Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 23 November 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

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

3. Natural disasters in the European Union

  President. – I shall begin with some very sad information regarding the floods in Europe. Yet again this year, Europe has been hit by a flood disaster. Recently, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and northern Italy have suffered – at the moment there is flooding in central Italy – as well as the south-west of England and several other countries. Perhaps, when you take the opportunity to speak, because I will open the floor in a moment, you will give other examples, too, of serious floods which have afflicted Europe.

There have been fatalities, as well as material losses valued at many millions. Eight years ago, the European Union Solidarity Fund was established to help countries which have been hit by natural disasters. The money set aside in this fund has so far been used in 33 serious natural disasters. We share, today, the pain of the victims’ families and of those from whom the water has taken everything they possessed. We know these are terrible, exceptional events in the life of every person affected.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, over recent weeks, severe floods have struck several European countries, bringing the populations of the affected regions to their knees.

Last week, four Belgian citizens lost their lives in the provinces of Waals-Brabant, Oost-Vlanderen and Henegouwen, on the border between the capital and the northern part of the country. As far as the authorities are concerned, it was the worst flood of the past 50 years. In two days, as much rain fell as normally falls in one month. It was so bad that the army had to intervene to evacuate the hardest hit areas.

Similar situations arose in the western part of France, where many roads were impassable to traffic and caused gridlock to the transport system. Seed could not be sown in autumn due to the continual rain that prevented access to the land.

Twenty days ago, my own country, Italy, was also hard hit in the regions of Veneto, where two deaths occurred, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Liguria and Calabria, with one fatality in each, and the province of Salerno in Campania and Tuscany, where three people died, with dozens of injured people having to be extricated from the mud and rubble and one person who is still missing in Rovigo.

The damage amounts to more than EUR 1 billion for the most immediate work alone, to which must be added the funds necessary for structural works. More than 4 500 homeless, 280 municipalities and more than 500 000 people affected, farming areas devastated and 150 000 dead livestock.

I would like to highlight two aspects. The first is the exceptional mobilisation of the aid machinery and the world of solidarity that sent thousands of volunteers to support the people struck by the first stage of the emergency. They deserve the thanks and appreciation of our institution.

The second aspect is linked to the long-term effects that this catastrophe will trigger. The fabric of the European manufacturing industry is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises that have lost everything: machinery, vehicles and materials. The same applies to the thousands of farms that have seen their crops destroyed but also the tractors, machinery and seeds rendered useless by the mud, with stables and stock farms flooded and thousands of cattle and poultry drowned.

These farms, which were already struggling with the economic crisis, are now destined for bankruptcy. Over time, the floods will lead to the destruction of the productive system, with unemployment and depletion of the affected lands. Europe must therefore play its part as a matter of urgency by assuring the governments of those countries affected of its willingness to mobilise the Solidarity Fund.

Even if it means overriding the strict criteria for fund activation and even without the approval of the 2011 budget, we must respond immediately to our fellow citizens who are still experiencing, even now, the effects of such a great crisis, and who are entitled to feel that Parliament is behind them and the European Union is providing substantial support.

  Edite Estrela, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I would like to show our solidarity with all of the regions hit by natural disasters, and give our heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of the storms. 2010 began with the world in shock at the scale of the tragedy caused by the disaster that struck the autonomous region of Madeira, in Portugal. Shortly afterwards, storm Xynthia buffeted France. Extreme meteorological phenomena also affected Spain, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, causing substantial damage.

In Central Europe, summer floods are becoming increasingly frequent and devastating. Thousands of people have had to flee their homes in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Italy and the United Kingdom, and numerous factories have had to cease operation. Every year, hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest in southern Europe are consumed by fires. It is thought that climate change is exacerbating the situation and that natural disasters which cause terrible damage in terms of loss of lives, environmental damage and reduced economic activity are on the rise. It is vital to prevent, research and properly manage the risk.

According to the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, better urban planning in coastal zones and the preservation of ecosystems can reduce the impact of natural disasters. On the other hand, civil protection mechanisms should be strengthened, the EU’s response instruments simplified and the rules for implementing regulations made more flexible. Mr President, you have spoken about the Solidarity Fund. It is incomprehensible that the Council has maintained the block on the new regulation on the Solidarity Fund, which was approved by Parliament. I would also point out that Parliament recently approved the proposal for the creation of a European Drought Observatory as a centre for knowledge, mitigation and monitoring of the effects of drought. Greater investment in prevention and more care in the preparation and training of personnel can also make all the difference.

  Dirk Sterckx, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, of course, our first sympathies lie with the victims. In my country, four people have drowned and I hear that in other countries, too, hundreds and thousands of people have suffered enormous financial and emotional losses to their businesses and homes. Our first thoughts go out to them, of course. In recent weeks, months, even years, a large number of Member States have encountered problems with water, that is, with flooding. I have a question for the Commission. Do you think that, in assessing these events, it would be useful to bring together experts from various Member States, from various regions, and give them the opportunity to tell us what their opinions are about what has happened, so that we can get a better insight into the causes? It is a very complicated matter, but, in my view, if we can get to the bottom of the causes, we will also be able to discuss remedies with those experts. In my view, a risk analysis of each river basin, such as those we have carried out for the environment in the Water Directive, would be appropriate. We also need to consult them about preventative measures. How can we prevent such a disaster happening again? Because, we are still expecting some heavy rain and it will be concentrated in particular areas; that has, after all, been the cause of the flooding. Finally, if we then experience a new emergency, we will need to ensure that we are able to take better coordinated measures to improve water disposal. I would like to ask the Commission to bring experts together so that we can properly assess the recent disasters.

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I, too, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, should like to offer my condolences to all the families and all the people who have been affected by these tragic floods, to all those who have lost loved ones, and to all those who have sustained material losses. However, I should also like to mention and thank all the fire-fighters, rescue workers and volunteers who have been very active over the last few weeks in all the affected regions.

The victims will have to be assisted and compensated not only in the very short term, but also in the months to come. We will also have to come up with a consistent and innovative policy that tackles the root causes of the problem, and I propose three types of measure to the Commission.

Firstly, we must carry out renovation and construction projects to make the soil less impermeable, because every time an industrial site, shopping centre or housing estate is built, it must be designed in such a way as to prevent the soil from becoming slightly more impermeable. This provision does not just apply to flood zones.

Secondly, we must review our agricultural practices. Intensive agricultural policies have made the land more vulnerable to sudden changes in the weather. We should therefore strengthen all agri-environmental measures along these lines.

Lastly, there is the matter of alerting and coordinating towns so that they can prepare for and deal with such incidents when they occur. We feel that communication and mobilisation have not been fast enough at times, and thought will no doubt have to be given to more active procedures for coordinating the dissemination of weather warnings.

I therefore propose that the European Union should review all of its policies – prevention policies and active policies in all other areas – and should develop ones that can be of help in this matter, otherwise, when the next rather extreme weather events occur in a few months’ time, we will find ourselves back here offering our condolences to the victims – to people, families and businesses. I believe we should avoid that, and we can do so in all of our policies.

  Julie Girling, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, my group also extends its sincere condolences to those affected. I have very personal experience of this; indeed, it was the flooding in my own region which first brought me into contact with the European Parliament and indeed inspired me to become a Member eventually, so the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund in that event was certainly a big event for me. Only this week, we have had further flooding in Cornwall, which is in my region.

My point has already been made by Mr Sterckx, but I think it bears repetition. I think that early warnings are important, but we all know how quickly the weather moves and how quickly the weather changes. I wonder if it is really a good use of money to put a lot into early warnings on weather, which are already really there. It is about what you do when you get the warnings. As Mr Sterckx has said, Europe could certainly add a great deal of value by having a situation in which we could learn from each other.

I know in the case of Gloucestershire, where I came from, we were greatly helped after the floods by connections most particularly with Austrian regions, where they had major experience of flooding in highly elevated areas. We did not have that.

I think it would be a very good idea for the Commission to focus on setting up some regional connections so that we can learn from each other about how we cope with this, because it clearly is not going to go away.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, I would like to express my sympathy for the victims and for those affected. All the groups in Parliament are in agreement on this. We also agree that we must provide aid quickly. A lot of sensible things have already been said. It is not necessary for me to repeat them, but I do fully support them. There is one further aspect that I would like to highlight and that is the long-term damage. We must not forget that many of the consequences will have a more lasting impact on the natural environment than we may currently anticipate. Therefore, it seems important to me for the Solidarity Fund and the measures that we are taking to be targeted at these long-term consequences of natural destruction.

I would like to make one last point. We can sit here and discuss this issue, but the most important thing for us to do is to provide support, so that people can begin to organise help for themselves, because they have a better understanding of the local conditions than we do here in Parliament.

  Mara Bizzotto, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group, I would like to express my solidarity with all citizens affected by the flood. I would nevertheless like to talk about my own region, a region of 5 million inhabitants where 500 000 people were struck by the flood, with 131 municipalities involved, 7 000 inhabitants displaced, 140 km2 flooded, three hospitals and medical facilities evacuated and two deaths. Farming was hard hit, and 23% of the enterprise system of the Veneto also felt the full impact. This is just to give you an idea of the size of this catastrophe.

Europe must do more. Europe must mobilise the Solidarity Fund and we know that if the budget is not approved, the fund cannot be mobilised. It is all very well for us to sit here talking about great strategies, development plans and mythical programmes: Europe should also invest more in the research and prevention of hydrogeological risk, promote responsible land planning and provide incentives for the use and development of early warning systems.

It should invest more in hydraulic defence works, because our rivers are at risk and they continue to endanger the health of our citizens. I therefore hope wholeheartedly that Europe, for once, will come up with a response and let its voice be heard, because it is often accused of being too far removed from its citizens.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Both natural disasters and industrial disasters, as we have seen from the recent tragedy of the toxic sludge spill in Hungary, are, unfortunately, a relatively frequent occurrence in Europe. The credibility of the European Union as an organisation showing solidarity in need depends on an ability to provide effective and particularly rapid assistance to affected areas and their citizens. The most important issue here is time. The rules governing any assistance should therefore be as flexible as possible, especially in the case of disasters of a cross-border nature. The condition of achieving a defined expected level of damage, regardless of the size of the affected territory and the intensity of the damage, seems unsatisfactory. It is actually impossible to predict everything. I therefore fully support changes aimed at the effective and rapid mobilisation of resources. Being able to help our own citizens is, in my view, a significant positive element in the perception of the EU. How better to prove that Europe is here for its citizens?

4. 10th anniversary of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women and peace and security (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission concerning the 10th anniversary of the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women and peace and security.

I would like to welcome to the Chamber the representative of the Council and the representative of the Commission.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have the honour of taking the floor in this debate on behalf of Baroness Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Allow me, first of all, Mr President, to thank the European Parliament for its continued interest in the topic of women, peace and security, and to point out – although you obviously know this – that Parliament was the first institution, just one month after the adoption of resolution 1325, to call for its implementation by means of a resolution within this institution.

Ten years later, we can conclude that progress has been made. We now have a significantly enhanced international framework, in particular, thanks to the adoption, in 2009, of resolutions 1888 and 1889. The appointment of the first United Nations Special Representative on violence against women in armed conflicts was an important step.

What is more, there are currently more than 20 national plans throughout the world. However, the situation persists, and the reality is that the protection of women in conflict situations and their participation in peacekeeping and reconstruction processes still fall short of the pledges made and of the needs on the ground. Violence, and particularly sexual violence, against women and girls in conflicts continues to destroy many lives and, all too often, with complete impunity.

The European Union is firmly committed to implementing resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions. Today, we have a sound EU policy on women, peace and security, covering all aspects of the Union’s external relations, from crisis management up to and including humanitarian aid and development cooperation. I should like to mention here a few specific achievements: one of the actions entails exchanging good practices.

To this end, experts from the EU institutions and the Member States regularly participate in a task force. This process has led to an increase in the number of programmes at national level. 10 Member States now have a national action plan and two other plans are being drafted. The European Union has a series of programmes designed to meet the needs of women and girls in conflict and post-conflict situations, such as the funding of medical care for victims of sexual violence.

In less than two years, this programme has funded projects in 67 countries, with over EUR 300 million provided in total. The European Union has started using a gender tracker to track gender mainstreaming in development cooperation programmes. It has gender advisers and gender focal points in each of its 13 common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions, as well as gender focal points in more than 80 EU delegations.

We are currently finalising a report in which conclusions are drawn from the integration of gender and human rights issues in common security and defence policy. The European Union is also working closely with civil society in order to promote the participation of women in the areas of peace and security.

In 2011, we plan to launch some specific projects to support women’s networks in crisis-affected countries, with an estimated budget of EUR 2 million. Several EU delegations have organised Open Door days to mark the 10th anniversary of resolution 1325 and to meet local women’s groups, such as those in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Iraq, for example.

In mid-October, the European Union and the African Union organised a seminar for civil society in Addis Ababa, with a view to making recommendations for joint European Union-African Union actions.

Furthermore, as regards renewed and measurable commitments, we plan to develop, by the end of the year, some standard training elements on gender, human rights and children’s rights which will be used to train the personnel of CSDP missions; to develop, by 2013, local strategies to implement resolution 1325 in development cooperation in at least 60% of conflict and post-conflict countries; and, lastly, to report regularly on the implementation of the EU’s women, peace and security commitments, by using the 17 indicators that were adopted in July 2010. The first report is being finalised as we speak.

On 26 October, the European Union took part in a debate at the Security Council to mark the 10th anniversary of resolution 1325. The Belgian Presidency had previously organised three ministerial, high-level and expert meetings in Brussels, New York and Geneva in order to raise awareness and make recommendations.

The European Union has accordingly made strong calls for increased international monitoring of resolution 1325, in particular by emphasising all the indicators developed by the Secretary-General. The European Union therefore now calls for the swift, operational implementation of those indicators.

  Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, thank you very much to the Belgian President-in-Office of the Council for his words on this subject. The Commission fully supports what the representative of the Council has just said, and I would like to add three specific points.

Firstly, I would like to say that I entirely agree with what the President-in-Office of the Council said: there is clear progress, with more than 20 national action plans established worldwide, as well as the appointment of the first United Nations Special Representative for violence against women in armed conflicts.

The second point I would like to make to all of you is that the Commission believes that more work needs to be done on preventing violence against women and girls in conflicts and, in particular, against sexual and gender violence, something which continues to happen and which is destroying many lives.

Thirdly, the European Union must set an example by applying resolution 1325 and the resolutions implementing it.

We need to continue to pay attention to the needs of women and children affected by armed conflicts, and also in post-conflict situations, through programmes financing, for example, the provision of medical services for the survivors of sexual and gender violence, by working alongside civil society to promote the participation of women in building peace and security and, of course, by working closely with the United Nations on drawing up the indicators that the Secretariat-General has developed.

The European Union must also take other steps; for example, the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative, Baroness Ashton, has appointed the first female EU Special Representative for Sudan, Dame Rosalind Marsden.

  Edit Bauer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) Mr President, the adoption of resolution 1325 by the UN Security Council ten years ago obviously represented an historical step on the part of the international community, taken in the wake of the tragic experience of the Yugoslav Wars. Wars take their greatest toll on the innocent civilians, and in times of armed conflicts, civilians largely consist of women. Our experience has shown that armed conflicts have thus far been accompanied by the rape of women, and it is no coincidence that the Geneva Convention also acknowledges that this often amounts to genocide.

Even after the conflicts, stigmatisation and the consequences of violation continue to devastate the lives of the victims, as the scars left by physical and psychological abuse remain for life – if the victim ever recovers from them at all. It is therefore no overstatement to request that the prevention of violence against women become an integral part of public safety and defence policy, and that there be means by which acts of violence committed against civilians can be brought to an end. The efforts made by the UN in this regard can obviously not remain without appropriate response, as even today, women are being raped in their thousands in war zones, and are then cast out by their families, thus becoming double victims.

Recently, over 8 000 women were raped in eastern Congo within a span of five days, but there is also the issue of refugee camps, such as Camp Ashraf, where women are not safe to this day. It is also justified to request an increase in the participation of women in peacekeeping forces, as the presence of women under these specific circumstances is of extreme importance. We believe that it is important for women to play a more active part in peace processes. We cannot allow them to simply be passive participants or even victims of such processes. I am pleased to note that the Commission has taken serious steps in this respect.

  Maria Eleni Koppa, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Mr President, it is 10 years since UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security was adopted. It is an important anniversary, more topical than ever, because women, like children, are still the biggest victims of war.

The thousands of cases of rape in war zones prove that rape and sexual abuse are systematically used as a weapon of war to humiliate and demoralise the opponent. In numerous cases, soldiers, guided by their superiors, systematically commit rape which, if committed in public, inflicts an even greater injury on the opposing side. The victims of these practices, generally women, are stigmatised, rejected or even murdered by their own community in an effort to restore honour.

We must all pull together in this fight. This disgrace to humanity, these war crimes, must stop. At the same time, we must increase controls everywhere, including by the blue berets, because we have a great deal of direct and indirect responsibility. Strict sanctions need to be imposed on everyone involved in such practices. Training, controls, discipline and a clear message are needed. Finally, we need to show the international community that we mean what we say.

As resolution 1325 states, women can and must participate equally in the promotion of peace and security. Our common objective must be to put women in a stronger position, with the facility to take recourse to the international courts, with programmes for their economic, social and mental reintegration. Their emancipation and protection are the sine qua non in putting a stop to the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.

  Barbara Lochbihler, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, exactly 10 years ago, women’s rights as a fundamental element of human rights first became a topic for discussion by the UN Security Council following a call for gender equality in conflict and crisis situations. This was a milestone on the road to the introduction of a mandatory requirement under international law for the participation of women at decision-making levels in peace processes and security policy.

The Secretary General at the time, Kofi Annan, made an urgent call in 2005 for national action plans to be drawn up for the implementation of resolution 1325. We have already heard that only 20 states have so far done this, including European countries such as Sweden and Great Britain, but also African countries, for example, Liberia and the Côte d’Ivoire. I believe that all the EU Member States should adopt action plans of this kind. This also applies to countries such as Germany, where I come from, which has so far refused to compile an action plan.

The gender perspective has definitely become more important at an international level. A new UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence has been appointed and the UN Entity for Gender Equality has been established. However, we must be aware that all of these measures are very much in their early stages. This is about providing support for women and girls who have been the victims of sexual violence. We must intensify the resolutions and the aid programmes that are already in place. However, this is also about support for identifying and prosecuting the offenders, which must always be linked to the reform of local judicial systems.

Mr Chastel’s message on behalf of Baroness Ashton concerning the provision of EUR 2 million to support this resolution is a very positive one. I would like to make it clear how important it is to involve local women’s rights NGOs, so that the money goes to where it is really needed.

  Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Mr President, women and children are victims in wars and conflict situations. Violence, rape, torture and sexual assaults are weapons that are used against women and children in these situations. Women have now been recognised as victims, and indeed they are victims. They have been recognised, among other things, as a result of the appointment of Margot Wallström to the post of UN Special Representative.

However, women are not just victims; they are important players in peace and security work for the prevention of conflicts. Their participation in the work to establish peace and democracy following wars and conflicts is essential. They play an active part in the reconstruction of the countries. Despite the fact that it is ten years since the adoption of the UN resolution, women are still only recognised as victims of violence. They are ignored in connection with the important reconstruction work for establishing peace and democracy. Despite the fact that we now know what an important part women play in this work, it is still the men who have all the influence over the decisions. It is time that we recognised the capability of women, including in connection with the peace and security work. The EU must demand that the gender perspective is taken into account when providing assistance and subsidies for reconstruction work.

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Madam President, UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security is one of the latest serious documents in which all of the nations of the world declare their respect and reverence for the fairer sex.

Every provision of the resolution has its own profound sense, and responds to problems which life often brings in relationships between men and women, when women and children frequently become the victims of force, unbridled violence and injustice in crisis situations. The advanced civilised countries subscribe to their commitments arising from UN Security Council resolution 1325 and strive, through various measures, to create the greatest possible space for applying these in national and international institutions involved in conflict resolution and the organisation of peace processes.

However, serious problems persist over respect for the human rights of women and children in many countries in the developing world, especially in central Africa and several parts of Asia. The actions of barbaric military regimes are based on a different scale of values than the one recognised by the civilised world, and the human dignity of civilians, women and children means nothing to bands of murderers.

In my opinion, this is an area we should look at and focus greater attention on as soon as possible. It is therefore also necessary to take measures in EU policy to exert greater and more intensive pressure on those regimes which do not respect the basic human rights of their citizens and inhabitants.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that all of us could easily answer the question as to which major group of people is essentially excluded from decision making, or is only minimally involved in it, while, at the same time, having to bear the consequences of political, economic and financial decisions to a very large extent. Yes, fellow Members, I am referring to women, and not only in connection with armed conflicts, which is the topic of today’s sitting, but also in connection with the economy, because it is, after all, women who must put food on their families’ tables, and it is women who suffer through poverty, together with their children, to an especially significant degree. To me, this is the core message of this UN declaration – that women should be given considerably greater opportunities in decision making, so that they can become shapers, rather than victims, of their fates.

In what ways do armed conflicts affect women? Let us look at the example of Gaza. Even now, it is women who are nursing and tending to those injured as a result of the brutality of the State of Israel, it is women who nurse and tend to the children who have become disabled as a consequence, and it is women who suffer significantly from the effects of the bombing and destruction of infrastructure, the bombardment of roads and schools. We should keep this in mind when we take account of the torments women have to endure in armed conflicts.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in conflict areas, the use of violence against women is a deliberate tactic. Rape is a widespread, systematic and organised practice. It is a weapon of war. We must, of course, condemn this violence.

Condemnation aside, however, we must go beyond mere declarations, otherwise they just become a mantra. We must find ways to act. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I am asking you to consider three courses of action.

The first course of action: I believe we should be convinced of the need for the European Union to promote local women’s organisations in all those conflict situations in which it intervenes. Respect for the basic principles of freedom and justice will increase if it can be founded on women. Wherever women are granted rights in the world, respect for human dignity and the values of equality and fraternity – which are EU values – will be promoted.

The second course of action: when we Europeans contribute aid to help rebuild countries, I believe we should consider making it a requirement for governing powers and local authorities on the ground – which we help – to introduce quotas to ensure the participation of women at decision-making levels. I am thinking, for example, of the Palestinian Authority, which we help, which is funded almost entirely by us. The situation in the Middle East could only benefit if we demanded that the Palestinian Authority introduce quotas allowing for women to hold positions of political responsibility.

Lastly, the third course of action: wherever we intervene, by civilian, police or military means, I believe we must undertake to give women a significant and appropriate role within our own troops and operational delegations. This will only serve to make us more effective and, as many reports suggest, it will probably mean that populations are more willing to accept us.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it has now been 10 years since the United Nations Security Council adopted, for the first time in its history, a resolution highlighting the specific situation of women living in combat areas and their role in resolving conflicts. However, today, 10 years on from that resolution, thousands of women are still being raped in war-torn countries, such as Congo for example. I myself have strongly criticised the impunity enjoyed for many years by the perpetrators of these atrocities.

What is more, these barbaric acts are committed even though United Nations forces are sometimes, or even often, present on the ground. I believe that we are sorely lacking in political ambition and adequate funds. In particular, I would emphasise the need to train the field-based personnel of European and international organisations and to raise awareness among the suffering populations.

We have to make everyone understand that taking gender considerations into account will lead to improvements in all areas. We must put an end to the impunity too often enjoyed by those who commit violence against women, and we must establish a proper complaints procedure in this regard. We must also increase the financial resources available within the European institutions for work on gender and human rights issues, in particular, so as to implement mechanisms and assess the progress made by the European Union.

I note that, as Mr Chastel said, efforts have indeed been made, in particular, through the exchange of best practice and participation in a task force. Moreover, 10 Member States now have a national action plan. I hope that the 17 other Member States will soon have one of their own.

Lastly, I would point out that I have high hopes for the future External Action Service. I hope that women and men will participate in it equally, in particular, on the ground. We must never forget the important role women play in resolving conflicts or the need to establish communication that is based on trust between the forces of international institutions and local populations.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, highlighting the effect of wars and conflicts on women and children is of the utmost importance at a time as critical as this, when wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are dragging on, severe conflicts are being fuelled, such as in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine, or the Western Sahara occupied by Morocco, inequalities are increasing, poverty is being exacerbated by neoliberal policies, and new threats are arising, as happened this weekend in Lisbon with the NATO summit and the adoption of its new strategic concept. In response to this, a peaceful demonstration took place last Saturday in the streets of Lisbon, organised by the ‘Yes to peace, no to NATO’ campaign, which includes more than 100 organisations. Tens of thousands of people, men and women, marched calling for peace and social justice, which is essential for security, and shouting and demanding the dissolution of NATO, nuclear disarmament and respect for people’s rights in the defence of peace.

In the general strike which is to take place in Portugal tomorrow, men and women will again protest against anti-social policies. These affect everyone, but they are particularly discriminatory towards women. The protesters will demand new policies which respect the dignity of workers and promote development and social progress, a prerequisite for peace.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, I, too, would like to emphasise the historical importance of Security Council resolution 1325 for peace and for security policy. It was the first time that the UN emphasised the importance of the protection of women and their full involvement in creating peace, maintaining peace and preventing conflicts.

It must be said that great efforts have been made over the past 10 years to achieve this aim. However, abuse of women is often still a major characteristic of conflicts. What is more, there has been an alarming increase in frequent and systematic violence against women both during and after conflicts.

I will not give any concrete figures, but it is surely worth mentioning the horrific events that have taken place in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Bosnia. I have personally met and spoken with women who were victims of violence during the war in the former Yugoslavia. Their stories are horrific. They were raped, tortured and humiliated. Many were ostracised even after the conflict was over.

So not even the cessation of conflict will guarantee an end to violence against women. We should always bear this in mind.

Protection of women and enabling their participation in the creation of peace and security is the main aim of resolution 1325. Unfortunately, this has yet to happen in many cases. I firmly believe there is a real chance that we can change things. However, the political will of all is required if we are to create the actual conditions. In fulfilling this task, I also see the opportunity for a positive contribution from High Representative Baroness Ashton and the European External Action Service, which could greatly strengthen the role of the EU in implementing this important resolution.

  Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Madam President, women and children continue to be disproportionately hard hit by wars and their consequences. However, women’s rights must not be misused in order to give legitimacy to military interventions. The example of the Republic of Congo shows that military measures do not help to protect, secure or establish women’s rights. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is true. The situation of women in Afghanistan today is worse than ever as a result of the war. The promise made in resolution 1325 can only really be honoured by avoiding conflict and taking only civil measures in war and conflict situations. Therefore, I believe that it is completely unacceptable to distort this resolution with the aim of increasing the number of women involved in warfare. I am calling for the EU to stop providing support on principle, including aid for equipment and training, to regimes and military forces which send child soldiers into armed conflicts, violate human rights or commit systematic acts of sexual violence.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, the resolutions of the Security Council and plans for supporting development have already been mentioned, with emphasis on the advances that have been made, but the fact is that women continue to be the main victims of armed conflicts. They are victims, yet not decision makers. Women should participate in the entire process of preventing and resolving conflicts. If there were more women in senior positions of policy making, including economic decision making, there would certainly be more peace and security in the world, and we would all benefit from greater development and better living conditions. That is why we also need more women involved in decision making at all levels. As has already been said here, women should participate and be players throughout this process; it should not be conducted only by men.

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – Madam President, when speaking about women in conflict zones, we have to consider that despite increased efforts and good signs, such as the appointment of former Commissioner Margot Wallström to the office of special representative of the UN Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict, as well as the recent creation of ‘UN Women’, there is still a need for further action, greater awareness and practical political actions in this field.

I would strongly highlight the fact that partnerships between parliamentarians, EU and UN Member State governments, institutions and civil society are vital for building support for the agreed goals and objectives of the action programme of the international conference on population and development as regards the Millennium Development Goals.

In the context of gender equality, we have to make a joint commitment to pushing this issue forward, ensuring better representation of women in an effort to prevent war, restore peace and cope with post-conflict situations, taking into account that women can play a significant role in peacekeeping if they are properly supported and genuinely included.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the EU has a crucial role to play in advancing these objectives to achieve an equitable and lasting solution. It is our primary responsibility and important political role to work together to address the situation of women in conflict zones by means of preventing war and maintaining international peace and security.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I want to give my support to resolution 1325. I turn the House’s attention to the situation in Northern Ireland, where we have a very active women’s sector – a sector that has been a force for good within the country.

Before coming to this House, I represented West Belfast in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Shankill area of Belfast in local government. These are areas that have been ravaged by over 30 years of violence inflicted through a terrorist campaign by Irish Republicans and intra-community violence.

Throughout that time, groups like the Women’s Centre have been a cohesive force, enhancing community capacity and forging links with other women’s groups in other communities. They are ordinary women who have proved themselves to be leaders and an excellent role model for other countries and communities that find themselves faced with terrorism and violence.

Today, groups like the Shankill Women’s Centre, the Foyle Women’s Network and Training for Women are not only forging the way ahead in community relations in Northern Ireland, but are also giving women opportunities in the labour market through education and training. This is the way forward, colleagues.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I hope that this debate which we are having today will not only be an occasion for marking the anniversary of resolution 1325, but also a new beginning and new approach to this issue, which persists virtually in the same forms that led to the adoption of resolution 1325.

I do not believe that declarations are enough, especially declarations which convey a different picture of reality. I believe that action is needed and it is the European Union’s task, as part of the current security policy, to create an initial code of conduct to be used in both conflicts and post-conflict operations, although we have a convention, in the form of the Geneva Convention, which condemns violent conduct during conflicts. I believe that a code of conduct of this kind would provide added value for the European Union, marking a step towards resolving this issue.

The other aspects of involvement must undoubtedly be supported by consistent financial assistance based on a strategy for our development projects.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, we are marking the 10th anniversary of UN resolution 1325, and there are almost daily reports of other resolutions and declarations aiming to help women. However, I have my doubts as to whether we are monitoring their fulfilment sufficiently.

More and more documents are being produced, but the situation of women is improving only very slowly. It is our duty to work for compliance with and the protection of the rights of all women, so that they can be fully integrated into society, regardless of their situation, origin or status.

Their role begins in the family, not only because they are irreplaceable in raising children to respect human dignity for all, but there are also women who, aware of a threat to their families, get involved in preventing and solving military conflicts. However, until women feel safe in their families and in their countries, it is impossible to talk about peace, and not only in countries where there is no war.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I clearly agree with Parliament on a very large number of points. How could I fail to agree in particular with Mr Juvin’s and Mr Tarabella’s calls for the creation of the European External Action Service to represent a major opportunity to strengthen EU policy on women, peace and security? During the process of establishing the service, the ongoing challenge of ensuring greater representation of women at every level, including within personnel units, and especially at the highest level, must be recognised.

Baroness Ashton is very clearly working on this. She has taken some steps in this direction, for example, by appointing Rosalind Marsden as the EU’s first female Special Representative to Sudan. In September, she appointed 29 people to senior positions within the delegations, including seven female heads of delegation, which is nothing short of a 50% increase in the number of women at this level.

At the same time as the EU undertakes major efforts to strengthen its capabilities in relation to the participation of women, peace and security, we believe that it is also important to take steps to raise awareness within other organisations and countries. This goes hand in hand with specific training activities. Many of you have spoken on this issue too. Within the framework of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Union supports the United Nations in the implementation of resolutions on women, peace and security in countries and regions that are particularly affected, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Fergana Valley, which spans Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Lastly, the European Union continues to believe in the importance of increased delegation of responsibilities at international level. The Union believes that the Security Council should establish a working group to examine the progress made in implementing resolution 1325 and to make recommendations to the Council in order to meet the challenges and remedy the shortcomings that exist and to speed up the implementation of that resolution.

The Union has therefore called on the Security Council to redouble its efforts in the fight against impunity. Targeted and progressive measures should be imposed against any party to a conflict that is responsible for serious violations of women’s rights.

I am convinced that the European Parliament will continue to support the efforts made by the Union and the Member States in this area.

  President. – I have received six motions for a resolution from the various political groups on this subject.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 25 November, at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) All the assertive efforts undertaken – the resolutions and national and international plans for improving the level of protection for women in conflict zones – have failed to eliminate this barbaric weapon which is frequently resorted to in modern warfare: sexual violence. On the contrary, impunity provides conditions conducive to the spread of this practice which is diametrically opposed to our values. I have repeatedly spoken out, along with others, against the acts of mass rape perpetrated in the Congo, Liberia and other conflict zones, especially in Africa. The thousands of women falling victim to sexual abuse and violence are also being condemned to bear in the future the social stigma and burden of terrible diseases, such as HIV.

The International Day against Violence against Women, which we mark on 25 November, must also remind us that women are victims of domestic violence, which is occurring with alarming frequency, marital rape, sexual harassment and human trafficking. Gender-related violence, whether committed in the home or armed conflict zones, is one of the most serious human rights violations and must be opposed and punished accordingly.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Over the years, the traditional role of peace missions has changed. It is now not only monitoring ceasefire agreements or ensuring that borders between states are respected. Currently, missions are engaged in a range of ‘soft’ activities – promoting human rights and democracy in a wide variety of ways, supporting the organisation of elections and restoring the rule of law. On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the adoption of resolution 1325, attention should be drawn to the particular role of women in these processes. In many cases, they are far better predisposed to carrying out the tasks of peace missions. Among other things, I am thinking, here, of work with the victims of sexually motivated violence and violence based on sexual discrimination. Women work in women’s prisons, they help with social reintegration and they also conduct numerous forms of training. We talk a lot about increasing the participation of women in politics and business. In none of these areas has it yet been possible to achieve full equality of opportunities. This is why it is necessary to return to these issues and look carefully at the way in which legislation which has been adopted is brought into force, so that on the 15th or 20th anniversary of the adoption of resolution 1325, it will be possible to say that all of its provisions have been implemented.

5. State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Bernhard Rapkay, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (COM(2010)0372 – C7-0296/2010 – 2010 /0220(NLE)) (Α7-0324/2010).

  Bernhard Rapkay, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to congratulate you, Mr Almunia, and your offices. The impact assessment that you have presented is very good. It is based on facts, it is conclusive and it gets to the point.

It is a pity that the other members of the College of Commissioners have not read this impact assessment, because if they had read it, they would not have been able to present this proposal, which has nothing at all to do with the impact assessment. I wonder how the College of Commissioners picked the year, for example. There is absolutely no mention of this in the impact assessment. The only thing which might explain it is that 2014 is exactly halfway between 2010 and 2018. That is what it must be.

However, it may be that they have also not understood the content. None of the arguments in favour of this proposal can be seriously considered because they are not correct. There is the argument that the State aid scheme adopted in 2002, which is about to expire, was a phasing out arrangement for coal mining. Of course, this is totally incorrect. It was a successor arrangement. I know this, because I was there and I was the rapporteur for Parliament in 2002. This is when the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) expired after 50 years and a successor arrangement was needed, not only with regard to aid, but also other issues.

If this had been a phasing out arrangement, what would have happened, for example, to the ECSC’s assets? It was not a phasing out arrangement, it was a successor arrangement. At the time, we agreed with good reason on a period of eight years for this successor arrangement, after which we would look at the issue again. Therefore, this argument is incorrect.

The second argument which is put forward is the question of sustainability. We are all in favour of this and we know that coal, of course, produces large quantities of CO2 emissions. However, a decision made by the Commission cannot abolish the laws of science. What will happen next? Domestic coal will be replaced by imported coal. That is the only thing that will happen. Imported coal emits just the same amount of CO2 as domestic coal. The problem is simply that if we no longer have reference points, we will not be able to use them in the development of new, state-of-the-art technologies for mining and power stations. Europe is a leader in this area and has an export advantage. I do not believe that we should just give this up.

The third argument is that aid is harmful and that the money would be better spent on other things. It is not possible to say anything against this argument or against the attitude of market radicals. You cannot oppose an ideology with facts. However, the statement that this would be too expensive, for example, should be looked at in the light of what it would really mean if mining were to be stopped abruptly, and 2014 would be an abrupt stop. It would result in an increase in the costs of combating unemployment and, above all, in the costs relating to long-term pit closures. This is a very complicated and complex subject. The costs of long-term pit closures continue to be incurred years and even decades after coal mining comes to an end. The costs have to be paid out of the public purse. However, some Member States have a system in place which ensures that the state is not responsible for these costs. Therefore, this argument also does not hold water. For this reason, I recommend that you think this over again as soon as possible and that you pay attention to what is said in the impact assessment. Otherwise, the result will be regional and socio-political distortions, which we do not want. This is why the 2018 proposal is highly sensible.

  Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President of the Commission. – (ES) Madam President, thank you very much to Mr Rapkay for his report on behalf of Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

The Commission has closely analysed both the report and the amendments proposed for this debate with great interest, and we have taken note of the fact that the report specifically supports extending the deadline for closing uncompetitive mines to 2018.

The Commission is also aware that in recent debates that have taken place in the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper), the majority supported the 2018 deadline, as Mr Rapkay’s report suggests.

When we prepared the proposal for a regulation and analysed this situation, we in the Commission were, of course, fully aware of the social and regional impact of the closure of coal mines in certain regions of the EU. However, when drawing up the regulation, we also took into account the fact that some of the mines are not competitive and have only survived so far thanks to constant injections of public money and public subsidies. Therefore, in our proposal for a regulation, we allowed the Member States to grant additional operating aid, but on this occasion, for the specific purpose of facilitating the gradual closure of uncompetitive mines.

I would like to discuss three points that are considered in the report.

Firstly, the proposal to grant operating aid or investment in order to make the mines competitive. There was already a similar provision in the previous regulation concerning aid to the sector. However, the previous regulation largely failed to achieve the desired effects and, rather than guiding the coal mines towards profitability, it created a moral hazard to some extent.

The mines were subsidised in the vain hope of achieving profitability. Now we have to deal with the consequences: we need to extend this special system for coal production because the mines concerned have not achieved profitability, nor have they been closed.

In any case, the mines that have credible forecasts of profitability do not need State aid and can obtain the required capital from the capital or financial markets.

Secondly, I would like to explain why, in our proposal, we consider it to be necessary to have a plan to minimise the effects on the environment. Article 3(1) of our proposal mentions this point.

State aid distorts competition. Therefore, the treaty contains provisions for declaring it incompatible in a whole range of cases. Operating aid can only be authorised if it is likely to have positive effects. Our regulation proposes a plan to mitigate the environmental impact of the use of coal in order to offset the negative effects of the aid.

Finally, my third point is that when the objective of the operating aid is to contribute to a transition towards closing uncompetitive mines, it is clear that this closure must be gradual and cannot take place only when the deadline arrives. This gradual nature must be clearly set out in the closure plan, and the plan must also include a diminishing proportion of that aid during the transition period.

Our proposal therefore establishes a linear reduction in aid by a percentage that clearly aims for the removal of aid at the end of the transition period.

Having said all this, I would once again like to thank Mr Rapkay and everyone who contributed to the report that we are considering. We will consider Parliament’s position on the report, and we are continuing the debates in the Council, naturally in consultation with the Belgian Presidency. In light of Parliament’s position and based on what the Council’s position turns out to be, the Commission will, of course, give its opinion in the next few weeks.

  Herbert Reul, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, no one disputes the fact that coal is an important part of our energy supply. It is also indisputable that the mining industry must be competitive and that subsidising it is not the correct approach.

The question now is whether 2014 or 2018 is the right deadline. Mr Rapkay put forward a number of intelligent arguments which I will not repeat. I have only one request to the Commission. In all the committees in Parliament which were involved, there is majority support for making competitiveness a criterion. When it comes to the deadline, we must simply ensure that there is the necessary flexibility to allow the Member States to keep the pressure on the people, the jobs and the economic structures at a manageable level. The only argument which has been mentioned and which, incidentally, conflicts with the Commission’s impact statement that initially seemed to be in favour of 2018, was that environmental policy reasons could play a role here. I would like to emphasise once again that it makes no difference to the climate whether we burn imported or domestic coal. My request to the Commissioner is to consider, if Parliament and the Council can come up with new arguments of this kind, whether this four-year deadline could lead to the Commission being a little more flexible. This is how I understood the reference just now to the Commission considering the issue and I am grateful for this.

  Jan Březina, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (CS) Madam President, on behalf of the REGI Committee, we welcome the Commission proposal, although we have recommended certain amendments. We also recommended extending the deadline for closing uncompetitive mines. Without this change, there would be a risk that entire regions affected by mine closures would fall into poverty and would face serious social problems.

Among other things, we also proposed adjusting the use of cohesion resources for regions affected in this way. The committee also believes that the closure of uncompetitive mines is not the only acceptable way of using State aid for such mines, as it should also be used to facilitate development targeted on achieving competitiveness.

If a mine becomes competitive by a certain date, that is surely a desirable situation, which is in the interests both of the region concerned and, eventually, the Union as a whole. The importance of coal-fired power stations rests, among other things, on the fact that they are practically the only plants capable of responding immediately and flexibly through increased production when there is a sudden increase in demand for electricity, independently of other factors. If the greater energy security of the Union is to be more than just an empty slogan, we cannot manage without stable and competitive coal mines and a coal industry.

  Werner Langen, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I would like, first of all, to encourage Mr Almunia to stick with his original proposal of 2018. This proposal was well-founded and was based on economic, regional, social and energy policy grounds.

I do not understand why the College of Commissioners has introduced environmental reasons which are completely irrelevant. As previous speakers have said, it makes no difference whether we burn imported coal or coal that we have mined and subsidised ourselves. Our climate footprint is largely the same in both cases. In fact, it is probably much worse for imported coal because this has to be transported here from Canada, Australia or other regions of the world. This is why the justification is wrong. I would like to thank Mr Rapkay for producing this proposal in close cooperation with the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). I believe that it concerns a Council regulation. There is a loophole in the Treaty of Lisbon which means that regulations on the basis of competition law do not form part of Parliament’s codecision procedure. Instead, the process, which does not involve a proper assessment, is still based on Regulation No 17 dating back to 1965. Therefore, we now need – at least as far as our statement is concerned – a broad majority vote, so that coal, which is one of the most important energy sources still available to us in Europe, remains competitive in future.

Our group will give Mr Rapkay’s report its unrestricted support. We want to encourage Mr Almunia to prompt the Commission to put forward a new proposal of 2018 and we want to amend two points in the report that has been adopted. One of these concerns the question of the way in which the aid is to be gradually reduced. We are of the opinion that this should be left to the Member States over this eight-year period.

The second point concerns the fact that the regulation as a whole will be phased out in 2030. That is also the stage which the Council’s discussions have reached on this regulation. Only when Parliament makes a clear decision in favour of 2018 will we be able to carry out an appropriate evaluation of the social, political, energy policy, economic and regional grounds.

  Olle Ludvigsson, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Madam President, this is not a straightforward matter. It is therefore important for us in Parliament to establish a well-balanced position. There are two main aspects to take into consideration. On the one hand, it is unreasonable, in the long term, to continue to keep this uncompetitive form of mining alive artificially. For reasons relating to both the environment and competition, it is unsustainable to use public subsidy programmes to ensure that unprofitable coal mining continues. It is therefore logical for the subsidies for this activity now to be phased out.

On the other hand, the abolition of subsidies will have a huge impact, not only on the tens of thousands of coal miners who will be forced to look for new jobs, but also on their families and everyone else who depends on mining. It will be a very difficult adjustment for the people living in the regions affected. Weighing up these two aspects is not easy. Nevertheless, I think the Commission has found a reasonable balance in its proposal. The subsidies will be discontinued, but this will be carefully managed, taking into consideration both jobs and the environment.

The regions concerned will suffer a difficult setback when the subsidies are discontinued but, at the same time, the proposal provides the opportunity for comprehensive social and environmental measures with a view to making this regional adjustment process as efficient as possible. It is extremely important for all of these opportunities to be fully utilised by national and regional authorities. Large-scale investment in active labour market initiatives and comprehensive environmental restoration measures is essential if the end result is to be acceptable for these regions.

So far, the debate has focused on three issues. Firstly, the argument has been put forward that the coal mines that become competitive during the closure period should be able to continue to operate. In my opinion, it would be wrong to include this option, because the aid that is to be granted must be used in the right way and based on definitive closure. Secondly, an end date for the closure aid has been discussed. In this regard, it is important to note that the current regulation has been in existence since 2002 and that everyone was aware that the exemptions from the competition rules would expire this year. There was therefore nothing very surprising in this. I can be flexible when it comes to the exact year. Thirdly, opinions have been divided regarding the environmental and sustainability elements in Parliament’s position. I believe that these elements should be as clear as possible, and they should definitely be more prominent than they are in the text produced by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It is very important that we send out the right signal in this regard.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I have to say that I am very touched by the new romance between the EPP and the S&D Group, but I do feel that the intimate and loving embrace between Mr Rapkay and Mr Lange is keeping Europe firmly stuck in the past.

We are talking about the seventh extension of the special State aid regime. Mr Rapkay himself has indicated that he was rapporteur back in 2002. Who will give us a guarantee that we are not going to have the same debate in 2018? Because the reasons that were valid back in 2002 that are valid today, will still be valid in 2018. Therefore, my group, without reserve, endorses the position of the Commission. We have requested a separate vote on Amendments 25 and 27, and we call on all colleagues in the two big groups to vote against those amendments and support the position of the Commission to phase out the support by 2014.

I know that votes took place in the different committees, but I also know that there are many colleagues in the two big groups who feel deeply uncomfortable with the current position. I think they should realise that they have all the freedom in the world to vote according to their conscience, because it is not actually the European Parliament that decides. So they should vote in order to state their views.

We are not negotiating; we do not have to compromise. We can give a very strong political signal in support of the Commission, and therefore I think this European Parliament should act as a counterweight to the very strong political pressure from the Member States on the Commission and show that this Parliament is looking to the future and not to the past.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has no objection to public funds being invested, provided that they act as a catalyst for the transformation that our society, our industry, our economy must go through to become fairer and, above all, more sustainable. We must remember that aid for uncompetitive coal mines goes against these objectives. It props up an industry that is not sustainable either economically – otherwise it would not need subsidies – or environmentally.

As Mrs in ’t Veld emphasised just now, for several decades, the coal industry has been calling for this transition to be extended, with no end in sight. Equally, my fellow German Members, for several decades, many European countries have been striving to put an end to what is an unsustainable industry. This is true of my country, France, and it is true of many other countries too. We therefore support the Commission’s proposal and, by extension, the proposal for subsidies to be used so that the workers concerned can be redeployed in a decent and dignified fashion.

However, under the pressure of what you have heard today, the Commission is preparing to beat a rather inglorious retreat, Mr Almunia, under the pressure exerted by, among others, your colleague Mr Oettinger, whose behaviour in this matter has not been that of a Member of a College responsible for defending the general interest, but of an official representative of the specific, sectoral interests of one particular country, Germany. What is more, he makes no secret of it!

To conclude, I should like to say to you that, as long as the European Union, as long as the Member States put all their energies into supporting industries of the past, with public money, which – and I hope the Irish crisis reminds us of this – has become extremely scarce, as long as we support, with this public money, 19th-century industries, we will not enable Europe to take the lead in 21st-century industries. Meanwhile, the world is changing, and changing fast.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, the proposal presented by the European Commission was evidently written under the dictates of climate policy and without consideration of the social consequences – particularly the consequences in the field of energy – in countries such as Germany, Spain and Poland. We must remember that the world coal market is changing before our eyes. Demand for coal, and the price of coal, are rising. Therefore, mines which today are unprofitable, will, perhaps, be profitable in the future.

The departure from coal also presents very serious problems for energy security in such countries as Poland, which generate as much as 95% of their electricity from coal. The departure from coal in such situations can involve only one alternative – a still greater dependence on gas, which is imported from only one direction. Therefore, before we decide on political pressure in favour of abandoning coal in such cases, we should ensure diversification and also security of gas supply, because this is, today, the only real alternative for the energy sector in countries which use coal for this purpose.

These are the reasons why we will support the compromises presented by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, where we have proposed that the regulation give the possibility to national budgets – which are not EU budgets, after all – to maintain mines in countries in which this is necessary, and also the compromise which suggests that the regulation could be in force until 2030. I think the initial proposals of the European Commission were significantly closer to precisely this position. Only at the final stage did the European Commission decide to propose the unrealistic deadline of 2014.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, it is not only justifiable for us to continue supporting the coal industry, but, in my opinion, it is also absolutely essential. We must go on providing support not only until 2014, but also beyond that time. It is our duty to protect the citizens of the European Union from the many negative impacts of globalisation. This also includes offering workers in industries which are not fully competitive on the world market long-term retraining to allow them to take on other jobs.

You do not need to be an expert to realise that specialised workers are needed in the mining industry. Many miners work in the pits for their entire lives. Therefore, in my opinion, we need plenty of time in order to be able to offer all of them new jobs. It may no longer be sensible to give older miners the option of retraining. We must enable mining regions to become gradually less dependent on the mining industry without their prosperity being significantly reduced. These regions still have considerable economic potential if they are given the opportunity of restructuring their economies. The drastic reduction in the subsidies for coal mining over recent years has represented an ordeal for many mining regions. A number of areas were not able to react quickly enough to the changes in economic conditions because of their strong links with the mining industry. The result has been increased poverty. This does not have to be the case. We can protect many European regions from major economic and social damage and, therefore, we must vote in favour of these regulations.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, when it comes to State aid for the coal industry, my view is that we should do everything we can to make the European economy as competitive as possible, and we should do this in many different areas. We must have a goal when it comes to the automotive industry, the engineering industry and the medical industry. In order to be successful we need to transform our economy to enable it to meet the demands of modern competition and the global economy.

In light of this, I have serious doubts about the intention now to extend the state subsidies for unprofitable coal mines. It will mean that, at state level, we will be tying up money in undertakings which are not profitable, which are unable to support the jobs that we are talking about and which will not help to improve the environment. It will also mean that the transformation we need in order to be able to become truly competitive will be slower. It will mean that we fail to develop within other areas and also that, in a few years time, people will still be employed in industries that do not offer long-term security and the opportunity to make a living, and those regions that we are now talking about will still remain dependent on coal mining in what are unprofitable coal mines.

Against this background, I believe that we should support the Commission’s proposal, and we will vote in favour of it.

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Almunia, we need to bite the bullet now, rather than prolonging the agony. This is what comes to mind when I think about the subject that we are discussing today. I support the Commission proposal to phase out State aid in 2014 for the pits which are not competitive by that date. The cost of each job in the coal mining industry is much higher than the average. This money is not being spent on developing sustainable and competitive employment for the future. Therefore, I believe it is right to phase out state subsidies for uncompetitive mines in 2014. We must invest the money which becomes available in research and development and in education and training. This is the only way in which we can maintain our technological head start and remain competitive in the global economy as a whole.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, I think that both the mine closure proposal and the suggestion to reduce subsidies would be too premature and that they would have undesirable socio-economic and regional repercussions.

We must not forget that Europe’s mining sector provides approximately 100 000 jobs, 42 000 in coal mining and 55 000 in related sectors, and that certain regions in Europe are totally dependent economically on this sector. A large number of people in these regions work in mines or have jobs relating to this sector.

These measures could have adverse consequences, to the extent of leaving communities in absolute poverty. This is why a strategy for retraining the workers affected by the mine closure plans must be devised quickly.

At the same time, special support is required from the European Union’s Structural Funds in order to provide mutual assistance to the regions which will suffer as a result of these measures. In addition, mine workers and their families may lose their confidence in the political process where such decisions are made which affect them directly, if they are made at an inappropriate time.

We need to focus our attention just as much on sparsely populated regions, which will suffer the most in socio-economic terms. I do not believe that 2014 is a realistic deadline for closing the mines. On the other hand, the deadline of 2020 specifically proposed by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy did not receive sufficient positive feedback. This is why I think that we can find common ground with 2018.

I wish to mention another point, which is that the coal industry is an integral part of European policy and is the EU’s own source, thereby guaranteeing supply security. A transition period is required which will allow these mines, and those mines which could become competitive, to become gradually more competitive, in order to ensure access to European coal and avoid an adverse socio-economic impact.

  Ivo Strejček (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, in my opinion, there is no dispute over the fact that subsidies to particular segments of the economy distort and destroy economic competition, and that State aid is therefore damaging to the healthy functioning of the market, not only in the short term but also in the long term.

We are talking here about regions that will be, or might be, affected by a high level of unemployment, but, on the other hand, we need to remember the regions that have already gone through restructuring in this sector of the economy, and which have endured high unemployment and coped with it. In today’s vote, the ECR therefore supports all proposals that will result in individual Member States having sufficient time to implement the extensive retraining of workers, to organise the removal and elimination of environmental burdens associated with coal extraction, and also to be able to absorb all of the social upheavals in time.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, it is a shame that Parliament has a right to nothing more than consultation when what we are talking about is the future of 180 000 European families and the European Union’s indigenous energy source par excellence.

Subsidies are not a general route to competitiveness, but making European coal competitive through subsidies is strategically necessary, first of all, because 60% of European energy is imported, and out of the remaining 40%, a large proportion is nuclear – which the majority of this House does not support – and secondly, because of price increases: the European coal price is moving closer and closer to the international coal price.

Moreover, I would like to ask you: what is competitive coal? Ask yourselves whether all the coal that the European Union imports includes the social and safety costs of the mines that are included in the cost of European coal. Is this the model that many of you want for Europe? Do you agree with the importation of products from outside our continent that do not comply with the principles of Union preference and do not incorporate social rights? Do you reject this same idea for European coal?

The longer this period is, the better, so that we can introduce the clean combustion and storage technologies that already exist in the European Union. Without European coal, if we cause European mines to close, there will be no incentive to continue reducing emissions from thermal power stations, which will continue to burn imported coal and to produce CO2. What do you prefer: do you want CO2 to come to us from outside the European Union or do you want it to be possible for CO2 to be treated and stored using our own European technology?

I do not believe that rejecting the possibility of EU coal, as you are doing, is liberalism: I believe it is hypocrisy.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, coal is an important component in the European Union’s energy mix. The coal mining sector provides 280 000 jobs in the European Union, especially in mono-industry areas. This is why it is important for the Union to supply the largest proportion possible of its coal requirements from domestic production, obviously at a competitive price, based on streamlining the coal extraction and processing procedure.

Unless State aid is granted, production will fall by 20%, resulting in 100 000 lost jobs. State aid for the hard coal industry is an absolute necessity for uncompetitive mines. They are uncompetitive due to their obsolete technical equipment. State aid would allow these facilities to be retrofitted to ensure job security.

Compared with the Commission’s proposal, we are in favour of moving the mine closure deadline. The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy voted for 2020 and we will support the compromise which the rapporteur, Mr Rapkay, has successfully reached, along with fellow Members in other political groups.

We support the removal of Article 3(1)(h), especially the percentage stipulated for gradually removing the aid granted so that Member States which are going to grant State aid to uncompetitive coal mines have the maximum flexibility possible.

However, I think that Member States should also present plans for the economic and social development of mining regions, which are often mono-industry regions. The aim of these development plans should be job creation and investment in energy efficiency and energy production from renewable sources.

I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Rapkay, for his report and the work he has done.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to congratulate Mr Almunia on the open debate that has taken place in the Commission. There are good reasons why you and the Commission President, Mr Barroso, took part in the debate in the College of Commissioners with a very different year in mind. I am pleased that the Commission is able to discuss issues so openly from a regulatory perspective and then to reverse its decision. That is both admirable and remarkable. It is a good thing that you are supporting the new decision here.

There are a number of good grounds for this decision. Nevertheless, the Member States which are affected have been making plans. There are plans in place and I can only say that I am pleased that the review clause has been removed, which stated that we would have to open up the whole can of worms once again from 2012 onwards in the largest Member State affected, in other words, Germany. This means that your debate in the College of Commissioners has also had a very successful outcome. I know that 2018 will eventually come around. I am also pleased about the fact that the mining industry has the security to plan ahead and I will vote accordingly. However, I can see that regulatory policy is the winner here.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE) . – (RO) Madam President, I have already listened to the views of my fellow Members who emphasised how important coal is to the European economy’s energy security.

I would like to introduce another argument. In some countries, including Romania, in years affected by drought – which have been growing in number – there is a fall in the production of hydroelectric and nuclear energy. The only resource which my country and other countries have had at their immediate disposal for increasing energy production has been coal.

We have a number of mines which are not profitable, but they have restructuring programmes extending beyond 2014. As a liberal, I am against subsidies being granted to commercial companies, but not in the case of companies which have definite restructuring programmes. As a result, I am going to support the amendment which proposes a longer transition period for discontinuing the subsidies granted to unprofitable coal mines.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, although subsidised coal accounts for only a small proportion of the European Union’s electricity production, the immediate and simultaneous closure of hard coal mines will have a considerable social impact in certain areas of Europe. We are talking here about a large number of people working in this branch of the industry who will not be able to be re-employed immediately in other sectors, thereby causing unemployment and the emergence of disadvantaged areas.

I think that immediate measures are needed to retrain these people, using EU funds. Until this happens, it is absolutely imperative to extend the date until State aid can be granted for the closure of production units, at least until 2018.

I also think that it must be up to the relevant Member State to determine the level of reduction in State aid after a certain period and Member States must not have minimum limits imposed on them.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a few things to our Liberal friends and to Mrs in ’t Veld in particular. Competition will not be distorted, because the coal-fired power stations will continue to operate using imported coal, which will increase their carbon footprint. In other words, the argument does not make sense, whichever way you look at it.

In addition, this cannot be continued after 2018, for example, in Germany’s case, because the treaty, which applies to those involved and not just to the state, requires everything to come to an end in 2018, so that the long-term costs of pit closures do not have to be borne by the state. The long-term costs, which will amount to many millions over several centuries, will be paid by a foundation. If the foundation were to collapse, it would cost the state a lot of money for an indefinite period.

Having developed such a clever concept with a clear end point, it is important to do justice to it and not to attempt to come up with theoretical definitions of the market which are completely unrelated to the reality of the agreement.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, who has been to my region of Asturias which, many years ago, shaped the origins of Spain and of Europe, and which, thanks to its coal and to its people, is at the forefront of modern society.

Mining areas need to continue in this commendable revitalising effort without encountering obstacles from the European Union. Instead, they should have its encouragement. We need to remove the threat of indigenous coal mining coming to an end, and instead enable this strategic sector to survive in a reasonable manner. We also need to help the sector to achieve competitiveness within a reasonable period, without penalising the businesses later. Above all, we need to achieve pollution-free extraction soon.

The substantial investments in clean coal must go primarily to benefit Europe and its own mining areas. It is absurd for those who oppose European coal to defend or tolerate coal from other parts of the world, which is produced with greater environmental impact, a huge lack of safety and salaries that are not competitive. This situation will discriminate against our own territory and it is simply intolerable that it should arise. Let us maintain our mining sector by taking advantage of new technologies.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, competitiveness is important, but it cannot be the only criterion. Our energy dependence means that only coal can guarantee us a secure supply as an indigenous source of fossil fuel, and the economic and social importance of mining in several European regions means that the closure of the mines must not be seen as inescapable, be it in 2014 or 2018.

If we continue to be dependent on coal as an energy source, in 2018, we will have to continue to guarantee the energy supply, either using aid – if the mines are not competitive – or without aid – if they are competitive.

We must also consider not only the economic competitiveness of coal, but also its competitiveness in employment and environmental terms. European coal is safe coal, and we have to see this, especially at a time when accidents in mines are the order of the day outside Europe. Moreover, European coal is coal that can be clean.

Therefore, in the amendments to the Rapkay report, we ask for an indefinite extension to the aid for costs related to CO2 capture and to any other technology that enables coal to be burned more cleanly.

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Madam President, this measure confirms the old saying that a financier has a hold on the state like a rope has a hold on a man who has been hung. I would like to say three things. First, I think that money should go to support those competitive mines at risk, which account for 5% of mines throughout the European Union. We should also prevent imports of subsidised coal from abroad. Thirdly, we should prevent any interference from lobbyists. I would like to mention an example from the Russian Federation, where the oil lobby has brought about the closure of mines in the Vorkuta region, with disastrous social consequences. This must not happen in the EU.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, in order to mitigate the social and energy impact and to ensure secure energy reserves, we have tabled three amendments in plenary with the following aims: firstly, for the overall volume of aid per year to diminish, but with no percentage limit or limit per business. In this respect, we are grateful for Mr Langen’s position regarding removing fixed references and each Member State being able to decide according to their interests.

The second aim is for aid to cover exceptional costs to be extended to 2030. Such proposals will help to alleviate the energy dependency of numerous EU countries, including Spain. They would ensure the continuation of indigenous production and the preservation of thousands of jobs on which significant regions of Spain and of Europe as a whole are largely dependent.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Rapkay for all his efforts.

I, too, think that it is of paramount importance for the transition period to be as long as possible – 2018, as has been proposed. I suggested longer still for the closure of uncompetitive mines or possibly for making some of them profitable, as the majority of the population in mining areas are involved in this activity.

It is absolutely imperative to have plans for professional retraining and socio-economic recovery. Closing the mines prior to fully implementing these plans will result in extremely severe social problems A long time is required to implement plans for professional retraining and cleaning up these areas environmentally. During the current crisis in particular, it would be appropriate also to apply to the European Structural Funds, given the social, economic and environmental importance to the European Union.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE) . – (RO) Madam President, our fellow Members in this Chamber have mentioned that this is a recurring debate in the European Parliament. It is indeed a recurring debate, but taking place in different economic and social conditions from before.

We are in a global recession and the European Union is in crisis. No one believes that we have emerged from this crisis yet, with many Member States still facing the reality of recession. Under these circumstances, I do not believe that we – in this Parliament – need to contribute to the situation by adding a further 100 000 unemployed to those we currently have in the European Union.

Secondly, we are discussing a new European energy strategy – another background factor. I believe that our approach in this new strategy must not be to increase our dependency on a single hydrocarbon source, but to increase our economic independence.

Finally, the 21st century economy has been mentioned. I believe indeed that we need to be involved with this economy but, at the same time, we must focus on diversifying current potential. In this respect, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Rapkay.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, in view of the specific nature of the regulation which we are debating, today, let us not forget that there are Member States of the European Union whose energy production is based mainly on coal. Therefore, the changes proposed during work on the regulation must be put into effect in a way which allows the speed of change to be adapted to the possibilities of absorption by the citizens and social structures. I welcome the compromise which has been achieved. In view of the role of coal in ensuring energy security, it is necessary to stabilise its extraction at the level required. The role of coal as a fuel in the energy balance will continue to be crucial for the energy sector by stabilising Europe’s energy security. I hope the Council will share our concern and listen carefully to the position agreed by the European Parliament.

  Jens Geier (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to refer briefly to two points. One of them concerns competitiveness, which is raised in a number of different areas of the report. I would like to ask you to remember how many mining accidents we hear about in the media. This is due to the fact that mining and, in particular, coal mining is going on all over the world, but unfortunately, the safety standards elsewhere are very low when compared with those in German or other European pits. This may seem like overstating the case, but personally, I do not think much of competitiveness which is bought at the expense of miners’ lives. However, if we are looking at the consequences for industrial policy of an early exit from coal mining, I would like to say that the European mining equipment industry is competitive. I would like to invite all those people who believe that mining is an industry of the past and, in particular, Mr Klinz, to pay a visit to a mine. They will soon realise that mining uses high-tech solutions and that it is a question of whether or not we want this industry to continue to be profitable. I know that this is not what the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe wants. I am afraid that the mining machinery industry will follow mining production and move out of Europe.

  Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President of the Commission. – (ES) Madam President, I repeat what I said in my opening speech: the Commission and I are taking very good note of all the arguments that have been put forward here by all of you, and we will take very good note of Parliament’s position once Mr Rapkay’s report is adopted.

I think that we need to distinguish – as practically all the speeches have done – between coal as a primary energy source and the regulation to govern public aid for uncompetitive coal mines, which is a different thing.

Our proposal, which we are debating today and which the Council will debate in the next few weeks, deals with the second issue, in other words, uncompetitive coal mining rather than the use of coal, which is a separate debate that we have had and will, of course, continue to have in Europe.

Our position is that we need to bring an end to uncompetitive coal mining that requires continuous use of public subsidies, within a fixed period. This position is clear, and it is not the first time that it has been expressed. As some of you have recalled, it dates back a long way. The problem is that the deadlines that were established over time have not been respected by everyone. The aim of our proposal is to ensure that these deadlines are respected once and for all.

This is a time when, unlike the context in which past debates took place, we have to take into consideration aid for coal mining. We need to take into account two additional issues. The first is the challenge of climate change, which we have debated on numerous occasions and for which the European Union has very specific targets. The second issue is the impact of the crisis and the resulting borrowing on government budgets, budgets at the national level, as this is placing even more pressure on public finances.

These are not, however, the only issues that should be considered. We also have to consider – as you have in practically all your speeches – what the deadline should be for removing public aid for coal mining under non-competitive conditions.

There is a debate around this issue, and we have listened to the different positions in the debate in Parliament. There is also a debate in the Council, and we are going to wait for the Council meeting at the beginning of December to see what the Council’s position is. There has certainly been a debate in the Commission, and there will be another.

As you know – as Mr Langen mentioned earlier – this is a Council regulation. Parliament’s opinion is very important, but the treaty states that, on matters of public aid, the regulation is a Council regulation. The Council will establish its position. Currently – at the last meeting of the Permanent Representatives Committee – it has a majority position in favour of a deadline for the permanent removal of this aid in 2018, which is longer than the Commission’s proposal. Our rules state, however, that unless the Council decides unanimously, the Commission proposal cannot be legally modified.

Whatever decision the Council reaches, it is practically certain that it will not be unanimous, but the Commission is going to listen very carefully to the Council’s position, just as it is listening very carefully to Parliament’s arguments and will listen to Parliament’s position when it votes. The Commission will adopt its final position based on its analysis of the respective positions of the Council, according to its prerogatives established in the treaty, and also of Parliament, and based on the debate on the Rapkay report.

I just have to say that the Commission does not agree with the arguments in favour of unlimited aid for uncompetitive coal mining and would like to remind you that, if there were no new coal regulation based on the Commission’s proposal, what would enter into force from 1 January 2011 would be the general State aid framework, which is considerably stricter than the Commission’s proposal, the proposal that will emerge from the debates in the Council, or the opinion that will emerge from Parliament.

  Bernhard Rapkay, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Almunia, that is exactly the problem. You are right when you confirm to Mr Lange that it is a Council regulation. However, it also depends on whether the Commission hears the arguments put forward in the Council and here in Parliament. You must drop this very stringent proposal, as you have done, so that it is possible for a sensible, democratic approach to be taken, which involves a majority decision that does not require unanimity.

I would like to make a second remark to Mr Chatzimarkakis. The review clause which you referred to is completely irrelevant in this case. The disputes which took place in Germany were only intended to save the face of the Minister for Economic Affairs there, nothing more. Now, I would like to look at the concern expressed by Mr Almunia. No one here and not even the report itself is questioning the fact that this is a phasing out arrangement, Mr Almunia. Whether it is sensible in terms of energy policy or technology is another question. What Mr Geier said is absolutely correct, but we are not calling that into question. The only question is whether we should do this relatively abruptly in 2014 or whether there are sensible transitional arrangements for 2018. Otherwise, we are not questioning anything. The situation is not as described by Mr Lambert, for example, who read out his speech and then left. He should have stayed here, because he might have learned something. It is not the case that there are Member States who have done nothing at all. That is not true of Spain, of Poland, of Romania or of Germany. In 1990, more than 200 000 people were working in the mining industry in Germany. Now, 20 years later, the figure is around 20 000. This represents a drop of 90%, leaving only 10% of the jobs still in place. There have been a number of pit closures between 2002 and the present day during the period of this regulation, which is still in force. Let us not behave as if nothing has happened.

The question is whether or not we need a sensible transitional period to be able to achieve this without causing socio-political damage. I can only say, yes, we do need one. This four-year period should not be an issue, because no one is calling that into question anyway. Please take that message back to the Commission.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 11:30.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) While drafting this document, the rapporteur has achieved an important success – finding an answer to two questions: one concerning the environment and the other social protection. From Romania’s perspective, and I believe that this is a point of view also shared by Germany, Poland, Spain or Hungary, the mining industry is an important component of the domestic economy. The coal mine closures may have a major social impact, contributing to the rise in unemployment and exacerbating the depopulation of regions which only have one industry – mining. At the same time, mine closures will also have a significant impact on the energy sector. I know that all these are arguments for and against this measure. However, the current reality leads us to a single conclusion: to extend the deadline for closing coal mines which are not competitive in order to support them in finding viable alternatives for all those involved in this sector.

  Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The European Commission is trying – at any price and in a way which is not justified by economic rationale – to reduce coal extraction. These efforts have been artificially stimulated by the increase in costs of generating energy in coal-fired power stations. I refer to the costs of emissions. It is a policy which undermines the economic foundations of those countries in which most energy is derived from coal. Such a strategy testifies to a lack of understanding of the need to have a coherent fuel and energy policy which prefers economic effectiveness and competitiveness. It also testifies to the lack of a unified energy policy guaranteeing security of energy supply and a lack of regulations based on uniform criteria for the entire common market, which would lead to fair competition while retaining minimum social costs. We are dealing, today, with a brutal violation of those principles.

The question is, what kind of industry does the Union need – an industry which benefits the Union, or one which is supranational, corporate and which invests its taxes in tax havens? Primary industries and power generation require many years of investment and concentration of capital, which means they need to be subsidised. Furthermore, they do not have to be profitable at any price. Cheap energy and fuel are essential for secondary industry to be competitive, including the machine industry. So we are talking about net profitability. I would like to say that the Union’s economic problems during the crisis are not only the result of dishonest global financial speculations, but there is also a lack of a sound, uniform and fair industrial policy in the Union itself, particularly a fuel and energy policy.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) There are several arguments against such a rapid discontinuation of subsidies. I refer primarily to social and economic consequences on a regional scale. It is important that we spend subsidies to facilitate mine closures properly: to ensure that the employees concerned are retrained and redeployed in other sectors of the labour market. Appropriate environmental rehabilitation is also imperative. Without these, there is a risk that the EU will save less money on discontinued subsidies than it will have to spend on damage mitigation. It must be considered carefully whether it is useful to close coal mines at all, if all we achieve in doing so is that the remaining power plants must substitute domestic coal with coal imported from outside the common market.

Is it expedient to close coal-fired power plants, one of the cheapest sources of electricity, when the alarming signs of energy shortage are beginning to be noticeable around the world? We must also think of the increasing energy demands of the European Union, as well as the role of coal in energy security. We must not allow facilities like the Hungarian Vértes Power Plant and the Oroszlány mine to close without carefully drafted and detailed plans. These plans must resolve the situation of the employees, the rehabilitation of the environment, and must demonstrate, through well-founded impact assessments, that closure is inevitable and represents the best option to reduce pollutant emissions. The green growth programme must not entail any measures that would cause severe economic and social problems.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) The European Union’s attempt to reduce the use of coal is only right and proper. Since the long­term aim for Europe and the human race is non­dependence on fossil fuels, we need to realise that European coal mines will, sooner or later, have to adapt to change. Globalisation means that there will be significant price pressures on coal. For this reason, production will transfer to countries where labour is cheaper and the areas in the EU where coal is produced will see jobs and income drain away, as mines can no longer respond to the competition. Although this is an unwelcome development, the actions of the authorities cannot conflict with the basic principles of the market economy. Unprofitable production should not be kept on a life support machine forever. We must remember that structural change on this scale will inevitably have far­reaching and dramatic social consequences. Mine closures often mean the end of an area’s main source of livelihood. This is reflected in the ability of cities and towns to provide their residents with services and the decline of entire communities. It is in everyone’s interest if major social changes such as those associated with the gradual closure of mines take place with the right controls in place and over a sufficient period of transition. Coal will nevertheless play a key role in our lives in the foreseeable future. It will still be needed, for example, in the steel industry, and studies of its use as a raw material for polymers have been encouraging. Furthermore, an excellent cost­benefit ratio has been achieved with combined heat and power using coal. We should not therefore succumb to the illusion that winding down coal mines is a sort of political end in itself. In the future, a profitable mining industry must be a possibility – in the EU too.

  Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE), in writing. – (ES) There are various reasons for supporting coal aid: strategic reasons, regional sustainability reasons and social reasons.

With regard to the strategic reasons, we need to take into account the fact that the market is changing rapidly. Therefore, abandoning coal without having a viable alternative would not be appropriate. The environmental argument is not relevant either, as imported coal is equally as polluting as indigenous coal. Moreover, we should not forget that, on many occasions, the mines from which we import coal do not comply with social rights.

With regard to regional sustainability, in many cases, the mines are in sparsely populated areas that are entirely dependent on the industry to maintain the region, and we risk turning our lands into deserts.

The final and most important reason is the more than 180 000 families that could be affected. In Spain, in my region of Aragon, we are pioneers of renewable energy sources, with almost 60% energy independence. The only resource that we can store is coal, and we need more time in order to improve our technologies and apply them to mining, thus transforming our indigenous coal into clean, sustainable coal.

(The sitting was suspended at 11:05 pending voting time and resumed at 11:30)

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – (FI) Despite all the fine speeches on climate, Europe will still be clinging onto its coal­black past by adopting this report. Under the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU would like to move swiftly towards a low emissions future based on renewable forms of energy. These will merely be words, however, if, in the future, Parliament allows the Member States to squander billions on its coal mines.

The current rules on aid would have expired in December, but in the Commission’s proposals, they would be extended until 2014. The coal­black gloom is intensified by the fact that Parliament wants the rules on aid to be extended all the way to 2018. Two years ago, aid from the EU Member States to industry that produced and used hard coal, that is to say, anthracite, was as much as EUR 2.9 billion. That only shows that there is still many times more aid for fossil fuels than there is for renewable energy sources, and this despite the fact that our targets on climate would call for just the opposite policy.

IN THE CHAIR: STAVROS LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

6. Voting time

  President. – Τhe next item is the vote.

6.1. Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: Ireland – floods in November 2009 (A7-0328/2010, Reimer Böge) (vote)

6.2. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Noord Brabant and Zuid Holland, Division 18/Netherlands (A7-0318/2010, Barbara Matera) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the question of aid for the Netherlands from the European Solidarity Fund is, fortunately, still on today’s agenda, but if it had been up to Mr Daul, my fellow Member from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), we would not be having this vote today, and the Netherlands would be being punished for rejecting the 6% increase to the EU budget and the introduction of European taxes. The delegation of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) finds it totally unacceptable that Mr Daul should have even entertained such an idea. This is a grave insult to the Netherlands as a Member State.

  President. – It was precisely this point that was debated yesterday and the debate is closed.

  Joseph Daul (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the last Conference of Presidents, we decided to put the Matera report on today’s agenda. No one asked for that report not to be put on the agenda. Therefore, the question asked by the President is as follows: faced with an individual such as this, are we going to be able to have frank discussions, as we have been used to having for five years? That is the question I am going to ask on Thursday morning. Moreover, if the European Conservatives and Reformists continue to make this person participate in the Conference of Presidents, we are going to change the way we work. That is all I have to say.

  Barbara Matera, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are called upon to vote on a package of aid for Holland, which has requested the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for an overall sum of EUR 10.5 million.

This transfer of internal funds to the Union budget can still be carried out under the ordinary procedure. Future requests for aid, and the number is growing steadily, risk being blocked, however, due to failure to approve the 2011 budget. If the twelfths system enters into force from January, it will not, in fact, be possible to make the transfers and proceed with the necessary payments.

Under these particular circumstances, with Europe as a whole facing economic difficulties, Parliament hopes for a great sense of responsibility from Member States that have put up resistance in Council to approving an austerity budget that is in line with the prerogatives of the Treaty of Lisbon.

6.3. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Drenthe Division 18/Netherlands (A7-0321/2010, Barbara Matera) (vote)

6.4. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Limburg Division 18/Netherlands (A7-0323/2010, Barbara Matera) (vote)

6.5. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Gelderland and Overijssel Division 18/Netherlands (A7-0322/2010, Barbara Matera) (vote)

6.6. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Noord Holland and Utrecht Division 18/Netherlands (A7-0319/2010, Barbara Matera) (vote)

6.7. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Noord Holland and Zuid Holland Division 58/Netherlands (A7-0320/2010, Barbara Matera) (vote)

6.8. Aid granted in the framework of the German alcohol monopoly (A7-0305/2010, Paolo De Castro) (vote)

6.9. Duty-free treatment for specified pharmaceutical active ingredients bearing an ‘international non-proprietary name’ (INN) from the World Health Organisation and specified products used for the manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals (A7-0316/2010, Vital Moreira) (vote)

6.10. EC-Ukraine agreement for scientific and technological cooperation (A7-0306/2010, Herbert Reul) (vote)

6.11. EC-Government of the Faroes scientific and technological agreement (A7-0303/2010, Herbert Reul) (vote)

6.12. EC-Japan agreement on cooperation in science and technology (A7-0302/2010, Herbert Reul) (vote)

6.13. EC-Jordan agreement on scientific and technological cooperation (A7-0304/2010, Herbert Reul) (vote)

6.14. Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands (A7-0292/2010, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves) (vote)

6.15. Common system of value added tax and duration of obligation to respect a minimum standard rate (A7-0325/2010, David Casa) (vote)

6.16. ECB annual report for 2009 (A7-0314/2010, Burkhard Balz) (vote)

6.17. Civilian-military cooperation and the development of civilian-military capabilities (A7-0308/2010, Christian Ehler) (vote)

6.18. Long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock (A7-0299/2010, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, I would just like to say that in the Committee on Fisheries, I voted against this report because I believed that some of the amendments that were drawn up in cooperation with the sector had not been adopted. However, since I feel it is much more important for the sector to have a long-term plan for anchovy fishing, I am going to vote in favour, and I am going to take this opportunity to ask the Council, which has so many reservations, to accept Parliament’s codecision capacity granted by the Treaty of Lisbon and to please set a date today for negotiations to begin, because if this plan does not move forward, it is the sector that will suffer the most.

6.19. Multiannual plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel and the fisheries exploiting that stock (A7-0296/2010, Pat the Cope Gallagher) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, rapporteur. – Mr President, I note that Amendment 29 has been withdrawn by the Socialists for reasons that I cannot understand, so therefore – to ensure that we can vote on this – on behalf of the ALDE Group, I confirm that we will take over this amendment.

I deem this to be very serious and would ask Members to consider the fact that, while many might not fully understand the science of this, if we do not accept the Socialist amendment and accept the PPE amendment, it means that we are going against the advice of scientists and are creating two total allowable catch areas within a single stock.

I advocate that we vote against the PPE and that we adopt the Socialist report now that the Socialists have withdrawn the amendment, for reasons perhaps better known to some of those in the southern part of Europe.

  President. – Mr Gallagher, in other words, you are invoking Rule 156(5), and you are taking over Amendment 29 as in the voting list, which means that we have to vote on it.

6.20. Prohibition of highgrading and restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (A7-0295/2010, Marek Józef Gróbarczyk) (vote)

6.21. Use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (A7-0184/2010, João Ferreira) (vote)

6.22. State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (A7-0324/2010, Bernhard Rapkay) (vote)

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

7. Formal sitting - Georgia

  President. – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, honoured guests and friends. I would like to extend a warm welcome to the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili.

(Applause)

This is not President Saakashvili’s first visit to the European Parliament. He was with us four years ago, and he was also in Brussels in 2004, just after being elected President of Georgia. Today is a special day – today, 23 November, is the seventh anniversary of the Rose Revolution, the bloodless watershed which brought change to the situation not only in Georgia but the whole region of the South Caucasus. Mr President, for almost 60 years, the European Union has been moving in the direction which Georgia has now also chosen – that of lasting peace, welfare and unthreatened liberty. President Saakashvili received his initial education in Kiev. He then studied at European and American universities, and has always been associated with Strasbourg – he studied here, has received honours here and it was also here, as far as I know, that he met his future wife. So it is a special place for Mr Saakashvili.

The last seven years have not been easy for Georgia. Georgia’s territorial integrity has been violated. I would like to recall that in May this year, we adopted a resolution calling on Russia to respect the conditions of the ceasefire and to withdraw its forces from Georgian territory.

(Applause)

Four years ago, Mr Saakashvili said in this Chamber that Georgians are not only one of the oldest nations of Europe, but that they are also intensely interested in European integration. They regard this as the kind of approach to international affairs which they prefer. I am sure this enthusiasm is no less today than four years ago. We, here in the European Parliament and the European Union, attach great importance to democratisation. The standards of democratisation and democracy are very high, and the standards of the free market are also high. Human rights, the rule of law and freedom of the press all require reforms – reforms of the constitutional system, electoral law and the justice system. A moment ago, I was talking about these matters with the President of Georgia, and we agreed that it is not an easy process, but that it is essential if we are to be similar to each other and if we are to work more easily with each other.

I am pleased, too, that Georgia has quickly overcome the economic crisis. The European Union also played a part in this – we extended a helping hand. Today, Georgia is again at a stage of rapid economic growth. We in the European Union are keen that Georgia should be stable and that it should develop well, but we are also keen for this to happen in the entire region of the South Caucasus. Georgia could be the perfect model of transition to a democratic and free market system, full of protection for human rights and the operation of the rule of law. This is why what Mr Saakashvili has to propose to us and to say, today, is so important. We are glad you are with us, and we would like to ask you to speak. The floor is yours, Mr President.

(Applause)

  Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia. – Mr President, I am humbled by the immense honour that your invitation signifies for my country, and I would like to thank you and all the political groups for this exceptional opportunity. Mr President, as we noted in our preliminary discussions, I was last here four years ago, so it is like the Olympic Games. I have come back four years later. Hopefully, I will perform better this time than last time.

I came here to deliver a message of hope and to make a solemn pledge. I came here to affirm that peace – a just and lasting peace – is possible in my region, and that we need Europe to contribute to it.

For centuries, the Caucasian Mountains have been a geopolitical mystery and a beguiling paradox: a region where individuals and souls were free, but where citizens were oppressed; where cultures were tolerant, but where governments created artificial divisions; where people never cease to feel deeply European, but where walls erected by empires turned Europe into a faraway mirage; where men and women were striving for peace, but wars seemed unavoidable.

I came here to tell you that we must put an end to those times, that cooperation must replace rivalry, and that negotiations must prevail over the rhetoric of war.

In all the troubled corners of our world, the European Parliament is a symbol of hope. It is striking proof that even the cruellest of conflicts can be overcome and that peace is worth any political risk.

This very place would not exist if, in the middle of ruins, surrounded by death and legitimate claims for revenge, brave leaders did not choose to end centuries of wars by launching the most ambitious and fascinating political experiment of our time: European unification. This Parliament, which is divided not by nationality, but into political groups – fulfils the vision so eloquently expressed by Victor Hugo at the 1849 International Peace Congress in Paris.

Allow me to quote the great poet in his own language:

(FR) The day will come when all of you, all the nations of the continent, without losing your distinctive qualities or your glorious individuality, merge into a greater union, and embody European fraternity.

The day will come when the only battlefields are markets open to trade and minds open to ideas.

The day will come when cannonballs and bombs are replaced by votes, by the universal suffrage of the peoples, by the venerable arbitration of a great sovereign senate which will be to Europe what Parliament is to the United Kingdom, what the Diet is to Germany and what the Legislative Assembly is to France.

Most of Hugo’s contemporaries thought he was an infantile dreamer, even when he gave this speech. It took more than a hundred years and two world wars for history to hear his voice.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for Hugo’s voice to be echoed and heard in my region as well. It is high time for this voice of brotherhood to overcome the sounds of cannons and calls of hatred. It is high time for the European peace to be extended to the Caucasus.

(Applause)

And it is our responsibility, as political leaders, to conceive bold initiatives in order to make this happen.

Ladies and gentlemen, exactly seven years ago, the Rose Revolution initiated a new journey towards the European family of an old nation, my beloved Georgia. On 23 November 2003, hundreds of thousands of citizens of all regional, religious and social backgrounds peacefully took over the streets and the Parliament. Not a single window was broken and not a single thing was stolen from the building. They did more than overthrow a corrupt, backward-looking regime. They triggered what economists in London some weeks ago called a mental revolution.

As some of you in this Assembly know well, there have been two ways of getting out from communist regimes after the liberating collapse of the USSR – the European one and the nationalistic one: the rule of law and the rule of fear. To sum up: Václav Havel and Slobodan Milošević.

Once the tyranny of the Party was over, the divisions, the corruption, the verticality, the bureaucracy, the cynicism and the authoritarianism that were the pillars of Soviet society remained intact. Seven years ago, Georgia was formally an independent state, but it was still part of this world of fear and hatred. The borders of the Soviet mentality were not abolished, and the Soviet Union still existed in the minds and the souls of the people. Only a mental revolution could lead to the European transformation of our societies.

This is the message that we Georgians brought to this region. This is the message that unleashed so much anger towards us among those nostalgic for the Empire, but this is the message that turned Georgia into a laboratory of reforms for our region. When we led the Rose Revolution, we were members of student organisations, opposition parties and civil society groups, all united by a single dream: to turn a dysfunctional post-Soviet country crippled beyond imagining by corruption and crime into a European democracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Soviet Union was based on the principle of the right to rule. People were artificially opposed to each other at every level of society and in every field. In every republic, the different religious, social and ethnic groups were made to be constant rivals, and politics was understood as an art of manipulation, fear and hatred. This explains why former communist leaders turned so easily into nationalists – in the Balkans as well as in the Caucasus, in eastern Europe as well as in Russia. Seven years ago, Georgia was still divided into isolated communities which feared each other. Some extremists were using the weakness of the State to reject minorities.

Our first task was therefore to embrace multiculturalism and differences. We have developed an affirmative action programme in all spheres, from higher education to law enforcement bodies. The Soviet Union had another characteristic – absolute centralisation. Seven years ago, Georgia was still centred completely on its capital, and we initiated a vast decentralisation programme, invested in regional development infrastructures and spectacularly empowered local authorities. As a result, regions that were once abandoned became the most striking examples of our development.

Until the Rose Revolution, all key regional principles were appointed by the President, so while others were restoring the famous vertical power cancelling the autonomy of all the regions, we systematically transferred power to regionally elected bodies. This policy has recently led to the first direct election of the mayor of the capital Tbilisi – last May – and the decision to move the Constitutional Court to the city of Batumi and the Parliament to Georgia’s second-biggest city – Kutaisi – in the centre of Georgia.

The Soviet Union was all about control and corruption – an overweight and inefficient state. Our first step was therefore to dissolve the KGB and fire the entire police force ...

(Applause)

... as well as customs officers and tax agents, but also to open our economy and our educational system.

The vision that guided all these steps was captured by a single symbol. Beside every Georgian flag in every official building, we installed a European flag. We did this to show where we were aiming to take Georgia with our reforms.

Of course, our peaceful revolution has had its share of failures and shortcomings. Of course, we have made mistakes but, as the great inventor of European cosmopolitanism and one of my favourite philosophers, Immanuel Kant, wrote about the French revolution, ‘You cannot be ready to be free until you are actually free’. What Immanuel Kant meant, ladies and gentlemen, is that no book can teach you in advance how to govern – or even behave – in freedom. You can only learn this from your own successes and failures.

We have had failures and we have learnt from them, but we have also had surprising successes. Georgia has just been singled out by the World Bank as the number one economic reformer in the world over the last five years and now ranks twelfth in the world and number one in central and eastern Europe – and certainly in the post-Soviet world – for ease of doing business. Once the epicentre of the post-Soviet mafia, Georgia made more progress against corruption than any other country in the world from 2004 to 2009, according to the EBRD and Transparency International. Indeed, on the TI listing, Georgia went up about 70 places and, by coincidence, around that time, Russia went down about 70 places. We met in the middle and I do not remember them saying hello, but that is what happened.

I value these rankings only because they reflect and rebuild the social and moral transformation that happened in my country – the mental revolution to which I referred earlier. Georgian citizens have stopped thinking of their state and country as a post-Soviet state. They see it, judge it and criticise it as a European democracy. Such a change goes far beyond the leaders and parties that led the Rose Revolution. It is something that nobody owns and nobody can suppress, neither us nor anybody else.

Such a revolution leads to this amazing fact in our part of the world: that institutions are systematically more popular than political figures. We just had a huge police reform and, according to the last poll we took – a Gallup poll – the police came out with an 86% confidence rating, a figure which used to be 5%. The same for the Presidency, the same for Parliament, the same for other institutions in the country: it was exactly the inverse of what happened previously. That really tells you that the institutions are more popular than the leaders and that the country is moving in the right direction.

There is a great deal more to do. Obviously, we are more committed than ever to pursuing our paths of reform. We are aware that democracies are always a work in progress.

Of course, our alternative democratic model was not welcomed by everybody. It met fierce opposition among those revisionist forces who still perceive the fall of the USSR as the worst catastrophe of the 20th century. They imposed a full-scale embargo on my nation in 2006. Before that, there was a full-scale energy embargo in 2005. They deported our citizens, repeatedly bombed our territory prior to 2008 and finally invaded in 2008. As I speak, these forces still occupy 20% of Georgian territory, in blatant violation of international law and of the 12 August ceasefire agreement brokered thanks to the efforts of my good friend and great European leader, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was then President of the European Union.

As I speak, Georgia still has up to 500 000 IDPs and refugees who cannot return home because some people, animated by an old imperialist mentality, decided to welcome the 21st century by organising ethnic cleansing campaigns and building a new Berlin Wall dividing my country.

How did we respond to these aggressions? First, we fully implemented the ceasefire agreement and went beyond our obligations, without once using Russia’s refusal to comply as a pretext. Last August, the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission, Hansjörg Haber – a German – publicly praised Georgian restraint and our engagement strategy as constructive unilateralism. When tanks and missiles are standing 50 km from a capital, it would be high time for many governments to cry that they are besieged, there is no time to have freedom and it is a luxury to have democracy – which they cannot afford – and start to crack down on their opposition and call for so-called unity of society. We did exactly the opposite. We are building, in these circumstances, democracy at gunpoint.

In front of the iron curtain which the occupation forces have built around the region of Abkhazia, in the small seaside town of Anaklia, which was a violent no man’s land just a few years ago, a new tourist resort is being built as we speak, with beautiful hotels and sandy beaches. Some suggest that we should stop and wait until the situation is resolved and only start building when the ground is more solid, less shaky and less dangerous. Our philosophy is the complete opposite. We are constructing buildings not because they are on strong and solid ground but because by building them, we will eventually make the ground stronger.

In Anaklia, a new phase of development started in 2005 after it had already been destroyed twice by the conflict, in 1993 and 1998. In 2008, it once again witnessed total destruction. All the new buildings were burnt down by invading Russian troops, including discos, cafés, youth hostels and other hotels. A few weeks later, construction started again.

A great poet and a famous Russian dissident, Alexandr Galich, one of those eight heroes who demonstrated on Red Square in 1968 against the invasion of Prague, was the author of this great phrase: Отечество в опасности! Наши танки на чужой земле!, which means that ‘the homeland is in danger, our tanks have invaded a foreign country’. He wrote another splendid line about Georgia, which again I shall quote in Russian: Прекрасная и гордая страна! Ты отвечаешь шуткой на злословье!, which translates roughly as ‘splendid and proud country, you respond to mud-slinging with a smile’.

(Applause)

The last time I visited Anaklia, I saw a row of discotheques as lively as you can see anywhere in Europe, where young people danced just as they would in Ibiza or St Tropez. The only difference was that the ‘18’ Disco where we went was the last disco on the beach. Exactly five metres from there is a wall beyond which the occupying army is stationed, and then there is almost 100 km of darkness and emptiness. Let me ask you: what is more absurd than a new Berlin Wall on a sandy subtropical Black Sea beach?

In short, we understand that peace is in our supreme interest, and we are convinced that there is no alternative to peace. By jeopardising peace, we would place at risk everything we have achieved and everything we want to achieve in the coming years.

I have come here to announce a new step in our policy of constructive unilateralism. I am here to take an initiative that I hope, with your help, will defuse the tensions and allow serious negotiations to start. Before coming, I reflected a lot. I also consulted with our friends – American and European allies and people in the region – and the Georgian Government already considers itself bound by the 12 August ceasefire agreement and has always understood that the ceasefire clearly prohibits the use of force.

But in order to prove that Georgia is definitely committed to a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Russian Federation, we are today taking the unilateral initiative of declaring that Georgia will never use force to roll back the Russian occupation and to restore its control over the occupied areas. It will only resort to peaceful means in its quest for de-occupation and reunification.

Even if the Russian Federation refuses to withdraw its occupation forces, even if its proxy militias multiply their human rights violations, Georgia will only retain the right to self-defence in the case of new attacks and invasion of the 80% of the Georgian territory that remains under the control of the Georgian Government.

I will address the relevant letters to the Secretary-General of the UN, the Secretary-General of the OSCE and the leadership of the European Union, stating clearly that we commit ourselves not to use force in order to restore control of all our illegally divided country, neither against the occupation forces nor against their proxies – even though the UN Charter might allow us to do so.

My pledge here before you constitutes a unilateral declaration of a state under international law. This initiative is far from easy for a country that is partially occupied and has 500 000 IDPs and refugees. It constitutes and expands our policy of constructive unilateralism. I am ready for deep, comprehensive dialogue with my Russian counterpart.

We will, of course, continue to participate in the Geneva talks, hoping that our pledge today will persuade the Russian Federation to stop blocking these discussions. But we need political dialogue to start as well. For this to occur, the international community must make it clear to the Russian leaders that the situation today is totally irregular and unsustainable.

In order to push them to discuss a compromise, it is essential clearly to state the reality of the situation on the ground. This is why we are asking that the Russian military build-up within the international borders of Georgia be qualified as illegal occupation of a sovereign territory. Many European nations, as well as the United States, have already done so. Because if this is not a military occupation, then what is it? Is it military tourism when you have tens of thousands of troops, missiles and tanks deployed illegally against you, and a part is removed from your populated territory?

Equally, the brutal campaigns that have expelled hundreds of thousands of Georgian citizens from the occupied territories should be qualified as illegal acts of ethnic cleansing. If we fail to denounce this ethnic cleansing, why would the occupiers ever even consider allowing them to return back to their homes, towns and villages?

Ladies and gentlemen, if the first victim of war is always the truth, the truth is always the most solid foundation of peace. Our constructive unilateralism and the pledge I have just made will not have the expected impact if our European friends do not speak out the truth. If you do not speak out the truth, then who will? I came here today humbly to tell you that, basically we – and maybe the whole region – depend on you.

Ladies and gentlemen, our region has known too many wars in recent history. It is time – to paraphrase Hugo once again – to replace cannons with round tables. Our region has had its own Warsaw, its own Coventry, its own Oradour-sur-Glane, and it is time to build on our common rejection of war and destruction. It is time to say that we must never have another Grozny, a regional capital of 400 000 inhabitants that has been totally erased from the surface of the globe. It is time to say that we must never again see people expelled from their homes and deported on the basis of their nationality, faith or origin, as happened in my own country as well as in other countries in the region.

I am ready to work with the Russian leadership to ensure that this does not happen again and that the consequences of the war are reversed and conditions for peace established. Walls like the one dividing Georgia will not be brought down by bombs but by the commitment of citizens to build a free, united, democratic country and by the commitment of the world community to enforce international law, and this is the ambition we will never give up. We will never give up our ambition to reunite our country and establish it as a free democratic nation by peaceful means.

It is noticeable that, despite the enormous pressure and multiple threats from Moscow, not a single former Soviet Republic has recognised this dismemberment of Georgia. It shows – to the great surprise and fury of some people – that the old times are definitely over. It shows that the former captive nations of Soviet times have, with all the hurdles and problems, become strong independent states that determine their own policies. No one, in short, is going back to the USSR.

Ladies and gentlemen, our region has made a choice. A war has been launched to stop this movement, but tanks cannot reverse the sense of history, and it is time for the long and dolorous hangover of imperialism to end peacefully. I call, therefore, on the Russian leaders to make the choice of the future. They could play such a major positive role in the ongoing transformation of our common region, accepting other countries as partners and not as vassals.

We all want – and I personally want – Russia as a partner and not as an enemy. Nobody has a greater interest than us in seeing Russia turn into a country that truly operates within the concert of nations, respects international law, and – this is often connected – upholds basic human rights. This is why I wholeheartedly support the efforts of European and American leaders to engage Russia in a more constructive relationship. Our conflict has done nothing to harden feelings between our two peoples; I want to tell the Russian people that they will always be welcome in Georgia as partners, tourists, students, businessmen, journalists or simply as friends – but not as occupation forces.

(Great applause from the floor)

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to end this speech with a quote from the President of the first Georgia Republic, Noe Zhordania. As you might know, Georgia was the first European social democratic republic ever proclaimed in 1918, and we are very proud of this. We have strong women’s rights and other strong social rights enshrined in the constitution. A few days before the Red Army invaded Georgia, Zhordania explained our European choice: ‘What do we take from the cultural bow of European nations? More than 2 000 years of national culture, a democratic system and natural wealth’.

Russia offered us the chance to go back and have military lives. We told Russia that we are going to Europe, and we want Russia to go together with us towards Europe. Today, another Georgian President is addressing you with the same message of love for European ideas and values. It is rare that a nation is given the same opportunity twice in history. I came here today to tell you that we will seize this opportunity and do whatever we can to achieve our European destiny.

  President. – President Saakashvili, your message today was very important for all of us, but it was very important as well for the future OSCE summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, in one week’s time on 1 and 2 December. First of all, it was of crucial importance to the whole of your region, to the Caucasus, both the southern Caucasus and the northern Caucasus. We have always known that you are brave men – now we can also say that you are prudent men. Courage and prudence should always go together.

IN THE CHAIR: STAVROS LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

8. Voting time (continuation)

Voting time (continued)

8.1. ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009 (A7-0315/2010, Eva Joly) (vote)

8.2. Civil, commercial, family and private international law aspects of the action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme (A7-0252/2010, Luigi Berlinguer) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Luigi Berlinguer, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, due to the change in the agenda approved yesterday by this House, I would firstly like to express my approval for the fact that the Committee on Legal Affairs has unanimously approved the draft report that we are voting on today.

The fact that the construction of the European judicial space finds such a broad consensus in Parliament is important. The Stockholm Programme envisages that everyday life should be intrinsic to the process of constructing a Europe of citizens and not merely of political forces or institutional representations. It sets out to resolve the everyday problems of Europeans by the real and unified creation of an effective market of labour, goods and services, entrepreneurial activity without internal borders and without red tape, to strengthen the common basis of rights of succession, contracts, consumers, timely payments, the family, children and more.

It will also be the duty and responsibility of the justice system, national judiciaries, solicitors, accountants and workers who operate within individual States to build Europe, to interpret the laws that unite our continent. Our past is marked by different judicial and legal traditions – Common law and Civil law – with differences between the French or German systems and histories that are sometimes very different. We respect national prerogatives and the principle of subsidiarity, but we realise that in order to build Europe – and fortunately we are still on that road – we need progressive convergence that is based on the great constitutional tradition of fundamental rights for which Europe stands.

Mr President, the Action Plan that we will approve sets out to construct, reinforce, extend and disseminate a solid European judicial culture, a European legal mindset. That is why I will vote in favour.

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: David Casa (A7-0325/2010)

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, would you trust an economic forecaster who had recently said this: ‘The euro has done more to enforce budgetary discipline in the rest of Europe than any number of exhortations from the IMF or the OECD’? Or this: ‘The euro has already provided great internal stability for the eurozone’? Or this: ‘If we get rid of sterling and adopt the euro, we will also get rid of sterling crises and sterling over-valuations. This will give us a real control over our economic environment’.

All three of those quotations come from our former colleagues in this House, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne – now, alarmingly, ministers in the British Government. We, on the other hand, who oppose the euro – there is no way of putting this modestly – have been proved absolutely right. We always said that an ECB rate determined by the needs of the core would be disastrous for the periphery.

I am not expecting any humility from those who got it so disastrously wrong. I am sure they will still be wheeled out by the BBC as disinterested experts, and I am sure that we will still be portrayed as doctrinaire hardliners. Believe me, I am not gloating for the sake of it. A friend of mine just said that there is nothing more irritating than being wise during the event. But please listen to us next time. The single currency forces nations to adopt the wrong monetary policy, with calamitous outcomes for the bailout receivers and to those paying.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, I share the concern my colleague just expressed about this obsession with harmonisation. When we look at the moves towards a common VAT tax base, we hear MEPs across this House arguing for more and more harmonisation when it comes to tax, forgetting that what we really need here at EU level is more tax competition. We also need this at global level to ensure that when it comes to the economy and economic competitiveness, we are not taxing our citizens out of productive capability and productive forces – what we are actually doing is ensuring that we have enough entrepreneurs and innovators in a country, and one of the best ways we can do that is by tax competition.

This obsession with harmonisation has led us to a single currency that does not take account of national differences and differences in economic cycles. This is why countries are suffering; this is partly why Ireland is suffering; and it is time we moved more towards competition, rather than to common tax bases.

Report: Burkhard Balz (A7-0314/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report examines the annual report and the activity carried out this year. Economic and financial and, to a growing extent, political actions are still extensively dominated by the international financial crisis.

Events in Greece and in other countries of the area naturally have complex causes. The problems are largely of internal origin because they stem from a lack of structural reforms.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the European monetary union has not operated in the way it was designed to work. The principles of the Stability and Growth Pact have not always been respected and infringements that seemed minor initially have proven, over time, to be a serious threat to the pact as a whole.

We must therefore learn a lesson from the situation. We need to re-balance the European monetary union, achieve greater transparency and more effective management of the crisis in the financial markets and rebuild public trust from the bottom. This is an enormous challenge, but also an opportunity that we have a duty to grasp.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, we can see the way in which the Irish Republic has been brought to its present predicament by the euro. As early as 2001, Irish economists were alarmingly warning that Ireland desperately needed to raise interest rates to choke off the unsustainable boom. But of course, there were no Irish interest rates; there was only the European Central Bank, which, by giving the core members what they needed, was giving the peripheral members a double dose of what they did not need, namely, artificially cheap money.

The problems of Ireland are going to carry on for as long as it is in the single currency. The bailout may allow it to limp on until the next time that its monetary policy needs to diverge from those of the rest of the eurozone. It is crazy, at a time like this, when my own country already owes GBP 850 billion, that we should be borrowing another GBP 7 billion to send to Ireland. That money will not only be useless, it will be actively harmful because it will trap the Republic of Ireland in its present discontents.

If we want to be helpful, we could offer our friends and neighbours the far more immediate and practical assistance of allowing them a temporary currency union with sterling, allowing them to treat their loans as being denominated in pounds, and allowing them then to export their way back to growth.

Report: Christian Ehler (A7-0308/2010)

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I would like to emphasise the importance of training. In other respects, this motion for a resolution is excellent, but I would like to point out that, from the perspective of gender, the EU and other countries involved in these civil crisis management operations would do well to look to the north and learn a lesson from Sweden and Finland too where it concerns training.

I would also like to stress that it is very important that cooperation actually works and that we also conduct surveys and studies on how well these operations have succeeded. There are still flaws in the system at the moment.

Report: Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0296/2010)

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I want to explain the reason why I voted against Amendments 30 and 31 to Article 5 of the Gallagher report: for the very simple reason that it would separate the Bay of Biscay TAC from the rest of the area. The justification was simply that there are many small local fishing boats in that particular region that do not have a big impact on the stocks of mackerel in the waters.

The argument I would make is that every coastal community, virtually in every country, could make the same argument in order to protect the interests of their fishermen. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee does not seem to suggest that we can separate the fish stocks in the waters. Fish are a transient species, they move around, and this separation is not in accord with the Lisbon Treaty.

The plan for the long-term management of the stocks within the North Atlantic should not be fiddled with. If we have a common fisheries policy, it should be common for all, no exceptions, no exemptions, and the long-term consequences of this are quite serious.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I voted in favour of Amendments 30 and 31, because both the distribution by area of total allowable catches (TACs) and the establishment of TACs need to take into account the characteristics and objectives of the different fleets – small-scale and industrial fleets – so that the fishing opportunities that they have had until now can be maintained.

Changing them could mean changes in the fishing framework, and could even cause disputes with local fisheries, which mainly use horse mackerel to provide quality fish to the public.

TACs need to be differentiated by area, both in the case of horse mackerel, and in the case of other fish populations that are also covered by the common fisheries policy.

Report: Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (A7-0295/2010)

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the problem of declining fish stocks is affecting not only us Europeans, but also fishermen and consumers throughout the world. The lack of suitable fishing grounds is a threat to food security. It may also upset the balance of aquatic ecosystems and, as a result, of the entire environment of our planet.

In relation to climate change, the Baltic Sea is particularly at risk of the disappearance of certain species of fish, and errors in European fisheries legislation, which imposes bans on fishing, are exacerbating this situation. This is why it is so important to carry out an appropriate revision of the common fisheries policy, which guarantees sustainable fishing in the waters of our region. I endorsed the report for these reasons.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. I, too, am concerned that we need to ensure that fish stocks last and that fishing is genuinely sustainable, in the Baltic Sea region too. The reduction in fish stocks is currently a major cause for concern. Here, obviously, the focus was mainly on flounder and turbot, and this was clearly a technical reform in the main, one which was needed when the Treaty of Lisbon had entered into force. In other words, the old system was being sanctioned.

The scope of this debate should now be widened. I am concerned about wild salmon stocks, especially in the Baltic region, and I think that we should ensure that these stocks could also be re­established there and that we should start to give serious attention to making sure that fishing in the Baltic Sea is practised in a sustainable manner.

Report: João Ferreira (A7-0184/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal that introductions and translocations involving the use of closed aquaculture facilities should be exempted from the permit requirement was bound to be accompanied by a more rigorous definition of the requirements that these facilities must observe. I therefore lent my full support to the report by Mr Ferreira.

I would nevertheless like to take this opportunity to emphasise the lack of adequate support for scientific research and technological development in the field of native species rearing. Greater support for this sector is essential to the sustainable development of European agriculture. Only in this way will we be able to diversify food production and supply, guaranteeing an improvement in quality and greater environmental safety.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0324/2010)

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the single market is one of the pillars of the European Union. There is no doubt that, under the same general conditions, enterprises can produce and sell their products and services without public support, but not all sectors and not all areas are operating under conditions of parity. It is therefore fair, as in this instance, to correct situations of economic disadvantage and allow productive businesses to remain on the market and maintain employment levels, as in Sulcis for example, where 500 families would have found themselves without work, without income and without dignity.

We must realise that when we speak of coal, we are talking about areas that have no alternative to mines and should be allowed the opportunity to adopt production technologies that are competitive and compatible with the free market and with the environment. Logically, postponing the deadline to 2018 must represent an imperative to ensure that institutions and companies take immediate action to develop technological, financial and environmental compatibility conditions that are in line with the challenges that await us.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, when we speak about State aid, we also need to remember that, in some cases, it can distort competition.

When, in the context of the Single Market, there is talk specifically about coal mines and aid for them, it has to be said that we in Europe should be looking at a more sustainable future. Coal is now one of the most harmful fossil fuels: it actually kills hundreds of thousands of animals over the course of a year as a result of different emissions. For that reason, I hope that we in Europe will achieve a situation where we could gradually reduce the use of coal as a source of energy and switch to renewable energy sources. I understand that it will mean that there will have to be a period of transition of some kind in areas where coal production is closely linked to employment, but basically, we should be moving more in the direction of renewable technology and energy.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I do not think that the EU should support polluting coal mines. We should be supporting the acquisition of renewable energy and its production. We cannot put our foot down on the accelerator and apply the brakes at the same time. I am with the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe on this matter, but in the final vote, I made a mistake. I formally corrected it, but I also wanted to say so here.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I am speaking because Poland is one of those countries which have had to face the biggest problems in terms of a sudden reduction in expenditure and extraction potential in the coal industry. Ten years ago, we introduced a radical programme of mine closures, but to replace the Polish coal, 10 million tonnes of Russian coal is being imported. I want to give my assurance that the emission of CO2 from Polish coal is the same as from Russian coal. However, it is good that we have a national aid programme and that the Commission allows this. I endorsed this report. However, I am of the opinion that we do have to maintain a balance. The objective is not to close mines just for the sake of closing mines; it is to ensure energy security – and we are treating mines as if they were businesses.

Report: Eva Joly (A7-0315/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in international North-South cooperation due to the quality of its work.

Strengthening the parliamentary dimension of cooperation proved essential for the purposes of guaranteeing good deployment of funds, satisfying people’s needs and achieving the Millennium Development Goals with regard to health and education.

Some time ago, the European Commission introduced the practice of subjecting national and regional strategy papers to parliamentary scrutiny by both the European Parliament and national parliaments.

I voted in favour of this report because I intend to support the work carried out to date by this House, a role that is even more important today as we oversee negotiations over economic partnership agreements.

In 2009, the European Commission submitted, together with the ACP countries, certain proposals for a second review of the partnership agreement and I hope that we can guarantee its survival and development as an essential institution in this process of cooperation and democratisation of the rest of the world.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mrs Joly on her report.

Today, we inhabit a world where human history seems to be travelling along separate tracks. In some continents, the days are spent basking in the light of innovation, technology and objective wellbeing while, in others, people spend their hours, from dawn to dusk, in a desperate search for the minimal means of survival.

In 2009, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly strove actively to ensure that its numerous proposals could be translated into substantial commitments and goals to be achieved. The European Union proved itself resolved to undertake timely, targeted and coordinated action to support the hardest hit countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable.

On 1 December, the twentieth ACP-EU plenary session will be held in Kinshasa. During this, an important report on the Millennium Development Goals will be discussed. As rapporteur and also deputy chair of the assembly, I will be fully committed to ensuring that the measures adopted are not empty words but become a solid commitment to continuing along the path towards a fairer world and, above all, a world without poverty.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has proved itself an essential tool for building an open and democratic dialogue, successfully involving ACP national parliaments, local authorities and non-governmental organisations.

I agree on the general approach of the report, and consider the invitation to the Commission to provide greater information to the parliaments of ACP countries to be particularly useful. It is essential to actively involve these parliaments in preparing national development strategies.

I give my support to Mrs Joly. Before we can talk about establishing a tax on international financial transactions, though, we need to carry out a study on its potential impact.

Report: Luigi Berlinguer (A7-0252/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the Stockholm Programme adopted by the European Council in December last year, is to create a European space of freedom, safety and justice, to be achieved over the next five years, with the aim of ensuring that citizens can enjoy all their fundamental rights.

The ultimate aim of Union law must therefore be to facilitate mobility and to guarantee that these same citizens can create a European judicial space as quickly as possible.

The action plan proposed by the European Commission envisages a set of measures that stem from the new instruments made available by the Treaty of Lisbon for the purposes of reconciling the needs of citizens of the single market with the different judicial traditions of Member States.

I voted in favour of this report because, having stated the necessary premises, it calls on Member States to commit themselves actively to its implementation, emphasising the sectors that must be treated as a priority, namely, civil aspects, mutual recognition of official documents and judgments, a common framework of reference, debtors’ assets and common judicial training

I emphasise once again my conviction that the European Parliament must be associated with this process of harmonisation after a careful examination of the legal systems in force at national level. Nowadays, the harmonisation of legal systems and the respective scope of civil and criminal law on numerous matters is correlated with and has become an integral part of discussions in international trade negotiations because it raises a set of legal questions that have not yet been resolved.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, European cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) remains a sensitive issue and one which needs to be addressed carefully. Cooperation between judicial authorities may be necessary in order to prevent crime and bring justice and legal certainty to the European internal market. However, cooperation within the framework of AFSJ carries with it the hidden risk that Europe will occupy itself with matters which actually fall within national competence. Paragraph 40 of the Berlinguer report emphasises mutual recognition of marriage and family law without any reference to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This article states that each Member State shall remain sovereign in matters of family law with cross-border implications. I have declined to endorse this report, both because this European principle has not been explicitly observed and because the European Conservatives and Reformists’ amendment in that regard has been rejected.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I abstained from the vote because I am not convinced that Member State subsidiarity is respected in the area of family law. The European Union must fully respect the division of powers between the Union and the Member States when creating legislation. For this reason, I fully support an approach which consistently takes account of the various legal approaches and constitutional traditions based on the specific conditions of individual states, particularly in areas relating to the fundamental values of a given society, such as the values embodied in family law legislation.

The aim of the EU approach should be to better understand and secure the needs of all citizens in all states, and not to create some kind of monochrome society. It is therefore essential not to overstep by force the necessary framework of the measure, which might threaten the fundamental values of the Member States in specific areas of civil and family law.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0324/2010)

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to say that coal is a raw material which is very important for the welfare of society and energy security. Despite research which has been carried out and despite the search for alternative energy sources, demand for coal continues to rise. It is obvious, therefore, that efforts should be made to ensure permanent access to coal reserves.

However, when a mine becomes unprofitable, keeping it in operation with the use of State aid upsets the market, interferes with competitiveness and destabilises, as a result, the economy of the country concerned. What is needed, therefore, is suitable legislation enabling the effective and also the safe closure of such a mine. The draft regulation ensures achievement of these objectives, guaranteeing to maintain the competitiveness of the energy market and to stimulate the development of closely related industries. Needless to say, I endorsed the report.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Reimer Böge (A7-0328/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my German colleague, Mr Böge, on the proposal for a decision on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to the tune of EUR 13 million in order to help Ireland, which was hit by serious floods in November 2009. The amount of aid seems derisory to me (2.5% of an estimated EUR 500 million of total damage), and it has come far too late. I suggest that we ask ourselves whether, rather than granting derisory sums, we ought not to use part of them to finance a European civil protection force to come to the aid of States that are stricken by disasters that they are not equipped to deal with (fires, floods, natural disasters, cross-border disasters, and so on), or to carry out international cooperation efforts in the event of serious disasters such as that which occurred in Haiti, for example.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I strongly agree with what the report says about supporting the Commission’s decision to allocate EUR 13.02 million from the EU Solidarity Fund for the benefit of Ireland in order to restore infrastructure and to implement flood prevention measures in affected areas.

The floods in Ireland in November 2009 did considerable damage to homes, farms, businesses, infrastructure, roads and water sources in affected areas. This money from the Commission will help defray some of the costs that arose at the time of the crisis. The extent to which this money is directed to investment for putting measures in place to prevent flooding in the areas concerned is also extremely important.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted to provide funds from the EU Solidarity Fund to Ireland. In 2009, heavy rain led to severe flooding which caused serious damage to the agricultural sector, residential properties and businesses, to the road network and other infrastructure. Support for Ireland was approved by way of exception because the extent of the damage caused by the floods did not meet Solidarity Fund requirements. With the changing climate in Europe and throughout the world, there is an increasing number of natural disasters resulting in loss of human life and major damage. The European Union must therefore establish measures to provide the required funding in a timely manner when such disasters occur. In its March resolution, the European Parliament clearly expressed its position that in order to solve the problems caused by natural disasters more effectively, there needs to be a new Solidarity Fund regulation. I believe that the review of the regulation must aim to establish a stronger and more flexible measure, the application of which would enable us to react more effectively to the new challenges of climate change and to swiftly deliver aid to the victims of natural disasters.

  Gerard Batten, John Bufton, David Campbell Bannerman, Derek Roland Clark, Trevor Colman and Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – Considering the illegitimacy, undemocratic structure, corruption and megalomaniac ulterior motivation of the European Union in general and the Commission, in particular, we of the UKIP cannot condone the Commission’s monopolisation of public funds for any purpose whatever and believe, consequently, that any monies it directs to the repair of last year’s flood damage in Ireland will not be properly used and will merely conceal the need for relief funding that is correctly disbursed and directed by democratically elected governments.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union Solidarity Fund, which is intended to help countries forced to cope with natural disasters, has been mobilised 33 times since its creation eight years ago. It has proved its usefulness, and mobilising it for the November 2009 floods in Ireland, which everyone remembers, is, in my view, entirely justified.

  Slavi Binev (NI) , in writing. – (BG) I would like to explain why I voted in favour of this proposal. I believe it absolutely necessary for us to show understanding towards problems such as this, as something like this could happen to any one of us. By acting in this way, we show our unity and empathy at times of natural disasters. I am certain that our aid will be spent in the best way possible and will help overcome the consequences of the flooding in Ireland.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I regard Ireland’s application for assistance from the Solidarity Fund following the torrential rain which led to major flooding in November 2009 as important and welcome. The flooding caused severe damage to the agricultural sector, residential properties and businesses, to the road network and other infrastructures.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Overall, I voted in favour of this report, given that Ireland has submitted a request for assistance and the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to respond to a disaster caused by severe flooding in November 2009, and due to the fact that this flooding caused considerable damage to many homes, farms, roads and water supply networks, and that the financial aid provided under the fund will enable the Irish authorities to recoup some of the costs incurred in responding to the emergency.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Ireland following the floods that caused severe damage to the agricultural sector, homes and businesses, the road network and other infrastructure. Although the total losses remain below the normal threshold, the request made by Ireland falls under the criterion of ‘extraordinary regional disaster’, which sets out the conditions for mobilising the Solidarity Fund ‘under exceptional circumstances’. It would be desirable for the Council to unblock the new regulation on the Solidarity Fund, which has been approved by Parliament.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As I stated previously, I believe that solidarity among EU Member States and, in particular, European support for states affected by disasters, is a clear sign that the EU is no longer just a free trade area. At a time when many are questioning the soundness of our joint project, special aid instruments such as the European Union Solidarity Fund show that we are capable of remaining united in adversity, even in situations that place high demands on human and material resources. The floods that took place in November 2009 seriously affected Ireland and caused severe damage estimated at more than EUR 520 million. I therefore believe that the mobilisation of the fund is fully justified in order to help those who have suffered most from this natural disaster, and I congratulate the chair of the Committee on Regional Development for the speed with which she issued its opinion, thereby avoiding undue delays in the parliamentary procedure.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report allows for the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (ESF) to help Ireland address the disaster caused by heavy rain and flooding in 2009. This flooding caused severe damage to the agricultural sector, homes and businesses, the road network and other infrastructure. Although the total losses remain below the normal threshold, the request made by Ireland falls under the criterion of ‘extraordinary regional disaster’, which sets out the conditions for mobilising the Solidarity Fund ‘under exceptional circumstances’.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report approves the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (ESF) to help Ireland tackle the disaster caused by rain and floods in 2009. In recent years, EU Member States have been hit by a considerable number of disasters. Over the first six years of the ESF, the Commission received 62 requests for financial support from 21 different countries. Of these, approximately one third came under the category of ‘major disasters’. Many of these requests did not receive any support. Other disasters did not result in requests to deploy the fund, although they had a considerable and, in many cases, long-lasting impact on the people affected, the environment and the economy.

The rules for mobilising this fund need to be adapted to allow more flexible and timely mobilisation, addressing a wider range of disasters with significant impacts and reducing the time that elapses between the disaster and the point at which the funds are made available. Yet it is also important to point out that in the first place, there must be a commitment to preventing disasters, putting into practice the recommendations recently approved by Parliament.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I welcome the decision of the European Parliament to approve the Irish Government’s application for financial help from the EU Solidarity Fund for flood relief. The floods in Ireland caused great damage in the country, especially in the Northwest. Under the EU Solidarity Fund, Ireland will receive EUR 13 million. This money will be used to cover some of the cost which local authorities had to pay at the time of the crisis at the end of 2009.

The total cost of the damage done is EUR 520.9 million, and – believe it or not – that amount is below the threshold in force under the Solidarity Fund. The European Commission gave its approval to the EUR 13 million going to Ireland, however, because the Commission recognised that the flooding that hit Ireland at the end of 2009 was a unique regional disaster.

  Seán Kelly (PPE), in writing. – I was pleased to support this proposal and would like to express my country’s appreciation for the solidarity funding allocated to our country as a result of November 2009 flooding. I attended a Floods Forum in Ireland last week and there were many expressions of gratitude when I mentioned it was to be voted in Parliament today.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Solidarity Fund. I believe, in fact, that the fund is a valuable tool for enabling the European Union to show solidarity with the populations of regions affected by natural disasters, by providing financial support to help ensure a swift return to normal living conditions.

The application approved during today’s vote was made by Ireland, and it concerns the heavy rain that caused severe flooding in November 2009. The flooding caused severe damage to the agricultural sector, residential properties and businesses, the road network and other infrastructure. The Irish authorities estimate the total direct damage caused by the disaster at EUR 520.9 million.

Although this is below the threshold provided for by the regulation, the Commission examined the application on the basis of the so-called ‘extraordinary regional disaster’ criterion. Under this criterion, a region can benefit from assistance from the fund where that region has been affected by a natural disaster, mainly a natural one, affecting the majority of its population, with serious and lasting repercussions for living conditions and the economic stability of the region. Lastly, I would add that the fund has been mobilised for a total amount of EUR 13 022 500.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report agreeing to release EU funds to assist the victims of flooding in Ireland. Ireland applied for assistance from the European Solidarity Fund following heavy rain which led to severe flooding in November 2009. The flooding caused damage to the agricultural sector, residential properties, businesses and road networks and infrastructures. After evaluation of the application, the Commission has proposed to mobilise the EU Solidarity Fund for a total amount of EUR 13 022 500. It is worth noting that this is the first agreed proposal to mobilise funds in 2010 and the amount proposed will leave at least 98% of the European Solidarity Fund available for allocation in the rest of 2010.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised world. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights. The EGF is aimed at helping workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating their access to new employment in the future. The EGF has been used by other EU countries in the past, and it is now right to give this assistance to Ireland, which has submitted a request for assistance from the fund following heavy rains that caused flooding in November 2009. The flooding caused severe damage to the agricultural sector, homes and businesses, the road network and other infrastructure.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In recent years, we have seen an increasing number of environmental disasters. In particular, heavy rainfall has frequently caused floods which have devastating consequences for the environment and result in damage that costs huge amounts of money to rectify.

The European Union Solidarity Fund is being mobilised to repair the damage caused by the floods in Ireland in 2009 (to the agricultural sector, housing, businesses, the road network and other infrastructure). The overall cost of the damage which is a direct result of the disaster is estimated to be around EUR 520 million. The contribution of EUR 13 million from the EU budget will help with the reconstruction work. I have voted in favour of providing this support.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Commission did well to mobilise EUR 13 022 500 of the Solidarity Fund with the parallel submission of a draft amending budget (DAB No 8/2010) following the application for assistance submitted by Ireland in connection with the flood of November 2009, which caused massive damage to the national infrastructure amounting to some EUR 520.9 million. National disasters and calamities must be a priority and I hope that in the future, the European Commission will take prompter, more immediate action.

The Irish floods took place in November 2009 and Parliament did not give its approval until today, more than one year after the event. The Veneto region has recently experienced a flood and I very much hope that the Commission’s action will be speedier and more timely than in the past.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Böge’s report because I believe that the European Union has a duty to provide help and support to regions affected by natural disasters and catastrophes.

I believe that the concept of solidarity is connected to the idea and values underpinning the European Union. It is one of the core values that brought the Union into being and ensured that it prospered and enlarged over time. This is the reason why this allocation is not only justified and well founded but practically a duty.

I therefore hope that such assistance will also be provided to the Italian regions severely affected by the recent floods, which brought local economies to their knees.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with Mr Böge, whom I congratulate, on the need to mobilise the European Solidarity Fund in favour of Ireland on the basis of point 26 of the interinstitutional agreement of 17 March 2006. The latter allows the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. This is the first proposal to mobilise the fund in 2010.

I support and emphasise the rapporteur’s recommendations to the Commission and, given the difficult economic situation in Europe and, in particular, in Ireland, I agree that we must show solidarity.

Lastly, I should like to stress here that, given that there has also been a disaster in northern Italy, we must take immediate action to help those stricken regions, too.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We have supported this resolution based on the fact that the Commission proposes to mobilise the European Solidarity Fund in favour of Ireland on the basis of point 26 of the interinstitutional agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006. The IIA allows the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. This proposal is the first proposal to mobilise the Solidarity Fund in 2010.

In parallel to this proposal, the Commission has presented a draft amending budget (DAB No 8/2010 of 24 September 2010) in order to enter in the 2010 budget the corresponding commitment and payment appropriations as foreseen in point 26 of the IIA. Ireland applied for assistance from the fund following heavy rain leading to severe flooding in November 2009. The flooding caused severe damage to the agricultural sector, residential properties and businesses, to the road network and to other infrastructure.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The present proposal on mobilisation of the European Solidarity Fund (ESF) states the need to provide aid to Ireland due to the floods of November 2009, which caused huge losses in the agricultural and industrial sector, in infrastructure, particularly roads and water supply, and in residential areas. In view of this, and recalling the disaster that struck the island of Madeira in February 2010 and the effects of the Xynthia windstorm on Europe, I welcome the Commission’s proposal to grant a total of EUR 13 022 500 in aid to Ireland, based on the ‘extraordinary regional disaster’ criterion. This criterion is used whenever it is shown that the damage caused has affected the majority of the region’s population and that it has had serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and economic stability in the region in question. However, I would like to reiterate the need to review the current ESF system in order to make it swifter and more effective in mitigating the permanent effects of natural disasters.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – I have voted in support of the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: Ireland – floods in November 2009. As was the case in my home country of Poland, ravaging floods have torn apart so many communities and families that it is vital to lend support to our friends in Ireland. The funds will come from the Solidarity Fund, which is allocated for major catastrophes such as this. The funds will go to those communities that were hit the hardest and lend support to those families and business that were most affected by these floods and assist them with rebuilding and recovering some of the revenue lost because of the devastation of their businesses. It is important that the EU continues to support its Member States in their time of need and truly invokes the idea of solidarity.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0318/2010)

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I simply had to vote in favour of the six resolutions tabled by Mrs Matera in order to help Dutch workers made redundant as a direct result of the global economic crisis. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is an effective tool that is focused on the long-term reintegration of workers suffering from the harmful effects of globalisation. I therefore believe that the use of this tool, in specific cases, is entirely justified. During the discussions on the budget, some people wanted the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be immediately scrapped: we can see in this instance that it is still very useful in certain cases, since the consequences of the global crisis are still being felt today.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Here is the explanation of my vote. Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 821 redundancies in 70 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament. I also agree with the request to the institutions involved in the process to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (ESF).

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Aid to workers made redundant due to restructuring and relocation must be dynamic and flexible so that it can be implemented rapidly and effectively. In the light of the structural changes in international trade, it is vital that the European economy is able to effectively implement the instruments to support workers affected in this way, and to retrain them with a view to assisting their swift reintegration into the labour market. Financial assistance should therefore be provided on an individual basis. It is also important to emphasise that this assistance is not a substitute for the responsibilities that normally belong to the companies, nor is it intended for the funding and restructuring of companies. I am voting in favour of this report, given the request by the Netherlands for assistance in respect of 821 redundancies in 70 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the regions of Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) 821 redundancies in 70 companies in the graphics sector in the Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland regions of the Netherlands show that the global economic and financial crisis does not spare sectors which, at first glance, appear to be more sheltered from its effects. This hints at the worrying reduction in the number of printing and publishing companies in the Netherlands and, consequently, the very downturn in the economy as a whole. The European Commission deemed this request for printing and recorded media reproduction companies justifiable, and was backed overwhelmingly by the relevant parliamentary committee. I therefore believe that all the conditions are present to enable me to support the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in this case. I hope that this temporary support will help redundant workers to integrate more successfully into the labour market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the social impact of the global economic crisis, which has had a particular effect on employment, the proper use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is of pivotal importance in alleviating the plight of many European individuals and families, contributing to their social reintegration and professional development, while, at the same time, developing a new, qualified workforce to meet the needs of companies and boost the economy. This plan for intervention in the Netherlands to help 821 people made redundant from 70 companies operating in the regions of Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland falls within the same framework. I therefore hope that the European institutions will redouble their effects in implementing measures that speed up and improve the rates of utilisation of such an important resource as the EGF, which currently has very low levels of mobilisation. This year, only 11% of the EUR 500 million available was requested.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Six more applications have been made to mobilise the Solidarity Fund, corresponding to the closure of hundreds more companies in Europe. Altogether, more than 3 000 workers have been made redundant. Initial estimates as to the number of people who would benefit from the fund at the time of its creation have long been exceeded. Above and beyond the systematic mobilisation of this instrument, what is needed is a clear break with the neoliberal policies that are causing an economic and social disaster within the countries of the European Union before our very eyes. Palliatives are indeed needed for the disaster, but the causes need to be addressed first of all.

Every new application to mobilise this fund increases the urgency of the measures that we have been advocating, which are aimed at fighting unemployment effectively, boosting economic activity, eradicating jobs with no security, and reducing working hours without cutting pay. These are measures that also combat the relocation of companies. Finally, as on other occasions, we cannot omit to point out the injustice of a regulation that offers greater benefit to countries with higher incomes, particularly those with higher levels of salaries and unemployment support.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for the support of workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis.

The EGF was set up in 2006 to provide practical support to workers made redundant either for reasons associated with the relocation of their companies or, following the 2009 amendment, on account of the economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

Today’s vote concerned a request for assistance for 821 workers made redundant by 70 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland, amounting to a sum of EUR 2 890 027 financed by the EGF. To conclude, I welcome the adoption of the report, which shows that the EGF is a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment resulting from globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report, which backs a Commission proposal to mobilise EUR 2 890 027 from the European Globalisation Fund in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the economic crisis. This application concerns 821 redundancies in 70 enterprises (printing and reproduction of recorded media) over a nine month period. The European Globalisation Fund was created to help mitigate such unfortunate events.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised world. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights. The EGF is aimed at helping workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating their access to new employment in the future. The EGF has been used in the past by other EU countries, so it is now appropriate to provide aid to the Netherlands, which has submitted a request for assistance in respect of 821 redundancies in 70 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was set up with the purpose of supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the current process of world market globalisation. EGF aid applications are evaluated by the Commission, which, in this case, was in favour of the eligibility application. Now, the approval of the budget authority is required.

The application examined by the report, which is the nineteenth during the 2010 budget, refers to EGF mobilisation for a sum of EUR 453 632 (we note that the annual fund must not exceed EUR 500 million) requested by the Netherlands for 140 redundancies in the press sector in the Drenthe region. The economic crisis is putting many companies in difficulty and more and more employees are losing their jobs. We must protect these workers. My vote could not be anything else but in favour.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund would benefit 70 different enterprises and save 821 jobs. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Once again, we find ourselves in this Chamber to approve an exceptional allocation within our own borders. Only, in today’s sitting, we are approving six allocations. I say this with regret, since this type of measure is associated with crisis situations and with a series of problems that have repercussions for the economy, the labour market, workers and their families. Fortunately, however, we have this resource available to us.

It is precisely in these kinds of situations that the European Union demonstrates its values and the qualities that set it apart. European solidarity and the defence of European needs are values that must be safeguarded and protected. This is the message that Parliament and the European Union wish to convey, and I hope that there will be greater sensitivity in the transmission of that message, not least to combat lazy anti-European demagogy and to show, instead, just how essential support and assistance at European level really are.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The request submitted by the Netherlands for assistance under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in relation to 821 redundancies from 70 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland fulfils all the legally established eligibility criteria.

In effect, under Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the scope of the EGF was temporarily widened to include its intervention in situations like this, in which, as a direct result of the global economic and financial crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution, and I hope that the mobilisation of the EGF will contribute to the successful integration of these workers into the labour market.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on the mobilisation of the EGF for granting aid to the redundant workers. In December 2009, the Netherlands submitted a request for assistance to use the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in connection with the redundancies which were made in eight regions, in enterprises operating in the graphics sector. The application concerns 821 redundancies made in 70 enterprises involved in printing and the reproduction of recorded media. The redundancies were made in the period between 1 April and 29 December 2009 in the two contiguous regions of Nord Brabant and Zuid Holland.

The economic and financial crisis has also caused a drop in demand in the printing and publishing sector of about 32% for printed advertising material and of between 7.5% and 18.2% for magazines and newspapers. The printing and publishing industry in the Netherlands went through a major restructuring process in order to be able to continue to compete with similar sectors in Turkey, China and India. I believe that the procedure for allocating these funds must be simplified to facilitate the affected enterprises’ access to the EGF.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0321/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Here is the explanation of my vote. Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 140 redundancies in two companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Drenthe, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament. I also agree that EGF aid is not a replacement for actions that are the responsibility of firms under national legislation or collective agreements, nor does it finance the restructuring of firms or sectors.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Despite lending my support to all the requests to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund presented by the Netherlands concerning the severe wave of redundancies which has plagued two areas of the graphics sector – printing and reproduction of recorded media and publishing – I believe that the Dutch authorities could provide more details about the scope of the measures and their accuracy, so as to allow these measures to be assessed more effectively. I hope that the sector can recover and that the redundant workers, particularly the older ones, are able to rebuild their lives and resume their place in the labour market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the social impact of the global economic crisis, which has had a particular effect on employment, the proper use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is of pivotal importance in alleviating the plight of many European individuals and families, contributing to their social reintegration and professional development, while, at the same time, developing a new, qualified workforce to meet the needs of companies and boost the economy.

This plan for intervention in the Netherlands to help 140 people made redundant from two companies in Drenthe falls within the same framework. I therefore hope that the European institutions will redouble their effects in implementing measures that speed up and improve the rates of utilisation of such an important resource as the EGF, which currently has very low levels of mobilisation. This year, only 11% of the EUR 500 million available was requested.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for the support of workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis.

The EGF was set up in 2006 to provide practical support to workers made redundant either for reasons associated with the relocation of their companies or, following the 2009 amendment, on account of the economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

Today’s vote concerned a request for assistance for 140 workers made redundant by two companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Drenthe, amounting to a sum of EUR 453 632 financed by the EGF. To conclude, I welcome the adoption of the report, which shows that the EGF is a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment resulting from globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which backs an application to mobilise the European Globalisation Fund concerning 140 redundancies in 2 enterprises (printing and reproduction of recorded media) over a nine month period in the Drenthe Division in the Netherlands. It forms part of a package of six interrelated applications dealing with redundancies in eight different regions of the Netherlands. There has been a substantial decrease in demand in the printing and publishing sector due to the economic crisis. I welcome the solidarity we are showing with the workers facing a difficult time.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for Barbara Matera’s draft reports on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for the benefit of the Netherlands, as I think that the European Union must offer support to redundant workers, providing them with dynamic, efficient financial assistance. Against the backdrop of the current economic and social crisis, our actions must be targeted at granting aid to those who need it. We are all aware that the priority must be to protect EU citizens from the effects of globalisation and economic recession. I think that the Union can make a significant contribution to combating the impact of the economic crisis and reducing unemployment among its citizens.

On this occasion, I would like to draw attention to the fact that EU Member States can and must ask for the aid granted by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. In this context, I want to point out that my country, Romania, exemplifies the spirit of solidarity in the European Union in crisis situations, whether we are talking about Greece, the Netherlands etc., as confirmation of the fact that we are, together, one big family: the Family of a United Europe.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised world. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights.

The EGF is aimed at helping workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating their access to new employment in the future. The EGF has been used in the past by other EU countries, so it is now appropriate to provide this aid to the Netherlands, which has submitted a request for assistance in respect of 140 redundancies in two companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Drenthe.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Growing numbers of people are being made unemployed as a result of globalisation measures. In the nine-month reference period from 1 April 2009 to 29 December 2009, there were 140 redundancies in two companies in the Dutch region of Drenthe. Now, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is being mobilised to provide a contribution of EUR 453 632. I have voted in favour of the report, because it allows the EGF to fulfil its obligations.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund would benefit two different enterprises and save 140 jobs. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This application is based on Article 2(c) of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) Regulation, and is part of a larger package of six interrelated applications, all of which concern redundancies in eight different NUTS II regions in the Netherlands from companies operating in the graphics sector, which has been hard hit by the global economic and financial crisis. More specifically, this concerns 140 redundancies from two companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Drenthe, a province which is facing a very difficult situation, both because it has the third highest unemployment rate in the Netherlands (7.5%) and because it has a per capita income that is significantly below the national average. I therefore believe that in this case, all the conditions are met for the mobilisation of the EGF, and I hope that the assistance will be made available to the redundant workers swiftly and efficiently.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0323/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Here is the explanation of my vote. Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 129 redundancies in nine companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Limburg, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament.

I also agree with the Commission’s proposal of an alternative to unused European Social Fund resources as a source of payment appropriations for mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), following Parliament’s frequent reminders that the EGF was created separately as a specific instrument, with its own objectives and deadlines, and that it is therefore necessary to identify appropriate budget headings for transfers.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The field of printing and reproduction of recorded media, which forms part of the graphics sector, has been particularly eroded in the Netherlands, as shown by the various applications to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). The region of Drenthe, which has the third highest unemployment rate in the country, has not remained immune to this trend. It is worth emphasising the need for this fund to be mobilised quickly and effectively, without excessive red tape, so as to contribute to better training for the workers made redundant, and thus facilitating their reintegration into the labour market in better conditions than those in which they left.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the social impact of the global economic crisis, which has had a particular effect on employment, the proper use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is of pivotal importance in alleviating the plight of many European individuals and families, contributing to their social reintegration and professional development, while, at the same time, developing a new, qualified workforce to meet the needs of companies and boost the economy.

This plan for intervention in the Netherlands to help 129 people made redundant from 9 companies operating in the region of Limburg falls within the same framework. I therefore hope that the European institutions will redouble their effects in implementing measures that speed up and improve the rates of utilisation of such an important resource as the EGF, which currently has very low levels of mobilisation. This year, only 11% of the EUR 500 million available was requested.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for the support of workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis.

The EGF was set up in 2006 to provide practical support to workers made redundant either for reasons associated with the relocation of their companies or, following the 2009 amendment, on account of the economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

Today’s vote concerned a request for assistance for 129 workers made redundant by nine companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Limburg, amounting to a sum of EUR 549 946 financed by the EGF. To conclude, I welcome the adoption of the report, which shows that the EGF is a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment resulting from globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I support this measure of European solidarity with the 129 workers in 9 enterprises (printing and reproduction) who are facing redundancy. The EUR 549 946 will offer some assistance to them in being reintegrated into the labour market.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised world. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights.

The EGF is aimed at helping workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating their access to new employment in the future. The EGF has been used in the past by other EU countries, so it is now appropriate to provide aid to the Netherlands, which has submitted a request for assistance in respect of 129 redundancies in nine companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Limburg.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The far-reaching effects of globalisation are resulting in more and more people losing their jobs. Redundancies are becoming increasingly common. Between 1 April 2009 and 29 December 2009, 129 workers were made redundant by a machinery and equipment manufacturer in Limburg in the Netherlands. Now an application has been made to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for a contribution of EUR 549 946 to help those affected. I have voted in favour of the report which will prevent those people who have been made redundant from suffering further financial problems.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund can save 129 jobs in nine different enterprises. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This application is based on Article 2(c) of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) Regulation, and is part of a larger package of six interrelated applications, all of which concern redundancies in eight different NUTS II regions in the Netherlands from companies operating in the graphics sector, which has been hard hit by the global economic and financial crisis. More specifically, this concerns 129 redundancies from nine companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the NUTS II region of Limburg, a province which is facing a very difficult situation, both because it has the second highest unemployment rate in the Netherlands (8%) and because it has a per capita income that is significantly below the national average. I therefore believe that in this case, all the conditions are met for the mobilisation of the EGF, and I hope that the assistance will be made available to the redundant workers swiftly and efficiently.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0322/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 650 redundancies in 45 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Gelderland and Overijssel, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament. I also agree with Parliament’s position regretting the severe shortcomings of the Commission in implementing programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during this economic crisis, which is significantly increasing the need for such support.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) 650 workers have lost their jobs at 45 companies within the field of printing and reproduction of recorded media in the graphics sector, in the Dutch regions of Gelderland and Overijssel, adding their difficult situation to that of other workers and companies all over the country. Faced with all the applications made for mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, it is important to ascertain how the workers will be guided and the extent to which new jobs and incentives for starting self-employment are sustainable, or whether they will run the same risks as those who have failed at doing so. Inventiveness and entrepreneurship have long been characteristic qualities of Dutch society, and they deserve to be remembered and revived in the hard times that we are experiencing.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the social impact of the global economic crisis, which has had a particular effect on employment, the proper use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is of pivotal importance in alleviating the plight of many European individuals and families, contributing to their social reintegration and professional development, while, at the same time, developing a new, qualified workforce to meet the needs of companies and boost the economy.

This plan for intervention in the Netherlands to help 650 people made redundant from 45 companies operating in the regions of Gelderland and Overijssel falls within the same framework. I therefore hope that the European institutions will redouble their effects in implementing measures that speed up and improve the rates of utilisation of such an important resource as the EGF, which currently has very low levels of mobilisation. This year, only 11% of the EUR 500 million available was requested.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for the support of workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis.

The EGF was set up in 2006 to provide practical support to workers made redundant either for reasons associated with the relocation of their companies or, following the 2009 amendment, on account of the economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

Today’s vote concerned a request for assistance for 650 workers made redundant by 45 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two NUTS II regions of Gelderland and Overijssel, amounting to a sum of EUR 2 013 619 financed by the EGF. To conclude, I welcome the adoption of the report, which shows that the EGF is a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment resulting from globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the report, which backs plans to release EUR 2 013 619 to help workers in Overijssel made redundant due to the downturn in the printing industry. This support from the European Globalisation Fund should help reintegrate the workers into the labour market and I am pleased to see European solidarity in operation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised world. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights.

The EGF is aimed at helping workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating their access to new employment in the future. The EGF has been used in the past by other EU countries, so it is now appropriate to provide aid to the Netherlands, which has submitted a request for assistance in respect of cases concerning 650 redundancies in 45 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Gelderland and Overijssel.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the nine-month reference period from 1 April 2009 to 29 December 2009, 650 workers were made redundant by 45 companies in the two Dutch regions of Gelderland and Overijssel. The redundancies were the consequence of the economic crisis and of structural changes in world trade patterns. In order to improve the future prospects of people who have lost their jobs, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created, with annual funding of EUR 500 million, to intervene in cases such as these. I have voted in favour of the report, because the redundant workers deserve the support of the EGF.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund can save 650 jobs in 45 different enterprises. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The request submitted by the Netherlands for assistance under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in relation to 650 redundancies from 45 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Gelderland and Overijssel fulfils all the legally established eligibility criteria. In effect, under Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the scope of the EGF was temporarily widened to include its intervention in situations like this, in which, as a direct result of the global economic and financial crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution, and I hope that the mobilisation of the EGF will contribute to the successful integration of these workers into the labour market.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0319/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 720 redundancies in 79 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Utrecht, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament.

I also agree with the Commission’s proposal of an alternative to unused European Social Fund resources as a source of payment appropriations for mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), following Parliament’s frequent reminders that the EGF was created separately as a specific instrument, with its own objectives and deadlines, and that it is therefore necessary to identify appropriate budget headings for transfers.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The crisis in the graphics sector in the Netherlands has affected a number of the country’s regions, including Noord Holland and Utrecht. In this case, there were 720 redundancies in 79 enterprises. This is one of six applications that have been submitted by the Netherlands and have merited the support of the European Commission and the Committee on Budgets. I, too, support it, and hope that the sector is able to reorganise itself and that the redundant workers can find new jobs, whether in the same area of printing and reproduction of recorded media, or in others to which they are or could become suited. The awarded support could be a step towards this.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the social impact of the global economic crisis, which has had a particular effect on employment, the proper use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is of pivotal importance in alleviating the plight of many European individuals and families, contributing to their social reintegration and professional development, while, at the same time, developing a new, qualified workforce to meet the needs of companies and boost the economy.

This plan for intervention in the Netherlands to help 720 people made redundant from 79 companies operating in the regions of Noord Holland and Utrecht falls within the same framework. I therefore hope that the European institutions will redouble their effects in implementing measures that speed up and improve the rates of utilisation of such an important resource as the EGF, which currently has very low levels of mobilisation. This year, only 11% of the EUR 500 million available was requested.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is one of the reports on the six applications by the Netherlands for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in order to support the reintegration in the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the economic and financial crisis. There are some specific aspects of these six applications that is important to point out, in addition to the delay in the process of approval by the European Commission, which, however, is now the norm unfortunately. These specific aspects refer to the content of these six applications, all of which concern redundancies in eight different regions of the Netherlands, in small companies of the graphics sector, specifically, printing and reproduction of recorded media and publishing activities. This time, a total of EUR 2 266 625 of the EGF has been mobilised for the benefit of the Netherlands.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We have here a case of coincidental timing: Parliament has been asked to give its opinion today on six requests for European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) assistance that have been submitted by the Netherlands while, at the same time, the 2011 budget negotiations are stalling because of the refusal by the Netherlands and by two other Member States to engage in a responsible and constructive dialogue on the future of the European budget. Today’s votes are therefore, in my view, an opportunity to point out that the European budget is not just an accounting tool that everyone finds daunting: it is, first and foremost, the ‘power’ behind the European Union that enables it to work day in day out to protect its citizens, and particularly through the EGF, to protect unemployed workers.

The vote on the allocation of EGF aid to the Dutch workers could have been used as a ‘protest vote’ against the Dutch Government, which is criticising on the one hand what it is benefiting from on the other. Instead, it has been an opportunity for Parliament to recall that the principle of solidarity must be the foundation on which all EU decisions are made.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for the support of workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis.

The EGF was set up in 2006 to provide practical support to workers made redundant either for reasons associated with the relocation of their companies or, following the 2009 amendment, on account of the economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration into the labour market. Today’s vote concerned a request for assistance for 720 workers made redundant by 79 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Utrecht, amounting to a sum of EUR 2 266 625 financed by the EGF.

To conclude, I welcome the adoption of the report, which shows that the EGF is a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment resulting from globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I am pleased that EUR 2 266 625 has been made available through the European Globalisation Fund in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant in the printing industry due to the global economic crisis. This application concerns 720 redundancies in 79 enterprises in the Noord Holland and Utrecht Division of the Netherlands.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised world. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights.

The EGF is aimed at helping workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating their access to new employment in the future. The EGF has been used in the past by other EU countries, so it is now appropriate to provide aid to the Netherlands, which has submitted a request for assistance in respect of 720 redundancies in 79 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Utrecht.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund would benefit 79 different enterprises and save 720 jobs. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The request submitted by the Netherlands for assistance under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in relation to 720 redundancies from 79 companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Utrecht fulfils all the legally established eligibility criteria. In effect, under Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the scope of the EGF was temporarily widened to include its intervention in situations like this, in which, as a direct result of the global economic and financial crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution, and I hope that the mobilisation of the EGF will contribute to the successful integration of these workers into the labour market.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0320/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 598 redundancies in eight companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 58 (publishing activities) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Zuid Holland, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament. I also agree with the request to the institutions involved in the process to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (ESF).

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Anyone who monitors the numbers and geographical distribution of redundancies in the graphics sector in the Netherlands, which are the reason for the various applications to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), will surely be alarmed to see how numerous and widespread they are. In the contiguous regions of Noord Holland and Zuid Holland alone, 598 workers lost their jobs in publishing over a period of just nine months. Competition with third countries, along with the financial and economic crisis ravaging the whole of Europe, is a crucial factor in what has been happening, making it clear that solutions need to be sought to people’s immediate problems: their reintegration into the labour market, and their medium- and long-term subsistence. The EGF has a palliative role and can serve as a stimulus, but it is manifestly insufficient to solve the serious problems affecting so many families on its own.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the social impact of the global economic crisis, which has had a particular effect on employment, the proper application of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is of pivotal importance in alleviating the plight of many European individuals and families, contributing to their social reintegration and professional development, while, at the same time, developing a new, qualified workforce to meet the needs of companies and boost the economy.

This plan for intervention in the Netherlands to help 598 people made redundant from 8 companies operating in the regions of Noord Holland and Zuid Holland falls within the same framework. I therefore hope that the European institutions will redouble their effects in implementing measures that speed up and improve the rates of utilisation of such an important resource as the EGF, which currently has very low levels of mobilisation. This year, only 11% of the EUR 500 million available was requested.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of the Netherlands because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for the support of workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis.

The EGF was set up in 2006 to provide practical support to workers made redundant either for reasons associated with the relocation of their companies or, following the 2009 amendment, on account of the economic crisis, in order to assist their reintegration into the labour market. Today’s vote concerned a request for assistance for 598 workers made redundant by eight companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 58 (publishing activities) in the two NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Zuid Holland, amounting to a sum of EUR 2 326 459 financed by the EGF.

Lastly, I must emphasise that today’s adoption of the six reports shows that the EGF is a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment resulting from globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report and the support the European Globalisation Fund is giving to workers made redundant. This proposal is for EUR 2 326 459 to assist 598 workers, from 8 enterprises in the printing and reproduction media, who are losing their jobs because of the economic crisis. This is an important example of European solidarity.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of the relocations that occur in a globalised world. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights.

The EGF is aimed at helping workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating their access to new employment in the future. The EGF has been used in the past by other EU countries, so it is now appropriate to provide aid to the Netherlands, which has submitted a request for assistance in respect of 598 redundancies in eight companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 58 (publishing activities) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Zuid Holland.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) During the nine-month reference period from 1 April 2009 to 29 December 2009, there were 598 redundancies in a total of eight companies in Noord Holland and Zuid Holland. Each one of these workers was a victim of globalisation. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to cushion the impact of social injustices of this kind. I have voted in favour of the report, because all the requirements for the mobilisation of the EGF have been met.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund would benefit eight different enterprises and save 598 jobs. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The request submitted by the Netherlands for assistance under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in relation to 598 redundancies from eight companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 58 (publishing activities) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions of Noord Holland and Zuid Holland fulfils all the legally established eligibility criteria. In effect, under Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the scope of the EGF was temporarily widened to include its intervention in situations like this, in which, as a direct result of the global economic and financial crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution, and I hope that the mobilisation of the EGF will contribute to the successful integration of these workers into the labour market.

Reports: Barbara Matera (A7-0318/2010), (A7-0319/2010)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) receives annual funding of EUR 500 million with the aim of providing financial support to workers affected by major structural changes in world trade patterns. Estimates indicate that between 35 000 and 50 000 employees could benefit from this support each year. The money can be used to pay for help in finding new jobs, tailor-made training, assistance in becoming self-employed or starting up a company, mobility and support for disadvantaged or older workers. I have voted in favour of the report, because the mobilisation of the funding is fully justified.

Reports: Barbara Matera (A7-0328/2010), (A7-0318/2010), (A7-0321/2010), (A7-0323/2010), (A7-0322/2010), (A7-0319/2010), (A7-0320/2010)

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regarding the request submitted by the Netherlands for assistance in relation to 140 redundancies from two companies in NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the region of Drenthe, I refer to all the arguments set out in my declaration of vote regarding report A7-0318/2010 to justify my vote in favour of this report.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on all of Mrs Matera’s reports on mobilising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to help various Dutch regions, not because I oppose these plans, but to issue a warning to the Dutch Government, which has a populist and anti-European policy. The Netherlands is opposed to increasing the European budget but has no qualms about accepting European aid. What is more, the Netherlands is the main beneficiary, after Germany, of the internal market. It is time Dutch politics returned to their roots. The Netherlands is, after all, one of the founder members of the EU.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – As on several occasions in the past, we have supported this text which: 1. Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; 2. Recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market; 3. Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of individual redundant workers into employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The package of six applications from the Netherlands to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) received the support of Parliament. Of course, I also voted in favour of the Dutch applications, because it is important for us to provide rapid support for citizens of a Member State who have lost their jobs and this is why the EGF was created. However, I gave my support to the six applications rather grudgingly, in the light of the highly obstructive attitude of the Dutch Government during the budget negotiations on Monday of last week in Brussels. In my opinion, flatly refusing to allow Parliament to hold a serious discussion on its involvement in the future financial framework and, at the same time, calling for Parliament to vote in favour of financial support for the Netherlands, are two completely incompatible things.

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0305/2010)

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission reports have not established a single breach of competition by the German Alcohol Monopoly on the internal market. That is why I am in favour of this proposal. The report also stresses the importance of these provisions for the rural economy in Germany, particularly with regard to small distilleries.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Given the importance for all small-scale distilleries of their participation in the German Alcohol Monopoly and the need for further transition towards the market, as well as the fact that the reports presented do not demonstrate an infringement of the competition rules in the single market, I think that the monopoly extension period should have ended by 2013 at the latest, the date when the new CAP comes into force.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe more time needs to be allocated for the adaptation of Germany’s small-scale distilleries so that they can survive on the free market. I agree with the European Commission’s proposal for an extension of a few more years to complete the process of abolishing the monopoly as well as the aid, and allow for its definitive phasing out in 2017.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Like the rapporteur, I find it regrettable that the common agricultural policy after 2013 will have to inherit old situations, such as this special arrangement within the Single Common Market Organisation Regulation as regards the aid granted in the framework of the German alcohol monopoly. Nevertheless, I understand the need to extend the period for phasing the monopoly out, given the economic needs of the German rural economy, particularly in some of the country’s federal states. In fact, while European rules should be predictable and impartial, they should also introduce the flexibility necessary to meet the specific needs of the markets and the European public, in this case, distillery owners in Germany.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the Commission’s position since no infringement of competition in the internal market has been demonstrated. The Council is in consensus in its support for this proposal, which is significant for the rural economy in Germany. The Commission proposal is accompanied by a schedule of reduction in the quantities of alcohol produced under the monopoly until their total abolition on 1 January 2018.

Under Article 182(4) of the Single Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation, and as an exception to the State aid rules, Germany may grant State aid under the German Alcohol Monopoly for products marketed, after further transformation by the monopoly, as ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin. The total quantity allowed to be granted as State aid is limited to EUR 110 million per year and mainly goes to farmers supplying the raw material and distilleries using it. However, the actual budget used has been smaller than that amount and has been steadily decreasing since 2003. Moreover, a large number of distilleries have already made efforts to prepare for their entry into the free market by creating cooperatives, investing in more energy-efficient equipment and increasingly marketing their alcohol directly.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for this report, despite disagreeing with the arguments tabled by the Commission and the rapporteur to justify extending the aid. Both of them think that the few intervention measures that still remain should be completely phased out, subjecting agriculture to the ‘free market’. Therefore, they limit themselves to stating that ‘more time is needed to facilitate the adaptation process, and to allow distillers to survive on the free market’. In contrast to the rapporteur’s position, we believe that intervention in the markets and regulation instruments should, in fact, be the rule rather than the exception.

That is the only way to guarantee a living income for farmers, especially small and medium-sized producers. Therefore, it is the only way to guarantee the future of small and medium-sized agriculture, as well as the right to produce, and each country’s right to food security and food sovereignty. Instead of an exception being made for Germany for a specific product, other countries and other products should be considered for intervention as well.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Firstly, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the chair of the committee, Mr De Castro, and to the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Mrs Jeggle, for their hard work. The final extension of the German alcohol monopoly which was adopted today represents an important step forward. It gives our fruit distilleries, in particular, the security to plan for the future beyond 2010.

This is important because it enables them to prepare for the transition to the free market and to maintain one of Germany’s unique cultural landscapes. However, it is now essential to make intensive use of this period of time to put in place the necessary adaptation measures, because there will be no further extensions of the monopoly. That is the message of today’s report.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to express my support for this report, principally because the German government aid to the alcohol monopoly goes mainly to farmers and small distilleries. This aid does not evidence any breaches of the principles of competition, and it is a form of support for the smallest businesses. Despite the fact that the aid is being given in an appropriate way, I support the proposal for information to be made available about all events related to this support. There must not be breaches of any kind, because this would be unfair to other often much weaker and poorer producers. I do, however, have certain doubts as to whether one Member State supporting its economy in this way will not reduce stability in the European market. This type of instrument should be extended to other Member States, so that they, too, will be able to support their economies.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The German Alcohol Monopoly as a concept is to be phased out. The farmers affected have prepared for the opening up of the market. Thus, the aid is no longer fully utilised and measures have been taken, such as the establishment of cooperatives and changes in direct marketing methods, in preparation for this opening up of the market. However, a sufficient amount of time is required for these measures to be taken. At the end of the day, it is not large enterprises that are affected by this arrangement, but many small farmers in rural areas. For this reason, I support an extension of the arrangement.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. Currently, as an exception to State aid rules, the German authorities may grant State aid under the German Alcohol Monopoly for products marketed as alcohol of agricultural origin. The current derogation ends on 31 December 2010 and the draft regulation extends the application of the derogation and proposes that the production/sales monopoly shall gradually decrease so that the monopoly will finally cease to exist as from 1 January 2018. I welcome this phasing out.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The constant pursuit of a functioning single market is incompatible with the presence of monopolies in any sector. In the particular case of the German Alcohol Monopoly, there are certain attenuating circumstances that allow it still to exist. However, in line with the recommendations of this report, we have to move towards the total abolition of agricultural bonded distilleries from 2013 and small-scale flat-rate distilleries from 2017.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Whether and in what form the German Alcohol Monopoly will be retained and what changes will be made to it are all factors that will have an impact primarily on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The EU constantly claims that it wants to provide more support for SMEs, which are the motor of the economy and the main providers of jobs. In this context, we need legal certainty and, therefore, an extension of the monopoly over a longer period. This is the only way in which small and medium-sized businesses can afford to make the necessary purchases to prepare for the forthcoming deregulation, for example, by establishing cooperatives, modernising their equipment or extending their direct marketing activities. Of course, the issue of the monopoly could have been combined with the phasing out of the common agricultural policy and the new regulations which will apply from 2013.

However, there were no pressing grounds for doing so. The important thing is to ensure that the adaptation process is designed to allow the distilleries to survive after the monopoly has come to an end. I agree with the rapporteur on this issue. However, I am not in favour of the internal procedure, which does not adequately meet the requirements for transparency and democracy. For this reason, I have abstained from voting.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the proposal, but I believe that a whole range of factors need to be taken in account.

Firstly, I believe that an impact assessment should have been carried out on a regular basis and that the period of extension of the monopoly should not have surpassed 2013, the date of the entry into force of the new common agricultural policy (CAP).

However, given the importance for the small-scale distilleries of their participation in the monopoly and the need for further transition towards the market, and given the fact that reports presented do not demonstrate an infringement of competition in the single market, I support the extension.

I hope, however, that such details will be taken into account as part of the reform of the new CAP and that a balanced solution will be found to open up the market while, at the same time, protecting traditional local activities.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe the needs of the German rural economy justify extending the initial period of validity of the exception provided for in Article 182(4) of the Single Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation, so as to provide the best possible conditions for small distilleries to prepare appropriately for their entry into the free market.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Our group has supported this text and the line taken by the rapporteur in the sense that it is in favour of the proposal presented, while considering that several points need to be taken into account for the implementation of the regulation. The rapporteur thinks a regular impact assessment should have been carried out and that the period of extension of the monopoly should not have surpassed 2013, the date of the entry into force of the new CAP. However, given the importance for the small-scale distilleries of their participation in the monopoly and the need for further transition towards the market, and given the fact that reports presented do not demonstrate an infringement of competition in the single market, the rapporteur is ready to support the proposal.

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0316/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report which authorises the addition of a further 718 pharmaceutical and chemical products to the existing list of 8 619 products benefiting from duty-free treatment upon importation into the EU, which is due to be implemented on 1 January 2011, as I believe that it is vital that duty-free treatment begins straight away next year, given that the US will make the implementation of the update conditional upon its entry into force on 1 January.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report, which shows how crucial the fourth review (Pharma IV), launched in 2009, is for keeping pace with the rapidly changing product environment in the pharmaceutical industry. Given that the lists are produced by the industry and decided on by consensus by the participants, I welcome the agreement that has been reached by all the Member States who have supported previous reviews and also supported the product coverage of this fourth review.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Moreira, for having highlighted the need to carry out periodic reviews of the list of pharmaceutical and chemical products that enter the European Union duty-free.

I support this measure – in fact, I voted in favour of it – because the manufacturing scenario in which the pharmaceutical industry operates unfolds at a frantic pace and it is therefore essential to update the list, which currently includes more than 8 000 products, on a constant basis. All the Member States, which were already in favour of the previous adjustments, have given their consent to the proposal to extend this list by including 718 new products. Lastly, I support the mechanism implemented, which protects the interests and health of European consumers.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour, on condition that the appropriate scientific tests are carried out and the list of drugs, intermediates and active ingredients covered by the agreement on duty-free treatment is extended.

The proposal sends out a strong signal to the markets. In fact, it serves primarily to confirm the commitment of certain important members of the World Trade Organisation to the free market. It also has the effect of extending the boundaries of the potential market for the results of certain scientific research sectors, thereby encouraging investment in those sectors and, with it, the fight against diseases for which there is still no effective cure. Lastly, the proposal sets an example to those countries for which pharmaceuticals represent a necessary item of expenditure if they are to guarantee a future for the younger generations, and a call to take a stance in favour of the adoption of development and wealth creation policies.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I advocate the addition of a further 718 pharmaceutical and chemical products to the list of products benefiting from bound duty-free treatment upon importation into the EU. The review of this list of products is necessary to cater for the rapidly changing product environment in the pharmaceutical industry.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the importance of the pharmaceuticals trade, not just to public health but also to the economy, I welcome the decision to include 718 new substances on the list of products eligible for duty-free treatment. The arrangement is unanimously supported by the pharmaceutical industry because it eliminates tariffs on inputs and intermediaries that have to be paid even in connection with intra-company trade, thereby facilitating international trade in these products and benefiting pharmaceutical companies. This arrangement could, in the final analysis, be reflected in the retail price of medicines sold to the public.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal invited the Council and Parliament to authorise the addition of a further 718 pharmaceutical and chemical products to the existing list of 8 619 products benefiting from bound duty-free treatment upon importation into the EU. This issue is not controversial, as there is consensus among the stakeholders, and it has the support of the Member States.

Lists are put together by the industry and decided on by consensus by the participants. This addition of products is necessary to respond to the rapidly changing product environment in the pharmaceutical industry. The intended date of implementation is 1 January 2011. The US has made the implementation of the update conditional upon implementation on 1 January. Other participants are expected to follow this example, except Japan, which has announced an expected delay of 6 months in implementation.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The WTO duty-free rules for pharmaceutical ingredients are universally supported by the pharmaceutical industry. This is an industry which is important to Scotland, employing some 5 000 people nationwide. The EU as a whole is a key producer and user of pharmaceutical products and I was happy to support this report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – This proposal invites Council and Parliament to authorise the addition of a further 718 pharmaceutical and chemical products to the already existing list of 8 619 products benefiting from bound duty-free treatment upon importation into the EU. I voted for it.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The trade in pharmaceutical products is an important part of world trade. The inclusion of a further 718 products on the list for bound duty-free treatment is a beneficial measure, at both an economic and a public health level. The decision to add these products to the 8 619 already on the list may also have an impact on the final price of medicines, which is beneficial for everyone.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) As part of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement, the EU, the USA, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Norway and Macao in China have decided to reduce the duties on certain pharmaceutical products and active ingredients to zero. Of course, the list of products is constantly being amended and extended to keep pace with the results of research and the latest developments in the pharmaceutical world. The list of products that benefit from duty-free treatment, which originally contained 6 000 items, and which was created by the industry and reviewed by the states in question, will now be expanded to include more than 8 600 pharmaceutical and chemical products.

It is important to justify the duty-free treatment of pharmaceutical and chemical substances and active ingredients. However, the entire system seems to be highly complicated and will result in additional bureaucracy for the customs authorities. The gradual expansion of the list, on this occasion by more than one third, will, at some point, mean that the customs systems reach their data capacity limits. Therefore, I am calling for a simplification of the fundamental principle and, for that reason, I have abstained.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As well as congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Moreira, with whom I agree on the need for periodic reviews to update the lists of pharmaceutical products eligible for duty-free treatment, I must point out that, thanks to the new mechanism introduced, end consumers will be the ones who benefit.

Indeed, I voted in favour because I believe it is important to periodically review the list of pharmaceutical products that are exempt from customs duties, in view of the rapidly changing product environment in the pharmaceutical industry. All Member States have supported previous reviews and support the product coverage of the fourth review. I therefore commend the work done and confirm my vote in favour.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The addition of these further 718 substances to the existing list of 8 619 products benefiting from bound duty-free treatment upon importation into the EU has met a consensus in the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders in the revision process, and thus deserves my support.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This text basically concerns the proposal inviting the Council and Parliament to authorise the addition of a further 718 pharmaceutical and chemical products to the already existing list of 8 619 products benefiting from bound duty-free treatment upon importation into the EU. It is rather a technical text. Our group has voted in favour.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are in favour of the proposal for a regulation providing for duty-free treatment for specified active ingredients because they concern pharmaceutical and chemical products that are essential to the pharmaceutical industry. The review became necessary both to include new products and remove others. This decision was made by agreement with the interested parties and with the unanimous consent of all participants and all Member States.

Report: Herbert Reul (A7-0306/2010)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I agree that the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine should be renewed for another five-year period. This decision will offer both the Community and Ukraine the opportunity to continue, to improve and strengthen cooperation in areas of shared scientific and technological interests. The objective of this cooperation is to help Ukraine become more actively involved in the European Research Area. Such cooperation will help Ukraine to support its science management systems and the reform and restructuring of research institutions, thus creating the conditions for the establishment of a competitive economic and knowledge society.

Both Ukraine and the European Union should obtain mutual benefits from their scientific and technological progress, implementing special research programmes. By applying this decision, it will be possible to exchange specific knowledge and pass on practical experience for the benefit of the research community, industry and citizens. I therefore agree strongly that Ukraine and the European Union should continue to cooperate closely in this field.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and other countries is vital for technological development, with all its advantages, including in relation to improving people’s quality of life. For this reason, I voted in favour of the renewal of the agreement between the EC and Ukraine.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine was signed in Copenhagen on 4 July 2002 and came into force on 11 February 2003. Given the importance of the science and technology sectors to the EU, its capacity in these areas and the important role that it can play alongside Ukraine, I believe that the renewal of the agreement is in the Union’s interests, in the sense of continuing to promote cooperation with Ukraine in areas of science and technology that are shared priorities and which are beneficial to both parties. I hope that the agreement that has just been renewed continues to prove advantageous to both parties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine was concluded in Copenhagen on 4 July 2002 and came into force on 11 February 2003 with the aim of encouraging, developing and facilitating cooperative activities in areas of common interest, such as research and development in science and technology. I voted in favour of this agreement as I believe that its renewal contributes to strengthening the creation of the common European Research Area, in that it serves as a catalyst for the strategic partnership between the EU and the Ukraine. I therefore hope that this renewal will bear fruit for both parties.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which concerns the reconsultation of Parliament on previous Council decisions concerning the renewal of the agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Union and Ukraine. At a summit in Ukraine in November 2008, both parties confirmed their interest in renewal of the agreement for a further five years and I welcome this.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the approval in the European Parliament of the draft decision sanctioning the renewal of the Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation with Ukraine. The importance of these sectors to economic and social development in both the European Union and Ukraine is acknowledged through the cooperation in various areas of common interest: the environment and climate change, health, green energy, the information society, industry and agriculture, etc. Not only access to the research infrastructure but also the exchange of bilateral and multilateral experience between researchers in the EU and Ukraine can help increase the financial efficiency of the projects implemented, thereby reducing the duplication of effort and resources used.

Ukraine’s academic community must seriously assess the competitive advantages it gains from collaborating with the EU and use the European funds as a means of developing its strengths and not only as an alternative source of funding. Scientific cooperation is undoubtedly a key element of the European Research Area and will pave the way for access to the global networks in this sector.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine, in force since February 2003, has been a success and has played an important role for both parties. Its renewal therefore confirms this success and we hope that it will continue to do so in the future.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) For many years, Ukraine existed in a situation of constitutional and political disorder. At last, it has a president capable of taking decisions. I support Mr Yanukovych’s inclination to bring order to Ukraine. We must use all available opportunities to help Ukrainian industry integrate with the European Union as soon as possible. In this context, the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine is advantageous to both parties. Secondly, it represents an important political signal to all political forces in Ukraine that we support the policy of putting law and regulations in order.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In today’s modern world where technical developments are so short-lived, making cooperation in scientific and technical fields easier will be of benefit to both sides. As the renewal of the agreement apparently brings economic and social advantages for both sides, it is also in the interests of the European Union. The costs of implementing the agreement, in the form of workshops, seminars, meetings, etc. will be charged to the relevant budget lines of the specific programmes in the EU budget.

In order to promote technical progress in the face of competition in a globalised world and in the light of the benefits which technological developments bring not only to our everyday lives, but also, for example, in the field of medicine, I have supported the renewal of the agreement for scientific and technical cooperation with Ukraine.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution as I believe that the renewal of the agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine will enable the parties to achieve significant progress and mutual benefits.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) The renewal of the scientific and technological cooperation agreement between the European Community and Ukraine is extremely important in order to continue facilitating cooperation in both the shared priority areas of science and technology, which bring socio-economic benefits to both parties. This is why, in the plenary sitting, I have given my support to Parliament approving the renewal of the agreement, in line with what we decided in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.

This agreement should enable Ukraine and the EU to benefit mutually from the scientific and technical progress made through their research programmes, at the same time enabling the transfer of knowledge to benefit the scientific community, industry and Europeans.

With regard to specific results, the renewal of the agreement will allow the continued exchange of information on science and technology policies between the EU and Ukraine. It will also enable Ukraine to take part in certain areas of the European Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and enable training to take place through mobility programmes for researchers and specialists from both sides, among other things.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Very easy vote, this one. We simply had to agree, and we did.

Report: Herbert Reul (A7-0303/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Scientific and technological cooperation between the European Union and other countries is vital for technological development, with all its advantages, including in relation to improving people’s quality of life. For this reason, I voted in favour of the renewal of the agreement between the EU and the Faroe Islands.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU and the Faroes have concluded their negotiations on establishing a scientific and technological cooperation agreement, which was initialled on 13 July 2009. The agreement is based on the principles of mutual benefit, reciprocal opportunities to access the programmes and activities relevant to the purposes of the agreement, non-discrimination, effective protection of intellectual property, and equitable sharing of intellectual property rights. This scientific and technological association agreement will help to structure and improve cooperation on these matters between the EU and the Faroes, through regular meetings of its Joint Committee, in which specific cooperation activities can be planned. I hope that the agreement that has just been adopted proves advantageous to both parties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU and the Faroe Islands have concluded their negotiations on the establishment of an agreement on scientific and technological cooperation, with the aim of facilitating free movement and residence for researchers involved in activities covered by this agreement and in order to facilitate the cross-border movement of goods for use in such activities. I voted in favour of this agreement as I believe that its renewal contributes to strengthening the creation of the common European Research Area. I therefore hope that the renewal of the agreement will bear fruit for both parties.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Agreement between the European Union and the government of the Faroes on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, not because I am against scientific cooperation between the Union and the Faroe Islands, but because I believe that pressure should start to be put on the Faroe Islands so that the repeated slaughter of pilot whales – almost 1 000 of them are killed each year – stops once and for all. As long as these massacres are perpetrated, I shall, in future, vote against any agreement or financial aid arrangement between the European Union and the Faroe Islands.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The Commission negotiated on behalf of the Union an agreement with the government of the Faroes on scientific and technological cooperation in June 2010. I voted for this report which approves the proposal.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Agreement between the European Union and the government of the Faroes on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, in force since July 2009, has been a success and has played an important role for both parties. Its renewal therefore confirms this success and we hope that it will continue to do so in the future.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the government of the Faroes on Scientific and Technological Cooperation will enable the Faroe Islands to participate fully in the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities. Although the Faroes have a small research community, their researchers have already successfully participated in EU-funded projects. They have expertise in research areas linked to the geographical location of the Faroe Islands, in particular, marine resources and the environment. The agreement will enable these researchers to work in other areas, such as energy, food, agriculture, fisheries and biotechnologies. Regular meetings will help to identify common priorities in terms of research, as well as the fields in which joint efforts may be of benefit to both parties. Furthermore, the agreement will promote the mobility of students and researchers from higher education.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Union has set itself ambitious targets in the field of technology and not only in the context of the Lisbon Strategy. These objectives have now been reinforced in the plan for the near future, the Europe 2020 strategy. This makes cooperation in science and technology even more important. Against this background, we should welcome the fact that a series of agreements have been reached with other countries to promote this cooperation by means of workshops, meetings and seminars, for example. This issue is of such great importance to the EU that a subsidy option has been made available within the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities.

Now we are about to renew our agreement with a group of islands in the North Atlantic, the Faroe Islands. Unlike Denmark, the Faroes are not a member of the European Union and do not form part of the customs union. Instead, they have created a single economic area with Iceland. In order to encourage technological progress, I have voted in favour of renewing the agreement on scientific and technical cooperation with the Faroe Islands.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the government of the Faroes on Scientific and Technological Cooperation as I am convinced that aligning our efforts in these strategic areas can be beneficial to both parties.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Having regard to the draft Council Decision (11365/2010), the draft agreement between the European Union and the government of the Faroes on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, associating the Faroe Islands to the Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013) (05475/2010), and to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0184/2010).

Having regard as well to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, and to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0303/2010), we have agreed to the following:

1. Consents to the conclusion of the agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Faroes.

Report: Herbert Reul (A7-0302/2010)

  Slavi Binev (NI) , in writing. – (BG) Innovation and globalisation are the two main sources of economic development across the globe. They have a direct effect on productivity, employment and the welfare of citizens, and provide an opportunity to resolve some of the challenges facing the world, for example, healthcare and the environment. As their role is becoming increasingly visible and their characteristics clearer, policies must be adapted to them. Japan is a country with traditions in the area of science and technology. I therefore voted in favour of collaboration with them.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and other countries is vital for technological development, with all its advantages, including in relation to improving people’s quality of life. For this reason, I voted in favour of the conclusion of the agreement on this matter between the EU and the government of Japan.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The importance of science and technology to the development of Europe and Japan and the fact that both are confronted by similar challenges regarding economic growth, industrial competitiveness, employment, sustainable development and climate change mean that both the EU and Japan have expressed their desire to improve and intensify their cooperation in areas of shared interest, such as science and technology. In 2003, negotiations were started on a future scientific and technological cooperation agreement, which resulted in the draft text on which we have just voted. We cannot forget that this partnership could be of the utmost benefit to Europe, as Japan is one of the world’s leading countries in terms of research investment, which amounted to 3.61% of gross domestic product in 2008, with more than 81.6% of that coming from the private sector. I hope that the agreement that has just been adopted proves advantageous to both parties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union and Japan are facing common challenges in terms of economic growth, industrial competitiveness, employment, social and regional cohesion, sustainable development and, perhaps most importantly, the need to adapt their economies to their ageing societies and the current financial crisis.

They also have similar research priorities, such as life sciences and communication sciences, so this agreement will serve to enhance cooperation in areas of common interest, such as life sciences, information and communication technologies, and environmental technology linked to climate change and renewable energy. I voted in favour of this agreement as I believe that its adoption contributes to strengthening the creation of the common European Research Area, in that it serves as a catalyst for the strategic partnership between the EU and Japan, which is already one of the leading countries in terms of investment in research (reaching 3.61% of the gross national product in 2008, with more than 81.6% of this coming from the private sector).

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The Commission has negotiated an agreement on cooperation in science and technology with Japan, signed on 30 November 2009. I welcome this report, which approves the agreement, but I believe that the EU must work to intensify its relationship with Japan.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and Japan has been under negotiation since 2003, and has only just been concluded. Given Japan’s considerable importance in terms of scientific and technological research, the agreement that has just been concluded is hugely significant for both parties.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) This agreement gives the green light to the European Union to make use of technology from Japan, which is one of the most progressive industrial nations. This is a great step forward on the part of the European Union. However, I should like to hope that this cooperation will be two-way, as the experience of working with Japanese companies indicates that the Japanese side does not always abide by this principle. I am voting in favour, in the hope that not only Japan but also the European Union will benefit from this cooperation.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Japan is a role model in the field of technological development. Japanese technology is always state-of-the-art, whether it involves hybrid drive systems or entertainment products. The country is not only well-known for exporting its high-tech products; they are also of great importance to its citizens. For example, in Japan, it is already possible to pay for goods or services securely using a mobile phone. The shortages of the so-called rare earths that are essential for the electronic components of the latest technological products is the result of the Chinese strategy to ensure that these substances are in short supply and to keep their prices artificially high. All of this will accelerate the search for alternatives.

Cooperation in the field of science and technology and the renewal of the relevant agreement deserve our support not only for these reasons. The requirements of the Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy, where the European Union has set itself ambitious targets in the field of technology, also play a role here.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europe and Japan are facing common challenges in terms of economic growth and sustainable development, so the conclusion of this agreement is worth celebrating, as it allows for the enhancement of their cooperation in the area of science and technology, with considerable advantages for both parties.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) The EU and Japan are facing very similar challenges in terms of economic growth and industrial competitiveness.

Moreover, the need for socio-economic adjustments due to the ageing of their populations and the current economic crisis means that they are both facing similar situations and have similar priorities in terms of research, development and innovation.

I am voting in favour of this recommendation, which gives Parliament’s approval for an agreement to be made between the EU and Japan on cooperation in science and technology, because of the need to maximise the potential for cooperation between these two parties in the fields of science and technology.

The agreement, which is scheduled to run for five years, is aimed at the mutual benefit of both parties, and provides for regular meetings between the EU and Japan with a view to planning specific cooperative activities, including coordinated calls for proposals. All of this should enable the EU and Japan, which already cooperate on significant projects such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, to consolidate their cooperation even further in areas of common interest such as life, information and communication sciences, manufacturing technologies and the environment, including climate change and renewable energy sources.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With this vote, the European Parliament, having regard to the draft Council Decision (11363/2010), having regard to the draft agreement between the European Community and the government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology (13753/2009), having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0183/2010), having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0302/2010), 1. Consents to the conclusion of the agreement; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Japan.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the report because I consider it to be right and necessary to mobilise the Solidarity Fund for victims of the floods that occurred in previous years. In this case, the EU funds will directly benefit those affected.

Report: Herbert Reul (A7-0304/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and other countries is vital for technological development, with all its advantages, including in relation to improving people’s quality of life. For this reason, I voted in favour of the conclusion of the agreement in this area between the EC and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Scientific and technological cooperation between the European Union and Jordan is one of the priorities in the collaboration between the EU and Mediterranean countries through the European Neighbourhood Policy and the EU’s strategy of strengthening ties with neighbouring countries. It is also closely in line with the Jordanian government’s executive programme for promoting a process of lasting socio-economic reform in the country. I think it is beneficial for both sides to cooperate on joint research, technical development and demonstration activities in different areas of common interest, with the fruits of this cooperation to be used according to their common economic and social interests.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU has been fostering a close partnership with Jordan, a country that is endeavouring to act as a force for moderation and reform in a politically turbulent region. The EU has aimed to support Jordan in its efforts through a relationship that emphasises close cooperation on democratic reform and economic modernisation. As the President of the Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries, I am pleased to vote in favour of this report, the aim of which is to strengthen cooperation in science and technology between the European Union and Jordan.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since 2008, the EU and Jordan have been negotiating a scientific and technological cooperation agreement, which must now be adopted. Partnership with Jordan is of great interest in the context of Euro-Mediterranean relations, because, in addition to its great potential, the country can act as a platform for scientific cooperation with the other countries of the region. Furthermore, Jordan has a well developed network of universities and higher education institutions, and well equipped research and technological applications centres in fields that are very relevant to Europe, such as agriculture and agronomy. The country is also well integrated into international and regional scientific networks. I hope that the agreement that has just been adopted proves advantageous to both parties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Scientific and technological cooperation between the European Union and Jordan has been one of the priorities of the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement, which has been in force since 2002. I voted in favour of this agreement as I believe that its renewal contributes to strengthening the creation of the common European Research Area, in that it serves as a catalyst for the strategic partnership between the EU and Jordan, which, by virtue of its strategic location in the Middle East, may have an impact on promoting scientific cooperation with countries in that region.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The Commission negotiated an agreement between the EU and Jordan on scientific and technological cooperation. This was signed on 30 November 2009. I voted for this report, which approves the agreement.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has been under negotiation since 2008, and has only just been concluded. This agreement is important in view of the possibilities that it provides for exchange between Europe and this Middle Eastern kingdom. It is also worth pointing out that there is a great deal of development under way in Jordan in terms of higher education, which may contribute greatly to the success of this cooperation.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Despite the fact that the environmental issues are overshadowed by the conflict in the Middle East, there is likely to be a need for more advanced technological solutions in these regions. The drinking water strategies of both Jordan and Israel are gradually leading to a reduction in the flow of the Jordan River and an increase in the pollution of the water. Against this background, there will be a high level of demand for technological developments, for example, in the field of water and sewage treatment plants.

Scientific and technical cooperation is important, in order to enable knowledge to be shared and to lay the foundations for new technological developments. For this reason, I have voted in favour of renewing the agreement with the Kingdom of Jordan.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Cooperation on scientific and technological research between the European Union and Jordan is identified as a priority in the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which has been in force since 2002. I therefore believe that the conclusion of this agreement on scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and Jordan is to be welcomed, as it is a further step towards strengthening this partnership. I hope that aligning our efforts in these strategic areas will be beneficial for both parties.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) Scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and Jordan is given as a priority in the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement between the two parties, which came into force in 2002.

Negotiations to establish an agreement between the EU and Jordan on scientific cooperation therefore began in 2007. Parliament’s approval for the conclusion of the agreement is a step in the right direction. My support for the conclusion of the agreement is based on my conviction that it will bring the EU closer to Jordan, which has significant capabilities in the field of science and technology. Jordan has a large network of universities and research centres.

Moreover, it is hoped that Jordan will act as a catalyst for scientific cooperation in its region. It has strategic planning for research, and is in a position to cooperate internationally in sectors such as energy, sustainable development, health and agriculture, among others.

These areas are in line with the European priorities set out in the seventh framework programme. This is why it is important for this agreement to be approved, as it will enable the EU to move closer to its Mediterranean partner in the field of science and technology, thereby creating mutual benefits.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With this vote, the European Parliament, having regard to the draft Council Decision (11362/2010), having regard to the draft agreement between the European Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Scientific and Technological Cooperation (11790/2009), having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0182/2010), having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0304/2010), 1. Consents to the conclusion of the agreement; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Report: Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (A7-0292/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution, as it addresses the resolution adopted by Parliament on 25 February and the Green Paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy, with regard to the need for regional cooperation and sustainability beyond EU waters. This resolution repeals the fisheries partnership agreement which entered into force on 9 October 2006 for a three-year period and makes for continuity in the fishing activities of Community vessels, which is of particular interest to the EU as it contributes to the viability of its tuna fishing sector in the Pacific Ocean. It also allows for a sharp reduction in tuna fishing opportunities in the East Atlantic on account of the conservation and management measures adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

Furthermore, it should be noted that this agreement will allow for guaranteed revenue for the Solomon Islands, which will be used to support the implementation of its national fisheries policy, thus contributing to the principle of sustainability and sound management of fisheries resources.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mrs Patrão Neves for having brought the attention of this Chamber to the renewal of the partnership agreement with the Solomon Islands.

With the new Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has acquired greater powers over partnership agreements in the fisheries sector, and with the reform of the common fisheries policy, the new agreements involve a commitment to promote responsible and sustainable fisheries in all areas of the world.

I voted in favour because this agreement involves promoting cooperation at sub-regional level, thus respecting the European goal of strengthening the framework of regional fishery management organisations as a means of promoting fishery governance.

I am also convinced that European Union relations with the Solomon Islands, where the sea is full of tuna, also represent a considerable economic interest. In this way, it is possible to support the economic efficiency of the European Union tuna fishery supply chain in the Pacific, guaranteeing access to 4 000 tonnes of fish, a considerable quantity for the industry and the European market and partly offsetting the foreseeable reduction of tuna fishing opportunities in the eastern Atlantic.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) We four Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have chosen to vote against the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Solomon Islands. Our decision is based on a genuine fear that tuna will be exploited and overfished. Two species in particular – the yellowfin and bigeye tuna – are endangered, and therefore fishing of these species should, as far as possible, be discontinued. This fisheries agreement threatens tuna stocks, as it gives the green light to all catching of fish as long as European fishermen provide financial compensation for each tonne of tuna caught. This will very likely result in uncontrollable overfishing and, in the worst case scenario, it may threaten the survival of tuna in the region.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the European Parliament’s powers regarding Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) by requiring Parliament’s prior approval. In this context, I voted for the report on the FPA between the EU and the Solomon Islands because I believe that it furthers the aim of promoting responsible, sustainable fishing, thus serving the legitimate interests of both parties.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Social Democrats chose to vote against the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Solomon Islands. We believe that the monitoring of the agreement is inadequate and that the agreement does not take due account of the environment in relation to the overfished stocks.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU currently has 16 Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) in force. Through these, the EU fleet has access to fish stocks which, for one reason or another, the partners cannot or do not intend to catch. We are currently aiming to renew the FPA with the Solomon Islands for another three years. As the rapporteur says, ‘the EU is proposing to provide the same financial support to the Solomon Islands under the new agreement as it did under the previous agreement, even though fewer fishing authorisations are to be granted and the allowable catch volume is lower’. This is especially relevant when we consider that, under the previous version of the FPA, four Portuguese longliners were fishing in the exclusive economic zone of the Solomon Islands, which is now no longer possible because no fishing opportunities were negotiated for longliners. It is true, however, that a clause has been included allowing the introduction of new fishing opportunities where necessary.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 2002 reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) introduced the concept of partnership, with the objective of supporting the development of the national fisheries sector in partner countries. Since 2004, the agreements have been termed ‘fisheries partnership agreements’ (FPAs). The Treaty of Lisbon has given Parliament increased powers regarding FPAs. Under Article 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Parliament now has to give its prior consent to the conclusion of an agreement.

In February 2004, the Solomon Islands and the European Community signed a three-year FPA, which entered into force on 9 October 2006. I agree that this agreement should be repealed and replaced by a new version, which belongs to a set of three agreements with the central and western Pacific region that also comprises partnership agreements with Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under the agreements with African and Pacific countries, part of the EU’s financial contribution is aimed at supporting national fisheries policies based on the principle of sustainability.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The signing of bilateral fisheries agreements between the EU and third countries guarantees access for EU fleets to sources of fish that are significant in quantitative and qualitative terms whilst, at the same time, channelling financial resources to these countries that often come to make up a large proportion of their budget available for pursuing policies in numerous areas, not just fisheries policy. That is also true of this agreement. We voted for this report, but we still have serious reservations about how the agreement has been implemented up to now, some of which are quite rightly shared by the rapporteur.

I am referring, amongst other things, to the fact that the Joint Committee never met while the agreement was in force; the fact that the terms under which responsible fishing practices would be implemented in the exclusive economic zone of the Solomon Islands have not been set out; and the failure to establish how catch volumes will be monitored. These are failures that put the achievement of the agreement’s goals at serious risk, and they must not be repeated when it is renewed. The Commission has committed to doing everything to prevent this from happening again: it must now meet that commitment.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal on a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Solomon Islands, but with serious reservations. EU development cooperation policy and the common fisheries policy have to be brought into a coherent, complementary and coordinated relationship, so that together they can help to reduce poverty in countries which have untapped fishery resources that they are seeking to exploit sustainably, while endeavouring to develop their local communities

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU has several fisheries partnership agreements, which give it access to different fishing zones in exchange for funding, which is channelled into the economy of the countries with which they conclude these partnerships. This is a way for the EU to help developing countries, while also making good quality fishing zones accessible to EU fishermen, so as to enhance their economic activity, which is vital for the EU economy.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) On this particular occasion, there are two problems that must be solved methodically and purposefully. The first is fishing quotas and the second is the exchange of knowledge and experience of the processing and conservation technologies for the catch and Pacific Ocean production. I hope that all the aspects listed in the agreement will focus on encouraging cooperation and the mutual exchange of experience.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Bilateral fisheries agreements between the European Union and third countries are of significant economic benefit to the EU. A new agreement is currently being negotiated between the EU and the Solomon Islands. The disadvantages of the new agreement are an increase in the contribution to be paid by shipowners, a lower level of profitability for the EU than other tuna fisheries agreements and the same financial support from the EU in return for lower catch quotas.

According to the rapporteur, the benefits of the agreement include the fact that the Solomon Islands need foreign exchange reserves to maintain their macro-economic stability, that the agreed reference tonnage of 4 000 tonnes of fish is a relatively large amount for the EU, and that there is a need to pursue cooperation on a regional basis with a view to achieving sustainability beyond EU waters. I have abstained, because the advantages for the EU are not clear enough in relation to the costs.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a partnership agreement between the European Union and the Solomon Islands because I believe that that agreement essentially serves the interests of both parties. I believe that cooperation on a regional basis is an excellent way of achieving sustainability beyond EU waters and fostering fisheries governance.

Indeed, as well as providing a stable legal framework for both parties, the agreement will provide the Islands with guaranteed revenue for at least three years, and this will be used in part to finance the implementation of their national fisheries policy. Maintaining fisheries relations with the Solomon Islands is very much in the EU’s interest, since this will help to enhance the viability of the EU tuna fishing sector in the Pacific by giving access to a large quantity of fish.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mrs Patrão Neves on having brought the renewal of the Partnership Agreement with the Solomon Islands to the attention of this House.

I voted in favour because, under the agreement, cooperation is to be promoted at subregional level, thus meeting the European objective of strengthening regional fisheries management organisations and, in that way, fostering fisheries governance. Lastly, I support the rapporteur’s recommendations to the Commission, in particular, to ensure that the European Parliament and the Council receive equal treatment as regards the right to be duly informed, so that they may properly monitor and assess the implementation of international fisheries agreements.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of this fisheries partnership agreement as I believe that it essentially serves the interests of both parties, on the one hand, by allowing the EU access to 4 000 tonnes of tuna per year, a fairly substantial quantity for the EU industry and market and, on the other, by providing the Solomon Islands with substantial financial resources to be partly channelled into the implementation of its own sectoral fisheries policy. However, I believe that everything must be done to remedy the problems rightly highlighted in the report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Fisheries Agreement between the European Community and the Solomon Islands expired last October. The new Protocol is valid from 9 October 2009 to 8 October 2012 and is already provisionally applied pending the European Parliament consent procedure. According to Article 43 paragraph 2 and Article 218 paragraph 6(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament can either consent or decline to consent. Although the majority of the EP has voted in favour, our group, the Greens/EFA, has voted against.

Report: David Casa (A7-0325/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I share the rapporteur’s concern that the Commission should examine not just the specific issue of the standard rate and other rates of value added tax (VAT), but also the broader issue of a new VAT strategy, including its scope and derogations. Given the increasing complexity in terms of rates, the VAT system is not keeping pace with the development of the internal market, putting businesses at a disadvantage, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. It should be recalled that Parliament has warned the Commission that the VAT system, as currently devised and implemented by the Member States, has weak points that are exploited by fraudsters, resulting in tax losses of billions of euro. I welcome the Commission’s intention to launch a Green Paper on revising the VAT system with the goal of creating an environment that is more favourable to business, and a system that is simpler and more robust for the Member States.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. With its proposal, the Commission proposes to extend by 5 years the current requirement for EU countries to have a minimum standard VAT rate of 15%. Therefore, the proposal will have no consequences in terms of tax rates. The Commission proposes that the extension should take effect on 1 January 2011 for a period ending on 31 December 2015. To maintain the degree of harmonisation of rates already achieved, the Commission has twice submitted proposals providing for a standard rate band with a minimum rate of 15% and a maximum rate of 25%. The band was derived from the rates applied in practice in the Member States, where the standard rates had always varied between 15% and 25%. In both cases, the proposals to approximate rates were amended by the Council which kept only the principle of the minimum rate. I agree with the Commission that the purpose of the extension is not only to give businesses the necessary legal certainty, but also to allow further evaluation of the appropriate level of the standard VAT rate at EU level. I believe that in the future Green Paper on the review of the VAT system, the Commission should not only examine the specific issue of the standard VAT rate and other rates, but also the broader issue of a new VAT strategy, including the scope of VAT and the derogations.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Casa, for having drawn up this report, which allows us to take a fresh look at a topic as fundamental as VAT and tax harmonisation.

I support the rapporteur in his assertion that the current VAT system, partly due to an increase in its complexity, has not kept pace with growth in the internal market and actually places companies and small and medium-sized enterprises at a disadvantage by considerably affecting their competitiveness. The current tax laws also display numerous loopholes that may be used to illegal advantage by tax dodgers.

I therefore support the Commission’s proposal to put off the creation of a common VAT system with the aim of giving enterprises the necessary legal certainty but, at the same time, I call on the Commission to conclude its analysis as quickly as possible and draw up a Green Paper on the review of the VAT system with the involvement of this Chamber.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal and with the amendments to it tabled by Parliament. I agree with the Commission’s proposal for a five-year extension of the current requirement for EU Member States to have a minimum standard value added tax (VAT) rate of 15%, based on Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

As for the amendments made by Parliament, I think it is particularly pertinent that the new VAT strategy should aim to reduce the administrative burden, remove tax obstacles and improve the business environment, particularly for small and medium-sized and labour-intensive enterprises, whilst ensuring the robustness of the system against fraud.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that strict control is needed over the minimum VAT rate, at a time when the transitional arrangement for the 15% level is due to be extended again. Furthermore, I think that we should be more concerned by the fact that an ever-increasing number of governments in EU countries are raising their VAT rate to the maximum limit in order to tackle the challenges presented by the economic crisis. This measure proves that there is a lack of viable solutions and is stifling the economy and people’s lives. In this respect, I urge for excessive taxation to be avoided, with a view to adopting a definitive tax harmonisation system.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I think that the European Union needs a new VAT strategy. The EU must use this with the aim of cutting red tape and removing the financial obstacles blocking the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. I also think that extending the transitional arrangement for the minimum VAT rate until 31 December 2015 can prevent structural imbalances in the European Union.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The renewal of the minimum standard rate of value added tax (VAT) of 15% in Member States proposed by the Commission is founded on legal certainty. I am in no way opposed to this principle, so I voted for the proposal. However, I must stress how urgently deeper measures are needed in relation to this tax. These measures must target the European Union’s fiscal competitiveness and the necessary protection of small and medium-sized enterprises. It is increasingly evident that tax policies are not neutral. The success story of VAT cannot and must not prevent it from adapting to new times.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In this proposal, which is based on Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Commission proposes a five-year extension of the current requirement for EU Member States to have a minimum standard value added tax (VAT) rate of 15%; it will therefore have no effect on tax rates.

The Commission proposes that the extension takes effect on 1 January 2011 for a period ending on 31 December 2015. The purpose of the extension is not only to provide businesses with the necessary legal certainty, but also to allow for a better evaluation of the appropriate level of the standard VAT rate at EU level. The current VAT system, with its increased complexity not only in terms of rates, is not keeping pace with the development of the internal market, and is putting European businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, at a disadvantage. Furthermore, as Parliament has pointed out, the VAT system, as currently designed and implemented by the Member States, has weaknesses that fraudsters use to their advantage, costing billions of euro in tax revenue.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the minimum standard value added tax (VAT) rate of 15%, extending for another five years the current period – which was to expire at the end of this year – because they could not reach agreement on definitively standardising VAT rates.

However, the rapporteur has taken the opportunity to give the Council some suggestions, specifically about the new VAT strategy, which he believes should aim at ‘removing tax obstacles and improving the business environment, particularly for small and medium-sized and labour-intensive enterprises, whilst ensuring the robustness of the system against fraud’. He also takes the opportunity to insist that the Council should move towards a definitive system before 31 December 2015, while the Commission should submit legislative proposals to replace the current transitional rate by 2013.

We will monitor this issue extremely closely, given the potential negative implications which the proposal that emerges in 2013 could have.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which examines a Commission proposal to extend by 5 years to 31 December 2015 the requirement for EU countries to have a minimum standard VAT rate of 15%. This is desirable in normal times, but in the present economic crisis, it is even more necessary. Tax competition that drove down VAT rates would be ruinous for countries trying to maintain an acceptable level of public services.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We should remember that the current VAT system, with its increasing complexity, and not only in terms of rates, is not keeping pace with the development of the internal market. This puts European businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, as Parliament has pointed out in the past, the VAT system, as currently designed and implemented by the Member States, has weaknesses that fraudsters use to their advantage, costing billions of euro in tax revenue. The focus of the new VAT strategy should therefore be to reform the VAT rules in a manner that actively promotes the objectives of the internal market. The new VAT strategy should aim to reduce administrative burdens, removing tax obstacles and improving the business environment, particularly for SMEs and labour-intensive enterprises, whilst ensuring the robustness of the system against fraud.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) This is an extremely important issue for the development of European entrepreneurship as a whole. There must be a harmonised system of VAT rates, applicable to all European Union countries. There must be a comprehensible long-term tax system as regards all types of entrepreneurship and industry. Only then can we reckon on success in fiscal policy. Currently in Latvia, individual politicians fail to appreciate the danger of an unstable tax system when plugging the budget deficit by continually amending tax legislation. This significantly endangers a future reduction of the tax burden and leads to the liquidation en masse of small and medium-sized enterprises. I consider that the European Commission’s initiative is timely.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Minimum value added tax rates are one aspect of the efforts to harmonise European tax rates. However, we must oppose these moves towards harmonisation. On the one hand, they could lead to attempts to introduce tax sovereignty for the EU through the back door and, on the other, regulations of this kind represent an intrusion into the sovereignty of the Member States. The Member States must retain the power to set their own tax rates, because each country must decide for itself on its own priorities, as this depends on the extent to which the state spends money in different areas. All of this is also an expression of Europe’s historical development. We must reject calls for minimum tax rates so that the pressure to conform, the amount of EU red tape and the centralism of Brussels can all be reduced.

I strongly oppose the extension of the mandatory levy of a minimum standard VAT rate of 15% for a further five years. The EU should be focusing on cooperation on tax fraud, because billions of euro are being lost in the value added tax systems in particular. There are some approaches in this area which are worthy of further discussion.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report extends the transitional system introduced by Council Directive 92/77/EEC, which introduced a minimum rate of VAT, establishing that the standard rate could not be lower than 15%.

It is now common practice to set minimum rates because we have not yet achieved a permanent tax harmonisation system in the Union for indirect taxation. As far as VAT is concerned, this allows us to prevent the increasingly sharp differences between the standard rates applied in Member States from causing structural imbalances and distortions of competition. The deviation between standard rates applied currently ranges between 15% and 25% and is sufficient to guarantee the correct operation of the internal market.

The postponement will make it possible to give companies the necessary legal certainty but also to carry out further evaluations with regard to a satisfactory level of standard VAT rates throughout the EU. The Commission is also called on to publish a Green Paper on a new VAT strategy as quickly as possible and to start consultation on future tax harmonisation. I voted in favour, in the expectation of a tax harmonisation system that will lead to a single VAT rate throughout the Union.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Casa, whom I congratulate on the work and collaboration within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

The aim of the report is to extend by a further five years the current requirement for EU countries to have a minimum standard VAT rate of 15%. As well as emphasising the importance of a minimum standard rate, the report goes further and stresses the need to devise a new VAT strategy, insofar as the current system, with its increased complexity not only in terms of rates, is not keeping pace with the development of the internal market.

As Mr Monti, too, pointed out in his report on the relaunch of the single market, the lack of uniform rates and a different cost of living in the various Member States could create conditions that undermine the spirit of the single market. This puts European businesses, and especially SMEs, at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, the European VAT system, as currently designed and implemented by Member States, is often the subject of cross-border fraud, something which costs billions of euro in tax revenue.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Casa, on having drafted this report, which enables us to address once again the fundamental issue of VAT and tax harmonisation.

I agree with the points made by the rapporteur, namely, that the current VAT system is not keeping pace with the development of the internal market but, on the contrary, is placing businesses and SMEs at a disadvantage by significantly affecting their competitiveness.

I therefore support the Commission’s proposal for an extension so as to create a common VAT system to give businesses necessary legal certainty but, at the same time, I urge the Commission to conclude its analyses as soon as possible and to draft, with the help of this House, a Green Paper on the review of the VAT system.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of this report. Nevertheless, I must point out that the successive postponement of definitive regulation of value added tax (VAT) is symptomatic of the deadlock into which European integration has fallen. Even if the Commission tabled a proposal for revising the VAT system soon, we are all aware that the various Member States’ different interests, as expressed in the Council, will end up blocking a proposal to make rates more uniform. We would do well to remember that, despite being a regressive tax, VAT has been, and continues to be, the emergency tax measure put at the service of the austerity policies imposed by the Council and the Commission.

Pressure for the so-called ‘budgetary consolidation’ of the Member States is now a major obstacle to the convergence of VAT rates. If we recall that the suggestion of a ‘European VAT’, put forward by the Commission as a source of income for the Union, was immediately rejected by several Member States, we will have to acknowledge that asking the Commission for ‘a new VAT strategy’ seems to make little sense.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, which focuses on the Commission’s proposal for a five-year extension of the current requirement for EU Member States to have a minimum standard value added tax (VAT) rate of 15%. In line with what the rapporteur says, it is important to acknowledge that the VAT system itself needs to be thoroughly overhauled so as to actively promote the objectives of the internal market, thus helping to create a more favourable business environment, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Commission’s stated intention to launch a Green Paper on the review of the VAT system.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We are in the majority in Parliament voting in favour of this text, which states that the European Parliament, having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2010)0331), having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0173/2010), having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, and having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0325/2010), approves the Commission proposal as amended; calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, in accordance with Article 293(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially; instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) This report on the common system of value added tax and the duration of the obligation to respect the minimum standard rate is only to be welcomed. It will fix the minimum standard rate at 15% up to the end of 2015. While the European Commission repeatedly proposed introducing a maximum rate of 25%, the European Council did not support this. At the same time, the standard rate does not currently exceed 25% in any Member State. Estonia, where the standard rate of VAT is 20%, is among the 19 Member States where the rate is 20% or more. Regarding this aspect, I wish to point out that I strongly supported the extension of the 15% minimum rate, which will give every Member State the option to decide how high its rate should be. In addition, this report ensures legal certainty for our entrepreneurs, who will know that for the next five years, European legislation will prevent the standard rate of VAT from rising.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission’s proposal provides for a five-year extension of the current requirement for EU Member States to have a minimum standard value added tax (VAT) rate of 15% until 15 December 2015. The idea is to maintain the harmonised fiscal structure, with two obligatory rates of VAT and harmonisation within a 10% band: in other words, between 15% and 25%. The Member States undertake to avoid extending the current span above the current lowest standard rate applied by them. I agree with the rapporteur that, with its increasing complexity, the current VAT system is not keeping pace with the development of the internal market. I also hope that in the future, the European Commission will analyse not just this issue of the standard rate of VAT but also the general subject of revising the current system, including its scope and derogations, and that it will commit to drawing up a new strategy for this tax. I voted for the report for the reasons given above.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. – (NL) Obviously, I have voted in favour of Mr Casa’s report. Moreover, I agree, not only with the rapporteur’s stance on the directive, but also with the tenor of the notes to his report. Since as early as 1993, the European Union has been operating a transitional system for VAT. Attempts to move to what is known as a definitive system have so far failed. However, this is no reason why we should not keep on trying.

The VAT system is not just a question of rates and ranges, but also one of a simple, legally certain scheme which works well in the internal market, which is tailored to SMEs and is resistant to fraud. The fact that the Commission plans to pick up this thread is good news. I would like to encourage the competent Commissioner to tackle this difficult dossier.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I believe that in the new VAT strategy, particular attention should be paid to the reform of VAT rules, in keeping with principles that actively promote attainment of the objectives of the internal market. As the rapporteur points out, the current VAT system, with its increased complexity, not just in terms of rates, is not keeping pace with the development of the internal market. In January 2009, the VAT rate in Lithuania increased from 18-19%, and to 21% in September. It is important that future changes do not dent foreign investor interest in Lithuania. We must propose favourable tax planning opportunities.

According to the new VAT strategy, we should aim to reduce the administrative burden, remove tax obstacles and improve the business environment, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. Prior to adopting a final decision, the Commission should fully consult public and private sectors. VAT rates should be discussed during these consultations, as well as broader issues, such as the goal of setting a maximum rate and VAT structure and operational framework alternatives. Therefore, I look forward to the Commission’s Green Paper on the review of the VAT system.

Report: Burkhard Balz (A7-0314/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the European Central Bank (ECB) annual report because I think that measures to maintain a low inflation rate, close to 2%, while increasing liquidity in the markets, prevented the collapse of many financial institutions. However, I recognise that the full recovery potential of the ECB’s measures did not unfold because their liquidity was not always passed on to the real economy. It should be recalled that the crisis started out as a financial one, becoming an economic one, too, later on.

The governments of the Member States and the ECB have had to respond to the most serious crisis since the 1930s. We have witnessed a contraction of gross domestic product, a drop in economic activity and an increase in budget deficits, resulting in reduced tax receipts and creating unsustainable public debt: it has been difficult to achieve figures comparable with those existing before the crisis. This situation is a result of the lack of structural reforms within the EU, which is so obvious in the events in Greece and other countries of the euro area. I therefore think that it is important to deal with the weaknesses in the financial system at global level and learn all the lessons from the crisis by improving the quality of risk management and the transparency of the financial markets.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report on the European Central Bank annual report shows the European Parliament to be the most consistent champion and supporter of the attack by capital on the workers throughout the European Union. It basically repeats the anti-grassroots decisions of the EU summit in October to create a controlled bankruptcy mechanism, to introduce stricter terms in the Stability Pact and apply it to the letter and to impose penalties on Member States which fail to comply with those terms. It welcomes the money package made available at EU and Member State level for the stock exchange and other sectors of capital, in order to ensure that it remains profitable during the capitalist crisis. It supports all the barbaric measures against the working and grassroots classes applied by the bourgeois governments in all the Member States of the EU. In order to get the EU out of the capitalist economic crisis, the political representatives of capital propose that the rate of capitalist restructurings in all the Member States be stepped up, so as to maintain the profitability of the monopoly groups, at the expense of the workers, who are being called upon to pay for the crisis. Ireland is the most recent and will not, of course, be the last example of the tragic consequences in store for the workers as a result of encouraging the sovereignty of the monopolies and their profitability.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on the European Central Bank report on the basis of the excellent report by my German colleague, Mr Balz. Having become a European institution with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the ECB, whilst being independent, cannot be indifferent to the wishes of the European people, represented by their parliaments, or of the Member States’ governments. I therefore support the request for the ECB’s work and decision making to be transparent. During the crisis, the ECB adjusted interest rates down to 1% and continued unprecedented non-standard measures to support credit throughout 2009. Those measures have borne fruit. I support the idea that lifting these measures needs to be well timed and coordinated with national governments. In particular, it would be helpful if the ECB were to carry out a global, rather than regional, assessment of inflation in its monetary policy for setting intervention rates to exit the crisis.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) In the European Parliament’s resolution on the ECB annual report 2009, it is noted that the principles of the Stability and Growth Pact were not always fully respected in the past and therefore, it is necessary to ensure that in future, this pact is applied more coherently and effectively in the Member States. I supported this resolution and believe that a monetary union needs strong coordination of economic policies and for the current gap in macro-prudential supervision to be closed by establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). I feel that under the concept whereby the ESRB only gives warnings and recommendations with no actual enforcement, it is impossible to satisfy the principles of effective implementation and responsibility, and the ESRB cannot declare an emergency by itself. Therefore, the ESRB must be given greater powers. It is particularly important to call on the European Commission not to simply limit itself to amending the regulation on credit rating agencies, which would increase the liability of these agencies, but to present a proposal on the establishment of a European Credit Rating Agency which would facilitate an objective assessment of the economic and financial position of the Member States.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution by Parliament as I agree that the financial crisis in some countries within the euro area is a serious matter and reflects a certain dysfunction of the euro area, and because I believe that this shows the need for reform and for stronger coordination between the various economic policies. I also agree with the call for the unrestricted and more coherent application of the Stability and Growth Pact, as I believe that the pact should be complemented by the development of an early warning system to detect possible inconsistencies, such as in the form of a ‘European semester’, in order not only to enhance surveillance and economic policy coordination so as to ensure fiscal consolidation, but – beyond the budgetary dimension – to address other macro-economic imbalances and strengthen enforcement procedures.

The monetary union needs strong and enhanced coordination of economic policies to be robust. I would like to call upon the Commission to put forward proposals to strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact by including specific targets for closing the competitiveness gap between European economies in order to stimulate job-creating growth.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I greatly appreciate the efforts of the European Central Bank. I believe, in fact, that the ECB has shown that it is capable of meeting the objectives it is set and that its level of technical expertise has always proved equal to the situations faced, including in times of severe crisis such as now.

However, the very existence of unexpected variations in the key macro-economic indicators should make us stop and think about the intermediate mechanisms at work between monetary policy and the real economy. I therefore think it necessary not only to set up other supervisory and control authorities to support the ECB, but also and, above all, to cover those spheres of responsibility which, hitherto, have not been seen as important.

In particular, Estonia’s forthcoming accession to the euro area is a source of concern. An enlarged monetary union requires, in fact, greater internal cohesion. The macro-economic performance of that Baltic state aside, in accordance with the standards required by the EU, greater convergence must be achieved among the euro area countries, not least to increase the capacity for action on the part of the institutions, which safeguard its stability and value.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the annual ECB report for 2009. The ECB continued its policy from 2008, setting an inflation rate target of close to 2%, while increasing liquidity in the markets. The ECB therefore adjusted interest rates down to 1% and continued the non-standard measures introduced in 2008 throughout 2009. The five key elements of the enhanced credit support were fixed rate full allotment, an expansion of the list of collateral, longer maturities for refinancing operations, liquidity provisions in foreign currencies and financial market support through a measured but significant covered bond purchase programme. Close coordination is required with national governments in EU countries in connection with their own programmes, especially in the light of the crises which have hit Greece and, now Ireland, and of the gloomy prospect of them spreading.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the ‘ECB annual report 2009’ as I consider that it proposes a number of measures which could benefit the European Union’s economy. These include creating a permanent mechanism for protecting the euro area against speculative attacks, monitoring the activities of current credit rating agencies and devising a possible European credit rating agency. As rapporteur for my political group, I also highlighted the limitations of the Stability and Growth Pact in its current form. The pact should be supplemented by an early warning system which will enhance the coordination of economic policies within the European Union.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I advocate reform and stronger coordination of the economic policies within the euro area, given the dysfunction that the financial crisis has caused in the current system. The proposals aiming to strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact must take into account the competitiveness gap between European economies in order to stimulate growth that pays particular attention to job creation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The crisis that we are experiencing is an opportunity to revise and improve things that have gone wrong in the past. Strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact and supervising compliance with it are essential to preventing future imbalances in the euro area. The creation of a European Systemic Risk Board and the replacing of the supervisory committees with three new supervisory authorities are measures that will be beneficial in terms of better economic supervision. I agree with the rapporteur when he talks about the need for prudence regarding initiatives to regulate the financial markets. It is as we have been arguing: better regulation does not necessarily mean more regulation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon has given the European Central Bank (ECB) the status of an EU institution, which increases the responsibility of Parliament as an EU institution through which the ECB is accountable to the European public. The ECB annual report 2009 deals primarily with the ECB’s reaction to the crisis, the exit strategy and governance topics. The financial crisis which started about two years ago with the US sub-prime mortgage crisis rapidly spread to the EU and turned into an economic crisis as well, hitting the real economy. Real GDP in the euro area shrank by 4.1% in 2009, the average general government deficit ratio increased to about 6.3% and the public debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 69.4% in 2008 to 78.7% in 2009.

The ECB acted correctly by adjusting interest rates down to 1% and continuing with substantial and unprecedented non-standard measures to support credit. That prevented the collapse of many financial institutions. However, liquidity has not always been passed on to the real economy. This crisis has clearly shown the need for greater transparency and better risk management in financial markets, sound public finances, and the urgent need to regain credibility.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The international financial system really is amoral and immoral. The latest developments in the Irish crisis have reassured the banks that they will be able to carry on handsomely rewarding their shareholders and taking risks in the long term, since the Member States and the European taxpayers will always be there to save them. Privatisation of profits and public ownership of large-scale losses … Heads I win, tails you lose … It is paradoxical, and indeed scandalous, that the turmoil in the stock market caused by Ireland’s sovereign debt is the direct consequence of the aid that the country granted to its banks – aid that has made its deficit worse than ever before and sent its debt soaring. Moreover, the banks that it saved, or their sister banks, are the ones that are today speculating against it. However, the main lesson to be learnt from all this is that the euro is a millstone round its Member States’ neck and that the European Central Bank’s policy, like the euro exchange rate, is geared solely towards Germany. The Member States that have fared best are those that have retained some flexibility with regard to their currency and their exchange rates. Their national currency, that is! It is high time everyone learnt from this.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – This initiative by the Parliament is of special importance this year as it gives MEPs a chance to give their opinion on how the European Central Bank has reacted to the banking crisis. How we voted on this also gave us a chance to have our say on some of the other aspects of the current economic climate, such as causes of the crisis, governance and financial market reform. It is important that the voice of the people’s branch of the European Union is heard on such an important topic.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted to support the European Central Bank (ECB) annual report for 2009 as it clearly highlights the consistent action taken by the ECB and its primary objective of maintaining price stability. In the crisis of 2009, the ECB acted and reacted effectively. With independence and determination, it laid the foundations for a lasting climate of confidence. Our most important proposal for improvement should be put into practice consistently. In other words, the ECB should make its activities more transparent in order to further increase its legitimacy. The new Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009, made the ECB into a European Union body. I very much welcome this, because the ECB is primarily accountable to Parliament, a fact of which many people are not aware. It must continue to be able to make its financial policy decisions independently of political influence and to justify them to the citizens whom we represent.

The ECB was, and is, a reliable ally in finding a balance between sound public finances and the necessary reduction of debt in the Member States. It has constantly underlined the fact that the euro area needs a stability pact with authority. This must be applied to the letter and must not be circumvented or undermined.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which examined the ECB’s annual report for 2009. My group (the S&D Group) used the report to push for our core macro-economic policies, including: coordination of macro-economic policies by the Member States; a permanent crisis-management framework; a strengthened Growth and Stability Pact; the possibility of creating a European credit rating agency; credit for SMEs; and flexible exit from government support following the crisis.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The serious economic crisis that has spread across the entire world has made itself very keenly felt in the EU. The response of the European Central Bank to the crisis has been effective, although it has been guilty at times of acting late or with a lack of assertiveness, particularly in relation to the policy of reducing interest rates, which was more radical and effective in the United Kingdom and the US Federal Reserve.

We must learn from the mistakes made so that they may be avoided in the future. The financial crisis in some countries within the euro area is therefore a serious matter for the euro area as a whole and reflects a dysfunction of the euro area. This shows the need for reform and for stronger coordination of the economic policies within the euro area. This task must be carried out by all the states that belong to the euro area so that it can finally be consolidated and can quickly escape from the pressure that it is experiencing at present.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) The report by Mr Balz failed to bring clarity to the question of the manner in which the European Central Bank (ECB) supervised and regulated transactions and monetary policy during the crisis. It is merely an attempt to clothe the bank’s operations in vague and cautious phrases. In reality, it is essential not only to define the state of affairs but also to prevent any symptoms that threaten the development of the economy. Only then can preparations be made in time and financial debts such as Greece’s EUR 110 billion budget deficit, Hungary’s EUR 28 billion budget deficit and Latvia’s EUR 7.8 million budget deficit be avoided altogether. Nevertheless, I consider that, taken as a whole, the ECB report is a positive step.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Balz, with whom I have had the opportunity of working on this matter within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

The European Central Bank has played an important and fundamental role during the economic crisis of recent years, and its representatives have often been instrumental in pointing out problems in the euro area. The Member States have not always listened, but the coordination provided by the Frankfurt-based institution can only be regarded in a positive light. The aid package put together and provided to Greece, just like the rapid responses, would not have been possible without an authority and a body such as the ECB.

Furthermore, with the recent approval of the package on Europe’s supervisory authorities, the ECB will acquire greater powers and authority to monitor and highlight anomalies in the system. This is essential, just as it is essential for the ECB to maintain its independence and not be under the influence of any Member State.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The ECB annual report covers the reaction to and exit strategy from the crisis applied by the Bank during 2009. On the other hand, in its report, which I voted in favour of, the European Parliament sets particular store by the gradual withdrawal of the ECB emergency measures applied in 2008 as a result of the financial crisis (1% interest rate, quantitative easing and inflation below 2%).

This is especially important to Greece and the other states in the euro area as, in these cases, not only did the recession not end in 2009; on the contrary, it developed into a serious budgetary crisis. Consequently, any change of stance by the ECB will need to take account of the new situation and be applied in close cooperation with the Member States currently hit by the debt crisis.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I am voting against this report. It ignores, or at least underestimates, the recessionary effect of a policy to reduce public spending being carried out simultaneously by most of the EU Member States, just as the EU was leaving behind the major recession that began in 2008. Accepting this report means voting in favour of abandoning the policy of concerted stimulus that was implemented in 2009. The neoliberal ideology that is dominant in the European Central Bank (ECB), which means that there is an ever-lurking threat of inflation, even when there is considerable untapped productive capacity, is making the euro area a hostage to the financial markets. This ideology has returned to remind us that austerity is not enough, and that there needs to be a nominal reduction in wages and further deregulation of the labour market.

Since the drop in aggregate demand will affect the implementation of the budget by Greece and Ireland in 2011, the ECB will then come and tell us that the austerity policy was right, but that it did not go far enough or deep enough. This report embraces a real intellectual scam.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The current economic and financial crisis has made apparent the need to implement EU reforms that can strengthen supervision and the coordination of economic policies in the euro area and restore confidence in European public finances.

Important steps are being taken in this direction, particularly through the creation of a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), which will close the current gap in macro-prudential supervision of the EU financial system, but it is vital to move forward with proposals for strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact in order to ensure budgetary consolidation and also to address other macro-economic imbalances and strengthen enforcement procedures. This report, which I voted for, also draws attention to the fact that the austerity packages adopted by the governments of the Member States should not compromise their ability to promote economic recovery, with an emphasis on ensuring a balance between the process of consolidating public finances and meeting the need for investment in jobs and sustainable development, and using measures and instruments which can give a direction to the sacrifices imposed on the public, along with an end in sight.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report evaluates the 2009 annual report of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the work done by the ECB during that year. As the statement of the European Parliament on the ECB annual report 2008 had been delayed due to the elections in 2009, not much time has passed since the European Parliament’s last statement on ECB activity. The report on 2008 dealt mainly with the performance of the ECB in the financial and economic crisis. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed since then. Still, economic, financial and, to an increasing extent, political actions are widely dominated by the crisis. The ECB annual report 2009 therefore still deals primarily with the ECB’s reaction to the crisis, the exit strategy and governance topics.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Recently, the work of the European Central Bank has focused on fighting the financial crisis and on attempts at rebuilding the stability of economic and monetary union. Coping with the effects of such a serious crisis requires individual countries to adopt a new model of economic governance. The European Central Bank should support measures leading to the recovery of budgetary balance by encouraging the repayment of existing loans instead of extending new loans to economies which are heavily in debt.

The financial crisis in individual Member States of the European Union represents a significant threat to the stability of the euro. It also shows the deficiencies in the operation of the euro area and draws attention to the need for reform and more effective economic consolidation in the countries of the Union. Care should also be taken to develop preventative mechanisms in the event of a worsening of the present crisis or if it should move into a new phase. The European Union and the euro area can even emerge from the crisis stronger than they were, but we must draw the proper conclusions from the experiences of recent months. I am convinced that the role of the European Central Bank and of the governments of individual EU Member States will be crucial in this process.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Central Bank (ECB) annual report is primarily an investigation into the way in which the ECB responded to the financial and economic crisis. The ECB reacted quickly and intervened successfully. By taking a series of extraordinary measures, it was able to ease the liquidity shortages on the markets. However, now these measures must be dismantled cautiously and gradually, because by definition, ‘extraordinary measures’ must not become the rule. The banks and, in the meantime, the Member States which, because of the loss of confidence among the players on the financial markets, came to rely on the intervention of the ECB as an intermediary in order to access funding, must regain their independence. The central bank constantly emphasises the fact that it is independent, but during the recent crisis, this no longer seems to have been important enough to enable us to refer to it as independence. As a result of the massive capital injection in Ireland, in the form of emergency loans for the Irish banking system and the purchase of government bonds, the ECB itself is now relying on Ireland to accept the EU rescue package, so that it can once again service its loans from the ECB. The ECB must oppose any efforts to make it into a political body.

Report: Christian Ehler (A7-0308/2010)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament report on the development of the civilian-military capabilities of the EU highlights the repulsive imperialist face of the EU and of the political representatives of capital. It is a macabre manual for implementing the imperialist interventions of the EU and committing crimes against humanity. It openly supports the ‘new doctrine’ of NATO to ‘intertwine internal and external security’, calling on the EU to organise and plan its civil and military forces so that it can intervene directly, using combined civilian and military means, in every corner of the planet, in the name of so-called ‘crisis management’ and ‘to maintain peace’. Without mincing their words, the political representatives of the monopolies propose a series of measures to increase the efficacy of EU military missions, in order to strengthen its position in the battle between the imperialists, which is raging with unprecedented intensity both at global level and within the EU. Proposals include a permanent EU operations centre in the form of a ‘joint crisis management headquarters’, new ‘integrated police units’, better use of the European Gendarmerie Force, new ‘Civilian Response Teams’, closer collaboration with NATO, ensuring NATO can rely on the ‘EU’s civil capabilities’ and harmonising the EU’s ‘development capabilities’ with NATO standards.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The ever-increasing interdependence between internal and external security is becoming clear. Under these circumstances, the development of policies and capabilities for crisis management and conflict prevention is actually an investment in the security of European Union citizens. The European External Action Service should be a major player in devising a truly comprehensive European approach to civil and military crisis management at European level and to conflict prevention, providing the EU with sufficient structures, human and financial resources to fulfil its global responsibilities. When setting up the EEAS, the transfer must take place of the CSDP structures, including the Crisis Management Planning Directorate, the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability, the EU Military Staff and the Situation Centre, to the EEAS, under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

It is the High Representative’s direct duty to ensure that these structures will be integrated and operate coherently. Close collaboration is required between the EEAS and all the other relevant units within the Commission in order to encourage the development of a comprehensive EU approach, especially with those dealing with issues relating to development, humanitarian aid, civil protection and public health.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ehler, for having called the attention of this Chamber to a topic fundamental to the European Union, namely, civilian and military cooperation.

I voted in favour of this report because I support the need for closer cooperation between civilian and military capabilities in order to provide effective responses to present-day crises and security threats, including natural disasters.

I also approve of the idea of drafting a European Union White Paper on security and defence, based on systematic and rigorous security and defence reviews conducted by the States according to common criteria and a common timetable, which would define the Union’s security and defence objectives, interests and needs more clearly in relation to the means and resources available.

The recent emergency in Haiti also highlighted the need for the European Union to offer improved coordination and faster deployment of military assets in the context of disaster relief, in particular, air transport capabilities. Given the importance of these missions, I feel it necessary that funding should be considered more quickly and, for the sake of transparency, for one budget line to be created for each mission.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The rapporteur successfully argues the need for a better coordination and division of tasks between civilian and military forces in crisis management. The distinction between the strategic and operational dimensions is still vague at present. I therefore support the rapporteur’s proposal for the creation of a permanent headquarters responsible for operational planning and conducting military operations. With regard to the development of civilian-military capabilities, the Member States should set objectives that match their resources in terms of personnel deployment. It would also be a good idea to establish real financial solidarity between the Member States. Lastly, greater synergy between civilian and military research would be a big advantage, since it would help prevent repetition, duplication and, hence, unnecessary costs.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) ‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’ (‘If you wish for peace, prepare for war’) said the ancients. Fortunately, the days of arms races are now over. Nonetheless, the principle that inspired the Latin phrase is still relevant today. There can be no serious and credible commitment to peace if the conditions are not in place to enforce it, in accordance with serious, objective rules.

In particular, without seeking to interfere in every dispute that may arise, the EU, as a major economic and political power, should make its presence felt in cases involving interests of any kind or nature, if necessary, also by using military means to restore order and re-establish peaceful conditions, as a precondition for resolving conflicts. It follows that greater autonomy, together with a closer link with NATO and with the other existing bodies, can only increase Europe’s authority, credibility and cohesion.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We want the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) to contribute to devising a truly comprehensive European approach to civil and military crisis management at European level, as well as to conflict prevention and peacebuilding, providing the EU with sufficient structures, human and financial resources to fulfil its global responsibilities in line with the UN Charter. Given that the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, close cooperation must be established between the EU and the UN in the area of civilian and military crisis management and, in particular, in humanitarian relief operations where the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) is in the lead role. At the same time, it is desirable for this cooperation to be strengthened, particularly in those areas where one organisation is to take over from the other, especially in light of the mixed experience in Kosovo.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I argue that effective responses to present-day crises and security threats, including natural disasters, often need to be able to draw on both civilian and military capabilities and require closer cooperation between them.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We live in a world in which, firstly, there is ever less expectation of a conventional attack on the EU or any of its Member States and, secondly, threats are increasingly scattered across the globe, whether they are from international terrorism, cyber attacks on crucial IT systems, long range missile attacks on European targets, or piracy in international waters. As an organisation committed to peace preservation, conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction, and reinforcement of international security, it is therefore essential for the EU to be capable of acting as a global player in this area, capable of guaranteeing the security of its citizens within its territory. I therefore believe that it is essential for the EU to be committed to cooperating within the United Nations and, in the Euro-Atlantic area, with NATO, which this weekend approved its new Strategic Concept, aiming to reinforce the Alliance’s ability to deal with non-conventional threats and strengthen its ties with the European Union; this includes enhancing ‘practical cooperation in operations throughout the crisis spectrum, from coordinated planning to mutual support in the field’.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU has committed itself to defining and pursuing common policies and actions to preserve peace, prevent conflicts, consolidate post-conflict rehabilitation and strengthen international security, in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Through its civilian crisis management, the EU already makes a clear contribution to global security, reflecting its core values and principles. The establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) should contribute further to the development of a truly comprehensive European approach to civilian and military crisis management, conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and provide the EU with adequate structures, staffing levels and financial resources to meet its global responsibilities. On this point, I would like to highlight the need to speed up the provision of financing for civilian missions and to simplify decision-making procedures and implementation arrangements. This means that the Council needs to quickly take the appropriate decisions to establish the start-up fund as outlined in Article 41 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), after consulting Parliament.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a good reflection of the crisis of capitalism and the gunboat diplomacy with which the EU wants to respond to it, in partnership with NATO and the US.

From the outset, the mouthpieces of the interests of big capital – the majority of Members of this House – have been seeking to cover up the historical and current responsibilities of the EU for the world’s existing security problems. This resolution, therefore, maintains the thesis of preventative wars with the misleading argument that the ‘security’ of the citizens of EU countries is guaranteed by a policy of intervention, violating the sovereignty of countries and peoples and making war wherever and whenever the interests of the EU’s economic groups are at stake; this will only increase with the creation of the European External Action Service.

In reality, it is increasingly clear that the EU is now part of the threat that is hanging over people. At a time when workers are having important rights taken away and draconian measures are being imposed on people under the pretext of a lack of resources, the channelling of funds into arms purchases and the strengthening of the war industry should be condemned.

  Richard Howitt (S&D), in writing. – Concerning the vote on the resolution on the Ehler Report, Labour MEPs were happy to be able to give their support. I and my Labour colleagues are happy to support positive civilian and military cooperation and greater capacity building in order to help preserve peace, prevent conflicts and consolidate post-conflict rehabilitation. At this time of financial struggle across Europe, we question, however, the need for the establishment of a permanent EU operational headquarters and what added value it would bring to the positive work already being done.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome some aspects of this report dealing with civilian-military cooperation and the development of civilian-military capabilities. I particularly welcome cooperation on humanitarian crises and natural disasters.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is necessary to provide effective responses to current crises and threats to security, including natural disasters, so we often need to be able to draw on both civilian and military capabilities and require closer cooperation between them. The development of the EU’s comprehensive approach and its combined military and civilian crisis management capabilities have been distinctive features of the common security and defence policy (CSDP), and represent its core added value. The establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) is further contributing to the development of a truly comprehensive European approach to civilian and military crisis management, conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and providing the EU with adequate structures, staffing levels and financial resources to meet its global responsibilities, in line with the UN Charter.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) I have voted against the report on civilian-military cooperation and the development of civilian-military capabilities. The report describes in great detail the current developments in security policy. However, in my opinion, it does not provide clear, decisive and positive answers to the important questions, such as whether the EU will be able to stand on its own feet in the long term or whether it will maintain its very close links to NATO and, therefore, will hand over its foreign policy responsibilities to the USA.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – With civil and ethnic wars gradually replacing interstate wars to dominate the scene of 21st century conflicts, the line drawn between peacekeeping and peacebuilding is increasingly blurred. The changing nature of conflict calls for more extensive cooperation between civilian and military capabilities. The highly successful EU-led Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) from 2005 to 2006 serves as an important example and reminder of how civilian-military synergies can anchor peace and build confidence in an unstable environment in a timely and effective way. While the decommissioning team, dominated by military experts, monitored the rapid and successful disarmament process, the civilian team of AMM worked to turn the process into a platform for further political dialogue and for both parties to credibly commit themselves to permanent peace. The application of civilian and military expertise should not be restricted by the technical labelling of the nature of operations, but should instead be decided on the basis of appropriateness and cost-efficiency. I voted in favour of this report because I think it plays a critical role in facilitating the further development of a non-aggressive but nevertheless coherent and competent face of EU foreign policies.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Ehler’s report because I believe that this is an important issue and that the report deals with it in a serious way and takes a number of aspects into account.

Cooperation as envisaged in the report is a typical activity of peacekeeping operations, within the scope of which the military component cooperates with the civilian component (local authorities, national, international and non-governmental organisations and agencies) in order to restore acceptable living conditions and begin reconstruction. Such activities help to ensure and maintain full cooperation between military forces, civilian populations and local institutions, with the aim of creating the conditions necessary to help achieve the objectives set. It is therefore important for the European Union to support and promote this type of cooperation.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I agree that, in order for the EU to meet its responsibilities to preserve peace, prevent conflicts, strengthen international security and assist populations facing disasters, it is vital to foster better coordination between civilian and military resources and to ensure that the necessary resources are available to strengthen their global crisis management abilities.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We abstained on this report because we keep seeing too much effort being focused on military capacities, and too little on the civilian and prevention activities.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Once again, Parliament has voiced its strong support for the development of the EU’s common security and defence policy, despite the fact that it is consistently refused an active role in shaping this policy. We are all aware of the added value of the policy which, above all, represents an opportunity to combine military and civilian capabilities, although in practice, as highlighted by the report, much remains to be done. I support the integration of this policy’s institutional structures into the European External Action Service, although I would echo the rapporteur in stressing the need for the EEAS to cooperate closely with structures remaining within the Commission.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – While we would clearly support the principle of enhanced civilian-military cooperation in certain activities, this report has an entirely different thrust. It is essentially about taking forward the EU’s ambitions in the defence field in order to promote EU integration. We do not support these objectives. In particular: the idea of an EU Defence White Paper that would ‘explicitly identify opportunities for the pooling of defence resources at EU level’; the demand for increases in staff to man duplicative EU military structures; the establishment of a permanent EU ‘operational HQ, responsible for the operational planning and conduct of EU military operations’; and the idea of a vanguard group of nations to take forward defence integration using the Treaty of Lisbon’s mechanism of ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’. There are many more examples. For all these reasons, we voted against the resolution.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Treaty of Lisbon has made the establishment of a common defence policy into one of the EU’s concrete objectives. The aim is to improve the ability of the European Union to act in a crisis management role by allowing financial, civilian and military resources to be provided and used more efficiently. Military capabilities will be developed at an EU level among those Member States which want this by means of a Permanent Structured Cooperation (PSC). Mr Ehler’s report calls for the conditions for military cooperation to be laid down and for a clear definition of the PSC. For me as an Austrian, clear definitions are of great interest, in particular, with regard to the implementation of the solidarity clause as outlined in Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the mutual assistance clause as outlined in Article 42(7) of the Treaty on the European Union, which are also called for in the report. The mutual assistance clause specifically states that it will not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States, which guarantees that neutrality will be maintained.

As before, the solidarity clause leaves to the national authorities the decision on whether, and in what form, EU assistance should be requested. However, the citizens of Austria have become very concerned following a series of different reports in the media and, therefore, we need definitive information about these new military components of the EU.

Report: Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (A7-0299/2010)

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock, because it should contribute to maintaining biomass stocks at levels that will enable their sustainable exploitation, on the basis of scientific advice.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the importance of anchovy fishing in the Bay of Biscay, the damage caused by the closure of the fishery to groups dependent on it (fishers, net menders, the canning industry, etc.) and the fact that the loss of income has not been covered by the compensatory aid granted by the Member States, it is essential to establish a long-term plan for the recovery of the anchovy stock so that fishers can start making use of these resources, without threatening this vital species for the European fishing and canning industries. With regard to the 10% reduction in fishing quotas and how exploitation is calculated, I believe that such measures are excessive, as they forget the economic and social impact that they could have on the industries and populations involved.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this proposal for a regulation is to establish a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock. The anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay has been closed since 2005 due to the poor condition of the anchovy stock. In order to raise the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay to a level which allows it to be exploited sustainably, it is necessary to put in place long-term management measures to ensure that the exploitation of this stock is compatible with sustainable exploitation, thus ensuring, as far as possible, the stability of the fishery while maintaining a low risk of stock collapse. I welcome the approval of a long-term plan in this report rather than annual ad hoc measures for allocating fishing opportunities, so as to ensure the stability of the fisheries sector and strengthen monitoring and enforcement. I agree with support for the competent regional administrations in their monitoring, inspection and surveillance work, as they are closer to what is happening, and with the need to draw up and publish a report before the fishing season begins.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The worrying conservation status of the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay led to the closure of the fisheries in 2005. The result of this closure – which has had the inevitable tragic economic and social consequences, which it is always necessary in this and other cases to guard against and alleviate as much as possible – is that anchovy stocks have been recovering, making it possible to start exploiting them again. We believe that decisions about closing fisheries, reopening them and setting the conditions for the exploitation of their resources must always be based, first and foremost, on scientific knowledge and advice about the state of the resources. It is, therefore, essential for this knowledge to be as rigorous and up-to-date as possible, meaning that there must be sufficient financing for this purpose, specifically through the financial instruments of the common fisheries policy.

Long-term plans constitute an important instrument in fisheries management, enabling the essential conservation of fisheries resources at sustainable levels to be combined with guaranteed medium-term prospects for exploiting these resources, which is indispensable for giving economic and social stability to fishing and the local communities that depend on it.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay has been closed since 2005 due to the poor state of that stock. This report details the objectives of a plan to maintain the biomass of the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay at a level that allows its sustainable exploitation in accordance with maximum sustainable yield, on the basis of scientific advice, and while ensuring as much stability and profitability for the fishing sector as is practicable. The plan is similar to other long-term plans for pelagic fisheries (such as that recently agreed for the West of Scotland stock of herring) in that it provides a harvest control rule for exploitation at high long-term yields whilst protecting against the risk of stock collapse.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The suspension of anchovy fishing in the Bay of Biscay since 2005 has brought great difficulties for economic operators whose livelihoods depended on this economic activity. Now, five years after fishing was suspended, the stock of this species in the Bay of Biscay has recovered to acceptable levels, so it is now possible to resume fishing for it, but based on a long-term plan to keep the anchovy stock above the level where it is in danger of becoming extinct, so that this activity can once again add to this economic sector in this area.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although catch quotas have been introduced for the anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay, this does not apply to pelagic species and tuna. The number of fishing vessels in this area has declined from 391 vessels in 2005 to 239 vessels in 2009, which has had a significant influence on the economy of the area. However, according to the rapporteur, the anchovy stock has not yet recovered. A new management plan is needed to resolve this problem which is linked to the anchovy stock and which does not need to be renegotiated every year.

The rapporteur believes that the new plan should also define the control mechanisms used to inspect catch levels. I have abstained, because the rapporteur has explained that the articles in the plan relating to the controls are likely to be amended by a new control regulation from the Council and she does not know exactly what this involves.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay is of considerable social and economic importance. This fishery has been closed since 2005, and the fleet has declined from 391 vessels in 2005 to 239 vessels in 2009, directly affecting more than 2 500 families. This closure has caused serious damage to the groups concerned (fishermen, net menders, the canning industry, etc.). The loss of income has not been covered by the compensatory aid granted by the Member States.

The introduction of this plan will make it possible to remove the management of anchovy from the political negotiation in December of each year, placing it on course to achieve the objectives for the management of European resources in the long term, thereby guaranteeing sustainability and maximum yield.

The exploitation rule defines the TAC (or total allowable catch) in the fishery for each year (from July to June of the following year), immediately after the assessment of the stock in line with the fishing seasons in May of each year, thus immediately making maximum use of this information. All the productive and local businesses involved await the reopening of this fishery and have made a significant contribution to drafting the paper. For these reasons, I am minded to vote in favour of the provision as a whole.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay is of great socio-economic importance. The fishery has, however, been closed for five years, and this has directly affected fishermen and their families, as well as the income that revolved around that employment sector, which includes net menders and the canning industry. Unfortunately, the aid granted by the Member States has not made up for the serious loss of income. This closure should therefore be reviewed and a long-term plan established to find a solution that takes the various demands into account.

For this reason, I voted in favour of Mrs Bilbao Barandica’s report. I did so primarily because it introduces an exploitation rule that will maximise catches, on the basis of the precautionary principle, and will provide expected maximum economic levels for that fishery.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay is of great socio-economic importance, and its closure in 2005 has caused great damage to groups that depend on it (fishermen, net menders, the canning industry, etc.). I voted in favour of this report, as I believe that establishing a long-term plan will address the need to rationalise the exploitation of this resource, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the fishery while mitigating the risk that the anchovy stock will collapse.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (ES) This debate on the situation of anchovy stocks and the recovery plan is, as has been said, a turning point, both for the species and for relations between the Council, Parliament and the Commission.

On this issue, our group has supported the precautionary proposals made by the Commission from the start, especially as regards: 1) the exploitation rule, (which we advocate should not be greater than 0.3); 2) the fact that the total allowable catch (TAC) should take into account live bait; and 3) the fact that any reduction of the TAC, if it is deemed necessary, should be a minimum of 25%.

These three issues were finally accepted by the majority of members of the Committee on Fisheries, and I trust that this will be the case when we vote in plenary. This is clearly a paradigmatic case, and I trust that we will have learned our lesson, and that for once, we will act like holistic doctors who cure, instead of acting like forensic doctors.

Report: Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0296/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution as I believe that the measures presented by the Commission for the monitoring and surveillance of fishing zones are necessary. This resolution is an attempt to tackle the lack of information about horse mackerel stocks by establishing a formula for vessels involved in the horse mackerel fishery, regarding an annual ceiling of maximum allowable landings and catches from defined areas.

The principal parts of the sector affected by this plan are the owners, operators and crew of pelagic fishing vessels operating in the distribution area of the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel, namely the North Sea, areas west of the British Isles, the western English Channel, waters west of Brittany, the Bay of Biscay and off north and northwest Spain, with the main objective of ensuring an exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. It is also important to note that Portugal has managed to preserve its fishing interests and enjoy its historic right to fish in those areas. I would like to emphasise the positive solution for the benefit of small-scale coastal fisheries which is completely compatible with safeguarding resources.

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) The western stocks are, economically speaking, the most significant stocks of horse mackerel living in EU waters. Because of this, we must think both in terms of a long-term exploitation of live aquatic resources which will provide the conditions necessary for sustainability and development, and from a social viewpoint – for the owners, operators and crews of fishing vessels. This is why I agree with the Commission’s proposal to establish a long-term plan for the western stocks of Atlantic horse mackerel and how these stocks are to be fished.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the proposal establishing a long-term plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel and the fisheries exploiting that stock, because it contributes to ensuring the economically, environmentally and socially sustainable exploitation of the stocks. This proposal, which is of interest to Portugal, also takes into account the specific characteristics and purposes of the fleets involved, not least the artisanal fleet, with a view to supplying high quality fresh fish to the general public.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Defending fishing along with the economic and social interests involved – over and above food interests – is not the same as defending the right to fish without rules or limits. We know that fishery resources are finite and that intensive fishing means there is no time for the exploited populations to reproduce in sufficient numbers. It is therefore important to create plans to maintain and conserve fish stocks, seeking to reconcile the economic and social interests at stake with the preservation of the species, which is essential to the long-term maintenance of fishing opportunities. With the amendments that have been tabled and adopted, this report defends traditional horse mackerel fishing and, in particular, enables 30 Portuguese vessels to continue fishing in the Bay of Biscay, which is crucial to the national interest, as is clearly pointed out by Mrs Patrão Neves, the shadow rapporteur of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) for this report.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is an attempt to tackle the lack of information about horse mackerel stocks by establishing a formula for vessels involved in the horse mackerel fishery, taking into account an annual ceiling of maximum allowable landings and catches of horse mackerel from defined areas. This formula is based on the most reliable scientific and biological indicators available at present for the development of the stock. I welcome the inclusion of respect for the activity of artisanal fleets which traditionally specialise in this type of fishery for the purposes of local consumption of fresh fish, so zones should not be established too far from the coast. I would like to highlight the important role that Parliament has played in repealing and amending the Commission’s delegated acts on this matter.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Multiannual plans constitute important instruments in fisheries management, enabling the essential conservation of fisheries resources at sustainable levels to be combined with guaranteed medium-term prospects for exploiting these resources, which is indispensable for giving economic and social stability to fishing and the local communities that depend on it. We therefore welcome the adoption of this report, as well as the adoption of the amendment tabled by our group regarding the zonal distribution of total allowable catches (TAC), which we consider crucial to an economically and socially fair approach to managing stocks. When limits to fishing activity are set, coastal and artisanal fishing, whose purpose is to supply the public with fresh fish for consumption, should not be treated in the same way as industrial fishing, which is geared to industrial processing and export.

In order for fishery resources management to definitely take biological and environmental issues into account as well as economic and social ones, the specificities of the fleets and the destination of the fish must be acknowledged as aspects to be taken into consideration when setting TACs.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) This report I have provides a long-term management plan for one of the most important fish stocks in Europe. The long-term horse mackerel plan will ensure that stocks will be able to reach the maximum sustainable level in future. The proposal was originally put forward by the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council, a proposal outlining the importance of the European pelagic sector as regards the sustainable management of fish stocks.

Members from Spain and Portugal wanted to create two areas for the total allowable catch; that recommendation does not make sense and would be to the detriment of the Irish pelagic fleet. I succeeded in modifying those amendments in the final vote.

This report is one of the first fisheries legislative initiatives adopted under the Treaty of Lisbon, and therefore some procedural delay was involved.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Atlantic horse mackerel has grown in importance in my own constituency and last year, some GBP 2 million worth of the fish was landed into Scottish ports by foreign boats alone. This figure shows that it is of importance to a number of nations and it is important that the stock is properly managed. I fully agree with Mr Gallagher that the western stock should be dealt with as a single stock, and I believe that the fishing nations involved should have the right to cooperate in managing this important resource.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – This proposal aims at ensuring an exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. While it is still on the first reading, there is a possibility of introducing amendments at the further stages. The general direction of this proposal is positive and thus it should be given time for others to have their say.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The proposal establishes a long-term plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel and the fisheries exploiting that stock. The Commission laid down a legal management instrument for the stock of horse mackerel according to available conservation reference points and long-term sustainability considerations. The proposal aims at ensuring an exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The establishment of a long-term plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel and the fisheries exploiting that stock is crucial for the efficient and proper use of fisheries resources. In this way, and provided that the rules are followed, the fish stocks will not collapse and it will be possible to exploit these resources sustainably. In this report, it is also important that Portugal has the opportunity to maintain its previous catch levels, as this is vital to maintain a healthy fishing industry, an industry which has suffered many setbacks in recent times.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) During a time when overfishing of stocks is becoming more widespread, we need more discussions about introducing catch quotas and, consequently, also about how these can be adhered to and monitored. However, scientists have not yet succeeded in accurately determining the level of fish stocks, in this case, of the Atlantic horse mackerel. As a result, all the measures that are taken are based on estimates. Nevertheless, these estimates must be used to establish the total allowable catches. I have abstained because the report does not focus in sufficient detail on the economic aspects of mackerel fishing.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Gallagher’s report because I support its content and message.

I believe in fact that, as science develops, the values used for the fixing of biological references could be subject to new and different scientific advice. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the plan should provide for the possibility of adapting the reference factors.

I agree with the rapporteur as regards area access for vessels fishing horse mackerel. It is advisable, in fact, to create a more flexible rule than that suggested by the Commission. It must be possible for vessels fishing in one area to land the catch in a port in another area. I believe, therefore, that a system whereby the master of a fishing vessel has to keep a record of catch and location is feasible and fair.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Multiannual plans are a fundamental instrument for ensuring that the exploitation of fishing resources takes place under sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. I have therefore supported this report on the proposal establishing a multiannual management plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel, and I welcome the fact that the amendment put forward by Mrs Patrão Neves has been adopted, as it is essential for ensuring that the artisanal fishery is protected, along with Portugal’s interests in this matter.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The dispute among the institutions centres around what part of the fisheries management plan is related to setting the TAC, and therefore is the sole responsibility of the Council. A few Member States think that Council alone should decide the whole plan, but that view is not widely supported, not even by the Council’s legal service. Most feel that the mathematical rule that sets the TAC should be decided by the Council, rather than by codecision. On 1 December 2009, the day on which the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, the Committee on Fisheries had an ‘indicative vote’ on the amendment that had been tabled by Mr Gallagher and others, but we did not proceed to the final vote on the draft report as amended. The aim was to give the rapporteurs (Mr Gallagher on horse mackerel and Ms Bilbao Barandica on anchovy) a political mandate to negotiate with the Council. Finally, after almost a year of dithering on the part of the Council, the Committee on Fisheries decided to proceed to a full vote in committee to put pressure on the Council to move.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In economic terms, the western stock of horse mackerel is the most important in EU waters. The European Commission proposal establishes a long-term plan for this stock as well as the fisheries exploiting it. It is desirable to ensure an exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. This proposal could even serve as a model for future multiannual plans dealing with the regulation of fishing opportunities within European Union waters. I support the amendments tabled in Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries to create greater flexibility when determining the biological reference factors and how the total removal amounts are calculated by setting upper and lower limits, as well as greater coordination with the legislation establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy. I am therefore voting in favour of this report.

Report: Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (A7-0295/2010)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Baltic Sea has been classified as a ‘particularly sensitive sea area’ (PSSA) by the International Maritime Organisation’s Marine Environment Protection Committee. This places the Baltic Sea among the most precious and most sensitive marine ecosystems in the world. I voted for the provisions contained in the document according to which we must pave the way for the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks, without any need for marketing standards to be lowered. In order to limit effectively the discard of an excessive number of juvenile and under-sized specimens belonging to target or non-target species, it is important that the fishing industry should be encouraged to use the most selective fishing gear and not to fish in areas in which there are large numbers of under-sized fish and non-target species. We must begin a review of the discard system and I feel that this will be one of the most important issues in 2011 as we debate the reform of the EU’s common fisheries policy.

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) We are all following the effects on the environment of human activity and mass fishing with great concern, which we share regarding dwindling stocks and uncontrolled industrial fishing. On account of this, I am voting for the introduction of the sustainable exploitation of live aquatic resources and a review of the protected areas in the Baltic Sea.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because it calls for restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea. There is a pressing need for industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea to be stopped. As there is a lack of reliable scientific data on the basis of which fish catches in industrial fisheries can be assessed, it is essential that full documentation of catches should be introduced immediately, together with full monitoring on the vessels engaged in these fishing activities. I agree with the European Parliament’s position that it is necessary to take immediate action under the common fisheries policy to settle the issue of industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea, bearing in mind that, from an environmental point of view, such fishing is harmful to the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem.

We must take into account the fact that the Baltic Sea is among the most precious marine ecosystems in the world, and that the Baltic Sea region has been classified as a ‘particularly sensitive sea area’ (PSSA). Furthermore, the climate in the Baltic Sea is changing, and different species of fish are adapting to this, meaning that their migration and spawning patterns are also changing. For this reason, I agree with Parliament’s call for the Commission to carry out a review of the marine protection areas in the Baltic Sea.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) For the European Union, and especially for a country like Portugal that has a calling to the sea and to fishing, as well as large-scale fishing and canning industries, it is essential to maintain fishing as a viable and sustainable economic activity. Portugal needs fishing and, therefore, needs the sea to remain able to provide us with fish and species to remain able to reproduce. For this very reason, I agree with the rapporteur when he says that ‘in order to prevent by-catches effectively and limit the discard of an excessive number of juvenile and under-sized specimens belonging to target or non-target species, it is absolutely vital that the fishing industry should be encouraged to use the most selective fishing gear and not to fish in areas in which there are large numbers of under-sized fish and non-target species’.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order to prevent highgrading and limit the discard of an excessive number of juvenile and under-sized specimens, it is absolutely vital that the fishing industry should be encouraged to use the most selective fishing gear and not to fish in areas in which there are large numbers of under-sized fish and non-target species.

I believe that bringing in a complete ban on discards in the case of flounder or other fish belonging to the flounder family is inappropriate, as this will have a negative impact on flounder stocks. This ban on discards might also have the perverse effect of being used as an argument to legalise the large-scale fishing of under-sized cod in the Baltic Sea. It is worth pointing out that the Baltic Sea has been classified as a ‘particularly sensitive sea area’ (PSSA) by the International Maritime Organisation’s Marine Environment Protection Committee.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which backs a proposal designed to simplify administration but does not make substantive changes to the restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot in the Baltic Sea.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Fishing has to be a sustainable economic activity over the long term, and this is only possible with the careful management of fishery resources. The concerns raised by the rapporteur are therefore legitimate and take into account the need for species protection and biodiversity conservation. I therefore agree with the prohibitions and restrictions adopted here.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) Given the limited fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, we must strictly regulate the catch of valuable fish species. It is important for this purpose clearly to define the task of the competent European Union organisations, so that monitoring can be implemented and restrictions imposed on the illogical exploitation of marine resources. It is essential to impose quotas in order to allow fish resources in the Baltic Sea to recover. A clear signal should be sent to all parties engaged in fishing that the irrational exploitation of fish resources could have dire consequences.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Increasing numbers of fish species in the Baltic Sea are under immediate threat. For example, fewer cod are being caught in the Baltic than was the case 15 years ago and the fish are smaller and of poorer quality. One of the major contributory factors to this decline is industrial fishing and the way in which by-catches are handled. Traditional, small-scale, inshore fisheries are, in some circumstances, able to guarantee that fish stocks are managed sustainably. I have abstained, because the report clearly states that no reliable scientific data is available on this subject.

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

Experience gained via the use of a discard system in the Baltic Sea shows that the system works well and is practicable for certain species of fish. Species making up by-catches may have a low market value, they may be completely unsuitable for human consumption, or it might be illegal to land them. The foundations are therefore being laid for the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks, without any need for marketing standards to be lowered. In order to prevent by-catches effectively and limit the discard of a number of juvenile and under-sized specimens, it is absolutely vital that the fishing industry should be encouraged to use the most selective fishing gear and not to fish in areas in which there are large numbers of under-sized fish and non-target species.

Variable closed periods should also be introduced that fit in with fish spawning cycles. The climate in the Baltic Sea is changing, and different species of fish are adapting to this, meaning that their migration and spawning patterns are also changing. In the light of these considerations, a review of the protection areas would appear necessary.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as I believe that it is vital to promote the sustainable management of marine resources, so as to be consistent with the objective of preserving fish stocks in the Baltic, which is one of the most valuable and sensitive ecosystems in the world.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The detailed technical rules for fishing in the Baltic Sea (mesh size, closed areas, etc.) are included in Council Regulation 2187/2005. However, prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Council often took short-cut measures to adopt such rules quickly by including them in the regulation on quotas. For instance, Council Regulation (EC) No 1226/2009 fixing quotas for 2010 has provisions related to technical measures, namely Article 7 on the prohibition of highgrading, and in Annex III on the restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot. After Lisbon, this is no longer legal, so Council Regulation 2187/2005 must be amended. That is the sole purpose of this proposal, and it was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Fisheries.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Next year, the European Parliament will debate the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP). I agree that this process must include measures to improve the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources and the effective management of marine resources. As the International Maritime Organisation has indicated, the Baltic Sea is a ‘particularly sensitive sea area’. This places the Baltic Sea among the most sensitive marine ecosystems in the world, but we also must not forget the human side of this issue which is not mentioned in the report. The fishing industry has deep-rooted traditions in Lithuania. Although the fisheries sector accounts for a relatively small proportion of Lithuania’s GDP, it is particularly important for the Lithuanian economy. Regions of Lithuania that are dependent on fishing have suffered significant economic and social difficulties in recent years due to declining fishing levels and stock conservation policy.

In Lithuania, it is now becoming increasingly difficult to make a living from fishing related activities. Due to low pay, such work is unattractive to young people. Consequently, Lithuania and other EU Member States must continue to implement most of the policies defined under the European Fisheries Fund. This assistance will help to create new jobs, will increase the value of fishery products and will promote eco-tourism, etc.

Reports: Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (A7-0299/010), Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0296/2010), Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (A7-095/2010), João Ferreira (A7-0184/2010)

  Andrew Henry William Brons and Nick Griffin (NI), in writing. – We abstained on the Bilbao Barandica, Gallagher and Ferreira reports on the grounds that they contained beneficial and harmful proposals in the same instrument. However, we voted in favour of the Gróbarczyk report, despite having misgivings about some of its content (e.g. its suggestion that the discard system might have worked well for certain species of fish – we are opposed to the discard system completely). We voted in favour of it because it promised a review of the discard system. This is about as much as we can hope for within the confines of the common fisheries policy.

Report: João Ferreira (A7-0184/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) On the whole, I agree with the proposed amendments, given that the introduction of alien species is one of the main reasons why ecosystems are being thrown out of kilter and, along with the destruction of natural habitats, one of the biggest contributory factors implicated in global biodiversity loss, as is acknowledged by the Commission. I therefore support the proposals laying down conditions for the introduction of alien and locally absent species, by strictly defining the requirements with which closed aquaculture facilities will have to comply, as well as the need to supervise facilities, the aim being to ensure the technical requirements proposed by specialists.

Particularly at a time when a new European strategy in this area is being launched, aquaculture requires substantial support for scientific research and technological development in the area of farming native species so as to enable greater diversification. I agree with the amendments to ensure Parliament’s involvement in this area by adapting the old comitology provisions to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) First of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ferreira, for drafting this report, for which I voted in favour.

Recent surveys have revealed a need to develop the European aquaculture sector and intensify scientific research in the field of native species breeding. In this way, it will be possible to guarantee improved safety, quality and diversification of products offered to consumers and therefore ensure greater environmental protection.

With regard to the introduction of exotic species in closed aquaculture systems which, according to the Commission, primarily concerns ‘aquaculture and restocking practices’, I believe that this practice must be accompanied by strict monitoring of these facilities, of the systems and the activities for transport of these animals in order to prevent any escapes that could create disturbances in native ecosystems and natural habitats, representing one of the major factors in terms of making a significant contribution to biodiversity loss on a global scale.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, since it will make it possible to strengthen the requirements to which closed aquaculture facilities and the transport of species should be subject, so as to minimise the impact on ecosystems and biodiversity.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European aquaculture sector has more than 16 500 companies, a global annual turnover in excess of EUR 3.5 billion and employs approximately 64 000 people, both directly and indirectly. Moreover, with fishery stocks becoming scarce, aquaculture is creating innumerable opportunities for European industries. Relaxing the introduction procedure for alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, as is being proposed, must be balanced by strictly defining the requirements with which closed aquaculture facilities will have to comply, as well as by the necessary supervision of the facilities, the aim being to ensure that the technical requirements proposed by specialists will all be properly taken into account and observed.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposed amendment to the present regulation is based on the outcome of the IMPASSE project, a concerted action focusing on the environmental impact of alien species in aquaculture. This project proposes an operational definition of a closed aquaculture facility, tightening up and expanding on the definition currently in use, according to which ‘the degree of risk associated with alien species could be reduced considerably, possibly to an acceptable level, if the potential for escape of target and non-target organisms is addressed during transportation and by well-defined protocols at the receiving facility’. I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the need to dispense with the permit requirement for introductions and translocations for closed aquaculture facilities, thus freeing operators of that administrative formality.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Regarding the report’s fundamental issue, as we stated during the debate – the relaxation in the introduction procedure for alien species in aquaculture, in ‘closed facilities’ – must go hand in hand with the most precise possible definition of the requirements with which such facilities will have to comply, in keeping with up-to-date technical and scientific information. The supervision of facilities must also be ensured before they open and while they are operational. The sustainable development of aquaculture demands substantial support for scientific research and technological development in the area of farming native species. These species must be given preference over alien ones, so as to enable the diversification of production and supply of foodstuffs, along with an improvement in quality, while also making for greater environmental security.

As regards the process of drawing up the report, I welcome the fact that the Commission has incorporated the proposals adopted by the Committee on Fisheries in its proposal for a regulation. The only thing I find regrettable is that it has been considered indispensable to formally table a new proposal, leading to a delay in formalising the agreement at first reading.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Whilst aquaculture is an important source of both jobs and food, it is important that the wider environment is protected from potential threats. The existing legislation strives to do this and today’s proposal will not undermine those efforts. Accordingly, I supported this report.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) While fish stocks in the world’s oceans are slowly being depleted and catch yields are reaching their limits, the farming of fish and shellfish in aquaculture has been growing in importance in recent years. Aquaculture production is consequently a growth sector, which is being afforded the necessary attention with this report. The proportion of aquaculture facilities established inland, such as pond fish culture or flow-through systems, show higher growth rates than other food production sectors, and production in these facilities already exceeds that of maritime facilities. Pond fish culture in particular has a long tradition: fish and crustaceans have been farmed for hundreds of years, mostly in artificial ponds. Closed aquaculture systems clearly provide enormous ecological advantages as well as advantages with regard to the antibiotics problem. I support the report, which calls for important framework conditions for closed aquaculture facilities and strictly defines the prerequisites for the introduction of exotic fish species. In order to prevent disruption to native ecosystems through the optimum introduction of exotic species, it is important to support closed system farming.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The Ferreira report deals with the amendment of Council Regulation No 708/2007, which established a framework governing aquaculture practices in relation to alien and locally absent species. This framework is now under revision after the completion of the so-called IMPASSE project, whose aim was to develop guidelines for environmentally sound practices for introductions and translocations in aquaculture. I voted for the report.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The introduction of alien species is one of the main reasons for global biodiversity loss and the disturbance of ecosystems on Earth. The introduction of alien species in aquaculture must therefore give rise to an exact definition of the requirements with which closed aquaculture facilities will have to comply, and the supervision of the facilities. The transportation of target and non-target species should also be subject to strict rules and supervision. For these reasons, I voted for this report. I believe, however, that research and development for the purpose of farming native species should be strengthened so as to reduce the risks associated with introducing exotic species and promote more sustainable production.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The introduction of alien species is one of the main factors in the disturbance of ecosystems, along with the destruction of natural habitats, and one of the main reasons for global biodiversity loss. Relaxing the introduction procedure for alien species in aquaculture must be balanced by a strict definition of the rules with which closed aquaculture facilities will have to comply, in accordance with the outcome of the IMPASSE project, as well as being subject to supervision, the aim being to ensure that the technical requirements proposed by specialists will all be properly taken into account and observed.

The sustainable development of European aquaculture demands substantial support for scientific research and technological development in the area of farming native species, so as to enable the production and supply of foodstuffs to be diversified and quality to be improved, while also guaranteeing greater environmental security.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Alongside the destruction of natural habitats, the introduction of alien species into our ecosystems is one reason for the global loss of biodiversity. More and more species are dying out in aquacultures, which is leading to long-term damage to the entire ecosystem. I have abstained, because the report does not go into sufficient detail about the actual problems involved.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The introduction of alien species is one of the main reasons why ecosystems are being thrown out of kilter and, along with the destruction of natural habitats, one of the biggest contributory factors implicated in global biodiversity loss. The introduction of alien species into Europe’s coastal seas and inland waters is due, in a great many cases, to ‘aquaculture and stocking practices’.

The relaxation in the introduction procedure for alien species in aquaculture must go hand in hand with an exact definition of the requirements with which closed aquaculture facilities will have to comply and with the necessary supervision of the facilities, the aim being to ensure that the technical requirements proposed by specialists will all be properly taken into account and observed.

The sustainable development of European aquaculture demands substantial support for scientific research and technological development for the purpose of farming native species, so as to enable production and the supply of foodstuffs to be diversified and their quality improved, while also making for greater environmental security. I therefore hope that there will be strong encouragement to bring this about.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report in view of the fact that the results of the IMPASSE project have revealed that ‘the degree of risk associated with alien species could be reduced considerably, possibly to an acceptable level, if the potential for escape of target and non-target organisms is addressed during transportation and by well-defined protocols at the receiving facility’. It therefore makes complete sense to dispense with the permit requirement for introducing alien species into closed aquaculture facilities.

Reducing this administrative burden and the cost of permit applications is an important incentive for the aquaculture sector. Provided it is accompanied by a strict definition of the requirements with which closed aquaculture facilities will have to comply, as well as by adequate monitoring of compliance, it will not compromise the necessary protection of biodiversity and the environment.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Commission’s proposal deals with amendments to a regulation on the use of alien species in aquaculture based on the IMPASSE project, which focused on the environmental impact of alien species. This project has produced an operational definition of a closed aquaculture facility, which tightens up and enlarges upon the definition currently in use and embodies an approach whereby the degree of risk associated with alien species could be reduced considerably. In the light of the above results, the Commission is proposing that introductions and translocations involving the use of closed aquaculture facilities be exempted from the permit requirement, thus dispensing operators from that administrative formality. As the rapporteur notes, the introduction of alien species is one of the main reasons why ecosystems are being thrown out of kilter and, along with the destruction of natural habitats, one of the biggest contributory factors implicated in global biodiversity loss. Many of these introductions into Europe’s coastal seas and inland waters are due to ‘aquaculture and stocking practices’. With this in mind, the rapporteur tabled an amendment to specify that ‘closed aquaculture facilities’ were limited to those on land, in order to reduce the possible survival of escapees. Other amendments concerned the comitology provisions.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture damages natural ecosystems that deserve protection from the EU, causing global biodiversity loss in particular. The IMPASSE project is concerted action on the environmental impact of alien species in aquaculture, which has demonstrated the need to prevent the escape of these species and of biological material during transportation. I welcome this European Parliament report because it is committed to biosecurity and, at the same time, to speeding up the administrative formalities relating to the permit requirement for introductions and translocations for closed aquaculture facilities. Clearly and rigorously defining ‘closed aquaculture facility’, as well as the regularly updated listing of all such facilities by Member States, will lead to the sustainable development of this sector. The Member States must supervise the facilities themselves and the means by which species are transported. I also support the commitment to scientific research and technological development as a means of reducing this sector’s harmful effects on natural ecosystems. Finally, I would highlight the fact that this regulation was amended using the ordinary legislative procedure of codecision, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0324/2010)

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. – UKIP opposes any EU management of our industries, as it should be up to national elected governments to decide on the future and any potential subsidy of coal mines. However, in this case, the EU is making special arrangements for governments, outside of normal State aid rules, for greater flexibility to manage subsidies to coal mines. Amendments 25 and 36 are asking for a greater period of such flexibility before normal State aid laws would apply – which UKIP can go some way to support. UKIP has abstained on these two amendments and the final vote because although we do not support any EU State aid laws (as it should be up to national governments to decide subsidy levels), giving greater flexibility to Member States and lengthening this period is beneficial and much more democratically accountable, putting power back into the hands of governments to make these decisions.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report. Although it still only represents a small part of the EU energy market, the coal mining industry ensures jobs for those EU citizens working in it and economic development in the sparsely populated and remote regions where most coal mining companies are located. I agreed with the amendments according to which the deadline for the closure of uncompetitive coal mines will be extended until 2018, with the possibility of keeping mines open if they fail to become competitive in the set period. When uncompetitive mines are closed, it is important to guarantee that the necessary long-term funding is allocated to ensure environmental protection and rehabilitate former mining sites. In some regions, mines are the only form of industry and their closure will mean that many people will be made redundant. It is therefore essential to ensure that they are provided with assistance on a multiannual basis and various labour market measures, such as retraining, implemented to create the conditions for them to return to the labour market. I therefore supported the European Commission’s proposal to allocate such assistance until 2026.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for Mr Rapkay’s report as I support, amongst other measures, the extension of the deadline for closing uncompetitive coal mines. In this regard, I think that this will be an attempt to avoid a massive wave of job losses, with Romania, Spain and Germany being the EU Member States hit hardest by the new regulation. I believe that the operation of uncompetitive mines should be discontinued in line with the closure plan, only if they fail to become profitable by the specified deadline.

I want to encourage aid to be granted degressively to cover production losses as part of a well-defined mine closure plan. From 1 January 2011, half of the mines operating in Romania will be included in a closure plan. Against this background, I think that aid will need to be channelled more towards covering the social and environmental impact.

  Gerard Batten, John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark, Trevor Colman and Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – UKIP opposes any EU management of our industries, as it should be up to national elected governments to decide on the future and any potential subsidy of coal mines. However, in this case, the EU is making special arrangements for governments, outside of normal State aid rules, for greater flexibility to manage subsidies to coal mines. Amendment 25 and 36 are calling for a greater period of such flexibility before normal State aid laws would apply, which UKIP can go some way to support. UKIP has abstained on these two amendments and the final vote because, although we do not support any EU State aid laws because it should be up to national governments to decide on subsidy levels, giving greater flexibility to Member States and lengthening this period is beneficial and much more democratically accountable, putting power back in to the hands of governments to make these decisions.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Having been consulted by the Commission, the European Parliament was called on to give its verdict, this Tuesday 23 November, on the issue of State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines. The main stumbling block was the cut-off date for that State aid. The Commission proposed 1 October 2014. For environmental reasons, I believe it is important to diversify our sources of energy production and to promote sustainable production methods. 2014 would therefore seem to be a reasonable cut-off date. However, given the social impact of mine closures and the difficulties involved in redeploying miners, support must be provided during the closure process. The majority of the European Parliament has therefore decided to extend the provision of State aid until 31 December 2018. I decided to abstain from this final vote because I believe that the most important thing is to give priority to sustainable energy sources but, at the same time, it is also important to bear in mind the economic and social consequences of mine closures.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I decided to vote for Bernhard Rapkay’s report on ‘State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines’. This report proposes putting back the deadline for closing uncompetitive coal mines by four years: from 2014, as originally provided for in the European Commission’s proposal, until 2018.

This report also encourages the European Commission to devise a strategy for retraining the workers who will be affected by these closures. We must bear in mind that certain regions in the European Union are totally dependent on the mining sector economically and socially, which also includes Valea Jiului in Romania. The mining sector provides 100 000 jobs in the European Union.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The ongoing economic and financial crisis, in severely affecting the economies of the ‘developed’ countries of the West, has shown that the economic paradigm of the efficiency and capacity for self-regulation of the markets is no longer based on reality, because reality has called for all economic and market players, especially financial market players, to act responsibly and ethically, something which they have completely failed to do in recent times. The disruption caused in financial terms to the entire economy shows that the industrial sector requires a huge amount of support, since it is still a sector of fundamental importance for the economy, especially the real economy. When taking into account the competitive and comparative advantages and disadvantages between regions, especially at international level, we must not forget that the mining industry is present in areas in which the development of sound economic and occupational alternatives should be encouraged as a preliminary step and in which welfare support provisions should be enhanced to prevent painful increases in unemployed workers whom it is difficult to redeploy. The report on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines, on which we have voted, seems to me to be at least partly along these lines.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I believe that uncompetitive coal mines must be able to benefit from the State aid contribution, given that without this, the mines would close, resulting therefore in a huge wave of redundancies and very serious social problems. The transition period granted for making these mines profitable or closing them is important. Its role is, on the one hand, to ensure the provision of professional retraining for the population involved in the coal industry and, on the other, to ensure a gradual transition to cleaner energy sources.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats believe it to be unreasonable, for reasons relating to both the environment and competition, to retain subsidies for uncompetitive coal mines. At the same time, we consider it necessary to implement comprehensive employment and environmental initiatives in those regions affected by the closures that will probably result from the discontinuation of the subsidies. Overall, we think that the Commission’s proposal on this matter is balanced and takes good account of both of these aspects. The subsidies will be phased out, but this will be carefully managed, taking into consideration both jobs and the environment. We have therefore chosen to vote consistently in favour of the Commission’s line.

As regards the question of allowing the possibility of the continued operation of mines which become profitable during the closure period, we believe, like the Commission, that it would be wrong to include this option. In order for the aid that is granted to be used in the right way, it must be based on a definitive closure plan. With regard to the exact year in which the closure aid is to end, we have no strong preferences, but we nevertheless believe that the Commission’s proposal of 2014 is more appropriate than the rapporteur’s proposal of 2018.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the absence of a specific regulation on granting State aid to the coal industry, as the applicable regulation expires on 31 December 2010, rules need to be set out enabling some Member States that have been forced to close their coal mines to minimise the social and economic impact of that closure. As coal mines are concentrated in certain regions (in Germany, Spain and Romania), the social impact of simultaneous mine closures could be significant. In employment terms, the jobs of around 100 000 miners could be at stake; they may be unable to find jobs in other sectors as quickly as is necessary and they run the risk of becoming long-term unemployed. For this very reason, this proposal aims to provide the Member States with a legal framework enabling them to more effectively resolve the potential negative effects of mine closures that could occur as a result of the gradual withdrawal of subsidies, in particular, the social and environmental effects. It also aims to minimise distortions of competition on the internal market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Aid to the European coal industry is regulated by Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002, which expires on 31 December 2010. In the absence of a new legal framework allowing for specific types of State aid to the coal industry, Member States will be able to grant aid only within the limits provided for in the general State aid rules applicable to all sectors. Compared with the regulation of coal, the general rules on State aid significantly reduce the chances of State aid being granted to the coal industry. It is therefore likely that some Member States will be forced to close their coal mines and cope with the social and regional consequences of that decision. I understand that due to the regional concentration of coal mines, the social impact of simultaneous closure could be significant. Taking into account jobs in mining-related industries, this could jeopardise up to 100 000 jobs. I agree, therefore, that the closure plan should be extended to 31 December 2018, along with the final closure of production units, if they do not become competitive by this date, and provided that the EU’s energy needs do not require them to exist.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report assesses and makes positive changes to the European Commission’s proposal for amending this regulation, which itself changed the period for awarding State aid to the coal industry. Without this amendment, the period would have expired on 31 December 2010.

Now, the European Commission’s new proposal is suggesting extending aid until 2014. However, the European Parliament has adopted a proposal, for which we voted, extending aid until 2018. The purpose of this is to take the social problem – preventing redundancies of workers and difficulties integrating them into the labour market – and the environmental problem into account, together with the aid that it advocates to resolve these problems.

The commitment to safeguarding the maintenance of coal industries that have become competitive during the course of this process, while also ensuring that environmental and public health issues are safeguarded, is also positive.

The need to rehabilitate former coal mining sites is also stressed, specifically: the removal of old mining equipment from the mine, making it safe, cleaning the site and disposing of waste water.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Rapkay report and of State subsidies for the coal industry. Coal remains an essential part of the global energy mix. If coal could no longer be mined in Europe, we would have to import it from the United States or Australia.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. – (DE) It takes time and a great deal of confidence to adapt to changes in social structures. Therefore, the European Union and Germany intend to end subsidies for non-competitive coal mines. The period from now until 2018 will be used to put in place the necessary restructuring measures. This is a successful compromise which is evidence of the far-sighted approach of everyone involved.

Given the large number of people employed in the industry, it is important for the European Union and the Member States to make every effort to cushion the negative social and regional impact of this change and to keep the impact to a minimum. Therefore, I am very pleased that the European Parliament has shown its support for this view today. This will enable the difficult but necessary adaptation processes to be implemented in Europe and in Germany, in particular, in a balanced way and on a sound political footing.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D), in writing. – (DE) On the question of continuing the subsidies for unprofitable coal mines, I have gone against the line taken by my group and abstained. In my opinion, the vote in Parliament is based on a nationalist reflex and short-term thinking. I oppose the subsidies because I believe that the use of coal and the accompanying CO2 emissions in principle run counter to all our efforts to combat climate change. The money which we could be investing in renewable energy sources is literally being thrown into a bottomless pit. In my view, we should be looking for sustainable alternatives in the field of energy production.

However, we also need alternative solutions on the labour market. It is obvious that mistakes have been made in the past and that there has been a short-sighted approach to employment policy. Given that many jobs are at stake, I would prefer to see funding being made available for retraining the workers who are affected, rather than a continuation of the coal subsidies. For this reason, I have decided to abstain rather than voting against the report.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report as I agree with the fundamental point that there should be ‘transition’ regulation in this sector. While coal and the mining of it contribute hugely to pollution, in some countries, they also provide huge employment. Therefore, the ending of some of these aids so suddenly could potentially have a serious effect on some of the Member States in the EU, but it is important for the sector to realise that they should not rely solely on these aids in the future.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since indigenous energy sources in the Union are rare, I believe that support for the coal mining industry is justified under the Union’s policy to encourage renewable and lower carbon fossil fuels for power generation. However, I do not believe that this justifies indefinite support for coal mines that prove uncompetitive. In the light of the serious socio-economic impact of pit closures, particularly in thinly populated regions, consideration should be given to the possibility of providing help and support.

However, in order to minimise the distortion of competition in the internal market resulting from aid, the Commission will have to ensure that precise and effective conditions of competition are established, maintained and observed. As for environmental protection, the Member States will have to provide a programme of measures aimed at mitigating the environmental impact of the use of coal, in the field of energy efficiency, renewable energy or carbon capture and storage.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) The pro-Europeans want to facilitate the closure of the last remaining coal mines in Europe by means of short-term State aid. Given that Germany and Romania generate more than 40% of their electricity from coal combustion, this means that more than 100 000 people will be sacrificed on the altar of ultraliberalism on the pretext of fair competition and ‘green’ political correctness, which would have us generate electricity by wind power. In their quest for ‘renewable’ energies, these countries will no doubt have to replace coal by buying nuclear-generated electricity from their neighbours.

As a former miner myself, it makes me rather emotional to think back to all the French and European coal mines that have been closed, causing great suffering and leaving entire regions to go to ruin – regions which have thus become economic and social wastelands and have often not recovered. Therefore, I can unfortunately only conclude that, in this area as in so many others, the Europe of Brussels has not sought to protect our industries and hence our jobs, preferring instead to waste huge amounts of money on globalist projects that bear no relation to the problems of our fellow citizens.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of Mr Rapkay’s report because the plan to phase out coal mining subsidies by 2018 is, fortunately, supported by a broad majority across all the groups. The example of Germany shows how a coal pact between central government, the federal states, unions and management can result in efficient coal production without the need for redundancies. There is now more security for 100 000 jobs throughout Europe. To avoid any misunderstandings, it is important to realise that these are not permanent subsidies and that the aim is not to prop up uncompetitive businesses. This is all about taking a responsible approach to a traditional European industry. The use of coal can easily be justified, either as a fuel for generating electricity or as a raw material in the chemical industry, particularly in times when resources such as oil and gas are in increasingly short supply. The production of a minimum amount of coal contributes to our energy security and prevents us from being dependent on imports. It is wrong to say that ending subsidies for coal mining will help to protect the environment.

From a climate perspective, it makes no difference whether we use domestic or foreign raw materials. We must continue to support environmentally friendly coal technology and a secure energy supply using domestic products. An active industry policy is not a thing of the past but a task for the future, on the basis of a consistent competition strategy and a sensible social policy involving job security.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) With the expiry of the Coal Regulation on 31 December 2010, some countries would be obliged to close their hard coal mines. I voted to extend this regulation until 31 December 2030, as opposed to 31 December 2026 proposed by the European Commission. Unfortunately, this amendment did not receive the required majority. However, support was given to the point where the steep downward trend is being reduced for the overall amount of closure aid granted by a Member State. Furthermore, the operation of the production units concerned will form part of a permanent closure plan with a deadline which ought to have been set for 31 December 2020, as 2020 is the year which features in the context of the carbon capture, transport and storage projects currently being developed in several Member States.

The deadline which resulted from the majority vote was 31 December 2018. I wish to point out that this deadline obtained for subsidy operations is nevertheless an achievement by the European Parliament, extending the initial deadline of 2014 as proposed by the European Commission by four years.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines. Coal has been exempted from State aid rules for a total of 35 years. The Commission has proposed an end to this exemption, which would allow State aid only to coal mines that are slated for closure by 2014. Any coal mine that does not close by that date must pay back State aid and all countries giving State aid must provide a climate change mitigation plan. Germany plans to close uncompetitive mines by 2018 and the rapporteur has proposed an amendment to extend the proposal to 2018. It seemed to me reasonable to support his proposal.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because, although it concerns important environmental issues such as energy sources and climate change and economic issues such as the durability of uncompetitive production units in the economy, at a time of economic and social crisis, it is important to stand up for the social issues. Measures should not be taken if they exacerbate the crisis. The response to the crisis is through investment and protecting the public, which in this case means ensuring conditions that allow for the closure of these mines over a period of time after the expected resolution of the crisis, thereby protecting jobs and combating unemployment.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aid provided for in this report is vital for helping to support those who will potentially lose their jobs in this industry. Retraining needs to be arranged straight away for workers affected by the mine closures, and all possible avenues of funding from regional, national and EU funds should be explored.

In the long term, the funding of measures aimed at protecting the environment and the costs arising from the mine closures should be continued after 2014. Early termination of subsidies to the coal industry by the Member States could cause huge environmental and financial problems in the affected regions, and could become even more costly than a gradual phasing out of these subsidies.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is essential that we continue to support the coal industry in Europe to allow uncompetitive mines to be closed down gradually. However, the Commission’s proposal does not go far enough. Mining is concentrated in only a few regions which will have to completely restructure their economies over the next few years. We have seen often enough in the past that mining regions which have become uncompetitive have suffered a severe social and economic decline within a short period of time. Previously, many of these regions were the ‘black pearls’ of economic performance in Europe.

If we give them the time to adjust to the change in circumstances, they can continue to be economic powerhouses. However, if we leave them in the lurch, we will incur considerable costs as a result of unemployment and bankruptcies. The argument put forward by the Greens that this process is harmful to the environment is pure invention. Domestic coal is much more environmentally friendly than imported coal. For this reason, I have voted in favour of this report, which is very clearly worded.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because the measures it contains will help, if they are approved by the Council, to avoid serious social repercussions in many of the European Union’s Member States. The deadline proposed by the European Commission is too close and unrealistic. This is why the subsidies for hard coal production had to be extended until 2018. Romania, the Member State which I come from, has experience of such a huge social challenge and I believe that the extension of the deadline is a necessary and welcome step.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am delighted with the position adopted today by the European Parliament on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive mines.

It should be noted that the State aid granted in such cases must be of an exceptional nature, and there should be compliance with the regulations, which, in reality, make it possible for mines not to be closed as a result of the aid, and do not explicitly require that public aid be returned if the mines are not closed. We cannot end up with a situation in which funds from the state budget are used by mines to achieve profitability. Today, we have proposed a mechanism to force Member States to implement consistent limits on public aid, as well as a gradual transition to the general provisions that apply to all sectors of the economy.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Rapkay’s report because I agree with extending the deadline to 2018. The 2014 deadline proposed by the Commission is not justified, even by the Commission impact assessment.

On the basis of the Commission impact assessment, and as a logical follow-on to Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002, the 2018 deadline is an appropriate one, ensuring a socially acceptable solution without entailing mass redundancies in a number of Member States. In these times of crisis, I do not believe that pits should be closed and thousands of workers made redundant across Europe.

What is more, the pollution problem should not be tackled as part of this issue. Indeed, closing these coal mines would not solve the problem, because instead of coal coming from them, it would be imported from abroad. If we want to find a solution to prevent climate change, we must find it in plants that use coal. Only by converting those types of plants will emissions be reduced.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am grateful to Mr Rapkay for his excellent work, and I support the amendments tabled. I voted in favour, as I approve of the measures required to prevent the extremely serious socio-economic impact of pit closures, particularly in thinly populated regions.

Given that indigenous energy sources in the Union are rare, support for the coal mining industry is justified under the Union’s policy to encourage renewable and lower carbon fossil fuels for power generation. I therefore support the efforts made, which are in line with the broader 20-20-20 strategy.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Based on the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposal for a regulation, the deadline for subsidising coal production is being extended to 31 December 2018 (four years longer than in the Commission’s proposal) and is intended only for hard coal. The coal sector provides approximately 100 000 jobs. Mines whose operation is dependent on aid are located particularly in the Ruhr region of Germany, north-west Spain and in Valea Jiului in Romania. Roughly 40% of Romania’s electricity production is based on coal, most of which is hard coal. The deadline of 2014 (proposed by the Commission) for the mine closure plan is arbitrary and is not justified based on the impact assessment carried out by the EU executive itself. Consequently, 2018 guarantees an acceptable solution, taking into account this impact assessment.

The rapporteur favours a gradual reduction in aid. The annual reduction must not be less than 10% of the aid granted in the first year and based only on a very closely monitored closure plan. I voted for this report as the application of the regulation in the form proposed by the European Parliament will mitigate the adverse social repercussions of such mine closures, with the mines in Valea Jiului also among those affected by this measure.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because, although it concerns important environmental issues such as energy sources and climate change and economic issues such as the durability of uncompetitive production units in the economy, at a time of economic and social crisis, it is important to stand up for the social issues. Measures should not be taken if they exacerbate the crisis. The response to the crisis is through investment and protecting the public, which in this case means ensuring conditions that allow the closure of these mines over a period of time after the expected resolution of the crisis, thereby protecting jobs and combating unemployment.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid for the coal industry expires on 31 December 2010. This would force some Member States to close their coal mines on that date and face the considerable social and regional impact of these simultaneous closures. The Commission’s proposal suggested providing the Member States with a legal framework to allow them to extend the support given until 31 December 2014, Parliament having extended this deadline until 31 December 2018, thus ensuring the conditions for resolving this problem in a sustainable manner at a social and environmental level.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) Ending aid for the closure of uncompetitive coal mines in 2014 – the date proposed by the Commission – would have serious socio-economic consequences in certain regions of the EU where mining continues to be a significant source of employment. This is why Parliament’s position asking for it to be delayed to 2018 is so important.

My vote reflects my conviction that the closure of these mines should be postponed in order to give the regions and Member States concerned – mainly Spain, Germany and Romania – the time they need to carry out the required restructuring in the current period of crisis.

That restructuring must involve, on the one hand, a transition towards sustainable economic activities that create high quality jobs, and on the other, wherever possible, establishing more competitive and sustainable coal mining and less polluting coal use.

In order to do this, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy must support research and innovation in areas such as CO2 capture and storage and achieving more environmentally friendly combustion methods.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Should the European Union continue to subsidise industrial sectors that are destined eventually to disappear from Europe? That is the difficult question we had to answer with the adoption of the Rapkay report on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines. The European Commission has proposed a scheduled end of subsidies in October 2014. This is a sensible proposal that takes into account the negative environmental impact of aid for the coal industry and of the need for the Member States to provide a plan of appropriate measures, for example, in the field of energy efficiency, renewable energy or carbon capture and storage.

The facts are damning: EUR 1 288 million of aid to production, making a total of EUR 2.9 billion of subsidies for the coal industry between 2003 and 2008, has done nothing to limit the loss of market share, nor has it ensured that the industry’s 100 000 workers receive useful support to help them retrain. I therefore regret that the European Union has not had the courage this lunchtime to say ‘no’ to extending aid for coal mines until the end of 2018 or to turn resolutely towards new energy sources, which would provide jobs for the European population.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Today’s vote is in conflict with the EU’s economic, energy and climate change interests. Subsidising uncompetitive coal mines is a waste of billions of euro of public money, particularly in the context of current pressures on public finances. Prolonging operational aid to coal mines fails to address the legitimate concerns of coal workers for their futures. Instead, it risks delaying the transition towards a green economy – with a future energy sector based on energy efficiency and renewable energy – which will ensure the creation of thousands of new, sustainable jobs in former coal producing regions.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Although the coal mining industry does not have a great bearing on the Lithuanian economy, this report is important for my country. With the expiry of Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002, some Member States will be forced to close their coal mines immediately and face huge social and regional consequences related to the closures. Lithuania knows only too well the kind of problems that have to be faced following such closures. The closure of Lithuania’s Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant led to the loss of business and jobs. It also dealt a blow to our independence in the field of energy, and so we must not forget that the European Union is founded on energy solidarity. At present, Lithuania and the Baltic countries are energy islands, separated from Europe’s gas and the electricity networks. I was delighted to hear reports this month that the European Commission supports the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan.

I hope that projects such as those related to the Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant and the Lithuania-Poland gas network interconnection will receive financial assistance from the EU. That would benefit the whole of Europe. Finally, it is important for us to bear in mind the safety of coal miners and workers in other branches of the energy industry. The recent accidents in Chile and New Zealand will not allow us to forget this.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Coal mining in Europe is not efficient, and has to be subsidised. However, so-called alternative energy sources are equally – if not more – inefficient. Power plants burning coal therefore have one thing in common with solar or wind-powered plants. The power they produce is simply too expensive. States therefore subsidise coal mining, or purchase the electricity produced at a higher price than the price paid by the end user. Every method of producing electricity has its pluses and minuses. However, experience has taught us that it is not good to rely on one source of energy. If the energy security of Europe is a priority for us, then it would be a mistake to abandon one of the possible energy sources. The state should not use taxpayers’ money to support non-functioning enterprises. Not all mines that are currently unable to survive on the market without subsidies are inevitably doomed to fail. Some of them may become competitive if they are given time to transform. The report of Mr Rapkay wants to make this possible for them. I come from the Prievidza region, which has a strong mining tradition. I know how many families would fall into poverty if the fathers lost a job in the mines. On their behalf, too, I have voted in favour of the report, which creates an opportunity to save thousands of jobs in a traditional Slovak mining region.

Report: Eva Joly (A7-0315/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the work of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2009 as I believe that it is vital that it continues to play a monitoring role in negotiations on economic partnership agreements (EPAs) and fosters interaction between parliamentarians, with the aim of bringing about greater transparency for all the processes.

In view of this, I believe that it is crucial to strengthen the parliamentary dimension of cooperation work, recognising that the establishment of the African Union and the growing power of the JPA are, without doubt, a challenge to ACP-EU cooperation and, consequently, to the ACP-EU JPA. Given that in 2009, the Commission and the ACP states put forward proposals for a second revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, it is vital that the JPA oversees events so as to ensure that it can survive and make progress as an institution. This cooperation between Parliament and the JPA began in 2007, and last year resulted in the creation of a fully-fledged delegation for relations with the JPA.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this resolution which assesses the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP) and the EU in 2009. The work of this assembly is particularly important, strengthening democratic processes in these countries, and therefore I agree with the observations made in the resolution that we need to closely involve parliaments in the democratic process and in the national development strategies. I believe that the revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement will help address the new changes that have come about in the decade since this agreement was first signed and will increase participation on the part of national parliaments, civil society and the private sector in those countries’ political and economic life. I also agree with the proposal that the European Development Fund should be incorporated into the EU budget in order to increase the consistency, transparency and effectiveness of development cooperation policy and guarantee appropriate scrutiny.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this report on the work of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)-EU Parliamentary Assembly. The Trade Commissioner’s positive response to the request by ACP countries for a review of contentious elements of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations is welcome. Future EPA negotiations, as well as eventual implementation, should be the subject of closer parliamentary scrutiny. The parliaments of ACP countries should press for their involvement in the adoption and execution of the country and regional strategy papers, as these are the main programming tools for development assistance. In order to help address the Parliamentary Assembly’s concerns regarding the repercussions of the current crisis on the developing world, we need to work on additional sources of financing, especially an international financial transactions tax. The ACP governments, on the other hand, need to show an increased commitment to fighting against tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight. The establishment, at the beginning of the current term, of a permanent European Parliament delegation for relations with the Pan-African Parliament is a very positive step which will contribute to consolidate the increasingly political engagement of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report because the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) has succeeded, through the quality of its work, in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. For example, the assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Furthermore, some important amendments have been passed, such as the one encouraging the JPA to explore additional and innovative sources of financing for development, such as an international financial transaction tax, and further calling on it to address the question of the eradication of tax havens.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009, because I believe that this assembly continues to provide an important framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states. In order for the cooperation process to be more efficient and democratic, there is a need for greater involvement by the parliaments of the ACP countries in drawing up and drafting strategic cooperation plans, and for them to participate more actively in negotiating economic partnership agreements alongside the European authorities.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Without calling into question the importance of the work done by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2009 or its undeniable contribution to development cooperation, I cannot fail to express my concern about the content of point 6 of the Joly report: ‘encourages the JPA to continue to work on this area and to explore additional and innovative sources of financing for development, such as an international financial transaction tax’. I do not believe that an international financial transaction tax would be of much benefit to the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) convened twice in 2009, the year in which the Commission and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states made proposals for the second revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement to be negotiated during 2010. In view of the regionalisation of the ACP group being brought about by the economic partnership agreement (EPA) process, it is important for the JPA to monitor developments extremely closely in order to ensure that it can survive and move forwards as an institution. I would like to highlight the JPA’s concern at the repercussions of the current financial crisis, the adoption in Luanda of a resolution on the impact of the financial crisis on the ACP states, and the resolutions on its impact and on addressing the crisis in the ACP states.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) For the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly to properly carry out its role – mentioned by the rapporteur – in North-South cooperation and the strengthening of the parliamentary aspect of this cooperation, some of its fundamental characteristics need to be defended. The breadth of its representation is both its greatest asset and an essential requirement if it is to properly carry out its role. Therefore, any attempt to reduce this representativeness on the grounds of cost cutting must be rejected, while defending the assembly’s plural nature, without which some of its principles would be seriously distorted and some of its basic objectives seriously compromised. All the means needed to achieve the effective extended participation of all parliamentarians must be guaranteed, whether they represent the EU or, in particular, the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states.

It is therefore with concern that we have repeatedly witnessed the failure to ensure the conditions necessary to achieve this participation, specifically with regard to interpretation services. Official languages of EU and ACP countries are frequently dropped, as has been the case with Portuguese on more than one occasion. This is a serious error, the correction of which is important.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the ACP-EU (African, Caribbean and Pacific-European Union) Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I voted resolutely in favour of this report on the work carried out by the assembly in 2009. The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a unique institution that has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in European-African relations and in North-South relations. It has succeeded in demonstrating the high quality of its work, which is based on the principles of cooperation, consultation, transparency and democratic dialogue, and on ever greater interaction between European and ACP parliamentarians. As the 20th session of this assembly begins in Kinshasa, I would like to encourage the JPA to continue its work and this cooperation. In particular, I did, of course, vote for the paragraph calling for efforts to establish an international financial transaction tax and to eradicate tax havens.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the Joly report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009. The question we should analyse in more detail concerns the JPA regional meetings. There is no doubt that these meetings are necessary. I think, however, that we should elaborate and clarify the formula for these meetings.

We should specify more clearly the working methods to be employed during regional meetings. The value of these meetings stems from the fact that they allow greater concentration on regional problems. Better specification of formal procedures will strengthen the opportunities for ACP-EU JPA regional meetings to be influential. This is precisely why we should deal with this matter. Thank you very much.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – The group which I am part of in the European Parliament has amended the original report quite substantially. It now calls on the ACP governments to include stronger clauses on non-discrimination and help fight against tax evasion and tax havens. Greater involvement of the ACP national parliaments and civil society – through financial and technical support – is needed in order to enhance the ACP-EU cooperation.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted to approve the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009, because I consider its contribution to North-South cooperation to be fundamental. In fact, the JPA has played, and continues to play, a key role in involving local authorities and bodies in the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements.

For these reasons, I join in the calls made by my fellow Members for the Commission to make every effort to provide timely information on the negotiations, in order to ensure that Parliament can participate fully in monitoring the agreements and to assist it in doing so. Lastly, I consider it vital for the European Parliament to play an informed role – and I say this not only with reference to the negotiations in this area – since it is an institution capable of ensuring the transparency of the process and of voicing the needs of local communities.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009. The strengthening of parliamentary oversight is vital to ensure that EU development funds are put to best use and contribute effectively to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), allowing MEPs to hear first hand the concerns of the ACP parliamentarians and thus contributing to greater European Parliament oversight of the Commission’s negotiations and implementation of EPAs.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) convened twice in 2009, and came to important decisions on various matters at these meetings, particularly the food and financial crisis, the situation in Somalia, climate change and the situation in Madagascar. Several working groups also met to debate a range of relevant topics, including: training for better governance, construction projects and urban re-housing, disabled people, rural tourism and minority rights in the Czech Republic. These regular meetings have become important due to their diversity and the discussion of important issues for both parties, with the aim of trying to come up with solutions for the problems faced by the most disadvantaged regions.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mrs Joly’s excellent report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which is – I repeat – a unique institution in the world by virtue of its composition and its willingness to work together to promote North-South interdependence, not only by legislative means, but also through democratic dialogue and cooperation. I should like to take advantage of this report to make the case for a tax on international financial transactions in order to help certain donors to honour their commitments in terms of official development aid and to help developing countries to make the changes necessary to cope with climate change. I would emphasise that the Monterrey Consensus in 2002, the follow-up to the Doha conference in 2008 and the High-level Plenary Meeting on the Millennium Development Goals held in New York in September 2010 issued a favourable opinion on innovative and alternative sources of financing for development and stressed the need for a balanced approach between the economic, social and environmental aspects of development.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) I have voted against the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009, because it is very vague and its wording is imprecise. In addition, it does not contain any plans for more efficient development cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP) in future. Development aid, in its current form, is a failure in 80% of cases. It has simply increased the dependency of the states in question on external aid. We need to help these states to help themselves. It must be possible for them gradually to develop a functioning national economy. The ability to feed themselves plays a major role in this context. However, this report doggedly supports the status quo, which is why I have voted against it.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries is one of the most important aspects of the European Union’s foreign policy. I am therefore sorry to learn of the financial problems affecting the ACP Group. Regardless of these problems, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is one of the most important fora today for North-South dialogue. I welcome the development of regional integration between African countries, on the one hand, and Caribbean countries, on the other, which facilitates effective dialogue between the European Parliament and the global South. In view of these aspects, and fully supporting the development of dialogue between the EU and the countries of the South, I decided to vote in favour of the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, because I believe that the assembly has played a key role and has endeavoured to find solutions to what are, at times, complicated problems. Although its role is that of an advisory body, it is an important forum and a meeting point for discussing and attempting to meet the various demands.

Of all the important reports and resolutions adopted, one need only mention those on the situation in Madagascar, on climate change, on the situation in Niger and on the second revision of the Cotonou Agreement. Worthy of note, lastly, is the resolution on the consequences of the financial crisis on ACP countries, in which it is pointed out that those countries, although in no way responsible for the global turmoil, have unfortunately ended up paying the highest price, in terms of increased costs, reduced aid from rich countries, and more expensive commodities.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the work of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2009. It is important to highlight the role of the JPA, as it has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation, contributing to strengthening open and democratic dialogue between the EU and the ACP group of states.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We have voted today, in plenary, on a motion for a resolution on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2009.

The Joint Parliamentary Assembly met twice in 2009. On these occasions, 10 resolutions and the Luanda Declaration on the second revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement were approved. During the year, two regional meetings were also held, in Guyana (Caribbean region) and in Burkina Faso (West African region) respectively.

Despite this, 2009 was blighted by the decision, adopted by the ACP Council of Ministers in December 2008, to make radical cuts to the ACP secretariat budget earmarked for staff missions. This decision considerably affected the possibility of guaranteeing services relating to JPA meetings held at sites other than Brussels.

In December 2009, the ACP Council adopted the necessary revisions to guarantee that the budget funding for 2010 was sufficient to cover two plenary sessions, one regional meeting and two additional missions at most. Given the context, it is appropriate to continue to work within this sector and examine additional and innovative sources of development finance, namely, a tax on international financial transactions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I applaud this resolution, led by our colleague, Eva Joly, where it states that it welcomes the fact that in 2009, the JPA continued to provide a framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries and calls for an enhanced political dialogue, welcomes the new Commissioner for Trade’s positive response to the request by several ACP countries and regions for a review of the contentious issues raised during negotiations on the EPA, in line with the statements made by the President of the Commission, and underlines the need for close parliamentary monitoring of the negotiations and implementation of the EPA.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) As a member of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I endorsed the report on the work of the JPA in 2009. I have a good opinion of the work of the assembly this year, including, in particular, the resolutions adopted on the effect of the global crisis on social conditions and concerning climate change.

Next week, during the 20th session of the assembly, we will be dealing, amongst other matters, with achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. As a member of the JPA Committee on Social Affairs and the Environment, I think it is essential that a comprehensive analysis be made and a wide-ranging debate entered into next year on the environmental and social situation in the ACP states. A review of existing measures will allow us to plan objectives for the coming years more effectively. In keeping with the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, I am also in favour of greater support and recognition for the African social economy.

Integration of the African social economy into the EU programme can result in a strengthening of cooperation with international organisations such as the International Labour Organisation and the World Bank, and can also lead to greater support from European public opinion for strengthening EU external aid by greater involvement of the major players of the European social economy. I think the JPA could also examine more thoroughly the role of the African social economy in eliminating poverty. I hope the JPA will be actively involved in implementation of the EU-Africa strategy.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which reviews the work done with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. With this text, the European Parliament is drawing attention to the fact that the success of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is linked to an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries.

The report also reiterates the principle of the universality of human rights and reminds the Council that the European Parliament has made repeated calls to include a stronger clause on non-discrimination in the revision of the Cotonou Agreement.

I particularly welcome the vote on an amendment calling for a financial transaction tax as a possible response to the crisis, even though I am under no illusions about the European Parliament’s contradictory votes on this issue. With this amendment, the European Parliament is calling for additional and innovative sources of financing for development, such as an international financial transaction tax, to be explored, and ‘further calls on the JPA to address the question of the eradication of tax havens’.

Let us hope that this report will not go completely unheeded and that all the European institutions will be able to refer to it in order to forge other relationships with the ACP countries.

Report: Luigi Berlinguer (A7-0252/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am approving this report, highlighting Article 67, regarding the various legal systems and practices, and access to justice, issues on which mutual recognition should contribute to better knowledge of the various legal systems and practices. I believe that enormous progress has already been made in terms of civil justice in the EU, and that this ambitious plan for the adoption of an approach to civil law that is more strategic and less fragmented should reflect the real needs of citizens and businesses. It must also take into account the difficulties of legislating in an area of shared jurisdiction, with harmonisation an option where there are overlaps.

Therefore, dedication to the various legal approaches and constitutional traditions of the various Member States must be maintained while, at the same time, an EU-level approach must be thought up in order to resolve general problems. Mention must be made of the need to ensure that measures that have already been put into practice work and progress already made needs to be consolidated, so that we can move forward coherently towards a correct and functional implementation of the Stockholm Programme.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Stockholm Programme establishes ambitious European policies on justice and security in order to build a citizens’ Europe.

The objectives include a legislative proposal on reinforced cooperation with regard to the law applicable to divorce. In Europe, 20% of divorces concern international couples. Such divorces are sometimes marred by endless red tape and a lack of clear responses from national systems. In many cases, the children and the weakest spouse suffer most from the emotional stresses and strains arising from legal action. Where possible, the best solution would be to set up a system of mediation, namely an amicable agreement between the parties. It would be appropriate to refer for this purpose to the concepts defined in Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters and the European code of conduct for mediators.

It will also be important for all citizens to gain access to up-to-date, high quality information now available in a Commission database on essential aspects of national and EU law and procedures concerned not only with separation and divorce but also mediation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Stockholm Programme seeks to create a European area of freedom, security and justice that will guarantee citizens’ fundamental rights, including freedom of enterprise, so as to develop entrepreneurship in all economic sectors. Since the Union first obtained competence for justice and home affairs, and the subsequent creation of the area of freedom, security and justice, huge progress has been made in the area of civil justice and harmonisation of the rules of private international law has advanced apace. This is very important as this area of law is the means par excellence of achieving mutual recognition of, and respect for, each others’ legal systems. I feel that the action plan presented by the European Commission is ambitious but, at the same time, it is necessary to properly assess the effectiveness and compliance with set objectives of measures already imposed, in order to satisfy the needs of citizens, business and practitioners.

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) I support the proposal of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection to include the text on the European single market in the resolution on civil, commercial, family and international private law. In my opinion, the single market helps the European area in terms of freedom, security and justice and contributes to strengthening the European model of a social market economy, but, at the same time, protects consumers. Bulgaria, which is on the fringes of the EU, is often under threat from the import of dangerous or potentially dangerous counterfeit goods. Just recently, 20 year old lamb meat was found on the Bulgarian market. And that is only one of many cases. The creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice will strengthen the single market, particularly consumer rights protection, and I urge you, ladies and gentlemen, to support the Commission in taking this into account and providing legislation which will ensure the proper functioning of the single market in the interests of consumers.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because the European Parliament calls on the Commission to ensure as effectively and swiftly as possible that the Stockholm Action Plan truly reflects the needs of Europe’s citizens, particularly as regards free movement throughout the European Union, along with employment rights, the needs of business and equal opportunities for all. I would like to stress that Union law must be at the service of citizens, notably in the areas of family and civil law, and therefore I am pleased that since the Union first obtained competence for justice and home affairs and the subsequent creation of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), huge progress has been made in the area of civil justice.

It should be pointed out that the Stockholm Programme seeks to create a European area of freedom, security and justice that will guarantee citizens’ fundamental rights, including freedom of enterprise, so as to develop entrepreneurship in all economic sectors. The time then is ripe for reflection on the future development of the AFSJ, and the European Parliament therefore calls on the Commission to initiate a wide-ranging debate involving all interested parties, including, in particular, judges and practitioners.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report contains a whole series of recommendations in the areas of civil, commercial and family law, as well as international private law. It is mainly concerned with measures designed to increase the enforceability of law in cross-border disputes and, in the spirit of the Stockholm Programme, those targeting a greater degree of cooperation between Member States’ judicial authorities. The action plan also proposes a legislative initiative to draw up a provision to increase the effectiveness of the implementation of judgments relating to the transparency of debtors’ activities, and similar provisions on the freezing of bank accounts. I consider the question of standardising information on personal circumstances in the documents of EU Member State citizens as a natural step, as it will eliminate barriers when travelling.

The report also calls on the Commission, which has set up a working group for arbitration, to consult on any legislative proposals before submitting them, as arbitration issues have a significant impact on international trade. The measures proposed in the report will help to increase the enforceability of law in the EU and I have therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Carlo Casini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I abstained from the final vote on the Berlinguer resolution because Amendment 2 was thrown out. This was extremely important for ruling out possible erroneous interpretations of item 40, which states that Parliament ‘strongly supports plans to enable the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents’. The expression could suggest, for example, a European Union-wide obligation to recognise a union between people of the same sex registered in a Member State where such a union is permitted.

In actual fact, we must distinguish between the effects of a completed legal action (in the case of marriage) and the effects of an official registration document. The latter bears full witness to what is documented (for example, that a homosexual marriage has been entered into in Holland) and this public witness is the effect of the official marital status document. However, the effects of the official registration document are something different and their recognition (for example, a survivor’s pension) is not permitted in a State that does not recognise them. Matters of family law are, in any case, part of the identity of individual states and cannot be touched by EU law. The possibility of a different interpretation led me to choose to abstain.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the huge progress that has been made in the area of civil justice since the Union first obtained competence for justice and home affairs and the area of freedom, security and justice was created. Moreover, I would congratulate the Commission on its very ambitious plan, which responds to a substantial number of the demands that Parliament has been making. It is essential to adopt a more strategic and less fragmented approach based on the real needs of citizens and businesses when exercising their rights and freedoms in the single market.

The Stockholm Action Plan must reflect these needs in respect of mobility, employment rights, the needs of business and equal opportunities, amongst other things, while promoting legal certainty and access to rapid and efficient justice. We cannot ignore the difficulties of legislating in an area of shared competence where harmonisation is only infrequently an option and overlapping needs to be avoided. Divergences between the legal approaches and constitutional traditions of the various legal systems can serve as a source of inspiration for a European legal culture, but should not constitute a barrier to the further development of European law.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) To this day, there are certain differences in the civil law of the 27 Member States and of those set to join the EU in the near future. The action plan presented is a step forward; it notes the similarities and highlights the differences so as to draw attention to the need to reduce those differences.

In particular, as regards the subjects covered by the committees of which I am a member, I believe that the creation of common rules and the implementation of an integrated judicial system are essential for guaranteeing the survival of the single market. While everyone’s legal traditions and specific characteristics should be respected, today’s challenges require, in fact, a common effort to harmonise European laws.

I therefore welcome the report, which calls on the European Commission to strive to remove the legal barriers to the exercise of rights in the Member States and to lessen the negative impact of those barriers on citizens involved in cross-border legal matters, both of which are essential conditions for the establishment of a ‘European judicial culture’, which alone can guarantee the creation of a common area of freedom, security and justice in Europe.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. – (SV) Explanation of vote: on 23 November 2010, the Swedish Conservatives voted in favour of the report (A7-0252/2010) on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme. However, we would like to emphasise that we believe a great deal of care should be taken with regard to the harmonisation of the different forms of training for the legal professions in the Member States and stress that such harmonisation does not fall within the framework of the Stockholm Programme. We also do not believe that knowledge of two languages should be a requirement to be able to practice as a lawyer. Finally, we would like to point out that party autonomy is of the utmost importance in commercial contract law and it should also remain so.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Stockholm Programme is an essential next step in the development of the European area of freedom, security and justice towards a greater focus on individuals. A greater focus that contributes not only to a more comprehensive perspective on citizenship, including respect for human beings and human dignity, but also to a perspective on the law and on justice that makes it accessible throughout the Union, so that individuals can exert their rights without any internal borders. A focus on individuals that must be guaranteed across the board, including as regards the growing phenomenon of immigration and asylum, albeit in strict compliance with the rules on civil harmony, including security. The Commission Action Plan is a consistent embodiment of the Stockholm Programme. When developing European areas of freedom, security and justice, however, respect must always be shown for the principle of subsidiarity, which encourages respect for individuals and for the traditions that form an integral part of their history. The report on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, on which we have voted, seems to me to be along these lines.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I think that it is of paramount importance to implement properly the measures envisaged by the Stockholm Programme with regard to improving the area of freedom security and justice. This can be achieved by improving judicial cooperation between Member States, promoting a European judicial culture and by resolving the various incompatibility issues between the different procedural law models which exist at Member State level. The Commission’s Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme must take into account all these aspects mentioned in the report.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it advocates specific measures promoting legal certainty and access to rapid and efficient justice. Under the Stockholm Action Plan, it is necessary to ensure that the exchange of best practices between legal systems pays particular attention to the needs of individual citizens and businesses, facilitating mobility within the EU, employment rights and equal opportunities.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The areas of civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law constitute some of the most sensitive areas of the law applicable in each of the EU Member States. I therefore think that any changes to them must be made with particular care, with the utmost consideration given to the principle of subsidiarity. European legislators must always have respect for the various legal systems, for the consensus created around them in each of the respective political communities, and for their legitimate options; they cannot and must not ignore the fact that they are dealing with peoples and nations with stable, established and deep-rooted legal systems. I therefore recommend making changes suitable and proportional to people’s actual needs, and stringent checks on the proposed plans and initiatives. While I carefully monitor the adoption of measures in this regard, I am aware that there are legal relationships that, because of their nature, are more likely to call on the laws of more than one country. I acknowledge that much of what is advocated is positive and aims at the exchange of best practices and the realisation of a true area of freedom, security and justice.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Stockholm Programme, adopted by the Council in December 2009, establishes priorities for the development of a European area of freedom, security and justice over the next five years. Union law facilitates mobility and enables the public to exercise their right to free movement, thus strengthening confidence in the European judicial area. The Commission’s Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme involves making use of the tools available following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, in order to ease daily life and business for EU citizens, reconciling the needs of the public and the internal market with the diversity of legal traditions among the Member States. I support this report, but would note that certain areas should take priority, such as civil matters and the mutual recognition of official documents.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report tackles various complex subjects based on aspects of civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law in the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme. As a result of this, our opinions about the rapporteur’s suggestions are also diverse.

Some of them seem positive to us, specifically when he refers to the need to foster debate about the problems relating to maritime, commercial and family law. It is just that in Portugal, there is also an unresolved issue, which is the specialisation of magistrates for those areas. Naturally, because of the type of issues in question, magistrates need specific training to work in family courts.

There are several problems in the commercial areas, however, and it would probably be more important to ensure trademark protection by recourse to civil jurisdiction rather than criminal. In this area in Portugal too, the delays are very long and it is acknowledged that many magistrates find it difficult to reach a decision on very specific subjects.

  Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) Explanation of vote: on 23 November 2010, the Swedish Conservatives voted in favour of the report (A7-0252/2010) on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme. However, we would like to emphasise that we believe a great deal of care should be taken with regard to the harmonisation of the different forms of training for the legal professions in the Member States and stress that such harmonisation does not fall within the framework of the Stockholm Programme. We also do not believe that knowledge of two languages should be a requirement to be able to practice as a lawyer. Finally, we would like to point out that party autonomy is of the utmost importance in commercial contract law and it should also remain so.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) We voted against this report. It is unacceptable to create a 28th regime, even if it is optional, in certain areas of civil law, in order to bypass national systems. Moreover, it is the height of hypocrisy to state that the diversity of these systems is an asset when ‘regulatory emulation’ is also recommended to allow for their convergence – or, in other words, their eventual standardisation. It is unacceptable, above all, for the free movement of persons and non-discriminatory access to the social security benefits of countries of residence to be used as a pretext for demanding mutual recognition of civil status documents, because the real aim behind this proposal is not to make life easier for European families who have moved to another EU country. The real aim is to impose same-sex marriage and adoption by homosexual couples on those Member States that do not recognise them in their own law. Family law is strictly and exclusively the responsibility of the Member States, and it must remain so. However, we must put a stop to the unilateral decisions of the German judiciary with regard to child custody when couples of mixed nationality divorce, and to the excessive, absolute power of the Jugendamt, which has been denounced in petitions submitted to us.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased at the adoption of this report, which welcomes the Stockholm Action Plan and, more specifically, the elements it contains in relation to civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law. The European Union is working to create a ‘European judicial area’, and that area is based on the idea that judgments, like people, must be able to ‘move’ within the Union, in order to help European citizens gain access to justice. This ‘common judicial area’ involves the principle of mutual recognition of judgments by Member States, and this issue of mutual recognition is crucial in areas such as family law, contracts, succession and wills, matrimonial property, and so on. These are crucial areas in everyone’s lives. Our report insists, among other things, on the importance of judicial training, legal education, the creation of networks between judges and the introduction of exchange programmes. I fully support these objectives.

  Martin Kastler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the amendments and against the Berlinguer report, because I am not sure that it provides adequate support for subsidiarity. I do not believe that we should be able to delete important details just because this is a large package of directives. This is a strategy which will backfire. For me, the crux of the matter is paragraph 40, which, in the form that it was adopted today, together with other components of the Stockholm Programme, will provoke conflicts of jurisdiction. In specific terms, there are doubts as to whether we should use family law for the mutual recognition of civil status documents, in other words, marriage certificates, and, therefore, whether we should take into account the decision-making authority of the Member States with regard to the definition of marriage, following the procedure outlined in Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

While this remains unclear, there is a risk of a conflict between the simple procedures of civil law and the complex procedures of cross-border family law. A sentence corresponding with Amendment 3 would have been sufficient to defuse this conflict. This is a detail which, unfortunately, was not supported by the majority in Parliament today. I remain of the opinion that marriage and family life are under the specific protection of the state. They are exclusively a matter for the Member States. Therefore, I have voted against this own-initiative report.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – This resolution calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that Parliament is fully consulted on the organisation and arrangement of judicial training. This initiative will aid the concept of a European judicial culture so that the entire citizenry of the EU will be treated fairly and with dignity.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme because I consider the progress made in relation to the area of freedom, security and justice to be crucial. Since its creation, in fact, huge progress has been made in the area of justice, including civil justice.

I believe that the different legal approaches and constitutional traditions of the Member States must be respected, but I also believe that the existence of such differences should be considered a strong point on which to focus in order to achieve the aim of developing European law further. In this respect, the European judicial community must be involved, since its contribution should strengthen the idea of a real European judicial culture, through the sharing of knowledge and the study of comparative law.

I therefore fully support the proposal to create a forum in which judges who frequently deal with cross-border issues, such as admiralty, commercial, family and personal injury cases, could hold discussions and expand their knowledge. Lastly, I believe that, on the basis of these preconditions, the Stockholm Action Plan should be focused on fully satisfying the demand for European justice voiced by individual citizens and individual businesses when exercising their rights and freedoms.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Stockholm Programme (2010-2015), when viewed from the perspective of cooperation within the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), in reality lays the future foundations of European supremacy in many areas with the aim of removing any remaining obstacles to ‘free movement’ between the EU Member States. Whether it be fundamental rights, privacy, minority rights, ‘European Union citizenship’ or asylum and immigration policy, this confused assortment in fact serves as a pretext for encouraging the federalist ambition of a European bureaucratic superstate. I maintain that the law and all habits and customs are a fundamental part of the spirit and identity of a people and a sovereign nation. To support the idea of obscure European harmonisation, particularly in relation to civil and family law, would be tantamount to denying the sacrifices made and the ground won over the centuries. Since, for the time being, it still enjoys some of the highest legal and social protection standards in the world, France will not benefit from any progress made by remaining the victim of pro-European, globalist and ultraliberal stubbornness.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the adoption of this report on the Stockholm Programme, which stresses the need to ensure mutual recognition of official documents issued by national administrations. This will include same-sex unions, meaning that partners in same-sex unions can act as next of kin in case of accidents abroad and, where appropriate, have equal rights to tax benefits while living or working in another Member State.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) The aims of the Stockholm Programme and its implementation plan are positive. In my opinion, one of the main reasons is the fact that the aim of the programme is to create a foundation and conditions under which EU citizens can make full use of, and enforce, their rights and freedoms. The implementation of the Stockholm Programme has, and will continue to have, its difficulties. On the one hand, there is the objective need to unify legislation (for example, in the area of the right to freedom of movement), and, on the other, there is the danger of abuse through differing interpretations of the unified legal norms. The initiative of the Stockholm Programme aimed at securing recognition of official documents by Member States can be welcomed. However, this mechanism must not come into direct conflict with the basic regulations of Member States, particularly in the area of family law. In view of the fact that family law reflects a tradition going back many years and a hard-won social consensus, it is not acceptable for Member State sovereignty in this area to be breached, albeit by well-intentioned unification schemes. Further development should be aimed at ensuring that the unified law does not lead to reduced standards in terms of the rights (civil, social, etc.) that exist in Member States at various levels. It is also necessary to ensure that the unification of regulations does not lead to the possibility of launching property claims and violating state integrity, and there must be a clear definition as to how and by whom the enforceability of unified European regulations will be ensured.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The areas of civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law constitute some of the most sensitive areas of the law applicable in the different EU Member States. I abstained from voting on this report as I believe it is vital that the principle of subsidiarity is always present in these matters, especially those that relate to family law and when addressing issues such as mutual recognition of matrimonial and family law.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) What do we intend to improve about the level of European judicial cooperation as we currently know it? The document adopted sheds light on the most important parts of the Commission’s plans. It underlines the tasks that lie before us in the upcoming period from the perspective of the citizens. As a politician and a teacher, I agree that communications between higher education institutions require further improvement, so that the new generation of jurists are already in a position to familiarise themselves with the diversity of European legal culture during their years at university. It is in the interest of Member States to further perfect the judicial area. The energy invested in education has a bearing on the effectiveness of the justice system. We must make efforts to ensure that the resources required for training are available everywhere. The main contributors to the removal of obstacles to cross-border cooperation can be those professionals who have experience gained abroad, coupled with the appropriate language skills. Trust in Member States’ systems can be improved by learning about them. Students must be sensitised to participate in foreign exchange programmes.

It is of vital importance to support fora which aim to develop professional dialogue. Representatives of the legal professions must be given an opportunity to continuously express their opinion regarding an area based on freedom, security and justice. It is they who face the relevant problems in practice. It is they to whom we direct our questions concerning the fruits of the measures taken so far. As representatives of the interests of citizens, we must strive to ensure that the EU does not conjure an image of a legislative maze in people’s minds. Legislation on consumers and enterprises should indeed be for them and about them.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Paragraph 40 of the report on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme represents a serious intrusion into national law, by calling for same-sex marriages and partnerships which are entered into in a specific Member State to be recognised in all other Member States. Clever wording is being used to smuggle this measure in through the back door. In the German version of the motion and, I suspect, in many other language versions, the actual aim of this paragraph is not nearly as clear as it should be. Since I am opposed to gay marriage out of principle and, in particular, to this deceitful style of politics, I have voted against this paragraph and against the report. The report could become an incentive for partnership tourism, in the same way as has already happened with adoption and artificial insemination.

Entering into a partnership in a country where rights and claims equivalent to those of marriage have the force of law will allow the partners to make claims in their country of origin which only apply to marriage there. The ultimate consequence of this resolution would be to make the existence of different regulations in different countries totally absurd.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report deals with a topic of utmost importance, which is the way the EU meets the needs of its citizens and commercial companies in the area of the law, with particular reference to cross-border civil and commercial disputes. However, I regret that I did not find in the report’s content any reference to the actions required to inform citizens or company administrators about the opportunities offered to them by European legislation with regard to pursuing their interests in judicial proceedings. Not enough is known about these opportunities and, therefore, they are not utilised enough. It is important to focus on magistrates and lawyers, but it does not ensure that citizens have total access to this information.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of adopting the report on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme. Ever since the EU gained powers in the field of justice and internal affairs, and since the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice, for which the EU and the Member States are currently jointly competent, significant progress has been made in the field of civil law. The European Commission communication entitled ‘An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen’ (COM(2009)0262) proposed an ambitious plan for development of the aforesaid area in the period 2010-2014.

There can be no doubt that further progress in this area will necessitate a more strategic approach, targeted primarily at the needs of citizens and businesses with regard to exercising rights and freedoms in the single market. Progressive harmonisation, approximation and standardisation are required, for example, in the field of consumer protection. It goes without saying that the radically different legal systems and traditions must be respected and reconciled when ensuring the functionality of measures that have already been introduced. However, I believe that their coexistence should be regarded as a strength and inspiration when creating common solutions for European legislation, rather than a hindrance. In order to meet the challenges, the Commission should conduct an open debate with various representatives of the judicial system, including, in particular, legal professionals.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the Berlinguer report insofar as it concerns aspects of fundamental importance for enabling a shift towards a Europe of the citizens and for promoting the development of a European judicial culture.

In particular, the report addresses in a balanced and exhaustive way issues concerning the training of judges; cooperation between judicial authorities; European contract law; fundamental rights, including freedom of enterprise, so as to develop entrepreneurship in all economic sectors; and the mutual recognition of official documents issued by national administrations, including the effects of civil status documents.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The Stockholm Programme aims to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens in an area of freedom, security and justice. However, the differences in the various legal systems of the Member States are creating barriers to the development of European legislation. That is why I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution, which proposes the convergence and harmonisation of civil, commercial, family and private international law and focuses on cooperation between the various legal systems of the Member States by:

• nurturing a common European judicial culture;

• educating and training judges, prosecutors and other court officers, with the aim of building mutual understanding of the legal systems of the other Member States and resolving cross-border disputes;

• creating a regular forum so that judges in areas of law where cross-border issues arise can examine areas of legal controversy or difficulty with the aim of building a climate of mutual confidence;

• introducing a European contract law;

• introducing cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Stockholm Programme adopted in December 2009 establishes the priorities for the development of a European area of freedom, security and justice over the next five years. In this context, it is important to point out the significant results that have already been achieved, and to hope that the recommended measures can help to respond to the real needs of the public and businesses, facilitating their mobility and the exercise of their rights and freedoms in the single market, without jeopardising the requirements of the principle of subsidiarity and respect for diversity of the legal approaches and constitutional traditions of the different Member States.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we voted in plenary on a proposal for a resolution on positive law aspects of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme, in other words, European Union priorities for the development of an area of freedom, security and justice in the period 2010-2014 with particular regard to aspects of civil, commercial and private international law.

The dossier calls on the Commission to improve the proposal submitted in an attempt to overcome certain problems and critical areas that occur specifically in international judicial practice. Assisting national judges on technical aspects of the proposed measures during legislative drafting and the establishment of an independent European claims instrument, which would, amongst other things, make it possible to resolve, at least partly, problems raised by differences of opinion in national procedural law, are specific examples of the constructive and approving approach that a common and extensively discussed proposal for a resolution could have on European legislation.

In an area as important to citizens as civil law, it is necessary to respect and accommodate radically different legal approaches and constitutional traditions but it is also necessary to face up to the negative legal consequences for citizens arising out of this difference.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This is a good regulation calling mainly for the use of every possible means to nurture a European judicial culture, particularly through legal education and training.

  Marco Scurria (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I hope that the actions identified in the Action Plan will be carried forward within the planned timeframe considering their importance for improving the lives of European citizens. In particular, Italy has always supported the need to develop mutual trust between Member States of the Union and is in favour of continuing to extend EU regulations in the sector of justice and internal affairs.

From this perspective, we strongly support the approach of the whole Action Plan, which hinges on the principle of mutual recognition of decisions, to be achieved by strengthening mutual trust. I would also emphasise the need to use all possible means to foster a European judicial culture, particularly through legal teaching and training.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I would like to express my satisfaction over the importance attributed to matters concerning civil law, such as the legislative proposal on reinforced cooperation in the divorce law sector and the recognition and creation of official public documents on inheritance. I am particularly pleased to see the emphasis placed on the need to introduce specific actions and programmes to promote an effective European judicial culture, based on the supply of training measures, to be held under Erasmus schemes for judges and all legal operators.

The actions identified in the plan are very important for improving the guarantees of European citizens in respect of the law, but it is necessary to adopt a more strategic and less fragmentary approach based on the real needs of citizens and enterprises in the exercising of their rights. While, on the one hand, we must consider the difficulties of legislating in a harmonised manner within an area of shared responsibility, on the other, we need to extend EU regulations in the sector of justice and internal affairs. In this way, the parameters of legal certainty will be increasingly clear and supported and we will pave the way for a genuinely common legal theory and practice with a European Union.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Thanks to the Stockholm Programme, the citizens of Member States will be able to assert their rights throughout the European Union in the fields of civil, commercial and labour law. The programme offers advantages and greater transparency to citizens. It also improves the consistency of our system of legal regulations in the European Union.

However, in order to build systems which are more uniform, it is essential that there be greater coordination of what we do and that experience be exchanged between the countries of the Union. This concerns, to a large degree, the justice system, including the extremely important questions of migration and the fight against organised crime. A very important matter, particularly during the current economic problems, will be development of effective mechanisms of action in the area of strengthening the single market and economic integration, by which I mean more liberal principles of commercial exchange between the countries of the European Union and the establishment of legislation on commercial exchange between third countries. From the point of view of the participants of economic processes, it is necessary, above all, to specify businesses’ and consumers’ rights of protection and to continue to monitor effectively the implementation and enforcement of legal regulations in the area of the single market.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Since the European Union acquired shared competence over justice and home affairs, huge progress has been made in the area of civil justice. Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes the importance of respecting the different legal systems and traditions within the EU and Mr Berlinguer’s report highlights this as one of the strengths of the EU. Subsidiarity is one of the basic principles of EU law and is based on the condition that the subordinate member is able to resolve problems and carry out tasks independently. The areas of justice and home affairs have traditionally been the responsibility of the Member States. Each Member State has its own special features and traditions which reflect the cultural diversity of Europe. However, in order to keep pace with the changing reality in today’s world, joint responsibility with the European Union is needed.

Nowadays, treaties with cross-border implications are the rule and partnerships or families where the partners come from different Member States are commonplace. However, these involve challenges for national civil legislation which we will have to overcome. As the rapporteur recommends, it is now time to develop a European judicial culture alongside the national judicial cultures.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) It is a pity that this Parliament has decided simply to withdraw the debate on the Stockholm Programme from the agenda. Where there is no opportunity to debate, there is no opportunity to put questions. Also, if we do not allow a critical exchange of views on the integration process, it will only reinforce the concerns of many Member State citizens. One of these concerns is the talk about creating a civil-law statute of marriage. Many family associations in all Member States are pointing out that the mechanism of the Stockholm Programme may therefore be taken advantage of by same-sex couples. This question can be resolved not only within the framework of civil law procedures and private international law, but also through the complex procedure of family law under Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. If the Stockholm Programme is misused for this purpose, it would amount to an indirect change in legislation, which is precisely what the Union has long been fighting against. The Commission and the Council must therefore explain that neither the socio-legal mechanisms nor the Stockholm Protocol will ever lead to the creation of a statute of marriage for same-sex couples. If we want to build a strong Union, it must not be at the cost of restricting Member State powers or the common good. The ECR Group has submitted proposals for amendment which emphasise the powers of the Member States. Unless these proposals are adopted, I will vote against the submitted report.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13:05 and resumed at 15:05)

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

11. Statement by the President

  President. – I shall start with a short announcement.

I strongly condemn the attack by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea against the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. I am deeply concerned regarding today’s events on the Korean Peninsula. Using raw force and military power will not solve any issues and further loss of human lives must be avoided.

In the interests of the Korean Peninsula and the wider region, the North and South should make efforts to rebuild confidence in a durable way. This is why I welcome the announcement by President Lee Myung-bak that the South Korean Government intends to avoid escalation of the worrying situation.

I call on the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately stop any hostile actions and to refrain from all activities that risk further escalation. The Korean Armistice Agreement must be fully respected by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

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

13. 2011 budget (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the 2011 budget [2010/2972(RSP)].

I would like to begin our discussion. Mr Barroso, Mr Wathelet, Mr Chastel, during the conciliation meetings, the European Parliament and the Council did not manage to reach agreement on the 2011 budget. We regret this. Agreement could have been reached.

The European Parliament is aware of the need to make savings. We were prepared to agree to limiting the growth of payment appropriations in the 2011 budget to 2.91% compared to 2010. In return, we wanted to establish a method of bringing the Treaty of Lisbon into force, and specifically we wanted to establish which procedures should be followed in further budget negotiations. This is important, because the Treaty of Lisbon is in force. We did not want to go beyond the treaty in any way. We know that the majority of Member States wanted this agreement.

Now we have to decide as quickly as possible how to solve the problem that we have no budget. This is the responsibility of all three European institutions. We have said that a fast track is possible for Parliament, but only if our expectations concerning procedures for the next budget negotiations are guaranteed.

In the last few days, we have witnessed considerable progress in terms of talks with the Council. I am sure that an agreement is within reach. The European Parliament is ready to do a very great deal in order to reach this agreement as quickly as possible. We ended the negotiations on 15 November shortly before midnight with the expectation from Parliament that we want to find good solutions to two fundamental matters: flexibility mechanisms, in order to ensure financing of policies resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon, and also solutions related to the participation of Parliament in the process of negotiating successive multiannual financial frameworks.

We also have such expectations regarding the proposals related to own resources for the European Union. We think the European Commission could adopt a decisive role in this matter. I am certain that thanks to a mutual readiness to talk, we will reach agreement. I would like to emphasise once again that I think the role of the European Commission is crucial. Therefore, it is with interest that we await Mr Barroso’s speech, in which he will present both the proposed new budget, which is to be put to the vote on 1 December, and a response to Parliament’s main expectations. Of course, what is to be said by the Presidency – by Mr Wathelet – will also be of particular importance to us, as will what Mr Chastel has to say, too.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the budget comes at a time when our fellow citizens are having doubts because of the weakness of their currency and when Europe is rightly rallying in support of the Irish economy.

Contrary to what may have been said about the European Parliament’s objectives in these negotiations, this is not about power struggles or institutional disputes, nor is it about ignoring the difficulties faced by our Member States or the public debt crisis from which we are all suffering. No, it is about ensuring that Europe can honour its commitments. Commitments in the social sphere, and here I am thinking of education and lifelong learning; commitments to the victims of natural disasters, and here I am thinking of assistance for countries affected by food riots; and commitments to programmes that create jobs and growth, such as Galileo and ITER.

The reality is that, by looking at things from an accounting point of view rather than from a political point of view, the few Member States that continue to block the negotiations are harming the interests of the 500 million Europeans. By making the European Parliament out to be the villain of the piece, and by suggesting that it wants to spend at a time when the Member States are tightening their belts, that it wants to exercise the powers conferred on it by the Treaty of Lisbon to the detriment of saving and of Europeans, they are diverting attention from the reality of the problems that exist.

What is that reality? It is that the latest economic forecasts offer no hope of a return, by 2020, to the strong, sustainable and inclusive growth that the European Union set itself as an objective.

It is also a fact that the current draft budget makes no provision for the financing of the new powers conferred on the Union by the Treaty of Lisbon and fails to fulfil our requests to proceed with the mid-term review of the financial cycle laid down in the 2007-2013 agreement.

Lastly, it is a fact that the draft budget makes no – and I mean no – financial provision for the 2020 strategy.

In short, the Council is adopting programmes without making any financial provision for them. Moreover, when the President of the European Parliament reminds it of its obligations, it takes offence, but when a local, regional or national authority approves projects without financing them, that authority is condemned. Why, I ask you, would something that is unacceptable at local or national level be acceptable at European level?

Is this a way of reconciling our citizens with Europe? I do not think so. I say clearly to the Commission and, above all, to the Council: do not count on my group, do not count on this House voting for programmes that do not have guaranteed funding. My group wants a return to common sense and a balanced agreement to be reached. It must be a comprehensive agreement that relates, at the same time, to the 2011 budget, the 2010 amending budget and its associated letters of amendment, the flexibility procedure and, finally, the guarantees regarding the financing of future policies, which we call the political section.

I would stress that our proposals on this political section do not involve any changes to the current treaties, nor do they anticipate in any way the amount, origin or distribution of future EU funds. I would also stress that reopening the debate on own resources is not a new proposal by Parliament, but a decision taken by the Council itself in May 2006, following the agreement reached in December 2005 under the UK Presidency.

My group fully supports the objective not only of capping but also of reducing the Member States’ budget contributions. Indeed, the extremely serious nature of the debt crisis must lead to a complete overhaul of European public finances. This is not just about dividing up tasks between national budgets and European budgets; it is also about seeking out all possible forms of mutualisation in order to make savings.

Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) supports the two demands made by the Council on 15 October: for the EU budget to contribute to common financial discipline and for the funding of European objectives to be guaranteed. That is all we are aiming for in the negotiations on the 2011 budget, and we are confident that an agreement can be reached if the Council Presidency negotiates effectively with its colleagues in Brussels.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I think that the crisis in which we currently find ourselves was triggered by events in Deauville. I believe that the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany made a deal with David Cameron in Deauville which involved his agreement to the revision of the treaty for the Stability and Growth Pact in return for the United Kingdom’s budget demands being met. I may be wrong, but the suspicion is there. This would be a deal made at the expense of third parties, in other words, at the expense of the rights of the European Parliament. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the third party, in this case this House, is not prepared to go along with this.

Incidentally, it should also be no surprise that the fate of Europe is being left in the hands of eurosceptic governments. In this sort of situation, a government of this kind will test out how far it can go. The British Government is currently testing out whether the rest of Europe will accept its prerogatives or not. Therefore, this budget or budget debate is also a debate about the direction in which the European Union should develop. It is not about money. We have agreed on the money. I believe that this is an important message for the voters and the citizens of Europe. We have come to an agreement on the money and, as a Parliament, we have met the demands of the United Kingdom with regard to the money: a 2.91% increase in spending, not the commitment appropriations, but the expenditure.

If not money, then what is it all about? It is about the rights of the European Parliament. It is about the rights which are laid down in the treaty. Everything that Parliament is calling for forms part of the treaty. The subject of own resources is covered in Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Medium-term financial planning is a procedure established in the treaty, for which a regulation must be enacted. Flexibility in the budget involves the mutual interest of governments, the Commission and Parliament and their ability, within the framework of budgetary rules, to respond flexibly to short-term requirements. It is not about additional spending; it is about how efficiently Europe is governed, at least that is the case with flexibility, and it is about the primary rights of Parliament.

I am rather surprised. The Heads of Government of the European Union are all parliamentarians. They are all men and women who have grown up in the parliamentary tradition. As Mr Daul has already said, which national parliament would allow its central right, the right to draw up a budget, to be interfered with by the will of the executive? The 27 governments of the European Union are executives. However, we must not allow democracy in Europe to be turned upside down. Parliament enacts the budget and Parliament controls the executive. The wish of the British Government in this case is for the 27 governments to control the Parliament, which is the opposite of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, this decision could set a precedent. Parliament must not allow its rights to be taken away.

What happens next? After European taxpayers’ money has been transferred to Brussels from the coffers of the Member States, it no longer belongs to the Member States. It is the EU’s money. It must then be controlled by Parliament within the Union. After this, the budget must be adopted by Parliament, because the European budget is not adopted by 27 national parliaments or by 27 national governments, but by a freely elected Parliament, in other words, this House.

Medium-term financial planning, the flexibility clause and the own resources are the three elements which we need to discuss with the Council, not the money. We have talked about this over the last few hours. I would like to make it very clear once again that Mr Lamassoure and the chairs of the groups have made a great effort to enable us to take what is, in my opinion, a relatively consistent line. However, we must not now give up this line. We must make it clear to the Council that these three elements concern our rights and not additional spending. Any Parliament which allows its rights to be curtailed by a government of any kind should cease to function.

Therefore, my group has unanimously decided that either we will agree on these demands, which are nothing more than an attempt to reinforce Parliament’s rights, or there will be no budget. If there is no budget, there will be no ITER project, no nuclear fusion reactor. There will be no Galileo project and there will be no European External Action Service.

The Heads of Government have the choice. They can either recognise the rights of Parliament and its projects or they can humiliate Parliament, in which case there will be no budget. That is the unanimous line taken by my group.

(Applause)

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

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Mr President, I wonder whether the House would agree that, constitutionally speaking, there is another interpretation of the whole idea of separation of powers and checks and balances? In the international arena and on the European political scene, we cannot simply transfer the national model of separation of powers and checks and balances.

The way I see it – and I wonder whether colleagues would agree with me – is that, in a system of separation of powers and checks and balances, the Council actually represents nation states, and whatever remains after the Lisbon Treaty of the sovereignty and independence of nation states. It acts on behalf of nations, whose governments are elected.

In European democracies, governments are elected via a democratic, electoral system. On behalf of their nations and their peoples, they exercise a check and counterbalance the power of Parliament. Would the House not agree that there is another interpretation of checks and balances?

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, there are many interpretations, Mrs Morvai. That much is completely obvious. It may be that your interpretation of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU is different from mine. However, this is not about the interpretation, but about the application of the treaty and this includes a clear budgetary procedure. Incidentally, you are, as far as I know, a member of the Hungarian Jobbik party, or if not, then a member of another party. Please explain to the voters in your country that if we adopt the EU budget, then it will actually be possible to pay out the cohesion funds within the European Union in the long term. If there were no budget, then the funding could not be made available.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, in December 2005, there was a Prime Minister who sat here in the House. I think one thing we all learned is that we really need to see a seriously reformed budget for the future. Let us all together – the Commission, the Council, Member States and the European Parliament – work out how, in the next few years, we can build a consensus for a changed and reformed Europe in which the budget is a rational part of the future and not an unfortunate piece of horse-trading.

Well, that Prime Minister was Tony Blair, the man who made the last deal on the financial perspectives. Here we are now five years later. What Mr Blair said is the essential thing that Parliament wants to achieve: the engagement of the EU institutions and all involved parties to reinvent the financing of the Union and to base this financing on rational grounds and not on a horse-trading competition, which is the case today.

On the figures, let us be very clear. It is no secret that Parliament could be ready to accept the Council figures, of course, within a broader deal. But we need also to agree on a second element, colleagues, which is flexibility. Let us be very clear on this. That flexibility is not a concession from the Council side; flexibility is necessary, indispensable, otherwise we cannot finance a number of important issues. What is more is that flexibility is an ‘acquis’. It forms part of the interinstitutional agreement that we have already. In fact, the Council has broken its word by refusing this now in this budget. Finally, and this is the most important thing, we must agree on the future financing of the Union.

Therefore, the issue of own resources must be reopened; no doubt about it. Let me be clear that own resources is not a question of changing the treaties. Own resources is also not a question of new competences. It is a question of applying the existing treaties and it is a question of financing existing competences, because the Union was always meant to have its own revenue. Mrs Merkel, Mr Sarkozy and Mr Cameron do not know this, but the Union was founded with its own revenue. That was the basis of the financing of the Union by the founding fathers.

However, we all know that with time and a contribution from a certain Iron Lady, the Union lost the link to its own resources, so instead we now have absurd discussions about who benefits more and who benefits less from the Union. Not seeking the EU interest but only focusing on the net payment position of every single Member State is what the budget is today in the European Union.

That is called business for the moment in the budget issues of the Union. This way of acting is killing the Union – it is destroying the spirit of unity in the Union and it is destroying the solidarity in the Union. I repeat we can only require genuine own resources which can also lead to what a number of countries want, which is to have less national contributions. If we do not change the system, governments and not citizens will stay in charge. If, on the contrary, we go in the direction of own resources, not governments, but citizens will be in charge. In short, you could say that own resources for Europe colleagues means more European democracy; it is the basis for a modern European democracy.

So I have one request to you Mr Barroso. My request is very simple. Whatever the format is – a convention, a conference, an IGC with or without national parliaments – do not listen to the voices of the past. Go for the future, use your right of initiative and put a formal proposal on the table as fast as possible. The pro-European majority in this House is fully behind you and behind that initiative.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, I believe that if we listen carefully to what everyone is saying, we are at a turning point in the history of the European Union. The problem with the budget today, as everyone has said in his or her own way, is a problem to do with the idea of the development of the European idea. It is not just a budget. What is more, there is something amiss in the idea of the European Union, and it is always apparent in public debates.

We are witnessing the renationalisation – the completely absurd renationalisation – of European activities. Why? Because – and we are all saying it – you want the European Union to successfully resolve problems that you are no longer able to resolve at national level but, at the same time, you want to give the resources for the task not to the European Parliament, but to the European Union.

That is why we say that we are not defending Parliament’s rights, but only the rights of the European Union and the need for the European Union. That is why whereas, today, we are agreeing on three points, we actually need to agree on one thing, here, together: whether to take it or leave it. Moreover, even if it takes two, three or four months – and it will be tough for everyone – we shall approve the European budget only if there is an agreement on the points we are raising.

Let us not be afraid, then, if it takes a long time and if, as may happen, we do not vote on the budget in December, or even in January or February. If we launch this debate but stop halfway through, we will lose out for the next four years.

I therefore call on everyone to be responsible with regard to own resources, and Mr Verhofstadt has explained this. It is, after all, quite simple, and that is why Mr Lamassoure’s idea of an agreement is interesting, because debates must be held in the European public arena with the national parliaments, with government representatives and with Commissioners. Own resources represent an opportunity to reduce – I shall say it three times – to reduce – that time, it was for the benefit of all the conservatives – to reduce national contributions and, at the same time, to strengthen the European budget. After all, it is not complicated!

Therefore, if we can get that message across in the European area, the people of Europe will agree with us. I repeat: we need to reduce national contributions and strengthen the European budget. Yes, there will be European taxes, indeed there will, but the austerity measures you are currently introducing at national level will be disastrous for you anyway, because we have known for years that austerity kills economic momentum and ultimately achieves nothing. I therefore beg you: let us not cripple Europe, because the governments are already crippling their own economies at home.

My final comment concerns Ireland. Ireland symbolises the failure of neoliberalism; it symbolises the failure of deregulation. For years, with Mr Griffith, you have been driving us mad with your ‘deregulate, deregulate, reduce corporation tax’. Well, have you got it yet? This is an economic disaster, and now what is the Irish Government doing? It is crying ‘Mummy, mummy, Europe, help us!’

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Lajos Bokros, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I would like to reassure Mr Cohn-Bendit that we understand what it takes not to have a budget. Contrary to what many people may think, the ECR Group would be delighted to see an agreement between the two arms of the budgetary authority. We feel that it is a shame not to have a budget after all these arduous conciliation talks, because the 500 million taxpayers in Europe do not understand why these two distinguished arms of the budgetary authority cannot reach an agreement in the Lisbon Treaty’s very first year of application.

I think the responsibility lies with both sides. Parliament does not have to force governments to enter into political commitments that they are unfortunately unable or – for whatever reason – unwilling to make at this point in the midst of a crisis. Nor does Parliament have to enforce these commitments over a longer period of time.

On the other hand, I can also say that the Council has its fair share of responsibility, because a week ago, when we were negotiating in the conciliation, not a single ambassador bothered to make any statement explaining the views of his or her own government. Therefore, it was a kind of dialogue between two sides which were not even stating their own proposals.

The Commission is preparing a new draft based on the 2.91% growth figure. At this point, I should like to acknowledge and express my appreciation for the tremendous work Commissioner Lewandowski is doing in that respect. We can reach a compromise if we can agree to use flexibility – which is not a good use of terminology, by the way, because we should be using ‘reserve’ – as part of the interinstitutional agreement for the remaining three years to finance ITER and a few other key projects.

At the same time, Parliament could decide not to force any political declaration on the Council which is unacceptable to several key governments at this time. That is how we can reach a compromise. I think Mr Wathelet is working very hard on this. I can only encourage you to pursue this, Mr Wathelet, because it will be an even bigger shame if we cannot reach an agreement before the end of this year.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – (Blue card question to Mr Cohn-Bendit under Rule 149(8)). Mr President, it is indeed and I think you failed to catch my eye. I have a comment and a question to Mr Cohn-Bendit, lest you think that Irish ears are not listening to you.

Would you accept that your comments in relation to corporation tax will harm, rather than help, this situation? Rather than your disparaging remarks about the Irish looking for help, do you not accept that by helping Ireland, is the European Union helping herself? I say that as an Irish mammy because I think you used that comment. Let us be very adult in this House about what we say about other nation states, with respect.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (Replying to a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

Mr President, Europe is a political body. We have nation states with their own policies and we discuss policies. I will continue to say that one of the reasons for the catastrophe in Ireland was the wrong economic policies. Greens also participated in this to make it wrong. I know that. I can say it clearly. I am not blind, and I will continue to say that it was the wrong policy. If you pursue a wrong policy and it leads to a catastrophe, it is fair to say that it was the wrong policy. If it had been the right policy, you would not be in this catastrophe.

The others who are responsible are the European banks. They played casino, but if you lose money as a normal human being in a casino, you have lost money. Now the banks are saying that they want their money back too, and we are in a complicated situation because we want to help the Irish people, but we have to say that it is because of the system that we are criticising that we are now where we are in Ireland.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the supporters of the Treaty of Lisbon have emphasised the fact that it does away with the democratic deficit in the EU. In reality, the first year has shown that the European Parliament has had to fight with the Council and the Commission simply to achieve parliamentary codecision and democratic control.

The codecision of Parliament on all budgetary questions is a democratic minimum standard. I repeat: it is a minimum standard. This Parliament was elected to bring the European ideal to life and to act as a counterbalance to national egotism. It is our duty not to compromise which it comes to the involvement of the European Parliament in the negotiations concerning the financial framework for the 2013 to 2020 budgets.

New tasks cannot be financed by budget reallocations, or at least only to a very limited extent. When faced by the tight budgets in the Member States, it is completely incomprehensible that the Council is refusing to discuss the own resources with Parliament.

The European budget must be a concrete representation of the solidarity of the Member States. Otherwise, we will move away from the fundamental idea of European integration and lose the respect of the citizens of Europe. The net contributors seem to have forgotten this. While their companies are making profits on the European internal market, Germany and other countries are being thoroughly miserly when it comes to overcoming the joint challenges faced by Europe. Solidarity has been redefined and one Member State will only help the others when this is to its own advantage.

The German banks are so deeply enmeshed in the crisis in the Irish financial sector that the lifeline is just as important for the rescuers as it is for those being rescued. In recent years, my group has rejected the EU budget. We believe that its priorities are wrong and that too little attention has been paid to overcoming the decline in environmental and social prosperity. This has deepened the social divide within the EU and within the Member States.

It is totally unacceptable for major projects such as ITER to be financed at the expense of projects which provide direct funding for students, the unemployed, rural areas and local communities. To summarise, it is high time, and I admit this is a somewhat simplistic way of putting it, for us to think more closely about the people of Europe in European terms and not in egotistic national terms.

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

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have a question for Mr Bisky. Companies make profits when they manufacture products or provide services which are bought by citizens. Is your alternative to this that companies should make losses and manufacture products which no one needs?

  Lothar Bisky (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, I understand your economic questions, Mr Rübig, and they are very profound in economic terms, which I respect. However, I believe that this is about the relationship between the budget and the European Parliament and its rights. That is a different subject. It has to do with products, but in a quite different sense.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, let us be honest. Negotiations on next year’s budget collapsed due to this Parliament’s ambition to acquire more power over the financing of the European Union, even though those powers are not provided for in the Lisbon Treaty. Such a demand – which translates into the proposal for a European tax – is, and has always been, unacceptable to us.

There have been threats to block funding to the Member States which refuse to agree to Parliament’s demands. Believe me, this would be the best news we could give to British and all European taxpayers – those who eventually fund both national contributions and a European tax. The auditors have refused to clear 92% of the European Union’s expenditure for 2009, and they estimate that at least GBP 6 billion should not have been paid out – a similar amount to that of last year, which has not yet been recovered. Blocking funding for those who used EU money irregularly would give the European Union enough resources to cover the noble causes that it claims it wants to support. At the same time, it would also give the European bureaucracy a certain degree of credibility. But this, I fear, will never happen.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, three equal partners are sitting around the negotiating table for the 2011 budget: the Council, the Commission and Parliament. The European Parliament has agreed to the budget increase of 2.9% proposed by the Council, but only in combination with a political package. In the context of the Treaty of Lisbon, this is a highly justified demand. With regard to the extent of the increase, I think it is important to make it clear that we are still working with an EU budget volume which goes back to the time when there were 15 Member States and, therefore, it is geared to a Union of this size. However, there are now 27 states in the Union with a range of new tasks to be taken into account.

In the light of the economic crisis, it seems incomprehensible that we are increasing the EU budget. However, we have to take into consideration the fact that almost 95% of the money is returned to the citizens of Europe in the form of direct aid, for example, via the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. It must ultimately be clear to everyone that the current budgetary situation in some of the Member States is self-imposed. The fact is that without a 2011 budget, the three financial supervisory bodies cannot be funded. Given the current drama in Ireland, it would have been good if these organisations could have begun work yesterday.

  Melchior Wathelet, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by saying that no one can take pleasure in this lack of conciliation on 15 November. It is true that we would have preferred to have had an entirely different debate today, with the end of a conciliation procedure that might have culminated in an agreement and in the possibility of this budget being passed in the European Parliament also.

It is true that we were certainly all disappointed that this conciliation procedure was not a success. At the same time, however, I have heard both within the Commission, which has acted as a facilitator, which has truly played its role of facilitator all throughout the procedure, and especially within Parliament, a desire and a reminder of this strong desire to succeed and to seek success rather than failure. I have also heard it within the Council.

It is therefore true that the Belgian Presidency, immediately after the failure – we must clearly regard it as such – of 15 November, sought to resume immediate contact and to press ahead in a bid to ensure that this first budgetary procedure based on the Treaty of Lisbon is a success rather than a failure. However, I would remind you that every single one of us will always be able to find reasons not to succeed, and that is how the conciliation process broke down. Parliament will always be able to find proposals that the Council has made that it does not agree with, and the Council will always be able to find certain proposals that Parliament has made that are unsatisfactory.

There will always be a way not to succeed. However, I have heard both institutions express a desire to succeed. It is important now that we all assume our responsibilities and successfully conclude this agreement rather than remain stuck in this rut.

Once again, what message would we send if we failed to conclude this conciliation with an agreement? What image would the European Union project convey to the outside world, in this particularly unstable and difficult economic context, if it were unable, at this difficult time, to stick together, as it were, and make the necessary compromises between institutions in order to conclude a budget, in order to successfully conclude an agreement between our various institutions?

Let us make no mistake: aside from image, aside from an initial failure linked to this budgetary procedure based on the Treaty of Lisbon, there would also be very real consequences – and they would affect the people of Europe in particular. Some of these consequences have already been mentioned, because a provisional twelfths budget means a ‘zero growth’ budget, not to mention inflation. There is also a European External Action Service that could be in difficulty; financial supervision bodies that could be placed in a difficult situation; cohesion policies – I would remind you that the proposed budget provided for a 14% increase in payment appropriations – and, hence, cohesion policy funds that might not be released; yet more problems linked to the 2020 strategy; and political priorities that Parliament holds dear and which had been integrated into this 2011 draft budget, mainly under heading 1a, such as mobility, young people and education – policies that may well not be implemented either.

Therefore, aside from the negative image that the lack of an agreement could convey, it would also have very tangible, very real, very specific consequences that would certainly not help to improve the European Union’s image in the eyes of the citizens themselves. It follows that, if we want to reverse this trend, if we want to remain credible, if we want to assume this share of the responsibility, we must take advantage of these last few weeks in order to reach an agreement and emerge from this spiral of conflict.

Let us be clear: to do so, we need to bear in mind three things. Firstly, there is the 2011 budget as such, with its figures, a budget on which – and I have heard it said by a number of group chairs here – an agreement could be reached with regard to the 2.91% increase in payment appropriations. We could reach an agreement on the figures as such, on the 2011 budget, on what is, in fact, on the agenda today. I should like to reiterate that we know that this entails a number of concessions for the European Parliament. We know that, when it comes to the 2011 budget, Parliament has made a number of concessions with regard to its initial demands.

The second topic that almost all of you have mentioned is the multiannual financial framework for the financing of ITER, which relates to the issue of flexibility. Once again, the Belgian Presidency, in seeking to support this principle of agreement, immediately put the flexibility-related proposals back on the table. This is the context in which we are working at the moment. I would remind you, however, that we will need to be unanimous if we are to take the flexibility issue further, that this must be understood in a number of areas, and, in particular, that it must preserve the neutrality of the budget during the period in which the multiannual financial framework is in force.

We will also need to take advantage of any opportunities for redeployment and transfer before referring to this flexibility idea. However, we can make progress. If everyone makes the necessary efforts, I believe we can make progress on this flexibility idea, on this task, and on this objective of financing ITER in 2012-2013, alongside the issue of the 2011 budget in the strictest sense.

There remains a third topic that you have also mentioned: political declarations. On this point, I must say that the Council cannot say any more than what was said on Monday in conciliation, although I know that Parliament was unable to agree with that at the time. I know that the commitments that were mentioned seemed too weak to Parliament but, once again, we will have an opportunity again to raise these issues and to debate them between us. We shall have to hold these debates because Articles 311, 312 and 324 of the treaty mention a number of consultations that must take place between our various institutions, and we shall ensure that they do take place because they are provided for in the treaty.

The declaration referred to Articles 312 and 324, pursuant to which we shall have to hold these debates in the future between our various institutions. Once again, however, we will hear a whole host of reasons for not wanting an agreement.

Nevertheless, I have perceived a will to succeed among the Members of the Council and within Parliament. Do we really want to act as scaremongers by telling each other that we prefer not to have a budget, not to implement the policies that are provided for in the 2011 budget and not to make a success of the first budget based on the Treaty of Lisbon, or, in fact, do we want to embark on a positive course of action whereby we obtain, one by one, a number of agreements to enable the European Union to move forward and to allow for the implementation, via the 2011 budget, of a number of policies that we have decided to promote? I hope that it really is with this aim in mind that we take advantage of the next few weeks to ensure that this first procedure under the Treaty of Lisbon is a success rather than a failure.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by fully exercising their right of initiative, the Members of the Commission have just decided in a meeting held here in Strasbourg that the Commission will be presenting a new draft budget in the next few days, on 1 December at the latest. We hope that Parliament and the Council will approve it in the coming fortnight.

This draft will take up all the points that we agreed upon before the conciliation that ended last week. In fact, we were very close to an agreement, and I wish to thank everyone who has worked in this spirit, a true European spirit of compromise. It is a shame that in the end, an agreement has not been possible. However, I am keen to underline the role of Commissioner Lewandowski, who has contributed all his energy and expertise, the role of many people in this House, but also the very constructive role of the Belgian Presidency, which I thank for having done and which is continuing to do everything possible to reach an agreement. I believe that the draft that we are going to present deserves your support and that of the Council, and that it will enable us to come up with a budget before the end of this year, so that the Union may have a budget by 1 January 2011. Furthermore, I believe that it would be very difficult to explain to Europe’s citizens that in a crisis such as the one we are currently going through in Europe, we are unable to reach an agreement on the budget, which really is a symbol of Europe’s ability to respond to challenges, challenges such as the one that Ireland or the European economy is having to face up to at the moment.

Our proposal will take full account of the proposal made by Parliament to increase the commitments under the headings ‘Competitiveness for growth and employment’ and ‘External relations’, through the use of the flexibility instrument. It will fix the level of payments with an increase of 2.91%. I am convinced that this proposal will enable us to strike a balance that can be supported.

It goes without saying that this agreement must be clear on matters relating to ‘future financing’. We must show that all the parties involved clearly understand the implications of the treaty and that close cooperation between the institutions at the highest political level is a natural consequence of our mutual commitment to adopt the best financial framework for the future. The Commission will take all the initiatives required for an ongoing and fruitful dialogue at all levels, including amongst the Presidents of the institutions, in order to draw up a common plan that will allow for the necessary decisions to be taken. May I remind you of President Buzek’s important speech to the European Council on 27 October, which served to underline the enhanced role of the European Parliament, including in budgetary matters, that is laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon, a role that I have also had the opportunity to draw attention to, by supporting your President’s speech before the 27 Heads of State or Government.

I would like to be very clear on the Commission’s position regarding a number of key points.

First of all, as emerged from the recent review of the budget, we will use our right of initiative to present formal proposals on own resources before the end of June. Clearly, pursuant to the treaty, the European Parliament will have to be consulted on these proposals, which is in line with the expectations arising from the interinstitutional agreement concluded in 2006.

Secondly, we will argue the need to take full account of the changes envisaged by the Treaty of Lisbon when we present proposals, both for future budgets and for the multiannual financial framework as a whole. The budget must reflect the Union’s revised priorities arising from the treaty.

I must also make it clear that, as the review of the budget has shown, the flexibility in our budgets means that the resources that we have are concentrated on the Union’s political objectives. Therefore, flexibility must be clearly maintained to allow for adoption by a qualified majority of revisions of less than 0.03% of gross national income.

To this end, I sincerely hope that we will receive positive news very shortly from the Council, so that we have the right political conditions to ensure the success of the 2011 budget adoption procedure.

The recent review of the Union’s budget, as presented by the Commission, has clearly shown the importance we give to optimising the added value of EU expenditure. We cannot waste the opportunity that we are being given to ensure that the Union’s budget really makes a difference by promoting our ambitions and implementing the objectives of the treaty. The Commission will draft a methodology aimed at demonstrating the added value of the budget, and we are also prepared to set about quantifying the costs of a ‘non-Europe’. We must state very clearly that the advantages of Union membership cannot just come down to numbers and figures. While we are focusing on the costs of the budget, we must also focus more closely on those who really benefit from the Union’s policies and not only on the annual budgetary costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are clear commitments that I am making before you today, on behalf of the Commission. I will confirm them in writing to the Presidents of Parliament and of the Council. If it helps to obtain this agreement, we are also prepared to reiterate them in the form of declarations to be annexed to an agreement between the Council and Parliament.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I know that many people, on all sides, have felt during this debate that the next multiannual financial framework will be a crucial test for Europe, and I share their point of view. It will be a test of our ability to bring about real change for millions of Europeans, to use this powerful tool to stimulate our ambition for a Europe focused on growth and sustainable jobs for the future, a strong Europe on the international stage, and a Europe based on the values to which we subscribe.

It will also be a test of our ability to draft an intelligent budget, focused on the areas in which resources can best be deployed and culminating in tangible results, and not on a misdirected budget, because preference was given to political compromise rather than to the quality and efficiency of our spending.

However, as the last few weeks have shown, it may be, above all, a test of our system of governance, of our ability not only to present sound arguments but also to recognise that the strength of our Union and of the Treaty of Lisbon lies in finding the best solutions to achieve our shared objectives. The proposals that the Commission will be presenting next June require major efforts to achieve the necessary consensus. The Commission will be open to any ideas on how to structure the debate around our proposals on the solid foundations of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issues at stake in the discussions currently being held are huge. They deserve our full attention. I am convinced that all the parties will be determined to reach an agreement. We have the broad outline of a solution based on the possibilities being offered in the current conditions which, I would stress, are very, very sensitive conditions that require all of us – Parliament, Council and the Commission – to be more responsible than we already are.

We must not forget that we are discussing the budget and not a secondary issue. We are discussing one of the main tools that the Union has at its disposal. This tool, far from being a luxury that we can do without during difficult periods, is absolutely essential if we wish to restore growth in Europe, create employment and generate prosperity.

The European budget is different from national budgets. I would emphasise this point because people are sometimes very quick to make comparisons. For a start, the European budget has no deficit: it is always balanced. It is different from the Member States’ budgets as it is primarily an investment budget that contributes to growth, and we know how much we need this investment right now.

This tool is therefore too important to be jeopardised. Europe needs the European Union to have a budget. It is not a budget for Brussels, but a budget for the European citizens. It is a budget for unemployed people who are currently looking for a new job. It is a budget for the regions of Europe. It is a budget for innovation in Europe. We must therefore make it clear that it is not a budget for bureaucracy and bureaucrats. It is a budget for the people of Europe.

We must prevent the disruption that further disputes would cause and any uncertainties linked to provisional twelfths. They are not simply uncertainties; they are real losses for real citizens. If provisional twelfths alone were applied, our citizens would not understand how issues, even very important ones, could hinder a budget that has a direct impact on the livelihoods and prospects of citizens throughout the Union.

This is why I am confident that, with an additional commitment – and I appeal to the European spirit, especially of those who failed to show it last time – it will be possible to have a 2011 budget and to lay the foundations for a truly serious discussion on the prospects for financing the European Union in the future.

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, the Conference of Presidents is meeting at 17:00 at your invitation. I would not have spoken again at this point if Mr Wathelet had not made these remarks. In the light of the fact that the Conference of Presidents will be discussing and deciding on the next step for Parliament at 17.00, I would be grateful if we could have Mr Wathelet’s speech. I must say that what has been said represents a step backwards. It is less than what we have so far heard from the Council. If that is the Council’s line, then I must say to you, Mr Wathelet, and this is not an accusation directed at the Belgian Presidency, that we have tough, confrontational times ahead of us. I would like to thank you, Mr Barroso. Your remarks have shown that the two community institutions, Parliament and the Commission, are working along exactly the same lines.

  President. – Colleagues, if we go smoothly through our discussion, then at the end of the discussion before 17:00, we can give the floor, together with our order, to President-in-Office Wathelet and he can explain everything. Let us be patient. This is a very important discussion.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Wathelet, Mr Barroso, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, my political group wants a normal budget for 2011. My colleague, Mrs Skrzydlewska, and fellow Member, Mrs Trüpel, have worked extremely hard to put forward a viable plan that has the agreement of all the political groups and is consistent with the need for austerity being asked for by the Member States.

The Members of the European Parliament do not come from Mars. We are German, British, Swedish, Hungarian and Spanish, and we are aware of and are experiencing the effects of the extremely serious economic and financial crisis in our own countries. Nevertheless, we feel that a strong and well-financed European budget is a valuable and essential tool for restarting the EU economy.

Blocking, reducing or watering down the European budget is paradoxically contrary to the interests of the 27 Member States and 500 million Europeans. If we do not have flexibility for the next three years, we will not implement the post-Lisbon policies. Without a political agreement between Parliament and the Council on own resources or cooperation on the next multiannual financial framework, there will be no political or financial stability. It is not simply a question of rights, but a question of common interest. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance are entitled to come to this House as political opponents, but no one knows whom they are opposing. This does not, however, benefit anyone, nor does it benefit the ‘cohesion countries’.

Although there is many a political leader currently interested in the 2011 budget, I would like to remind you that I have 14 years of political experience of budgetary conciliation. Nothing that has ever been achieved in terms of budgets over all those years has been achieved through confrontation. We have always achieved things through cooperation. Posturing, whether in this House or in the Justus Lipsius building, where it also happens, is of no practical use whatsoever.

  Gianni Pittella (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the European Parliament is being called upon to confirm its approach, an approach of responsibility, vision and unity.

As far as responsibility is concerned, we wish to give Europe a dignified budget. European citizens, young people, enterprises, farmers, municipalities and regions, workers and the unemployed need a budget with a moderate, sustainable and realistic increase.

If we do not yet have this budget, it is not the fault of a spendthrift Parliament, which forgets we are living through times of crisis. Instead, it is the fault of some selfish, falsely moralistic national governments, as quick to jump on their soapboxes as they are unwilling, as in the case of Great Britain, to relinquish their claim to nearly 30 years of unfair privileges. If three governments are selfish and bad, the other 24 cannot be subject to their will but must react, Mr President, Mr Wathelet. They must show what they are made of!

We hold the future of our citizens very dear when it comes to our vision for the future. The Treaty of Lisbon and the EU 2020 strategy set us new tasks, new duties, new ambitions to build a better tomorrow. How will we achieve these tasks? How will we put our shared ambitions into practice? What money can we use to enter into another imbroglio, like the Lisbon Strategy, which was never achieved but certainly not for want of trying by the European Parliament?

Lastly, when we speak of unity, we mean unity between MEPs and unity with the Commission. President Barroso's speech this evening was good. We do not need soothing, we need to flex our muscle with reason but with determination We have unity on this matter and this is a valuable asset, an extraordinary strength that represents 500 million citizens.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I would like to say to both Mr Wathelet and Mr Barroso that I most definitely agree that there should be an agreement. Of course we must have one. That is Parliament’s opinion, too, and it is also why we were so willing to accept the compromise that the Council came up with, because the Council is not in agreement over how big the budget should be either. We accepted the 2.91% increase in payment appropriations. In return, we have to demand that we have the prospect of getting a proper budget in future years. It is a question of flexibility. It is also a question of engaging in a dialogue regarding the budget for future years.

This issue of flexibility is a very tangible one. With the aid of flexibility, we have been able to fulfil new requests. We would not have been able to get energy projects off the ground as part of the recovery plan – for example, by linking electricity networks from the Baltic countries with those from the Nordic countries, or linking the gas network in Bulgaria with those of Western Europe, so that Russia is no longer able to cut off our heating – if we had not found the money for this in the agricultural budget. We need to have this sort of possibility of moving resources around in the EU budget. We must, therefore, have flexibility.

It is also important for there to be constructive dialogue between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, including with the national parliaments, concerning the EU’s budget after 2013. The European Parliament must not be placed in a situation where we can only say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the medium-term financial perspectives. There is a risk that we will say ‘no’; there is a risk that it will go the same way as it did with the SWIFT agreement.

The EU’s own resources are to be reformed again. It is not a question of creating an EU tax burden; it is about creating a transparent and comprehensible system, without special rules and without rebates, so that we have a system that citizens can understand. We need a debate now, and I am therefore pleased that the Commission has promised to take the initiative and come up with a proposal before next summer.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to emphasise once again that for this House, this self-assured European Parliament, the important issue is to honour the Treaty of Lisbon. This is not about going beyond the terms of the treaty, as Mr Barroso has already so rightly said, but it is about keeping to the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to the additional powers for Parliament, ensuring that the Council does not turn back the clock and adhering to the arrangement on how we work together and how we come to an agreement between Parliament and the Council. This was laid down in 2006 in the interinstitutional agreement. All we want is for this to be confirmed again. Thank you very much, Mr Barroso, you have rightly highlighted this issue once more.

Mr Wathelet has now attempted to persuade the House not to make such rapid progress towards a genuinely pro-European future, but instead to hold back. If we do that, we will already be admitting defeat. As Mr Schulz has said, this is, in fact, about a political dispute. How will we handle the increased powers of the European Parliament and the Member States which are behaving in a more and more eurosceptic way? If we want the European Union and its citizens to have a powerful future, including at a global level, Parliament and the Council must reach a pro-European consensus. Therefore, we must not give in at too early a stage. Instead, we must fight for European added value, because this is in the interests of both the national governments and our citizens.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, as Mr Schulz said, this is not just a debate about the budget, but it is also a debate about the future form of the European Union, and that is a fact. It can clearly be heard here that beneath the budget debate, among other things, there is a hidden debate on how best to push through the European Union’s own financial resources, and therefore greater autonomy, and how to actually move the European Union further along the path to federalism.

In my opinion, of course, this is something quite unacceptable, which cannot and must not happen. Moreover, I have to say that it is now tiresome to hear the persistently unfriendly tone towards the Council here, and that it is childish to listen to the various ultimatums and threats. If the European Parliament takes this path, and if the confrontational tone we have heard from a number of Members continues, only one thing will happen: the European Parliament will be the loser, both with the media and with the public.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow, millions of Portuguese workers are going to go on strike. They are going to go on strike with a very simple message: it is not those who work, it is not pensioners, it is not young people, and it is not the unemployed who should pay for a crisis for which they were not responsible. The current deadlock over the European budget cannot be understood without analysing its context, which is one of social tragedy and austerity policies that are being imposed on our countries. Austerity policies are not just unfair: they are a colossal economic mistake which promise to drag the European Union back into recession, which promise a future of unemployment, and which, above all, promise to accentuate the divergence between the countries in surplus and those in deficit.

In this context, we must be very clear about this debate on the budget. We do not believe that there can be a currency without a substantial budget behind it and – let us be realistic – the 2011 budget under discussion is not just modest: it is a mediocre budget; it is a budget that does not respond to the crisis but is part of the crisis. That is exactly why it is important it is not repeated in 2012, in 2013 or after 2014.

This is the issue that we are discussing; the issue of the future: do we want a Europe controlled by governments or a Europe that continues to be a Trojan horse for the interests of the financial system? In fact, the European left is interested in discussing own resources. We do not want new taxes on the European public, but we definitely do want to discuss how to make financial capital pay what it has not been paying: pay what it owes. That is the message that the public – the workers and the unemployed – are demanding from this House and from the European Union. Either we want a European project that has so little ambition to fly that it barely makes it off the ground, or we make it clear that we will not be content with the scenario being put to us by the United Kingdom and a group of governments, which is ‘do more with less money, because that is the Europe that we are offering you’.

  Timo Soini (EFD). – (FI) Mr President, we really have an excellent situation now. The European Union is in crisis; all its institutions are in crisis. That is the situation we sought, and that is the truth. Now there is an opportunity to grow.

Centralised power and monetary policy did not work in the Soviet Union and they will not work in the West either. There is no single currency; there is only taxpayers’ money in different parts of Europe. While national budgets are being cut at the same time – in Finland they could not even find EUR 1 million for a hospital for rheumatic diseases – my voters at least – and there were 130 000 of them – do not want me to be the EU’s representative in Finland, but the Finnish taxpayer’s representative in the EU, and that is what I intend to be.

Nothing comes of a centralised policy. First Greece fell, now Ireland is falling, and behind them are Portugal and Spain. The exercise will soon be over.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, how pleased I am with the position of the UK and Dutch governments, in particular, so far! Using excellent arguments, they have managed to prevent the increase in the EU budget for 2011 and have refused to agree to the introduction of own resources, for which, read European taxes. Well done, I say. At the same time, I do have to say that I regret that the European Parliament is not willing to learn anything from the lesson that Member States are teaching it. The Euro clique, removed from reality as they are, thought they were just going to get a little bit more money for their own hobbies. They have now completely lost touch with what is going on in the minds of their own citizens. They keep asking for more and more, while Parliament and the Commission should just be marking time or even cutting their spending. Not a bit of it. The Netherlands and the other Member States have extremely good reasons for rejecting the increase in the EU budget and the introduction of European taxes. We are doing this for democratic reasons and find it entirely inappropriate that some in this House, such as the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), seem to think that the Netherlands ought to be punished for that. As a founding member of the EU, the Netherlands has almost always been the largest net contributor to the EU budget. We are talking about Dutch taxpayers’ money. Is Mr Daul now going to call for sanctions against other Member States? Is this the end of the EU? One might almost wish it were, considering how the interests of our citizens are being bargained away. That is really sad, Mr President, but it is we who are then going to be subject to accusations of being populist. If populism means that we are listening closely to what people are saying, that we are representing them and offering really watertight arguments about extracting ourselves from the economic crisis, which the EU has also forced upon us, then I shall be happy to wear that title with pride. Obviously, we will continue to oppose the increase in the 2011 budget and European taxes. By the way, Mr Schulz, before you start, I am not blond.

  László Surján (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is this debate about money and power? No, it is not. The engine of European development is spluttering. The revenue side of the budget has been waiting for a reform for years. The Treaty of Lisbon said that income had to be provided from our own resources. So why not? Why can we not deliberate on this? For years, experts have been saying that the European budget is inflexible, that this is what renders the European Union a lame duck. So why do we not create a flexible budget?

We cannot respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing world while hogtied – hogtied by a seven-year budget – but, at the same time, we should not disregard those basic European principles which state that differences of opinion must be resolved in an open debate and through compromise. It is unacceptable that there are states which are not even willing to engage in a debate. This means the end of the European spirit. We continue to be open to discussion, and the responsibility lies with those that are reluctant to engage.

Some say that political issues must not be linked to budgetary ones. Quite the contrary! The history of the entire European Union has been about this. Please research for yourselves! Here, we represent the people, and cannot look them in the eyes while presenting them with magnificent feints again and again: the 2020 programme, the Lisbon Programme, and we have no means to implement them. It cannot go on like this any longer! It is not the Council arguing with Parliament. It is those who are unable to comprehend the spirit of the times who are arguing with those wishing to have a functioning Europe.

  Göran Färm (S&D). – Mr President, first, let me say thanks to the Belgian Presidency because it is really trying, but they need to do a little bit more. The European Parliament has shown a lot of goodwill in accepting the figures for 2011 because we understand the economic situation in the Member States.

Regarding commitments, it is even, in real terms, a reduction of the budget. We have also offered solutions to a number of practical things like ITER institutions, like the financial supervisory authorities and the External Action Service; we have been constructive. But we do not accept that the economic crisis will be here for ever and that the crisis should set the limits for the future of Europe. We do not accept that single-minded austerity is the way out. We do not accept that the crisis requires less Europe or an anti-European agenda. More concretely, we have criticised the lack of flexibility in the European Union budget for years, and the Commission agrees with us. So how can the solution to the budget problems suddenly be to restrict flexibility?

How can the future of Europe be to cut funding of mutually agreed priority programmes and not fund new ones – ITER is not the only priority – or even the most important ones. Without reasonable flexibility, we risk building up a mountain of problems for 2012 and 2013. Let us try to avoid that.

How can it be a problem to involve the European Parliament in a constructive dialogue on the future financial framework and the next long-term budget? I do not understand. Let us try again to find an agreement, but we must find a solution to flexibility that is not less ambitious than what we already have in the interinstitutional agreement. We must find an open and constructive procedure on the next financial framework. That is our red line. Please, Council, try again.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, it is easy to agree with much of what my fellow Members have said. For me and many others, this has actually been a question of a genuine concern about the future, a concern about how we are to get through the years ahead and the coming decade. It is important to remember that we have jointly succeeded in agreeing on a quite – or rather very – ambitious 2020 strategy for Europe – a strategy that is to take Europe forwards. However, it is naive to believe that such a strategy will finance itself or implement itself. It is surely also a given that this strategy and its successes will not merely be a question of money. Unfortunately, however, this will also come into play to a certain extent.

Neither the Council nor the Commission have yet succeeded in presenting plans for the coming years with which we are sufficiently impressed, which is one of the reasons why we ended up in the state of conflict that we found ourselves in recently. I would like to say to the Council that you very much like to be included in the family portrait after having approved the Treaty of Lisbon and succeeded in agreeing on the 2020 strategy. All of the eminent people happily stand there and tell everyone how much they like Europe, but when it comes to doing something and actually implementing these things, the Council suddenly has problems. These are problems that are now reflected in the fact that we suddenly have a budgetary crisis, and these are problems that the Council, as pointed out here, ought to attend to and find solutions for, because the fact is that this is not just about next year’s budget; it is about the future. That is the political message that we have for the Council today.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, this weekend, a delegation from the Commission and the IMF went to Dublin to give economic advice. Another European country has yet again had to come up with a new national budget, and for our friends across the Irish Sea, it is an extremely difficult time.

There is, of course, a deep irony in European officials opining on a national budget, when the EU’s own budget is not yet agreed. For many months, my group has warned that with Member States facing such budget pressures at home, it is vital that the EU show restraint in its own spending, ensuring that every penny of taxpayers’ money is well spent. The last vote in the European Parliament did not show such restraint, and it is, of course, a good sign that there is now agreement on the numbers between Parliament and the Council, though I think we could have gone even lower. It is depressing, however, that despite agreeing the numbers, there is still no agreement on the budget.

Our markets are still far from stable; markets are nervous when there is uncertainty, and I would urge Members of this Parliament to put aside political ambitions and get a budget agreed.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). – (NL) Mr President, the European Parliament is delaying the adoption of the 2011 budget. Its demand that it have a say in the funding of the European Union in the long term includes an EU tax, although it has not called it that in so many words. In so doing, the European Parliament is leaving itself open to the suspicion that it does not want to play a constructive role in the annual budgetary procedure, in accordance with Article 234 of the treaty. That does not bode very well for the financial perspective for the 2014-2020 period with which Parliament so badly wants to be involved. With the 2.91% budget increase, the European Parliament has already achieved more than is good for Europe and its citizens and companies and the budgets of Member States. It is we who are responsible for making reasonable plans for the 2011 budget. That could put an end to these budget constraints which could still prove to be instructive.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it would not hurt if the European Parliament set a good example, for once, and defended the principle that the European Union should cut its coat according to its cloth. At a time when everyone is having to save and when our citizens are having to tighten their belts, arguing for a substantial increase in the EU budget is sending out totally the wrong message. The EU is just seizing new powers for itself and wants more money to that end. Well then, there are plenty of opportunities for making serious savings. According to the European Court of Auditors, the financial impact of irregularities in the agricultural policy accounts for 2-5% of the spending on agriculture. The financial margin of error for regional funds is more than 5%, which therefore exceeds the two most important expenditure items in the budget. We therefore need better control of how funds are spent and more stringent sanctions for erroneous, unlawful and fraudulent use. Instead of just urging an increase in revenue all the time, Parliament should also discuss savings every so often. A direct EU tax, which is what the Commission wants, is unacceptable for several reasons. It is yet another step towards a European superstate, it will inevitably lead to ever more spending and it will also inevitably lead – as, indeed, Commissioner Lewandowski has admitted – to an increase in the overall tax burden of net contributors, which will just not sell at the moment.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Wathelet, Mr Barroso, I should like to thank the European Commission and the Belgian Presidency for their open, cooperative and indeed European approach.

In this time of crisis, let us not forget to preserve the future. Last year, the virtue contest between governments was about who could spend the most. Everyone was opening the throttle. This year it is the opposite. Everyone is now hitting the brakes, Fine. Parliament accepts the figure imposed on the Council by the most thrifty or miserly Member State, but on condition that we agree on protecting the future.

The Union no longer has the necessary resources to finance its budget. Instead of being the primary instrument of solidarity between Europeans, the Community budget has become the battleground for contradictory national interests. The Treaty of Lisbon has been in force for one year now. It confers on the Union long-awaited new powers. Yet no additional resource could be allocated to the 2010 budget, and the same goes for 2011. The same is also true for the Europe 2020 action programme.

At a time when all Member States are committed to policies aimed at massively reducing public expenditure, they have a huge interest in identifying and tapping into potential savings that could be made by pooling some expenses, either between several States or between all 27 Member States. Europe, the European vision and European benchmarking can help us spend less. For that reason, the European Parliament is proposing an agreement between our three institutions on a method to work together on all these proposals for the future.

On a personal level, may I add that we will save time by involving national parliaments, as they are sovereign in terms of taxation and budgetary matters.

  Ivars Godmanis (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to stress three things. First, if the times are tough for everyone, we need to work together. I think the lowest point in our reconciliation was when the Council refused to start discussions, and the second lowest was when it refused to start discussions on the basis of documents proposed by the Commission regarding the political part of our discussions. But discussions are in the treaty, and they are in at least two parts. First: regarding the multiannual financial framework, in Article 312, it is quite clear that if we do not have discussions before we agree on the new MFF, it will not be successful.

Regarding own resources – which is perhaps very sensible for the Council – there is no big threat. We are not starting with new taxes but we are starting discussions, which is in Article 311. I believe that we need a budget, one hundred percent. There is no other solution. But if we really want one thing – to work together and to start discussions (we do not know what the outcome of discussions will be) – we ask the Council to take part in this joint task. I think that we will then make it a success. Otherwise, I really hope that you will not go alone, according to Article 315. You can do it, but I believe that a joint task will be much better than a separate one.

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, I would like to say that I am disappointed over the negotiations between the Council, the Commission and Parliament concerning the EU budget for 2011. At present, all of Europe is affected by the economic and financial crisis. European governments are affected by falling revenues and the need to repay large debts. The European Parliament cannot pretend to be immune from this. It is not right in such a difficult situation for Parliament to demand a 6% increase in the budget. It is also not right to offer to consent to the budget in return for a promise to give Parliament its own resources. In my opinion, the European Parliament’s negotiators should not exacerbate the situation in the talks, but, on the contrary, should aim to reach an agreement.

The citizens, households, firms, communities and states of the EU need stability, and this can only be provided through duly approved budgets, not provisional budgets. I therefore call on the Parliament, Council and Commission to agree on the 2011 EU budget as soon as possible.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, I welcome this debate on the budget today. These are difficult times in Member States and that is a reality that this House cannot ignore. From talking to my constituents, it is clear that they believe that those vocalising the need for budget increases are divorced from their economic reality and, furthermore, the whole issue is eroding confidence in European institutions.

The failure to agree a budget is not due to intransigence, but is largely due to the federalist agenda and the pursuit of that Holy Grail, the concept of own resources. An EU tax is out of the question in my view.

In response to President Barroso’s declaration today that he will bring forward proposals for such a tax before June of next year, I would call on Prime Minister Cameron to clearly state that any move in this direction would trigger a referendum in the United Kingdom.

  Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, speaking as rapporteur for the European Union budget for 2011, I would like to emphasise the constructive role which has been played by the Belgian Presidency. I would also like to express my thanks for the involvement of the European Commission. However, our efforts are not over. On the contrary, we should, now, intensify them. Personally, I think the fiasco of the 2011 budget negotiations is a defeat for all of us. However, I would like to share with you my interpretation as to why Monday’s fiasco happened.

We were witnesses to a regrettable situation in which several Member States prolonged the negotiations until midnight to make them end in failure. We did not manage to finish the negotiations on time, because on the part of several Member States, there was simply not the will to talk. It is for me, personally, an exasperating and very surprising situation, when around the negotiating table are seated diplomats and deputy ministers of finance and they do not want to talk about finance or about the future financing and the present financing of the European Union. It is absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable to me, because what is to happen next, if the politicians and diplomats do not want to talk to each other?

My next point is that the tension concerning discussion of the 2011 budget began because the European Parliament wants to draw the attention of Member States to a problem which we see in the future and which we can already see today: that the European Union continues to take on new roles and start new areas of activity and that it has growing ambitions, but that at the same time, the Member States, which support those ambitions, also do not want to finance those ambitions, those plans, those actions and those new areas. We must talk about this growing inconsistency. At a time of crisis, it is all the more important to talk about finance and to talk about how the European Union is to be financed. Furthermore, the European Parliament is all the more necessary and it is not, at the moment, the right time to make the budget a taboo subject.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, we do, indeed, have a serious budget crisis in the European Union, and as the previous speaker has said, many parties are responsible for this. Perhaps Parliament made somewhat of a mistake, here, in what it expected of the negotiations – we wanted to take care of too many matters at the same time. This is a problem for the beneficiaries, but it is also, in fact, a serious political crisis which, in my opinion, stems from the fact that somewhere, the spirit of euro-enthusiasm has been lost. That spirit of euro-enthusiasm was felt in the European Parliament when we discussed the Treaty of Lisbon, and those who were not very keen on Europe were urged to be more enthusiastic. However, when the treaty negotiations ended and integration was improved, the discussions about money and the budget started, and it turned out that instead of euro-enthusiasm, there was euro-egoism and a desire to pay as little as possible for that increased European integration. I would like more euro-enthusiasm over the budget.

  Reimer Böge (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am concerned, but not about the budget, the interinstitutional agreement or a possible twelve-part budget. I have a general concern about the political situation facing the European Union, which has come to light today in the context of the budget. I am concerned about the trend for intergovernmental cooperation and about the fact that the increased powers of Parliament are obviously going to be curtailed and that even the agreement made in 2006 is not being respected. I am concerned that the Treaty of Lisbon is not being put into effect. (Applause) Mr Barroso, I welcome your statements. However, perhaps it would have been more helpful if you had come 10 days earlier, to make it clearer that the Commission is on Parliament’s side.

With regard to the three main subjects of our negotiations, the first one that I would like to discuss is the flexibility instrument. There has obviously been some movement in this area. However, I have recently heard that there have been setbacks during the parallel negotiations in Brussels. What is happening there? Is there a possibility, and is this too much to ask, of agreeing on the same level of flexibility that we had before the Treaty of Lisbon, which was the right solution and which was achieved after many years of negotiations, starting with the Agenda 2000? Is it too much to ask in the case of own resources to commit to the continuation of what we – the Council, the Commission and Parliament – said in 2006 in our statement on the interinstitutional agreement? Is it too much to ask that those people who are rejecting the idea of a debate on own resources should try reading the treaty? The treaty states that this debate must take place.

Lastly, Mr President, is it too much to ask for us to enter into binding political agreements on all the issues relating to assent procedures so that we can prevent crises from occurring and so that we do not find ourselves in the same position on other questions, including external trade agreements and the next multiannual financial framework? If you present these things in the form that you have today, the answer from this House will be a definite ‘no’.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, Member States are clearly going through a difficult time from a budgetary perspective. On the other hand, it has been very obvious that the EU budget has made a major contribution to the development of every Member State, including net contributors.

I am surprised that the failure of conciliation was not due to a disagreement over figures, but to the refusal to have a practical discussion about the common future of Member States, in other words, the future of Europe. Parliament does not wish to go beyond its remit. It wants the treaty to be complied with and to protect the future interests of the citizens who elected it.

Which points has the Council refused to discuss?

The European Parliament’s involvement in drafting the MFF is a provision of the treaty. This task was performed in 2006 and I do not believe that the 2007-2013 budget was bad for the Union. Quite the contrary.

Flexibility – this mechanism has been used effectively so far and all Member States have benefited from it.

Own resources – it is precisely the budgetary situation which Member States are going through that should spur them on to find stable methods of funding the European budget which will stop jeopardising the implementation of European policies.

The new responsibilities under the treaty and the 2020 strategy require funding. It is not acceptable for the same institution, the Council, to set targets for 2020 and, at the same time, not approve the financial resources required to meet these demands. I believe that we have a duty to reach an agreement. We have a responsibility to our citizens. We must not allow confidence to wane in Europe’s institutions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this week, we should have approved the European Union General Budget for 2011. Instead, we find ourselves faced with a situation where Europe runs a serious risk of having to start the New Year with a provisional budget and greatly hindered by the application of the system of twelfths.

It is common knowledge that Parliament, the Commission and most Member States were ready to reach an agreement, which was blocked by a minority of countries that refused to open a constructive debate with Parliament on the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon.

I believe that Parliament’s position during the negotiations was responsible and moderate. Parliament called for the application of the Treaty of Lisbon, and continues to call for it forcefully.

For its part, the Council has proved itself incapable of reaching an agreement and has shown itself to be deeply divided over matters of fundamental importance, which a minority of States have vetoed, rejecting the idea of opening a debate with Parliament over the rules and procedures that should guide the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Now, however, we are obliged to look to the future, and build the Europe of the future together – and by that I mean the Council, Parliament and Commission – without selfishness or prevarication. By agreeing to the limits imposed by the Council on the growth figure, the 2.91% we are all familiar with, Parliament’s aim is to send out a strong signal that it is sensitive to the period we are living through.

We all agree, however, as the Commission also affirmed today, that we should ask for greater flexibility to meet the needs of Europe. I agree with President Barroso’s words today when he referred to the proposals that the Commission will draw up for the use of its own resources and the adaptation of the EU budget to the Treaty of Lisbon, and I hope for greater cooperation by the Council in building the Europe of the future.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, in the negotiations with the Council on the 2011 budget, the European Parliament did everything in order for agreement to be reached. The only demand is to fulfil the Council’s undertakings, for example, the Europe 2020 strategy and the need to finance it, and to comply with the Treaty of Lisbon.

In truth, under the treaty, the European Parliament has to be involved – by voting, giving opinions, or being consulted – in the new interinstitutional agreement, in the next multiannual financial framework and in establishing new own resources. These demands are logical, reasonable, in the public interest, and in the interests of preventing interinstitutional risks and conflicts: they are demands that the Council should share and uphold.

As regards the interinstitutional agreement, it is obvious that respect for the commitments made by European institutions, specifically the Council, is conditional on the existence of flexibility regarding the current multiannual financial framework.

The Europe 2020 strategy, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor programme, the European External Action Service and the financial supervision entities are some examples of things that need financing. The Council needs to take the Treaty of Lisbon on board, both from the point of view of the areas newly under the jurisdiction of the European Union, which are reflected in the budget, and from the point of view of the European Parliament’s strengthened powers, not least regarding the budget. These changes in fact strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union’s institutions.

The use of the Community method rather than the intergovernmental approach makes our governance more democratic. I hope that a few national egos do not obstruct the European project of peace, solidarity and progress, or put it at risk.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, this has been a most important debate – particularly the political aspects of it – but I think it is also important to talk about some of the practical parts of the debate. I am the rapporteur for agriculture for the 2011 Budget, and there will be real implications if we do not reach agreement on the budget for the cash-flow of Member States who have made advance payments to their farmers in recent weeks. These farmers are facing financial difficulties and income shortages. So there are very real and practical implications and this is just one of them.

But let me talk about the future. Right now, we are debating the future of the common agricultural policy and we are asking that policy to deliver more for Europe in terms of environmental issues, food security and the territorial dimension, and yet all of the debate thus far has been about how can we shrink the agriculture budget. I am very concerned that, in this debate about budget 2011, we are projecting a very negative view of the budget for agriculture and the European Union post-2013. The two are very much linked and I think we need to be aware of that.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, for the past ten years, we have been telling European citizens that a Treaty on European Union was necessary, and the countries have indeed ratified it. For the past ten years, we have been telling citizens that research and development can be better accomplished and financed at EU level. We have been telling them that European space policy can be better accomplished at EU level, and we have been telling them that energy research and the fight against climate change can be better accomplished in the European Union than it could be at Member State level. When we believed this, stood for this, we thought that we were telling the truth. In for a penny, in for a pound. If, to this day, we still believe what we have been saying for the last ten years, we must create the necessary budgetary resources, and the primary means of achieving this is flexibility, while the secondary means is the creation of Parliament’s own resources, the European Union’s own resources. Ceterum censeo there is a need for the European Union.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – Mr President, your recent joint statement after the EU-US summit was the first statement in a long time where the Commission exhibited gravitas, optimism, power and solidarity, and also coherence. Here we have the paradox of not finding common ground on the budget. If we want Europe to be an international power, as we are indeed, we do not have the luxury not to have a budget. This is what I wanted to say, and keep up the good work.

  Giovanni Collino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the failure of the trialogue represents a major political opportunity to reflect on Europe's recent history.

The problem is not merely political but also cultural and involves many Member States. The current economic and financial crisis is structural and not a passing phenomenon. It actually represents a transformation that affects the economy, employment and society of the age in which we live. If there is no political and cultural growth with a global vision of Europe, we will not be able to take action to overcome problems linked with the start of the third millennium, such as welfare, research, energy and environmental policy and security, which can be dealt with only by a political coming together of all states making up the Union.

My message to my fellow MEPs is that while the trialogue has failed, the work carried out by Parliament is distinguished work that fully meets our mandate to represent the people. Nowadays, Parliament counts more due to the Treaty of Lisbon and the Council can no longer take a dominant role against the popular sovereignty represented by Parliament ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the traditional representatives of the European Parliament are calling for extensive flexibility in the budget, but I have noticed that no one has mentioned the interests of the net contributors or the interests of the citizens.

It is ultimately the net contributors which finance the EU, which were responsible for restarting the engine of the economy after the crisis, which rescued the countries with budget deficits and the euro itself and which are imposing a heavy burden on their citizens. In my opinion, it is therefore quite comprehensible and justifiable that these countries and their citizens want to keep to the budgetary appropriations, ensure that the net balance cannot be changed retrospectively on a whim and prevent money from being diverted into different channels. Of course, I am not referring here to the aid provided following disasters. I am excluding that.

Equally, the critical approach to EU taxation has nothing to do with an apparent lack of solidarity. It is simply due to the fact that the Member States are largely opposed to it. For this reason, it is clear that we must retain the ratification by the national parliaments for the sake of subsidiarity.

  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to make it clear, following repeated claims in this House, that during the budget negotiations, we have not requested a single cent more than the Council had offered us. This means that we were completely in line with the Council’s wishes. On the subject of the flexibility instrument, we need it because the Council regularly gets us into difficulties with its decisions on major projects for which it has not made provision for the funding. We then have to attempt, together with the Member States, to find a solution for these projects, in order to be able to support them financially and to make sensible plans. We have also not demanded more than what is laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. Instead, we are calling for compliance with the treaty. Nothing else, nothing more and nothing less.

On the subject of own resources, it is surely not asking too much for Parliament to say that it would at least like to discuss the issue, what form it could take and whether own resources are in place. They cannot simply refuse to talk about this and then put the blame on Parliament.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, here is my brief supplement to what was introduced by President Barroso, after listening to the comments of the honourable Members.

The strategy of the Commission in these specific circumstances is very simple and is based on the simple assumption that unity, not divisions, is what Europe needs to face other challenges. I think that the Belgian Presidency is acting on the same assumption.

Our role is clearly defined in the treaties in the event of agreement – and in the event of disagreement, which was not very likely, but it has happened for the first time in 26 years. We see the frustration of millions of beneficiaries throughout the European Union. Therefore, we need to respond. We understand that we should move quickly and we have taken the first step today to agree on the guidelines, then, possibly on 1 December, to submit the figures, which are no longer controversial, to defend flexibility, which we need, to come up with a proposal on the arrangements for cooperation built on the Lisbon Treaty, and to defend – which is also important – the Commission’s right of initiative to present the vision of the future next year.

It is our common responsibility to deliver what was promised, what is expected by the beneficiaries, what has been built up, as a budget, on the revenue side, while fully respecting the fiscal sovereignty of Member States. This is about a modest budget that was rising at half the rate of a national budget, despite the enlargement accommodating over 12 new states. This was clear proof of discipline and rigour. Therefore, let us carry out the job, while working for a better scenario. I am appealing to your sense of responsibility. Along with President Barroso, I feel very much encouraged by today’s debate in Parliament.

  Melchior Wathelet, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr President, it is true that this type of debate should help us reach an agreement rather than make the situation even more difficult. I hope to be able to say that it is really in that spirit that we had this debate this afternoon.

Yes, there will be progress and we will have to try and find an agreement on flexibility and on financing ITER. Yes, this prospect for the 2012 and 2013 budgets will have to be subject to agreement and we are really striving to demonstrate that we have the ability to reach an agreement on this 2012-2013 prospect, particularly on the important issue of flexibility.

Secondly, yes, we will have debates within the context of Articles 312 and 324 in order to see how, in practice, we can implement and carry this out, and ensure that these articles and these new procedures become a reality. We will have to find common ground.

Today, I heard that the Commission was going to use its power to initiate legislation, whether on the issue of own resources, or for the multiannual framework. On the basis of these elements, we will have to get together, we will have to discuss, we will have to make sure that we abide by Articles 312 and 324 of the treaty, which include provisions to the effect that all elements need to be implemented in order to reach an agreement, to have these meetings and to carry out this coordination which would enable these new procedures laid down by the treaty to become a reality.

Regarding the flexible part for 2012-2013, we will have to implement these Articles 312 and 324 of the treaty, even if, once again – I must emphasise this point – we must ensure that the 2011 budget is passed. The credibility of the European Union is at stake. Also at stake is the effectiveness of the policies which will only be implemented if the 2011 budget is passed. We are only talking about the cohesion policies; that is all we are talking about. What is truly at stake here is our credibility and the implementation of our policies.

Thirdly, let us not vindicate those who do not want a budget so that the EU has even fewer resources at its disposal to carry out its policies. However, in order to prove them wrong, undoubtedly we need to support a conciliatory approach and make the most of these last few weeks in order to achieve this approach so that we all benefit from it, despite having had to make concessions. Yet at least this is a rationale that entails moving forward rather than backwards, which would be the case if we do not have the 2011 budget in the next few weeks.

  President. – Mr President-in-Office, the Conference of Presidents is just about to start, so some real questions and answers are necessary in this Chamber, because it will be a very important meeting. We need to see progress on the part of the Council. You have probably had many discussions with the Members of the Council, with the Member States. How could you explain this to us? Is it possible to move forward in our direction? We have certain expectations. You know them very well, because as a matter of fact, this was the subject of our last questions – three points at the very end on 15 November, a few minutes before 12 midnight. It is very important for us to have such an answer from you.

  Melchior Wathelet, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Mr Schulz, I did hear your question. I believe no one has been spared.

I think that we can either choose the approach of pointing fingers at each other – your fault, our fault – or we can try and convince ourselves to take another approach, with both sides trying to make progress towards this conciliatory approach. We could also remain in the state of mind that unfortunately led to a disagreement on 15 November.

Who is to blame? I could have told you that from the outset, Parliament was certainly going to say that the Council was to blame and the Council was certainly going to say that Parliament was to blame, while both would thank the Commission for having made efforts at conciliation. We must try to move away from that kind of approach and make the most of the last few weeks and days in order to start thinking along different lines.

To answer the President’s question, can any progress be made? Yes, progress can be made, because we know that if we act in the same way as we did on 15 November, we would only repeat the disagreement that occurred on 15 November, particularly on the important issue of flexibility. Why is this issue important? It is important because in my view, it addresses one of Parliament's major concerns which is to have a number of prospects, at least for 2012-2013, which is when the current multiannual framework ends.

This is the reason why, on this matter, the Belgian Presidency, following on from 15 November, immediately resumed contacts to try and make progress on these other points too. Yes, there are possibilities for agreement in this context, but both sides will have to reverse their rationale and embrace a conciliatory approach in order to achieve results. Otherwise, we will unfortunately witness another failure, and I previously touched on the harmful consequences that a failure would have, mainly on the implementation of our policies. I think that the citizens of Europe deserve better than that.

  President. – President-in-Office, thank you for your activity during the negotiations and also for the discussion. We hope that the result will be positive as soon as possible.

Thanks also to Commission President Barroso and Commissioner Lewandowski for your contribution to our discussion.

I have some important remarks to make now and I shall change to my mother tongue.

  President. – The debate is closed.

I would like to inform you that the deadlines for tabling submissions relating to this item are as follows: motions for resolutions – Wednesday, 24 November at 10:00, amendments – Wednesday, 24 November at 15:00.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 25 November 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We are currently in a state of deadlock which actually extends beyond the 2011 budgetary procedure. This is a delicate juncture which will determine the future of the Union and provide a precedent for future budgetary procedures and the role that the European Parliament will play.

Parliament’s grievances are not ridiculous. All we want in practical terms is for the role which Parliament has been assigned by the treaty to be respected. Parliament has made a great many concessions during these negotiations and we are still being asked to make many others. However, I hope that we will get through this period and that we will be able to vote for the new budget during the December sitting.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Not since 1988 has Europe seen such fundamental disagreement between Parliament and its institutional partners with regard to the European budget. This is an historic moment: will the Council, and particularly the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark, allow themselves to see that Europe is all about pooling resources to do better together? Some Member States are adopting an inconsistent approach: they are cutting their national budgets in the name of restraint and calling on the EU to solve their problems by giving it ambitious tasks to fulfil. Then, just as these ambitions are about to be realised, they rebel against the voracious budgetary demands. Galileo, ITER, the EU 2020 strategy, the European External Action Service – they all cost money! Will we have to fight each year to obtain a token contribution from stubborn Member States that will subsequently accuse Europe of being ineffective and superfluous? I am therefore in favour of a debate on own resources, of respect for the Treaty of Lisbon and of an ambitious and realistic Europe.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) The intransigent stand by a small minority of Member States is basically an expression of their clear refusal to lay the foundations for prompt and meaningful solutions to the basic needs of European citizens now or whenever they arise in the immediate future. We need to address issues which concern European citizens responsibly. We must not forget that, over and above the EU’s new responsibilities post-Lisbon, the Member States are constantly proposing and adopting new policies and strategies, such as the EU 2020 strategy, which the EU is being called upon to implement; on the other hand, they say that they are unwilling to provide the money to implement them, thereby condemning them to failure before they even start. I, too, would stress that the European Parliament is not asking for an increase in expenditure or for more powers than those provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. Parliament is clearly arguing that the EU needs to have sufficient resources at its disposal to be able to smoothly implement policies which supplement efforts by the Member States to strengthen employment, investment and overall economic growth. Parliament’s position is that the EU budget does not form part of the crisis; it is – via investments in critical sectors – the answer to it.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am greatly concerned by the confusion surrounding the 2011 EU budget since, on the one hand, we cannot abandon our ambitious plans to build a strong European Union, while, on the other, Poland will take over the Presidency of the EU Council in the second half of 2011. If the European Union has not adopted a budget by then and still needs to set one every month, it will be very difficult for our Presidency to discharge its duties. We must ask ourselves what is more important: an easy short-term solution, which means giving in to a number of countries and the Presidency, or a more ambitious plan, which may be more difficult but which, in the long term, will make the EU stronger and from which we really will all gain? In my opinion, it is more important for us to build a strong European Union together. A European Union of this kind needs its own resources and a strong budget based on the principle of solidarity in order to fund what is needed. There are several EU Member States, first and foremost the United Kingdom, which do not even wish to discuss this. We cannot afford to give in to national egoisms.

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

14. Presentation of the Commission work programme for 2011 (debate)

  President. – I would like to remind you that 30 years ago, a terrible earthquake hit some regions of Italy, Irpinia and Basilicata, resulting in the deaths of thousands and thousands of people. I believe we must all show our sympathy and offer our condolences and our solidarity both to the families and to the areas that were hit.

The next item is the statement by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, on the presentation of the Commission work programme for 2011.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, today I have the honour of presenting the Commission work programme for 2011. The presentation marks a beginning and an end. On the one hand, the work programme intervenes and launches a new phase of very important political work. On the other hand, the adoption of the programme is the conclusion of the enhanced structured dialogue, which was opened with the State of the Union debate in September here in this Parliament.

The preparations leading to this year’s Commission work programme have indeed been a ‘première’, and, in my opinion, a very successful one. By advancing the implementation of our revised Framework Agreement, we have been able to engage in in-depth discussions on the political priorities for the coming years.

Throughout this fruitful process, I have been encouraged by the large degree of convergence on the overall direction and on concrete initiatives. It is a process which has acted to consolidate what I have called ‘a special partnership’.

European action must focus on those challenges where the EU can bring a tangible added value. The 40 strategic initiatives which the Commission commits to present in 2011 reflect the main political priorities that we have identified together. For the sake of transparency, the programme moreover includes 150 other proposals which the Commission is working on.

Sustaining economic recovery and securing our societies for the future remains the overarching priority in 2011. Our efforts will continue along three main tracks: strengthening governance, completing financial sector reform and accelerating our implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Long-term growth must be based on a sound macro-economic foundation. Through initiating the so-called ‘European semester’, and the follow-up to our proposals of 29 September, we will reinforce the European fiscal framework and broaden macro-economic surveillance to prevent imbalances.

An ambitious financial sector reform is already well under way and important legislation has been accomplished. In 2011, the Commission will table the remaining pieces of regulation. Key priorities, such as transparency and consumer protection, will be pursued, while a bank crisis framework will aim to prevent and tackle future crises. The Commission will seek to support Parliament and the Council in reaching agreement on the complete reform before the end of 2011.

Europe must keep pace, focusing on our comparative advantages in this 21st century of globalisation. When competitors are cheaper, we must be smarter. As an example of action at European level, we will develop a more integrated European standardisation system as an important platform for sharpening the competitive edge of our companies, particularly SMEs.

For Europe to remain competitive and secure more and better jobs, the transition to a low carbon, resource-efficient society must be carefully planned. Therefore, bringing together the policies on climate change, energy, transport and environment will be a priority. A particular focus in 2011 will be on energy efficiency.

Adapting to a dynamic economic reality also means ensuring a high level of protection of workers’ rights in close cooperation with social partners. Key proposals on posting of workers and working time will be developed and tabled in 2011. Meanwhile, the revision of the State aid rules applicable to services of general interest will be a tangible step towards establishing a quality framework which takes account of the particular nature of these services.

With the Single Market Act, the Commission has launched an ambitious process to make the single market deliver on its full potential. Our companies should focus on business, not bureaucracy. Not least, SMEs are often overburdened or indeed discouraged from pursuing otherwise promising cross-border projects. As a concrete example, by clarifying the rules on collectively managed copyrights, we can simplify the current framework conditions, encourage further cross-border activity and release important job-creating potential – not least in the promising digital sector.

On the demand side, a priority will be to strengthen consumer confidence with our proposal on alternative dispute resolution as an important instrument to speed up the often much too slow process of resolving consumer problems.

Whether we act as consumers, as workers, as students, as travellers or in any other of the multiple roles we fulfil in modern, everyday life, it is when we experience new opportunities, a reduction in risks, or improvements in the quality of life, that the European Union makes sense. This is a European Union at the service of the citizens.

The ambition of making the EU a tangible reality for citizens must go beyond the single market. Strengthening security should always be a means of helping citizens to benefit from the opportunities of the European Union, never an end in itself. Our proposal for ‘smart borders’ will facilitate travelling in and out of the EU while deterring irregular immigration. To keep Europe open, we will also take action against those that try to exploit our economic system for illegal purposes, while the framework for data protection will respond to a very real concern of citizens in the Internet Age. The Union must play a role in the world that matches its economic weight, so we must ensure coherence in our external action.

As such, the work programme announces concrete action to project our 2020 objectives for jobs and growths internationally. We will also modernise our development policy and humanitarian aid. Those in the world in need really need a stronger Europe in the world.

Before concluding, I would like to briefly explain what you will not find in the Commission work programme and why.

As announced, we will submit the proposal for the next multiannual financial framework by mid-2011. The specific financial instruments and programmes will be presented in the second half of 2011 in conjunction with the overall framework. To maintain the political nature of the work programme, implementation work as a rule has not been included. The same applies for international negotiations, as their conclusion depends on third parties. Meanwhile, these activities remain an important part of our core business. We will continue to deliver and to pursue our dialogue with you on them.

In my introduction, I noted that the work programme was not only the conclusion of our fruitful dialogue, but also the beginning of a next step in our concrete efforts to steer the European Union out of the crisis and beyond. Now is the time to maintain momentum. We need to find ways to collectively accelerate our work.

I therefore take this opportunity to encourage Parliament and the Council to engage in trilateral discussions on how to implement the treaty provisions on Union programming. In the Commission’s view, this could translate into agreements to move forward quicker in negotiations on selected initiatives of particular importance to attaining our political objectives. Such a concerted effort would demonstrate our determination to deliver concrete, timely responses in the face of the crisis which has shaken us all. Europe’s citizens would expect this. I believe the European Union institutions should respond to citizens’ concerns.

Thank you for your attention.

  József Szájer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) Mr President, President Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, Europe must overcome the crisis. Europe’s economy must be founded on work. We must steer the countries of the European Union out of the current grave crisis by concentrating, as our main priority, on providing work opportunities to as many European citizens as possible. For this reason, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) wholeheartedly supports job creation as the most important objective of the European Commission’s work programme for next year.

Europe has learnt much from the crisis. This year, we have embarked on the development of a new economic governance system in an accelerated procedure and hope that Parliament can debate the new proposals related to financial regulation and economic governance next year in a way that ensures their adoption as soon as possible.

My PPE colleagues will raise important issues for each area, and I would like to mention only a few: competitiveness must be based on innovation and research. We believe that there are not enough initiatives concerning this area in the Commission’s work programme. There is a need for the increased protection of intellectual property rights and a viable competitive European patent system, as well. We believe that the increased control of European food imports is important and that they should be subject to at least the quality requirement that the European Union expects of its own producers. We would also have liked to have seen more proposals concerning the water issue set by the Hungarian Presidency as one of the major objectives.

Ladies and gentlemen, based on the Treaty of Lisbon, a new order of the European Union’s legislative and work programme began in September this year with Mr Barroso’s speech on the State of the Union. Since the new treaty guarantees Parliament strong rights to intervene in the European Union’s programme, we believe that further measures are important. Unfortunately, previous experiences are not good. The Commission’s earlier work programmes were only partially realised according to plan. As I have already mentioned several times, I question, together with a number of my fellow Members, the point of wasting immense energy and time on many occasions each year analysing and adopting a document which, in any event, only covers the reality in part. For this reason, I would like to suggest that Parliament’s competent committee regularly examines the implementation of the Commission’s work programme in the course of the year as well, in order to better enforce the influence of the citizens we represent on the EU’s joint affairs.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Šefčovič, I believe that we can support much of the content of this programme, Mr Barroso. However, you will, I am sure, understand if we look at the more critical points today, where we want to see more being done. We live in a Europe which is increasingly under the influence of anti-European forces that are fighting against the institutions of the European Union. We need to consider carefully what materials and methods we can use to oppose them. I will come back to this point later on.

The first issue is growth policy. Mr Barroso, it is right that we must regulate the financial markets and put safety nets in place. However, we must also somehow return to the situation that you have often clearly described, in other words, to what we understand by green growth or green jobs and the restructuring of the economy. Mr Oettinger has recently published a series of documents on energy policy which involved huge investments. Unfortunately, the documents do not explain how these investments are to be financed. We must emerge from this crisis with an active growth policy in place. I am wondering where in the energy sector or the transport sector, for example, investments of this kind can be made in order to bring about green growth or create green jobs. We simply do not have enough.

My second point concerns the internal market. You are right, Mr Barroso. The concept of the internal market must be made public. You have proposed several reports based on Professor Monti’s work. He was very critical of the social dimension of the internal market in particular. More needs to happen in this area. Most importantly, we are waiting for concrete proposals from you concerning the Posting of Workers Directive. We must make it clear in the interests of the workers that this directive must not be used to create cheap labour. Its purpose is to improve social welfare.

My third point relates to tax policy. We believe that the proposals made in this area are too weak. As we have just seen in the debate on Ireland, certain countries must not be allowed to set lower tax rates in order to attract businesses and then, when they get into financial difficulties, to call on other countries to finance their budget deficits, if I can put this in such a simplistic way. Tax harmonisation is necessary to a certain degree, for example, minimum rates of corporation tax. I believe that we need to make progress in this area. I know that you have difficulties with many Member States, but I believe it is essential, in particular, when it comes to social issues. The divide between rich and poor is unacceptable and we must introduce new proposals, particularly in the interests of women, who are especially hard hit by poverty.

Finally, you have spoken about citizens’ concerns, Mr Barroso. This is a very important issue. However, the way in which we present what we do – and this concerns you as well as Parliament – is also important. Many people do not realise that, in the case of a large number of issues, all that we do is to issue incomprehensible press releases about our work. We must work together to explain what we do more effectively. The citizens’ initiative will soon be starting. Its opponents will exploit it and use it against Europe. We must make sure that the citizens’ initiative helps to support and develop Europe.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, times are hard for the European economy and for the European project as a whole. We have been devising big strategies such as the climate package, the energy package and the 2020 strategy: schemes after schemes. We still do not seem to know where we want to go and what we want to be.

Why am I saying this? Because wanting to be the best is not sufficient to be the best. The reality is that we are adopting strategies we do not all believe in. No one – or almost no one – is implementing them and no one is ready to finance them.

It seems we have too many strategies and a lack of interest in making them a reality. And this is why I believe it is time to get back to the basics of what made the European project possible and brought us together: simple natural things. The single market should be our big scheme and we should put all our effort into enforcing it, because if we want to be competitive on the world stage, we need more economic integration. The only reasonable way to achieve this is through the single market.

I welcome the Commission work programme, and specifically your proposal on the Single Market Act. But that is not enough. You have the monetary report. You know what is needed – to encourage investment, attract capital and boldly cut bureaucratic expenses. We should focus on simple things which have an obvious impact on Europe’s competitiveness, such as resource efficiency, cutting energy costs, reforming the agriculture policy, and the future of transport.

The Commission and Parliament must work hand in hand and ensure that these means match our will. We are therefore looking forward to an ambitious multiannual financial framework proposal in 2011.

Do we need more regulation to tackle the financial crisis? Yes, but only if the aim is to foster Europe’s competitiveness. In any case, we should avoid adopting an autistic response to the crisis, hoping that the rest of the world will follow.

If the message we are sending to our citizens and to the world is not that the EU is a pragmatic association of ideas, capital and values, we will not become the global player we want to be. Instead of influencing policies in the world, we will be affected by them.

Now a word on the European Semester. The Commission is best placed to identify our strengths and weaknesses when planning work. But you should be careful, because what you are proposing to EU citizens and Member States is that they should believe that Brussels knows better, and that politicians in Brussels are closer to the citizen’ interests than an MP from their constituency. It is a difficult job, and you will commit to this through policy coordination in 2011.

I hope you will succeed in proving this, in boosting growth and jobs – not for some, but for all. Otherwise, we will witness the rise of real anti-Europeanism.

I wish you good luck.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, it is important to make it clear that we cannot discuss this work programme without considering the current budget debate and without thinking about Greece, Ireland and other countries which may get into difficulties.

Firstly, I would like to say that, at the end of the budget debate, I heard that you, Mr Barroso, took a very open approach to Parliament’s positions. I believe that it is genuinely important to be honest when we adopt a work programme of this kind and not to behave as if we could achieve and implement all these wonderful objectives without a reliable budget that does not need to be constantly renegotiated.

Secondly, the discussions about Ireland have shown how far we are from reaching a real solution and a way out of the crisis that we have got ourselves into because we were too liberal with regard to the financial markets. On behalf of my group, I would like to say that your proposals as to how we will overcome the financial crisis and how we will find escape routes contain a few good starting points, but we do not believe that the objective you have set yourself is sufficiently challenging.

If we look back at the time we have already spent discussing a successful, functioning monetary union within the European Union and if we want to guarantee that we are really taking a step towards economic governance for Europe, it becomes clear that we must not abandon this now.

We feel that your proposal lacks a positive focus on establishing a common economic policy after the end of the crisis, rather than just tackling the symptoms, and we will continue to work on this area.

Mr Swoboda has already mentioned green issues. I am not satisfied with how the description of sustainable, fair and green growth from the Europe 2020 strategy has been represented in this work programme. This is not what we discussed in the context of Europe 2020 and it is relevant that Mr Oettinger is one of the Commissioners who are moving further and further away from the idea of rebuilding Europe in a sustainable form.

  Oldřich Vlasák, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, next year will be a test for the European institutions as to whether they can support the current economic recovery and enable long-term growth through their policies. The European Commission work programme is a key document in this regard.

However, I would like to say at this point that less legislation can sometimes mean more. I am therefore concerned, for example, about the planned regulatory activities of the Commission in the area of concessions on services. In this particular case, it has to be said that the area of concessions is now explicitly excluded from the framework of public procurement, which has also been confirmed in many rulings from the European Court of Justice. Radical changes would definitely not benefit this area. Persons involved in the economy, including those from the public administration side, are worst affected when conditions they have learned to work with constantly change, and they therefore lack certainty as regards their decision making. All policies must therefore be adopted a considerable time in advance, so that we can give everyone enough time to prepare during the implementation phase.

  Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, the Commission’s reasoning seems to be permanently oblivious to the serious crisis in Europe. You even write in your document, I quote: ‘The signs of recovery are clear’. Where are these signs of recovery for those who are currently unemployed, living in poverty or homeless?

Are you aware that we lent over EUR 400 billion of public money to rescue the banks and that this figure is precisely the amount of savings that will have been imposed on the people of the eight countries that are under the austerity plan? Your choices are therefore ineffective.

In the Commission’s programme, I suggest carrying out an assessment of the effects the implementation of the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon has had on European workers and citizens. In my opinion, the solution is not austerity in wages or budgets. Instead, it should be structured around the increase of remuneration from work, improved social protection and solidarity-based pay-as-you-go pension schemes, as well as a contribution of capital income to public finances, thereby establishing a new fiscal justice. In fact, why not launch studies straight away into the creation of a tax on capital movements, setting up another credit with a new role for the European Central Bank, which, by means of money creation and another credit, should help Member States to refinance banks for safeguarding work, for education, for training, for all the common public assets with new public services for research and innovation.

Today, what will make Europe credible is wealth distributed differently, not the straightjacket of austerity and unemployment.

  Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, since creation of jobs is one of the priorities in the programme we have, I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to a new era of emigration from southern Europe. But I am afraid nobody in the Commission is listening to me. Already in Greece, we are seeing huge numbers of young skilled and highly skilled workers emigrate to Australia, Canada and the Emirates. The same thing is happening in Ireland.

On one hand, Germany has announced that it has a skilled labour shortage. What I would like to say is that Germany does not have to import skilled labour from third countries. Member States that face economic problems could provide skilled labour to Germany. I would very much like to propose an initiative, to be taken up with the Commission, developing the notion of added value. Why not adopt a labour market with European added value? Within the Member States, we have to face supply and demand. We have to strengthen Europe with a European skilled labour force. This is missing in the programme and I strongly propose it.

  Richard Seeber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Commission on its ambitious work programme, but we must attempt to align it more closely with Europe’s strategic objectives and with the long-term strategy. I would like to ask the Commission to look more boldly and less anxiously to the future. You have the necessary support from Parliament, while the Council, in particular, plays more of a restraining role. The progressive forces must stick together in this case. Competitiveness is one of the central issues that we need to deal with, to ensure that Europe remains competitive and that we can achieve our objectives, such as sustainable growth and social growth. It is also important that we convey this message correctly. Unfortunately, the anti-European forces have a much greater presence, particularly in the media, than the pro-European forces. However, everyone is aware that Europe can only move forward jointly in the right direction.

We must call on the Commission to focus in its overall programme during the next few years on increasing efficiency in the field of energy, in the use of resources and raw materials, and in education. Universities and schools must make a contribution to creating a smart Europe. The field of research and development faces particular challenges in this respect. We need to be aware that the rest of the world is not sleeping. We must not look with anxiety to the future and continue with our parochial approach, as is happening to a certain extent in the Council. Parliament and the Commission must look to the future together.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I believe that in this turbulent period we are going through, it cannot have been easy for the Commission to draw up such an ambitious plan, and I would therefore like to begin by offering you my congratulations. Despite that, I do have some comments to make.

The key word of the programme is economic recovery after the crisis, and intelligent, sustainable and inclusive recovery. I would like to say, Mr Vice-President, that I am rather sceptical about this. In the first place, I believe it is rather premature to talk about a recovery, because, even though there are certain indications, it is still not at all certain that there will be a recovery, and I think we cannot allow ourselves further doubts.

Moreover, I believe that in many states, the Commission is supporting policies which make recovery rather unlikely. Examples of this might include Latvia, Greece and recently also Ireland. While it is true that the debt burden is often too high, through restrictive economic policies, we will sooner find that there is no return to growth and that the actual debt burden has increased further.

I see the attempt to assert budget discipline through introducing more stringent Europe-wide regulations in a similar light. Such measures are counterproductive in a crisis. In addition, budget discipline will not resolve structural imbalances in the economies of the EU, such as trade surpluses and deficits, for example. However, I think this belongs to a longer discussion.

Where I really do support the efforts of the European Commission is in the regulation of the financial sector. I am not quite sure whether the measures proposed and adopted are sufficient, but in principle, they clearly mark a step in the right direction. The effort for intelligent and sustainable growth is also praiseworthy, and I understand that the programme cannot go fully into the details, but we do now need much more ambitious formulations and measures in the fight against poverty and the fight for social inclusion.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the Commission’s programme contains some worthy priorities: sustaining economic growth, preserving and creating jobs, improving energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources.

The SNP Scottish Government, our pro-European nationalist government, shares these objectives and is making the maximum use of its devolved, limited power and is achieving progress on other challenges as well.

The European Free Alliance Group here, which includes the SNP as well as other pro-European nationalists from Wales, Catalonia and Flanders, are contributing to good government in our own countries, but our ambition is to play a full part in EU decision making too, taking our place as normal independent Member States so that we can exercise the full range of governmental powers at home and work constructively here with colleagues towards a better Europe as well.

  Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, in this time of crisis, in which we find ourselves, there are two main types of policies and actions: preventive policies and actions and stimulative policies and actions.

Preventive policies are those that currently concern the supervision of financial services, governance and strengthening governance. In other words, anything that is going to alert us to the fact that there are problems before the problems overwhelm the European economies.

However, the second type of policies – stimulative policies – are essential. There are three fundamental aspects of these policies, Mr Barroso, Mr Wathelet. Naturally, there are more, but I am going to highlight three: research and innovation, the development of a digital society – in other words, the digital agenda – and the internal market.

The first, research and innovation, is where I find the work programme presented by the Commission to be lacking.

President Barroso said earlier that the specific programmes will come in mid-2011, but I do not think that is enough. I can assure you that I and my group would very much have liked to see a reference to the Eighth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, which does not feature in your proposal.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, Mr Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen, discussing the work programme of the European Commission is not merely a formality. It is a way of attracting the attention of European citizens and of signposting to the European Commission areas in which it can be supported by the members of this House.

I will dwell on a few specific topics. The coming year will be especially important for the presence of the EU on the global stage. Externally, we should see an increasingly more effective European External Action Service, which cannot gain strength without the support of the European Commission as a whole.

As far as enlargement policy is concerned, we would like the Commission to make use of the new energy generated in 2010. We are calling on the Commission to help Croatia to meet the remaining requirements to bring accession negotiations to as early a successful conclusion as possible in 2011. As far as the progress of Chapter 23 is of particular importance to us, we expect the Commission to report to Parliament on how the talks have progressed in the first quarter of 2011.

The other candidate state, which the Commission must monitor with particular attention, is Turkey. We expect Turkey to be encouraged to speed up fulfilment of its undertakings in the negotiations process after the 2011 elections and to start work on a new constitution with particular emphasis on fundamental citizens’ rights and freedoms.

We also urge the Commission to regularly inform the European Parliament on the position drafting process for Serbia’s application for EU membership.

We hope that the European neighbourhood policy review concludes with a proposal for appropriate corrections ensuring coherence between policy aims and financial instruments which guarantee these aims. In this, the Commission will be able to count on the support of the European Parliament. Our objectives in the Europe 2020 strategy must reflect our policy towards neighbouring countries in the Mediterranean as well as the East. Thank you, and I wish you success in your work over the coming year.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, we want the European Commission’s legislative programme to be in line with Europe’s long-term objectives and we believe that there is room for improvement in many areas, although we very much welcome the basic approach of this legislative programme.

With regard to the internal market, an area which I am responsible for, I would like to say in particular that we want to ensure, on the basis of the paper produced by Professor Monti, that all the citizens of Europe can gain more benefits from the internal market. When we discuss the Commission’s work programme and when we take the Monti report as our foundation, this means, of course, firstly that the Commission must tackle the requirements of this paper, in other words, it must ensure that the infringement proceedings taken by the Commission against the Member States are strengthened to enable the transposition deficit to be reduced from 1% to 0.5%. Unfortunately, there is nothing about this in the work programme. Alongside the individual measures which are addressed in this report, such as the digital agenda, mortgage credit, concessions and many others which I will not refer to individually, we believe that it is important in every case that the measures which are announced for 2011 are actually presented in 2011. The additional information about the fact that the Commission is evaluating certain legislative plans does not help in this respect.

Finally, I believe that we should call on the European Commission to carry out an impact assessment of all its legislative proposals, so that we can understand why they are needed.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we have made major progress on behalf of the citizens of Europe with the Treaty of Lisbon, because we have included the social market economy among the principles of European policy. It is clear that we as Europeans and as parliamentarians expect the social market economy to be turned into a reality. Now we are looking at the internal market itself and the issues relating to the internal market as a whole and we can see that some of the things which should have been included have been omitted.

It is not enough to carry out social impact assessments of European legislation. We need a social clause to be put into practice, so that the promises which were made that the citizens would really benefit from Europe are fulfilled and do not simply remain on paper. This is not just about the social clause, but also about important issues such as the services of general economic interest, which require special protection. It is very important to me that the European Commission finally addresses this question and looks more closely at issues concerning workers than was necessary, for example, in the context of the Posting of Workers Directive, where we are still waiting to find out what will happen next.

Finally, and now I am slowly starting to get really annoyed, we have been calling on the European Commission for a long time to introduce a system for class actions at a European level. The Commission has already carried out six or seven different studies. What do we find now in this work programme? Another study has been commissioned. We cannot go on like this. We want the Commission to finally come up with some proposals and decisions in this area.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, as the coordinator of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I should like to emphasise two points in your programme.

Firstly, strengthening economic governance and initiating the European Semester. We were pleased to welcome the package on economic governance. Achieving this target is critical. In this respect, our group would like to see effective and binding measures that go further than what is being proposed. It is also necessary for Parliament to be truly involved in finalising the processes envisaged and in their implementation. Legal bases should be found to prevent the treaties from being substantially amended, which would only slow down the implementation of measures that must be taken.

The second point concerns the continuation of the work on financial regulation. The projects are on the table, or will be soon. 2011 will be a decisive year. We appreciate Commissioner Barnier’s pro-activeness. In 2010, Parliament showed its determination in adopting the supervision package, the directive on alternative investment fund managers and, in all likelihood by the end of the year, the regulation that will set up the European supervision of credit rating agencies. We want to continue on the path of a pragmatic, intelligent and effective regulation. That is what we are expecting from the Commission today.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). – Mr President, first of all, President Barroso talked in his introduction about introducing some measures on posting of workers. He was not specific on this, but I would remind him that he made a very specific commitment in the hearings, before he was reappointed as President, to revise the Posting of Workers Directive, so that social dumping would be prevented as a result of its operation and the court cases that arose from it. I would like to remind him of that.

Could I also make the point that it is extremely essential that we introduce legislation to provide legal certainty for those in the Member States who provide social services of general interest? There seems to be a complete blindness on the part of the Commission with regard to the problems that exist in that area. I am working on a report on that at the moment and I will come back to this early next year. I also welcome the poverty platform, but I have no evidence at all that the Commission is using the 2020 strategy on which the platform is based, for instance, in the current negotiations with the Irish Government about resolving the problems there.

If the 2020 strategy is not the framework for those negotiations, what is the framework? What is the European contribution to resolving the difficulties in Ireland, other than resolving the issues of the banks?

Could I just make one final point? I think it is entirely putting the cart before the horse for any Member of this Parliament to talk here about establishing a minimum corporation profits tax across the European Union without also talking about a common fiscal policy, without also having a budget strong enough to provide the cohesion necessary for weak and peripheral states, and a whole range of other European policies that need to be put in place before we can seriously talk about a corporation tax being the same right across the European Union.

  Csaba Őry (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, as the coordinator of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) within the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I consider the work programme tabled before us to be encouraging and I especially welcome the fact that soon, we will be able to start a debate on the flagship initiative under the cover name ‘new skill, new job’.

I would like to make some political and some professional comments. I think it is important that we start consultations in good time and that the Commission takes into consideration not only the agenda suggested by the Council but also the agendas adapting to the needs of Parliament. I believe it is important, as others have said, that existing financial resources should back projects and priorities and, at the same time, I consider it important that the adopted programmes should be followed by tracking and monitoring as well.

Some problems: education. We agree with raising educational and training standards, but regret the fact that legislative benefits for occupational diseases are absent. I wish to emphasise and remind the Commission that we support more efficient implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive, but oppose all kinds of new directives.

We believe that the Social Fund, the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Regional Fund must be used in a synergic manner, with special emphasis on the main priority that is needed to link these programmes, namely job creation and expansion of employment. One final remark: the administrative burdens that weigh heavily on economic actors and, in particular, on small and medium-sized enterprises, must be eliminated, and this must apply to European programmes and European funding initiatives as well.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, I will try to be very brief. I wish to thank the Commission for this work programme, which must have been very difficult to prepare as the budget is not available to us. I, too, wish to mention the points which we would have liked to have included, but were missing. We would have liked a legislative proposal to be tabled on the long-awaited industrial policy, and likewise there should have been a step forward with the raw materials policy.

We would have been pleased to see proposals of a more concrete nature in the Commission’s work programme as regards energy efficiency and energy projects. We very much regret the fact that the semi-annual evaluation of the research and development framework programme will not take place and wish to stress most emphatically that if agreement can be reached in the budget about the Galileo and ITER programmes, we will be able to return to this issue.

We would very much welcome a more efficient implementation of the small enterprise policy, which will soon celebrate its second birthday. Likewise, we would be glad if this year, when we will have two semesters of successive new Member State presidencies, namely from Hungary and Poland, cohesion and integration within the EU could continue.

The gap between the eastern and western halves of the European Union, which is visible, for instance, in wages and in other respects, is unacceptable. It would certainly be worthwhile to make progress here. Finally, we would be very pleased if we could move forward with the Eastern Partnership, which is very important in terms of energy security. This is true even if there are people even in Parliament who try to hinder it, for example, in connection with Euronest.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, this work programme presents the recovery of growth and jobs, as well as economic regulation, as key to restoring confidence. That is true. Our model of economic development can no longer make do with strengthening the enforcement aspect of a Stability Pact that has continually shown its limitations. The recovery of growth must be centred on job creation throughout the Union in its entirety. We need to look at employment and social standards as indicators of economic power and, from that point of view, emphasise the need to put more thought into the European tax on financial transactions and into a greater coordination between the European Union and the European ministers for employment, as well as into the Union’s economic proposals. I support the Members who took the floor to highlight the importance of the directive on the posting of workers and on the services of general interest.

I think that the European Union’s digital strategy is a crucial factor for this new economy. We should show more recognition of the Commission’s ambition on this point.

With regard to citizenship, the Union should put the citizens back at the heart of the European project, and the increase in financial allocations should not only focus on security aspects, in particular, on managing migratory flows.

Finally, I would end, Mr President, by saying that, in essence, this work programme for 2011 should be the very example of a policy that addresses in a positive way this temptation for nations to withdraw, which all our Member States are experiencing. I believe the European Commission has the power to change things. It can rely on a Parliament which will be a proactive force and will support it if it shows more ambition.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, I would like to make three brief points. Firstly, I believe, with regard to external relations, that the Commission, which has a particular responsibility in this area, should take a more conceptual approach to the Eastern Partnership than it has done in the past and should call for a multilateral relationship between the members of the partnership. In particular, we should carry out a much more effective evaluation of the Eastern Partnership in our own interest, not only from an energy perspective, and we should make this one of our priorities.

Secondly, I do not know what the situation is with structural funds in other areas, but the process for the financial management of the programmes for external relations is unbearably slow. By the time the money is made available, the political objective is already a year old. We have seen this in the case of the Middle East programmes, the Eastern Partnership and in many other areas. I know that this also has to do with Parliament and the Financial Regulation of the European Union and that it causes so many problems as a result of the procedures which we had under the Santer Commission 10 years ago. However, if we really want to put all this money to good use and to ensure that it does not just have a deadweight effect or always arrive too late, because the train has already departed in the other direction, and to promote our own policy interests, we need some good ideas from the Commission as to how decisions on the establishment and implementation of programmes and payments of money in these areas can be made much more quickly.

My third point, Mr Barroso, is that the question of the Transatlantic Economic Council and the economic relationship with the USA, and not only its economic significance but also its strategic importance, seem to me not to be covered in sufficient detail in the Commission’s paper.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, Europe’s citizens expect that in 2011, European institutions will focus on creating new jobs and on social Europe.

As Vice-Chair of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I wish to express my dismay that you have postponed the White Paper on the future of European transport until 2011. This document is vital to both the future financial outlook and the future of the cohesion policy, which we have already begun to discuss.

I wish to highlight from the work programme for 2011 the importance of the legislative initiatives in the following areas: personal data protection, improvement of information and network security based on public procurement standards and recommendations, electronic signatures and reciprocal recognition of electronic identification and authentication mechanisms. These initiatives are absolutely imperative for implementing the digital agenda and achieving the internal market, including in the services sector.

We are also anticipating with interest the legislative initiative on smart energy networks. These networks are necessary both to make it possible to obtain electricity generated from renewable energy resources, in which Member States have made huge investments in recent years, and to prepare the necessary infrastructure for electric vehicles.

I will say by way of conclusion that the digital agenda and energy efficiency, which are areas that contribute to both job creation and the European Union’s competitiveness, should be, along with social Europe, our main priorities for 2011.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, the Commission has put forward an incredibly wide-ranging programme for 2011 and I would like to make it quite clear that I think it would be good if the prioritisation were improved.

We now have around 30 Directorates-General and 26 Commissioners. I do not believe that every Directorate-General and every Commissioner should have to justify their existence by producing large numbers of legislative proposals. I am convinced that it would sometimes be good for Europe if we were to set genuine priorities and restrict ourselves to the essentials. Europe’s strength lies not in concerning itself with as many issues as possible, but in taking more time for important questions.

I would like to make some points relating to external trade in particular, as I am the coordinator for my group in this area. I would be pleased if we could at last make some progress with the transatlantic relationship, as Elmar Brok has already said. The Transatlantic Economic Council has been on the agenda for years, but has not yet had any real successes. If we look at how the world has changed during this time and how the economic power of different regions in the world has shifted, we can see that we urgently need to work much more closely with the Americans.

It would be good if the Commission could remember during the course of its work that the European Parliament is a colegislator in the field of external trade since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. Both sides, Parliament and the Commission, will have to learn how to deal with one another and how to draw up legislation jointly, with regard to external trade in particular. I would be very happy if the Commission were to pay special attention to this area and, most importantly, to allow plenty of time for the dialogue and for transparent, joint activities.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, firstly, I welcome the work done by the Commission to advance this agenda. The European Union is making every effort to end this economic crisis. However, despite the amount of work done and the amount still to be done, we cannot forget the people in the developing world.

Mr President, as the joint PPE coordinator on the Development Committee, may I say that it is absolutely shocking to understand that, after we agreed to meet a commitment of 0.7% of GNP to assist the developing world, that budget is the first budget – or is certainly in the front line – to be cut every time there is financial retrenchment in our Member States. I understand – we all understand – that when GNI goes down, the contribution will go down, but it should not go down as a percentage of GNI and then go down again.

I ask the Commission to do everything in its power, so soon after the Millennium Development Review in New York, to ensure that Member States face up to their commitment. We are not asking them not to reduce their contributions. We are asking that they do not reduce their contributions as a percentage of their reduced GNI.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Mr President, briefly, I just wanted to say that, due to the economic times we are currently living through, it is easy and natural to focus simply on the economic aspect. Europe, however, is not solely made up of the European market but of the European citizen, too. Therefore, we must push ahead with the implementation of the Stockholm Programme, because it is the Stockholm Programme, on which we have just reached agreement, that will lead us to create a Europe for our citizens.

In more concrete terms, what we need for next year is further development to counter terrorism and ensure general security for our citizens, because our citizens are demanding more security from the European Union. We must also strengthen our fight against organised crime, especially in the area of corruption. Furthermore, we need to reinforce our citizens’ rights in, for example, the protection of victims of crime. Finally, we need to create a single common asylum and immigration policy that is based on the principle of solidarity. Thank you very much.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, the work programme for 2011 presented by the European Commission really does seem rather ambitious. I hope that this document becomes a founding document for the future – a more competitive, more united and more prosperous European future.

Nevertheless, in the past, there were many ambitious documents and plans, not all of which were implemented. I remember well how, a few years ago, those countries that are now experiencing a huge financial crisis were held up as an example of how to conduct financial and economic policy. Today, however, life has brought massive changes.

I therefore entirely support greater monitoring of the financial market, the creation of a common energy market and the development of principles to integrate countries into our economy to a greater extent. Only then will we be able to ensure in future that the European Union is more competitive, and that our people will be better provided for in terms of jobs and incomes.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, reading the Commission work programme for 2011, one principal point stands out: use of the crisis to grab power for the Commission. Coordination of economic and fiscal policies, broader and enhanced surveillance of fiscal policies, better coordination of macro-economic policy and, more chillingly, new enforcement mechanisms. We have heard that this will produce smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, but if we look at the Commission’s Europe 2020 document, it is disarmingly frank: 23 million unemployed, 4% fall in GDP in 2009. As long as we embrace globalism, we shall not dig ourselves out of the crisis.

The 2020 document refers to Member States being the most innovative in the world, but if emerging low wage economies are able to steal inventions with impunity, innovation will not help us. We must protect our economies from piratical and slave-labour economies. 2020 refers to the people of Europe as talented and creative; perhaps we should follow demographic policies that foster those talents and protect and preserve that creativity.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the Commission work programme is ambitious, but I think there is one thing missing – I would like the Commission to place greater emphasis on the implementation of rules, laws, strategies and policies which are already in existence. We are creating more strategies and drafting new documents, but very many things are simply not being put into effect, particularly in the field of energy. Therefore, I think this should be a separate, special item in the Commission’s work. If the Commission does not make sure that laws which have already been passed are put into effect, it will simply not be very credible and will lose its legitimacy. This is also how we allowed major financial problems to occur in Europe – when we did not observe the Maastricht criteria. Many countries slowly began to ignore them or violate them, and now we have very great problems. Yes, this may be rather unimpressive, it may not look very good on paper, but I think it is crucial for the work of the Commission.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, although the Commission planned to revive job creation as soon as possible, in the area of employment and social affairs, the Commission work programme for 2011 sadly does not contain specific proposals on the creation of new and good quality jobs. Again, the Commission proposes the same legislative initiatives on the posting of workers and working time as it did in the work programme for the previous year, and pledges to improve the rights of migrant workers throughout the European Union.

However, that really is not enough. We are having a thorough debate on the future of pensions in the European Union and one of the proposals is to increase the retirement age, but the Commission has not provided specific proposals on the employment of elderly people. Secondly, under the conditions of the economic and financial crisis, illegal work and the shadow economy have grown significantly. There really is a lack of concrete proposals on how we should combat this malady together.

Thirdly, in order to overcome poverty and really reduce the number of people living in poverty in the European Union, I truly hope that the Commission will introduce a directive on minimum income as soon as possible.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, when drawing up the work programme, continuation is always assumed on the one hand, and changes are assumed on the other. In what proportions, and what will the relationship be between them in 2011? Without doubt, work related to exiting the crisis, improving economic growth and creating jobs should be continued. Our objectives for 2011 have, therefore, been established. The number of strategies which we have adopted is sufficient.

However, we have to change the depth of reforms related to economic governance. This can be seen in the Monti report in the area of essential measures for the single market. We must act similarly in the reform of financial institutions and their supervision. 2011 should be a year of implementing measures which have been adopted and a year when the new agencies commence operation.

An improvement in competitiveness can occur mainly by a growth in efficiency, with the use of innovative and modern methods. Finally, a further important task is work on the objectives and the multiannual financial frameworks for 2014-2020. It is necessary, here, to concentrate on improved economic integration in the future.

  Monika Smolková (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the work programme submitted is ambitious. It includes areas which will help to fulfil the 2020 strategy. Much is said there, but I would rather inquire into what is not said, or not fully said. Specifically, how does the Commission want to prioritise the accelerated adoption of urgent proposals? I place the emphasis on accelerated adoption. We all know what a lengthy business European legislation is.

I would also like to ask – the programme ends by emphasising cooperation between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. My question is: Do you think that constructive cooperation with the Council is possible when there is no tone of cooperation being sounded by Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy?

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank all the honourable Members for their positive and kind words concerning the Commission’s work programme.

If you look through your interventions, you will see that there is a considerable convergence in the goals we would like to achieve together. I think it is because the Commission’s work programme was, to a great extent, our joint endeavour. The structural dialogue we introduced this year, the intense communication between the committees and the Commissioners really paid off. We ended up with a Commission work programme that contains the converging aims between Parliament and the Commission.

Several of you highlighted the importance of focusing on appropriate implementation, so that our programmes and proposals would not simply stay on paper. I absolutely understand this request and, therefore, we also included in the Commission’s work programme monitoring of the ongoing work. I will be very happy to come to Parliament on a regular basis and to brief you on how we are progressing and implementing the Commission’s work programme so we can have a debate, not just once a year but on a regular basis, about how we are progressing with the fulfilment of the Commission’s work programme.

So far this year, out of the 34 initiatives we promised for this year, we will definitely fulfil 30. This is relatively good progress but, of course, we will be ready to discuss this issue further with you and to keep you informed on a regular basis.

I am also very glad that you urge us to do more, not less, with some exceptions. This is, of course, a very welcome tendency from Parliament towards the Commission. I agree with all of you who say that we need to do better. We have not only to perform well to fulfil our goals, but we need to show that with high quality work, we can use the result as the best counter-argument and best instrument to tackle Euroscepticism in Europe and the ghosts of the past, which always emerge when we face tough times: protectionism, racism, xenophobia and many of the phenomena you have just described here. With good work and good cooperation, we can tackle these ghosts of the past.

It is true that we need a lot of investment in infrastructure, but we are also absolutely sure that we need modern infrastructure. If we want to compete on a global level and to preserve our competitive edge, it is very clear that we need to upgrade our infrastructure. It is not only important for our economic goals, but it is also important for the greening of our economies and for resource-efficient economies to be developed. For that, we need to use, more than ever, the project-oriented EU bonds, we need to engage more with the EIB and we need to find ways to use public-private partnerships more in the future. You will also find this in our programme.

Regarding the single market, I welcome all the remarks and the focus on the single market, because this is really the EU’s main crown jewel. We have achieved a lot with the single market and we know that we can achieve even more if we can release the potential of the single market. We need to get rid of the barriers to the single market that still remain, we need to get rid of bottlenecks and we need to use the new areas of the economy. Some of you referred to the digital economy and how much we could improve life in Europe if we used more e-services, e-government or e-commerce, and these are new areas in which we have to engage more.

Mario Monti presented an excellent report and Michel Barnier used this report as a basis for our range of proposals. We started the debate on how to make the European single market better, more open and more competitive, so that it brings us even better results than we have today. So let us participate and look at which of the proposals Michel Barnier put on the table could be the most important ones and which proposals should have higher priority. I believe that together, we will achieve a better and stronger single market.

Regarding the administrative burden, as you know, Günter Verheugen included in the programme a reduction in the administrative burden by 25% before 2012. I am very happy to tell you that the Commission is working very hard so that this limit will be passed. Now, we are aiming to reach the level of 30%, but we also need to be very clear that it is not only the Commission that can deliver results. Very often, the administrative burden increases at national level when they are implementing European legislation with different kinds of strings attached. We need to work on this issue from both levels, from a European level and also from a national level.

Concerning the importance of the social dimension of the European single market, I absolutely agree with you. We learned the lessons of the past and we will be coming with proposals on posted workers, on a time directive and also on the services of general interest, which would reflect this very important social dimension, because we know that the single market will work only when it is embraced by the citizens. Therefore, we need to include this very solid social impact assessment in the proposals we make so we know that the proposals we will be bringing to citizens will be accepted and supported by them.

Ms Tzavela made a very passionate plea related to the potential brain drain, that we are losing young well-educated Europeans who go to work elsewhere outside the European Union. Sometimes it is because of remaining barriers on the labour market in Europe, sometimes it is because of a lack of information, but often it is also because our education does not match the needs of European businesses. Therefore, I am very glad that in a few moments, you will start the discussion on the new flagship initiative.

I see that my colleagues, Commissioner Vassiliou and Commissioner Andor, are here. They will explain how we would like to do it better, how to match the skills with the needs in such a way that young people will not be unemployed but will bring their potential to the European economy, and we will all benefit from that.

Several of you highlighted the importance of the regulation of financial markets and the importance of fast decision making and how we should achieve it. We have already highlighted that, in future, we need to progress with better coordination between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. We would like to do it in a new form of Union programming, where we will decide on the priorities, the timing and the deadlines, so we can deliver the results faster and can accelerate the legislative process even at a faster pace than today.

I can assure you that, as regards the multiannual financial framework, we will do our utmost to bring an ambitious project to you. We need your help in explaining at all levels – to the media, to national audiences – the proportions of this debate, how much we in Europe can achieve with just 1% of GDP, the structure of the European budget with almost 95% of this budget going back to national economies with high value-added from the European Union. This debate must also be taken to the national capitals and we need to talk to citizens, to inform them about how this budget is structured so we can gain strong support for our ambitious proposals.

Elmar Brok referred to very important areas in external relations – the Eastern Partnership, the enlargement process – where we also need to work for credibility on both sides. We must be very credible in how we negotiate and monitor the criteria that are fulfilled by the candidate countries, but we must also be credible in what we are offering to candidates so that we have trust built on both sides.

The United States is a very important partner and, if we manage to get rid of some of the barriers to mutual trade, it would be enormously beneficial and I agree that we need to invest more effort in this area.

On trade, you know that Europe is ready to negotiate and is ready to move, but we need partners. We cannot just forge agreements when we are not sure that they will be equally matched by the other side. But I agree that we need to be tackling this issue all the time, coming up with proposals and looking for new openings, because global trade will definitely benefit the global economy and this is what most of the world economy needs at this moment.

Lastly, on freedom, security and justice, we are fully aware that this is one of the areas of major interest and concern for our citizens and this is why we devoted such a large proportion of our programme to this area. I am sure that my colleagues, Mrs Malmström and Mrs Reding, will pay attention to how to tackle all these concerns, which have been raised both in this debate and in the structural dialogue they had with their respective committees.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place during the part-session in December.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s work programme for 2011 is clearly based on continuity. Among the proclamations of ‘intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth’ are the guidelines that have prevailed, which have given rise to serious imbalances within the EU, the real divergence of EU economies, the severe crisis and the recessionary outlook that some Member States are facing, with unemployment and deep social injustices. It also includes guidelines such as maintaining the irrational criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact, liberalisation and the devaluation of the workforce, and I would highlight its insistence on putting forward a new proposal to amend the directive on the organisation of working time. It is also worth noting the statement in the programme with regard to financial regulation that most of the measures to bridge gaps which have been revealed by the crisis have already been put forward. This shows that the promises to bring an end to tax havens and financial derivatives have fallen by the wayside. This shows that financial speculation is continuing unchecked. New attacks on citizen’s rights, freedoms and guarantees are on the horizon, including the travellers’ registration programme, and this is a matter for close attention and active concern.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The communication from the Commission outlining its work programme for 2011 emphasises coming out of the crisis and stimulating economic growth. One significant element is the virtual market, which still has huge potential for development – on condition, however, of the establishment of a truly single market in the Internet. In relation to this, I strongly encourage the Commission to complete a thorough implementation of the Digital Agenda, which is referred to in the communication. I think use of the potential given to us by information technologies should also be seen as a way out of the economic crisis. The development of Internet commerce, measures in the field of intellectual property rights and making the cultural heritage of Europe available online, should be seen as a test of the European Union’s effectiveness.

As rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs in the area of better lawmaking (2008 report), I would like to express my satisfaction at the fact that the Commission has decided to include proposals from my report in the plan of work for the year. I am thinking of the greater emphasis placed on ex-post evaluation of European law and the prolongation of the public consultation period for new proposals from 8 to 12 weeks.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) I welcome the fact that the European Commission is starting the coming year with a substantial work programme. These days, we are witnessing how the rapidly changing economic, financial and international political circumstances override our plans almost every week. I consider it important, therefore, to review the Commission’s work programme several times in the course of next year.

I am pleased that the document names job creation as one of the top priorities for 2011, but at the same time, I regret the lack of legislative initiatives for employment and social purposes. The Commission has finally decided to draw up the European Roma framework strategy, but I consider it essential that this be accompanied by draft legislation aimed at integration and prohibiting discrimination. When the Barroso Commission was created, it promised that the submission of its proposals will, in each case, be preceded by an evaluation of their social impact; however, I do not see any trace of this in the current work programme. I expect the Commission to be ready, from the beginning of 2011, to accept and address citizens’ initiatives bearing the signatures of one million EU citizens. At a time when, in certain Member States, we see overt and covert attacks on media freedom and infringements of fundamental democratic rights, I consider it particularly important that the European Commission, as the guardian of the treaties, should pay greater attention than ever to government decisions that threaten the independence of the news media, the system of democratic checks and balances and the rule of law, and should, if necessary, take action in defence of fundamental democratic values.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – As a woman and politician dealing with gender equality, I am disappointed with the Commission work programme for 2011. Women are completely forgotten by and left out of this programme. I really had to work to find at least once the word ‘women’ ... in the Annex. Even there, I quote: ‘Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Commission may adopt a legislative proposal on reconciliation, including on paternity and filial leave, in 2012.’ ‘Depending on’. ‘May adopt’. ‘In 2012’. This sentence is from a Commission that rushed to produce an empty, so-called Women’s Charter in March, and that neglected the Parliament when it came to negotiating the new gender equality strategy, which, I might add, is no more concrete than the Commission work programme here. We knew in March that Reding’s Charter was only a façade with no substance. We asked repeatedly for a strong legislative text, but Reding did not want to hear about it. Why can we accept a Europe that sanctions Member States when they are financially not in line with EU rules and agreements but we cannot accept a Europe that sanctions Member States that neglect gender equality and compose governments with few or no women ministers?

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) It is not surprising that the three countries which brought about the collapse of the budget negotiations are net payers and, moreover, recipients of the rebate. Indeed, there can be no doubt that the UK has commenced the obligatory battle for its rebate. The excuses chosen by the budget wreckers are rather feeble. It is quite irresponsible to limit budget flexibility in a time of crisis. We must, on the contrary, increase flexibility in a crisis. The refusal to discuss with Parliament new financial resources for the EU budget in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon, and the refusal to enter into dialogue over the multiannual financial framework, constitute sad caricatures of the once-lauded British sense of humour.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The Commission work programme for 2011 must contain a proposal for a directive to combat violence against women and an EU programme for financing sport. The Commission has committed itself to these things. It is time they were done. Violence against women is currently the most serious manifestation of discrimination against women and is a violation of human rights. In Europe, as many as 45% of women – that is 100 million – have been the victims of violence. Every day, violence is suffered by between 1 and 2 million European women. There is no justification for the delays in drafting a directive on this matter.

I also draw attention to the question of sport, which, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, is included in the competences of the European Union. Once again, the Commission, by appealing to budgetary restrictions at national and European level, has put off presentation of an EU programme in this area. I fear that if we accept such an approach, there will never be a programme, because there will always be matters which are more important than sport. However, promoting physical activity brings indisputable benefits in the form of an improvement to the health and wellbeing of Europeans as well as to their efficiency and effectiveness at work. This helps to reduce illnesses and so reduces the costs of healthcare, and it also combats social exclusion. It is also very important to use the potential of older people in the labour market. I hope the Commission will take account of this matter, which has been raised many times, in its future proposals concerning employment and the creation of new jobs.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

15. An agenda for new skills and jobs (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on the agenda for new skills and jobs.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, today, there are 23 million unemployed people across the European Union, corresponding to an unemployment rate of about 10%.

This situation emerged as a consequence of the financial and economic crisis and we have to face dramatic consequences, but this situation did not deter the European Commission from proposing ambitious objectives in the Europe 2020 strategy, and the European Union has set ambitious targets to meet in the not too distant future.

We have a headline target for an employment rate of 75% for men and women by 2020, and today, the Commission adopted yet another flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy: an ‘agenda for new skills and jobs’ outlining how we intend to make progress towards full employment.

It is complementary to the flagship ‘Youth on the move’ adopted in September. Both should contribute to reach our 2020 employment and education targets. Yes, the crisis has wiped out millions of jobs. Yes, we face increasing international competition, but that is no excuse to shy away from taking action.

On the contrary, it is a call to act and shape our future. Creating more and better jobs is in our hands. Employment policy is largely a Member State responsibility but, as EU policy makers, we in the Commission, together with the European Parliament and the social partners, must do our bit. We must enable everyone who can work to actually do so. We need to allow the workforce to generate new ideas and set up new businesses. We need to ensure that the younger generation can benefit from the social model we have developed. We need better job quality and working conditions for all employees. An agenda for new skills and jobs sets out action in four areas: functioning of labour markets; skills; job quality and working conditions; and job creation.

The agenda proposes 13 specific actions at EU level to be carried out in partnership with governments, social partners and civil society.

First, we have to make sure our labour markets function better by carrying out labour reforms that ensure the necessary flexibility and security. One of the lessons learned in the past two years is that flexicurity policies have contributed to weathering the crisis.

We now propose to discuss with Member States and social partners all components of flexicurity and how to improve them, building on the EU common principles of flexicurity.

The agenda points to flexible, but reliable, contractual arrangements, comprehensive lifelong learning, active labour market policies, and modern social security systems.

There are highly segmented labour markets in the EU where employees with permanent safe contracts coexist, and sometimes work side by side in the same workplace doing the same job, with employees who live under temporary contracts with few social safeguards and slim prospects of a permanent job.

To improve the situation and reduce existing disparities, one possible avenue for discussion offered by the agenda adopted today could be to extend the use of open-ended contractual arrangements. These would have a sufficiently long probation period and a gradual increase in protection rights, access to training, lifelong learning and career guidance for all employees.

Over time, this would allow employees to acquire full rights while firms would have sufficient, but decreasing, flexibility during the probation period, removing the inhibiting elements that often prevent employees from taking on new recruits for the long term.

Second, we need to equip people with the right skills for the jobs on the market today and in the future. We know that even now, some employers are struggling to fill vacancies because they cannot find people with the right skills.

This reveals not only that we need more skills and the right skills, but also that there are persistent mismatches in the EU labour market between available skills and needs.

In the foreseeable future, there could be even more serious shortages of workers than today – ICT practitioners, doctors, nurses, researchers, as well as people with the green skills to help us move towards a greener economy.

‘New skills and jobs’ proposes practical tools in this respect. We will bring more transparency on skill needs and promote better matching, namely through the EU skills panorama to help people see more easily which skills are most needed now and in the future. Commissioner Vassiliou will be able to say more about this. What is clear is that we must work closely with all relevant stakeholders to bridge the gap between education and training and the working world.

Third, we propose to improve the quality of jobs and ensure better working conditions. The EU has very ambitious legislation in this field which needs now to be reviewed. Experience with implementation tells us when and where there is room for improvement. We need to make sure the legislation works better, that it is in line with new working patterns and new technology, and that it is easier to understand and apply for people and businesses.

In practice, we propose to review the Working Time Directive and make a legislative proposal aimed at improving the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive and we will also make proposals in the area of occupational health and safety.

In addition to reviewing EU legislation, the agenda on new skills and jobs proposes an integrated approach that includes so-called soft instruments from codes of conduct and recommendations to implementing guidelines, benchmarking and exchange of good practices.

I look forward to discussing these issues with you and I am confident that together with the European Parliament, the Member States and the social partners, we can make them work better.

Last, but certainly not least, we need to create more jobs. Job creation is needed for growth, but there are too many obstacles in the way. We propose to improve the framework conditions for job creation, especially in fast-moving and R&D-intensive sectors, by reducing the administrative burden and taxes on labour, and by helping entrepreneurs.

We also propose action to foster entrepreneurship and support people who are in the process of setting up a business or have done so recently.

In this respect, one can never reiterate too often the importance of the new micro-finance facility as a tool to help people set up their own businesses. The European Union has plenty of talent. Let us make sure that the ideas and innovations around lead to the creation of quality jobs.

Today, the Commission has presented its priorities on how to make progress towards full employment. An agenda for new skills and jobs can make a real difference if we all work together. I call on you all to play your part in moving forward in our endeavour to reach full employment in Europe.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am particularly glad to present, together with Commissioner Andor, this new flagship initiative ‘An agenda for new skills and jobs’. Better education and training is fundamental for equipping people with the skills they need to find work, stay in work and prepare themselves for the jobs of the future.

This is the reason why we need to invest in people and in their capacity to innovate, to create new enterprises and new jobs. Without significant and sustained investment in high skill levels and education, our economies will struggle to emerge from the crisis quickly. Skills are at the heart of Europe 2020 for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This is the reason why two flagship initiatives, ‘Youth on the move’ and ‘An agenda for new skills and jobs’, have important education and training as well as employment dimensions.

Today, with this initiative, we want to reflect on how education and training can contribute to reaching a 75% employment rate by 2020. Jobs occupied by highly qualified people are expected to rise by 16 million between now and 2020, while those held by low skilled workers will decline by around 12 million over the same period. There are more than 80 million adults in Europe hampered by severe deficiencies in basic skills. Urgent action is therefore needed, especially on the education side.

Firstly, we need to recognise lifelong learning as one of the crucial pillars of flexible security strategies in order to make sure that our labour market functions better, as Commissioner Andor has said. We all agree on the diagnosis. Skills can secure and improve transitions in the labour market, but lifelong learning is not yet a reality in Europe. Upgrading skills should not be a luxury for the highly qualified. It is a necessity for all. The low qualified have very few opportunities to participate in continuous training in all Member States. This should change with the joint effort of all partners, governments, employers and citizens.

Secondly, we need to provide people with the right skills for employment. Europe needs not only to upgrade the skills of people already in the labour market but also to ensure that people get, from the start, the right mix of skills to adapt and evolve in a fast-changing society. We need, firstly, to forecast better the skills needed in the labour market. With that aim in mind, we will present an EU skills panorama which will not only tell us what skills employers are looking for now but will also forecast what skills will be needed in the future. In order to prepare our young people for entering the labour market, and to adapt and work in jobs that may not even exist yet, we need to focus on education systems delivering the right mix of skills. Specific emphasis should be put on basic skills in reading, mathematics and science.

It is of the utmost importance to fight especially against low educational achievement and early school leaving. This is the reason why I decided to launch a high-level group on literacy in January. Moreover, in order to develop a knowledge-based society, we need our children to be better at science, maths and technology. But we also want to focus our effort on the acquisition of transversal skills, which are crucial for employability: for example, language skills, digital literacy or entrepreneurship, and initiative-taking skills. It is, I believe, equally important that we act in order to ensure that we develop the competences which the jobs of the future will require, for example, in renewable energy, green building, smart transport and e-health, just to name a few.

Finally, even in times of crisis and high unemployment rates, some employers are reporting difficulties in recruiting. The agenda calls, therefore, for better matching of people’s skills and job opportunities and capitalising on Europe’s potential. To this end, I will propose a European skills passport, which will enable citizens to record their skills in a clear and comparable way. This will build on the popular Europass CV. My last point is that neither education nor employment alone can deliver the right mix of skills.

We must seek new forms of cooperation and partnership with education and training providers, business and other stakeholders, including trade unions and public employment services.

Mr President, honourable Members, with Europe 2020, we set our targets and our aspirations. Now is the time to make progress towards our aspirations and to determine our reform strategy. The agenda for new skills and jobs explains how Europe can contribute to reaching our targets. The way out of the crisis is to develop a competitive, knowledge-based economy in Europe providing more and better jobs in Europe.

  Csaba Őry, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) Mr President, Commissioners, although befitting Parliament’s traditions, we tend to approach proposals with a helpful intention, yet critically, I must say now that I wholeheartedly welcome and support the notion just outlined. I am particularly pleased about the definition used by Commissioner Andor in connection with full employment as the target, that whoever is able to and wants to should be given the means and opportunity to work.

I also support the four main priorities: better functioning labour markets, better quality jobs, more efficient job creation policies and better working conditions, even if we see that it will not be easy to achieve them. We agree with what has been said on flexicurity, although I must say that it is indeed high time we talked about the details. We use the term frequently and interpret what it really means in a variety of ways.

In harmony with the basic principles of better legislation, we believe it is necessary to react to changing working conditions. Thus, it is justified to review the Working Time Directive, although I wish to point out that we do not feel the necessity for a new directive where the Posting of Workers Directive is concerned, but are ready to discuss implementation and the experience gained in the course of implementation and, if need be, make amendments. However, I wish to draw attention to the regulation of atypical forms of work. This means entirely new employer and employee relations in respect of both social security and other conditions, and obviously there are still many gaps in this field.

Mobility must be increased and more attention needs to be paid to the cooperation of state employment services. Finally, Mr President, I can see that time is running out, I fully agree that in a sense, low qualifications cost more than the crisis. Therefore, we must make sure, for everyone’s benefit, that we continue to think in terms of appropriate and flexible training, acknowledging the possibility of formal and informal training.

  Sylvana Rapti, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Mr President, I listened to the statements by the two Commissioners with a great deal of pleasure. In times of crisis, especially acute crisis, we need a vision. These two statements give us a vision. They are ambitious. They set four objectives which I think every European citizen will want to support.

But – however nice things are, there is always a ‘but’ – I first of all want to raise the question of security. Flexibility and security need to go hand in hand and, in our opinion, priority needs to be given to security. The question of education and training is a very, very basic question because, as Commissioner Andor quite rightly said, not only do we need new skills, we need to send the old skills in the direction we want. There are issues relating to entrepreneurship. We must make it easier for young people to open their own business. We must make it easier for businesses to take on more people.

To close, I should like to refer to Commission Vassiliou’s very nice idea: a European skills passport. That immediately puts me in mind of seconded workers and I think and ask myself: if I have a passport with exceptional skills and I come from country A and I go and work in country B, will the question of my contract of employment have been resolved? We are at your side; we shall monitor and fight with you.

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, I will deal with just one of your four key priorities: stronger policies to promote job creation and demand for labour.

According to this document, recovery must be based on job-creating growth but, since the economic crisis, economic growth in Europe has been uneven and weak. As an Irish MEP, I am acutely aware of how we are being told to implement austerity measures and the real fear is that this will smother any opportunity for growth.

So my question is: will this agenda for new jobs and growth not apply to Ireland or Greece or, indeed, any country that is implementing these severe austerity measures? Where will the growth come from and, consequently, where will the jobs come from?

There are excellent ideas in this document; I am not trying to minimise them. One crucial one is how we connect our investment and research and development and innovation to the production system itself. There is an absolute necessity to lock the two together.

Proposals to engage the social economy, cooperatives, mutual societies and micro-enterprises in a sustained effort to provide employment opportunities at local level are very timely and, indeed, I believe that mobilisation at local level and on a not-for-profit basis, through mutual societies, can be a driver for sustainable development.

The promotion of entrepreneurship will allow citizens themselves to play a real part in our economic recovery. The matching of skills to jobs is crucial, but I am very concerned on many fronts, Commissioner.

Last week, I hosted a meeting in Parliament on social inclusion and mental illness and a mild-mannered lady from Austria said that politicians have to stop talking about jobs and growth – nobody believes them! I do not know about you, Commissioner, but that shook me. I am not saying that that feeling is widespread, but it is spreading, and I think that is why our words here have to be translated into action.

There is a real urgency about this and we need to start thinking outside the box. Yes to green jobs, digital jobs, but do not forget local jobs and, as I said, the promotion of a not-for-profit ethos, not as a replacement, but as a counterbalance to the profit-driven model, which right now threatens the euro and the stability of the Union.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Vassiliou, Mr Andor, we had great expectations of the agenda for new skills and jobs. It was intended to create an impetus which would help employees in Europe to prepare for environmental change. Most importantly, after Parliament came up with a series of ideas in its resolution on green jobs, we expected the Commission to take up these ideas, develop them further and then propose specific measures which define how new jobs can be created by means of environmental change or existing jobs adapted so that they can be preserved, in order to make European industrial society greener for the benefit of the workers. What have you done instead? You have revived the old subject of flexicurity. Do you really believe that new jobs can be created by means of deregulation? We have just established that the precarious jobs are the ones which are lost during a crisis and they are the first ones to go.

All I can say here is that you are wrong if you think that a knowledge-based, sustainable economy can be developed on the basis of uncertainty and poor working conditions. Your focus is on poverty through work, instead of on increasing prosperity. However, poverty is not a good accompaniment to progress. In order to make environmental progress, we need a wide-ranging programme of education and training for all employees and, in particular, for those at lower levels. Please continue to work on this agenda and introduce the necessary improvements.

  Mara Bizzotto, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not intend my speech to be the usual eurosceptic exercise in rhetoric but a call for the EU to start to look at the contents more than the packaging and abandon propaganda in favour of hard facts.

Now that the Lisbon Strategy has failed, the EU has come up with a new slogan ‘EU 2020’, but it has not actually come up with any innovative response to employment problems. The statistics bear this out: the unemployment rate in Europe stands at 9.6%, the youth unemployment rate at 20.2%. In Italy, the third net contributor to the EU budget, the situation for young people is even more dramatic, with 25.9% of young people jobless.

I would prefer a Europe where resources are not wasted in promotional campaigns, but there are efficient investments so that the training available prepares professionals for the internal market sector where there are proper job opportunities.

I would like to conclude by emphasising the importance of vocational training, a symbol of excellence in our nations. The craft sector offers employment potential and a unique wealth of knowledge that must be used to sustain the competitiveness of the European system.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Andor, Mrs Vassiliou, ladies and gentlemen, we have set ourselves the goal of identifying the needs of the job market in the coming years. This means we are speaking of the future of young Europeans, of the professions and the economies that will sustain our communities tomorrow.

For all too long, we have been wondering about the types of jobs that will be available in ten years, about how qualifications will change and about the skills required throughout the Union. We ask ourselves continually whether the education and training currently offered to European citizens will help them find a job easily.

I wonder how the Commission actually intends to go about adopting new measures to achieve the goals it has set itself. Are we sure we know all the needs of young people? Are we sure that e-learning is the solution, or can we study new and more telling forms of education and training? Only six months are left before the pilot project launched in May 2010 concludes, meaning it is already time to draw up budgets. Will the results we achieve be positive? Will they be encouraging? We must aim to train young people using European educational policies that are capable of anticipating future needs.

Not long ago, I heard a long list of things we ‘have to do’. To use medical terminology, I have heard a lot about diagnosis but not a lot about the cure. We must not be content with a lot of hot air but must work with substantial ideas, as the EU 2020 strategy demands. This is the challenge that all Member States and enterprises must tackle and this is the best legacy that we can leave to our children.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Andor, Mrs Vassiliou, new skills for new jobs is a very important subject. Why is this? Because it is all about the future. It is not just about us muddling our way through the challenges that we are already aware of, such as demographic change and the economic crisis. It is also about the fact that additional qualifications will give people the opportunity to design the jobs of the future and, therefore, to make an active contribution to an innovative economy.

Mr Andor, you place a great deal of importance on the social partnership, which is a good thing. However, I would like to encourage the Commission to focus on working conditions and the physical and, above all, mental stresses of a busy working life. What use is it to society if people produce high levels of performance in the short term, but in the long term, turn into burnt-out wrecks? None at all. Therefore, the systematic evaluation of the acquis communautaire should be based on this approach and not on better regulation.

On the subject of flexicurity, I do not approve of the Commission proposal for a kind of introductory employment contract, which only offers full employment rights after a certain period of time. It seems to me rather shabby to treat young people, who are so important for our future, in this way right at the start of their professional careers. Does this mean that the Commission is more or less giving up on precarious employment relations? I would very much like to see the Commission making improvements in this area.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Andor, Mrs Vassiliou, it is true that combating unemployment and the goal of full employment together represent one of our most urgent tasks. As Mrs Harkin said, the people of Europe do not want concepts; they want concrete solutions. I would like to thank you for your initiative. There are a lot of positive approaches here which two colleagues from my group have referred to. However, I believe that some improvements are needed, because more flexibility and more mobility will not create a single new job. I would like to endorse what Mrs Schroedter said in this respect. We need good, secure jobs in Europe and the Member States and businesses must ensure that these are permanent jobs which allow people to earn a good living. This must become a general rule once again and we must work towards this on a European level and choose the right course.

In the agenda, you refer to new forms of employment contract with fewer rights for employees who are just starting their careers. You refer to these as open-ended contractual arrangements. In my view, this will not create any new jobs. Experience shows, and the Social Democratic government in Germany found this out a few years ago, that weakening employees’ rights will not result in any jobs being created. Measures of this kind simply turn secure jobs into precarious jobs. We must not allow this to happen in future.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the timing of this debate is particularly apt, with the EU economy’s recovery remaining fragile and Member States still facing a depressed situation on the labour market.

This is why European society needs to become a knowledge-based society. The EU must ensure that there is a better correlation between the demand and supply for jobs and that the workforce has the necessary skills to take up the newly created jobs.

With regard to Romania, the most recent Commission monitoring report indicates that the labour market has been stable since the start of 2010. However, the recovery cannot be accompanied immediately by a reduction in unemployment. Unfortunately, young people in Romania are still one of the groups hardest hit. More than 20% of them do not have a job.

In this respect, I think that the European Commission’s instrument is useful, given that its prime objective is to boost the involvement of young people in the labour market.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, if we are discussing unemployment, it is surely necessary to cry out loud about unemployment among the young, which runs at twice, and in some countries, four times the European average. I welcome the agenda presented much more than the strategy.

We must adopt specific measures to support employment and effective monitoring. We must definitely boost cooperation between national ministries of labour and education and create a long-term strategy on what the labour market will demand from potential job seekers, and not just what it demands now.

Education and training for a profession is a long-term process, and we therefore need to know what we will need in 10 years, and not just now, so that we can support the next generation. The Commissioner mentioned better education and investment in people. I fully agree with her on this. Only through greater investment in educating the young will we manage to create a competitive generation and a better European Union.

I would therefore like to call on the EU Member States not to cut education and youth budgets but, in these difficult times, to make them even stronger. Every cent more spent on education will produce a hundredfold return in a contented and strong future generation.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, the focus of these measures must be to make the best possible use of the human resources available within the European Union, rather than opting for mass immigration. In specific terms, this means developing new, long-term skills, which match the new requirements of the labour market. We need a programme of further training for those EU citizens who have interrupted their education either at school, during an apprenticeship or at university.

In addition, we need incentives for further education, retraining measures and lifelong learning. When the labour market is opened up to the countries of Eastern Europe in 2011, the EU will be obliged to take measures to protect citizens in those Member States that will be particularly affected by the opening up of the labour market. Less skilled workers and also self-employed contractors in these Member States will be the first victims of this change. I expect the Commission to provide these people with adequate protection against unemployment, cheap labour and social dumping.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Andor, Mrs Vassiliou, ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubt that at a time of such great difficulty for the European Union, the fact of having the courage and determination to carry forward initiatives such as the one submitted by the Commissioners can only be looked on with great favour.

More targeted training, real education directed at acquiring knowledge and abilities that serve the labour market, development of young people through their training and their knowledge – which must be enriched on a daily basis – and a labour market that needs new skills, but which needs to put migratory flows to the best possible use.

The four objectives are encouraging, but there is no doubt that we must put the many instruments that the Commission has at its disposal to better use. We must be far-sighted and prudent, but by the same token, the new frontier of technology must guide our choices to ensure that the 2020 strategy is consistent with effective training and a real will to pave the way for a labour market that serves European society and, above all, young people.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the main concern of European citizens is linked to keeping their jobs.

As a result of the economic and financial crisis, the unemployment rate has reached 10%, with the rate of youth unemployment at 20%. Young people and the over-50s are encountering difficulties in finding a job and are often forced to accept temporary labour contracts or a job below the qualifications they have obtained.

The agenda for creating new jobs and new skills must be linked to the Union’s industrial policy and innovation policy. In order to maintain the Union’s competitiveness, we must not only develop an innovative capacity, but also recreate the production capacity, which means creating jobs in the European Union.

An eco-efficient economy obviously requires new skills.

I wish to draw attention to the high school dropout rate. An ever growing number of young people are unable to attend a secondary school or university. Education guarantees a future for young people. This is why it is our duty to guarantee young people access to education.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I am very happy that the fundamental principles of this flagship initiative to boost and improve employment in Europe and finally reach an ambitious target by 2020 have been welcomed. We are, of course, open to discussing the various details now and at a later stage.

I would like to address some of the points that have been discussed or perhaps even challenged in the discussion, because some of them need further explanation.

First of all, we maintain the concept of flexicurity, but this does not mean that we want to put the emphasis only on flexibility, in which case we would use this concept the way it was used before.

I would like to give you some examples where there is clearly a reflection of the current times and a reflection of the new challenges.

We are definitely making this initiative more age-conscious, and when we speak about lifelong learning, we want to put a greater emphasis on the lifelong learning opportunities of older workers, because we have to assume that active working life is becoming longer and people will have to be assisted more with career changes or career developments.

We have to have a better focus on young people, which is clearly a key consideration for Europe 2020. But a separate flagship initiative – ‘Youth on the move’ – already exists, where most of the initiatives and strategies in connection with the young generation are outlined in very concrete terms.

Youth is the age group where we do not want to push for a greater level of flexibility, because there is already enough. There is more flexibility for young workers in Europe than in the United States. We want to facilitate more mobility, because we believe that the young generation is the one that can better take advantage of the integrated European labour market and develop their own skills and improve their competitiveness through taking advantage not only of the market itself but also of the institutions that the European Union provides.

What I spoke about was better working conditions and quality jobs. I regret that Ms Schroedter did not understand it perfectly. We want to address segmentation as a major challenge of the current European labour market, and we put forward a very concrete example: the open-ended contract, which can help. It is not about removing people from permanent contracts, it is helping those who, so far, only had a chance to have a short-term or fixed-term contract, to have an open-ended one and build up their rights. This will help, to some extent, to provide more jobs, but it will definitely help to provide more rights. This is also very important if we want to speak about quality jobs.

When we speak about investing in human capital, we should not forget that the European Social Fund is there to support all these initiatives in all Member States, and we hope that it will remain a robust instrument of the EU in supporting all these initiatives on employment and social inclusion.

These are initiatives for 10 years and for all Member States. It is not about addressing short-term emergency financial situations in certain Member States. We cannot assume that all the 10 years will be spent amidst financial emergencies. This is obviously not a policy that can be so specific as to address this situation, but it does apply to Greece and to Ireland.

It is clear that Greece is one of the countries where more flexibility could help to boost the business investment climate, as is the case with Spain. Ireland is a country which could rebalance competitiveness factors and have a greater focus on investing in skills and education, as opposed to other sources of competitiveness that have been extensively used recently.

We must, of course, pay attention to the very critical situation we are in at this moment, and maybe next year there will be little chance of increasing the level of employment. But we also have to look at the overall picture, which will start to improve from the first half of next year, because the major economies driving the recovery forward are already experiencing job growth. We believe that, despite the disturbances in the financial sector, this process will continue and the European policies which we have put forward, although not being able to micromanage job creation in the Member States, will create the right framework and provide guidance for the Member States to continue working towards full employment.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The current economic crisis and structural factors such as globalisation, technological progress, an ageing population and the move towards a low carbon economy have highlighted the need to adapt European employment policies and made EU institutions devise relevant solutions for tackling the rise in unemployment and fighting poverty. Indeed, the Commission’s initiative as part of the EU 2020 strategy offers a response from the European Union to the challenges raised by the current economic climate and the economic and social changes taking place on the labour market. I wish to emphasise how important it is to achieve the two objectives mentioned by the Commission in this initiative. These are to exit the economic crisis using skills improvement as a tool for doing this and to guarantee the European economy’s long-term competitiveness by anticipating future needs and ensuring a harmonious balance between the supply and demand for skills on the labour market. Europe needs to increase its competitiveness in an ever-growing global competitive environment. Skills provide the key to exiting the crisis and enabling Europe’s citizens to improve their standard of living. I welcome this initiative which encourages the exchange of information and the involvement of Member States in discussions aimed at identifying solutions or practices conducive to creating new jobs.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The European Union has very ambitiously committed to increasing employment by as much as 75% over the coming decade. In order for this to become a reality, we must take concrete measures both at EU and national levels. I feel that it is particularly important to enhance social partnership and social dialogue with specific measures at all levels – EU, national, regional, sectoral and company. Secondly, employees’ skills and qualifications must be improved continually and must satisfy the needs of the labour market. Therefore, it is necessary to bring the general, vocational and higher education systems closer to the needs of the labour market. We are constantly hearing that there need to be more jobs, but how can they be created? There must be a specific mechanism providing incentives and certain tax incentives to create jobs for young people and the elderly. Furthermore, it is necessary to analyse the impact of micro-finance instruments on the labour market and to allow more flexibility to use money from the European Social Fund. I really hope that an agenda for new skills and jobs would provide concrete results for people in our countries.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – According to the joint statement of the November EU-US summit, job creation is a priority in the Euroatlantic context. The Commission should be alert, however, to the increasing phenomenon of external migration that is being recorded in Greece; young, skilled and highly skilled members of the labour force are emigrating to Canada, Australia and the Emirates. It seems that the same process has started in Ireland, as well. On the other hand, Germany has announced that it needs skilled labour. There is no reason for Germany to import such labour from third countries. It could collaborate with the southern Member States to employ a skilled European labour force. Is the Commission willing to initiate a sensible employment policy among the Member States supporting the European labour market with a European labour force?

16. Question Time (Commission)

  President. – The next item is Question Time (B7-0563/2010).

The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Question 17 by Georgios Papanikolaou (H-0515/10)

Subject: Young people in precarious employment

As the Commission notes in its communication ‘Youth on the move’, young people are often trapped in a chain of temporary employment contracts that reduces their chances of moving on to more stable contracts and exacerbates their job insecurity. The problem is even more acute in Member States where labour law is particularly protectionist. Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Does it believe that the often doubtful quality and uncontrolled duration of traineeships exacerbate this problem? Will it take specific action as part of the objectives set in the Europe 2020 strategy and the Youth on the Move programme to support youth employment and strengthen their job security?

Will the Commission pursue specific and even more targeted policies to promote and strengthen youth employment in those Member States that are facing an economic recession?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, two months ago, the Commission presented the ‘Youth on the move’ flagship initiative as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. This sends a clear signal that the Commission has a special concern for young people.

‘Youth on the move’ has three objectives: to improve education, increase employment and foster mobility for young people across the European Union. It will involve action to make education and training more relevant to young people’s needs, encourage them to take advantage of EU grants to study or train in another country and overcome obstacles to entering and making progress in the labour market.

The two labour market problems which the honourable Member has raised, namely, traineeships and labour market segmentation, are among the topics ‘Youth on the move’ takes up. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the Commission’s views and aims regarding these two topics. I want to stress, first and foremost, that both fall within the Member States’ national competence in terms of practical implementation.

Let me start with traineeships, or internships as they are also sometimes called. I know that the European Parliament regards these as very important, as Ms Turunen’s report earlier this year showed. The underlying problem is that employers are reluctant to recruit young workers with little or no practical experience. This is why acquiring initial work experience through traineeships has grown in importance for young people over the years. However, they must be of high quality and have clear learning objectives. In addition, they should not replace normal jobs or probation periods at the start of a work contract.

The Commission intends to develop a quality framework for traineeships but, as a first step, we need to improve our knowledge in this area. The Commission will soon be launching a study to gain an overview of existing legal arrangements and practice across the Member States. This is part of a pilot project involving measures for employment maintenance, for which Parliament has provided the Commission with an extra budget for 2010.

A second set of issues is labour market segmentation. Young people are in a difficult position in terms of job security. Too many have short-term contracts, often alternating with unemployment, and many young people – even those who are well qualified – have little chance of getting more stable contracts. We need to tackle labour market segmentation as a matter of urgency, in particular, because it affects young people and their employment prospects most and because it endangers the future competitiveness of the European economy.

A report on employment in Europe, to be released by the Commission in a few days, finds that temporary workers are paid 14% less and receive less training than workers on permanent contracts. This has a negative impact on productivity. This applies to young people especially. Those with temporary jobs account for 40% of the total, against 13% among the overall working-age population. This means that young people bear the brunt of adjustment.

In addition, young people are experiencing more and more difficulties in getting into the labour market. The percentage of young people who are not in education, employment or training ranges from about 4% in Denmark and the Netherlands to 16 to 20% in Italy, Cyprus and Bulgaria. Reducing labour market segmentation is, first and foremost, the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission has identified this as one of the priorities the Member States should focus on in line with the common flexicurity principles under EU 2020 and the European Employment strategy.

In practical terms, the Commission proposes that Member States with segmented labour markets should consider introducing an open-ended single contract that provides for a sufficiently long probation period and a gradual increase in protection in place of the current legal disparities between permanent and temporary contracts. The Youth Employment Framework under ‘Youth on the move’ gives guidance on how policy makers, stakeholders and institutions can make progress in this area.

Closer policy coordination under the European Semester, which we are currently preparing with the Member States, will offer the right framework for stimulating the development of policy and reforms that will benefit young people.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Thank you, Commissioner, for your reply. Today, I read in the European Commission’s communications about the adoption of an agenda for new skills and work. Today’s communications refer, among other things, to the decision to promote an open single contract to replace the various types of temporary and permanent contracts.

My question is very straightforward: will the Commission be able to guarantee under this initiative that open single contracts will improve young people’s sense of security at work? In other words, will the current situation be improved, insofar as it can be improved?

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, obtaining a permanent job and establishing a decent lifestyle are very important goals for most young people. They have been hard hit by the most recent economic crisis and are often forced to take short-term jobs or low paid internships, which also means, of course, that they are not contributing to a pension. This makes long-term life planning difficult. Therefore, I would like to know: Does the Commission intend to put measures in place which will guarantee permanent jobs for young people in particular? Or to put it another way: Are directives being planned which will introduce standards for temporary jobs?

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Commissioner, thank you for your answer, because all initiatives are necessary, especially for assessing how young people have suffered during this difficult period. However, I would like to ask whether the Commission feels we should adopt a separate European Union youth entrepreneurship and innovation programme which would promote and support young people’s creativity and enterprise? Where would you stand as regards opportunities for young people to take advantage of microcredits? Should the procedure for recognising companies established by young people be legally regulated?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – The previous discussion extensively covered the open-ended contract, which I think is one of the practical solutions. In addition to that, we have seen during this year that the Commission discussed the situation of young people and the impact of the crisis on youth employment, and ‘Youth on the move’ has already addressed this in concrete terms. Further initiatives are obviously possible.

We will have to monitor the situation and work with the Member States. During this phase, we have just gathered details of the national programmes developed by the Member States, and after analysing these and looking at the practical solutions and undertakings they made, we will be able to come forward with further suggestions. The most important one here, however, is to shape a macro-economic environment in Europe that will facilitate a continued, robust recovery.

One further point I would like to make is that young people have, of course, been among those who have suffered most from job losses and the lack of opportunities in the last couple of years. We are aware of the long-term risk of this which is not just as an immediate employment or social question. If we do not take action, it can have an impact on demography trends which are already extremely complicated, so in the next term, in a kind of alliance or cooperation with the Hungarian Presidency, we will discuss this in the context of a demographic discussion, because demography and family policies also have to be looked at in the same context as job security and income security for young people in Europe.

  President. – Question 18 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0527/10)

Subject: Enhancing competitiveness through alternative energies

It is the objective of the Commission, and of us all, to guarantee our fellow citizens a comfortable and secure standard of living within a framework that fosters the competitiveness of European companies. Use of alternative energy sources is one solution that can help improve the competitiveness of production. Unfortunately, few countries can boast impressive figures in this field, and these are mostly in the North of Europe. The spread of technologies using alternative energy sources is slow in the new Member States, particularly in the East.

What incentives and promotional measures has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, to target Member States that make little use of alternative energies or in which this technology is slow to spread, so that these countries and the European Union as a whole become more competitive on a global scale?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the honourable Member has been speaking about the subject of renewable energy and asking what we plan to do to achieve our joint targets. Three years ago, the European Council set us some ambitious climate goals. One of these concerns renewable energy, which, by 2020, must make up 20% of the total energy consumption in the European Union. Each Member State must exploit the opportunities available to it and make a mandatory contribution to achieving this goal.

If we divide this 20% across the various different sectors, such as transport, heating, electricity, industry and agriculture, it is clear that electricity generation is the most important. In order to achieve the target of 20% of total energy consumption, we need around 35% of our electricity to be generated from renewable sources. If we are to do this efficiently and ensure that the price is affordable for consumers, we must make use of the best locations. Each Member State has different strengths and weaknesses, which must be exploited, and these include wind from the North Sea, sun in the southern part of the European Union and biogas from rural areas. Obviously, in order to ensure our security of supply, we need to make significant improvements in the quality and capacity of our infrastructure, our transport networks and our storage facilities. The Commission took this point into consideration a few days ago when we discussed and adopted an energy infrastructure package which focuses, in part, on integrating and feeding in renewable energy.

We have set binding targets for renewable energy for every Member State. In a few days, on 5 December, we will reach the transposition deadline and the Commission will begin following up on the implementation of the directive, in order to ensure that the appropriate incentives have been put in place and that suitable subsidy measures have been taken, which will allow the binding targets to be achieved. The Member States must concentrate on creating the ideal conditions for the use of renewable energy. Among other things, the European Union directive calls for Member States to produce national action plans specifying the necessary measures and the concrete, binding national targets, broken down by sector, such as transport, heating, electricity conversion and industry. The next step involves removing the administrative obstacles to renewable energy. A third important area is the construction industry. Around 40% of our energy is used in industrial buildings, service sector premises and private homes.

By the end of 2012, we want qualification and certification schemes to be in place for the installation of renewable energy facilities. These include distribution and transmission networks which must be prepared for the development and increase in renewable energy and which must also guarantee priority access for renewable energy. The Member States can be flexible in their choice of technologies. They can decide which types of renewable energy they will invest in to achieve the binding targets. The Commission will subsidise innovations and projects which aim to research into, develop and commercialise technologies for renewable energy, using funding from the seventh framework programme that you in this House have made available to us.

The Commission also has money from the European Economic Recovery Plan for three years which is specifically intended for renewable energy projects, in this case, for the development of offshore wind energy. I would like to emphasise to the new Member States that cohesion programmes and funding to promote renewable energy are also available. Renewable energy has a high priority in our energy and climate policy, in particular, with regard to reducing our dependency on imported fossil fuels. Only by working together will we succeed in achieving our ambitious climate goals and increasing Europe’s competitiveness. I am relying on a close partnership with the Member States regarding the use of the different energy resources.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D). – (DE) Thank you very much, Mr Oettinger, for your clear and convincing answer. I believe that the Commission has done a great deal towards achieving these objectives. However, in my opinion, it should be possible to provide the public with more information and to win over the mass media, in order to gain more support in this area. This is not what is happening in my country, Lithuania, for example. Of course, that is the responsibility of the national governments, but the Commission could provide them with assistance.

My final question is: In your opinion, which states have been relatively successful in meeting the 2020 objectives and which have not?

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Bearing in mind that the energy and climate change package already imposes certain targets on Member States for reducing polluting emissions and increasing energy efficiency, I would like to ask you what measures you are taking to support businesses in industrial sectors which are major consumers of energy in modernising their facilities so that they become more energy efficient and cause less pollution.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for his very comprehensive response to the question.

I have two questions, firstly regarding the 2020 strategy. Is he confident that we will reach the 20% target for renewable energies in that strategy? Secondly, he mentioned grids. How realistic, desirable and affordable would a Europe-wide grid be, and is it attainable?

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a few weeks, we will be submitting to you, the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States our proposal on how we plan to achieve a 20% increase in energy efficiency. Looking at the three targets which you have set us, with regard to the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions, we are making good progress towards this objective. I am sure that, if we continue with our current efforts, we will reach or even exceed the target of 20% less CO2 in 10 years.

On the subject of 20% renewable energy, we are also doing well, although the progress made in the different Member States varies. Some Member States were already a long way ahead when compared with the reference year. For example, Austria had a 23% share of renewable energy five years ago and is expected to reach a level of 34% by 2020. In contrast, the figure for the United Kingdom was only 1.3% and for Malta 0%, which meant that these countries had to start virtually from scratch. The leaders include Sweden, which is aiming for 49%, and Finland and Portugal with a goal of 38%. The Baltic States, with targets of 25%, 40% and 23%, have also been very successful and their figures are above the European average in this important area.

The target of a 20% increase in energy efficiency is the one which gives me most concern. This involves making intelligent energy savings and using energy in a targeted way. I will be happy to talk to Parliament about this during the first quarter of next year when I will be able to submit to you our proposal for achieving a 20% improvement in energy efficiency.

You mentioned the media. In fact, on the subject of renewable energy and consumers, more can be done by industry and investors, both investors in technology and financial investors. I have a proposal for you. I am planning to visit the three Baltic States next spring. I will be happy to attend a conference of representatives of the media, the banks and business, if you can suggest suitable candidates, in order to increase awareness in your country, using my modest resources, and to open up opportunities for new programmes and cofinancing.

The next question was: What do I think of a European energy network? I want to answer this very openly. If you look at the transport infrastructure in Europe, we have roads, motorways, railways, the European airspace, with its large and small regional airports, and major ports, such as Genoa, Marseilles, Hamburg and Rotterdam. There are also terminals for liquid natural gas and for oil in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Baltic, the North Sea and the Atlantic. In addition, we have a digital infrastructure for information, communications and navigation, including our mobile phone network. In comparison to these areas, our energy networks are lagging far behind. We can transport televisions, pig carcasses, tinned foods and other goods from Portugal to Latvia and from Holland to Greece, we can transport workers and tourists and we can transfer information and financial services, but our gas and electricity networks are still divided up along the lines of 19th century principalities. We need to integrate the markets in the Baltic States, Finland, central Europe and Greece, before Serbia and Croatia join the European Union. We also need bridges and interconnectors to transport electricity in both directions between Spain, France and Germany. Over the next 20 years, we must put in place the financing and the legislation to ensure that our transport networks for electricity and gas are of the same quality and have the same capacity as our road and rail networks and our airspace, which can be used to transport goods and give people freedom of movement. Otherwise, we will not have security of supply or be able to show solidarity in an emergency. We will not be in a position to exchange storage capacity or establish renewable energy facilities in the best locations and bring the electricity to the centres of population. In addition, we will not have the competition which consumers want or be able to establish an internal market, which has always been one of the basic principles of the European Union and which must become a reality for gas and electricity.

For this reason, I strongly support a major initiative to develop the transport networks for electricity, gas and oil.

  President. – Question 19 by Kinga Göncz (H-0546/10)

Subject: Structural Funds and disability

Many reports on the use of the Structural Funds show that, even if resources reach those who need them most, this is not done in the manner that would be most beneficial for them or in such a way as to bring about a genuine improvement in the quality of their lives.

How does the Commission plan to prevent the Structural Funds being used to finance the institutionalisation of people with disabilities? How does it plan to encourage their use to finance community-based alternatives to institutional care and promote the social inclusion of people with disabilities?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – As you are aware, social policy, including policy relating to people with disabilities, is primarily a national responsibility. However, stepping up support for disadvantaged groups and, in particular, for people with disabilities, including people living in institutions, is a key strand for action under the European Social Fund.

According to some estimates, people with disabilities account for at least 16% of the EU working age population, but only 40% of people with disabilities are employed. The Commission encourages a shift from institutional to community-based care and is working closely with the Member States and, in particular, the managing authorities of the ESF and the ERDF and NGOs in this field.

In 2009, the Commission published a report by an ad hoc expert group on the switchover from institutional to community-based care. In line with the principle of shared management, the Member States are responsible for selecting operations for financing under the structural funds.

In the current programming period, the European Social and Regional Development Funds are supporting some de-institutionalisation schemes and the switch-over from residential care to community-based services. This is particularly true in certain Member States that joined the EU after 2004. Thus, projects are being financed in Bulgaria and Slovakia.

As you know, the Commission is currently working on new provisions on the structural funds for the post-2013 period and will put forward proposals in 2011. To step up the fight against discrimination and promote social inclusion of people with disabilities, future operational programmes may, for example, be required to identify the groups at risk of discrimination and exclusion. The Commission will explore the role that national equality bodies could play and may consider stricter requirements on Member States’ reporting of measures to combat discrimination, implemented with support from the structural funds.

In addition, one of the aims of the European Disability Strategy for 2010 to 2020, which the Commission adopted on 15 November, is to give impetus to Member States’ efforts to ease the transition from institutional to community-based care. The strategy seeks to do this by identifying good practice in using the structural funds to encourage people to live independently and in the community and aims to develop awareness-raising initiatives that target structural fund managing bodies at EU and national level. For example, a toolkit on how to use the structural funds to support the development of community-based services will be developed for the managing authorities.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, indeed, it was this issue that I wished to pose further questions about and comment on. I was pleased to hear the Commissioner’s answer. In fact, my supplementary question is whether, on the basis of these principles, the Commission plans to introduce a kind of new conditionality in the next budget period that prevents the strengthening of segregation but allows, say, the use of these funds to target social integration specifically. The problem was that these funds were often used for building and rebuilding large institutions rather than for integrated housing. I believe there are many good experts who will willingly help the Commission as well as the Member States in this.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Thank you for your answer, Commissioner. I would like to congratulate the European Commission which earlier this month presented the new European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. However, I have the following question. What specific programmes does the Commission plan to prepare on the basis of this strategy and when, so that there are more favourable conditions for disabled people to enter the labour market, or so that their environment and infrastructure are adapted for them?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – The Belgian Presidency held a conference in Liège about the future of cohesion policies on the basis of the Fifth Cohesion Report, which we jointly published with Commissioner Hahn. Conditionality was one of the main discussion points and, as regards the European Social Fund, the situation described by Mrs Göncz is being covered, and we would like to develop conditionality in that sense.

Conditionality has various meanings and, unfortunately, some of these are seen as unfair or counterproductive. We believe that the real meaning of conditionality, as regards the structural funds, is that awareness and responsibility have to be raised not just as regards the content, but also the context of the projects and the operational programmes. We really have to connect with the social reality when we fund programmes in various regions and microregions, and we will take this very seriously.

We have been working recently with some Member States on community-based services. For example, in Bulgaria, a joint project was financed by the European Social and Regional Development Fund to close down institutions for children with disabilities, as a first step in implementing an ambitious action plan to close down all existing institutions for children and providing family-type care and new services to support families. This particular programme was in the range of EUR 39 million but there are also similar ones not only in Bulgaria, but also in Slovakia.

  President. – Question 20 by Gay Mitchell (H-0530/10)

Subject: Anglo Irish Bank

Commissioner Almunia in a statement on the Irish financial sector said that there were ‘a number of important aspects that still needed to be clarified’ in relation to Anglo Irish Bank. Will the Commission explain what these important issues are?

  Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, when Mr Mitchell tabled these questions on 7 October, the situation was not the same as it is today in Ireland and in the Irish banking sector. My answer will take into account what has happened since this question was asked.

Seven days before your question was tabled, on 30 September, the Irish Finance Minister, Mr Lenihan, discussed the total cost of the restructuring of the Anglo Irish Bank, giving two possible figures: a mid-range estimate of EUR 29 billion and a higher estimate of EUR 34 billion. At the time, total capital injections from public funds to Anglo Irish amounted to around EUR 23 billion.

As always, since the beginning of this crisis, according to our banking and restructuring information, when financial institutions receive injections of public capital, they have to present a restructuring plan to the Commission. Following much discussion on Anglo Irish, this restructuring plan was presented by the Irish Government on 26 October. In this draft restructuring plan, they considered a winding-down scenario for Anglo Irish proposing the split of Anglo into two banks – an asset recovery bank to wind down the assets of the bank and a funding bank to get the resources needed to keep it running during the process of winding down its assets.

A scenario in which assets are wound down is less problematic than one in which the bank continues to operate, both in terms of State aid rules and competition. Consequently, I made some public statements saying that, in our opinion, the task was therefore not as difficult as negotiations concerning certain restructuring plans for other financial institutions in many Member States.

We had been working on this draft restructuring plan from the time the government presented us with the document until last Sunday, when the Irish Government decided to ask for a programme making use of the different mechanisms to support Member States in the euro area with financial difficulties. Now, due account should be paid to the restructuring plan for Anglo in the ongoing negotiations on this programme. Hopefully, the Irish programme will be agreed and adopted in the coming days. I very much hope so.

In this framework, I can give you some more precise answers on the Anglo Irish Bank restructuring plan presented by the Irish Government that will be considered by my services pending a decision. I hope this will take place as soon as possible after the adoption of the programme.

In any case, I must say that I very much hope that the adoption and implementation of the programme will lead to a more favourable climate for tackling Ireland’s financial and economic problems. Hopefully, the sound and strong fundamentals of the Irish economy will receive very good treatment, taking into account the need to restructure the financial sector that is the origin of the problems in your country.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – I thank the Commissioner for that response. This word ‘restructuring’ is being bandied about a lot outside the House. Could the Commissioner tell the House if he sees any possibility for a takeover or merger of part of Anglo Irish Bank with any other entity as a possible contribution to this, or does he anticipate that the bank will eventually be wound down? In that case, will the Irish taxpayers get some, or all, of their money back? What is the Commissioner’s view on that?

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the Commissioner for this information. However, my question is about a slightly different matter. You were speaking, Commissioner, about a very large bank – about Anglo Irish Bank – but information which has reached us indicates that other large banks in Ireland are also having problems. Could you tell us if similar negotiations are also under way concerning other banks in Ireland?

  Brian Crowley (ALDE). – I would like to thank the Commissioner for his answer as well.

With regard to the specific issue of Anglo, is it the view of the Commission that Anglo is different to the existing clearing banks, as we call them in Ireland, like Allied Irish Banks, Bank of Ireland, Ulster Bank and so on?

Secondly, with regard to the clarification that he was talking about, is this also linked into the proposal coming forward from the government in Ireland tomorrow with regard to the banking finance facility which is being discussed with the IMF and with the European Central Bank?

  Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President of the Commission. – Unfortunately, given that the negotiations on the programme that has been requested are ongoing during these days and hours, I cannot go into details. What I can tell Mr Mitchell is that these restructuring plans for the financial institutions in Ireland, and in general, the programme to finance the financial needs of Ireland at these difficult times, will hopefully have the positive outcome of putting an end to this very difficult and challenging situation in order to put the Irish economy back on the path of recovery and sustainable growth, as was the case in the past. Ireland was one of the best examples of economic success in the euro area and in the EU.

This is the way to tell Irish taxpayers that their money which is now being used for this restructuring, together with financing that hopefully will come after the adoption of the programme from the two European mechanisms, plus the IMF cooperation in this programme, will be returned to them as the positive result of a successful solution to the present Irish problem.

I cannot go into the details. I also ask for your understanding on this. What I can say is that there are other financial institutions, other Irish financial institutions, under the restructuring plans being negotiated, or that have been analysed by the Commission. You have seen our State aid rules competences. In the case of Bank of Ireland, we adopted a positive decision on the restructuring plan. In the case of the Allied Irish Bank, we are also negotiating the conditions of the restructuring plan. In the case of two building societies, EBS and INBS, we are also considering the restructuring of these financial institutions.

I have to say that in two cases, the Anglo Irish Bank and the INBS building society, we are working on a winding-down scenario. In the other cases, the restructuring will hopefully put those financial institutions in the market in better conditions, in viable conditions, after their restructuring is decided and implemented.

  President. – Question 21 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0519/10)

Subject: Creating a common European conscience

The creation of a common European conscience among EU citizens is vital if the enterprise of European unification is to survive. Given that mobility among those working in the cultural and arts sectors is the most effective way of forging a common European identity, what specific measures will the Commission take to encourage exchanges of experience and knowledge among European artists, establish a funding programme solely for artistic events in the EU and promote the administrative streamlining and financial support of cross-border artistic cooperation programmes?

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. – (EL) Mr President, the Commission agrees completely with the honourable Member as regards the huge importance of cross-border mobility of those working in the cultural and arts sectors. We, too, are making efforts to eliminate obstacles to their mobility.

These efforts include coordination of social security, passport visa rules for artists from third countries, taxation and, of course, better information on mobility issues. Experts in the cultural sector are debating how to promote mobility, in working parties where the Member States and the cultural sector are represented, with a view to applying the objectives of the European Agenda for Culture.

Under the Culture programme (2007-2013), the Commission is supporting projects and activities which promote cross-border mobility of those working in the cultural sector, encourage the transnational circulation of artistic and cultural works and foster intercultural dialogue. In 2009, approximately 80% of the projects funded by the Commission focused on the circulation of cultural works and the mobility of those working in the cultural sector.

Of course, the Commission is still making an effort, as I said, to facilitate access to the programme. The programme guide, the calendar, which is for the period 2008 to 2013, good examples of projects and the cultural contact points in each country all help to simplify access. The experience acquired to date will be useful in developing procedures for future culture programmes.

Following an initiative passed by Parliament, the Commission also applied pilot projects to encourage mobility of artists, both in 2008 and 2009. The aim of these projects is to give European artists a chance to extend the scope of their activities and to reach a new public, as well as to exchange experiences and learn from each other in order to further their career.

The results of these pilot projects will be input into future culture programmes and are, of course, of help to the working parties of Member State experts within the framework of the open method of coordination. In the long term, everything I have just mentioned will help to forge a common European conscience among the citizens of the European Union.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, my thanks to the Commissioner for her detailed reply. On the European cultural weather map, the clouds of de-unification are gathering, as we all know. There is the Europe of numbers, the technical Europe, but there are also those of us who envisage a Europe of culture, of education, of art, of mobility of artists, of encouragement for cross-European cultural creation.

I am one of those who believe that these are the foundations, the cultural foundations of Europe, and can act as a secure, stabilising factor for further dynamic support for the process of European unification. Give culture and artistic creation impetus and as a percentage – to waive my own rule for a moment and talk in numbers – let us increase the contribution to European GDP via culture and artistic creation.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for this interesting information, but my question and my concern are related to the budgetary situation. We are well aware that we are, today, in an uncertain situation as to what budget will be available next year. In relation to this, I would like to ask you, Commissioner, if these problems might in any specific way affect the very interesting plans which you have presented?

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. – (EL) Mr President, may I start by saying to Mr Papastamkos that I absolutely agree with him. I attended a huge ‘Soul for Europe’ forum in Berlin a few days ago, which was also attended by representatives of all the cultural agencies. We discussed these issues and said that Europe is not just an economic Union; it starts with culture.

As Jean Monnet says in his memoirs, ‘if I could start again, I would start with culture’. So I absolutely agree and the efforts we are making are in this direction.

I agree with you, but I fear, like everybody else, that governments, when they start cutting budgets in times of austerity, start with the obvious: culture – as we have seen already in certain cases – education and health. I agree it is a very narrow-minded policy and we should oppose it because, in the long run, we shall all feel the repercussions of such cuts.

  President. – Question 22 by Iva Zanicchi (H-0522/10)

Subject: Structured dialogue between the EU and sporting federations on matters of shared interest and possible specific measures

Following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and the recognition of the special nature of sport, the way is now open for giving sport a truly European dimension. New provisions allow the European Union to support, coordinate and integrate the actions of the Member States, promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports. The treaty also recognises the importance of protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople, especially young people.

In the light of the treaty provisions, what steps does the Commission expect international sporting federations to take with a view to launching an ever more fruitful dialogue on matters of shared interest? What specific measures will the Commission take to support this dialogue and to make full use of the powers relating to sport laid down in the treaty?

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. – In 2007, the Commission set up a structured dialogue with sports stakeholders on the basis of the 2007 White Paper on sport.

Following calls from EU sports ministers and the European Council in 2008, the Commission committed itself to further strengthening the dialogue and to giving international sports organisations a more prominent place in the dialogue with the European Union. This has led to regular exchanges between the Commission and the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations.

In 2008, the Commission established the EU Sport Forum. This is considered to be at the heart of this structured dialogue, gathering together once a year all key sports stakeholders at international, European and national level, including governing bodies as well as non-governmental sports organisations. The next forum will take place in February 2011 in Budapest, where the Commission intends to present its communication on a new EU sports agenda to sports stakeholders.

The Commission has paid great attention to the need to ensure a balanced and inclusive representation of the sports movement when organising meetings and events. It is committed to this dialogue, taking into account the specific organisation of sport, the complexity of topics to be addressed and, of course, the diversity of sports actors. The reinforcement of this structured dialogue with the sports movement will be essential for the success of the EU agenda for sport, which the Commission intends to propose, based on the Lisbon Treaty. Within this strengthened dialogue, Member States, Parliament and the Commission should all have their place.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and the recognition of the special nature of sport, the way is now open for giving sport a truly European dimension.

New provisions allow the European Union to support, coordinate and integrate the actions of the Member States, promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports. The treaty also recognises the importance of protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportspeople, especially young people.

In the light of the treaty provisions, what steps does the Commission expect international sporting federations to take with a view to launching an ever more fruitful dialogue on matters of shared interest? What specific measures will the Commission take to support this dialogue and to make full use of the powers relating to sport laid down in the treaty?

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I listened very attentively to the Commission’s response. I would like to ask the Commission about its stance on illegal betting, the illicit bets that are such a feature of football and other sports competitions, and if it intends, as part of the programme we have just heard described, to devote special attention to this aspect, which risks blighting every competition and spoiling the fairness that should characterise sporting competitions.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. – Let me start with the last question. Commissioner Barnier is dealing with this question. Of course, I will follow very closely what he does. I understand he is going to present a Green Paper in 2011 in order to start the consultation on this very important issue. I assure you that because of my interest in my portfolio, I will follow what happens very closely.

As I said in my introduction, I am going to present a communication on sport. It will be the first ever communication presenting the political agenda on sport – hopefully at the beginning of January – and all the issues mentioned by the honourable Member will be discussed in this communication. The first presentation and discussion will take place, as I said, during the structured dialogue in the context of the sport forum in Budapest next February.

  President. – Question 27 by Konstantinos Poupakis (H-0514/10)

Subject: Tax burden in Greece

By signing the memorandum of understanding, Greece has placed itself at the forefront in Europe when it comes to basic taxation, with the result that Greece now has the third highest rate of VAT, the third highest tax on fuel, the third highest rate of social security contributions and one of the highest rates of business taxation and nominal taxes. The imposition of this tax burden in Greece, combined with parallel cuts in salaries and pensions, is not leading to the anticipated increase in revenue. On the contrary, it is worsening the recession and stifling the market, increasing the level of poverty, particularly with regard to basic needs, making it difficult for wage earners and pensioners to meet their living expenses and leading to the closure of hundreds of businesses.

Given that the EU’s objective is to guarantee both fiscal consolidation and social adequacy, how does the Commission, as a party to the memorandum of understanding, assess the above fiscal measures?

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – As the honourable Member is aware, Greece has introduced a number of tax policy measures to reduce its deficit. This economic adjustment programme was agreed with the Commission, the IMF and the ECB. It conditioned the EUR 110 billion financing that is being provided by the euro area Member States and the IMF.

On 6 August 2010, a report was submitted by the Greek Government to the Council and the Commission discussing the implementation of those tax measures, as well as of wide-ranging structural reforms. The honourable Member can refer to the communication from the Commission to the Council of 19 August 2010 for a detailed and thorough assessment of the measures adopted in the first half of 2010 by Greece to comply with Council Decision 2010/320/EC of 10 May 2010.

This assessment mainly concludes that the budgetary execution shows positive developments over the first half of 2010 with a deficit declining faster than planned, mainly as a result of lower than expected expenditure. Moreover, within the framework of the planned fiscal adjustment, the choice of the mix between expenditure and revenue measures made by the Greek Government takes into account important social and economic aspects, in particular, in terms of potential complementarities with a package of structural reforms and measures to improve the micro-economic environment and the functioning of the public sector.

  Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE). – (EL) Commissioner, I should like to ask the European Commission the following supplementary question: as a party to the memorandum, what recommendations does it intend to make to Greece, bearing in mind that the current high level of taxation has already resulted in the closure or relocation of businesses to other, more tax-lenient, neighbouring countries and, at the same time, in a reduction in incoming investment capital, the return on capital and entrepreneurship in general.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to come back to an issue raised in my honourable friend’s question. With the increase and the tax policy being applied by the government based on the memorandum, inflation has rocketed in Greece and is now over 6%, the highest rate in Europe. Mr Rehn agreed, in answer to a question, that high inflation is due to the increase in the VAT rate, in other words, to fiscal policy.

I would like to ask you if the Commission believes that these tax measures really have led to the spiralling inflation that is undermining the competitiveness of the Greek economy and what measures you are proposing to the Greek Government to address this issue.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Actually, the questions are rather similar and here I have to emphasise that in the case of Greece, we had a huge deficit which needed to be addressed. We all know that, in addressing the deficit, there are no miracle solutions. The Member State has either to reduce expenditure, increase taxes or both in order to consolidate its fiscal position. The Commission’s attitude to this is very clear: that it is the Member State which has to choose the measures to address the shortfall. Greece chose a mixture of measures on both the expenditure side and the revenue side.

The Commission cannot dictate to the Member States what specific taxes they can increase or reduce. It is the Member State which decides on this matter.

So far, the Greek programme is functioning well and I believe that the Greek authorities will take all necessary future measures to fix their fiscal position.

  President. – Question 28 by Jim Higgins (H-0521/10)

Subject: Fraud and customs losses due to cigarette smuggling

Is the Commission concerned that there is an alarming level of smuggling of illegal cigarettes into countries like Ireland from third countries? The effect of this is that the EU is losing out on customs revenue, which is an important source of finance, given that it makes up 15% of the EU budget. Member States are also losing out on excise duties. Does the Commission have any plans to enable, or indeed force, Member States to increase their checks at external EU borders, in order to tackle the issue of customs fraud?

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – In relation to border controls, customs controls must balance the protection of a range of EU financial, safety and security interests with the interests of legitimate traders.

For this reason, a Community risk management framework was developed enabling customs controls for security and safety to be carried out on the basis of common risk criteria and standards.

In the EU, 1.5 million tonnes of sea cargo and 12 million tonnes of air cargo are checked each year. Under Article 209(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Member States’ customs services are responsible for the application of the EU legislation concerned.

Therefore, they are in charge of organising customs controls at physical frontiers and elsewhere on the basis of risk management techniques as specified in the EU’s Customs Code.

With regard to cigarette smuggling, the Commission plays an active role in helping Member States to tackle the phenomenon of international cigarette smuggling and to dismantle the criminal gangs responsible for this trade.

In particular, the European Anti-Fraud Office assists law enforcement authorities throughout the European Union with their operational cases and coordinates major customs and criminal investigations with the Member States and third countries.

Using the provisions of European mutual assistance in customs matters and a number of agreements concluded between the EU and third countries, OLAF organises joint customs operations between EU Member States and with third countries aimed at targeting specific problems, such as Operation Matthew II, targeting road traffic on the eastern border, or Operation Sirocco, focused on deep-sea container transports from China to the Union.

Finally, OLAF provides financial support to Member States from the Hercule II programme for measures specifically targeting cigarette smuggling, such as the purchase of specialist x-ray scanning equipment to be used at border points and the organisation of regional actions.

Moreover, cooperation agreements were signed with British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco Limited in 2010, and agreements were signed with Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco International in 2004 and 2007 respectively. These legally binding agreements provide a comprehensive set of measures designed to limit the presence of the products of these companies on the illicit tobacco market.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – I want to thank the Commissioner for his very comprehensive reply. As he said, tobacco smuggling is a very lucrative business. There is a lot of ingenuity, they are perfectly wrapped, perfectly presented and perfectly labelled.

Recently, I met with the head of the customs authorities in Ireland in Dublin Castle, and she told me that one in every five cigarettes – 20% of the cigarettes smoked in Ireland, a small country – actually comes via China, and that when they actually seized them and analysed them, they found a mixture of tobacco and canine excrement. We really need to tighten up our regulations.

I welcome international cooperation, but we still have an awful lot of work to do. I would basically ask that OLAF, the EU anti-fraud agency, needs to be given increased resources.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – I will try to be very brief. The answer in this case is probably not needed, but I would like to share your concerns.

Next month, I am going to China to discuss, among other issues related to customs matters, the issue of cigarette smuggling. We are implementing a number of measures, working together with the Chinese authorities, in order to address this issue. It is true, as you rightly pointed out, that China is still a major source of counterfeited cigarettes, so we have to work in close cooperation with them in order to tackle this issue. I have to emphasise that the Chinese authorities are ready for this cooperation.

  President. – Question 29 by Marian Harkin (H-0524/10)

Subject: Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base

Can the Commission say what its current proposals are on the adoption of a common consolidated corporate tax base, indicate a proposed timeframe and outline its reasons for pursuing this policy?

Question 30 by Seán Kelly (H-0538/10)

Subject: Ireland’s corporation tax rate

There is a considerable amount of speculation ongoing in international media so it would provide a welcome signal to international markets in a time of crisis that this key element of Ireland’s economic model will not be affected in any way by any proposal by the Commission.

Can the Commission outline clearly and unequivocally that the EU will not bring forward any measures that have any influence on Ireland’s corporation tax rate?

Question 31 by Pat the Cope Gallagher (H-0552/10)

Subject: Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)

Can the Commission make a statement confirming that the proposed CCCTB initiative will not impact upon the ability of Member States to set their individual corporation tax rate?

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Do you mean these three questions on the CCCTB?

The Commission has no plans to make proposals on corporate tax rates. Differences in rates allow a certain degree of tax competition to be maintained in the internal market. In addition, fair tax competition based on rates offers more transparency and allows Member States to consider both their market competitiveness and budgetary needs in fixing their tax rates.

In relation to the issue of corporate tax bases, conversely, the Commission has been working for some time on a proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base. This initiative is included in the Commission work programme for 2011 as a strategic initiative to tap the potential of the single market for growth. It is also quoted as a key proposal in the Single Market Act, which was adopted on 27 October 2010.

Currently, the Commission’s plan is to adopt a proposal by the end of the first quarter of 2011. The CCCTB is a common system of rules for calculating the tax base of companies; it has no bearing on tax rates. Member States will continue to decide their own corporate tax rates. The Commission believes that progressing with the CCCTB is the appropriate solution to tackling cross-border fiscal impediments to growth in a comprehensive manner.

Currently, the existence of 27 highly disparate corporate tax systems in the EU means that companies are faced with significant tax obstacles and an administrative burden which discourage, if not impede, their activities in the single market and negatively affect their competitiveness, in particular, in the case of SMEs. Such a highly fragmented landscape gives rise to significant market distortions and barriers and creates considerable compliance costs.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. I understand perfectly what he says about the difference between tax rates and tax bases, but one of the issues for companies – particularly for foreign direct investment coming into Europe – is the ability for those companies to know in advance, with certainty, the tax implications of a transaction. If part of that calculation is sales by destination, that cannot be determined beforehand, so there is real uncertainty for those companies. I think that acts as a disincentive for foreign direct investment. I have many other questions but I know we are tight on time so, if the Commissioner could answer that one, I would be happy.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – I would like to thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive response but also ask him if he could acknowledge that the Lisbon Treaty includes a detailed protocol with respect to taxation and a Member State’s right to veto tax proposals.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – We can disagree on certain principles of taxation, which is always a rather sensitive matter. The biggest support for the CCCTB comes from businesses; we have clear evidence of this. I understand this because, when dealing with 27 different Member States with 27 different corporate tax systems, it is really a mess for them.

Concerning foreign direct investment, if we are able to agree on this proposal, we have to do so unanimously. If we are able to agree, this will facilitate foreign direct investment because foreign investors who want to invest, not in one Member State but in several, will be able to deal with one corporate tax system instead of several corporate tax systems, and that is a big advantage for foreign investors. Throughout bilateral discussions with potential investors, they really emphasise the issue of 27 corporate tax systems as an impediment to facilitating foreign direct investment.

Finally, when we are talking about the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, we are not talking about tax rates. It is clear that this has nothing to do with the sovereignty of Member States in deciding tax matters because, even within the CCCTB environment, they will be able to decide on corporate tax rates, based on their needs, their social systems, public services and so on. So the proposal itself does not reduce the sovereignty of Member States in tax matters.

  President. – Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 20:35 and resumed at 21:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

17. Measures to be taken to free Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statements on measures to be taken to free Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of Catherine Ashton (Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). – (FR) Madam President, honourable Members – if I have understood correctly this time – it is on behalf of Lady Ashton, our High Representative, that I have the honour of taking the floor before you.

The European Union continues to monitor on a daily basis, through its delegation in Beijing and its bilateral embassies, the situation with respect to Mr Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize winner, his wife Liu Xia, as well as their friends and lawyers. Their situation is receiving our constant attention. The house arrest that Mrs Liu Xia and many human rights activists in China have been under since 8 October worries us as much as it disappoints us, and we condemn it.

As you know, the European Union has not waited for Mr Liu Xiaobo to receive this prestigious award to remind the Chinese Government of its international commitments regarding respect for freedom of expression. In this particular case, the European Union has always considered that Charter 08 was a peaceful manifesto, calling for more respect for human rights in China. What is more, the Union has published four public declarations since December 2008, calling for Liu Xiaobo to be released.

Our position could not be any different when the Nobel Committee announced on 8 October, entirely independently need I point out, its decision. We have congratulated Liu Xiaobo via the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, Lady Ashton, and via the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and we have stressed how important his release is to us. We regret that the Chinese authorities have not heeded the calls that the international community has been eager to amplify.

It is regrettable that the European Union should take note, once again and with concern, of the intimidation and house arrest that Mr Liu Xiaobo’s wife, Mrs Liu Xia, has been subjected to for the last six weeks. We deplore just as vigorously the threats, surveillance and ban on leaving the country, as well as the arrests that many of Liu Xiaobo’s relatives and friends have been subjected to since he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Madam President, the European Union will continue with consistency and determination the efforts that it has undertaken for nearly two years now to see Liu Xiaobo freed so that he can exercise his rights in full and take part, as he would like to, in the public debate that he initiated in China with Charter 08. We carry on hoping that he will be able to collect the Nobel Peace Prize in person on 10 December. We call on China to remove the restrictions on freedom of movement and of expression to which his wife Liu Xia and many of his friends are subjected.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, the Commission fully supports the Belgian Presidency’s statement. The European Union has repeatedly maintained that it considers Charter 08 to be a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and, as the Presidency has just noted, the European Union has reiterated several times the serious concerns it has about Liu Xiaobo’s arrest, trial and imprisonment.

Both President Barroso and the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, have welcomed the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo on 8 October. However, the Commission regrets the fact that the Chinese authorities have reacted by putting his wife, Mrs Liu Xia, under house arrest, and by restricting freedom of movement for many of his friends.

The Commission reiterates its call on China to release Liu Xiaobo immediately from prison and to lift his wife’s house arrest order, as well as to remove all restrictions on his friends’ freedom of movement. The Commission, as mentioned by the Vice-President of the Commission and EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, in her statement, hopes that Liu Xiaobo will be able to collect the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize in person, in Oslo.

  Cristian Dan Preda, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (RO) Madam President, ten months ago in this House, I was saying that the 11-year prison sentence given to Liu Xiaobo by the Chinese Government simply for expressing his views was symptomatic of the Chinese authorities stepping up their campaign against human rights activists.

At this very moment, I believe that awarding the Nobel Prize to Liu Xiaobo is an appropriate act to emphasise that, although China has made great progress in economic and sometimes in social matters, the real sign of progress is respect for human rights. A country can be admired for its economic achievements. However, it will not gain the respect of other countries if it restricts freedom instead of protecting it.

Indeed, I find the actions taken by the Chinese Government in an attempt to intimidate the countries invited to attend the ceremony extremely worrying. It is just as worrying that some countries have given in to this blackmail.

We are dealing with an unacceptable situation because a country is taking a stance in its international relations against one of its own citizens. In fact, China would gain, as I was saying, the respect of the other countries if it allowed Liu Xiaobo now to go to Oslo to receive his prize instead of making these threats against other countries.

However, the Chinese authorities’ attitude seems, for the time being, to be much more hard line than that of the Soviets because not even a member of Liu Xiaobo’s family or his lawyer is able to get to Oslo. This is why I welcome the initiative proposed by Lech Wałęsa to represent the Chinese dissident symbolically in Oslo. However, I hope that the Chinese authorities will decide at the last moment to release Liu Xiaobo.

  Richard Howitt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, tonight, we in the Socialist and Democrat Group give our full support to this European Parliament demand that Liu Xiaobo is allowed to go to Oslo, and does not earn a different prize as the first laureate or laureate’s representative in its one hundred year history to be unable to be present to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Arrested for taking part in demonstrations, banned from teaching, sent for re-education and now imprisoned for seeking to exercise freedom of expression, the Chinese called Liu Xiaobo a criminal whilst the rest of the world awards him the accolade for peace.

I went to China personally on behalf of this House and saw that there are people ready to enter into dialogue with us on issues of labour rights and corporate social responsibility. But the fact remains that, when this Parliament’s Human Rights Subcommittee sought visas from China, no reply was ever given; and when the EU pressed for a meeting of our human rights dialogue with China, the Chinese deliberately offered a date between Christmas this year and the New Year. It now looks almost certain that there will not be a meeting under this Presidency.

This is not serious. All who wish to express solidarity tonight with Liu, his wife Liu Xia and all prisoners of conscience in China, should recognise that the rest of the world has too often put trade interests with China before our mutual obligations on human rights. This is exemplified by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who this month took a 48-strong trade delegation to Beijing but failed to include anyone to represent an interest or expertise in poverty reduction, environmental degradation or labour rights.

The truth is that five socially conscious individuals who make up the awards committee in Norway have arguably done more than this European Union, the US or the rest of the international community to put pressure on the Chinese Government to reform. Let us remember that Andrei Sakharov, Lech Wałęsa and Nelson Mandela were all Nobel laureates who once lived in repressive countries which were ultimately transformed, and tonight express our hope that Liu Xiaobo may join this list not simply in the China of today but in a China where human rights are fully respected one day in the future.

  Edward McMillan-Scott, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, this debate in a sense catalyses several years of effort by many Members who are present here, and others, to try and focus attention on the real China. The sense of unity being displayed by Council and Commission, and by the diplomatic representatives in Oslo, concerning the ceremony which may take place on 10 December, is encouraging. Of course we hope that Liu Xiaobo will be present, but it is unlikely.

What we have seen in the last few weeks, in diplomatic terms, is a car crash organised by Beijing. It is one of the most disastrous, cack-handed episodes in the history of diplomacy. But at the heart of this lies the clash between the free world and what remains a dictatorship.

On my last visit to Beijing, all the people with whom I had contact were subsequently arrested, imprisoned and, in some cases, tortured. There are between seven and eight million people imprisoned across China, there are at least 5 000 executions a year. I have seen a list of more than 3 400 people who, in the last 10 years, have died under torture in that regime for their religious convictions.

In sum, this is a terror state. We want to congratulate the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for its courage in making this award. I hope that in Oslo, on 10 December, should the ceremony take place, we have the most muscular presence on behalf of the European Union, standing by its foreign policy priorities of human rights and democracy. The world’s most populous country deserves what we enjoy in Europe.

  Reinhard Bütikofer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Liu Xiaobo has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and we are very pleased about this because it is a demonstration of the universality of human rights, which lies at the heart of our political self-understanding. We were also happy to see that our pleasure was shared by many countries throughout the world and also by many people in China.

The Chinese Government has responded harshly to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. It has reacted excessively harshly, both internally and externally. I believe that this is regrettable. It does not seem to me to be a good idea to acknowledge this negative response, if I can express it like this, by caricaturing China’s current position. With all due respect, I must make it clear, although I agree with the previous speaker about supporting the call for the release of Liu Xiaobo, that I think it is not only wrong, but also harmful to describe the China of today as a terrorist state. In my opinion, this is not true, nor does it help the positive relationship which it is important for us to have with China.

China will have to accept that we support universal human rights, because we will continue to do so. However, we must not confuse this with a strategy of confrontation. No one would benefit from this, least of all the supporters of human rights within China.

I have already said and, in summing up, I will say again that China has reacted excessively harshly to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is attempting to exert diplomatic pressure on other countries not to attend the ceremony in Oslo. That is simply unacceptable. Parliament will not accept this and, therefore, I am pleased that the President has already agreed that the European Parliament will be represented in Oslo.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, I come from a country which, only 20 years ago, was ruled by a Communist dictatorship. I had the misfortune to live in that system and I know what the situation is like in such a country. Indeed, I remember how important the voice of what, at the time, we called ‘the free world’ was for us then. I mean the voice coming from here – from Western Europe and the United States. I remember how, at the time, it created the feeling that what we were doing there – fighting for liberty and democracy – made sense.

I think that, today, we are under an obligation to help people such as Liu Xiaobo. Besides, he consciously makes reference to the experience of democracy and of those who fought for democracy in Central Europe. The name Charter 08 is, after all, a conscious reference to Charter 77. I think that all of us here may differ in our economic or political views, but on questions of human rights we should be completely united. I hope that in this House we will be just that.

  Rui Tavares, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Liu Xiaobo is now the only Nobel laureate who is incarcerated, in prison. From the speeches that we have already heard from the Council and here in Parliament, all of us here hope that he will be able to receive this Nobel Prize in freedom, or that he will be freed as soon as possible. That would honour the person that he is: committed to the peaceful transformation of China; a literary critic, teacher and author, who has always sought to bring freedom of expression and democracy to China through the world of ideas and words. The document Charter 08, for which Liu Xiaobo was imprisoned, is, as Mr Chastel has already reminded us, a constructive and peaceful one, which caused Liu Xiaobo to be incarcerated.

We know what we have to do now: work towards the release of Liu Xiaobo and all China’s political prisoners. We must also work towards the release of Liu Xia, Liu Xiaobo’s wife, who is under house arrest, and bring an end to the siege of their family, friends and lawyers. For this to be achieved, China will have to ask itself why, for example, it responded to the recent release of Aung San Suu Kyi by calling her an important political figure, even though it does not recognise that many people across the world believe that Liu Xiaobo, too, is an important political figure. However, above all, China needs to realise what a sad, awful figure it cut with its bitter worldwide diplomatic offensive to prevent the world’s high diplomatic representatives being present in Oslo for the Nobel Prize ceremony. Clearly, the people who run China can want to live in a fantasy world, and we understand why it is that they want to live in a fantasy world, where there is no opposition. What they cannot do is want to force us to live according to the rules of that fantasy world. That, I believe, is fundamentally our main issue. It is very easy for us in this Chamber to bring our indignation before the Chinese authorities and put all our complaints to them, but I think that first, we should look at the European authorities and start with our own governments. When my country, Portugal, was receiving a visit from high Chinese dignitaries recently, the government steered a demonstration by Amnesty International away from the place that the entourage was going to pass through to somewhere a few hundred metres away; the same thing happened in France, where a demonstration was moved to the Eiffel Tower. Moreover, as we have already seen, David Cameron recently travelled to China, very interested in doing business with the country, but forgetting to make a single forceful reference to human rights.

We know that there are double standards here in Europe. We say a few passing words about Liu Xiaobo, but our governments are interested in doing business. We must therefore start the housecleaning here.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, it is hard for us to imagine the sheer physical and moral courage required by Mr Liu to stand up against the murderous tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party. Those of us who enjoy the most basic freedoms of free speech and free assembly and democratic politics have a duty to speak out on behalf of Mr Liu and those like him. Mr Liu wants nothing more for China than those basic freedoms and civil rights that we take for granted.

The values that he espouses are the best hope for freedom, peace and democracy for China and the world and it is fitting that he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his efforts and his sacrifices. He wants nothing more than democratic reforms and the end of one-party Communist rule in China. It should surprise no one that the Chinese Communist Party prevents him or his family representative from collecting the award.

The Chinese Communist Party is a party of murderous gangsters that has no more purpose than the continuation of its own existence. China is a big and powerful country and it is inevitable that our governments must maintain political, diplomatic and trading relations with them. The Chinese Communist Party warns foreign governments not to attend the ceremony. Our governments should send representatives and show their and our support for Mr Liu and the Chinese democracy movement as a whole. I represent many Chinese exiles in London and I am pleased to offer what small support I can by speaking out on behalf of Mr Liu and their democratic aspirations.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, it is very good indeed that Parliament and the Commission have decided that the situation of Liu Xiaobo should be discussed at a plenary sitting of the European Parliament. It is a pity there are so few of us here for such a debate. After all, the international community, of which we are one of the most important members, should be united in such situations and should support the fight for respect for human rights together, because solidarity is the key word in this debate.

In 1989, when my country finally defeated the communist dictatorship, Liu Xiaobo was protesting in Tiananmen Square, demanding exactly the democratic freedoms which were shortly to be enjoyed by almost the whole of Europe. He has not given up his efforts – despite having spent years in prison, he signed an appeal for democratisation of the country, for which he was sentenced to a further 11 years’ imprisonment. Just like Liu, our leader, Lech Wałęsa, strove for a bloodless transition and for freedom. We enjoyed the support of democratic countries. Wałęsa, too, was not able to receive his Nobel Peace Prize in person, but even so, that prize was the hope of liberty to us Poles. That Nobel Prize became a catalyst of change.

Today is a good time to draw the attention of world opinion to people just such as Liu Xiaobo. We must not forget that apart from such leading figures as himself, there are many others who are not being spoken about, for example, the human rights activist, Mao Hengfeng, who is currently in a re-education/labour camp precisely for protesting against the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo. The European Union should attach the highest importance to human rights in contacts with China. This should be a priority for meetings such as the European Union-China summit which was held on 6 October. I want to express my disappointment at the omission of this fundamental matter. We must show we are not blind to human rights, and an opportunity to do this will be the award ceremony for the Nobel Prize in Oslo, at which, I hope, the whole world and all ambassadors will be present.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, the Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo has been a consistent and courageous human rights defender since the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Parliament therefore joins Baroness Ashton and the Commission in demanding that he be freed immediately so he can go to Oslo in December to receive the Nobel Prize, and demands freedom of movement for his wife, family and friends, who have been especially restricted since the announcement of the Nobel Prize on 8 October.

The Chinese authorities’ threats and intimidating manoeuvres to prevent the ceremony in Oslo are a disgrace. No government that succumbed to this despicable blackmail would be worthy of respect. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and, according to the UN Charter, it has special responsibilities to respect and promote respect for human rights domestically and abroad. China has already done much for some of the economic, social and cultural rights of millions of Chinese, whom it has dragged out of poverty and penury, but it cannot stop there. It must respect and promote respect for the civil and political rights of its citizens: if it does not, its own development will eventually be hindered.

Liu Xiaobo is not a criminal: he is a brave and committed citizen who brings prestige across the world to China and the Chinese people, and of whom the Chinese people should only be proud. Beijing must free Liu Xiaobo, his wife and his friends; it must free the Sakharov laureate, Hu Jia, and all the other brave Chinese citizens who dare to fight for democracy, for freedom and for their most basic rights. If they are not freed, it is China that will lose prestige. It is the Chinese regime that has shown itself incapable of turning its country into a respectable and influential power on the international stage.

We will not stop clamouring for the release of Liu Xiaobo and of all those who are struggling for freedom in China.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is testimony to the personal cost of human rights advocacy in China today. It is imperative that he and all other human rights defenders in China be released immediately. There are other cases pending. I remain painfully aware of the situation of Dhondup Wangchen, the Tibetan film maker, who suffers from hepatitis B and is in need of urgent medical attention in prison.

The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo must be considered as strong support for the struggle for freedom of expression in China. It also serves, however, as a reminder to the international community of the need for reform in China. Even Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, has warned that China may lose what it has already achieved through economic restructuring if there is no consequent political restructuring – and, colleagues, he was censured by the Chinese media.

Delaying such reform has a terrible human cost. In addition, pressuring countries to stay away from the Peace Prize ceremony shows that China has not yet matured into an international actor. China is a superpower and it should start acting like one responsibly. I am very humbled to say that I have been invited to the ceremony as one of the 50 persons who are going to represent Liu Xiaobo at that ceremony.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Alfred Nobel, founder of the peace prize, wrote in his will that human rights are a pre-requisite for brotherhood between nations and that a prize of this magnitude should be awarded to someone who had struggled and made sacrifices in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights.

Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident who won the Nobel Peace Prize, has been a great defender of the application of these values during his lifetime. During the course of his long and non-violent battle, he has always stressed how all these rights are constantly violated in China by violent repressive methods. He has had first-hand experience of being sentenced to forced imprisonment without the chance of a fair trial or of communicating with the outside world.

For this very reason, we must do all we can as European institutions to secure his freedom. Rights first and then economic and trade relations, otherwise we Europeans must consider ourselves beaten as well.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, the relationship between the European Union and China is not always a simple one. Above all, this is due to the fact that we have a different understanding of the importance of human rights, freedom and free speech. The European Union has taken the responsibility for promoting these values throughout the world and, therefore, for supporting human rights defenders in other states, such as Liu Xiaobo in China, so that they can bring about changes in the situation in their own countries. For this reason, I believe that it is very important that Parliament, but also the Council and the Commission, clearly commit to attending the award ceremony for the Nobel Peace Prize. Heidi Hautala will be taking part as an individual, but I hope very much that the European governments, the Council, the Belgian Presidency and the Commission will be represented at the highest level. This is the only way that we can make it clear that our arguments are rational and that our call for respect for human rights throughout the world is a credible one.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, honourable Members, by way of conclusion to this important debate and to answer the questions that a number of Members have, I would like to say two things.

Firstly, the European Union will, of course, be present as a whole, as it has been every year, with at least the same presence as last year – like all the Union’s diplomatic delegations – at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Liu Xiaobo in Oslo on 10 December. That was the first thing I wanted to share with you today.

Secondly, the European Union has been holding a regular dialogue on the issue of human rights with China for 15 years, and although there is always more one could do in this respect, we attach great importance to this task, which seems to us more pertinent than ever at a time when people are speaking out in China and are calling for the scope of human rights to be broadened. Inspired by mutual respect and a deep understanding of the Chinese political context, we will continue to raise the universal issues of human rights, in particular, the case of Mr Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize winner, with the Chinese authorities.

  President. – The debate is closed.

18. CAP simplification (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on CAP simplification by James Nicholson, Janusz Wojciechowski, on behalf of the ECR Group, Albert Deß, on behalf of the PPE Group, and George Lyon, on behalf of the ALDE Group (O-0187/2010 – B7-0566/2010).

  Albert Deß, author. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, I am pleased that you are here today to answer questions. On 18 May, the European Parliament adopted with a large majority a resolution to simplify the common agricultural policy (CAP). Of course, it has not been possible for you to implement this resolution yet, but I would like to ask you, Mr Cioloş, to take into consideration all the demands made in this motion for a resolution when you begin restructuring agricultural policy.

Unfortunately, I have to point out one fly in the ointment. I have just had a discussion with a group of farmers who were concerned that your proposals for the first pillar, Mr Cioloş, would not reduce the amount of red tape, but could instead lead to a huge increase in bureaucracy.

The European Union cannot be held responsible for every piece of red tape, Mr Cioloş. A large proportion of the responsibility lies with the Member States. This is why I am asking you to ensure that we can work together on the forthcoming reform so that it is structured in such a way that it can be implemented with as little administrative and supervisory effort as possible. This will allow farmers to focus on their main job, in other words, producing food, rather than requiring them to check the current legislation to find out what they need to be aware of before they do anything out in their fields or their barns.

In no other agricultural area in the world are farmers burdened with so many requirements and regulations as in the European Union. You are not yet responsible for this, Mr Cioloş. You have the chance to be the first Commissioner – before you eventually step down, and I do not know when that will happen – who can say that during his period of office, the amount of bureaucracy has been reduced rather than increased. As the rapporteur for agricultural reform, I would like to offer you the opportunity to work together with us to find a solution, so that this goal can be achieved.

  George Lyon, author. – Madam President, Commissioner, it is good to see you here with us to tonight. Clearly, simplification and stripping out the bureaucracy from the CAP is a key objective of the next reform, because certainly back in Scotland, many farmers are frustrated and angry about the bureaucracy and the disproportionate nature of the penalty system.

Public money has to be spent wisely and properly audited, and we do not dispute that whatsoever, but there is a lack of proportionality in the current penalty system both at Member State level and at farmer level as well. That is something that needs to be addressed in the reform.

In Scotland, farmers are currently being punished for small mistakes with very, very large fines in some instances. Since May, the inspections have been ramped up and swingeing penalties are being handed out. The Scottish Government, I am afraid, blame you, Commissioner, for that particular measure – for the ramping up of the inspections and the penalty systems.

Another explanation, however, might be that the European Commission auditors were due to come and inspect Scotland both in October and last week in November. It may well be that the Scottish Government were panicking slightly and that the huge fines and draconian penalties that have been put in place in the last three or four months are the response to worries that all might not be well when the auditors arrived in Scotland and carried out their inspection.

They have also looked across the water to our colleagues in Northern Ireland – I am sure my colleague, Jim Nicholson, might say one or two words about that – and looked at the fate of the government there which is facing a huge fine for the misinterpretation of eligible lands. That may well lie behind the measures taken in Scotland.

Commissioner, in your wind-up speech, can you clarify if it is indeed you that is behind and is responsible for the new draconian regime in Scotland, and can you confirm when we will know the outcome of the auditors’ inspections that have taken place in October and November of this year?

  James Nicholson, author. – Madam President, I would like to apologise, because it is not normal that I do not turn up when I am supposed to speak. I apologise most profusely for that.

The House will be aware that my colleague Mr Ashworth’s report on simplification of the CAP was adopted in this House last May. It advocated the removal of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy imposed upon European farmers which, in my opinion, has become over-burdensome and seriously impinges upon the time that they would rather spend actually farming.

One central feature of this report was that a reformed CAP should be simplified and the policy streamlined. I fear, however, that what we are getting is not that. We are going to get more bureaucracy, more red tape – and when you talk about greening the first pillar, what do you mean? You mean more bureaucracy and red tape; more paperwork for the farmer and more inspections, which is what they do not want. We want one inspection of every farm; that should be enough anywhere to inspect.

I have to say to the Commissioner: you have enough tools in the box at the moment with cross-compliance; we do not need more. We do not need any more over-emphasis on this particular position. I am appealing to you on behalf of the people who are trying to produce the food. We talk about food security in Europe; if you want food security, we are giving it to you – we are giving you food safety. Let the farmers produce the food.

Can I comment on what Mr Lyon just said? My farmers in Northern Ireland are facing a reduction of EUR 60 million because of mapping. No one would argue that the maps that were created many years ago are totally perfect. But no one will tell me that, south of the border from me in the Republic of Ireland, the maps are any better, or that they are any better in Italy – maps that were created years ago. Why are we having this? Why are we having these draconian measures placed upon our farmers when they do not need it or want it, and when all they want to do is produce good food?

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me firstly to provide answers to your written question regarding the simplification of the common agricultural policy, an important subject, as I have repeatedly said since I became Commissioner, and which we will take into consideration for future legislation.

I would like to start with the first part of your question: what has the Commission done until now to make things easier for farmers? I think that if we look at what has been done these last few years, the answer is clear: it has already done a lot to make things easier, and it has already put in place many measures to make things easier for farmers.

In March 2009, the Commission presented the communication ‘A simplified CAP for Europe – a success for all’. This communication highlights the activities that have taken place over the last few years and provides information on the reduced administrative burden obtained.

I do not wish to repeat every element from this communication, but I would like to expand on a few examples.

First of all, the adoption in 2007 of the Council regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets has led to a substantial reduction in red tape in the application framework of the European legislation on the CAP.

Because of its technical features, this single common market organisation did not intend to change the underlying policy but to harmonise the provisions, thus making CAP rules simpler to manage, lighter, more accessible and less difficult to apply.

Simplification was also one of the main reasons that motivated the Commission’s ‘health check’ proposals. The regulation adopted in 2009 simplifies the provisions of the single payment system, thereby improving the effectiveness of the 2003 CAP reform.

Furthermore, to illustrate the progress accomplished in the farming sector, I would also like to mention the action programme to reduce the administrative burden in the European Union. In the context of this programme, several assessments have been conducted. The outcome of these assessments shows that the administrative burden in the farming sector has been cut by 36%, which is much more than the programme’s general target of 25%.

Last year, my predecessor presented the first response from the Commission services to the list of 39 simplification suggestions that had been proposed by 13 Member States in April 2009. Some of the 39 suggestions were implemented at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010. Others can be found in the ‘simplification’ package that has just been adopted by the Commission with reference to direct payments and rural development, and regulations were presented to the Council and to Parliament.

As for the second pillar, the Commission has launched a study on the administrative burden that stems from implementing rural development programmes for beneficiaries. The study concentrated on two categories of measures: agro-environmental and farm modernisation. The results of this study will be used in our reflection on the CAP for the period after 2013.

To end on this first point, I would also like to inform you that the programme is ongoing, and that it includes time spent on a farm for staff of the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. This programme, also called ‘Harvest experience’, helps us to have direct contact with what is really happening on the ground and to use that experience in the decisions we prepare.

Now to the second part of your question: how will the Commission take into account Parliament’s suggestions in its work on the post-2013 CAP? Here, too, I can assure you that these questions are of concern to me and that we are going to take into account all the analyses that we have already conducted with a view to simplification, but also the proposals that we will be making, which do not move in the direction of more red tape but rather in the direction of more assurance for the taxpayer that the money is well used.

On this point too, I am open to any technical proposal that you wish to make. In early December, I will go before your fellow Members from the Committee on Budgetary Control, which is also asking what the Commission is doing to ensure that public money is well spent. The Commission, in this case, can only apply regulations that have been adopted by the Council, often after considering Parliament’s opinion.

It is not the Commission that is adding administrative tasks. The Commission only applies existing Council regulations. On that, I can assure you that in future, we will not be making proposals that complicate things unnecessarily; on the contrary, we will be making proposals that make the CAP more credible in content. As for farmers, their main role is, as I have already said, agricultural production; they are the ones who work with these natural resources and it is also because of this activity that a portion of CAP funding is allocated to that policy.

With regard to what we plan to do after 2013, I would like to inform you that in parallel to preparing the legislative package for the CAP after 2013, I decided to create a high-level technical group with the Commission and Member States in order to ensure that this legislative package will not produce more red tape, but instead will simplify things wherever possible.

As Mr Lyon said, often the red tape encountered by the farmer on the ground does not only come from the Commission. You know that management is shared with Member States and we often have applications that are different from one Member State to the other, precisely because of the national administrations. As far as these are concerned, it is not up to the Commission to simplify. As I have already said, the Commission has already simplified things. There is still the need to simplify at Member State level.

To answer Mr Lyon’s question regarding Scotland, here too, the Commission is only complying with the regulations that stipulate that for those farmers who do not adhere to the cross-compliance standards, penalties should apply not only in Scotland, but also in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in Europe. Once again, this is a rule that, if we do not comply with it, discredits us in respect of the commitments that farmers make to adhere to European legislation, since cross-compliance is not a standard added by the Commission, by a Member State or by any other body, but stems from European legislation which is reflected in these regulations. Governments will receive more details by early December, when the Commission is to present the findings of its audits.

  Michel Dantin, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, you have a good command of the French language and you know my country well. In France, there is an expression that describes something one dreams of but which never materialises, we talk about the Arlésienne.

For farmers, simplification is undoubtedly one of the forms, one of the faces of the Arlésienne. As you have said, the Commission has already taken action to try and simplify procedures and I would like to go into a bit more detail. To my mind, there are two aspects to this issue.

Firstly, there is everything to do with the requests for aid. I think it should be recognised that there has been an effort to simplify the paperwork during these last few years and months, and we give you credit for that. Secondly, there are the restrictions relating to all the conditions, the never-ending reporting requested from farmers for everything they do: taking a trailer full of manure to a field, using a dose of fertiliser in another field, using a dose of plant protection product in a third field, and if they make a mistake, they are sanctioned.

Faced with this situation, Commissioner, I believe that we certainly need to find solutions. Last week, while presenting the proposal for the future common agricultural policy, you mentioned a few integrative measures that could be implemented and that could, in fact, lead, through the outcome produced by these measures, to measures that can be controlled by opinion, by farmers as well as by the Commission, measures for which we can be sure of the scientific effect. I have in mind the example of crop rotation. These measures should enable us to simplify the obligations imposed on farmers. This represents a considerable amount of work for the future.

Furthermore, today as you did last week, you mentioned what is incumbent on Member States and I think you are right. Every year, the Commission controllers visit Member States before visiting the farmers. They go there with a critical eye to find what is not right. Yet could we not change their mission slightly, Commissioner, and ask them to also list – this would be beneficial to the Member States – areas where the Member States are going too far in applying EU legislation? Going too far is to impose on farmers obligations which are pointless in relation to the regulations. By doing so, you would have improved Europe’s image among our fellow citizens.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, the simplification of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is a goal that we have all been proclaiming for years. However, it is still a very long way from being fully achieved, despite the efforts that the Commission has been making, which must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, I should like to make it very clear that, for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, simplification cannot, in any sense, be understood as clearing the way for corner cutting, or for reduced stringency in the control or monitoring of public aid. No pretext may be invoked to get around this crucial requirement of transparency. With the start of new discussions on the post-2013 CAP, we now have an excellent opportunity to achieve this goal. Nonetheless, there will not be significant progress on simplification without simplifying the CAP architecture itself and it is about this that the S&D Group has been expressing its opinions.

In April, we published a document advocating the reorganisation of the two pillars and we note with satisfaction that the Commission has accepted some of our suggestions along these lines. I do not understand how it is possible for aid which is not linked to production, and which is subject to similar criteria of an essentially environmental nature – such as direct payments, agro-environmental measures or compensation payments for disadvantaged regions – to be subject to different bureaucratic treatment and controls, and not be included in a single, unified system. I also find it very hard to understand how many of those who talk about simplification are the very ones who are most resistant to changing the current CAP architecture.

Therefore, Commissioner, I look forward to the work you are about to do, as well as the production of the guidance document that you have just presented to us. I would also take this opportunity to express my hope that all those who want true simplification demonstrate it by taking part in the discussion that we are about to start on the future of the CAP.

  Britta Reimers, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, one of our top priorities as Members of the European Parliament is to reduce bureaucracy and simplify legislation and regulations in all the political areas of the European Union. This is the only way in which we can manage taxpayers’ money efficiently and increase the acceptance of our political decisions among the citizens of Europe. For this reason, it is important for farmers to feel the direct effect of simplification measures of this kind in the agricultural sector. Their job is to produce food, not to write books.

At a time when local authority budgets are becoming increasingly tight, it is also important for us to reduce the amount of work to be done by their administrative staff. Regulations must be drawn up in such a way that they are not padded out unnecessarily. In addition, we must ensure that the sanctions we impose are in proportion to the breach of regulations. An efficient, long-term policy is characterised by the fact that it places a greater emphasis on advice than it does on punishment. This is the only way that we can give our citizens and our farmers the incentives to implement new findings and to fulfil society’s requirements. We need to take all of this into account when we discuss the future common agricultural policy. We also need to focus more closely on ensuring that there is no duplication of formalities and controls and that forms are only filled out when they provide real added value for the administrative bodies and for the farmers themselves. We must finally learn to work together and not against one another.

  Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, on behalf of the Green/EFA Group, I congratulate the Commissioner for coming here this evening and I congratulate colleagues, and Mr Ashworth in particular, for the original resolution which has spurred tonight’s discussion.

Commissioner, I would refer you in particular to paragraphs 52 and 53 of the original resolution on transparency of penalties. I think that domestic mischief-making aside, we do have a difficulty across Scotland, and across the EU as a whole, in how our farmers perceive the transparency of enforcement, particularly of cross-compliance. I think that going forward, we need a far greater degree of clarity in terms of what is required and expected of farmers and what the consequences of non-compliance are.

Going forward as well, we also need to see a greater degree of understanding, a greater degree of flexibility. Much as I appreciate that you have to deal with the regulations as they are written, we are here to rewrite the regulations – and that is what we are looking forward to doing. There is a world of difference between accident and fraud and presently, as things are implied, farmers are treated more or less the same way in either case, when there is a world of difference in the real world as to how that works.

On paragraph 66, in particular, going forward, I would be very grateful for an indication from you, Commissioner, of how you view the call from us for a three-year moratorium on EID – electronic identification of sheep – cross-compliance penalties. We in Scotland are trying to make the technology work, but it is very far from perfect and it would just rub an awful lot of salt into an existing wound to see a non-proportionate approach taken in the cross-compliance of the EID regulations. We are trying to make it work and we have heard you will flexible. I would be grateful for a reassurance tonight that that will be the case.

  Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I wrote the original report. In that report, I talked about the challenges confronting agriculture and highlighted the ways in which the common agricultural policy is going to have to change in order to meet those challenges. In the report, I drew attention to the fact that many sectors of farming, and the livestock sector in particular, are experiencing real financial hardship at this time, and there is now an urgent need to lower the burden, both in terms of time and cost, imposed on farmers by unnecessary and disproportionate regulation from the common agricultural policy.

I gave many examples of cases where regulation and penalties are disproportionate – even unfair in many cases. I talked of the need for impact assessments, of the need for more harmonisation of inspection standards, and I suggested that there is no reason why self-regulation could not be successfully used in agriculture. Above all, I call for a change in the common agricultural policy culture.

Of course I understand the need for financial integrity, but the Court of Auditors made it perfectly clear that over-complication has very often been the cause of the problem, and likewise I certainly understand that management and interpretation of regulations varies far too much from one nation to another.

Since writing the report, I have been heartened to notice that a number of national governments, as well as leading agricultural organisations, have called for simplification of the common agricultural policy. Surely, Commissioner, now that we are negotiating common agricultural policy reform, there has never been a better time to prove that we can help the industry and not hinder it with unnecessary red tape and unnecessary costs.

Whilst I understand perfectly the advances you have made and I am grateful for that, I am dismayed that this is not being communicated at the farm gate back in the country where I come from.

  João Ferreira, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, in May, at the time of the vote in this House on the resolution on simplifying the common agricultural policy (CAP), we pointed out that this simplification must not result in either less aid for farmers or in the abolition of the means of organising the markets. I recall that the resolution that we adopted itself also gave this warning. Six months have passed since the resolution was adopted and serious reasons for concern remain, which the recent Commission communication has only served to exacerbate.

The so-called traditional means of organising the markets, such as public intervention and others, neither should nor could be abolished on the pretext of alleged rationalisation and simplification, as to do so would continue and intensify the destruction of small and medium-sized agriculture that is under way in many countries. There is certainly much to do regarding the simplification of the CAP, much of which is positive and even necessary. I am referring, amongst many other possibilities, to the need to amend the penalties, not least when these relate to infringements which are not the farmer’s fault, to simplifying the application process, and to changes in animal identification. However, above and beyond simplification that would benefit all farmers, and small and medium-sized producers particularly, a profound shake-up of the CAP is also needed that reinforces intervention instruments, guaranteeing farmers fair prices; that restores the instruments regulating production, such as quotas and production rights; that – since we are talking about simplification – guarantees each country something as simple as the right to production, as well as the right to food security and sovereignty; and that establishes the principles of modelling and capping for aid, overcoming the current imbalances between producer countries and production levels.

Commissioner, we are very concerned about the Commission’s insistence on subjecting agriculture and food production to the market and competitiveness. The result of this liberalisation policy has already been demonstrated: the unstoppable abandonment of production by millions of small and medium-sized farms, income insecurity and increased price volatility, and the exacerbation of food dependence in countless countries and regions. We agree with a simplification that serves farmers’ interests – in particular, those of small and medium-sized farmers – and enables them to carry on producing. We object to a simplification that kills off production and producers, and we will continue to fight it in this House.

  John Bufton, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, the thrust of the CAP reform report largely outlines measures illustrated under option 2. I imagine this is the Commission’s favoured approach.

I have concerns about the lack of clarity and the timescale for approval. Will we be expected to decide the best option for the CAP before a refinement of proposals? I fear heavier bureaucratic burdens for farmers, despite the report calling for a simpler, more specific support scheme including simplification of cross-compliance rules.

The report focuses on small and active farms, without defining how size and activity may be measured and monitored. The report states that the two pillars of the common agricultural policy should focus on efficiency, but I fear incentivising small farms while rewarding environmental development could see domestic farmers move away from production-focused farming in order to benefit from the CAP. I am concerned that, despite the report recognising long-term food security and growing global demand, our agricultural competitiveness will be squeezed.

The report talks about enhancing Europe’s latent productivity potential, while respecting EU commitments in international trade. It observes that the share of agriculture in the food supply chain decreased, while the share of the wholesale and distribution sectors increased. Bilateral agreements with Mercosur, including agriculture re-importation, could undermine the capacity for European farmers to trade at a fair market price.

The report admits that European farmers face global competition, while having to respect environmental, food safety, quality and welfare objectives. Yet some South American farmers exploit deforestation and are able to mass-produce and then outprice European farmers due to less stringent regulation.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, the European Union is rather unpopular among Hungarian farmers, particularly smallholders. This is not only because 100% of our markets had to be sacrificed for the benefit of foreign food imports in exchange for a small fraction of the agricultural support granted to farmers in old Member States, but also because of the subject of today’s sitting, exaggerated bureaucracy and the awful administrative burdens that indeed, as it has been stated a number of times, prevent Hungarian farmers as well from actually doing their job – that of farming.

Allow me to point out that in the old Member States, and therefore in Hungary, there is another major complication; namely, the state socialist or communist tradition, where some civil servants believe that it is not they who exist for the citizens and, in this case, for the farmers, but vice versa, that the citizens exist for the state and for the bureaucratic civil servants. Such civil servants make the lives of farmers more difficult absolutely unnecessarily, in a manner that humiliates and abuses, by regulating farmers beyond the rules already in place.

We are continuously inundated with complaints. The last one, for example, was that payment of the costs of an event organised by tender under the second pillar was refused, stating that the farmer in question failed to obtain three quotations for the scones he served to participants. This is a typical case of humiliation, superfluous regulation and arbitrary use of power.

How can this be remedied? By ensuring that complaints against such abuses can be made not only to the decision maker, which we know to be an entirely futile attempt, but to the European Union itself, now that we have joined it and the European Union grants such aid from payments. The European Union should create a control mechanism for people to turn to, where humiliations and abuses of this type could be investigated and sanctioned.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I would first of all like to welcome the commitment expressed by the Commission in the recent communication it presented to continue the process for simplifying the common agricultural policy. Excessive regulation means less competitiveness, while excessive inflexibility means less efficient operation.

One of the reasons for the current request to reform the CAP is undoubtedly the need to simplify it. I would like to mention a few extremely important aspects of the resolution on CAP simplification adopted by this Parliament.

My colleague, Michel Dantin, has mentioned those states which are going too far in their application of European legislation. I think that administrative formalities must be reduced to the bare essentials, not only at EU level, but at Member State level too.

The Commission ought to consider the possibility of a common regulatory framework for the documentation requested. I would describe such a recommendation as the maximum tolerable level of bureaucracy. It is well known that where EU bureaucracy requests three signatures for approval, the national bureaucracies will, in turn, add another five signatures. Only those regulations and terms which are relevant and absolutely necessary, and which provide undeniable benefit, must continue to be applied.

Simplification itself is not sufficient. Measures providing training and information to potential beneficiaries must also be expanded. For instance, it ought to be compulsory for a fixed share of the rural development funds to be allocated to measures of this kind.

Given that simplification is directly linked to transparency, I will take advantage of the Commissioner’s presence in plenary to ask him a question out of context. In view of the recent decision made by the European Court of Justice concerning the beneficiaries of the European agricultural funds, what measures is the Commission considering in order to continue to ensure that information is published about these people?

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too, like Mr Niculescu, welcome the Commission’s intention to keep up efforts towards simplifying the common agricultural policy, but I am also worried about the follow-up given to the report by Mr Ashworth on administrative simplification.

Indeed, given the difficult economic climate in which our farmers currently find themselves, I would want the post-2013 CAP to enable farmers to concentrate on the main objective, which entails producing safe and quality foodstuffs, whilst at the same time encouraging them to provide non-commercial public services. It is high time to lighten the administrative burden carried by our producers, to root out unnecessary legislation, and to give the farmers of the 27 Member States the same chances of understanding what their obligations are but also what their rights are. What they need is a simpler and more responsive CAP.

At a time when it is considered inevitable that farmers around the world are being pitted against each other, and this despite the successive farming and food crises, both in the North and in the South, at a time when farmers have to fight to get fair prices, a fairer remuneration for their work, the least we could do to help them is to ask the Commission to consult the stakeholders in the farming sector on a regular basis in order to assess the impact of our regulations on the ground and to define simple and transparent practical rules for our farmers and our taxpayers.

To end with, I will quote Charles Baudelaire who said that absolute simplicity is the best way to distinguish oneself. So I invite the European Commission to devote itself to this vital mission and in that respect, I naturally fully trust that Mr Cioloş will reach that goal.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, Commissioner, for me, the single most important sentence in the resolution is paragraph 7, which says, ‘Expects that, in line with the principles of better regulation, all future legislation will be accompanied by a full impact assessment with consideration for regulatory and administrative burdens and ensuring that any new regulation is proportionate to the aims it seeks to achieve’.

I want to ask you whether we can have any hope that this will happen. Can you tell us, Commissioner, that those principles will be central to the work we do on the CAP post-2013?

I looked at your excellent document from last week. Some of the headlines tell us that agriculture is to guarantee food security and traceability. It is to provide European citizens with quality, value and diversity of food, to create local employment and deliver multiple economic, social, environmental and territorial benefits. It has to ensure effective public policy returns. It must be greener and contribute to climate change mitigation. It must address issues such as sustainable land management and biodiversity loss, promote renewable energies, foster animal and plant health and guarantee animal welfare. It must adhere to cross-compliance rules and abide by veterinary and phytosanitary regulations. It has to deal with volatility in the market and survive as the weakest link in the food chain. It has to compete with food imports from third countries produced under very different conditions. All of this, perhaps, on a decreasing budget.

Commissioner, you said that next week, you have to justify the CAP to the Committee on Budgetary Control. I think you have plenty of ammunition.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, trimming back an overgrown and unnecessary bureaucracy is naturally in everyone’s interests, and particularly the entirely legitimate demand of farmers, who need as much time and energy as possible for their own work – crop production and rearing livestock – rather than for ploughing through red tape and filling in forms.

In 2005, the European Commission undertook to simplify the common agricultural policy. At the time, it set the ambitious target of a 25% reduction in the administrative burden by 2012. Although it cannot be denied that the Commission has made some effort, the actions to date have failed to bring either the expected simplification or an actual elimination of the inequalities between Member States. At the same time, it is absolutely essential to ensure a sufficiently flexible framework for the common agricultural policy, and especially for the system of direct payments. It is also necessary, within the framework of supporting diversity, to minimise the risk of providing support only to uncompetitive and inefficient production areas in the European Union. There is also a need to balance the aim of simplification with efforts to achieve maximum efficiency.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I welcome this oral question and the focused return to a very important issue. Over the past few months, I have carried out a number of rural meetings across Northern Ireland. At each event, I asked farmers to identify the main areas of change that are needed within the sector. Of huge importance was the need to reduce red tape, which is seen as both adding unnecessary cost and taking up valuable time. The level of paperwork and the complexity of the detail needed is creating a huge burden on farmers and increasing fears of penalties.

I also recently met with the chairs of local groups who are implementing the rural development programme in Northern Ireland. They firmly blame the heavy and bureaucratic nature of the audit requirements as a reason for the high levels of drop-out.

I, like you Commissioner, believe that there is a need for accountability of how we spend taxpayers’ money, but this bureaucratic burden is hindering the programme and the very people it was intended to help.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, there is a great deal of talk at EU level about simplifying the common agricultural policy. However, our farmers continue to complain about the administrative problems obstructing them when they access funds or need to apply European legislation.

Not only the Commission, but Member States, too, must take measures to simplify the red tape involved with the common agricultural policy. I believe that it is vital for European agricultural legislation to be implemented in Member States in such a way that farmers are not discouraged from continuing with farming.

Many farmers in my country complain that they are poorly informed, that it is difficult for them to start up a venture in this sector, or that it is extremely difficult to access agricultural funds. I would like to ask the Commission to keep encouraging Member States to use technology more efficiently, not only to keep farmers better informed, but also to reduce the administrative tasks facing this sector. I also hope that the new common agricultural policy will be simpler, more transparent and fairer.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) Madam President, this Parliament has been discussing reducing bureaucracy for years and years now. The Commission has formed an internal working group comprising senior officials who have been tasked with ensuring that regulation does not become too excessive. That is a rather strange set-up, a bit like having a butcher inspecting the quality of his own meat. On Parliament’s initiative, a working group which is external to the Commission, headed by the former Prime Minister of Bavaria, Mr Stoiber, was formed in response to that situation. After four years of the Stoiber committee’s existence, is the Commission able to say which approach is the best and most effective? The Commission’s internal working group or Mr Stoiber’s working group, which is external to the Commission?

Now, moving to regulation itself, which is carried out by Member States, and sometimes by five to eleven different supervisory authorities in Member States. That is far too many. Would it not be possible for the Commission to start working together with the private sector, which also sets strict demands and which, therefore, on many occasions, renders supervision by Member States redundant?

  Tadeusz Cymański (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, in May, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on simplification of the common agricultural policy. Can the Commission explain what action has so far been taken with the aim of reducing the bureaucratic burden on farmers throughout the European Union? Can the Commission tell us how it intends to adapt to the recommendations contained in the European Parliament resolution on simplification of the CAP in view of the anticipated reform of this policy?

Farmers are demanding simplification of the CAP because they are being harassed, both in Poland and in the other Member States of the European Union. The European Parliament has expressed its opinion on this matter many times, including recently in the Ashworth report on simplification of the CAP. It is time to act upon this report. Bureaucracy must not ruin us. If the European Union wants to develop, it must not create barriers, especially not bureaucratic ones.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation published a report last week highlighting that mankind is perilously close to a new global food crisis. This is why agricultural producers have been asked to increase their production, especially of wheat and maize, and build up their food stocks again in 2012.

Global food demand will continue to grow in future. The European Union ought to be able to help meet global food demand. As a result, it is vital for the Union’s agricultural sector to maintain its production capacity and improve it.

In particular, small, medium-sized and family-owned farms need simpler and more easily accessible instruments, both in terms of subsidies and direct payments aimed at attracting them to the market.

The key to long-term food security is to encourage investment in agriculture, especially through simplifying the bureaucracy faced by farmers. In order to achieve this, it is important for us to facilitate European farmers’ access to bank loans on favourable terms, as well as provide subsidies for farmers.

I ask you, Commissioner, to support us, just as during the review of the energy taxation directive, in obtaining a reduced VAT rate for electricity used for irrigation.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, in the Commission communication on the future of the common agricultural policy, administrative simplifications are one of the proposals for reforming European agriculture. This proposal, in a certain sense, acts upon the recommendations presented by the European Parliament in the resolution of May this year. A reduction in the administrative and bureaucratic burden will make it easier for farmers to obtain funds, and it will improve the flow of information and increase the effectiveness of inspections conducted by local authorities. This, in turn, will ensure the supply of suitable amounts of safer food, and will also increase the competitiveness of our sector. We must, however, be sure that the process of simplification will really be carried out, both at European and at national level, that the proposed simplifications are not another somewhat worthless attempt at ignoring the truth and that these same simplifications lead to a reduction and not an increase in expenditure on administration.

  Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, it is extremely dangerous to talk about an increase in bureaucracy, because this sort of discussion often backfires. I hope that this will not be the case here.

I am very pleased, Mr Cioloş, that you have proposed simplified rules, in particular, for small farms, in your communication on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). That is highly commendable. There are a lot of things that can be done. For example, in the case of multiannual commitments in the agricultural environment programme, farmers have to submit new applications every year for the same areas of land. This is simply ridiculous. We must go much further and make the system much simpler, for small farms in particular, without losing sight of the fact that we need to achieve our objective of preventing fraud. Ultimately, we want a CAP which increases the number of flowers in the meadows and not the number of pieces of paper on the desks.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, communication of the general principles that will govern the new common agricultural policy (CAP) has given new hope to small and medium-sized farmers throughout Europe by stressing their irreplaceable role in the future of European farming; this hope must be realised. This is another thing which renders the simplification of the CAP particularly necessary. Freeing farmers from their most complex bureaucratic chores, for which they have little time, is a goal that we must achieve, so that they can devote themselves to farm work, wasting less time and incurring fewer costs. Beyond this, we will also be giving the many small producers who currently do not actually apply because of the bureaucracy involved a more user-friendly system, thereby preventing these losses. Efforts towards this are undoubtedly worthwhile, Commissioner.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for what I thought was a very forceful and genuine expression of his desire to implement this policy of simplification, although I have never met a farmer who asks me to simplify the common agricultural policy. They ask for fewer checks and controls and easier ways of doing business.

I want to repeat my comments of last Thursday. We are fooling ourselves in this House. If we go down the route of greening the first pillar of the common agricultural policy, we will unfortunately increase cross-compliance, we will be counting nature, we will be sending people out to farms and we will not achieve simplification. I described it as ‘green tape’. It is just as difficult as red tape but we are going to have both. I know that you appreciate the point and I think we need to be aware of it.

I think there is also a credibility issue for the European Union. Farmers see bankers getting away with blue murder in terms of no checks and balances, while they are caught for EUR 100. My last point is that there are multiple checks on farmers: retailers do it, processors do it, the European Union does it and competent authorities do it. There is a climate of fear. Commissioner, you are afraid of the big, bad wolf – budgetary control – and farmers are afraid of inspections and Member States are fearful too. We have to break that climate of fear.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, a fundamental element of the system of management of the common agricultural policy is supervision. The costs of building and maintaining the systems of management and supervision, as well as the costs of the administration of these systems, place a significant burden on the budgets of Member States. On the basis of experience to date, it can be seen that the complicated criteria of access to help, and their constant changes, give rise to many kinds of problem at the implementation stage, not only for farmers, but also for the administration itself.

The future CAP must be understandable to farmers, but also to taxpayers. Without further simplification of the CAP, this will not be possible. It seems that every time we try to reform the CAP, we create increasing amounts of bureaucracy. I also appeal to Member States not to add further and often unnecessary regulations to EU guidelines. I propose that in future, a claim for payment should cover the entire budgetary period. It should be submitted for a two-year period, but, of course, it should be possible to submit amendments.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, over the years, a complex mechanism of regulations, subsidies and checks has grown out of European agricultural policy, transferring the evaluation of the efficiency of agricultural production from the field to the offices of Brussels bureaucrats.

Operating farms in an efficient and meaningful way is becoming more dependent on mechanisms of support and the regulations providing such support, which are drawn up in the European Commission. The deformation of the agricultural market has been further exacerbated by the subsidy mechanism for the new Member States, which, in many cases, do not even receive half the support of the original Member States.

It is therefore right and proper to look closely at the system of regulations and mechanisms currently in use in the European Union, and to try and introduce simpler, more modern and fairer regulations for our farmers. I firmly believe, Commissioner, that the European Parliament will be happy to help you in this task.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I agree completely with this idea of simplifying the common agricultural policy (CAP). In particular, I commend the Commissioner for what he has done. He said that he received 39 recommendations, and the sooner these recommendations are implemented, the better.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the European Court of Auditors report regretfully reveals each year that the resources allocated to the common agricultural policy are not always used in a correct and transparent way.

We are therefore forced to reconcile two different needs: on the one hand, a need for control, to ensure that European taxpayers’ resources are used in the best and most proper way and, on the other, a need to simplify as far as possible the lives of our farmers who want to spend their time tilling their fields and tending their stock, and it is right that they should spend their time in this way.

I wanted to offer just one suggestion to the Commissioner, as he said he was willing to listen to suggestions from this Chamber. All the measures for rural development implemented by Member States and the regions are not always aimed at simplification but instead add layer upon layer of red tape. The Commissioner should transfer the best practices implemented in the regions and European countries to all other countries and regions.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Madam President, Commissioner, what has been done so far is obviously not enough, as otherwise we would have been debating something else this evening. I would like to draw your attention to the social element of what we are discussing, because when producers prepare their projects, they take out loans, stake their land and then, when their project is turned down because of some formality, they are ruined.

For six months now, I have been waging a Punic War with the Bulgarian Agriculture Fund which has turned down the individual projects of over one hundred Bulgarian farmers because of unclear text in the regulation. Bulgarian administration (because you know that Bulgaria is a country under special observation) also prefers to play safe and to reject projects on the slightest excuse. I am deeply convinced that most of the farmers are conscientious and honest. And I understand the need for controls, but these should not destroy those who are conscientious, just because of the fraudsters.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, I am very happy to see that despite the time being quite late, there are so many people present to talk about simplifying the common agricultural policy. I think simplicity comes when we are clear with ourselves and when we know exactly what we want, and this is also reflected in the normative acts we draft.

Of course, the proposals come from the Commission and they are adopted by the Council and by Parliament. Therefore, I am fully confident that when it comes to preparing the legislative package together, we will know just as well, in a clear and simple way, what we want and that we will avoid the specific exceptions and add-ons which mean that subsequently, the Commission will have to check them on the ground, since the same Commission is also accountable to you – Parliament – for how public money is spent.

Of course, I do not think that the CAP is preventing farmers from working, on the contrary. In many cases, the CAP is helping farmers to work. It is just that, whenever public money is involved, everyone needs to be able to account for how that public money was used. There is European legislation that results in standards for the farming sector, and I must say that the farming sector is maybe one of the only economic sectors for which legislation at European level is, in fact, checked on the ground. I do not know if this is the case for other sectors, but together we decided it would be that way. The standards that receive a lot of attention are only the application of European legislation on the ground.

What is perceived as being complex is precisely this legislation on the environment and on animal wellbeing. There are also the procedures of specific measures, such as agri-environmental measures, for which there is special financial assistance, as well as investment measures that are often found in investment programmes like the rural development programme.

I totally agree that with regard to legislation such as it is applied in practice, more could be done to clarify what farmers need to do. Yet as far as the procedures for the specific measures are concerned, we also need to be clear: as long as we require specific measures that take into consideration regional particularities, we also need to exercise a specific control, otherwise we would have no credibility.

I totally agree, Mr Capoulas Santos, that we need to simplify as much as possible. However, I would not want to go so far as to reach a stage where we are no longer credible, no longer able to properly manage the money that is allocated to the CAP, and I would like this budget to be just as consistent in the future too. This consistency will also depend on our ability to justify and account for how the money is used.

As regards transparency, there is a decision by the Court of Justice. What I can tell you is that I am still in favour of this transparency. The regulation that is currently in force will be amended so that this judgment can be taken into account.

I will leave it at that, but I can assure you that I will continue to take decisions aimed at simplification, or at least ensure that the CAP does not become more complicated. As I have already said, we will have to do this work together and with Member States, since I talked to you about measures taken to cut red tape with reference to what the Commission is asking Member States. Now, CAP management is shared with Member States and what happens on the ground for the beneficiary, i.e. the farmer, depends on the way in which Member States and regions put this European legislation into practice.

Since good practice guides are useful, we are also going to work on these guides, but first of all, let us try and make the CAP simple and clear for the 27 Member States. Henceforth, with codecision, you, too, have the same responsibility as the Council in this area, and I am convinced that we will be able to work very well together.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) A resolution adopted by Parliament earlier this year refers to the importance of reducing red tape for farmers. A major point made is that there should be simplification of the implementation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) as well as simplification of the CAP itself.

In relation to this, both the Commission and the Member States have an important role to play. A review of the CAP should focus on methods that would allow farmers to spend most of their time engaged in the most important thing: farming.

The Commission communication – published last week – referred to the importance of simplification and of reducing red tape. To improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector, it must be ensured that the measures now in place be reformed and simplified in the CAP in its future form, and that no additional burden be placed on farmers.

I welcome what the Commissioner said last week about impact assessments being required before a new proposal is put forward. The principle of proportionality and the administrative burdens carried by farmers already must be taken into account in any new legislation.

  Gerard Batten (EFD), in writing. – Let me pose a simple question. Why is there a common agricultural policy at all? Europe has an abundance of fertile agricultural land. We still have farmers willing and able to produce food. Europe and the World has an abundance of people who need to buy food. The mechanism of the market, if left to itself, would meet the needs of supply and demand at competitive prices. The CAP is an artificial, expensive and unnecessary burden on farmers and consumers. Let me suggest the easiest simplification of all: abolish the CAP!

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The Commission’s communication, ‘The CAP towards 2020’, contains few concrete details as regards the practice of reducing administrative burdens. Even the word ‘simplification’ occurs only in a few places in the text, with reference to cross-compliance rules. The CAP system is too complex in other areas as well, and it is often opaque and incomprehensible to farmers. One of the most important tasks would be to put an end to ‘double regulation’. Several Member States impose stricter national requirements than those laid down in European Union legislation. This, in itself, distorts competition on the internal market. It would be useful if the various national authorities monitoring cross-compliance and their various sections would harmonise their efforts to ensure that farmers are not subjected in short succession to several different kinds of inspection. Given the current advances in telecommunications and IT, setting up a shared database would make this possible. The Commission’s proposed reform maintains support for environmental protection under the second pillar while, at the same time, a green allowance has been built into the criteria for direct payments under the first pillar. It is not yet known how these payments will be made. It would be good if this positive step did not entail new administrative burdens.

19. The situation in the beekeeping sector (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the situation in the beekeeping sector by Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (O-0119/2010 – B7-0564/2010).

  Paolo De Castro, author. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution we are about to vote on represents the view of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the European beekeeping support policy. As is normal practice for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, this important paper has benefited from the participation of all the parliamentary groups, who have added their valuable contribution to the end result.

Despite the recent increase in the annual budget for measures to improve the general conditions for production and marketing of bee products, a widespread concern persists with regard to the numerous challenges and problems that beekeeping will have to face in the near future.

Difficult production and marketing conditions, strong and prolonged price volatility and difficulties emerging from the increasingly widespread mortality of bee stocks are some of the critical factors that afflict one of the most important sectors of European agriculture.

Like all other primary sector operators, European beekeepers must be put in a position where they can plan their own affairs. Since the current support depends on European agricultural policy implementation procedures in force at present, the future of this policy after 2013 is uncertain. This is the background to today’s resolution, whereby we intend to call on the Commission to make an active commitment to defend beekeeping.

The main demands to the Commission contained in the motion for a resolution include the following: a specific undertaking after the expiry of national programmes, also in view of new challenges and problems in the sector, namely bee mortality, price volatility etc.; a commitment to the necessary improvement in statistical measurements, for more effective control of non-EU honey imports and research development; a strengthening of the role of European veterinary policy; an action plan to tackle the phenomenon of widespread bee mortality, partly through specific undertakings in the field of research; greater financial support in the field of operator training and education and, lastly, a revitalised role as a leading player for the beekeeping sector within the common agricultural policy after 2013.

In thanking Mrs Lulling and all my fellow MEPs for the common work carried out, I would like to remind you, Madam President, Commissioner, that the International Year of Biodiversity is about to end. This is why we hope that approval of the resolution will definitely mark the start of the road to relaunch a sector that is particularly strategic from the viewpoint of environmental sustainability and maintenance of biodiversity, as well as in terms of economic and social impact.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, indeed, bees play an important role in pollination and in producing honey and related products. This sector is characterised by a great diversity of beekeeping conditions and by the dispersion and variety of stakeholders from production to the marketing stage.

Some harmonised rules have been established at European Union level concerning honey marketing standards and the preservation of bee health.

The regulation on the single common market organisation provides for a series of measures aimed at improving conditions for producing and marketing apiculture products. These measures can be included in three-year apiculture programmes that are prepared by Member States and cofinanced by the European Union budget. The budget for these programmes has risen from EUR 26 million to EUR 32 million for the 2011-2013 period.

These measures seem to be giving positive results in the beekeeping sector, both for Member States and for beekeepers. It is also important to note that all Member States have devised a programme, which shows their interest both in beekeeping and in the needs of this sector.

The sector is certainly facing a number of challenges. First, the fall in the number of beekeepers, making it crucial to encourage and train newcomers. Second, competition from third-country imports and issues related to the quality of the honey coming from these countries. Then there is the increase in bee mortality due to many different factors, including varroasis and other diseases.

The issue of bee health is particularly worrying within but also outside the European Union. Beekeeping organisations are asking the European Union to concentrate more on bees in this regard. In November 2008, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution on the situation in the beekeeping sector which called on the Commission to put in place specific actions and to make sure these actions were coordinated.

It is obvious that bee health is an important matter and that it must be protected by the most suitable actions, while taking into account the sector’s particularities and the different players involved. In this context, the Commission has already launched a number of initiatives that seek to address the concerns of the beekeeping industry, and other actions are also planned for the future.

The Commission intends to present a communication soon that will seek to clarify the issues in connection with bee health and the key actions that the Commission intends to take in order to address them. This communication will serve as a basis for discussion with the European Parliament and the Council, as well as with authorities in the Member States and stakeholders.

I hope this debate will help identify possible new actions that are necessary at European Union level on the question of preserving beekeeping and the production of honey and related products, but also to help preserve bee health and prevent any problems that could arise because of disease or pollution.

  Astrid Lulling, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, when I took over responsibility for the situation in the beekeeping sector in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development from my German fellow Member, Reimer Böge, 16 years ago, another German MEP said to me rather disparagingly: ‘Oh, I see, the little creatures for the little countries’. Since then, I have tried hard to make it clear within the constantly growing EU how important these little creatures are, not only for our quality of life, but also for our survival.

In the meantime, we have made continuous progress in raising awareness at all levels within the EU of the need for a comprehensive common policy to ensure that there are enough bees in the EU and enough beekeepers of all ages to look after them. This has become all the more important as a result of the high levels of bee mortality in many regions, which have given rise to justified concerns about whether there are enough bees and beekeepers to meet our needs. This is why I have launched this initiative in the form of an oral question to the Commission with a debate and a resolution. I am very grateful for the fact that this resolution has been supported by all the groups in the House. The objective warrants the joint action by all the political groups on behalf of our resolution. It is brief, clearly structured and easy to understand, which is not always the case in this House. We make it clear where the problems lie. The specific solutions that we are proposing have been worked out in very close cooperation with the beekeeping sector.

Beekeepers from many Member States have come to Strasbourg today with their products, but also with their concerns and expectations, to highlight the fact that they need our help in solving their problems. When you consider that, from a budget of more than EUR 140 billion, only EUR 32 million has been spent on safeguarding three quarters of the food production and four fifths of the plants which are dependent on pollination, it should be clear to everyone here that the important task today is to ensure the continuation and the development of this policy beyond 2013. That is our message. I believe that it will be heard, not only in Parliament, but also in the Commission, in the Council and in the Member States. In any event, we will make sure that this happens. I am making an urgent call to all the Members of this House to be present for the vote and to vote in favour of this resolution. We owe this to the bees. It is true that they are hibernating while we are having this discussion. Incidentally, I believe that the discussion …

(The President cut off the speaker)

I just wanted to say that the Conference of Presidents, which thinks it is a good idea to put this discussion at the end of a night sitting, needs to do its homework in order to understand the importance of bees in Europe.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Madam President, unfortunately, the problems affecting European beekeeping are more serious and deeper rooted than the cyclical crises that recurrently affect other, apparently more important, sectors. The problem with beekeeping is, above all, environmental and has consequences that could become catastrophic if we are unable to respond adequately in time.

Two statistics from the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations – cited in the motion for a resolution and already mentioned by Mrs Lulling – are illuminating: 84% of plant species and 76% of food production depend on pollination. However, agriculture is also an important economic activity in rural areas, with great potential for growth, since European production is a long way from guaranteeing our needs. No other ‘livestock activity’ – and livestock is in inverted commas here, obviously – is so closely linked to nature and sustainability or plays such an important and irreplaceable ecological role as beekeeping. These are more than enough reasons for us not to stint on our efforts and funding for investigating the principle causes of the bees’ frightening and increasing death rate, and for supporting health programmes.

This debate should also provide an opportunity to find imaginative and effective ways of including aid for this particular type of landless livestock in the aid mechanisms of the new common agricultural policy (CAP), at the very moment when the use of units of area as the basic criterion for allocating new aid is being planned. I should therefore like the Commission to clarify what its immediate responses to this problem will be, and whether it is thinking of including this activity in the new CAP architecture that we are about to start debating.

  Britta Reimers, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, providing protection for bees is in the best interests of the agricultural sector and many farmers are also beekeepers. We have seen a decline in the bee population in many regions of Europe. We must identify the causes of this problem and take the necessary countermeasures. It is a good thing that the budget funding for the national bee programmes up to 2013 has been increased from EUR 26 million to EUR 32 million. However, that is not enough. We must ensure that these programmes are continued after 2013. In order to achieve this, it is also particularly important for us to improve and simplify the process which allows researchers, beekeepers and farmers to share specialist knowledge. We should focus as soon as possible on combating the diseases and parasites to which bees are subject. We must not leave the beekeepers to fight this battle on their own.

We urgently need better and more standardised statistics from all the Member States throughout the EU. This is because we need to work with facts and not just with speculation. As the number of beekeepers is constantly falling, we also need to invest more in education and training. We should provide more support for young beekeepers and also for full-time beekeepers, to ensure that the profession has a future and does not die out. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports this resolution.

  Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I will be brief, although I do think Mrs Lulling’s idea of cross-pollinating speaking time across the groups is certainly one to be further considered.

I will echo comments about the beekeeping sector, but I would remind colleagues that the wild bumble bee population across Europe is also in a similar – and very grave – situation. They are just as important for biodiversity and the pollination benefits that we have heard of – very correctly – about the honey bee sector. I would pay tribute to the work of the Bumblebee Conservation Trust in Scotland, covering the bumble bee population across the UK.

Commissioner, I would pick up on question 4 – an excellent question – suggesting that the Commission bring bee diseases into the veterinary policy. This has been a long-standing call of this Parliament, and it strikes me that this is not just about doling out money but about sharing best practice and knowledge across the Union. A lot of scientists in a lot of places are working on this, and the Commission could play a very powerful role in pooling that information and working out how much we know about this connected and very serious problem.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, we are all aware of the importance of bees in pollination. They are absolutely crucial to agriculture and food production. Indeed, without them, there is no food production.

It is therefore very worrying that the beekeeping sector continues to report that the mortality rates are astonishingly high. Although I feel that we have been successful in raising the awareness and communicating the severity of the situation over the years, we must maintain pressure to ensure that research into the cause of these mortality rates continues and remains well funded. Only then can concrete steps be taken to address the problem.

Firstly, I wish to see that funding for research projects is maintained after 2012, and I would support the initiatives which encourage young beekeepers into the apiculture sector. We are, of course, entering a period of intense debate on the future of the CAP, and I believe that this is a fundamental problem that should continue to be addressed in the context of a revised EU agricultural policy after 2013.

In essence, support for the agriculture sector should be strengthened after 2013. I think we have an opportunity to do something positive. Let us support the bees.

  Trevor Colman, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, the problem with this report on the diminishing bee population is that there is a real tragedy here. However, having examined this document, I find that the proposals being put to this House are a classic example of what is known in this building as a ‘beneficial crisis’. Beneficial, that is, for the EU, with proposals constructed on the basis of extending EU control over a wider and wider area. No change there then.

The CAP features in passing in this report, but there is no mention of the destructive effect of the imposition of that policy in my country. I am thinking here of the nature of hedgerows and the working of fields and orchards, the management of which has been seriously interfered with by EU legislation, to the detriment of bees in Britain.

The report admits that it cannot identify the prime cause for the drop in bee numbers, and so cites a large number of possibilities. It lists bee disease, bees’ weakened immunity to pathogens and parasites, climate change – you could bet that one would be in here – and the disappearance of mellifluous flora. The possible deleterious effect of genetically modified plants is grudgingly admitted, but dismissed as insignificant – you could have bet on that being here, too.

In truth, these are all guesses. The one constant in all this is the presence of the Varroa mite which attacks the bees’ immune system and is probably the root cause of this whole problem. But no, the plight of bees is used as an excuse to introduce a whole host of regulations calling, amongst other things, for cooperation between beekeepers’ associations from Member States, tighter controls on the importation of honey, increased labelling requirements – hardly designed to stop the bees dying, surely – product authorisation, whatever that is, and a move to recruit young beekeepers. Amazing. Whilst all this is taking place, the Varroa mite continues its pernicious work and bees die.

No doubt well intentioned, this report needs to be reduced to identifying and eliminating whatever it is that is killing our bees, and to allow the international community to deal with it, not to serve as an excuse for more and more and more EU regulation.

  Diane Dodds, on behalf of the NI Group. – Madam President, this has been an important, and indeed passionate, discussion on this particular subject. I am glad to see it and to be able to take part in it.

I believe that the importance of bees within agriculture, in broad terms, is generally undervalued, even within the sector itself. Without bees, many crops would fail. Of course, orchards are particularly reliant on bees for pollination. I recently visited a number of orchard owners in Northern Ireland who have suffered from the declining bee population and indeed voiced their concern over it.

I agree that bee diseases should be highlighted in EU veterinary policy, both to highlight the importance of bees and also to have a policy and to monitor the population across Europe. Money must be invested in research and development into the diminishing bee population and funding must be made available to schemes which can help. I believe that a balanced view of the decline of the bee population must be taken into consideration, not just blaming farming practices but investing in investigation into diseases and ways of minimising their impact.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Mrs Lulling asked us to support the motion for a resolution. We can do so wholeheartedly as a truly excellent document is in the making.

The most important statement of this document is the one which calls on the European Commission to ensure that the current support programmes in the apiculture sector today are continued and strengthened after 2013. There is an immense need for this support, as the market does not recognise apicultural products in a manner that ensures the survival of the apiculture sector, even though apiculturists provide a great many services to agriculture and the preservation of biodiversity through pollination.

Another very important statement within this document is the call on the European Commission to change labelling rules for honey products within the framework of quality policy. This is because the current rules allow the possibility for abuse, namely, to mark as honey of European origin honey which contains only a very minimal amount of European honey, and, in fact, contains mostly honey imported from a third country, which may even be of poorer quality.

Yet another very important statement within this document is the call on the European Commission to table a legislative proposal which excludes the possibility of labelling products with a less than 50% honey-based sugar content as products made from honey.

I have been fighting for these issues for years here in the European Parliament. I have not managed to have them included in any document as perfectly as they are now stated in this motion for a resolution. I hope that the European Commission will accept Parliament’s recommendations and will find a way within the scope of quality policy in the next semester to resolve these long-standing issues.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reason I decided to table several amendments to Mr Paolo De Castro’s excellent proposal is because beekeeping is an essential economic sector. I am sure our excellent fellow Member, Mrs Lulling, will agree, since she has been working on this problem since 1994. I think we can pay tribute to her this evening.

We need to realise that the disappearance of bees would amount to an unprecedented upheaval in the history of mankind. Such a change in biodiversity would put vital food diversity at risk. This profound disturbance of ecosystems would destroy all prospects for future generations.

The disappearance of pollinating bees is to be taken seriously, for the collapse in numbers of both the wild bee and the honey bee can now be measured on a global scale. Cocoa, vanilla, melon, passion fruit, all these tropical crops are entirely dependent on pollinating bees for their production of fruit and seeds.

On all continents and increasingly often, honey bees are dying in large numbers at the end of the winter. In Europe, many beekeepers have had to shut up shop. Currently, over 80% of species of flowering plants in the world and 80% of species grown in Europe rely directly on pollination by insects, bees for the most part. Without foraging bees, most crops would not produce a satisfactory yield. This is the case for many wild species, but also for fruit trees, protein crops and vegetable crops. So it would be difficult to think of a meal in which bees did not play an important role.

The causes of their decline are known: destruction of their nesting sites, increasing scarcity of the plants that provide them with nectar and pollen, but also diseases, parasites, and especially the use of pesticides, more specifically neurotoxic pesticides, which are particularly harmful for bees. Farmers and gardeners must recognise that bees are totally defenceless when faced with toxic products and that they are precious contributors to their crops and need to be protected as a matter of priority.

I will close by saying that we must react, for we cannot accept honey coming from elsewhere – the quality is lower and it does not meet our strict production criteria – as being inevitable, as the only alternative to the dearth of honey that is slowly taking hold in Europe. I therefore call on Mr Cioloş and the Commission to include beekeeping in the CAP with specific measures.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, Commissioner: thank you for your comments. You yourself outlined the challenges that we face: a reduction in the numbers of beekeepers and the need to attract new and professional apiarists, and – crucially – the increase in bee mortality caused by a number of factors but, in particular, by the presence of the Varroa mite, which compromises the immune system of bees.

All of us agree that bee health is important, and I am pleased to hear that the Commission will put forward key measures to deal with the current, very serious situation. I would emphasise the need to ensure consultation of beekeepers when drawing up any programmes, in order to ensure, first of all, their effectiveness, and secondly, their implementation. As well as beekeepers, we need to ensure sustainable, pollinator-friendly farming practices. I think this is very important and should be an element in the CAP.

I would also say that, while citizens are aware of the role of bees in producing honey, not everybody knows of the crucial role of bees in pollination and their contribution to EU agriculture and, ultimately, food production. So I would see value in an information campaign, because we need the support of citizens in this matter to justify the money we spend on a bee protection programme.

Finally, we need independent and timely research into bee mortality so that, whatever actions we take to deal with the situation, we can expect that they will yield positive outcomes.

  Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Madam President, the EU Alarm programme identified unviable practices in land use and the use of agrochemicals as the main causes of the worrying loss of pollinating insects in Europe.

However, I received a very disappointing answer to a written question which I submitted in January from the Commissioner at the time, Mr Boel. We know that 84% of European crops depend, to a degree, on pollinating insects for fertilisation and that, in order to protect them, we need to create compulsory ecological recovery zones and further strengthen agro-environmental measures by restructuring the CAP.

The Commissioner stated that she is satisfied. However, the measures have failed to address the problem of the loss of bees. Given that agro-environmental measures only account for 8% of the total CAP budget up to 2013, and each Member State applies them differently, we insist that agro-environmental measures need greater support and uniform application and checks as to whether they are right. We also need greater emphasis on organic and ecological methods. These measures and small-scale production need to be supported and the creation of beekeeping cooperatives and ecological recovery zones needs to be encouraged.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, we have heard a lot this evening about the wonder of bees – indeed, they are truly wonderful creatures.

I would just like to concentrate on one issue. Is the Commissioner aware of the interest and involvement that bees have sparked and inspired across Europe? In the UK alone, we have many prominent UK organisations with campaigns – from the Women’s Institute to the Cooperative Society. The information campaign is there. It just needs to be picked up on.

Please take a look at the Women’s Institute campaign, which I have sent you details of. It is full of practical information for anybody who wants to help bees thrive. The Women’s Institute represents millions of ordinary people in the UK. The plight of the bee offers a possibly unique opportunity to work with citizens. It covers the common agricultural policy, biodiversity, food security, pesticide use, veterinary regulations, and even the labyrinthine way of funding through the EU. It is a very unique opportunity to engage with organisations that are already inspired to work. I would ask the Commissioner to take that opportunity and run with it.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, in view of the exceptional significance of the beekeeping sector for agricultural production, the need to preserve biodiversity and the nutritional values of honey, existing support for the beekeeping sector should be maintained and increased after 2013. Such measures contribute to an improvement in the health of bees, an increase in the numbers of swarms and a growth in the production of honey. As in other sectors, the effectiveness of beekeeping depends, in large measure, on the knowledge, qualifications and experience of beekeepers. In Poland, we have the only vocational secondary school of beekeeping in Europe, and it has students from several countries. This school and its facilities, together with the nearby University of Life Sciences in Lublin and also the agricultural research institutes in Puławy, could be used as the basis for the establishment of a European School of Beekeeping. Beekeepers’ organisations are of great significance in terms of development of the sector. Many efforts concerning programmes for the support of training and for tackling problems involving quality and standards should be carried out in conjunction with them.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, the current situation in the beekeeping sector, with mortality among bees putting the pollination of fruit, vegetables and so on – and hence our food itself – at risk, illustrates the dead-end nature of actions by modern man which ignore the interactions between economic sectors and nature or are indifferent to them.

Our development interventions and changes in land use, the crops we choose to farm and the farming methods we apply, even the way in which we create demand and habits in our daily life, have helped to tip the balance in nature. Sometimes, this results in the unexplained mortality of bees and the emergence of new diseases and sometimes, in an increase in production costs.

We therefore need to adopt medium-term and short-term measures to address all the symptoms of the problem, together with a more permanent solution to the root cause of this problem. Therefore, the new common agricultural policy needs to take an integrated approach to beekeeping, by strengthening support programmes and veterinary cover for the sector, by highlighting its good points, by defending biodiversity and by mitigating the problem of climate change and the deterioration in natural resources.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Madam President, I speak not only as a concerned MEP representing an area of England where beekeeping has economic significance, but specifically as the Vice-President of the Cambridge Beekeepers’ Association.

We have heard from all our speakers tonight about the significance and importance of this sector. Honey bees are of great economic significance and ecological importance – we all appreciate that. Existing diseases are not fully understood, and problems such as colony collapse disorder are as yet unexplained and unresolved. The UK is losing its bee population at around 30% a year, and this is clearly unsustainable and potentially devastating.

Like many other speakers, I really want to focus on the most pressing aspect of this issue, the urgent need for more research: both to shed light on disease issues in bee colonies and to provide us with some more concrete ideas on the way forward. We need to find long-term effective solutions to this pressing issue. Could I call on the Commission to sponsor, through the framework programmes perhaps, some additional and specific research, not only on the causes of hive collapse but also on possible remedies?

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, for many years, a growing death rate has been observed among bees. This has an adverse effect on the production of fruit, vegetables and other crops which are pollinated by bees, and is a threat to biodiversity in general. The role of bees in plant pollination is indispensable. For thousands of years, beekeeping has been an important part of Europe’s cultural heritage. In my country, where we have specialist fruit production, farmers noticed a very long time ago the beneficial effect of the work of bees on the size and quality of harvests.

Unfortunately, bees are being attacked, today, by a variety of diseases and pests, and the beekeepers themselves are not coping with this. This is why financial support is necessary for research into the causes of bee diseases and the factors which are bringing about a reduction in the resistance of bees and the death of swarms. New and more effective programmes are needed to prevent and eliminate diseases of bee colonies.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, it is perfectly obvious that the problem of the sudden death of bees poses a threat to our food supply and has huge financial costs. One of the most probable causes of the problem is both modified products and nicotinoid pesticides.

We need, in the face of this major threat, to take direct action right now. We have to stop experimenting with what we grow and what we eat. We need an immediate moratorium on modified products until we can establish that they are not to blame for the death of bees, for this threat to our diet. We need to take action now, before the financial cost and the cost of survival become insuperable.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with some 600 000 beekeepers and just under 14 million hives throughout the EU, beekeeping represents an area of considerable importance within the Union farming sector. This importance is emphasised by the bee’s role as a defender of biodiversity as well as a producer of honey. This is a complete food, full of nutrients, and acknowledged to be of the highest quality.

By virtue of this role, it is planned to increase annual aid to the sector in Europe from EUR 26 million for 2008-2010 to EUR 32 million for 2011-2013. The European Parliament intends to guarantee these funds even after 2013 because beekeeping is one of the activities fully compatible with the sustainability and diversification objectives that the new CAP aims to achieve.

The very aim of this funding is to support beekeeping, partly through national research projects into new methods to combat the high mortality rate of bees, which has reached alarming levels in recent years. On the other hand, however, it is important to ensure fair transparency in aid distribution and guarantee more resources to states that actually need them.

When the paper was examined by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee voted on an amendment proposed by myself, calling for aid to be distributed on the basis of the results of a survey of hives present in the various Member States and not on the basis of estimated data. I believe this is extremely important for the purposes of guaranteeing transparency for public expenditure and protection for those who actually practise beekeeping activities.

A system is already active in many countries for surveying hive numbers, but we are aware of the difficulty of implementing this in other states and we propose that a programme for beekeeping that is transparent and bound to have a certain impact on the profits of many beekeepers can be introduced throughout the European Union.

  Michel Dantin (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, a great deal has been said, for bees are indeed a symbolic species, guardians of our environment.

Currently, there are many research programmes dedicated to bees, with sometimes contradictory findings. A few days ago, a scientist came to see me and explained that the numerous planes that we can see in the sky have an effect on the diffraction of sun rays, leading to exhaustion and therefore to the excessive mortality of bees, for instance.

Contrary to what one of our fellow Members on the right of this Chamber just said, I believe that here we have an example of a sector where pooling our knowledge and coordinating research programmes can provide a solution to the problems faced by each of our countries. Yes, Europe can be useful. This example of bees is maybe representative of European integration.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I bow to the expertise of others in this area, particularly Geoffrey Van Orden’s comments. I would support what he says because this is an area where there are few experts, but many opinions.

I think it is acceptable to raise the opinion on GM, but there are no GM crops grown in Ireland – and I think the same is true of the UK – yet we have problems with bee populations, so I think we need to be very careful about comments we make in relation to the causes of the problem. We have a problem and we do not know the reason for it. I support the call for research but with some caution. We throw money at research but let us look for better quality research – and coordinated research across Member States – to get the results that beekeepers want and absolutely need.

We need to look at the statistics, because I gather that if Member States count bees at all, they count them in very different ways. We need to look at what we are comparing across the European Union.

I will just make a suggestion in relation to unkept bees – the wild bees and the bumble bees as referred to by another colleague. I would support measures in our reformed common agricultural policy around a sustainable agriculture with habitats that support wild bee populations. I have put my money where my mouth is on this, and have allocated a few hectares of land to see what would happen. It does work, but if you are going to ask farmers who farm for a living to do this, you need to support it. I think the European Union needs to look at that, because we do have problems in both beekeeping and the wild bee population. We do need to look at enhancing biodiversity, so you would have my support on that, Commissioner.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I would like to begin, just as other fellow Members have done, by welcoming the decision adopted by the Commission in September on approving the national beekeeping programmes of the 27 Member States for the 2011-2013 period, and especially the fact that the European Union’s contribution to funding these programmes has risen by 25%, compared with the previous period.

Romania, the Member State which I come from, is among the main beneficiaries of these funds, to the tune of approximately EUR 3.4 million. The Commission’s decision is therefore of paramount importance to Romanian beekeepers.

I also welcome the initiative of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to launch this debate about such an important topic. I fully support the suggestions included in the proposal for a resolution which we are going to vote on, on Thursday.

Beekeeping provides jobs for a large number of families in Europe, especially in areas where the conditions are not conducive to other activities. Beekeeping also promotes economic development in rural areas. On this point, I would like to stress that it is important for European support programmes to focus not only on honey producers, but also on small processors, especially as part of the current second pillar of the common agricultural policy.

The honey processing and packing lines offer competitive advantages in terms of market access, quality and attractiveness of the products to consumers.

Last but not least, apiculture products are used not only for food consumption, but also become ingredients in products. This is why we must encourage solutions which will help achieve products with high added value at local level.

I regret that support for small processors does not feature in the proposal for a resolution because encouraging these people basically means encouraging those directly involved in keeping bees.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I think firstly it is appropriate that in our group, Ms Lulling, is the expert on bees, because she herself has many of the qualities of the bee. She buzzes around Parliament like a bee. She is as sweet as honey most of the time, and she can sting like a bee when people stand on her corns. So you could say that she is the queen bee of Parliament.

On a more serious note, Einstein said that if the bee population died out, man himself would die out within four years. Perhaps an exaggeration, yet Einstein was a genius and he knew what he was talking about – because no more bees, no more pollination and no more fruit, no more plants, no more man and, God forbid, no more Lullings. So we have a serious problem, because the population globally has declined rapidly over the last 10 years. There are a number of issues which have been raised.

The first problem is that of the parasites – the Varroa mite – that has to be addressed and dealt with. Insecticides have a knock-on effect on bees as a result of being sprayed on plants. Then we have the harsh winters: in 2008, three million bees died during that harsh winter. Then, of course, we have what we have in other areas, such as beef and fish: too many imports coming in too easily from third countries and undermining our own production. These things need to be addressed with research and also with targets.

I think young people, because they are now very pro-nature, could be encouraged to go into beekeeping – as Ms McGuinness said, maybe as a hobby first, and some could go into it on a full-time basis if it proved productive.

Finally, I think we should include in the CAP a 2020 target for bees: that is, to increase the population by 20% so that our bees can be as durable as Madam Lulling.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Madam President, as Mr Kelly has said, we have the queen bee here, who has had lots of suitors, as the queen bee plays a crucial role in relation to all the activities that go on in the hive.

When we think of the common agricultural policy, we think of mega-scale farming. We think about cattle, beef, dairying, sheep, vegetables, wine and so on. Here we have a Cinderella area that is absolutely au naturel if it is properly managed.

I look at the background to this, and it is quite clear that, as has been said, bees have a wonderfully diverse role as pollinators and suppliers. The increase in bee-related diseases is endangering the species, which would be a tragedy.

Member States have their own various initiatives, but there is very little or no coordination. What we need to do is to guarantee financial support for this particular sector. Beekeeping is dependent on the modalities of the common agricultural policy, so we need to have a special line in relation to beekeeping.

Quite apart from the economic reality, if you look at, for example, the situation in relation to the health properties of honey – as we have more and more honey-based health supplements – it is quite obvious that the benefits from the point of view of the health of the ordinary human being are huge for those who decide to consume honey on a daily basis.

What we are doing here today is launching what Mrs Lulling did back in 1997, and that is putting a specific emphasis onto something that is out there, that is natural and that we can do on a daily basis. But we have got to ensure that it is protected, because there is too much contamination and a lack of regulation and documentation in terms of the actual statistics.

Last, but by no means least, we have a capacity to determine the number of hives that are out there. It is not the number of hives, it is the number of bees and the number of swarms that is important at the end of the day: the actual numbers of bees which are actively promoting the whole honey product which we depend on as a human race and which is so hugely beneficial to all – each and every one of us. So I commend my colleague, Mrs Lulling, for a wonderful initiative and I wish it well.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, we do not have enough bees and we also do not have enough beekeepers. The constant decline in the bee population over a number of years sends out a clear alarm signal. The high levels of bee mortality caused by the Varroa mite and the unresolved problem of colony collapse disorder will unfortunately not go away. Therefore, we must make sure that the beekeeping sector receives support beyond 2013. Two points are particularly important to me in this respect.

Firstly, without wide-ranging scientific research, it will not be possible to provide an effective explanation of bee mortality or to do anything useful to combat it. My second point is about the product of beekeeping, the honey. The same quality standards must apply to imported honey as to the honey produced in Europe. Anything else would be seen as an attempt to deceive consumers and to put European producers at a competitive disadvantage.

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the rapporteur, Mrs Lulling, have presented some good proposals. I would like to ask the Commission to take action on this basis.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the last decade, beekeeping has made great advances from a financial and entrepreneurial viewpoint. Operations have graduated from being mainly hobbies to genuine profitable businesses, in addition to being shining examples of eco-friendly production. This has been made possible by public, national and European aid.

Various factors have, unfortunately, led to a growing mortality rate among bees that causes risk not only to beekeepers in planning their activities but also to agriculture and the environment. Bees are responsible for the welfare of many plants important to agriculture and, more generally, the balance of the ecosystem and the maintenance of biodiversity.

I call on the Commission to draw up an action plan without delay to deal with the widespread bee mortality. Above all, though, with a view to the CAP after 2013, I would ask that the true role of beekeeping be acknowledged and that EU cofinance be increased from 50 to 75%.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur and Mrs Lulling for their role in this report on the situation of apiculture and, if you will allow me, I wish to express my gratitude to the deservedly world-famous Hungarian beekeepers for sharing their experiences and knowledge with me so that I could pass on all the information I received from them to the committee. When the Hungarian beekeepers look at the completed document, they will see their invisible initials on it.

What I feel is very much lacking, however, and was not adopted from my amendments, is the financial recognition of apiculture’s effect of creating common good. The beekeepers’ production of honey, beeswax, propolis and pollen is only the smaller part of their activity, is it not. The larger part is that they multiply the qualitative and quantitative value of other agricultural produce as well through pollination. This is a form of common good that ought to be recompensed in some way. We suggested the introduction of the concept of community beekeeping, and even if we have not managed to achieve this now, we strongly recommend that at Member State level, beekeepers are given financial reward for their activity in the interest of the common good.

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, bees play a decisive role in our ecosystem. On the one hand, they are important for the preservation of biodiversity and, on the other, biodiversity is important for the preservation of the bees, not only because this is the International Year of Biodiversity, but also because they contribute to our own survival.

As part of the reform of the common agricultural policy, we should focus, among other things, on preventing monocultures and increasing the use of wide crop rotation. I do not want to talk about plant protection products and pesticides today. I think that it is important to promote and develop research in this area and to improve the coordination between different research projects in the individual Member States in order to ensure that we have healthy bees.

Whatever happens, we should continue to support the beekeeping sector beyond 2013 and also make sure that in future, we have both enough bees and enough beekeepers to care for them.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the death rate amongst bees is increasing and the number of beekeepers is decreasing. This situation is problematic for agriculture and, as fellow Members have been saying, for biodiversity, because of the enormous implications for food production and plant species that depend on pollination. The life of a worker bee is very short – around six weeks – and very sensitive to environmental changes. This means that honey production has also been affected, not just because of the increasingly uncertain length and stability of the seasons, but also because of growing threats from outside sources, such as pesticide use and mites, amongst other things. Increased research into these could help produce better applied solutions, as well as more suitably enhanced measures to aid biodiversity and reduce the effects of climate instability. Commissioner, there is no doubt that the current programmes must be reinforced within the framework of the new common agricultural policy, so that we can find more effective responses at that level too.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, from this we conclude that beekeeping is indeed an important sector in itself, because of what it produces directly, but also because of the indirect effects it can have on other crops. In addition, I think we can conclude that bees are a good indicator of our ability to have an environmentally friendly farming industry. On that, we can also say that nature is sometimes much more severe with our mistakes then we are, when we do not respect certain rules.

Regarding aid for the sector, I would say that with the support Mrs Lulling has in Parliament and all the other supporters, it would be difficult to say no. As for now, more seriously, for reasons that I also highlighted in my introduction, it is clear that I do not intend to stop this support programme. We will just have to consider how we can ensure we get added value from using the European budget for this type of programme, whilst ensuring that Member States have the flexibility to use it well.

I think that we can indeed have added value in research on bee health, but also in developing production and the quality of products as well as in promoting the consumption of honey and related products. In that regard, we already have programmes that are being promoted. This is perhaps something that could be developed. So I think we have got targets ahead of us. They will no doubt also be included in the CAP after 2013.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday (25 November 2010).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) I have been in touch with beekeeping organisations in Latvia. On the whole, they welcome the fact that the problems besetting this sector are now under discussion, but they have questions concerning some points of the resolution which have not been adequately explained. Unfortunately, our work and the text of the resolution have come under criticism in the Latvian media. Having read the text of the resolution, several beekeepers’ representatives were under the impression that honey consisting of 50% real honey only, the rest being made up of various sweeteners, could be labelled ‘honey’. Naturally, representatives of Latvia’s beekeeping sector, who produce honey of very high quality, consider this proposition absurd. I therefore consider that the resolution must make it clearer that this concerns processed honey products, so that there can be no misunderstanding on this question and so that our work does not cause the public to take a negative view of the work of Members of the European Parliament. In the same vein, I should like to stress that we must discuss again and again the fact that people active not only in the beekeeping sector but in agriculture as a whole are noticeably ageing. Only 7% of Europe’s farmers are younger than 35 and no fewer than 4.5 million farmers will be retiring in the next 10 years. We must develop support mechanisms for young farmers working in beekeeping and in other sectors of agriculture. Generational change in agriculture is a strategic issue that is important for the future of the European Union and affects all European Union citizens.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Beekeeping is one of the key activities supporting agricultural production. Its explicit features demand a specific approach to those who are involved in it. In recent times, we have seen, on the one hand, a massive onset of some serious diseases among bees (varroasis) and, on the other, an ageing population of beekeepers in many states, with a number of national governments undervaluing support for their work in a time of economic crisis. There are also other factors which threaten the continuing existence of beekeeping and thereby, indirectly, also the yields of many important agricultural crops. These include, among other things, the use of chemicals in agriculture and forestry management. In this situation, it is high time to adopt strong measures in support of beekeeping and in support of research aimed at treatments for bee diseases, and to provide training for those interested in taking up beekeeping. Whether we are talking about a transitional period up to 2013 or a new seven-year period, it is vital to draw up sufficiently motivating programmes for developing beekeeping, supported by the relevant instruments, including both legal instruments at the EU level, as well as the allocation of financial resources and establishment of control mechanisms helping to monitor fulfilment of the objectives of the beekeeping support and development programme. Without the appropriate measures, there will be a threat both to fruit growing and to the developing cultivation of many field crops. I believe that the Commission’s response will be followed by specific measures and deadlines.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The text submitted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on support for the beekeeping sector is particularly relevant in the context of the common agricultural policy post-2013 reform. At a time when bee deaths are rising and the number of beekeepers in Europe is falling, we must waste no time in assessing the difficulties faced by this sector and implementing the appropriate measures. This is crucial in order to prevent the negative impact that is very likely to be had on our food production, since we know that 84% of plant species depend on pollination by bees. Therefore, as a first step in combating bee population collapses, we must gain a better insight into this phenomenon by carrying out more research into bee mortality. Secondly, and in addition, we urge the Commission to increase its support for the beekeeping sector and to renew the existing support programmes before they come to an end, as planned, in 2012.

(1) See Minutes

20. Documents received: see Minutes

21. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

22. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 23:40)