Mr Swoboda, Mr Severin and Mr Siwiec, for understanding that decisions which are so unfavourable to our Ukrainian friends should not be taken before the elections. Commissioner Füle and Mrs Harms are also right to bring up certain facts which are cause for concern, and of which we are also aware.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). (CS) Pull yourselves together, ladies and gentlemen, and try to think for once. For a week, there has been no change to laws, nor to the composition of the Electoral Commission. It is interesting that whenever certain political forces feel that their allies in a country outside the European Union have not won, these forces abroad instantly express their concerns about the state of democracy in that country. I agree with what Mr Kamiński and others have said. We definitely need action from the European Parliament to contribute to the development of democracy and the improvement of conditions for the mutual development of relationships. Efforts to support stabilising actions by the Ukrainian Government apparently stepped on the toes of some of those who revel in chaos and lawlessness. My colleagues probably consider them better partners than the current government. I recommend postponing the draft resolution and returning to a discussion on this topic after the delegation returns from Kiev.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). (SK) I believe that Ukraine is one of the closest potential partners of the European Union.

The Ukrainians are much closer to Europe civilisation-wise than are the Turks or the Albanians. The Ukrainian people have freely elected a change because the democratic orange powers have run the country into poverty, hopelessness and decay. Yanukovych was long in opposition and his attitude to the current opposition reflects the treatment he received from the orange leaders. Moreover, we must also recognise the fact that he probably remembers the earlier period when he was victimised by the orange league, and the European Union reacted by simply smiling benevolently. Unless we want to lose Ukraine as our future member, let us be patient and concentrate on economic cooperation; let us build up a climate of mutual trust. We must explain to the government that the opposition has its legitimate place in a democratic society, and to the opposition that unless it gains sufficient support from the people, it has no right to compete for power.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michael Gahler (PPE).(DE) Mr President, as I was addressed personally, I would actually like to respond for a minute under the catch-the-eye procedure. Is that alright?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI).(DE) Mr President, the foundation of the Energy Community in 2006 established an integrated European Energy market for gas and electricity, and the planned inclusion of Ukraine is intended to secure the energy supply towards Eastern Europe. This is a good thing, as there have certainly been a few serious problems in recent years and the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine, in particular, had a serious effect on the gas supplies of EU Member States. Subsequently, it was, of course, clear that Russia stopped the gas supplies during the price discussions and my home country of Austria, alone, experienced a fall of 33% in supplies of Russian gas, while France, Hungary and Italy also recorded drops of 20 to 40%. This calls for the Commission – as coordinator of the Energy Community – to grab Ukraine by the arm and remind it of its obligations when it comes to Europe’s security of supply. The energy supply of our Member States cannot simply be allowed to become a pawn in the price war between Russia and Ukraine. Let us have good discussions, then, but let us also play hard ball and let us, I beg, secure the energy supplies of our Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE).(BG) The European Parliament has always supported Ukraine on its journey towards democracy, based on the principles of the rule of law and sharing with us common values on European integration.

Elections act as a barometer in any democracy. This allows us to evaluate the quality of the democratic process, institutions’ stability, the maturity of the political parties and the views of civil society. I welcome the Ukrainian authorities’ decision to invite observers to the elections to be held on 31 October.

I am confident that their mission will provide greater trust in the election process and their observations will help confirm the transparency and impartiality of the workings of Ukrainian institutions. Apart from elections, the constitution, as the supreme law in Ukraine, must guarantee the authorities’ balance and their reciprocal control.

Ukraine can rely on its European partner to support consistently its efforts to achieve reform and stability. The opinion of the European Union and its civil society provides additional impetus and a guarantee of ultimate success.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). (LT) Last week, Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine, paid an official visit to my country, Lithuania, and confirmed once again that Ukraine’s goal is to become a Member of the European Union. Without doubt, this will take several years and a lot of homework has to be done and many reforms have to be carried out in various fields, such as ensuring human rights, combating corruption, overcoming poverty and strengthening democracy. However, I agree with my colleagues who spoke here in the European Parliament; we must not immediately condemn Ukraine as a country and we should not stop it from becoming an equal partner and therefore, I repeat that we in the European Parliament really must cooperate as equal partners and help Ukraine move towards the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). (SL) Ukraine is a large and important partner of the European Union and a country which undoubtedly has a European future. The worst service, I think, that we can do for Ukraine, a country with a complicated internal structure and a difficult history, would be to speak of it as if it were the subject of our cross-party or ideological bartering.

For that reason, every document we adopt must be well thought out and well balanced. The opposition of yesterday is the government of today and that can happen in any other country holding democratic elections. It is easy then to understand that the opposition is dissatisfied because it has lost power. However, it will get its chance, when the time is right and if voters so decide. I think it is wrong for us to rely on the arguments of only one side and, above all, I would like to say that I am confident ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, Ukraine is our major European democratic associative partner and I, too, hope that one day, it will become a member of the European Union. Like many speakers, I have some doubts as to the appropriateness of an EP resolution shortly before their local elections, and my group, the ECR Group, has submitted a number of amendments to make the resolution more balanced and less repetitive.

Yanukovych won the election to become President democratically, albeit by a small margin. There are indeed some worrying authoritarian trends in Kiev, from attempts to re-establish the temniki censorship of press freedom to the use of the FBU security service, led by an oligarch for political purposes. However, the West is watching the process closely. President Yanukovych is now under pressure. The legacy of the Orange Revolution is still strong and the Ukrainian civil society that emerged from it very robust.

Everyone knows that I have close relations with the opposition’s leading figures, but I, too, think we should avoid too much interference in Ukrainian internal domestic and political affairs which may well backfire on this Parliament and we should give the ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). (PL) Exactly the same arguments were made before the presidential elections, when we were wondering in this Chamber what resolution to adopt, and what our position should be with regard to what was going on in Ukraine prior to the presidential elections. We decided that we would issue a resolution after the elections, and that is what we did. We called upon the government and the opposition to observe human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Several months have gone by since that resolution, and we can already see that some of its provisions have not been observed. I therefore understand the concern that the local elections, which are key in terms of fostering democracy, strengthening it and establishing it, may involve certain rights being violated. That, too, is why I am one of the authors of the resolution.

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to react to what has been a very interesting debate indeed; my reply will focus on three points.

First, let me respond to a concrete question by Mr Belder concerning the investment and business environment. More needs to be done in Ukraine in this field. That is obvious, and I have raised this question a number of times, whether in the framework of the Association Council or in the framework of various meetings. The last time I had the opportunity to raise this issue was with Prime Minister Azarov, just last week. There are a number of issues, such as the procurement law and the possibility of going back on this law through various amendments which are now being debated in the Ukrainian Parliament.

More needs to be done as far as the rule of law is concerned and, of course, we have watched with great interest the Mittal case in recent days. More needs to be done to deliver on the commitment and promises made to deal with the VAT issue, which is also an irritant for our businesses. Through our contacts with the Ukrainian authorities, and through regular contacts with businessmen, we are set to protect the interests of European investors and European businessmen.

My second point is that it is not an easy process in which we are engaged with Ukraine. This is a process where proclamations about the European future might sometimes be helpful, but will not deliver. What is going to deliver is building more of the European Union within Ukraine.

They need our assistance. They also need us to give them a reality check from time to time. That is what they expect from us.

What we do not need is to be pushed into a false debate about what is more important: stability or adherence and commitment to values, and that leads me to my third point.

Who am I to comment on the draft resolution before this House, but I think the very fact that this debate has happened has already given a valuable signal. I think the fact that this House’s representatives are going to Ukraine soon, and will pass on most of these messages, conveys a very valuable message in itself. I think that another very valuable message in terms of what we should expect from the Ukrainians is that the forthcoming local elections on 31 October will reconfirm the democratic stance of their country.

I shall stop speaking now, if I may.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Gahler has the floor under Rule 151(1) due to personal allusions.

Please be very brief and respond to the personal allusions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michael Gahler (PPE).(DE) Mr President, I wanted to respond in detail to what Mr Swoboda had to say. He made a point that was not entirely correct. It is true that, in our resolution, we in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) did incorrectly quote the Venice Commission. I have spoken with Mr Markert and he told me what he actually said. That is why the joint resolution no longer contains the quotation. You can see, therefore, that this is no longer a subject of debate.

You spoke about the rule of law in general. However, I would have liked to have heard you, as the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, say something clear and specific about the things that the secret police do there. When parties there are not permitted to take part in elections, that is something that you can criticise even before an election, as, in such circumstances, the results of the election obviously cannot meet democratic and European standards.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D).(DE) Mr President, this is not supposed to be a dialogue. However, Mr Gahler, you should at least be made aware that I made very clear, in a press release, no less, which was also on behalf of my group, that the secret services must be monitored. I also brought this up in my talks with Prime Minister Azarov. We have a clear position on this matter.

I would ask you, once again, to consider overnight whether it would not really make more sense for us to adopt a resolution together, as a broad community, rather than adopting one with a narrow majority as would be the case at present. Have another think about that. That would be sensible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – To conclude the debate, I have received six motions for resolutions(1)tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 21 October 2010, at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Ukraine has always played a special role in the EU Eastern Partnership. Its size, location and the vicissitudes of history make it an important bridge between East and West. It is hardly surprising that now as before, Europe is closely following political events within Ukraine. However, the current picture is not without ambiguity. We must recognise that the new government was elected in free and democratic elections and it helped pull Ukraine out of the economic and political chaos that dominated six months ago. On the other hand, we cannot ignore tendencies in the area of media freedom that cause concern. However, I agree with colleagues who stated that today’s resolution is ill-timed. I think we must postpone it, and following the visit by a European Parliament delegation scheduled for next week, following the coming council elections and the EU-Ukraine High-Level Meeting, we would be able to give a more balanced and objective parliamentary position. After all, Ukraine may provide a good example to other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States of how to go down the route of rapprochement with the EU while, at the same time, fostering good relations with Russia.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I appreciate the debate on Ukraine, where opinions are expressed clearly. My conclusion is that Ukrainian democracy needs assistance, but not in the form of this document. It would be more important to create conditions for development. One of those is easing tension in the region. And that is why, ceterum censeo, the French plan to sell Mistral warships to Russia must be stopped!

 
  
 

(The sitting was suspended at 17:55 and resumed at 18:00)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

 
  

(1) See Minutes


12. Question Time (Council)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is Question Time (B7-0552/2010).

The following questions are addressed to the Council.

 
  
  

Question 1 by Marian Harkin (H-0454/10)

Subject: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The Belgian Presidency has highlighted its firm intention to make progress in the fight against discrimination and to promote equality. In this context, what concrete measures, if any, is the Presidency taking to move forward the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by all 27 EU Member States?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) On 7 June 2010, the Council adopted the resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on a new European Disability Framework. This resolution invites Member States and the Commission, in accordance with their respective competences, to promote the ratification and application of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities concluded by the European Union on 26 November 2009. To date, the convention has been ratified by 13 Member States of the European Union.

Within the Council, we are therefore clearly expecting those Member States that have not yet done so to ratify this convention. In particular, Articles 3 and 4 of Council Decision 2010/48/EC stipulate that a code of conduct between Member States and the Commission must be adopted before the deposition of the instrument of formal confirmation on behalf of the European Union can take place, in order to lay down details of the point of contact function conferred upon the Commission. The work relating to the code of conduct is now in its final phase and should be finished by the end of the year.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – I would like to thank the Council for its response. I am particularly pleased to hear you say that it could be concluded before the end of this year. I think you said 13 – my figure is that 16 Member States have ratified.

Can the Council tell me what will be the impact of the EU itself ratifying this convention?

You mentioned a number of articles, and there are obviously a number of articles within the convention referring to the issue of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and the right to live independently. What do you think the impact of that will be?

In particular, my question is what will be the impact of the EU itself ratifying the convention on those countries that have not already ratified it?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) I would like to return to a point mentioned. Thirteen Member States have indeed ratified the convention. I will in fact list them so that you can castigate one or the other of them: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and France have ratified this convention.

What is the current situation? We are waiting for an agreement on the code of conduct between Member States and the Commission before laying down the instrument of formal confirmation. This will complete the ratification by the European Union of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

What are the next steps likely to be? Once the convention has been fully ratified, the Council may come back to the issue of a possible ‘toolbox’ for actively promoting the rights of disabled persons – an idea that was, incidentally, suggested by several Member States.

Work on this project would go hand in hand with the preparation by the Commission of a 2010-2020 European strategy for disabled persons and, as its name suggests, this strategy will put forward an action plan for the next 10 years with the aim of ensuring that disabled persons can fully enjoy their rights and freedoms.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). (PL) I would like to ask the Minister a question which I consider rather important. The situation leaves a great deal to be desired. Thirteen out of the 27 Member States have ratified the convention, but 14 Member States, or, in other words, the majority, have not. Why have only half the Member States of the European Union ratified a convention that is so important to disabled people?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). (LT) Thank you for your answer. Really, it would be very interesting to know why the Member States are taking so long to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Are they afraid of shouldering the responsibility for creating equal opportunities for people with disabilities? Minister, once again, if it is not too difficult, I would like to ask whether the drafting of the anti-discrimination directive has moved forward at least a little and how negotiations, discussions and consultations with the Member States on speeding up the anti-discrimination directive are progressing because it is very important for people with disabilities.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Concerted efforts are being made within the Member States, but even so, I must say that one can, in fact, be disappointed, sceptical even, about the pace at which a number of Member States are ratifying. Indeed, I repeat for the third time that it is true that only 13 Member States have ratified.

I do not think there is any particular reason for this. It is just that the Member States ratify in accordance with a process that can sometimes differ from one Member State to the other. I am not hiding behind this argument, but I must also tell you that, in this matter as in others, national sovereignty is still a factor in terms of the way in which Member States progress through the ratification process.

Indeed, one could argue that it could go faster, that all the Member States could cooperate much more from the outset. Nevertheless, the fact remains that national sovereignty comes into play on a number of issues.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question 2 by Gay Mitchell (H-0456/10)

Subject: Epilepsy treatment

In August 2010, I attended the European Conference on Epilepsy and Society in Porto, where the Global Campaign Against Epilepsy launched its report entitled ‘Epilepsy in the World Health Organisation European Region’. According to the report, epilepsy surgery programmes are non-existent in 58% of European countries, yet 6 million Europeans suffer from the illness, generating costs of €20 billion per year.

Is it not time for the EU Member States to adopt a common and consistent approach to the treatment of this illness?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Honourable Members, I should like to begin by thanking, even if he is not present, the honourable Member who tabled this question for his interest in this matter. It is true that neurodegenerative diseases, neurological development disorders and non-psychiatric brain diseases, of which epilepsy is one, are a major concern for many of our fellow citizens.

In accordance with Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union shall encourage cooperation between the Member States in the field of public health and disease prevention. A horizontal approach is therefore taken at EU level, with the focus being on combating stigmatisation of and discrimination against people affected by neurodegenerative diseases, neurological development disorders and non-psychiatric brain diseases.

Hence, the Council invited the Member States, in its June 2003 conclusions on combating stigma and discrimination in relation to mental health, to give specific attention to the impact of stigma and discrimination related problems due to mental illness in all age groups, and to ensure that these problems are recognised, in this context, giving special attention to the reduction of risks of social exclusion.

In its conclusions of 3 June 2005 on Community action in the field of mental health, the Council invited the Member States to implement the declaration and action plan adopted by the European Ministerial Conference of the World Health Organisation on mental health, held in Helsinki in January 2005.

Finally, the Council is particularly committed to combating another illness that is part of the group of neurodegenerative diseases, neurological development disorders and non-psychiatric brain diseases, namely Alzheimer’s disease. I should mention in this connection the conclusions of 16 December 2008 on public health strategies to combat neurodegenerative diseases associated with ageing and, in particular, Alzheimer’s disease, and the conclusions of 3 December 2009 on joint programming of research in Europe, covering, in particular, the launch of the pilot joint programming initiative dedicated to the fight against neurodegenerative diseases and Alzheimer’s disease in particular.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness, author. – Thank you, Council, for your response. I will pass on your appreciation to my colleague, Gay Mitchell.

Could you address the realities in the different Member States, which must be of concern to the Council? It is a fact that the treatment you get for epilepsy depends on where you live, and there is a huge problem with the lack of neurologists in some Member States.

Could you also address the implications of this for the cross-border healthcare package which is currently under discussion? If epilepsy is not treated, people suffer more deeply than when there is adequate treatment. It is regrettable that in different Member States, there are different levels of care for people with epilepsy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) I think that your observation concerning the quality of medical care in the various Member States is quite right. We are still a very long way away from harmonising the quality of healthcare management as a whole.

This is also down to the fact – and it should be pointed out – that the Union’s powers in healthcare matters are still fairly restricted compared to national powers. Moreover, you are right to mention the cross-border package, because it is something that can improve a number of quality aspects in terms of healthcare.

Need I remind you that, under the Belgian Presidency, the Council is still negotiating, and will continue to do so until the end, with the aim of gaining as much support as possible for a second-reading agreement on this cross-border healthcare package? This is a difficult task, and the timescale is tight, but we have the ambition to achieve it before the end of December.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question 3 by Seán Kelly (H-0457/10)

Subject: Coordination of the EU’s position in Cancún

Ahead of the 2010 United Nations Climate Change conference in Cancún, what concrete measures is the Council taking to coordinate the EU’s position at the negotiations, with the emphasis on the whole EU speaking with one voice?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Honourable Members, during its meeting of 14 October, the Council adopted conclusions on the European Union’s position in view of the Climate Change conference in Cancún, during which the global framework for climate protection is to be examined.

On the basis of this text, the October European Council, which will take place next week on 18 and 19 October, will establish the European Union’s position in view of the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. This EU position encompasses all the important aspects of this conference: the expected outcome, the conditions for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, the progress to be made in the various areas outlined in the Bali road map – mitigation, adaptation, forest technology aspects and financing.

For all these aspects, the Council has strived to present a position which is clear and easy to communicate. It is now incumbent on all European Union players to use this position to send a clear and unequivocal message to our international partners.

As the Council has just pointed out, the European Union hopes that the Cancún meeting will result in the adoption of a balanced series of decisions that will aid the introduction of an international policy to protect the climate after 2012. Moreover, there will be several bilateral meetings and contacts before Cancún, and they will provide an opportunity for us to explain our position to our partners.

During the conference itself, this position will be clarified if necessary during the regular coordination meetings held by the European Union. Of course, we are counting on all the institutions to help make our position clear by conveying, if possible, the same message in all our external representations.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – President-in-Office of the Council, I appreciate your response and I think it is very important that we do have a positive impact in Cancún, unlike what unfortunately happened in Copenhagen.

I would just ask a supplementary question: from the contacts I presume you have with other countries around the world, arising out of Copenhagen, how confident would you be of getting agreement on binding targets? At the end of the day, they have to be binding. Anything else will not deal with this unfortunate situation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) I should say and make it clear that, yes, it will be difficult to make progress in Cancún.

There are three reasons for this relative pessimism. Firstly, the economic crisis that is obviously affecting the European Union and many other countries outside the EU has led to goodwill and investment promises in this matter being levelled down; secondly, the refusal of emerging countries to accept binding commitments; and lastly, the United States’ failure to enact clear legislation on the subject.

The European Union has kept the same positions it had in Copenhagen, and I think we should exercise caution in the way in which we are currently committing ourselves, in order not to trivialise the positions and guidelines that we could adopt in Cancún in a month’s time.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D).(RO) Minister, I would like to ask you whether you are considering linking climate change and pollution reduction objectives with the millennium goals because there are, admittedly, developing countries which think that it is too costly for them to move to an emission-reducing process, even though this can entail job creation and, by extension, a sustainable economy. I am therefore asking you whether you intend to establish a link between the Millennium Development Goals and climate change.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI).(DE) Madam President, in Copenhagen, even cooperative countries like Indonesia and Brazil ultimately fought on the side of the G77 states, thus joining forces to form a bloc against the so-called rich states of the North. The climate debate became a debate about fairness and, even in the preparatory conference, the emerging economies made it clear that they had no intention of making concessions in Cancún.

My question to you, then, is as follows. How can the formation of blocs like this be avoided and how can this kind of changing of the subject be prevented? Should the EU not take on an important role as a mediator here?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) To answer these two questions, I cannot agree with you more. The Union should change strategy in relation to Copenhagen.

The Union should explain its position much more, the Union should talk much more with groups of countries that have significantly different opinions to ours and, yes, you are right, the link between climate change and the Millennium Development Goals is plain to see.

Clearly, we cannot expect, and especially not in the coming years, in the next few years, the same effort from those who have to reduce a heavy industrial base, such as we have within the Union and developing countries have. This is seemingly not enough, but this is also why the Union contributes so much to the ‘fast start’ principle, which is financing aimed at helping developing countries. This scheme is very clearly aimed at countries that cannot afford this reduction.

I think that this forms a whole. Dialogue and appropriate resources should enable developing countries to think more deeply about their own objectives in terms of reduction, in particular, of greenhouse gas emissions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question 4 by Georgios Papanikolaou (H-0460/10)

Subject: Programme of the Presidency - early school leaving

The chapter of the Belgian Presidency’s programme entitled ‘Education, Training, Youth, Sport, Culture and Audiovisual Policy’ states that the Presidency will pay particular attention to the problems associated with the failure to complete schooling, as well as to the role of education and training in social inclusion.

What initiatives exactly has the Presidency taken so far to achieve the above commitments and what timetable does it intend to follow through to the end of the year?

Does the Council have any data providing evidence that the current economic situation is exacerbating the problem of early school leaving in the Member States which are affected by it?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Madam President, honourable Members, the Presidency, in continuing the work begun by previous presidencies on greater European cooperation in the area of school education, is paying special attention to the issue of key skills and of early school leaving.

In so doing, it is following up on the conclusions of the March 2010 European Council, which highlighted the need to reduce the early school-leaving rate in Europe and which also set a collective target for bringing it under 10% by 2020.

The Presidency has launched several initiatives to this end, starting with the ministerial-level seminar that it organised at the very start of its term, in July. This seminar, together with the meeting of Directors-General of compulsory education, which incidentally took place the day before, focused on the difficulties pupils experience in acquiring basic skills, that is to say, their mother tongue, sciences and mathematics, as well as on the experience of Member States and the policy guidelines to be developed as regards the prevention of early school leaving.

Following on from these meetings, the Presidency has drawn up conclusions on the importance of raising the level of key skills in the context of European cooperation in the area of school education. Since the Council is currently discussing these conclusions, the Presidency is planning to put them on the November Council agenda.

More generally, the Council is waiting for a proposal for a recommendation that the Commission is due to submit shortly on the issue of early school leaving at European level. At the same time, efforts will continue or will be stepped up at national level in order to gradually reduce the early school-leaving rate by 2020, in accordance with the target set by the European Council.

In closing, I would add that in the context of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, the Belgian Presidency also organised, on 28 September, the conference entitled ‘Breaking the cycle of disadvantage – Social inclusion in and through education’. The outcome of this conference will serve as material for a debate that will take place during the Education Council on 19 November.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE).(EL) Thank you, Minister, for your reply. Following on from what you said, I should like to add the following questions: where do all these children who leave school go? Do they end up on the margins, in social exclusion or do they enter a technical profession which represents a good move that will afford them a decent standard of living?

Does the Council have any data or has it at least asked or is it planning to ask the Commission to map the social corridors, so that we can see what happens next in these children’s lives and how we can ensure that our policies have better results?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Honourable Members, the initiative is excellent and, moreover, contacts between ministers and those working in education show us how much the situations vary from one EU country to another, because some countries have programmes that can be very specific and very selective, to ensure that those who leave school early are not marginalised. This map-making process is therefore particularly important. It will take time, because assessing the situation in 27 Member States is not easy to do.

I think that the work in relation to early school leaving has got off to a good start under the Belgian Presidency and that subsequent presidencies, the Hungarian Presidency in particular, will certainly be able to initiate a draft recommendation, not only to reduce the early school-leaving rate, but also to draw conclusions from this mapping of the 27 Member States about what becomes of those pupils who leave school early, in particular, when they are marginalised and when they are not picked up by a more vocational education system, as you point out.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). (LT) Thank you, Minister, for the efforts you have made, as the country holding the Presidency, to combat poverty. Do you not agree that poverty is also one of the reasons why not all young people finish secondary school and are forced to leave school? Today, our European Parliament is approving a very important decision on strengthening minimum income throughout the European Union. In your opinion, as the country holding the Presidency, could this also be one of the measures to encourage young people to acquire a secondary education and not leave school?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D).(RO) Unfortunately, the school dropout rate in Europe is 19%, while it is 40% in countries like Portugal. The economic crisis and the decrease in budget and population resources have resulted in some countries in the closure of many schools, especially in rural areas. When we talk about education, we are talking about the future of Europe. I would therefore like to ask you, Minister, in the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, to set compulsory targets, at Council, and perhaps even at European Council level, for reducing the school dropout rate.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) I would like to say that I agree with the two honourable Members in that, yes, early school leaving is linked to poverty and social exclusion. It is clear to me that a number of our children, depending on their family status, their parents’ financial status, are disadvantaged in their schooling and that the economic crisis has obviously made this phenomenon much worse.

Having said that, both the Council and the Commission have taken this on board since, together, we have adopted, as you know, this 2020 strategy, which combines at the same time economic development, research for development, the quality of our teaching and also the fight against poverty. All these elements form a whole that enables us, in my view at least, to come up with a coherent response.

I wish to return briefly to key skills, because this is an important issue. The conclusions that the Belgian Presidency will submit for adoption at the November Council will target a number of objectives. I will mention them quickly: the implementation of national strategies for improving pupils’ performance in reading, mathematics and science.

Another objective is to analyse the effectiveness of current national strategies in order to have a source of information that can be used, as we were saying previously, in the decision-making process. However, the aim is also to launch pilot projects carried out between Member States on a voluntary basis and with the aim of improving young Europeans’ basic skills, and – why not? – to ensure the more effective use of the instruments that we have available to us and which are relevant, such as those that are part of the open method of coordination, the programme for education and lifelong learning and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

Those are a number of objectives that we will pursue under the Belgian Presidency and that will most certainly be taken up by subsequent presidencies, in particular, by the Hungarian Presidency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question 5 by Jim Higgins (H-0465/10)

Subject: EU goal of total elimination of landmines

What steps does the Council intend to take to counter the devastating consequences of landmines? A number of countries continue to use APLs and some are also believed to continue to produce landmines – approximately 65 countries remain affected to some degree by mines and UXO. Global estimates of new landmine casualties each year vary between 15 000 and 20 000 people, many of whom are civilians, including children.

The EU has been very vocal about its wish to eliminate landmines and their use and stockpiling, but as yet, an ambitious plan of action with deadlines has not been forthcoming, yet alone been implemented.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) The European Union has been working for years towards the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines, thus helping to solve the enormous humanitarian and development problems they cause. Back in May 1995, the European Union adopted, by means of Council Decision 95/170/CFSP, its very first joint action to help combat the use and proliferation of anti-personnel landmines throughout the world.

The European Union was therefore the first to act within the international community, in November 1997, following the adoption of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. On 18 September, the Council adopted a new joint action designed to continue the Union’s political efforts with regard to the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines and, more specifically, to establish a joint moratorium on the export and production of anti-personnel mines and to facilitate a multi-dimensional contribution, within the Union, to mine clearance efforts and other related activities.

Since then, the European Union has continually promoted these commitments, which have been based, since 2003, on the European security strategy. In June 2008, a new joint action was adopted to support the universal adoption of the Ottawa Convention. This joint action is also aimed at specifically helping the States Parties to the Convention to implement the convention’s provisions, particularly those concerning mine clearance, victim assistance and the destruction of stockpiles.

Furthermore, although the number of States Parties to the Convention has considerably increased, and the number of victims of anti-personnel landmines is going down, there is still a need to assist victims and to improve their lives in practice.

The European Union was involved in drawing up the 2010-2014 action plan – which it fully supports – adopted in Cartagena, Colombia, during the convention’s second review conference from 29 November to 4 December 2009.

A new Council decision is currently being drafted in order to specifically support the action plan and its victim assistance component. In addition to the Council’s more political action, the assistance programmes managed by the Commission in the context of development aid and of the Neighbourhood Policy – together with the Member States’ national programmes – have increased the European Union’s contribution to mine clearance and victim assistance to EUR 1.8 billion, which is half of the total global contribution.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – I would like to thank the President for his very comprehensive reply. He mentioned the Ottawa Convention or Mine Ban Treaty, we have had the international Convention on Cluster Munitions signed in Dublin in 2008, and now we have an action plan, but the reality is that the European Union committed EUR 1.8 billion to landmine awareness projects for the period up to 2007, but only 1.5 billion of this has actually been spent. The reality is that landmines are still being used. It is a barbaric practice; 2 000 people die or are maimed every single month and we really need to get to grips with this issue comprehensively and on an international basis.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) You are right, we have spent 1.5 billion, and there are still 2 000 victims every month. The European Union cannot single-handedly do everything that needs to be done in this matter – it is already doing half the work.

I think I have clearly explained how sensitive we are to the human aspect of this problem. Unfortunately, we cannot go much further in terms of decision making. Only substantial and concrete progress with respect to disarmament is probably still possible, and we are particularly involved in the aspect concerning the prohibition of anti-personnel mines.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Rübig (PPE).(DE) Madam President, Mr Chastel, landmines will probably continue to be a major problem even far into the future. Do you believe that it is possible to initiate dedicated research programmes into the detection of landmines? Of course, this is not a European problem, it is a global problem. Can you envisage also finding suitable institutions that grapple with research programmes in this field?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Firstly, thanks to my colleague, Mr Higgins, for raising this very important question and thanks also to the Council for their comprehensive response.

I think, in fairness, the European Union has been pro-active in dealing with this unfortunate situation. I would like to ask the Council: is it happy with the way the United Nations is dealing with this issue and can it make a better contribution, similar to what we are doing?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) The two questions are very much linked, and I was going to answer the first one by referring to the second one. It is true that any search programme to find anti-personnel mines around the world would be welcome.

The introduction of such a programme requires close cooperation with the United Nations and, crucially, it must be possible to reach agreement, within the UN institutions, with all those who make up these institutions. This work is long and exacting, because there is a need to convince others who do not necessarily agree on the resources that will have to be invested in this kind of search programme.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question 6 by Vilija Blinkeviciute (H-0468/10)

Subject: Creation of an Observatory on Violence Against Women

The Council conclusions on the eradication of violence against women, adopted on 8 March 2010, call for the establishment of a European observatory on violence against women, building on existing institutional structures, in order to collect high quality statistical data for use as a basis for the policies to be introduced. There is no place in a civilised society for violence against women, and it must be eradicated. There is a need to collect better quality statistics, improve the coordination of measures, exchange best practices and organise effective information campaigns on violence against women.

When does the Council intend to reach a decision on the establishment of this future observatory? What will be its objectives and missions and when will it become operational?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Honourable Members, combating violence against women is a goal shared by both the European Parliament and the Council. As you know, our two institutions have been working on this topic for several years and in many different contexts.

Let me remind you of the resolution that you adopted last year, when we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the United Nations resolution establishing 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. In that resolution, you invited the Commission to submit a targeted and more coherent EU policy plan, and urged Member States to introduce a coherent system for collecting statistics.

As the honourable Member has reminded us, in March, the Council asked the Commission to draw up a European strategy for preventing and combating violence against women. One of the priorities identified by the Council in this matter is to prepare the creation of a European observatory on violence against women, based on existing structures.

The Commission is currently drafting a new strategy on violence against women, which will also touch on the creation of this observatory. However, as you can imagine, for the time being, we still do not know what will be in the strategy. We expect to receive it some time next year. It is therefore highly likely that a separate proposal will be required thereafter in order to create this observatory.

Obviously, as you know, the Council can only intervene as legislator on the basis of a Commission proposal. Such a proposal will be duly examined by the Council, acting as colegislator with the European Parliament.

Evidently, it is a little premature at this stage to make assumptions about what the objectives of a future observatory on violence against women will be, and especially about the date when it will come into force.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). (LT) Minister, thank you for your answer. There is still hope then, that at some point, there will be a centre which will collect reliable data about the violence against women that continues to exist. However, I would like to know whether, in your opinion, the Member States hold sufficient data for the fight against violence towards women to really become a priority. To my understanding, we do not yet have reliable data and this is one of the reasons why rather a lot of different types of violence still exist in the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) What you are saying is not wrong. It is difficult today to accept that, in order to create this observatory and identify the issues involved, we need only rely on what the various Member States have already individually come up with in terms of census, type of violence and prevalence of the various types of violence. This is a start.

What we are expecting from the Commission is a plan, a direction, a methodology so that we can harmonise throughout the EU, in the 27 Member States, a reliable way of listing all the types of violence and their prevalence and so that we can draw up, together if possible, a strategy that will bear fruit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Rübig (PPE).(DE) Mr Chastel, we do have agencies that already deal with these issues. I would remind you of the Agency for Fundamental Rights in Vienna. Would it not be possible to ask that agency to focus on this issue and to concentrate its work on it so that we do not have to create a new body but could instead pass this activity on to the existing agency in Vienna? We have very qualified staff there. It would be good if that could be arranged.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) (off-microphone) easily answer that question. I am very much in favour of using an existing agency rather than creating a new one. I think there are too many agencies, and so there is no need to create new ones. In any case, I hope that existing structures, such as the Vienna agency, will be involved in the drafting of the tactical plan that the Commission is due to present to us.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question 7 by José Manuel Fernandes (H-0470/10)

Subject: Bio-waste

On 6 July 2010, Parliament adopted, by a large majority, resolution P7_TA(2010)0264, on the Commission’s Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union, urging the Commission to draw up a proposal for a specific directive on bio-waste by the end of 2010.

During the subsequent exchange of views between the Committee on the Environment and the Belgian minister, Joke Schauvliege, held on 14 July 2010, the latter, speaking on behalf of the Belgian Presidency, welcomed the resolution adopted by Parliament and promised further action on the matter.

Now that we are halfway through the Belgian Presidency, can the Council state what action it intends to take before the end of the Presidency with a view to implementing the measure called for by Parliament?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Madam President, honourable Members, like the European Parliament, on 25 June 2009 the Council adopted conclusions on the Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union.

In its conclusions, the Council encourages the Commission to continue its impact assessment with a view to preparing, if appropriate, an EU legislative proposal on biodegradable waste by 2010. You will tell me that we are in 2010 now. In particular, the Council invited the Commission to consider preventive measures, measures for introducing separate collection of biodegradable waste, a quality assurance system based on the principle of integrated chain management and traceability throughout the process, and the establishment of requirements on labelling and on quality criteria for compost and digestate.

Furthermore, the Council of 11 June 2010 took note of the Commission communication on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union. In that communication, the Commission indicated its intention to continue working towards the introduction of technical rules to assist bio-waste management and, accordingly, to amend Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge.

The Council is obviously going to examine a new proposal along these lines, and the Belgian Presidency organised a conference on bio-waste on 21 September to discuss, among other things, the substance of the Commission communication. The outcome of this conference was communicated to the Council on 14 October, so it is very recent.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE).(PT) Madam President, Mr Chastel, on 6 July this year, the European Parliament adopted, by a large majority, a specific directive on bio-waste. For the sake of clarity, for the sake of simplicity and for the sake of legal certainty, we believe that instead of this legislation, which is spread across several legal texts, instead of this situation, a specific directive would be better.

In this way, we will also be able to be in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, with intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth. In this way, we will also achieve more green jobs. In this way, we will also successfully combat climate change. Using high quality compost will enable us to better help our soils and will also aid biodiversity. I question, therefore, whether the Council agrees: whether the Council, too, is advocating a specific directive, and what it will do to achieve this end.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I have been relatively gentle with you all tonight because we have had a reasonable amount of time, but it is meant to be 30 seconds.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) I will try to be as brief as possible, Madam President, so as not to be called to order at the end of my speech. However, this is an interesting question. As you know, it is up to the Commission to propose or not such a specific directive. The Council is aware that in its communication on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union, the Commission did not note any shortcomings in the current legislation which would require specific legislation, but it did announce a proposed amendment to the Sewage Sludge Directive.

This is not going to satisfy you, but please also be aware that, when the Council conclusions were being drafted in 2009, the Member States appeared to be divided on whether or not there was a need for a specific directive on bio-waste. Therefore, I will not answer with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, since the Member States are divided. The Council will obviously examine with interest the Commission’s proposals concerning this Sewage Sludge Directive and particularly its provisions on bio-waste, which will, of course, be covered by this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Thank you, Minister. My comments were not directed at you.

 
  
  

Question 8 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0471/10)

Subject: The possibility of a double-dip recession: sustainability of the 3% target

Can the Council respond to comments by the respected Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz that the European economy risks sliding back into recession due to spending cuts imposed by EU governments in an attempt to reach the 3% deficit limit laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact?

Is this 3% target a realistic one, considering that some Member State finances are under severe strain at present?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Madam President, honourable Members, the main objective of the Stability and Growth Pact is to maintain price stability within the European Union. Under the terms of the treaty, Member States should conduct a national policy that is consistent with the Stability and Growth Pact and the broad economic policy guidelines.

The Council of 7 September agreed on the introduction of the European Semester from 2011. The main objective of this exercise is to align the timetable for presenting the stability and growth programmes and the national reform programmes, with a view to ensuring consistent structural surveillance at every level of budgetary discipline, macro-economic stability and growth, whilst preserving formally separated individual procedures.

This process will allow for better coordination of economic policies within the European Union and will help to strengthen budgetary discipline, macro-economic stability and growth. This same concern has led the European Union, in accordance with the powers laid down in the treaty, to envisage measures aimed at promoting the recovery while also ensuring this budgetary discipline. Europe 2020, the new EU strategy for employment and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, adopted by the European Council on 17 June, meets this challenge. Its aim is to change the focus of policies from crisis management to the introduction of medium- and long-term reforms, which specifically promote growth and employment, and which also guarantee the viability of public finances.

As you know, the major objectives identified in the Europe 2020 strategy include an increase in the number of jobs, better conditions for research and development, an improvement in education levels – we touched on this in a previous question – and the promotion of social inclusion, including poverty reduction. To my mind, therefore, there is no mismatch between a stability pact and measures to restore growth and employment.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Thank you for your response. I had expected more detail but I thank you for it. The party of which I am a member, Fine Gael, supports the 3% target, as do all the major parties in Ireland. I believe having the target and a date to achieve it is vital, not just for our own self-interest, but also for the sake of the European Union.

I would draw Members’ attention to an excellent speech delivered this morning by a former Taoiseach of Ireland, John Bruton, a friend of this House, who speaks in very straight terms about the challenges, but also the fact that we are able to do what is set out for us in these tough targets and that Ireland as a country has many qualities which will allow us to achieve the targets without suffering. There will be pain, but we will be able to manage that pain. I would like your comments on that please and also to draw your attention to that speech.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) You mention the Irish problem. I understand, and we are obviously all sensitive to the Irish problem. My answer to your first question is obviously a very broad one covering 27 Member States, because we must have consistent policies, we must have monetary and budgetary stability policies, and recovery policies. Furthermore, it is fair to say that some will, of course, have more difficulties than others, depending on their level of debt, depending on their annual debt in the last two or three years and since the beginning of the recession.

So, yes, it is true that Ireland is going through a difficult time. You can rest assured that Europe understands that it is going through this difficult time, but I think that several countries are in this situation, several countries will experience the same thing in the future, and austerity and solidarity are not mutually exclusive.

I therefore think that the economic governance measures that the Commission has put on the table this week will invariably include a concern not to leave any country by the wayside – you know what Europe was capable of in terms of solidarity in the case of Greece. Let us not compare the situation of two countries, but rest assured that under no circumstances will Europe leave any of the 27 Member States by the wayside.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Brian Crowley (ALDE). – I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his answer. Just two points very briefly. First of all, when discussions are held with regard to the 3% deficit issue, there appears to be different accounting standards used in different Member States according to certain criteria.

Secondly, on the enforcement, what level of flexibility is there because of the current crisis afflicting all Member States to allow for leverage or margins for error within that 3% figure?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE).(EL) Minister, of course, the Council conclusions and the 2020 strategy contain what endeavour to be optimistic messages. However, even in the budget which we passed today, when it comes to achieving the 2020 targets, I believe that – for example, in research and innovation – we have failed to respond and we will not be able to attain the targets we want with these figures.

We also see, however, that the Council is silent on the question of the massive north/south divide in the European Union. I am reminded of a recent statement by a senior officer of the European Union, the Eurogroup Chair, to the effect that large countries in the Union, such as France and Germany, knew about Greece’s problem – I mention this because you referred to Greece – and yet did nothing before now, because they gained massively from this situation.

Can we expect an initiative to address the north/south divide in the Union?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Two questions, two answers. Regarding the first question: of course, there have been, and still are, a number of disparities in the accounting standards. These standards are, of course, being harmonised, because if, in the future, we want to be fair to all 27 Member States’ economies, we need to have the same calculation methods. Therefore, this harmonisation is ongoing and under way.

As for flexibility regarding the 3% limit, as you know, we really are being flexible; we have been flexible since 2009, we have been flexible in 2010, and we will continue to be flexible in 2011 and 2012 so that our various Member States can return to healthy budgets, because if we wanted to apply this 3% limit rigidly, with absolutely no margin for error, then this year for instance, practically every one of us would have failed to comply with this budgetary restraint plan, and that is not the case.

I think that the European institutions realised that returning to stable and balanced budgets by 2013 would take time, particularly in view of the recession and the Member States’ situation.

Now to the North-South imbalance. Whether the imbalance is between the North and the South or between Member States which have capitalised to some degree on aid provided by the European Union in order to boost their economy, productive fabric and labour market, and other Member States which have done so to a lesser extent, I think that the European Union is actually there to safeguard this coherence, this cohesion. In particular, the funds available in the European budget for cohesion – the first heading in the Union’s budget – should indeed be used to reduce these imbalances. You mention the North-South imbalance, but I am not sure that that is the only imbalance that exists within the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question 9 by Silvia-Adriana Ticau (H-0473/10)

Subject: Council measures in favour of free movement of labour between Member States

The EU’s new plan for the economy for the next ten years refers to workforce mobility as an essential condition for reducing unemployment. The unemployment rate has risen disturbingly with the crisis, from 6.8% in May 2008 to 10% in July 2010. Meanwhile, according to a Commission survey published on 13 July 2010, 48% of Europeans would be willing to seek employment outside their country or region, rather than remain jobless. In addition, 17% said they expected to work abroad at some time in the future. It should also be remembered that Member States are obliged to give preference to nationals of other Member States over third-country workers.

In the light of the above, can the Council state what concrete measures it proposes with a view to the rapid elimination of the barriers now existing to the free movement of workers from those Member States which joined the Union after 1 May 2004?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council.(FR) Madam President, honourable Members, the Council would obviously like to reiterate that the free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the treaty and secondary legislation deriving from it, and that this includes the right for citizens of the European Union to live and work in another Member State.

With regard to the temporary restrictions set out in the accession treaties, it is up to each Member State still applying restrictions to assess the repercussions for its labour market and to decide whether to maintain the remaining restrictions or to relax them before the end of the transition period: April 2011 for the countries that joined in 2004 and December 2013 for the countries that joined in 2007. Moreover, the Council has invited those Member States that are still applying restrictions in accordance with the transitional provisions laid down in the accession treaties to lift them during the third phase of the transition period if it cannot be established that their labour market would suffer or is liable to suffer serious disruption.

Since May 2009, when Denmark granted free access to its labour market, the transitional provisions applied by Member States have stayed the same, and whereas a majority of Member States do grant free access to workers from those Member States that joined after 1 May 2004, 10 Member States are still applying restrictions.

The Council has stressed that the economic and financial crisis should not be used as a reason to justify, on its own or more generally, the continued use of the provisions in question, and has called on Member States to further develop suitable strategies and tools which would enable them to identify and analyse the barriers to the geographical and professional mobility of workers, and to help eliminate existing barriers, in accordance with the treaty.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D).(RO) Minister, thank you for your reply. I would even request that the European Council continues to ask Member States to lift barriers and temporary provisions restricting the free movement of workers from new Member States, especially Romania and Bulgaria. I also wish to stress that offering equal opportunities on the European labour market to all workers from all Member States means protecting workers in the destination countries as well. This is why, Minister, I call on you to ask Member States to lift existing barriers.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE).(EL) Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor again. Minister, on the one hand, we have mobility problems and, on the other, we have Europe’s initiatives to boost job mobility which, in these very difficult times, will certainly be an option for many European citizens, especially young people.

We adopted the European Job Mobility Action Plan in 2007 and it is due to expire in 2010. Can we expect an evaluation of this plan and a new Council proposal? We also have the Leonardo da Vinci programme on job mobility. Can we expect further support for this programme or similar new initiatives?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Just briefly, what steps is the Council taking with respect to the movement of workers, or actually refugees, coming into the European Union, getting papers and then moving to other countries within the European Union, and also with respect to the safeguards under the 1951 Convention which mean that they have to claim asylum in their first safe country?

I am just wondering what steps the Council has taken with respect to that.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. (FR) Firstly, I should like to point out that the free movement of labour is a genuine priority for the Council. I think that everything is being done to inform Member States that retain a number of restrictions to thoroughly analyse this transitional phase, during which they retain a number of restrictions, and to see how they can lift those restrictions.

Moreover, to answer one of the questions, I should add that, while it is true that the free movement of workers is a priority for the Council, it is a priority in particular for the Presidency. You will find in the 18-month programme of work of the trio of Presidencies of the Council – Spain, Belgium and Hungary – that these three countries will work, and are currently working, on the review of the single market that is under way, by encouraging the implementation of the four freedoms, given that exploiting the full potential of the single market is essential for a return to growth.

Our programme specifically mentions the possibility of reviewing the transition periods, which limit the free movement of workers from the new Member States. Should we consider that these transitional restrictions are incompatible with the free movement of workers? It is not for me to judge, as the transitional restrictions are defined in the accession treaties and such restrictions have been used for all the accessions.

It is true that, beyond the incentives we can offer them, it is the responsibility of each Member State applying these restrictions to analyse the impact on its own labour market and to decide whether to retain or lift these restrictions before the end of these transitional periods, which, as you will recall, are April 2011 for the 2004 accessions, and December 2013 for the 2007 accessions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

 

13. Composition of committees: see Minutes
Video of the speeches
 

(The sitting was suspended at 19:05 and resumed at 21:00)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

 

14. Aid for Pakistan and possible implication for the European industrial sector (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on aid for Pakistan and possible implication for the European industrial sector.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of Parliament, Europe is very concerned at the devastating impact of the floods in Pakistan, which destroyed livelihoods and communities throughout the country.

The scale of the disaster is unprecedented in Pakistan’s history. The cost in humanitarian needs, and to its already fragile economy, is immense. The severity of this crisis demands an immediate and substantial response, also taking into account the strategic importance of Pakistan’s development, security and stability in the region.

The European Council on 16 September called for a comprehensive package of short-, medium- and longer-term measures that will help underpin Pakistan’s recovery and future development. The initial EU response to the floods was swift and generous. Our common contribution to the humanitarian aid efforts presently stands at more than EUR 320 million from Member States and the European Commission in cash and in kind. This alone represents more than 60% of the global initial UN appeal.

The European Council recognised that, in addition to the immediate and significant humanitarian aid and development assistance, ambitious trade measures are essential for economic recovery and growth. Trade is therefore part of the long-term response to the ongoing crisis. To this end, the Commission adopted on 7 October a proposal for unilateral suspension of import duties on a number of important export items from Pakistan. This proposal is now submitted to Member States and the European Parliament.

The Commission is proposing to liberalise 75 tariff lines on imports from Pakistan, accounting for 27% of Pakistan’s current imports to the EU and almost EUR 900 million. This would yield an increase in EU imports from Pakistan of about EUR 100 million.

The objective of this measure is to support Pakistan’s reconstruction efforts in the medium term. Consequently, the special concessions will be limited in time – the Commission is proposing three years. Given the nature of Pakistan’s industrial base and export basket, where textiles account for more than 60%, a large number of products for which we propose liberalisation are textile products. Other industrial products such as ethanol are also included.

If Parliament and the Council can act quickly on this, we hope to have the measure in place on 1 January 2011. In parallel, we are working with other members of the World Trade Organisation to obtain the necessary permission – a WTO waiver – which has to be granted before the measure takes effect.

The trade concessions should be economically meaningful for Pakistan but, at the same time, take account of industrial sensitivities in the European Union. Therefore, in drawing up this proposal, we have tried to take into account industrial sensitivities in the EU, especially as regards textiles. Our analysis has shown that the impact on EU production is likely to be modest.

The potential increase in EU imports from Pakistan (EUR 100 million) corresponds to less than 0.5% of EU production value of the liberalised items, which, in fact, account for EUR 24 billion. The European Parliament’s support in helping this proposal come to fruition is essential to the presentation of a complete picture of EU solidarity in times of unprecedented needs.

Trade can be an important part of a long-term economic solution for Pakistan. We have a tight calendar to work to. You can count on me and my staff to explain our approach and reduce any lingering concerns you may have.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nuno Melo, on behalf of the PPE Group.(PT) Madam President, I must say that I fully understand what they are going through in Pakistan, but I would also say that this decision is tragic for Europe and, particularly, for some countries that are already experiencing serious difficulties, such as Portugal, Spain and Greece.

For example, the textiles and clothing industry represents 11% of Portugal’s total exports, 22% of the manufacturing industry; 80% of production for some products even takes place in Portugal. Perhaps, then, this 80% spread across the 27 Member States means little to the European Commission, but it means an enormous amount to Portugal.

Europe cannot demand extremely damaging – but understandable – measures to control public audits and to fight the deficit, and, at the same time, take decisions that hurt the productive heartlands and capacities for wealth and job creation of those very same countries.

I must say too that this decision is also an incomprehensible attack on the normal market rules. I do not advocate any form of market protectionism, but I demand the strict defence of its proper rules: the rules of a market that is healthy and fair.

Please understand that this decision will make it possible for products manufactured in Pakistan to come on to the European market, and with production costs below those possible for our companies simply because the same conditions are not required of them during production; humble apologies, but I call that unfair competition. It is unfair competition because Pakistani companies do not have social costs relating to their workers, they do not have environmental costs, they are not particularly concerned with combating the child labour that goes on there, and they do not have equivalent restrictions on the use of primary materials for reasons of public health.

I would even ask: how is such a radical decision possible without a report being tabled first that exactly details its negative impact on the various Member States?

Nevertheless, I could venture some consequences right now, and those consequences are the closure and collapse of companies in the European Union, particularly in Portugal, and increased numbers of unemployed. It is good for you to fully understand this, because there will come a time when someone has to be responsible for it.

If, in the end, we can assume – as some surely will – that this proposal is inevitable, please at least give a bit of forethought to some things that are not yet under consideration. For example, the establishment of a tariff rate quota, which is provided for in the case of ethanol, but not in that of textiles. The waiver should be for a maximum of one year because aid is temporary. Believe me; no European company will survive three years in direct competition with Pakistani companies.

Madam President, I am finishing now: lastly, a provision is needed on primary materials, so that Pakistan does not block European companies’ access to such materials to benefit from this production itself.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Martin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I understand what Mr Melo is saying but I cannot agree with it. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to suspend import duties on key Pakistan imports into the European Union.

Firstly, the common ground between us is that Pakistan, which has not had an easy history since its birth as a nation, is going through its worst possible period. It is in the frontline of the war against terrorism, costing it so far, it is reckoned, USD 40 billion. We are all very well aware of the floods, the combined impact of which is worse than the Asian tsunami of 2004 and the Haitian floods of earlier this year. That is a significant blow to any country.

What I welcome about the Commission proposal is that we give Pakistan the opportunity to trade its way out of some of its difficulties. It is an intelligent proposal. Firstly, as the Commissioner has said, the 75 tariff lines that would help boost Pakistan’s trade by an estimated EUR 100 million a year do little harm to EU investment. This will not significantly damage any European Union industry and, equally importantly – in fact, quite possibly even more importantly – it will not harm the developing countries which are on a par with Pakistan, because none of the tariff lines affect products on the DDA preference erosion list. That is very positive.

The second thing that is sensible about the Commission proposal is that it is time-limited and does not unilaterally attempt to alter the GSP resolution. I welcome that because it still gives an incentive to Pakistan to come into line with social and human rights standards between now and 2014 in order to qualify for GSP+ in 2014. So it gives the emergency aid we need now but, at the same time, does not give carte blanche to the Pakistan Government. It says ‘you have a duty yourself to put your country in order if you want to continue to qualify for these benefits’.

This is a real test of Europe’s generosity and I hope that we, in this Parliament, will be prepared to meet it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Niccolò Rinaldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group.(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our debate today marks a fork in the road between two crucial principles. On the one hand, there is the duty of solidarity towards a country that has been hit by natural disasters, bringing its society, which already has structural problems, to its knees. On the other hand, there is the necessity for a balanced trade policy. With the European Commission’s proposal to suspend duties for Pakistan, the European Union is rightly avoiding a policy of mere humanitarian aid, allowing Pakistan to strengthen its economy and therefore its society.

The fact that all 74 of the tariff lines involved relate to the textile and clothing sector is almost inevitable for a country that can export only products within this sector. We liberal democrats definitely prefer recourse to this kind of measure, rather than agreeing on humanitarian aid which is incapable of giving the country a genuine boost. However, as Mr Melo reiterated a short while ago, we must not be naive and we ask the Commission – above all – not to make the mistake of naivety.

The Commissioner is well aware of the critical situation in which some textile districts, such as Prato, find themselves. Prato is a special case: The situation there has gone out of the control of the national authorities and there is widespread illegality, which is also exacerbated by the crisis in the European textiles sector.

Since we believe that it cannot be just the European textiles sector that pays for our rightful humanitarian solidarity with Pakistan, we ask for three things to be done: 1) To set up regulatory instruments to avoid all possible triangulation with other countries that could profit from the duties from which Pakistan is benefiting; 2) Not to aggravate the crisis in the European textile sector, by implementing measures that could instead support it, such as a reduction in the cost of electricity; and 3) To avoid creating a precedent for other countries that suffer such natural disasters. By working in this way, I think the aid for Pakistan is shared and sustainable, including in the long term, and that is what that country needs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jacek Włosowicz, on behalf of the ECR Group. (PL) We have met this evening to discuss the Commission’s proposal to help Pakistan in the aftermath of the flooding. We should bear in mind that almost 14 million people suffered from the flooding in Pakistan, which was of truly biblical dimensions. It caused unimaginable destruction in Pakistan itself, and the results will soon be felt all over the world. Why? Cotton, which is also referred to as white gold, and of which Pakistan is one of the main producers, grew poorly this year, and on top of that, has been largely destroyed in the country. Clothes manufacturers and leading global brands are already forecasting an increase in the price of cotton products. Cotton is a raw material we come across all the time, and which is used to manufacture clothes, banknotes, coffee filters, tents and fishing nets, as well as even being found in book bindings and many other everyday products. It is used for a huge number of purposes. We are in a time of crisis, and increases in the price of daily necessities are forecast. This makes the scale of the problem huge.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miguel Portas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(PT) On the one hand, we have large-scale European importers, which will gain from Pakistani products coming into Europe. On the other hand, we have another small number of large Pakistani textile factories, which are actually outside the areas affected by the disaster, and which will also gain enormously from the Commission’s proposal.

That is the reality. The winners are not the ill, not the displaced, not the children, not the elderly whose homes were destroyed: the winners are wealthy businesspeople. What is happening here is that the disaster is being put to use: extreme climate phenomena are being made to serve the interests of big business.

That is what is absolutely intolerable about the proposal that the Commission is making. They would do well to backtrack.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, in the past, I have often been sharply critical of British Prime Minister Cameron. However, Prime Minister Cameron was absolutely correct to ask for trade preferences to be granted to Pakistan. Now I use the word ‘ask’ with some care. Asking is exactly what the British Prime Minister has had to do.

Since joining the EU, the United Kingdom, the world’s fifth largest economy, does not have the autonomy to determine trade policy even with a Commonwealth country. Nevertheless, it is in the UK’s national interest that Pakistan should now get trade preferences. I rarely agree with David Martin but I do on this. Pakistan is not only a developing country with 170 million inhabitants and strategic borders with Afghanistan; it is also a country which has some thirty nuclear warheads.

The security implications of a collapse of the Pakistan State would be devastating to the security of the entire developed world. Trade preferences for Pakistan at this time may perhaps help stop that happening.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary (PPE).(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should all recall, once again, how dramatic the situation was in Pakistan a couple of weeks ago and indeed still is in many places. Whole regions have been flooded, regions that are bigger than many of our Member States. Tens, in fact hundreds, of thousands of people are in major need. The infrastructure has been destroyed: roads, hospitals, universities, nurseries, schools, businesses. Many people’s livelihoods have been destroyed. I do not think we can even imagine what that is like. We all agree that we have to help. The problem, though, as we would say in German, is ‘wash me, but do not get me wet’. What do I mean by that? Well, direct financial aid costs money, which, of course, has to be taken from elsewhere in our budget. Indirect aid – trade facilitation – is what the Commission is now proposing, and there, too, there are, of course, concerns from those who may be affected. That is why we are quite rightly having this debate on this topic today.

The Commission has not proposed using the Generalised System of Preferences. That is a good thing, I feel. Fundamentally, I think the current solution of doing this via the WTO, taking this route and really trying to help people help themselves, is a prudent one. There are many unanswered questions, however, such as what will the impact on industries in the European Union really be? When I look at the Commission’s document, the proposal for a regulation, I see that it states in the explanatory memorandum right at the beginning that the working premise is that net imports into the EU would rise by EUR 100 million per year. Is that really major, durable aid to Pakistan? Will it really help to move the major sums that we are actually talking about here? On the other hand, the proposal will entail tariff revenue losses of EUR 80 million from our budget. Does this ratio add up, too? Does it make sense to do without EUR 80 million in customs revenue in order to receive EUR 100 million in increased imports? Are these figures correct? I would like some really head-on information from the Commission on this whole issue.

I am firmly convinced that we have to help Pakistan. I am also prepared to explain to the citizens of the European Union, and to those of my electoral district, that we have to do something and that aid for others always has to be paid for by someone. However, I am firmly convinced, Commissioner, that you should use the opportunity this evening and over the coming days and weeks to really convince the 736 Members of the European Parliament that your measures are the right ones to take, that they are sensible. You should also use the opportunity, above all, to highlight ways in which the workers of companies that may be affected in countries like Portugal, Italy and Spain, and in the European Union as a whole, can also find routes forward and prospects for themselves. I believe that these are truly the tasks to be performed in order to achieve a majority for your proposal in this House in a few weeks’ or months’ time. I believe there is a lot of work to be done by all those involved in connection with convincing people and providing information.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gianluca Susta (S&D).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we have to be mindful of the crisis that the European Union and its Member States are experiencing on a global level. With a crisis that is hitting work, employment and growth, I wonder about the logic inspiring some European countries but, above all, the European Commission, in terms of international relations. The Commission proposal under discussion today will heavily penalise some industrial sectors, particularly textiles and, in a situation like the present one, we must ask ourselves whether it is reasonable.

Some people fear that these decisions are borne from the desire for Europe to take a leading role on the world stage. In reality, we know that this is not so and that the attempt to reduce the pressure, including terrorist pressure, within or related to some political and institutional systems, has even less to do with it. The truth is that not even the recent flood has anything to do with this proposal, since the main concentration of the Pakistani textiles industry is not based in the regions hit by the disaster.

The actual reason is that once more, the aim is to penalise a sector in favour of financing the European economy and to favour large-scale retail, rather than the interests of the manufacturing industry located in some European countries. This is profoundly mistaken in terms of growth, work and employment in a time of serious economic crisis and the need for real EU growth on global markets, in terms of its exports and its capacity for innovation and quality.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). – Madam President, may I firstly thank the Commissioner and colleagues Martin and Caspary for their very helpful comments. Following the floods which took place, I actually have travelled to Pakistan to see for myself the extent of the devastation. The devastation caused by the floods is the biggest natural disaster in Pakistan’s history. It is certainly beyond anything that I could have imagined or expected to see.

Certainly, when I met with the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 22 September, he was very appreciative of the EU’s response to date and he believed it to be a very courageous response; courageous in the way that Commissioner De Gucht has described it. We have to be absolutely sure that we continue to react in an appropriate way. The Commission has now come forward with a legislative proposal to cut the tariff to zero on 75 tariff lines covering 27% of Pakistan’s exports to the EU, which would boost Pakistan’s exports by about EUR 100 million a year. This really is now a test of the EU’s credibility.

We must ensure that we translate the political agreement reached by EU leaders into action that will make a real difference and give the Pakistani economy a lifeline at this desperate time of need. We are, after all, their largest trading partner. I hear the concerns made by colleagues in this Chamber and it is only right that we are fair in our response; fair but ambitious. The trade concession to be offered to Pakistan needs to represent a credible effort by the EU and bring about meaningful economic benefits to Pakistan, whilst taking into account sensitivities of our own industries as well as other WTO members – in particular, those of least-developed countries.

I believe through this proposal we are being ambitious, we are being courageous, but, above all, we are being fair to ourselves, as well as to the people of Pakistan.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, clearly the 20 million people hit by the recent disastrous flooding in Pakistan need immediate and substantial assistance, especially the 100 000 children left homeless by the flood and in danger of dying simply because of a lack of food.

Critical to food production at affordable prices are the millions of small farmers and landless farmers now at the mercy of the landlord class. The distribution of free seeds, fertilisers that are environmentally compatible and other utilities could lay the basis for a rapid recovery of food supplies, but the liquidation of landlordism in Pakistan and the distribution of land to the landless is a key to food sustainability.

It was 140 years ago that the Irish peasantry conducted a major struggle for an end to landlordism, so it is long overdue here. Tariff reductions must go to the workers and the poor and not to the landlords, corrupt state officials or the profits of industrialists. Small farmers in Pakistan should benefit from just prices for their agricultural products on the world market, rather than callous speculators on the commodity markets.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE).(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all concerned about the floods that have devastated Pakistan and for the serious effects on the economy, but we are also concerned about the European Commission’s proposal, even if it was brought up on the initiative of the Heads of State or Government.

The regulation proposed by the Commission concentrates, above all, on the suspension of duties in the textile and leather goods sectors – which represent 60% of Pakistani exports with a turnover of almost EUR 200 million for textiles and EUR 510 million for the leather industry, both of which are characterised by production located in neighbouring areas that are not clearly affected by the floods.

It seemed to us that the political indications were instead directed at choosing an aid policy that did not damage structural sectors for the European economy. The suspension of duties will have a serious effect on European textiles and leather industries, with a potential loss of thousands of jobs over the planned three years of the regulation. These measures will be integrated and aggravated by the Generalised System of Preferences which, in 2013, will be extended to Pakistan as well.

Commissioner, we are all aware that exceptional and unilateral measures are being adopted because we want to help a large, poor country that is in trouble due to the disaster that has hit it and is further aggravated by the economic crisis and the failure to adjust the World Trade Organisation’s rules. Indeed, the current rules favour countries that are already developed, such as China and India, rather than poorer countries. Exceptional measures in favour of one country should not, however, cause a crisis in other countries.

The Commission proposal therefore requires significant corrections to diversify the sectors involved, including the production and exports of Pakistan, accepting a different vision and a serious reflection on the respect for human rights and the fight against terrorism. Pakistan must be helped, but through clear agreements, including those with regard to the political situation in the region.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D).(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, the floods in July and August of this year caused 1 800 deaths in Pakistan and affected 20 million people, 12.5 million of whom need humanitarian aid.

The European Union has undertaken a humanitarian effort of EUR 320 million – as you said – and Spain has contributed EUR 11 million. What we are discussing here is not a trade agreement, but supporting the strategic development of Pakistan.

The Commission, with a mandate from the Council, has liberalised 70 products over three years. There is no question that Pakistan’s exports will have varying impacts on the different EU countries, taking into account the specific characteristics of each country. The products that Pakistan may export are ethanol, textiles and leather goods.

The Commission maintains that it cannot amend the lists of products that will clash with textile production. Spain represents 16% of the volume of business from the textiles sector. The Community of Valencia represents 18% of Spanish textile production, and 17% of employment is in the Community of Valencia. The market for the Valencian textile sector is Europe and, within Europe, France, Italy and Germany. Therefore, textile products being imported from Pakistan reduces their market, both in Europe and within Spain.

You said that there is a strategic study, but has Pakistan’s industrial capacity been evaluated? Has consideration been given to reducing the list of textile products? Is there going to be an annual evaluation of the impact of this agreement?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE).(SV) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to say that the abolition of duties and barriers to trade as a step in the provision of aid to Pakistan in connection with this major disaster is extremely welcome. I will say, probably for the first time in this Chamber, that I am impressed by both the Commission’s and the Council’s swift action and resolve on this issue.

It is certainly the case that money is needed. However, what is the point of providing support and money – other than to assuage our own bad conscience – if, at the same time, we make it more difficult, by means of duties and barriers to trade, for people to recover by their own efforts.

What we are doing right now, namely comprehensively and quickly abolishing duties and barriers to trade on all 75 different tariff lines, corresponding to 27% of Pakistan’s exports, is an excellent response to the disaster that this country is facing. However, we in Parliament now have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to act swiftly. In other words, this must not turn into an example of how long the political process can take. Pakistan needs money and aid now – not in a year’s time. We must demonstrate that we understand that.

At the same time, I am disheartened to see how wide the opposition to this is. I received a petition from European textile producers expressing their opposition to this, as they were afraid that Pakistan would export more to Europe, which they did not want.

However, is that not the whole point of it? Is it not the intention that they should be able to trade with us in order to get themselves out of poverty? If European consumers were to get slightly cheaper textiles, would that be a problem?

Free trade and solidarity are often embraced here right up until we are to make a decision on them. Let us here and now demonstrate that these values are most important to us when they are needed the most. There is probably no better opportunity to stand up for both free trade and solidarity than in connection with this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lara Comi (PPE).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, by means of this short speech, I should like to show my disagreement with the possible suspension of duties in favour of Pakistan for some three years and across 74 tariff lines, almost all of them in the textile and clothing sector.

My concerns regard the negative consequences on European industry and particularly Italian industry – and on the loss of jobs in Europe in a sector that has already been sorely tested by the economic crisis. I am referring in particular to the small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector that we are trying to help anyway, and which would suffer considerable damage.

Also, the fact that Pakistan set a 15% duty on its cotton fibre exports at the start of this year in order to discourage the supply of raw materials is not insignificant. It is clear that the aim is to conserve raw materials by seeking to obtain more attractive exchange rates for their export. I fully understand the need to help a country with serious problems, particularly following the serious disasters it has suffered. However, the European aid that I would hope for would be contributions towards the construction of roads and infrastructure using local labour.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D).(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, it is not easy to hold an objective debate when you are talking about 100 000 children being made homeless, millions of farmers on the streets and people living in absolutely truly bitter poverty. I think it is right for the European Union to act quickly and provide help quickly here. The big question that arises for me, when it comes to the measures that you have proposed is, are we giving help in the right place or are we helping the wrong people? That is something that I would like explained in more detail, as it is absolutely justified to say, in relation to the textiles industry, that the aid does help Pakistan overall, but whether it reaches the right people, I am not so sure.

Secondly, I would also like to say that, if this aid helps people to help themselves, obviously you do have to take into account what effect all of this has back in Europe. I think, however, that there is already a drastic situation here, that we need to provide aid, and I hope that the aid does reach the people who really need to be helped.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I just want to respond to some of the comments which have been made.

What Pakistan is trying to do at this point is actually to help itself out of the mess that it is in after the devastating floods. If the factories were in flood-hit areas, they would not be able to produce, so it is not surprising that the factories concerned are not in flood-hit areas.

The direct aid that could be put in is miniscule compared to what the need actually is. Distribution of the income from the additional exports is important – we know that for infrastructure, for energy supplies, for schools, for roads, etc. – while there are indeed responsibilities that lie with the democratically elected government of Pakistan in terms of its effectiveness, of income, of tax revenue and so on.

People have also talked about the need for greater diversity. If Pakistan had a greater diversity of industrial sectors, we would not be concentrating so much on textiles. I appeal to Members to offer that country this opportunity to help itself out of this disaster.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL).(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, the tragedy in Pakistan demands that Europe show solidarity, but it cannot be a pretext for putting at risk the textile industry in a number of Member States, such as Portugal. There are other ways of showing solidarity: more effective types of aid that are aimed at the recovery of the affected areas and the improvement of the living conditions of local people, but also fairer types of aid.

Trade concessions are not long-term measures, as I have been saying. This benefits the large European importers above all, as it fulfils their long-held pretensions. However, it damages the textile industry, as well as the countries and regions that are most dependent on it; all this in a context of profound crisis and high unemployment.

While it is true that the measures proposed by the Commission cannot, under any circumstances, be a pretext for more redundancies, we cannot ignore the objective difficulties that these measures are creating. Measures are needed to defend the European textiles sector and the jobs related to it.

At the suggestion of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, the Union budget 2010 provides for a budget heading allocated to creating a Union programme for the textiles and footwear sector. Where is this programme, Commissioner? What are its key elements? I will leave you with these questions.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Claudio Morganti (EFD).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is paradoxical that instead of defending our jobs, the European Union puts them at risk by concealing the possible consequences of its actions behind well-meaning rhetoric of humanitarian aid. The possible reduction in duties for the next three years on clothing products from Pakistan risks plunging the manufacturing sector into an even greater crisis than the one we are currently experiencing, with the loss of 120 000 jobs across Europe, and 40 000 in Italy alone.

Pakistan must be helped, but we cannot adopt soft trading measures when my country – Italy – and other Member States are already feeling the effects of counterfeiting of textile products, especially from Asian countries and from China in particular. The Commission cannot give to charity at the expense, above all, of Italy, which represents 30% of the entire European textile sector. I believe that along with Pakistan, our small and medium-sized enterprises must be helped to escape from the crisis by imposing duties and quotas on Asian products. I am from Prato and my fellow citizens and I have had quite enough of measures like these.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE).(EL) Madam President, as far as manufacturing industry is concerned, I would remind the House that Pakistan is the fourth largest cotton producer in the world, accounting for 9% of global production, with the European Union following with just under 5.5%. Clearly, therefore, this is a very serious issue. Of course, we do not want protectionism, which damages healthy competition; on the contrary, we want free and open international trade. On the other hand, however, members have also raised this point. Mr Melo, who is from Portugal, a country with a fragile economy, was very graphic. Members referred to Italy. I would add Greece; you all know the problems it is facing. Of course, we should support Pakistan, but we should also monitor it and that is want I want to ask the Commission: do we have mechanisms to ensure that the aid we give Pakistan will be channelled in the right direction and not used for other purposes or for certain industries, to the detriment of European companies and European workers?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I do not claim to be particularly au fait with the intricacies of this situation, but I do recognise the strategic importance of Pakistan. For that reason, I support the point made by Mr Karim, that it is in everybody’s interest to have a stable regime there in a region of great volatility.

I also have to say that a Union which was founded on the principles of peace and prosperity for our citizens should be in the vanguard of bringing peace and prosperity to other parts of the world, so I support the proposals here this evening, but I would like the Commission to answer very fully the points made by Mr Higgins and others on the Left.

Can they guarantee that the aid we would be giving would be going to those who deserve it and not to big traders and landlords? That is the key question this evening.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE).(DE) Madam President, the flooding disaster in Pakistan has humanitarian consequences on an unimaginable scale. I consider it to be the European Union’s duty to make sure that aid gets to the people of Pakistan quickly. Measures designed to invigorate the economy and employment over the long term are an important contribution for the EU to make in order to help this hard-hit country out of its crisis. However, I question whether a simple reduction in the customs tariff will have the desired effect. We need to clear up whether or not preferences for Pakistan flow into Third countries via indirect channels and thus, whether they have the desired effect. As well as the textiles industry, I am thinking here, above all, about the field of bio-ethanol.

My specific question to the Commission is whether setting up a tariff quota for ethanol is regarded as a truly sustainable and efficient option that will help the people of Pakistan. Can it be assessed whether the necessary sustainability criteria for imports into the EU are also fulfilled in the production of bio-ethanol.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). – Madam President, I just wonder if the speaker appreciates that just this one time, we are actually not discussing aid but are actually simply discussing trade preferences. This would give the opportunity for Pakistan to earn its way out of its problems by its own efforts and volition. I wonder if the speaker appreciates that.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE).(DE) Madam President, I do believe that that is the core element that we are discussing. The measures need to be clearly thought through in order to ensure sustainable assistance. Above all, there is always the question of the extent to which the cost/benefit calculation ultimately adds up for Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Pakistan must undoubtedly be helped following the floods that have hit it. However, the question we must ask ourselves today is what kind of help this country needs most, and what kind is the European Union best capable of providing. We must act quickly, but also effectively.

Indeed, it is the effectiveness of the European Commission’s proposal which causes me great concern. I find it to be a patchy proposal which, by intervening primarily in the textile and leather sectors, would risk not being effective enough, since this aid could generate fresh tensions due to the new instances of poverty it would generate in Europe and would further hamstring the European textile sector, which is already in serious decline.

Then we must consider the fact that by favouring exports from producer businesses, we are actually helping those areas of Pakistan which have not been flooded, whereas our aid should serve to build competitiveness and development, helping the recovery of production in the areas of the country that have been hit by the catastrophe. For all these reasons, I believe that the path of abolishing duties is absolutely unsuitable and we do not consent to it or support it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to present very clearly the figures we are speaking about. We are talking about a trade volume of EUR 900 million. The effect will be EUR 100 million of additional exports to the European market by Pakistan, but the overall balance for the European Union will only be EUR 50 million because, as a result of the more favourable position of Pakistan to export on the European market, there will also be a certain amount of trade diversion, which means that other importers will lose some opportunities on the European markets. So, the overall impact will be about EUR 50 million on a yearly basis.

I am saying this because I heard again in this debate that 120 000 jobs would be lost. Now you all have a calculator tool on your mobile phone; if Europe is to lose 120 000 jobs because of an additional EUR 50 million of imports on the European market, then there is really a serious problem with the European textile industry, regardless of what happens with Pakistan. It is simply not serious to put that argument forward.

That is my first remark. Secondly, we have duly taken into account the sensitivities of the European textile industry and the somewhat difficult position this industry might be in. Bed linen is not part of the tariff lines that we are proposing, and neither are apparel or household linen, which are three of the most sensitive product lines for Europe.

On the contrary, a lot of semi-finished products are included. If they are semi-finished, it means that they will be finished in Europe, which should, in fact, generate cheaper imports for those companies which give the final treatment to such products. So this is not immediately harming us. I would even say the opposite. We have really been studying very carefully what would be a good proposal for Pakistan without harming European industry too much at a time when we are also coming out of an economic crisis that is certainly not easy to manage.

A comment was also raised concerning cotton exports. There is a scarcity on the worldwide cotton market, and it is true that Pakistan is one of the main cotton producers. What I have in mind is that once we have this agreement, once we see that we are really getting somewhere, we should also ask Pakistan to make sure that our own textile industry gets enough cotton to be able to produce what the market is asking for. As there is such a worldwide scarcity of cotton, or at least certain varieties of cotton, you might ask why we do not import those cotton varieties from Africa. Well, because they do not produce the right varieties of cotton we need, and it is not easy to switch to a different kind of cotton production from one day to another, so we will have to pay special attention to that problem.

Let me just conclude by saying that when you look at the situation with respect to Pakistan, what we need is more aid and more trade; we need both. The European Union has contributed EUR 320 million already, 60% of what the United Nations initially asked for. We will continue to do so; that is more aid.

Trade is not aid, as has been said in this plenary. Trade is about giving opportunities to the Pakistani economy to produce and to export and to give jobs to the people that need those jobs. I think it is an essential tool in economic recovery that we should give additional trading opportunities to Pakistan. But it is not about aid, which means that you cannot direct those who will be, let us say, the beneficiaries. It is much easier to direct the process in the case of trade, but we also know that while trade has its frailties we are not going to recover an economy by aid.

I think you need both elements, aid and trade, and that is why we are working on both possibilities. It is true that we should also bear in mind, as I have been saying in this plenary, that we are talking about a region that has been severely devastated. Many Members of Parliament from Italy have spoken, and I understand that the territory of Pakistan which is flooded is about the size of the territory of the whole of Italy. That is what we are talking about, so I think we should help them, but we should also bear in mind that this is a very sensitive region which is geo-strategically very important. It is also very important to us and to our security. It would be very dangerous for Europe if this region became unstable, so we should do everything we can to make sure that the stability of the region is not affected by what happens in Pakistan.

So this is an overall array of measures which we are employing. We have political discussions with Pakistan; we had a summit with them recently, and we will continue to have such discussions. Several EU officials have been going there, as well as Commissioner Georgieva, for example, with respect to humanitarian aid. We have the aid package, which is considerable, and we also have an economic approach in terms of more trade. I think, and I hope, that this will really mean something considerable for Pakistan. I am also convinced that by helping Pakistan, we also, to a certain extent, help ourselves.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

 

15. Indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the report by Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries (COM(2005)0661 – C7-0048/2010 – 2005/0254(COD)) (A7-0273/2010).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristiana Muscardini, rapporteur.(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many of the European Union’s main economic and trading partners have, for some considerable time, been applying domestic rules requiring indication of origin for imported goods.

In 2005, the European Commission proposed a regulation aimed at putting the European Union on an equal footing with these countries, requiring a certain number of manufactured goods imported into the European Union to include a denomination of origin. This regulation will help offset an imbalance suffered hitherto by European consumers who, compared to citizens of countries outside the EU, do not have the right to choose what they buy in the full knowledge of its provenance. A democratic right, which presupposes freedom of choice and, hence, the right of knowledge, is therefore compromised.

The regulation makes up for a situation of inferiority for EU citizens and also proposes anew the legitimate right to reciprocity. It is a regulation requested by many consumers’ associations and supported by many business associations. Production in Europe will never be able to recover if our producers are not given the same guarantees as other countries in which a regulation on origin marking for products is already in force.

European producers – who rightly have to comply with many obligations imposed by the European Union in order to guarantee product quality and safeguard consumers and who, in order to export, are obliged to identify their products with a mark of origin – are suffering from unfair competition from producers in third countries who can export their goods to Europe, concealing the provenance.

Today, European small and medium-sized enterprises, in whose favour a resolution was approved during the last legislature on 5 February 2009 addressing the problems encountered in enabling them to internationalise, continue to encounter difficulties because they suffer from unfair competition from those non-EU producers that can export to Europe without an origin mark and European consumers are denied their right to an informed choice.

In order for the free market to be just that, it must be based on fair competition and be built on clear, shared and applied rules. This is why the approval of this regulation will finally remove this democratic deficit and unfair competition still present in Europe, which damages consumers first and foremost.

The regulation has been approved by the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade with a large majority of 19 votes in favour and 3 votes against. The European Parliament has already expressed its support during the last legislature with a written declaration voted through with a full majority and, in the current legislature, with a vote on a resolution which obtained 529 votes in favour out of 593 votes cast. It is truly surprising that today, some fellow Members who signed the written declaration and voted in favour of the resolution in November 2009 have moved an amendment intended to reject the regulation.

With great calmness, I feel I can say that those who are against the proposal do not wish to give European citizens the same rights as Chinese citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, tonight we are discussing a legislative proposal which the Commission tabled in 2005 concerning the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries – the ‘made in’ regulation.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, for her dedication in support of our proposal and for her hard work. I wish her much success in carrying it further through the legislative process.

2005 was long before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and, therefore, long before this House received equal legislative powers regarding trade policy, but the lack of legislative powers did not prevent the European Parliament from twice expressing its support for this proposal. Despite our consistent efforts, there has been no progress towards adoption in Council.

Now that we are under the Lisbon Treaty, I am pleased the European Parliament can play its full role in relation to this proposal. I say this because the EU needs to adopt legislation on origin markings for certain goods from third countries. Today, the EU does not require origin marking: products can bear an origin mark provided that this does not mislead the consumer, in line with the EC Directive on unfair business practices of 2005.

The purpose of our proposal is to introduce a compulsory marking of origin on imports of certain products and to establish clear rules on how origin shall be established. The objectives of our proposal are clear – to enable consumers to know the origin of the goods and to ensure transparency according to a single standard by which origin is determined. Of course, information on origin does not cover everything the consumer may want to know about a specific product, but has the benefit of being useful and clear.

Secondly, being better informed, consumers will then be free to decide what to purchase according to their preferences. Incidentally, our proposal can also contribute to reducing the incidence of fraudulent or misleading origin marking. It is limited in scope, applying to goods such as leather, textiles, footwear and glassware, and it would not apply to sectors like electronics, ICT equipment, chemicals, machinery, cars, etc.

Among the product categories covered, there are products for which information about origin is particularly important: those that are destined for the final consumer. One of the amendments adopted by the Committee on International Trade clearly refers to this condition, which I find positive. Of course, we will need to ensure consistency between this principle – namely ‘goods for final consumers’ – and the actual products that will ultimately be covered by the regulation, as detailed in its annex.

I will not deny that origin marking has a cost for traders and exporters to the EU. The cost will notably depend on the production processes and technical marking rules. Therefore, it is important to keep these costs to a minimum. The Commission would be in charge of drafting the rules regarding the modalities of the marking, and will pay the utmost attention to minimising costs by relying on international practices, consulting with Member States and all the industries and traders involved.

Setting this proposal in a wider context, other large trading partners – like the US, Canada, Japan and China – have long had such schemes in place. We are therefore able to draw useful lessons from the experience of others.

In conclusion, I underscore the Commission’s determination to work closely with Parliament in order to have this proposal adopted and to have an efficient, accurate and cost-effective scheme for origin marking.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christofer Fjellner, on behalf of the PPE Group.(SV) Mandatory origin marking, or the use of the words ‘Made in’, means that goods imported into Europe from outside the EU are to be labelled with the country they come from. In my opinion, this is a proposal that belongs in the last century, when something that was manufactured in Sweden, for example, also consisted of parts originating only from Sweden. However, in this proposal, it is as if world trade, globalisation and global supply chains have been disregarded.

One of my favourite examples is this shirt that I am wearing. It is made of cotton from Egypt, which was woven into cloth in Italy. It was designed in Hong Kong and finally sewn together in China. I think that a much better description than ‘Made in China’, which it would probably receive under this regulation, would be ‘Made in the world’, to quote Pascal Lamy, former Commissioner and current Director-General of the WTO. That is what the world looks like today.

This is not a proposal that provides better information. I believe that, on the contrary, this is a proposal that creates new barriers to trade and makes trade more difficult, and it is perhaps even protectionist. That is precisely why this type of regulation is prohibited within the EU. On the internal market, it is not permitted, for example, in Sweden to demand that articles imported from Germany be labelled with where they come from. It is true that many of our trading partners, the United States for example, have this type of regulation. The United States introduced such a provision in 1930, but this is not, of course, something we should imitate. We all know that the 1930s were one of the darkest decades in the history of world trade. Instead of introducing trade regulations from the previous century, creating new trade barriers and obstructing world trade, I think that we should do the opposite. In order to get ourselves out of recession, we should facilitate trade. My message to the Commission is therefore: rework the proposal and do it right! I will vote against this proposal tomorrow and I am certain that several of my fellow Members will follow my example.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kader Arif, on behalf of the S&D Group.(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am always very happy to speak after Mr Fjellner, as I am always sure that I will not be in agreement with him.

First, I should like to thank our rapporteur as well as all the shadow rapporteurs and, in particular, my friend Mr Susta, for their excellent work and their good cooperation on this text, which will finally enable a system of compulsory marking of origin on certain products imported into Europe to be introduced. I should like to thank you too, Commissioner, for your commitment.

Our vote tomorrow will, in fact, be the first stage in the introduction of this regulation, which dates from 2005, and which the European Parliament has always supported and called for. Origin marking is an important step towards transparency and information, which we must constantly improve in favour of European citizens.

Indeed, European consumers rightly want to know what they are purchasing, where the product comes from and under what conditions it was produced. They are therefore demanding to be able to consume in a more informed and, hence, responsible way.

With this new regulation, we are responding to this demand, because our citizens will be better informed, in particular, of the social and environmental conditions under which the goods they purchase are produced. Contrary to what some people want to believe, the consumer is also a citizen, who agrees to pay more for quality European production, because this legislation is also essential for European companies, whose production is associated with a reputation for quality and high production standards.

For those companies that have chosen to maintain production safeguarding know-how and employment in Europe, this regulation will re-establish a level playing field with our third-country trading partners. The text resulting from the vote of the Committee on International Trade is balanced, which is why, when it is voted on in tomorrow’s plenary, I call on the Members of this House not to call this balance into question and to support this text by voting overwhelmingly in favour of it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Niccolò Rinaldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group.(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Madam President, if you were to visit the Ponte Rialto in Venice – perhaps with Commissioner De Gucht – and wanted to buy a pair of shoes advertised as Italian, a tie, a traditional mask or a glass from Murano, there is a chance you will be ripped off, realising that the product purchased was not made in Italy at all, but in some country in Asia.

I believe that the proposed regulation under discussion is beginning to inject some order into an ever more confused global market. It seeks to protect the consumer – including you Madam President, and Commissioner De Gucht, if you go shopping on Venice’s Ponte Rialto, or elsewhere – as well as the European industries that have not relocated (whilst those that have will be penalised by this regulation). Above all it will correct the asymmetry on the trade markets, which sees Europe as the only large area lacking a regulation on compulsory origin marking.

This is not a protectionist proposal; in fact, I find it to be very balanced. It only applies to a limited number of products, to the final product destined for the consumer, and – as far as my group is concerned – it is a 5-year pilot project because we shall support the amendment with the sunset clause. In addition, we also introduced in committee – through an amendment of my own – a provision that aims to avoid any excessive bureaucratic burden that would harm businesses.

If the vote tomorrow is satisfactory, it will mean that one stage has been won, but it will not be a conclusive victory. We shall then need the full support of the European Commission in our dealings with the European Council. The Commission has already been full of suggestions and very cooperative, for which we are grateful, and this is a reason why we must continue to work together. I am sure that in five years, we shall be satisfied by the result we have obtained.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Malika Benarab-Attou, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur for the good work she has done. We need to be better informed about the origin marking of the products we purchase. EU law also provides for penalty measures in the event of violation ...

I am sorry, there is a problem. I will speak later.

(The speaker stops and then resumes at the invitation of the President)

We need to be better informed about the origin marking of the products we purchase. Community law also provides for penalty measures in the event of violation and of consumers being misled on origin. The European Court ...

No, it is not working. I am sorry.

(The speaker stops again)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. (CS) I understand why the proposal was submitted, but I do not agree with the reasons for submitting it. I think that the current globalised world hardly allows one to determine the country of origin; in the end, a guarantee of the quality of this or that product is far more important than its trademark or country of origin. We also need to note that this proposal does not deal with the protection of trademarks or protective labels, and also cannot be of any help in protecting trademarks or protective labels. The fact that it will lead to an increase in the specific cost of a product and, therefore, probably also to an increase in the price of the product, has already been mentioned here by the Commissioner. In the end, the fact that the proposal only relates to certain products – which has been mentioned several times here – could even be described as something like product-based or geographical discrimination.

I would therefore argue here that we should stick with voluntary labelling, because in the end, where consumers put enough added value on such labelling, the majority of EU producers already use this labelling on a voluntary basis. The European Union is very often criticised for excessive regulation, for passing far too many laws that burden the economic environment. Therefore, I ask, at least in this case, that we do not contribute to the further burdening of the legal and economic environment in the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I, too, would like to thank Mrs Muscardini for the work that she has done on this report and the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation.

My group welcomes the approach of providing more transparency for consumers in relation to the origin of products, and supports the road map, as Mr Rinaldi described it, to a stage victory. In fact, we would prefer further information to be made apparent, such as information on products’ ecological ‘footprints’, on whether workers’ rights are observed in the manufacturing process or on the equitable sharing of profits by producers and workers. At the same time, we do not believe that this extended wish list belongs in a regulation on the indication of the country of origin, as the name of the country on its own does not provide any reliable information in this regard. Let us take the example of India, where child labour is prohibited. While there are black sheep amongst the companies there, the vast majority do comply with the law. In a European regulation, we therefore have to take into consideration the fact that neither competitors nor nationalists can drag the name of an entire country and its products through the mud.

We advocate the development of certification systems. Fair trade labels represent a model to follow here, and these should now be further developed with EU support. Additionally taking account of low carbon production methods and humane working conditions would enable us to incorporate modern challenges. I call on the Commission to take steps to initiate an additional regulation in this direction.

Allow me to add one more thought. A consistent introduction of the ‘Made in’ provision also has a part to play in solving complicated political conflicts; for example, the unhindered access of ‘Made in Palestine’ products to the EU market, which would deliver the chance of autonomous economic development in Palestine.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Claudio Morganti, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament will tomorrow vote on origin marking, on which basis – as the tabled amendments stand – the origin mark would have to be applied to goods for final consumption and goods for the end consumer.

This last definition could cause a serious chain reaction because it does not include semi-finished and intermediate products which – having been produced in non-EU countries – with a final and perhaps insignificant final processing upon arrival in Europe, could be passed off as goods made in a Member State. In this way, the consumer would not be fully informed of the real origin of the product whilst big industries would be incentivised to relocate to non-EU countries, thereby increasing their earnings many times over for their own interests alone, impoverishing our industrial districts.

For these reasons, we tabled some amendments aimed at extending this definition to semi-finished and intermediate products as well, so as to guarantee transparency and traceability of products imported from third countries, along the lines of Italy’s Reguzzoni law, which fully respects consumer rights. My fellow Members, this is truly the last chance we have to protect the manufacturing sector, in Italy and across Europe, which is one of the main drivers of the economy, unlike those few industrial giants that serve their own interests and not the good of the entire community.

Restricting rabid relocation, counterfeiting and the exploitation of labour must continue to be one of the aims of the European Parliament. If we vote through the regulation tomorrow as it stands, we shall be throwing away a big opportunity along with our efforts and, above all, those of millions of workers at small and medium-sized enterprises who will feel betrayed, together with all consumers who trusted in us to make a responsible choice. The battle we are fighting is not against anyone, but for work, business, our workers and all European citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, we live in challenging economic times and many small businesses feel burdened with EU red tape and its associated cost. I believe that, first and foremost, this House and the Commission should be looking at ways to alleviate the financial burden of the red tape that we insist upon here.

In respect of this proposal, we need to strike a balance between the opening-up of markets for European products and ensuring the quality and safety of imported products. I must say, however, that I do see merit in third-country labelling when it comes to food products. I know they are not covered by the scope of this proposal, but many of Northern Ireland’s farmers feel let down when they work hard to meet the requirements laid down by Europe, and then have to compete with those who do not have to meet the same standards.

I hope the Commissioner will take note that those of us who represent rural and agricultural-based communities have not forgotten the resumption of talks with Mercosur countries, and we hope that he is not prepared to sacrifice our agricultural industry for further markets. This place has a habit of taking legislation too far, and I fear that this is what is happening in this particular case.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE).(DE) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs Muscardini for her hard work, particularly in view of the controversial issues, some of which have already been discussed. I am convinced that European consumers need to have this matter explained to them. I am also of the opinion that it must be our goal to protect the citizens of Europe from products that are dangerous and harmful to health. End users should know what raw materials are used, how these are obtained, where and how they are processed and what social and production standards apply in the relevant countries. The goal is clear, but we need clarity on how we intend to get there. Unfortunately, the current version of the proposed ‘Made in’ provision tell us nothing about the actual origins of a particular commodity.

I should like to illustrate this with an example: Uzbekistan is the world’s third largest exporter of cotton. Ninety per cent of the harvest is picked by hand, most of it using child labour. The gathered cotton is then shipped to Vietnam, where it is processed. According to the Commission’s current proposals, the textiles now imported into the EU from Vietnam should be labelled ‘Made in Vietnam’, but what about the transparency for the European consumer? Nobody knows where the raw materials come from and how they have been obtained. The level of information is quite inadequate.

The European Consumer Centre in Austria has published an up-to-date analysis, which indicates that the world’s leading and most prominent textile businesses are unable to guarantee that raw materials from state-sponsored companies involving child labour are not used in their production. A ‘Made in’ provision of this kind, which excludes raw materials from the production process, clearly misjudges the requirements of European end users. I am in favour of more truth in product labelling and therefore oppose this proposal from the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gianluca Susta (S&D).(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and all the shadow rapporteurs with whom I have worked on this issue, which is extremely important for us. I hope that tomorrow, the European Parliament gives the same strong backing to the legislative resolution that it gave in July 2006, with the written declaration of 2008, and the favourable vote on the resolution of 2009.

We are preparing to adopt a measure that should protect the consumer, informing him or her of the origin of products for a more general purpose, which renews equality of opportunity in international trade and reciprocity between the European Union and its main competitors. It does not add costs for businesses in third countries, which are already obligated to mark their products in all our competitor countries in the world and in many others. Nor does it create any burdens for the European distribution system which, indirectly, without costing the public finances anything, favours the return to Europe of significant production, slows business relocation and also contributes to the fight against counterfeiting.

It is a combination of very obvious advantages, which cannot be halted by calling perhaps for further measures because here, it really is the case that the best is the enemy of the good. We must come to the end of a process that began seven years ago, showing our concern for the interests of our businesses – above all, in this time of crisis and unemployment – but also for the potential for a trade system regulated so as to provide reciprocity, consumer protection and correct information which could be further developed in terms of traceability.

If this measure is not voted through by Parliament, there will be trouble. I should like to thank the European Commission once again and all those who wish to support this measure, because it is helpful for European citizens and for world trade.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE).(FR) Madam President, my apologies, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur for the good work she has done. We need to be better informed about the origin marking of the products we purchase. EU law also provides for penalty measures in the event of violation and of consumers being misled on origin.

The European Court of Justice decrees that the Commission ...

No, I am sorry, there is a problem, I am going to record it in the Minutes.

(The speaker stops)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL).(FR) Madam President, the miracle of free trade and of free and undistorted competition means that a consumer who purchases a knife labelled Laguiole in the Aveyron, its region of origin, has a 90% chance of acquiring a poor quality blade made in China or in Pakistan, one of many examples. It is a real labelling con.

If we really want to safeguard and develop industrial employment in the European Union, if we want to avoid misleading European consumers and to protect their health, if we want to prolong the social and environmental acquis of our societies, there is an urgent need to make the origin marking of manufactured products compulsory, even if it means encroaching on the ultraliberal founding dogmas of Europe. This marking must be serious and not a form of deception which entails presenting a product as having been ‘made in Europe’ when it is, in fact, nothing more than an assembly of parts from all over the world, with only the label having been ‘made in Europe’.

The customs services and ministries of justice of the Member States will then need to be given all the means of control and law enforcement to implement strong legislation on the marking of origin and the country of origin.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). (SK) Thanks to an open trade policy, our citizens can buy products made all over the world. More often than not, however, they have no way of knowing where the product was made, where the materials from which it is made came from, and what technological procedures the manufacturer used for its processing.

At the same time, the maximum amount of information the consumer can have about a product is a basic pre-condition for good decision making when choosing goods. To this day, our European citizens have no right to elementary information about products, something which has been routinely available not only to the citizens of the United States since 1930, but also today to the people of China, Japan, Canada, India, Mexico and other countries.

This is why I believe it is time the European Union adopted a norm which will protect European consumers regardless of the particular interests of large distribution chains or certain interest groups, and require suppliers to mark goods imported from third countries with the necessary information about their origin. In this way, our consumers will be provided with an important source of information when deciding which goods to choose, while third country manufacturers will not be substantially affected in any way because they have long been indicating the origin of their products to other countries.

However, it will be important to think through the mechanisms of the uniform application of sanctions and penalties for the violation of this legislation by any Member State in order to prevent manufacturers from seeking a point of entry to the common market of the European Union which is not properly safeguarded by sanctions, thereby avoiding compliance with the regulations. I firmly believe that introducing an effective system for marking the origin of products from third countries will be extremely beneficial both to our European consumers and to compliant manufacturers.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). (CS) Czech glassmakers, textile manufacturers and shoe manufacturers have, for a long time, been coming to me and calling for transparency on the origin of products. They must compete with imitations of unknown origin which are parasitic on the European Union market. We are mostly talking about poor quality and often harmful goods. In addition, information on where textiles, shoes, glass, jewellery or pharmaceutical products are produced is not classified information, nor does it constitute protectionism or a barrier to free trade, as liberals are labelling it. On the contrary, the free market and fair competition work well only if consumers can make good and free decisions on the basis of information and experience.

I fully support the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and I appreciate her contribution to achieving a compromise, which I hope will enable us to adopt the proposal tomorrow. I understand that, particularly in northern countries, where traditional products have been replaced by imports from other countries, such regulation may be regarded as unnecessary bureaucracy. However, let us compare the adoption of the regulation with our competitors in the USA, Canada, Japan and China, where ‘made in’ is obligatory. Like the previous speaker, I want to say that it is necessary for the Commission to propose at least minimum standards for penalties, and to ensure that the rules will be followed consistently across the Union and that third-country exporters will not give preference to certain countries because of lower or no sanctions. We owe this to our citizens.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ TŐKÉS
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, during a recent delegation trip on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, I had the pleasure of visiting a number of production sites in Europe, small enterprises that are forced to operate in very difficult conditions: I witnessed superior quality, fair wages, good working conditions and a rational working atmosphere. This is a direct result of our traditions and European legal order. However, there are plenty of countries where such principles do not exist, where working conditions are poor, and where no guarantees exist for workers. I believe that, at the very least, European consumers must be able to recognise in future whether the products they are buying come from a particular country where basic principles do not apply. This is something that will be required in future thanks to the directive that Mrs Muscardini has so efficiently prepared. Accordingly, we should agree to the proposal.

To those businesses that have moved their production abroad for their own convenience and in order to avoid bureaucracy, and which are now complaining, I would say: you have only yourselves to blame!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Antonio Cancian (PPE). (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe could not escape from this duty: this is the way we can and have had to react. I should like to thank Mrs Muscardini for the tenacity of her work and all the other fellow Members who have worked on this issue.

With regard to the traceability of goods from non-European Union countries, I believe that it is right that consumers know the provenance and the origin of products in order to safeguard their health and their freedom, extending this to semi-processed goods in which the supply chain is indicated. With regard to competitiveness, the lack of a regulation of this kind undermines the right of European citizens and consumers and prevents the proper functioning of the market, which, to be free, must have common and shared rules, without disparities or unfair competition.

With regard to the safeguarding of small and medium-sized enterprises and their national products, it is not the big companies that need such protection. Indeed, I believe that they absolutely do not need it seeing as they travel the world with their brands. Furthermore, we must promote the specialties and traditional excellences of our countries, relaunch the European economy and guarantee the respect for the rights of workers in social, environmental and productive terms.

Mr President, Commissioner, I wonder what we have to fear by telling the truth and aiming to establish rules that are equal for all. We must try not to be cowed, making use of the European ordinary legislative procedure, and prevent the Council from always imposing its will. Hence, let us try to make this step a reality by supporting the regulation in question. For the rest, let us wait and see.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D).(ES) Mr President, the regulation that we are debating today is of vital importance for the future of the cutlery and similar products sector, which, in my region – Don Quixote country, specifically, Albacete – represents not just the survival of more than 8 000 jobs but also part of its identity and future commitment to craftsmanship as a source of employment.

The ‘made in’ stamp on knives has been demanded for some time by social groups such as Aprecu, and the government of Castilla-La Mancha has been fighting for it with the unanimous support of its regional Parliament.

Origin marking is not interventionism; it is a commitment to transparency in the commercial rules of play and in the fight against unfair competition. It means increasing the capacity of consumers to make decisions by choosing a product because they are taking into account not only its final price, but also the mark of quality of the place of origin or the social conditions in which it is produced. Above all, it will represent a new possibility of optimism for many people who are having a difficult time, but who today are feeling that we have not been indifferent in terms of backing fairer trade, while, at the same time, giving added value to those who, as well as producing, do so while respecting social rights and the better conditions of European workers.

I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur and Mr Menéndez del Valle for their social conscience in this matter that is so important for my region.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter Šťastný (PPE). (SK) First, I would like to compliment Mrs Muscardini on her approach to the report and the hard work she has invested in it. The European Union is neither the first, nor the second or third, to request that its citizens be informed about the origin of a product they purchase for their needs or consumption.

The US, Canada, Japan, India and many other countries have long been providing this right to their citizens. This is in accordance with the regulations of the World Trade Organisation. So the question is why have we not yet found a compromise? All of us agree on the need to inform the consumer citizen. However, it is also true that the indication of the country of origin, that is, the ‘made in’ provision, may be potentially misleading because globalisation in industry means that the end product is composed of parts made in different countries. Therefore, were we perhaps to add another label to that of ‘made in’, such as ‘processed in’ or ‘assembled in’, we might arrive at a broad agreement more easily. The greatest obstacle, which is the fear of providing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, would thus be removed.

In conclusion, I would like to express the hope that here in the European Parliament, to which the Treaty of Lisbon has granted greater authority in this very area, and led by the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, we will find common solutions which will help our citizens to make better and, most importantly, freer choices.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I would like to apologise, sir, for disturbing you. The next item is the immediate comments. There are six of these, so we are able to give the floor to each one.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Giovanni Collino (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all citizens have realised the global scale of the ongoing economic crisis and we believe that they are aware of the importance of adopting common rules to avoid causing distortions in the market and dangerous reductions in trade.

The European Union has acknowledged the need to inform citizens clearly about the products circulating within their borders and efforts have been made in this vein, bearing in mind the interests of both the Member States and citizens. While the interests of the first group entail promoting their resources without being protectionist, citizens are concerned with always knowing the provenance of each product, even at the expense of waiting some time for this regime to be applied to all categories of goods.

We want the European Union to speak with a single voice, at the same level as all the other voices that express themselves strongly in international markets. So, tomorrow, we will support the report on the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries, urging the European Council to do its part to conclude this legislative journey, which has now lasted for six long years, as well as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, five years after the proposal for a regulation, tomorrow, we finally come to the vote on compulsory origin marking for some products imported from third countries. Over the years, the European Parliament has affirmed on numerous occasions the need for a rule that gives consumers the right to have correct information on the provenance of products, thereby facilitating a more aware choice.

Our products are often the victims of counterfeiting and misleading markings. This regulation could contribute to giving European businesses greater guarantees and recovering competitiveness on an international level. I hope that Parliament sends a strong signal, approving by a very wide majority the report by Mrs Muscardini, whom I thank, together with the shadow rapporteur, Mr Susta.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE).(DE) Mr President, in the agricultural sector too, consumers are entitled to detailed and unambiguous information about the origin of the products sold in the European Union. By this means, we can enable them to make well-informed, deliberate purchasing decisions.

However, the long-term goal must be that our high product and security standards in Europe should also apply to imported products to be sold in the European Union. This is not a question of trade restrictions, but rather, on the contrary, aims to establish equal competitive conditions as a decisive prerequisite for fair global trade. Unfortunately, the motion for a resolution presented by the Commission will not achieve this aim.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we enthusiastically support this regulation, and should like to thank the rapporteur Mrs Muscardini, as well as Mr Susta and Mr Rinaldi. I, too, am of the belief that this measure represents an intermediate step. We must decide whether or not it is right that, when buying a product, a consumer knows where it has been made. We feel that it is right. This is a regulation that works towards transparency and the protection of consumer rights. It matters little to us right now if, in order to protect the rights of transparency and clarity for consumers, some business that has relocated finds itself penalised in some way.

I listened carefully to the words of my Swedish colleague, Mr Fjellner, who hails from Stockholm, to whom I feel the need to respond that I would like to have the confidence to go to his country to buy a typical Swedish-made suit in the certainty that it really was made in Sweden. This is because it could have the brand of a Swedish business even though it has been produced by a small manufacturing business, perhaps located 10 kilometres from my house. I should feel quite a fool if I went all the way to Sweden to buy something that was produced in my local area.

Therefore, I welcome the mark of origin if it gives transparency and the chance of clarity and knowledge for consumers and, finally, a minimal response to the great many businesses that have had the courage not to relocate and have been crushed by unfair competition.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL).(PT) Mr President, we have advocated and evaluated the possibility that origin marking should exist, because we see it in every sense as an instrument for defending jobs in European industry, not least in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); as an instrument against social and environmental dumping. An important instrument, but only that: an instrument. It is not – and let us not delude ourselves about this – a panacea. It is not the magical, universal solution for tackling the tragic consequences resulting from the liberalisation and deregulation of world trade; for tackling the terrible damage that results from this deregulation.

Some of those who have benefited from this liberalisation are the same people who have always been opposed to origin marking: Europe’s large importers and distributors. For our part, we will continue to fight the protectionism from which these interest groups have benefited against the common good and to the detriment of thousands of SMEs in Europe, and of the workers, their rights and their salaries.

We must seriously tackle issues linked to production and processing that cover different geographic areas, but these issues can be overcome, and they must be resolved in the most transparent and informative way possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to say to my colleague, Mrs Muscardini, that – in the words of Shakespeare – you have done the state some service, because for too long we have been like a fairy godmother to the world, spreading our generosity far and wide, and being treated like a fairy in return. We have seen that in Copenhagen, and we see it in the United Nations, but thankfully tonight, we will begin to fight back and establish a level playing field for our consumers and for our manufacturers.

It actually makes no sense whatsoever that goods can come into the European Union from third countries without some indication of where they came from. I would like to see this going much further. My colleague, Mrs Dodds, said that she would like to see it extended to agriculture and this is at least a first step. We need to help our consumers to make choices, to know that the choices they are making are correct ones, that there is no counterfeiting, and there is fair play for everybody.

So, well done to my colleague, Mrs Muscardini. We are on the road at last.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I notice there is much support across Parliament for the proposal, so I will not go into many of the remarks which have been made because most of them support the Commission proposal and the Muscardini report on it.

Let me just say with respect to the rules of origin that this is a very stabilised regime. These rules are very stable indeed and they are well known, because it is on the basis of these rules of origin that customs duties are paid when products come into the European market. In fact, our proposal fully relies on them. There can be no misunderstanding about that.

The second remark I would like to make is about an amendment introduced by Mrs Muscardini, which, in fact, proposes that this ‘made in’ regulation would be a kind of pilot project that would be evaluated after a four-year period and perhaps changed. I consider this an amendment worth supporting, because I imagine that it will enhance the chances that this proposal has in the Council.

The reason why this proposal dating back to 2005 is not EU legislation is simply that the Council does not buy it. It has refused it until now, but the proposal by Mrs Muscardini to make a pilot project out of this for a five-year period, with an evaluation after four years, is a very good step in the right direction. That is why the Commission can accept the amendment proposed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristiana Muscardini, rapporteur. (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commissioner for the consideration he has shown for the proposals that we worked out in committee. It has been a long job, with difficult mediation, but we tried to bear in mind the needs of all. Above all, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Susta and Mr Rinaldi. We were able to present a text which, in its entirety, encompasses the majority of problems that were presented to us.

I should also like to thank my fellow Members who this evening have, in the great majority, expressed their support for the regulation, but, above all, for greater democracy and respect of consumers and European citizens. I hope that tomorrow, the vote can finally get a new phase of the European Union under way; a phase which, on the one hand, will see the reaffirmation of the political will of the Union and, on the other, the reaffirmation of the right of European citizens to be informed and participate in choices that the Union will make

It has been a long work of compromise and I really am amazed that there are still some fellow Members, representing several countries, who prefer to consider rejecting the regulation rather than guaranteeing their countrymen and women the same rights enjoyed by all Chinese, Indian and United States citizens, and so on.

I hope that the night brings counsel and that each of us remembers that one day, we shall be asked to explain what we have done well, what we have done badly, and what we have not done at all. Today, we must finally act with the ability to understand what the world represents for us. Freedom and democracy are defended by knowledge.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 21 October 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. (CS) I would like to express my full support for the report on the introduction of country of origin labelling for various products imported from third countries. Mrs Muscardini’s proposal solves the previous absence of European legislative standards in this area. The requirement to indicate the origin of products may contribute to the equalisation of conditions on the world trade market, because similar protection for domestic products is also insisted on by various global economies, such as the United States, Canada or Japan. Protection of this type accordingly helps goods produced in the European Union to be more competitive with goods from third countries. Indicating the country of origin also contributes to the preservation of traditional production methods, typical product characteristics and quality. This type of protection of European products will also have a positive effect on maintaining employment in all Member States. I would also like to state that indicating the country of origin increases consumer awareness and transparency when deciding to buy specific products, and prevents possible fraudulent claims about the origin of products or counterfeiting.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. (PL) Information about the origin of the products available on the EU market is very important for all consumers. Indicating the country of origin allows citizens to make informed choices when they buy a particular product, and enables them to avoid the health and safety risks associated with third-country products which do not meet quality standards. The regulations on origin labelling also give effective protection against counterfeiting and unfair competition. It is important to define the detailed forms and procedures for origin labelling and to set penalties for breaching the provisions of the regulation.

 

16. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the Commission’s statement on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, you asked me to come to the plenary to explain where we are in the negotiations on ACTA – the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. I share your view that this is an important dossier, and I am here for the third time in less than a year to discuss it with you.

Where are we? Well, in two words, we are almost there. Indeed, on 2 October 2010, negotiators from the EU and 10 other countries concluded the last round of negotiations. They have resolved nearly all issues with only a few still open. I will come back to that later.

A consolidated and largely stabilised text of the proposed agreement was made public two weeks ago. I hope that this has allowed you to find out that the Commission has scrupulously respected the principles that I laid out in my previous interventions in this House.

It is essential to remember that ACTA is an agreement concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights. This means that it does not oblige any of its signatories to create new, substantive rights or to change existing ones. It only commits its signatories to ensuring that the rights holders can fully assert their rights if, when and where they exist.

ACTA is about establishing a new tool that will ensure that existing intellectual property rights are effectively protected. This is essential if we want to maintain a leading role in the ‘knowledge economy’. Contrary to what some seem to be claiming, ACTA is not about creating some sort of ‘Big Brother’.

I know that you had concerns with the fact that the negotiations were conducted behind closed doors and that the negotiating texts were not made public. At the insistence of the Commission, successive versions of the text have been published and our negotiators came here after each round to answer all your questions. We have taken these steps to ensure that we could debate the topic in a climate of mutual trust.

I should like to mention that the Ombudsman has recently recognised, in the precise context of the ACTA negotiations, that it was justified to maintain the confidentiality of some key negotiating documents. The Ombudsman confirmed that the preservation of confidentiality was legal and in line with the 2001 Regulation on access to documents.

Let me now highlight some of the main features of ACTA. Firstly, a broad coverage of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Given the diversity of IPRs, on which European operators rely to protect their inventions, we have fought for, and obtained, broad coverage. In particular, we have managed to ensure that Europe’s geographical indications (GIs) will be treated equally.

This is an EU success. It would not be in the draft ACTA Treaty without the European Commission. I know that it may not go as far as some would have liked – for example, as regards border measures. Justified differences will remain, and ACTA Parties will not have to adopt the EU system of protecting GIs through sui generis systems.

Secondly, ACTA defines for the first time an international standard for intellectual property infringements on the Internet. The Internet is the most global, open and fast-moving market environment, where music, films, books and software circulate. Millions of counterfeit goods are traded every day through the Internet. ACTA thus represents a ground-breaking – yet balanced – level of harmonisation and transparency for the rules applicable to such infringements, whilst remaining fully in line with the EU acquis.

Let me stress that ACTA will not change the EU acquis. Our negotiating guidelines requested this and we have scrupulously respected it, as you can see from the text.

Thirdly, ACTA provides a balanced agreement, which replies to the four main concerns expressed by Members, for the following four reasons.

Firstly, the text does not affect the protection of fundamental rights, privacy and data protection.

Secondly, it respects the important role of free Internet and safeguards the role of service providers, as well as the European system of copyright exceptions, such as the European regime of conditional exemption of liability for Internet operators. European exceptions, like private or educational use, will also remain valid.

Thirdly, the text refers to those provisions of the TRIPS agreement that safeguard the essential balance between the rights of the right holders and the public interest, and that stress the ‘need for intellectual property rights to contribute to technical innovation, socio-economic welfare, or the protection of health’.

Fourthly, ACTA explicitly recognises the importance of guaranteeing access to medicines, by referring to the Doha Declaration on the matter, as well as by explicitly excluding patent infringements from the sections on border and penal enforcement.

What is the state of play and the next steps in ACTA? Well, in Tokyo, it was not possible to finalise the text. The parties kept a few reservations, which still need to be addressed in the coming weeks. There are, in particular, two issues open.

Firstly, should patent infringements be included or excluded from the scope of civil litigation measures? I would be interested to hear your views on this issue. I am concerned that a blanket exclusion of patents – an important intellectual property right – might risk depriving many industries of the benefits of this chapter. I am thinking, for example, of the automotive, machinery, pharmaceutical and agro-chemical sectors.

Secondly, the other important issue has to do with the EU proposal that the Internet measures stipulated in ACTA must apply not only to copyright but – at least – also to trademark violations. As you know, on the Internet, you can find thousands of offers for fake goods using European brands, be it for clothes, cosmetics, watches or even foodstuffs. I believe we should address these infringements made through the Internet because they are basically identical to real-life infringements concerning physical goods.

To conclude, I am firmly convinced of the importance of tackling the widespread abuse of European intellectual property around the world. ACTA can provide an important contribution towards this goal, in full compliance with existing European legislation. ACTA is the first important international agreement on IPRs since the TRIPS agreement in the WTO back in 1994. It also strikes a proper balance with the rights of citizens and consumers.

I look forward to a continued close dialogue with the European Parliament and towards the successful conclusion of the agreement and its subsequent approval.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary, on behalf of the PPE Group.(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Commissioner for taking the opportunity several times in recent months, firstly, to report here to the plenary part-session and secondly, to attend question and answer sessions with the relevant parliamentary committee, either in person or through his staff. It is right and important that we should assure the European Parliament that the Commission really does report on the status of negotiations in a transparent way. I believe that this also places us in a position to evaluate, and therefore approve or reject, such an agreement on the basis of solid data.

My impression at the moment is that many critics are running out of arguments against the ACTA agreement. I think it is a good thing that the acquis communautaire remains unchanged. It would be really great if the Commission could once again show us that this really is copper-fastened. There are still some Members of this House who have their doubts about this and I would be grateful if the Commission could explain this issue once again in a clear, unambiguous way – perhaps even having the Commission’s legal service check the matter out. I believe it is a positive thing that the ACTA agreement is apparently focusing on the implementation of existing law, rather than the framing of new laws.

I particularly welcome the section on the Internet. It is high time that we took action in relation films, music, books and software circulating on the Internet. I am not looking to criminalise any of our citizens, but I believe that it must be possible for artists and creators also to pursue their intellectual property rights on the Internet and I welcome the fact that the ACTA agreement offers a first step in this direction.

I would definitely have preferred to deal with the entire issue in the context of the WTO. However, I also note that we lacked suitable partners in dialogue within the WTO, which is why the ACTA agreement is certainly a good start. I would be grateful if the Commission, possibly after the conclusion of the ACTA agreement, would do all it can to ensure that as many other countries as possible sign up to this agreement and would also demonstrate a little flexibility in cases where doubts exist.

I particularly welcome the fact that you have succeeded in including information on geographical origin – such as champagne, Scotch whisky, Parma ham, etc. – I would like to congratulate you on this. I believe this is a huge step forward for the interests of the European Union. It must be possible to secure and protect our European origin labelling and information in the same way as trademarks like Coca Cola, Kellogg’s Cornflakes, etc. I believe we must take active steps here in the interests of our producers.

You raised a question in relation to patents: on the one hand, the title of this agreement clearly points in a different direction; however, on the other hand, our businesses are experiencing enormous problems in this regard and I would suggest that perhaps we could discuss this issue with you in detail on Monday when you attend the meeting of the Committee on International Trade.

Congratulations on what you have achieved. I would encourage you to show perseverance with regard to the outstanding issues. I look forward to the day when this House can decide whether to approve or reject the agreement on the basis of the final wording.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kader Arif, on behalf of the S&D Group. (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are clearly faced with a text whose complexity troubles many of us and, even more, in my opinion, the citizens of Europe. Commissioner, I asked for transparency and you responded. Today, I am somewhat concerned.

Indeed, as I see it, beyond the purely technical issues, the main risk is that of the direction we are beginning to take with regard to this increasingly complex relationship between individual freedoms and the Internet. The world is changing rapidly, and we are all aware of this. We are all aware of the revolution taking place in access not only to information but also to culture via this tool.

In today’s world, where such access is immediate and free, traditional reference points are being undermined. Our most complex task is, therefore, to define new regulations, because regulation is necessary not only to protect artists and rights holders; but I do not want to see individual freedoms ignored.

As regards the protection of freedoms, one of the most important of which is the protection of the right to privacy, one of my main concerns is the possibility afforded by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) of travellers’ personal effects and baggage being checked at borders. Does this mean that our mobile telephones, our MP3 players and our computers may be searched by customs authorities looking for illegally downloaded files?

According to the Commission, this is just a possibility, because the precise term used in the text is not binding. It is said that the Member States may choose whether or not to allow their personal luggage to be searched. However, let us get serious here for a minute. How can one expect such wording not to be seen as incitement to carry out such checks? Do you really think that a government, especially if it is pressurised to some extent by its music industry – and I cite this example deliberately – will not take this opportunity afforded by ACTA to move its national legislation towards increased screening of passengers entering its territory?

Another problem is that, if it is proved that the files held by a private individual are for commercial use, punishment is automatic. However, who determines whether the files we hold are of a commercial nature or not? Some may say that a person with 500 songs on his or her MP3 player necessarily has commercial objectives, but why would others deny themselves the opportunity to fix this limit at 300, 100, 50 or 10? In fact, for an ill-intentioned person, all it takes is to illegally download a single film in order to make thousands of copies of it, and that then becomes commercial activity.

Finally, punishment will be meted out by the courts of each country, but a European citizen arrested by the border authorities of a signatory country on the basis of particularly binding legislation will have no means of challenging it. Is it your wish that such an abuse be possible? Was it not the responsibility of the Commission precisely to do everything it could to ensure that the agreement prohibits searches of personal effects?

I have deliberately raised only this issue this evening, but you have raised many more, which we will incorporate into the resolution I have requested and which will ordinarily be voted on in next month’s plenary. Commissioner, I would ask you to take account of the outcome of this vote, which will be in line with our commitment, that is, to take account of the word of the European Parliament before you sign the act.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Niccolò Rinaldi, on behalf of the ALDE Group.(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the negotiations have been difficult, with strong opposing opinions as well as different interpretations of the consequences of this agreement. As far I as can make out, the current status of the negotiations provides for an imbalance in the treatment of geographic indications and marks, in favour of the latter, as well as the failure to act, in violation of Article 22 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights, on marks that use denominations protected by geographical indications. ‘Parmesan’ – one of a number of possible examples – can be freely produced as ‘Parmesan’ in the United States and Australia and exported to China or elsewhere in direct competition with European products, one of the strengths of which is geographical indications. Consequently, European products seem to be propping up unfair competition without any effective protection from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. I should like a clarification in this regard.

‘Parmesan’ means ‘from Parma’, not Australia or the United States, and this applies equally to all European geographic indications. We must be careful because if, in the course of 21st century globalisation, in a few years’ time, we no longer have our geographic indications, it will partly be because of today’s mistaken choices and we shall lose an enormous piece of our identity. In this regard, if all that were permitted by the ACTA, the agreement would be unacceptable.

There is also the question of the Internet, as already mentioned. The European Union is in favour of a society of widespread knowledge, open to all, and the ACTA must not in any way constitute a restriction on the freedom of access to the Internet. Much has been gained on this issue. The Commissioner has given his important assurances, but it would be unacceptable if the acquis communautaire were tarnished, as still appears to be the case, by the possibility of legal injunctions provided for by Article 2, and by the possibility of criminal sanctions, including for individual users, as provided for by Article 2(14)(1).

I appreciate the highly important assurances on access to medicine for developing countries, but we know that the list of countries adhering to the ACTA is very limited and excludes the great powers of counterfeiting, in Asia, in particular, but not only there. So for this reason, given everything we have to lose on geographic indications and risks on the Internet, the impression – for now – is that the agreement represents only a disadvantage and on this basis, perhaps it is better to let it drop.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.(DE) Mr President, Commissioner°De Gucht, it is obvious that the ACTA agreement negotiated will shortly be adopted. This is an agreement that entails a whole series of commitments by the contracting parties in strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights. We, as Members of the European Parliament, will soon be asked by you, the Commission, to approve this agreement. However, for months now, Parliament has made it clear that a number of the declarations of intent made by the EU within the ACTA agreement run the risk of going beyond current EU law. Not only is it unclear whether sufficient competence exists for this kind of trade agreement, involving as it does provisions such as punitive measures or intervention in fundamental rights, we also lack information on the extent to which ACTA will necessitate the introduction of illegal measures in the EU. For this reason, ACTA will have to be sent back to the negotiating table. And yet you are willing to sign up to the agreement now. That is why I would ask you firstly: Have you already signed? If not, when do you intend to sign? Secondly: When will we receive a detailed impact assessment on the extent to which ACTA could affect fundamental rights within the EU? I look forward to hearing your answers.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I think we should start off by welcoming some of these statements that were made this evening and the fact that, following the Tokyo Round, the Commission released the text to the Parliament, which will ultimately be in a position to give consent or not to these agreements. I think the move towards transparency is something which should be welcomed across the Parliament. After all, that was one of the areas of consensus across the Parliament – we may have disagreed on certain elements, but we agreed on more and more transparency.

An increase in transparency means that we reduce false speculation about the content of the negotiations, but also, to be fair, highlights the positive role played by the Commission in trying to persuade the negotiating partners of the need for greater transparency. I think we played a role in this Parliament in putting pressure on the Commission, so it, in turn, can talk to its negotiating partners about the need for greater transparency.

There are obviously differences of opinion in this House on intellectual property rights. It is clearly a key issue for copyright and trademark holders. ACTA, I hope, is an important step in terms of enforcement among all active parties and builds on the TRIPS agreement of the mid-1990s.

Personally, I think a distinction should be made between the digital world and the world of atoms; in a world of increased processing power, increased storage and increased bandwidth, you see a tendency towards a price of zero and many in the music industry, for example, have failed to react. I understand from speaking to legal experts, however, that it is very difficult to codify that in an agreement.

When it comes to the production of generic medicines, I am glad that ACTA protects copyrights and trademarks while excluding patents from border measures, so you avoid the seizure of generic medicine in transit through the EU. But I do have a question since the Commission was not responsible for negotiating on behalf of the EU when it came to the criminal enforcement chapter which was dealt with by the Council on behalf of Member States. How, when we have this debate about concerns over the criminal sanctions, do we intend to reconcile the two different negotiations between the civil and the criminal chapter?

It is a question for you, Mr Commissioner. You can shrug, but it will be interesting to hear your perspective on this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, this week, US Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have written to the US Patent and Trademark Office to demand a thorough check to ensure that the wording of the negotiated ACTA agreement can be reconciled with existing US legislation. Be assured that we in this House are fulfilling our duty by examining the agreement in the context of the laws of the European Union. My group favours adopting a thorough approach and taking as much time as necessary, even though you have once again offered very detailed answers to the questions regarding the acquis communautaire. This is because the questions that we were able to ask the Commission in the debriefing sessions which you recently offered us after the negotiations, and for which I would like to thank you, were not really answered to our complete satisfaction. Your chief negotiator often gave us the feeling that we were – if I might express myself in colloquial terms at this point – a bit like God-botherers who sought to question holy writ, rather than dealing with the concerns we voiced on behalf of the citizens of Europe.

Nonetheless, some of our original criticism with regard to the aspects relating to the Internet has had some effect and some of the more harmful proposals have been dropped.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI).(DE) Mr President, the ACTA negotiations seem to be more or less concluded. The wording of the latest version of the agreement already reads like legislative text as it applies in individual Member States. Thus, the ACTA agreement will leave the existing legal situation in Europe almost unchanged. The original aim of the agreement was to improve enforcement. However, I am unable to identify any specific solutions in this regard from the proposal. Prior to publication, it became known that the disputed points were to be dropped. However, this version does not seem to take adequate account of the various conflicting interests. For example, Article 2(2) of the agreement reads: ‘Procedures adopted, maintained, or applied to implement this Chapter shall be fair, equitable and provide for the rights of all participants subject to procedures to be appropriately protected’. The chapter on temporary measures contains no explicit reference to the right to due legal process, neither is there a provision for verifying the need to destroy counterfeit products.

Last but not least – we hear that the last points of the negotiation are to finalised by e-mail. However, these last points include the area of application of the agreement as a whole. Surely this should be defined before we start on the formulation of the content. Perhaps this would then also give rise to some practical solutions in the agreement itself.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the European Commission and, in particular, Commissioner De Gucht, for the tough negotiations it is carrying out with the United States, a task that aims to find a point of convergence on an agreement that unfortunately seems to be never ending.

We are still far from a solution to the problems of intellectual property, which continue to be the subject of a dispute between two blocks that differ both economically and politically. Europe must continue to concentrate on two fundamental points. It must be compulsory for European geographic indications to be protected in both civil and customs terms, as these are today suffering damage that affects not only the agro-food industry, whose counterfeited products suffer unfair competition through the use of names that copy and evoke familiar European brands, but also damages industries operating in the design and fashion sectors. This damages businesses, intellectual property, research and – as always – the consumer.

A second central point is the need for common rules controlling online sales: the sale of films, books, music, medicines and millions of other counterfeited goods continue to take place on the Internet, without any controls. The European Union must send a clear message to the rest of the world: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement must be a bulwark against all counterfeiting.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, international agreements have to be submitted to the European Parliament for approval. As Members of Parliament, it is vital that we are able to exercise our right of veto as often as is necessary, but our work has now been made virtually impossible. Time and again, we have been forced to ask the Commission to clarify the state of play in the negotiations on ACTA. However, we are constantly being fobbed off with words. First, we were reassured with the argument that the negotiations are far from over and now you have told us that this is merely an enforcement agreement and that no changes will be made to EU acquis or the law of Member States.

In that case, I would ask: what is then the added value of ACTA? You have said that it will neither harmonise criminal sanctions nor impose any indirect obligation, in terms of the ‘three strikes’ policy. However, we are standing here, talking yet again about the content of this draft agreement and, specifically, about the points which I have mentioned. Yet, every day, I receive messages from concerned citizens and companies and, still, there is a general consensus among the groups in the European Parliament that this draft agreement undermines the fundamental rights of our citizens and passengers from third countries. I will therefore put this question to you in no uncertain terms: what will be the specific benefits of adopting ACTA? Do, please, persuade us that this text from 2 October is a positive and necessary thing.

I also have a very specific question for you, Commissioner: when will the negotiating parties meet again to discuss ACTA? Which parties have failed to agree to it? Why was that? One question after another, Commissioner. Once again, we have been told that the finishing touches have not yet been added to the agreement. How can we agree to an agreement that is being negotiated in backrooms?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, yesterday, the Commission adopted a strategy to mainstream the legally binding EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. As liberals, we proposed this, so this is music to my ears.

Today, the Commission posted information on ACTA after the end of the last negotiations three weeks ago. The site has a paragraph called ‘positive aspects of ACTA’, but there are also some questions that might be labelled otherwise.

Firstly, do trade agreements or law enforcement treaties – which I think ACTA really is – also fall under the mainstreaming of fundamental rights? Will the Commission do an assessment?

Secondly, is the Commission willing to go back to the negotiating table if fundamental rights are at risk through ACTA? Will the Commission wait to finalise the negotiations to take the Parliament’s resolution of early next year into real account? As far as I know, no country has put its initials on a single page of ACTA.

When it comes to the Internet, ACTA even breaks new ground, the statement reads. The preamble states that ACTA seeks ‘to promote cooperation between service providers and rights holders’. Article 2.18.3 goes on: ‘each party shall endeavour to promote cooperative efforts within the business community to effectively copyright infringements. This implies extra-judicial measures and challenges the division of power’. Article 2.18.4 states that the competent authority, not necessarily judicial, should have the power ‘to order an online provider to disclose expeditiously to a rights holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement’.

Besides pointing to the word ‘allegedly’, I would like to stress that Internet service providers are concerned that they will have to start enforcing the law. So, some room needs to be made under the heading ‘negative aspects of ACTA’ to assess the fundamental rights aspect that ACTA still has in the current draft and that the Commission from now on is legally obliged to mainstream.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, since the text of the ACTA agreement has become available, we find that it gives rise to far more questions than answers. This is partly due to the very unclear and vague legal terminology used in places, which seems to rule nothing out and everything in. Let me just touch on one key issue here, which is the call for cooperation between service providers and rights holders in implementing rights. Are we to take this to mean that, for example, Warner Brothers would work together with ISPs almost like deputy sheriffs? How would this work in detail? Would it mean streaming the Internet in order to identify violations? This confusion stems from the fact that, for example, the term ‘private use or commercial use’ is not adequately defined and a common definition has not been found. I believe this to be an extremely problematic issue because it entails the privatisation of legal rights.

As has already been mentioned, yesterday, the Commission gave an undertaking that there will be an impact assessment in relation to civil rights in any new provisions. When can we expect this impact assessment in relation to the ACTA agreement? What can we expect from this assessment and when will we actually be able to read it? This is decisive in enabling us to evaluate this agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). – Mr President, we as a Union have been floundering in the dark in meeting the challenges that have been posed in this new Internet age. Of course, we are not alone and many of our partner nations are in the same position, but we have all got to come together and work towards harmonisation of anti-counterfeiting enforcement.

The protection of copyright is imperative, but a balance has to be struck to ensure that freedom of expression and innovation are not inhibited. We are keen to ensure that the balance reached in the Gallo report is properly recognised in the agreement to encourage growth, competitiveness and innovation to flourish, whilst providing necessary protections for rights holders. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in the enforcement, or approach to enforcement, in the agreement. Flexibility for our Member States is recognised; we support that. ACTA, as the Commissioner said, is a good first step to tackling counterfeit groups and piracy on the Internet and wider afield.

For the EU, we expect a detailed copyright proposal and a thorough impact assessment which the European Parliament will review, analyse and scrutinise on behalf of our citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE).(SV) ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement as it stands for, is, of course, highly controversial. It has been highly controversial here in the European Parliament, but also in Sweden, which I represent. I have been very critical, particularly towards much of what I have seen as secretiveness; the fact that texts have been kept secret, among other things. This has created a feeling and an atmosphere in which myths surrounding the agreement could thrive. The most stubborn of all seems to be the myth that, as a consequence of ACTA, customs will start to inspect ipods and computers. I heard this most recently here in plenary today. However, now that we have all of the texts and everything is on the table, I can see that it was wrong and just a myth. I believe that if Shakespeare had written a play about the debate surrounding ACTA, he would have named this one ‘Much Ado about Nothing’, too.

The Commission has promised that ACTA will not change anything in EU legislation and, on reading this, I understand the same. The fact that there will be no changes to legislation means that there will be no changes to citizen’s everyday lives and this will not change citizen’s involvement with the Internet, for example.

However, it does not mean that ACTA is not important or that it is unnecessary, as someone said here in this Chamber. On the contrary, ACTA will create a global gold standard for the protection of intellectual property. This is important and it is in the interests of both Sweden and Europe. It will reduce the number of conflicts and, if there is something that I hear when I meet Swedish companies, it is, above all, the need to protect patents and the intellectual property rights that they have. This is good, particularly outside Europe. I feel reassured and confident now that I have read the negotiation documents that we have received. I am certain that citizens will feel that way, too. This means that I feel quite confident ahead of the continued debating of this matter in the European Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Françoise Castex (S&D).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, as initiator of the written declaration on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) along with my fellow Members, Mr Lambrinidis, Mrs Roithová and Mr Alvaro, I should first of all like to thank you for the efforts you have made to secure transparency and consensus, particularly in recent weeks. For the moment, my thanks will stop there, because this text remains highly ambiguous on key issues.

Firstly, you say, Commissioner, that this text will not change the EU acquis, but what about the new criminal sanctions for the crime of aiding and abetting copyright infringements, which, however, you wish to distinguish from counterfeiting?

How can we not think of what is happening in France with the threat of the Hadopi law and potential sanctions against the neutrality of technical intermediaries. The fact that this text was negotiated by the Council places it outside the Commission’s scope of negotiation and therefore, perhaps, of the EU acquis.

Secondly, it would seem that the ACTA committee has the possibility of integrating amendments into texts. You will therefore understand our concern at the prospect of adopting a text that might be amended. Once again, Commissioner, it is difficult for us to present the future ACTA Secretariat with a blank cheque and the reservations we will formulate on the interpretation of the text when we vote on the resolution will dictate our position on the ratification of this text.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christian Engström (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, on 10 March this year, this House adopted, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution saying, among other things, that the agreement should not make it possible for any so-called three-strike procedures to be imposed. This is because we do not want Internet service providers (ISPs) to start acting as private police forces and be forced to take on that role.

The Commission has repeatedly said in various oral statements that this is not the case. I welcome those statements. However, when you look at the text, it is already in the preamble, ‘desiring to promote cooperation between service providers and rights holders with respect to relevant infringements in the digital environment’. Then, in Article 2.18.3, as Mrs Schaake quoted, ‘shall endeavour to promote cooperative efforts within the business community to effectively address corporate infringements’. If this does not mean three strikes, what does it mean?

It is all very well to talk about cooperation between rights holders and ISPs but what are the ISPs supposed to do? If they do not want to do it, what measures will be taken against the ISPs? I am very concerned that the language in this agreement – as Mrs Castex was saying –is so ambiguous that it is not really clear what it means. I still have the basic concerns that have been with us all along, and I would very much like to see a proper evaluation of the fundamental rights aspects of this agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, of course, the attempt to reach good international agreements is very praiseworthy and I freely admit that this is a far from easy task. Nonetheless, when considering such agreements, at some point we must stop and ask: who will benefit and who will suffer as a result? I get the feeling that in fact, it benefits just a few people who want to make a fat profit and who have little interest in upholding human rights, freedom of information, etc. and that it actually harms far more people than it genuinely benefits.

I am still not clear about the actual situation with regard to generics. Admittedly, there is not a lot that can be achieved through criminal penalties. However, we know that civil actions and the associated major compensation claims, etc. can inflict far more damage than criminal proceedings. Then the question of trademark protection versus origin markings arises. We have just had a discussion where it was stated that origin markings are gaining increasing importance and offer opportunities beyond the ambit of trademark protection. However, everything seems to have got hung up on the issue of trademark protection.

The idea of using Internet providers as a de facto private police force, something that has already been mentioned by other Members of the House, is a concept that I utterly reject. Who is going to control the providers? There is no duty to provide information and no data protection, as should really be the case with public bodies. These are all things that give me cause for concern. Furthermore, I do not know what these impact assessments will achieve in terms of human rights and, above all, what the Commission will do if this House forms the impression that this is a watered-down solution and refuses to endorse it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). (NL) Mr President, I can well imagine that the main purpose of this agreement might be to prevent the counterfeiting of handbags and watches. However, an agreement which states that the business community must cooperate in order to combat copyright infringement, now that is where it seems to me that things start to get a bit more complicated. If I may return to the subject of handbags, I take it that a tanner might have to ask a manufacturer of zips and buckles to check the identity of the people that are buying those bags? Are we, as authorities, then going to impose such a policing task on those kinds of companies? Now, that would be an ill-advised development and you have not given us any clarification of this point in your proposal.

I have heard you say, Mr De Gucht, that you fear that, if we drop patents from ACTA, we will have the pharmaceutical industry on our backs. I have a different fear, because ambiguities still exist as regards patents and border controls. That is not to say that something as embarrassing as the seizing of anti-HIV drugs in the port of Rotterdam will not happen again.

Put our minds at ease, Mr De Gucht, and test ACTA against fundamental rights. Yesterday, your Commission published a strategy to that effect. Reassure us that people in developing countries have a right to healthcare. Reassure us that Internet users will not be pried on by commercial companies and that their freedom will not be limited.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). (SK) The ever-growing number of counterfeit and pirated products on the international market increases the possibility of a threat to the sustainable development of the world economy, and undoubtedly also brings financial losses to the original manufacturers as well as infringing on the intellectual property of authors and subjects involved in manufacturing and production. It also clearly presents a risk to consumers and is the cause of job losses in Europe.

The idea of a multilateral agreement to combat piracy and counterfeiting may be an effective mechanism for curbing such activities. However, I join my colleagues in emphasising the need for transparency and better credibility in any such negotiations and agreements. I consider it equally essential that a balance be struck between the rights we are interested in protecting and the rights that are essential in society. The enforcement or protection of the rights of some must not encroach on the rights and justified interests of others. I refer, in particular, to the provisions of the agreement which intend to criminalise completely harmless ordinary users but will not penalise the big players. It seems absurd to me that during border controls, technical equipment containing audio and video recordings for personal use may be confiscated. In our legal tradition, copying for personal use without commercial purposes is common and not illegal. Commissioner, why should a student, for example, be unable to make a copy of a book he needs for school?

Once again, I stress that we need to give the green light to acceptable copyright protection. However, behind the current version of ACTA is the work of the lobbyists of US recording companies who, in their pursuit of profit, intend to terrorise and criminalise a large part of our society, and the citizens of the Member States of the European Union in particular. I consider the astronomical fines, inappropriate checks, negotiations on the agreement behind closed doors, and so on disproportionate. Therefore, I would like to ask the European Commission to resist the enormous pressure from the lobbyists and prepare a rational and well-balanced alternative to the current version of ACTA.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). (CS) Through our written statement, we were striving for transparency in negotiating ACTA, and an assurance about protection of personal data and the EU acquis. I am pleased that the draft agreements have finally been published and that most of the problems that we criticised have disappeared from the agreement. However, it would be a failure for the Union if, for example, protection for geographical indications were cut back; for example, if non-European countries were not required to protect Karlovy Vary waffles, or the aforementioned champagne, throughout their territory. It is not enough merely to control the borders. I ask the Commissioner for clarification on this.

However, I also have doubts about the effectiveness of the agreement given that the biggest global counterfeiters from Asia are not parties to it, which, in addition, may cause trouble for entrepreneurs and consumers when implementing the agreement. Finally, I would ask the Commissioner or the Commission to present to us a detailed analysis of the impact of ACTA on the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all, there have been several interventions claiming that the implementation of ACTA would lead to limiting civil liberties, and several pointed out the control of laptops, or of air passengers at borders, for example.

The joint declaration of 16 April issued by all the ACTA parties is quite clear. There is no proposal to force ACTA participants to require border authorities to search travellers’ baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials.

ACTA is about tackling large-scale, illegal activity and pursuing criminal organisations. It is not about limiting civil liberties or harassing consumers. ACTA will be in line with the current EU regime for enforcement of IPRs, which fully respect fundamental rights and freedoms and civil liberties, such as the protection of personal data.

One example is the di minimis clause in the 2003 EU customs regulation that exempts travellers from checks if the infringing goods are not part of large-scale traffic.

EU customs, frequently confronted with drug trafficking, weapons or people, have neither the time nor the legal basis to look for a couple of pirated songs on an iPod or laptop computer, and we have no intention of changing this.

We will not change this, and we will ensure that ACTA parties can continue to apply such an exemption. However, we cannot impose the de minimis exemption as an absolute obligation, because some Member States acting under national rules have kept the authority to carry out certain controls of passengers.

Reference has been made again to the three-strike law or the HADOPI law in France which makes this possible. However, this is a national rule and the European Union does not have the authority to make a national state change this.

Several have also been asking for an impact assessment on fundamental rights, an impact study on privacy and an impact study on the acquis communautaire.

I have made several statements in this plenary that there has been no infringement whatsoever of fundamental rights or the acquis communautaire in any way, and I must say that in the three debates that we have already had in this plenary, none of you has given an example of problems related to fundamental liberties. Nobody has pointed to an infringement of the acquis communautaire. Nobody has been able to give an example. If you give us examples, we will look into them.

As for negotiating behind closed doors, Parliament has been asking for more transparency on the ACTA negotiations. It is the Commission that has made sure that this happens; that you have the text before you that was negotiated in Tokyo, and that you got it a couple of days after it was finalised. You have it also with the reserves that still exist; three on the part of the European Union, three on the part of the United States. You have the result of the negotiations. How can you say that this has happened behind closed doors?

The question has been put to the Ombudsman. Maybe you do not trust me. I am the Commission. Maybe you do not trust the Council. Maybe you do not trust your governments. I have detected from a lot of speeches here that your trust in national governments is not very deep, but I think you at least trust the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has said very clearly that we can keep documents confidential, and what we have been doing is making a large additional step in the direction of transparency.

You would expect that when you do that, you would be applauded. At least there would be some consideration for the fact, but some of you simply continue to say that we negotiate behind closed doors and that there is no transparency. So what is the use in making an effort to have more transparency if afterwards, you still continue to say that there is no transparency? Maybe I would be better investing my time in something else.

As regards the possibility of the European Commission agreeing on a final text: in the Lisbon Treaty, there are, in fact, very clear rules on how international agreements are negotiated, by whom and how they are concluded and ratified, including the important role of the European Parliament.

There are also clear rules in the framework agreement as to how Parliament must be informed and heard during the negotiating process. I think we have respected these rules scrupulously. It is the Commission’s prerogative, as a negotiator, to determine the point at which negotiations are technically finalised and at which the agreement can be initialled. The agreement is not yet initialled and you have the possibility tonight to make your remarks before we even do the initialling and before we even decide to initial the agreement as such. We have not yet made a decision in the Commission on what we are actually going to do, because we still have a couple of reserves that we want to settle with the United States before making up our minds.

The initialling of the agreement is part of the Commission’s prerogatives and it does not definitely bind the Union. The agreement will become definitive once the European Parliament has given its consent.

So let us respect the treaty and let us respect the framework agreements. In the meantime, we will continue to inform and engage with you as stipulated in the framework agreement.

By the way, according to the treaty, it is the Council which authorises the signature of the agreements, but Parliament always has the last word. It has to ratify this agreement and if consent is refused, there is simply no agreement at all.

So be a little bit patient. There is no initialling yet. Once there is initialling, you have the translation, you have the check by the lawyer-linguists, and then it comes to the Council for signature and to Parliament for ratification. So no decision whatsoever has been taken at this moment in time, and you have another possibility tonight to make known all the comments that you have on your mind.

Some have also been asking how the EU would benefit by entering into such an agreement if it will go no further than its current laws and if, furthermore, other countries like the US also claim that it will not change domestic law.

This is not about substantive law. This agreement is about the enforcement of existing law, and that is why I have repeatedly stipulated that we are not going to change the acquis communautaire. The acquis communautaire is about substantive law and we are not changing that. An international treaty that would adopt standards similar to those of the EU, but also to those already in place in countries like the US or Japan, would still be a most valuable contribution to the current prevailing international standard as defined by the WTO TRIPS agreement.

Our goal is to promote ACTA standards to key emerging partners, namely through our future trade agreements, but also in multilateral venues. That being said, several ACTA parties have taken the momentum created by the ACTA negotiations to revise their domestic legislation along the agreed lines.

As far as I am aware, for instance, both Japan and Canada are in the process of reviewing their Internet enforcement regimes. Moreover, it is often overlooked that ACTA is not only about improved legal standards. It is also about cooperation between enforcement authorities, the adoption of best practices or the better coordination of technical assistance.

Although the EU has had very successful cooperation with the US in these areas for the last four to five years, we believe that ACTA can also improve those important aspects of the fight against IPR infringements.

We consider that the US enforcement system is generally effective and efficient in the protection of certain intellectual property rights. The Commission has stressed that ACTA is not a disguised means to circumvent their domestic legislative process and to devise their current laws and so has Parliament. It is understandable that US officials stress the same line.

Let me add that the principle of cooperation between rightholders is already in Article 15 of the e-Commerce Directive since 2003, so this is not a new concept. It is in the e-Commerce Directive and we are simply referring to that. We are referring to the existing EU law.

Let me further say that what is often overlooked in the debate on ACTA are the number of jobs of EU citizens that relate to intellectual property rights and we often discuss jobs on all sides of the House.

Millions of jobs in Europe depend on respect for intellectual property rights. Counterfeiting is a serious attack on European industry and on the European economy and on European innovation, because we are an innovation-based economy.

What we are really talking about is jobs. And I must say that I am a little bit surprised that in the three discussions that we have now had in this plenary, this has never in fact been mentioned. This reference to jobs has never been made. The references that are made are to fundamental rights and I am very sensitive to that, but without any confirmative example.

The reference is made to controls at the borders where it is clear that ACTA adds nothing to what already exists. There is a reference to privacy and I see no reason why privacy would be under attack. There are references to a kind of nebulous liberty and liberties that you think are under attack, but you do not give any examples of that. On the other hand, what is very clear, and what is documented in all kinds of impact studies that have already been done by the way by the Commission, on all kinds of items, is that a lot of our jobs are linked to intellectual property rights and that is one of the reasons we attach such importance to that topic. I am a little bit surprised that this is very rarely mentioned by Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the next part-session.

Written statements (Rule 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing.(RO) I wish to welcome the progress which has been made in the ACTA negotiations. This agreement is an absolute necessity for establishing common international standards on the enforcement of intellectual property legislation.

However, I must point out that sanction measures against intellectual property infringements must comply with the principle of proportionality and balance between the gravity of the acts committed and the sanctions applied. In this case, I am referring, in particular, to intellectual property infringements in the digital media and Internet where a clear difference ought to be made in terms of treatment between large-scale piracy for commercial purposes and isolated, random cases of intellectual fraud.

Furthermore, regardless of the seriousness of the offences committed, the agreement should focus particular attention on protecting freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial and confidentiality.

 

17. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes
Video of the speeches

18. Closure of the sitting
Video of the speeches
 

(The sitting was closed at 23:55)

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy