Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 December 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 08.35)

2. Presentation of the Commission work programme for 2011 (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

3. Future of the Africa/EU strategic partnership (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

4. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

5. Preparations for the European Council meeting (16-17 December 2010) - Establishing a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area (debate)

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

- Council and Commission statements on preparations for the European Council meeting (16-17 December 2010),

- Oral Question (O-0199/2010) by Mrs Bowles to the Commission, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on establishing a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area (B7-0659/2010).

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, President of the Commission, Commissioner, honourable Members, on behalf of the Council I should like to thank you, Mr President, for this opportunity to come before Parliament to present to you the issues that will be discussed by the European Council.

By all accounts, the European Council meeting tomorrow and the day after tomorrow will be decisive for the strengthening of the economic pillar of Economic and Monetary Union. The major item on the agenda will in fact be the reinforcement of financial stability. We are living in exceptional times, which have created and continue to create significant challenges for both governments and citizens. We need to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the current financial crisis is overcome and confidence is restored.

Since the start of the crisis we have demonstrated our determination to take the necessary measures to preserve financial stability and to promote a return to sustainable growth. In particular, the crisis has highlighted the need for an additional instrument to preserve the stability of the euro area. We had to establish an ad hoc mechanism, which we have just used to support Ireland. However, we really need a permanent mechanism in the medium term.

To this end, and in close consultation with the President of the European Council, at the next meeting of the European Council tomorrow morning, the Belgian Government will submit a proposal for a decision to change the Treaty with a view to establishing a mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the entire euro area by amending Article 136. The European Council will be called upon to give its consent to this draft decision and to the launch of the simplified revision procedure as provided for by Article 48.6 of the Treaty on European Union. The objective is the formal adoption of the decision in March 2011 and its entry into force on 1 January 2013.

In addition, the implementation of the report of the Task Force on economic governance endorsed by the European Council in October is an important step towards increased fiscal discipline, broader economic surveillance and deeper coordination. This issue, to which we attach a great deal of importance, is currently before both Parliament and the Council and should be concluded by next summer.

Finally, I should like to underline the importance of the new Europe 2020 Strategy for growth and employment, which plays an important role in getting us out of the crisis. The Belgian Presidency has been committed to moving forward with its implementation, so as to pave the way for sustainable economic recovery.

In addition to these economic issues, I would like to make two further points. The European Council will deal with the Union’s relations with its strategic partners. The Foreign Affairs Council, chaired by Baroness Ashton, prepared progress reports on three of its partners, the United States, China and Russia. The European Council will therefore listen carefully to Baroness Ashton’s presentation on the Union’s relations with its strategic partners. Baroness Ashton will also be called upon to take this approach with other partners, such as Ukraine, Africa, India and Brazil, and to present a report in March 2011 describing the situation regarding her contacts with our partners.

My final point concerns the application for accession to the European Union submitted by Montenegro. The General Affairs Council welcomed the opinion of the Commission on Montenegro. The country has made progress in meeting the political criteria set by the Copenhagen European Council and the requirements of the stabilisation and association process. Nonetheless, further efforts are needed, especially to implement seven key priorities set out in the Commission opinion. Taking account of the Commission proposal, the Council recommended granting Montenegro the status of candidate country and this issue will be examined by the European Council.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, President of the Council, honourable Members, this week’s European Council will focus on two main goals: to agree on the key features of a future permanent European Stability Mechanism for the euro area and on the limited Treaty change that will make this mechanism legally waterproof. I therefore hope and expect this European Council to focus on delivery, steadying the course and strengthening the consensus. In reaching an agreement, this European Council will also send a signal of unity, solidarity and unambiguous support for the European project, but it will require a lot of hard work to get there.

We all know that at the moment there is a lot at stake for the European Union and the euro area in particular. Many people are looking to the European Union for answers: the markets for one, our partners in the world for another, but most importantly, our citizens. What are they expecting? How can we best reassure them? For me the answer is clear. We need to show that the European Union is in control of events, that we have a course of action that we are sticking to, and that we speak with one voice and act as one. What we do not need is a beauty contest between leaders, a cacophony of diverging scenarios, or announcements that are not followed by action.

Yes, we are facing serious challenges but, if you stand back and look at the facts, the European Union is meeting those challenges head on this year. We faced two particular issues with Greece and Ireland. In both cases we took the decisions needed. The reality is that in both situations the EU was able to act but we need to put far-reaching reforms in place to ensure that such situations do not arise again in the future.

Real European economic governance is a necessary precondition for this. The economic governance package should therefore be seen as the key building block in a system which gives Europeans and the markets confidence that the right structures are in place. I hope that this Parliament will continue to treat these Commission proposals as a priority, so that they can be fully implemented by the middle of next year.

Our future system will be one that rests on individual and collective efforts, responsibility and solidarity. We are moving fast in this direction. At the same time, public finances must be consolidated. Sound public finances are needed to restore the confidence which is so essential for growth. In many Member States, the current course of fiscal policy weighs heavily on the long-term sustainability of public finances, and requires corrective measures.

Of course, we need to look beyond fiscal consolidation towards promoting growth, and we are sowing the seeds of Europe’s future growth through the Europe 2020 Strategy. This offers a real growth prospective for Europe. I see more and more Member States fully grasping the potential of Europe 2020. Let us build on that by accelerating growth-enhancing reforms. Taken seriously, Europe 2020 can direct our local, national and European economies towards tomorrow’s sources of growth.

We are working hard to bring forward the first Annual Growth Survey in one month’s time. I am confident that this will be a major theme for this Parliament next year. So too will be the future budget of the Union, and how its great potential can be used to help the task of boosting growth and creating jobs.

We must also look at our banking system and take the necessary action in order to ensure that banks are in a position to finance the economy appropriately, particularly SMEs. When it comes to stabilising economies, much of our action was ad hoc or temporary. Another important element of our approach for far-reaching reforms must be a permanent stability mechanism.

That is the objective of the European Stability Mechanism. After intense consultations, which went very well, we were able to come forward with an outline for this mechanism at the end of last month. I am confident this will be endorsed by the European Council this week, although the precise contours will have to be worked out over the coming weeks.

The mechanism should also be supported by a decision to move forward with a limited and focused treaty change. Now that there is a consensus between the Member States to take the treaty change route, this approach must be swiftly implemented. The purpose of the treaty change is very specific. It is a straightforward, pragmatic amendment to meet a specific need. It needs no more than a simple change to implement it. So let us resist the temptation to overcomplicate or to make artificial linkages with other subjects, and let us not allow ourselves to be distracted from the task in hand. There is massive political will behind the euro. Both the temporary mechanism and now the permanent mechanism are key decisions which show that Member States are as willing as ever to put their weight behind the stability and integrity of the euro.

All of these elements – economic governance, fiscal consolidation, securing growth-enhancing reforms, effective banks, the European Financial Stability Facility, and its successor, the European Stability Mechanism – are interconnected. They must be approached as a whole put together in an articulated way, so as to create a comprehensive response to the crisis, and to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again.

The action that the European Central Bank is taking is, of course, a vital contribution to this goal.

Everyone agrees that the action taken this year, most obviously for Greece and Ireland, is also in the wider interests of the whole European Union and all its Member States. It rests heavily on fundamental principles of solidarity, of collective responsibility, of sharing the risks and bringing mutual support at times of need. I know that these principles are close to the heart of this Parliament. They are close to my heart too, so I can understand why other ideas have been floated to give form to these principles through other possible mechanisms.

On this point let me be clear. eurobonds in themselves are an interesting idea. The Commission itself put forward the idea back in 2008 when assessing the first ten years of EMU, but we are in a crisis situation and we already have financial mechanisms to address this crisis, like the European Financial Stability Facility. These are far from exhausted and can be improved and adapted far more quickly than any alternatives, however interesting they may be.

So while I can understand that you want to think about every possible solution, this is a time for immediate action. Let us not kill the idea for the future, but concentrate at this stage on what can be the solution to achieve a consensus among Member States and can be done quickly and decisively.

Let us work together to end this year with a message of confidence that the European Union has a unified vision for its economy and is putting this vision in place. Let us do it with a clear sense of our destination and let that destination be clear as well: a strong and stable euro area in an ever closer European Union.

  President. – I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Chastel, and the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, for their introduction to the discussion. We are talking about something which is very important. Overcoming the crisis and creating jobs is the priority for our citizens. Tomorrow and the day after, the European Council will give its attention, first and foremost, to this very matter.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council, which opens this week, is taking place in a particular context: speculative attacks against the euro, the revival of euroscepticism and the beginning of reflections on Europe’s finances, while this Parliament is preparing to vote on the 2011 budget.

These are, of course, closely linked. The euro crisis and the solidarity measures have an impact on the purchasing power of the European people, who are wondering if all these efforts are worthwhile, if they are leading to anything, whence the euroscepticism even in countries hitherto traditionally pro-European. This is a phenomenon hijacked by populist and extremist political factions, which feed on fear and the temptation to withdraw into oneself and which, when they are in government, do not have a miracle cure.

I will start with the euro, which we must protect and strengthen while, at the same time, asking ourselves some fundamental questions.

My first question is this: has Europe ever had a currency as stable as the euro? I say this to those nostalgic for national currencies: a step back would have catastrophic consequences for Europe.

My second question is: who is behind the attacks to which the euro has been subjected for months? Who is standing to gain from the crime, if I may call it that? I am not a conspiracy theorist but, in my conversations with political leaders and financial analysts, the paths are converging on the source of our problems. When will we learn? I think we can talk directly to our friends.

My third question is this: why is the euro still trading above USD 1.30? This is seriously hampering our exports and everyone is saying that the euro has had it. Why are our countries the only ones to practise a strict policy of orthodoxy while our competitors profit from their weak currencies to boost their economies? This is what our citizens are asking us. These are questions I have been asked in the last two weeks in meetings with elected politicians.

Ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a message of confidence that we will overcome the crisis, measures to encourage a return to growth and concrete measures like those taken recently by the Barroso Commission to relaunch the internal market or to make the financial markets more ethical. What we need, and the euro crisis proved this, is convergence in our social and fiscal policies. That takes courage. President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, go further and faster and we will solve quite a few problems.

We are going to need a lot of courage in the years to come if we want to strengthen our countries in the arena of global competition and if we want to use taxpayers’ money in the most effective way possible. This effort to streamline expenditure must be made at all levels: local, regional, national and European. The political and financial priorities of the Union need to be reexamined and the public finances of Europe need to be fundamentally reviewed. We need to ask ourselves the real questions and, depending on the answers we give, adapt our budgetary framework for the period 2014-2020.

It is for this crucial debate that the European Parliament is calling and it is in these substantive discussions that, as the representatives directly elected by 500 million Europeans, we intend to fully participate, even if this displeases certain governments who wish to deny us this right.

I ask the European Council to give us its agreement and, if necessary, to vote, so that those who deny us this opportunity to participate in the debate assume their responsibilities. It is not, for us, about power but about contributing to a crucial debate on the future of European construction. We must lance the boil, we must take the right decisions, the necessary decisions to ensure that the European budget increasingly becomes an investment budget.

If our Member States, mindful of budgetary constraints, can invest less in education, training, research and innovation, let us do so at European level by combining our resources and, therefore, by achieving economies of scale.

For the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the debate on Europe’s finances must not be allowed to descend into a quarrel between Member States who want their money back. On the contrary, the debate should be about reconciling our fellow citizens with Europe by exposing them to the added value that concerted and visionary European action can represent.

I am currently visiting the capital cities and I can tell you that the debate is taking hold. Do not miss this opportunity. Because we are coming up to Christmas and the New Year and this Presidency will soon come to an end, I should like to thank the Belgian Presidency for its very good collaboration with Parliament, as well as José Manuel Barroso, who had the courage to undertake to present a document on capital requirements before the end of June. I believe that we must continue, together, in this direction and that the Heads of State or Government must follow us. We have to show them the way.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, it is not often that we have come together at the end of the year with greater cause for concern. We are deeply concerned because Europe finds itself in the midst of a growing and multiplying crisis of confidence. There are causes for this crisis of confidence and I would like to attempt to describe some of them here today. I believe that we are confronted by a double salami-slicing approach. There is the approach taken by those who are trying to conceal the actual situation from the citizens of a country. It seriously shakes people’s confidence when governments say to them: ‘Everything is fine, no problem, we have it all under control’ and then suddenly turn around and explain that they need countless billions of euros in aid. This has occurred twice now. I do not know whether a government will once again say that it has everything under control and can finance its bonds, even if interest rates are rising, and then suddenly change its mind and say: ‘We need a rescue package. Help us!’. This must not happen. We need an inventory of the actual national debts and bank debts. I believe that it will create more confidence if we explain what the real situation is, however bad it might be. If all the cards are on the table, then it is easier for us to look for solutions.

However, there is also the salami-slicing approach on the other side. This is what happens when the strong countries say ‘We do not need to help’. We hear the renationalisation message: ‘We are not prepared to pay for the others’, despite the fact that the countries which are saying that know that we will ultimately all have to stand together and pay up. The salami-slicing approach of not telling the people the truth, although you know that you will have to pay in your own interest, is just as damaging to confidence.

We are currently preparing for a meeting of the European Council. What about the different voices there? One is in favour of eurobonds and another is opposed. One says stabilise the rescue package and build it up, another says do not build it up. I wonder where the logic lies in explaining that these are all just temporary measures, because we have everything under control, but we have to include the temporary measures in the treaty, so that they are available in the long term. Everyone notices a contradiction of this kind and that also shakes people’s confidence. It damages confidence when a government subjects its banks to a stress test in the summer and only a few months later realises that it was really a stress test for the euro and not for the banks.

We are in the midst of a crisis of confidence and I must say to you, Mr Barroso, that although what you said this morning may be true, it gives the impression not that we will look for the best solutions and put them in place, but instead that we will discuss the minimum consensus which we can reach on Friday. That is simply not enough. It will heighten the crisis of confidence. A policy which pacifies the national markets in the short term is not enough. We need a policy which stabilises the markets and the euro. Why is no one in this House or in the European Council talking about the external value of the euro? Today the euro is trading at 1.34 against the US dollar. Its lowest value during the crisis was 1.20 and when it was introduced it was worth 1.15. The euro is a stable currency. In intercontinental competition, where regions of the world compete with one another in economic terms, it is no longer the individual national currencies that count, but the currency structure of the entire region. In economic and social terms, the euro area is definitely the strongest region in the world. It is only being made politically weaker by policy makers who are implementing policies aimed at damping down national debate in the short term. The euro is strong and it could be much stronger if those who act as its political framework and those who are responsible for it would finally fulfil their obligations and take bold, consistent decisions on social and economic issues which would bring the crisis of confidence to an end. You simply need to look at what is happening in London, in Paris and in Rome. If we do not stop this crisis of confidence, we will have major problems over the next few years.

This is why I would like to say to the Council that I am in favour of eurobonds. If there is another suitable measure, then please take it, but you must finally come to an agreement on stabilising the euro internally, because it is strong enough externally.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I think that, in life, there is a rule that applies everywhere: when a group is under attack it must react with unity and with solidarity. Exactly the opposite happened in 2010 when the euro came under attack, because, since the Greek crisis, we have witnessed nothing but disagreements in the debates, certainly no unity and certainly not enough solidarity.

We need to have the courage now – and I am addressing the President of the Commission as well – to recognise that all the temporary measures taken are just not enough. This is not my analysis, it is the analysis of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, of Mr Trichet, who is, after all, the head of the euro’s monetary guardian, the President of the European Central Bank, and for whom all the measures that have been taken and all the measures that are in the pipeline do not go far enough.

Everyone says that action needs to be taken on four points: first, a stability pact with real sanction mechanisms; second, a permanent, enlarged crisis fund – I am not the one proposing it, Mr Trichet says that it must be enlarged, the Heads of State or Government do not want to enlarge it, and we want confidence to return to the markets; third, real economic and fiscal governance, fiscal and economic union and, fourth, a single eurobond market.

These are the four things that need to be done, because nowhere in the world, fellow Members, is there a currency that is not backed by a government, by an economic strategy and by a bond market. Such a thing exists nowhere on earth. And what are we being told here today? We are being told ‘Yes, it’s a good idea, but we need to wait a little while longer.’ We need to wait for what? Perhaps we need to wait for complete chaos or for the euro to disappear.

The time has therefore come to take that decision and I am not expecting the Commission, Mr President, to tell us today ‘Yes, it will be difficult, we must not continue these debates on eurobonds; it’s a good idea but this is not the time, because we have the crisis fund, which we are going to make permanent now.’ The one has nothing to do with the other. The crisis fund is necessary now to counter attacks against the euro, but eurobonds are also necessary for the medium- and long-term stability of the euro. There is no contradiction between the two. Both are necessary, as is the case throughout the world.

I therefore believe that, along with the Heads of State or Government, who are going to discuss tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and are going to say ‘Yes, we are going to tweak the Treaty, and the crisis fund, which should normally be enlarged – which is what everyone else is calling for – may be made permanent’, I believe that the time has come for the Commission to put forward as quickly as possible a package that is much more significant, courageous, global and coherent as far as that approach is concerned. With regard to the Stability and Growth Pact, which has real sanction mechanisms, Parliament can do its work, because the package is here and we are going to revert to the Commission’s initial proposals. As regards the other three points, an enlarged crisis fund, yes, but propose it. Propose it! Take a stance on this point and say that the crisis fund needs to be enlarged. Why? Because having an enlarged crisis fund will put an end to speculation against the euro. Secondly, propose a global package on fiscal and economic union and, thirdly, do not be afraid, propose a single eurobond market. We know that, when all is said and done, that is what will stabilise the euro in the long term.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there is, however, something strange in all of this. Mr Chastel, you spoke of the next summit. You could have told us that things were going to be a bit shaky before this summit. You could have told us that you would have to curtail some of the debates.

Mr Barroso, I believe that we will not make any progress, we will not move any further forwards, with all this waffle. Martin Schultz is right: we have to describe the reality of the crisis and to tell it like it is, but we must also describe the reality of our own political powerlessness and the reasons for this powerlessness. It is no use just saying that we took the right decisions. You know as well as I do, and everyone here knows, that we always took them too late. We are taking one step forwards and two steps backwards. I am not saying that it is your fault. Quite the contrary, I think that the Commission has even been a point of stability at a time when lucidity was in short supply. But now – I think that Guy Verhofstadt asked the real question – what should our strategy be in the coming months?

As I see it, the strategy is simple: the Commission should put forward a stability pact, which it already has, defining the necessary stability and therefore the responsibility of all towards the euro, and a solidarity pact defining the solidarity we need. There is no stability without solidarity. These discussions between Mrs Merkel and Mr Untel no longer interest us. Yes, the position of certain countries, including Germany, which say that there must be stability and that what has happened must never happen again, is right. Yes, if we do not say at the same time that solidarity forces us to create an opportunity to protect the euro with eurobonds to invest, to continue to make the ecological and economic transformation. We need to invest, except that, at national level, this is no longer possible. We have a two-sided currency: stability on the one side and solidarity on the other side, with responsibility in the middle.

President of the Commission, put forward a proposal to reform the functions of the Union so as to achieve stability and solidarity with the eurobonds in such a way that there can no longer be any speculation against the debts of certain countries and, with the eurobonds, you have the opportunity to invest at the same time.

Mr Oettinger tells us that he needs EUR 1 000 billion to reform the energy sector, but where is he going to get this money from? Is he going to play the lottery or what? It is utterly absurd to say that he needs EUR 1 000 billion without telling us how we are going to mobilise the necessary funds for this necessary economic transformation.

So, the strategy is simple: the Commission proposes, Parliament amends and decides, and there will be a position from the Commission and from the European Parliament for or against the Council, and the Council will have to react to this common position. That is it. The only solution in today’s debate. If we wait for Mrs Merkel to make up her mind to take a decision a quarter of an hour before she has to take it, you can be waiting till the end of time. By the time she takes it we will have missed the train. Of course, you can tell me that, as there will be another train, it does not matter, we can always catch the next one. But that is not true. Gorbachev was right when he said: ‘Dangers await only those who do not react to life.’

(The President cut off the speaker)

I do not want history to punish Europe. Face up to your responsibilities. We are facing up to ours and we must demonstrate to the Council that the political stability we need is here, in the Commission and in Parliament, and we will defy the instability of the Council.

(Applause)

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I share the hope that measures will be agreed at the European Council to reassure the markets and reintroduce stability to the eurozone, because, whether we are members or not, we should all have an interest in that.

Ahead of the meeting we are told that more sanctions are to be a central part of the solution, but sanctions need to be credible to be effective and the track record of the Union in this regard is pretty bad. Making them automatic will hardly make them more credible if the belief remains that a political solution might be found to avoid them. What is really required is for eurozone members to have the political will to deliver on their current obligations.

We hear rumours that a key part of the solution is to make the private sector share the burden of future bail-outs. It would however be a terrible paradox if the main consequence of such an initiative would be to raise borrowing costs for some of the weaker eurozone Member States and contribute to the next crisis.

Having just finished a major reform treaty process, a reform package, we are told, would close the book on treaty change for a generation. We are now, just a matter of months later, apparently to embark on another.

We are reassuringly told, including by the Commission President, that the changes need only be limited, but that does not appear to be what the German Government believes. The German finance minister, Dr Schäuble seems to have opened the door to a new round of integration leading to a fiscal union and, ultimately, a political union.

Where is this going to end? Surely not another lost decade focusing on the wrong kind of reforms? Europe needs economic reform, public finance discipline, deepening the internal market, changes to labour laws to boost employment, and a package of measures to make a success of the Europe 2020 programme.

These are the key reforms, boldly and rightly set out by President Barroso in the programme for his Commission, but already I fear this opportunity may be slipping from our grasp. The terrible risk is that, despite the talk about building Europe, it may in fact be undermined, and while hoping for a stronger Europe, the failure to address its underlying economic problems will in fact just make it weaker.

We believe the priorities of the European Council must be to agree a limited number of specific measures, so that eurozone members can help each other through the immediate crisis without imposing any burdens on Member States who have chosen to remain outside, and then to reassert the vital importance of dealing with the long-term crisis which we face: the risk of a permanent collapse in our economic competiveness.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have been dealing with the global economic and financial crisis for three years now. One of the conclusions to be drawn from this long-lasting discussion is that our measures are obviously not tackling the roots of the crisis, but simply treating the symptoms. I would like to repeat once again that decisions at EU level must not be determined by the financial markets. We must not allow the banks to get away largely scot-free, to continue speculating and to leave the Member States to take responsibility for the risky transactions that the banks have entered into. The tough austerity packages imposed on Greece and Ireland will result in the people bearing the cost of the crisis which they did not cause. This will restrict consumer spending and prevent the necessary economic upturn from taking place. Drastic savings measures will put other countries that are currently at risk, such as Portugal and Spain, in the same position as Greece and Ireland.

Simply readjusting the financial instruments or putting new safety nets in place will not help. A permanent mechanism for preserving financial stability must include measures which regulate the activities of the markets. These include, among other things, the introduction of a financial transaction tax and an obligation to meet minimum social standards. It is also important for us to change the statute of the European Central Bank to allow it to provide direct financial aid for ailing states, while circumventing the banks.

These are the first steps we should be taking, but they are long overdue. To make the situation absolutely clear, a narrow-minded national approach is blocking the regulations needed for effective control of the financial markets. The Heads of State or Government are preventing us from making progress in the right direction. I include the Chancellor of Germany among them.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, 2010 will be remembered as the year when the deep flaws in the euro project were exposed and the public in Europe woke up to the sheer stupidity of their leaders.

So here we have another summit, another crisis, confidence in the euro ebbing by the week. It is like watching a slow-motion car crash and now you want a permanent bail-out mechanism. You think that, if you have a fund of say a billion euros, all will be well. Well it will not be well. The failure of the euro is nothing to do with speculation. It is nothing to do with the markets, be they currency or bonds, it is because the North and the South in Europe cannot today, or at any point, be put together in a single monetary union. It will not work.

And politically, of course, you have to change the treaty. The reason being that the four German professors will win at Karlsruhe and prove that the bail-outs you have put in place already were in fact illegal under the treaties.

Well, in many ways I welcome this treaty change because it will mean that there has to be a referendum in Ireland. And you never know, David Cameron might even keep his promise and hold a referendum in the United Kingdom. I am sure that, as democrats, you would all welcome a referendum on the EU in the United Kingdom.

We should also reflect at the end of 2010 not just on the state of the Union, but on the state of Belgium. For six months the Belgian Presidency-in-office have sat here telling us we must integrate more deeply. What a farce this is. You have not had a government in your own country since June. Here we have a non-nation trying to abolish our nation. It truly is an absolute farce but nobody here dares to admit it because you are all in denial. Belgium is a microcosm of the entire European Union. Belgium is about to fall to bits and the rest will follow. Happy Christmas, everybody.

  Sharon Bowles, author. − Mr President, here we are again examining the sticking plaster and wondering if it is large enough and strong enough to cover the wound. Last July I asked when the Commission foresaw the expected legislative proposal for a permanent sovereign debt crisis management mechanism and what would be the legal base. I asked quite a lot more, such as the relative ranking of the different funds and the proportions in which they would be used. Events have shown that the answer really was that we do not know and it will be made up as we go along.

I actually have some sympathy for that, in so far as we are in new territory and new plans need to be made. But I say again that, if there is not fulsome follow-up to statements, whether from the Commission or Council, this negates the benefit of conclusions. Answers to my July questions only emerged in the Irish rescue, which I think is a matter of regret, not least when the smallest fund, coming from the EU budget, is used for an equal share to the larger funds. Parliament was not consulted, despite my earlier questions.

Today I stand here to ask further details following the October Council conclusions, in which the Commission was asked to work towards a limited treaty change required to establish a permanent crisis resolution mechanism. They also said that there would have to be private sector involvement, which spooked the market because there was insufficient explanation. It also highlights the regulatory problem I mentioned of zero risk weighting for eurozone sovereign debt, which undermined market discipline and created perverse incentives.

Then the Euro Group announced that the permanent mechanism would be based on the European financial stability facility and that it might involve the private sector on a case-by-case basis following IMF practice. Firstly, can we now have more precise details about the Treaty change and the procedure? Parliament needs to know that it will be adequate. A little more fiddling around with Article 136 is not an answer. Secondly, is the new instrument to be based on an intergovernmental approach, for that is how the EFSF works, or will it in fact be Community-based, which is how we think it should be done? Thirdly, what are the technical options and conditions? It is imperative that the mechanism is based on technical realities and is robust, credible and lasting – to which I would also add affordable. Fourthly, will Member States not yet part of the euro be invited to be part of the mechanism? This seems especially relevant for those building debt in euros.

We asked when it would take place and we have been told January 2013, but what role does the Commission see for Parliament? Parliament and my committee are indeed determined to play their role, all the more so when we have been ahead in the thinking all the way along. If we do not find ourselves properly consulted and informed, where does that leave national parliaments and citizens? This issue is inextricably linked to the economic governance package. The measures to improve the Stability and Growth Pact, surveillance and the European semester all aim at prevention of another crisis and serve to monitor emergence from the current economic crisis.

This mechanism is not a charm that we can put on the wall to ward off market discipline. Indeed the solution for the euro is to recognise the need for full political discipline in combination with full market discipline. We have this crisis because both were undermined in the past.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, let me thank Sharon Bowles for her question and also for the draft resolution on the permanent mechanism. I will try to give you the Commission’s view on the five questions included in the oral question.

The October European Council invited President Van Rompuy to undertake consultations, together with the Commission, on a limited treaty change required to establish a permanent mechanism for crisis resolution. It is understood that a limited treaty change implies the use of the simplified revision procedure based on Article 48 of the Treaty.

The constraints of this procedure are that, firstly, it allows only treaty changes of the kind that do not increase the competences conferred on the Union and, secondly, it is limited to changes to Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which relates to Union policies and internal actions.

It seems that the Member States have a preference for a very limited treaty change which will presumably be placed under Article 136, whose provisions are specific to the euro-area Member States. The issue will be discussed of course in the European Council this week. Whatever change is suggested, Parliament will be formally consulted on it.

Following the European Council decision in October, the Eurogroup agreed at its extraordinary meeting in November on the main principles of a European Stability Mechanism, or ESM. According to the Euro Group agreement the ESM will be an intergovernmental mechanism whose governance will be based on the model of the European Financial Stability Facility.

The concrete details of the financial mechanism have yet to be decided and should be worked out during the first quarter of next year. Funding will of course be a key issue. The future instrument will need to be sufficiently robust and must enjoy strong credibility in the markets.

Any support from the ESM will be based on strict conditionality. Assistance provided to a euro-area Member State should be based on a rigorous programme of economic and fiscal assessment and a thorough analysis of debt sustainability conducted by the Commission together with the IMF, and in liaison with the European Central Bank.

Despite the intergovernmental nature of the financing arm of the mechanism, the policy conditions will remain firmly grounded in the Treaty so as to ensure full consistency with the common multilateral surveillance framework on which the whole Economic and Monetary Union is in fact based.

To answer one of Mrs Bowles’ five questions, no decision as to whether Member States that are not members of the euro area could take part in the mechanism has been taken yet. It seems, nevertheless, that most Member States have a preference for a transparent and clear framework where non-euro-area Member States would be covered by the balance of payments mechanism while euro-area Member States would be covered by the European Stability Mechanism.

Having said that, it should still be possible to have some non-euro-area Member States associated in a support operation via bilateral contributions, as already applies today, in the case of Ireland, to the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark.

Let me also comment on the discussion on the eurobonds. Let us recall that, in the context of establishing the financial backstops last 9 May – Schuman Day – and the following night, the Commission made a proposal for a European Financial Stability Mechanism, a Community instrument, which in fact was adopted up to EUR 60 billion, based on loan guarantees by the Union budget under the own-resources decision.

Beyond the Union budget we proposed that this mechanism should be based on loan guarantees provided by the Member States, which would be channelled through this mechanism for countries that were in need of financial assistance because of financial instability over the euro area as a whole.

This was rejected by the Ecofin Council on 9 and 10 May. Why? Because many Member States considered that this proposal resembled too closely the Eurobond.

This then led to the creation of the European Financial Stability Facility, which is an intergovernmental arrangement, and now we are using both the mechanism and the facility in the context of Ireland.

So while the issue of eurobonds is certainly a very important matter, we also have to take into account that this proposal was recently rejected by the Council in the May discussions concerning the European Financial Stability Mechanism.

To conclude, let me underline that the future European Stability Mechanism will be part of a comprehensive response to contain the crisis and stabilise the European economy, and the ESM will complement the new framework of reinforced economic governance which will focus first of all on prevention and will substantially reduce the probability of a crisis arising in the future.

That is the whole essential purpose of the new system of economic governance and I am very grateful for your support for the Commission’s proposals in this regard.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, if you listened to the first round of speakers, you would have gained an idea of who was responsible for the crisis of confidence, and it is true that this is what it has now become. Firstly it was the Commission, secondly the speculators and thirdly the Council and, in particular, Mrs Merkel. It is all quite simple.

Fortunately, someone pointed out – it was the chair of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament – that the euro is stable, not only externally, but also internally, with the lowest rates of inflation. Speculation cannot be the cause of the problem. The euro is a stable currency. It was the basic terms of the treaty and the uproar in the Ecofin Council. There is new turmoil in every Ecofin meeting.

Mr Rehn has just pointed out that the Commission has proposed the use of a European mechanism, but that the Council was not prepared to participate. We are now saying that the Commission did not act. I am not one of those who are constantly worshipping the Commission, but it was the right thing for the Commission to do in 2008 to draw up an accurate inventory, after the euro had been in existence for 10 years.

It referred to four points that needed to be resolved: firstly, a consistent European supervisory mechanism, secondly, consistent economic governance, or whatever you want to call it, thirdly, consistent external representation and, fourthly, a consistent crisis mechanism. All of these things are now on the table. I would like to emphasise the fact that it was others who did not take them into account. If we are looking for people to blame, there is one guilty party we must not forget and that is the Member States, which have got themselves up to their necks in debt and which have not made use of the benefits of introducing the euro to implement reforms and to reduce their debt levels, but instead have lived above their means.

I would also like to emphasise that there is a recurring theme among all these Member States. Regardless of who it was, they have all had social-democratic governments for a long period, some of them up until today. That includes Portugal, Spain, the UK, Hungary and Latvia. In Greece they have been doing the same stupid things for four years. This is the result. If we do not talk openly about the main cause of the excessive levels of debt in the Member States, we will not be able to resolve the problems.

(The speaker agreed to take a question under the ‘blue card’ procedure (Rule 149(8) of the Rules of Procedure)).

IN THE CHAIR: Libor ROUČEK
Vice-President

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Mr Langen, you can sit down again now. You have spoken very eloquently and you have said your piece. I have one question for you. Ireland is not a southern European country, as far as I know. It is in northern Europe. Ireland has huge debts. Can you explain to us where the Irish debts come from? Would you be so kind as to tell us which party has been in government in Ireland for the last 30 years?

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I am happy to answer that question. The Irish Government made the mistake of giving guarantees without demanding reform of the banking sector. That was irresponsible and that is why it now has a budget deficit of 32%. We know that. However, you should not confuse the problems of other states with those of Ireland. Ireland is a completely different case, because it concerns the second level of the banking crisis and not a structural problem, as in other countries. Mr Schulz, you know that as well as I do. Please do not attempt to distract our attention.

(The speaker agreed to take a question under the ‘blue card’ procedure (Rule 149(8) of the Rules of Procedure)).

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, to err is human. To persevere is diabolical. Do you know who the Greek prime minister was under whose government all those excessive debts accumulated, causing the crisis in Greece? It was definitely not Mr Papandreou. Do you remember which political family that prime minister belonged to? It was Karamanlis.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, after four years of the Karamanlis government … (Uproar). No, the structural problems in Greece go back further than that. In 2000, this Parliament debated whether Greece should join the euro area. The social-democrats, the German Government, had been calling for this. With your help there was a two-thirds majority in Parliament in favour of Greece joining the euro area. That is a fact and it has nothing to do with nationalism.

I would like to answer the question from Mr Schulz about debts in Germany and in Spain. Of course, Spain’s national debt level is lower than that of Germany. Spain did not have to finance a reunification process. However, the Zapatero government in Spain has other problems. It has allowed 6 million people into the country and given 2 million of them Spanish citizenship and now unemployment is running at over 20%. This is a structural problem and it is caused by one person: Mr Zapatero.

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). - Mr President, in the Council and the Commission there are many who believe that we can only succeed in the global economy if we downgrade workers’ rights, our collective bargaining systems and our pensions. In other words we must dilute, we are told, our social model. Public finances are to be reorganised with the single focus of bringing public debt down to an arbitrary 60% of GDP, and deficits are basically to be ruled out.

That is the same Council which, if I remember well, agreed on a Europe 2020 Strategy, but it does not seem to care where the money to fulfil that strategy will come from. If we have to significantly cut our public debt year on year, if we have to avoid deficits above 1%, which the Commission proposes, and if we have to do all of this in a low-growth environment with high unemployment, how can we possibly deliver on the 2020 Strategy?

This is a wrong-headed economic strategy of cost competitiveness and extreme fiscal austerity and it will set Europe on a declining path at a crucial moment in its history. President Barroso is not here at the moment, but I think he needs to tell the Council that it needs to redefine the political agenda in at least three areas.

First, we must complete Economic and Monetary Union by creating a European stability agency for common eurobonds and I am glad that President Barroso did not rule out the idea of eurobonds today. This will end speculative attacks, bring liquidity to the market for government debt and cut the overall cost of debt for the eurozone.

Second, we must rebalance the proposed legislation on economic governance. We agree that fiscal discipline will require strong rules and strong implementation, but we must also align this with the proper implementation of the Europe 2020 objectives in each country, and that must be reflected in the legislation.

Finally, we need new public financing sources. The crisis has wiped out years of budgetary efforts. A financial transactions tax is well overdue, and it is a scandal that the Council seems to be frozen in the headlights and unable to make a decision on this tax. These are the reforms we need urgently.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, in the history of parliaments, rarely have powers been given to them. When parliaments were offered more powers, they generally took them. This morning’s debate leads me to believe that we – the rapporteurs of the economic governance package – are right to go further than what is being proposed, because, Commissioner, in substance, the Commission is telling us ‘We tried but we did not succeed.’ The Council, for its part, is telling us ‘We do not want to go any further.’ Well, as it happens, there’s Parliament. Furthermore, it is the Council that wanted to increase the rights of Parliament, it is not Parliament that is exercising powers unduly. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, we are colegislators.

So, I simply have the pleasure of announcing that the report I am tabling this morning also covers eurobonds, because the debate must take place here, in plenary. I do not accept it when Mr Barroso tells us ‘Oh la la, it’s all very complicated; we have already done a lot of stupid things in the Council, so now you really do have to shut up.’ We are going to do exactly the opposite. We are going to talk about it within the context of democracy.

Secondly, there is also the idea of a European Monetary Fund, because, in fact, all these solutions which, as Martin Schulz said, are transitional, are not necessarily what our citizens expect. You can watch the trains go by or you can work. This Parliament is going to try to work. We do not have a blueprint, we do not claim to have the absolute truth, but I think it is totally unacceptable that the debate is taking place in the Financial Times or in the Zeit and not in the European Parliament. So we will do our work.

(Applause)

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I very much welcome the call made by Martin Schulz that we try to re-establish the confidence of our citizens and that means telling the truth and not resorting to oversimplification.

The first oversimplification consists in saying that eurobonds take responsibility away from the Member States. This is patently false, because no-one has ever asked that the Member States pool 100% of their debts. In any case, under a eurobond scheme, the Member States will still have to go directly to the markets for some of their debts, and there they will be able to judge the quality of their signature, which will be reflected in the interest rates they will have to pay. This is an oversimplification that must be avoided.

The second oversimplification consists in saying ‘We are bailing out these Greeks, these feckless Irish.’ I would, however, point out that what we are doing is lending money, and lending money at rates that are particularly favourable to the lenders. We are doing good business on the back of this. And so, there are two possibilities: either we consider that, with our loans, Greece and Ireland no longer present a risk and that we should lend to them at a rate corresponding to zero risk or at least an extremely limited risk, or that there is a risk that they will default. So, the boil needs to be lanced, these debts need to be restructured and we must put an end to uncertainty.

I would like to end with a word to our German friends, especially the CDU. Mr Langen, you talked about reunification and you are right. When Germany was reunified, the entire deutschmark area, to which Belgium belonged and to which, in the end, France was very loyal, paid for it in the form of very high interest rates. It was the right thing to do. It was right both historically, because the reunification of Germany represented the reunification of Europe as we know it, and economically, because, in the end, everyone would benefit from the faster pace of growth this would lead to.

So, today I say to the CDU ‘Bear this in mind’ and we ask that Germany does the same.

(Applause)

  Martin Callanan (ECR). - Mr President, it seems somewhat ironically appropriate that the European Council should be discussing a permanent crisis mechanism, as the euro certainly seems to be lurching from crisis to crisis at the moment. Although many of us in the UK always thought that the euro was a historic mistake, both for our own country and for Europe as a whole, we of course take no satisfaction in seeing this situation. We want to see it resolved at a European level by a decisive return to fiscal discipline across the Union.

It will not be solved by more borrowing either at an EU or at a local level. But let us be clear where the responsibility for this situation for the euro lies. It is the duty of every Member State within the eurozone to fulfil its commitments to that zone and it is the job of other participating states to ensure that they do so. This is one of the key reasons why they have a separate meeting of eurozone ministers. To put it bluntly, the stable management of the eurozone is primarily the responsibility of the members of the eurozone. The rest of us can provide political support, but that is as far as it should go. There cannot be any justification for further burdens or any sanctions being imposed on those Member States who chose not to make the mistake of joining the eurozone in the first place.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is exactly a year since the Greek economy started to collapse and Greece got involved in the disastrous memorandum and support mechanism. One year on, Mr Langen, the country is on the verge of bankruptcy: firstly, social bankruptcy, given that unemployment is set to reach 15% next year, while just yesterday the government passed a bill abolishing collective agreements and today the whole country is on strike and, secondly, economic bankruptcy and, this time the deficit and debt have not been increased by the ‘lying Greeks’ in PASOK and New Democracy; they have been increased by alchemist Commissioners using Eurostat statistics as they so choose so as to increase the debts of the weak and reduce the debts of the strong.

If, therefore, a mechanism is adopted like the one used for Greece, we are certainly heading for bankruptcy. If the Council is preparing such a mechanism, it will plunge countries into recession, leading to unemployment and favours for banks and big business. I wonder: is this the European vision that Mr Barroso, who is not here to explain, spoke of at the beginning.

  Timo Soini (EFD). - (FI) Mr President, in my opinion, each country is responsible for its own economy. Countries are not liable for each other’s debts. This is also contained in Article 125 of the Treaty. When it suits people the Treaty is adhered to, but when it does not, the Treaty is ignored. This has been seen in referenda: France says no, the Netherlands says no, and Ireland says no. Two of these results were dealt with by Parliament and one by means of another referendum. The interpretation of the Articles in the Treaty seems to depend on which way the wind is blowing.

The Finnish Government has imposed on Finnish taxpayers the sort of unfair guarantor liabilities that we will eventually have to pay. We do not understand why Finnish workers and small entrepreneurs should sweat blood working to pay the debts of gamblers and liars. It is simply not right.

When there were problems in the Soviet Union they called for more socialism. People congregated in Moscow: more socialism. When there are problems in Europe, people congregate in Brussels: more integration. The end result will be exactly the same. This will not work.

Healthy societies are built from the bottom upwards. Democracy is built from the bottom upwards: not downwards from some ivory tower up above. That is just the way it goes. A common economic policy for Europe will not work. Europe can only work as an economic and free trade area, the like of which it should become once again.

I would just like to say a few words about eurobonds. I went to Mellunmäki in Helsinki to talk about eurobonds, and when I said what they were the women clutched their handbags tightly and the men wondered whether they still had their wallets on them. This will not work.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, we have just seen a tragic accusation being made against Germany. It is an ominous reminder of the late 1920s.

As an enthusiastic pro-European and stubborn supporter of the Euro, I would like to ask you: Have you not noticed that you are driving the European Union, this great project for peace and economic prosperity, into the ground? Mr Cohn-Bendit has rightly said that we always react too late and always in retrospect. Now we must look to the future. Have you not noticed what is going on outside? People are no longer interested in the squabbling between the socialists and the conservatives, either in my home country or here in the European Parliament. They are interested in solutions and in whether their money is still safe. We have to say honestly to them that this is no longer the case.

We must bring forward the next step and admit that we need the courage to write off debts, we must finally make the banks pay, even if it affects our life insurance policies, and we must establish a new European political project which is not burdened with the problems of the Treaty of Lisbon.

We are caught in a trap. If we amend this article, we will find that Ireland will vote no in a referendum. We can expect the same thing to happen in my home country. In addition, we have a huge problem in the United Kingdom. Ladies and gentlemen, you must wake up to what is happening.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). - (NL) Mr President, in this time of crisis we should not lose sight of the fact that, over the past ten years, the euro has brought us a great deal of prosperity and stability, as well as many jobs. The euro is therefore well worth strongly defending. However, this will require a decisive European summit and a whole lot more in the way of unity. Unity is in desperately short supply, not only when it comes to the permanent crisis mechanism, but also when it comes to robust financial governance.

In this debate, Mr President, ‘eurobonds’ seems to be the magic word, as if it will make public debt problems disappear like snow melting in the sun. However, those in this House who are calling for eurobonds should also be aware that these entail significant obligations and a rigorous budgetary discipline which goes much further than the proposals for strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact that are now before us.

President Trichet said ‘a fiscal union’. Are those of you in this House who are calling for eurobonds prepared for that? I have my doubts about that.

Mr President, we must put our energy into the proposals now before us in order to strengthen the foundation under the euro. That is urgent and we in this House are working hard to achieve it. We also need a more rule-based approach in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, because prevention is better than cure. We must also ensure a greater level of joint responsibility amongst Member States, not just for the benefits, but also for the obligations and commitment which stem from the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in critical situations, Europe has always found a way out of a crisis. Not because different interests have been played off against one another, but because we have combined our interests, which has allowed us to take new paths.

I would have liked to ask Mr Barroso a question, but unfortunately he is no longer here. There will, of course, soon be important press conferences on the subject of how we can rescue Europe using the lowest common denominator, but Mr Rehn may be able to pass my question on. I do not understand why we are not taking the following route. Eurobonds are a sensible solution. Mr Schulz has said that on behalf of our group and, in Germany, where this is a critical issue, my party is saying the same thing. The German Government in particular has reservations and there are also reservations in other countries which are paying less interest. Why do we not proceed as follows? We are saying that these problems can be solved. We are now planning to launch eurobonds, but we are putting together a sensible package. What do we need to enable Europe to act? How can we put money into the coffers? How can we create more taxation potential for a sensible, long-term economy? We are launching eurobonds and we are linking this launch with the introduction of the financial transaction tax in the European Union. This package could result in a win-win situation, which would enable everyone to benefit. Ask Mrs Merkel at the European summit if she is prepared to do this. Why is it not possible? Why does the Commission not make a proposal of this kind? It would help everyone and enable a major new project for Europe to emerge from the crisis. I am waiting for the Commission to make this proposal.

You must stop trying to talk your way out of it. It is time for you to act in the interest of the citizens of Europe and in the interest of the Member States, so that we can find our way back to a sensible path of growth. Our fate is in your hands, but you must have the courage to take the initiative now.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, I think the past year demonstrates that a common currency requires clear, common ground rules, and it is evident that we do not currently have such rules. It is also clear that the euro area is suffering from a definite lack of credibility in the eyes of both the people and the financial market. I do not agree with Mr Bullman. Rather, I believe that the Commission has done a good job and has put forward ambitious proposals. As regards the challenges that we are currently facing, I think the problem does not lie with the Commission, but with the Council. Of course, the Council has a rather difficult meeting ahead of it over the next few days.

I would like to say how pleased I am that the Commission has now also tabled a proposal that will enable us to correct macroeconomic imbalances in future. Up to now, we have focused solely on finances and deficits of the cities, and that is completely inadequate, as the case of Ireland quite clearly shows.

What I am less pleased about is the way the Council works, as exemplified by the horse-trading between Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel with a view to making the Commission’s sound proposals less binding, which will mean that the proposal will not lead to any improvements. We ought to remember what happened in 2005 when the Stability and Growth Pact was watered down. It was the same countries that created a situation at that point which, in the long term, was able to lead to what has now happened in Greece. I hope that the Council will get a grip on itself and realise what type of decision we need – otherwise we will not get ourselves out of this situation.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – (DE) Mr President, the Flemish politician Bart De Wever, in an interview in Der Spiegel magazine, said that Belgium had become a transfer society. This fact lay at the heart of the problem in Belgium and not the language issue. Solidarity had become a one-way street.

The EU is in the process of doing just the same thing. We are turning a service society into a transfer society and the euro is one means of achieving this. It is opening up the path to cheap money in a number of states. As the President of the EU Council, Mr Van Rompuy, has said, it has become a sleeping tablet. It is undermining the competitive ability of the various countries. Now many European politicians are calling for the introduction of another sleeping tablet: Eurobonds. This will simply make the gap wider. If we continue in this way, within a few years the EU will be in the same position as Belgium is now: a transfer society whose political foundations are crumbling.

Over Christmas I will be reading the book ‘Save our Money’ by Mr Henkel, former president of the Federation of German Industry. Perhaps you should do the same thing, so that you can find out what people in Germany are thinking.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after the New York Times revelations, investigations are ongoing in the United States into the secret club of nine banks – one of which is European – whose executives meet every Wednesday to agree what action to take on derivatives. The Crisis Committee was completely unaware and Europe is a mere spectator.

The Federal Reserve had to account for the USD 13 trillion spent to bail out the banks. Would you mind telling us what the Fed asked for the European bank rescue packages? Is it not the critical situation in the banks – and not state budgets – that requires the sum in the European rescue fund to be doubled and the preparation of a EUR 2 000 billion bail-out?

What is stopping us calling on the European Central Bank to account transparently and in detail for its actions as was done in the United States for the Fed? This would put paid to suspicions that it acted and continues to act discretionally and not in the common interest of the citizens and taxpayers of the European Union’s Member States.

Why on earth have discussions never been held over the adoption of measures to impose a genuine and effective separation between commercial banks and speculative banks, as in the Glass-Steagall Act?

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree on the need to create an instrument that is able to intervene in the event of a crisis. This instrument must necessarily be linked to rigorous and careful budgetary policies in the Member States. I hope this will mean that crises like the one we are experiencing in these months will not be repeated.

Today's debate hinges on the best way to finance this instrument. As we are all aware, the private sector was partly responsibile for the crisis in some countries, and in such cases it is right that they should shoulder some responsibility, though their share should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

However, I think we need to find new and innovative ways to finance the anti-crisis instrument. One example could be eurobonds, which some see as a new burden on national budgets. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, by issuing eurobonds the anti-crisis instrument could be financed through the market, drawing on foreign capital and people looking to invest.

A mechanism based solely on pro-rata contributions made by simply appropriating reserves would amount to a great burden for the Member States, which would have to find resources and capital to deposit that would not, however, bring any yield or return. In a situation like the present, in which Member States are asked to implement severe budget policies to reduce deficits and debts as well as to pay contributions to participate in the anti-crisis fund, there is a real risk of collapse.

The European economy cannot be revitalised unless, at the same time, we use the strength of the euro on international markets and the resulting improved credit rating to heal it.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, you have heard a very clear message from this Parliament, a request for the Commission to act, to intervene. The Commission is requested to refrain from limiting itself to rubber-stamping the minimum possible consent between States, which is the same as saying that the Commission needs to stop being limited by the will of the most powerful. The Commission needs to shoulder its duty and obligation to take the initiative.

I regret to say that the conclusions that we anticipate for the next summit meeting will not produce a solution, above all because the anticipated mechanism for intervening must be adopted unanimously by all Member States, and we need a European dimension, rather than a dimension that allows for all kinds of distortions and some countries to control others. On the other hand, reviewing the Treaty at this time will open up a Pandora’s box, and in any case, I would have liked an answer to one question: will the new mechanism be able to buy government bonds?

Commissioner, an in-depth review is required, and the Commission cannot ignore the current debate on eurobonds, and provide no response to the initiatives that various actors are taking in the meantime, namely Juncker, Mário Monti, some elements within this Parliament and think tanks. The Commission needs to table a proposal and needs to be able to defend it.

Lastly, one final note: the euro area does not have a global problem – well, it does have global problem, but one concentrated on its insufficient growth rather than unequal growth within it. Where are the means that need to be in place alongside economic governance and penalisation in order effectively to promote and bring the 2020 Strategy to fruition?

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Schulz is right. We are in the midst of a huge crisis of confidence and the members of the Council are pulling the wool over the citizens’ eyes. They are telling them that everything is under control, we just need to make small changes to the treaty by introducing a permanent stability mechanism and then the problem will be resolved. In fact, the situation is not under control. The Member States are reacting rather than actually taking action. They are desperately firefighting, but they cannot put out the flames. The markets are asking themselves: Who is actually in control in Europe and in the euro area?

The EU has reached a critical turning point. If we do not choose the right path now, we will not even be able to maintain the status quo. Instead we will take a step backwards. What we need are further moves towards integration. We need more Europe. We must finish establishing the internal market, including the service sector. Alongside the monetary union, we need an economic, budgetary and fiscal union. We also need a strong Commission which has the right and the power to control and monitor this economic union and to impose sanctions automatically, in cases where this is justified. If we take these steps towards more integration, then we can talk about the introduction of eurobonds. Then we will have laid the foundations for them. However, during all of this we must ensure that we have the long-term investment funding that we need, despite all of the justifiable austerity measures, to secure the European Union’s competitive ability in the medium and long term.

We must finally tell the citizens the truth. We need solutions without blinkers, we must discuss the issues without bringing in ideologies and we must stop trying to muddle through. What we require is action for the long term, rather than short-term reactions.

IN THE CHAIR: Dagmar ROTH-BEHRENDT
Vice-President

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - Madam President, let us start with the good news. Yes, there are signs of some recovery in parts of Europe’s wider economy. But this is being threatened by the prolonged uncertainly which risks drying up funding and stalling investments. Everyone in Europe, including the UK, has a vested interest in the strength of the euro area’s economy.

Robust and transparent economic planning to control profligate government spending and unsustainable debt levels is a vital part of this for all 27 countries. The eurozone countries have realised the need for a permanent crisis resolution, but there are many questions, some of which are addressed in this Parliament’s resolution.

Firstly, what should be the nature of private sector involvement? I welcome the suggestion of following the IMF precedent to protect public money with preferred creditor status. Secondly what treaty changes are you talking about? This issue needs to be clarified.

And finally the permanent crisis mechanism has been described as a tool to strengthen the eurozone. Those countries who seek to join the euro should be given the option to participate but those of us who have elected not to join should not be forced to contribute.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). - (FR) Madam President, what worries the citizens of Europe as much as the financial markets is doubt. Now that Europeans have a united destiny are they capable of facing it in a spirit of solidarity?

Today, solidarity is manifesting itself in the depth of the crisis. That is fine, but it is not enough. United in adversity, Europeans must also show that they are acting in solidarity when mapping out the way ahead because, if the crisis affected Europe longer than other continents, it is because our economy had already been weakened by ten years of sluggish growth, just l% per year on average. The ten years of the Lisbon strategy were a lost decade.

In Agenda 2020, European leaders came up with a plan to revive our economy, but they did not say how it was going to be financed and controlled or what the incentives or possible sanctions would be. That is why the time has come to supplement the Stability and Growth Pact with a solidarity pact, as has already been said here, in plenary.

The word ‘solidarity’ appears 23 times in the Treaty: let us translate the word into action. A procedure for the coordination of fiscal policies is being set up to guarantee stability by preventing deficits. Well, let us broaden its scope, let us coordinate with one another to guarantee future financing. We need to spend less, but spend better, not each one of us alone at home, under the threat of sanctions, but all together. If they want to avoid the worst, Europeans must be united to prepare the best.

  Zoran Thaler (S&D). - (SL) Madam President, we Europeans are living with an interesting paradox. On the one hand, during its 12-year existence, the euro has proved to be the most stable of the global currencies. According to official figures provided by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, average inflation during this period has been 1.97%, which is only 3 percentage points below the 2% target. The euro’s value against the US dollar has, throughout, to all practical purposes, remained higher than it was when the European currency was established. On the other hand, though, we have been hearing stories lately that the euro might even be at the risk of collapse. How could we have got into such a situation?

Grotesque and irresponsible behaviour caused by the populist policies of both the left and the right has brought us to this point. However, in defending our currency, are we really going to allow democracy to prove weaker than relatively authoritarian regimes? We need responsible behaviour, we need five golden rules of responsible behaviour to be enshrined in our policies. Let us adopt them here in Parliament, let us decide how we are going to measure the level of responsible behaviour and behaviour which benefits the common good promoted by the policies in our Member States.

The tax on financial transactions and eurobonds should therefore be the cornerstone. That is our duty today, to adopt such policies, in defence of our common currency.

  José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, what we need right now are clear rules, and what we are doing is precisely the opposite. I am therefore going to make a few proposals in order to re-establish clarity.

In the European semester, Parliament wants to focus on a series of discussions, which are currently unfocused and do not fit with public opinion. We want the political responses to the recommendations made to the Member States over the next six months to be taken into account when establishing the penalties provided for in the legislative package on governance.

My group would like to make it clear that there are no magic solutions in the legislative package for getting us out of the crisis. There are the well-known methods of budgetary discipline and structural reforms in order to maintain competitiveness.

With regard to the crisis mechanism, as you said yesterday, Commissioner, President Barroso promised us here that it was going to be a European mechanism. Today the Council is proposing an intergovernmental mechanism. Is this European – in Mr Barroso’s terms – because it appears that the fund will be based in Europe rather than in the Cayman Islands, or does the Commission intend to help us to create a mechanism following EU procedure in which Parliament has a contribution to make?

With regard to eurobonds, the Commission, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the experts say that it is a good idea, but that it is a premature idea, therefore we are late.

What I propose to the Commission is that we begin a debate to shape a system of eurobonds that gives reasonable financing to the countries that do the right thing and punishes those that do not by forcing them to go to the markets at rates that are genuine deterrents. That is the only workable way of combining fiscal discipline and economic growth.

Do not come back to me with discussions about whether it is too early or too late, because what we know now is that we have always been too late. Let us see if, for once, by changing the rules, we can be early.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, the euro is our common asset and, today, the trade unions told Parliament that they were concerned that employees themselves were paying the price for the crisis through a weak euro, a euro under attack and not through a growth-promoting, job-creating euro.

It is therefore essential that we do not pursue a simple technical revision of the treaties and that the two major dysfunctions of the euro area revealed by the crisis are addressed.

The first approach is to introduce eurobonds, as we have heard. Eurobonds will not only stabilise the level of the euro, they will also immediately counter the speculative attack.

The second approach to introducing fiscal justice and to making the financial market pay the price for the crisis is precisely to introduce a tax on financial transactions so that it is not employees who, as a result of fiscal injustice, pay the price for this crisis.

Finally, a European debt agency must be established, which must be able to pool some of the sovereign debt of the Member States.

Finally, I would also like to support Mr Juncker and to say that increasing the stability fund, which was proposed by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Director-General of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is a good idea.

Early intervention – as we have heard – not being late and choosing to become strong and not weak would enable us to perform an act of governance that would re-introduce the confidence called for by our President, Martin Schultz.

(Applause)

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, the first point that I would like to make clear here, and which is important that we reinforce in this Parliament, is that, contrary to what we sometimes read in the press and in the pronouncements of some European leaders, the euro as a currency has been crucial in our response to the current crisis. Without the euro, we would be in an extremely difficult situation, with the currencies of weaker countries facing enormous devaluation and the resulting deutschmark facing an impossible increase in value in order to sustain the German and European economies. The euro was therefore a stabilising factor, not only for countries within the euro area, but also for the currencies of the countries that have not wanted to belong to the euro area.

Again, because we need to defend this Community that has succeeded in responding to a crisis like never before, and given that we will see, for example, what happens to the dollar and the United States in the future, we will also see how the euro does in fact have its advantages.

We now have the responsibility, within this Council, to do everything we can to defend the euro, namely to create a stabilisation fund that follows community methodology and is able to introduce responsibility within countries that are in the most fragile situation, and solidarity within those that have met their obligations and have not always shown themselves, at least through their external declarations, able to adopt a position of solidarity within the context of the euro area.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, the year that is coming to an end – 2010 – has been described more than once as the year in which we lived dangerously. I think, therefore, that this debate ought to be useful in highlighting the lessons of 2010, so that we can draw conclusions for 2011.

The first conclusion concerns the unsustainable imbalances in the financial sector of the European economy and the distortions in its real economy.

The second is the unsustainable imbalance in the single currency and the need for coordination of economic, fiscal and budgetary policies, which are still in a fragile state.

The third, and main conclusion concerns the imbalance between the speed of the crisis and the slowness of response times. From an economic point of view, this means that the European Central Bank needs to be more active in response to speculative assaults on sovereign debt, and in 2011 we need to lay the foundations for a European debt agency that can issue eurobonds.

Likewise, with regard to the Stability and Growth Pact, there needs to be a debate regarding the necessary taxation, the banking tax and the tax on speculation, that is short-term speculative transactions, and on the need for own resources in the European Union.

However, the debate that is important to Parliament is the debate regarding the political consequences of the crisis, because the European Union’s motto is – I stress once again – ‘United in diversity’, and under no circumstances is it ‘split by adversity’. Parliament therefore needs to confront those that seek to stigmatise some Member States in relation to others, dividing European public opinion and pitting Europeans against each other.

Parliament represents 500 million Europeans from a Union that has 27 Member States, and as on Orwell’s farm, there are none more equal than others.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the summit on 16 December. It would be good if the Council could say to us after the summit: We are aware of the gaps and the mistakes, we know where we have failed and we understand the limits of the treaty.

Self-satisfaction and accusations of guilt, attempts to gloss over mistakes and a superficial approach will not solve any problems or create any confidence. Let us stop playing with Europe. This really is all about Europe. I endorse everything that Mr Klinz has said.

As it is now only a few days before Christmas, I would like to say: Light a candle of determination and common interest, a candle representing the new seriousness, honesty and confidence in the future of the Europe Union. Light a candle for a change of political course in Europe, a move from the crisis to competitiveness, from the spirit of Deauville to the political union, from saving to investment and reform, from the monetary union to the political union.

Because of Germany’s constitutional problems, the addition to the treaty is simply a political crutch for the further development of the rescue package, nothing more and nothing less. It does not represent a solution. Do not try to make it more important than it really is. Stop the day-by-day policymaking and put forward a complete concept in response to the crisis which will move us towards political union. Put an end to the discord. It is enough, it is not enough and, actually, we do not know where things are going. We must call on the Commission to produce a concept for an economic, social and financial union, so that we can take the next step towards integration at the end of next year and really do the job properly.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, tomorrow sees the start of one of the most crucial European Councils in the history of the European Union as a whole and EMU in particular and the question is whether the Heads of State or Government will be up to the job. We very much doubt it, because the philosophy that certain heads have introduced into the European Council is not a philosophy of overcoming the crisis on the basis of solidarity and, of course, responsibility. It is a crisis management philosophy, a philosophy that focuses on and is confined to the details of a permanent mechanism. The European Council will not be up to the job, because it will not send out the message of economic and political cohesion that needs to be sent out, not only to convince the markets, but to convince, first and foremost, the entrenched European public, who are viewing each other with suspicion and who have again started to become xenophobic; to convince them of the value of the European vision and to remind them that there are more things that unite than divide us.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Madam President, I cannot understand why the Socialists are trying to escape from the responsibility of Socialist policies. It is true that the reasons for the deficits we see in Europe are different. It is also true that Socialist governments have entered into budget deficit problems because of a deliberate policy of increased spending and increased deficits.

We had this debate in Parliament in the spring of 2009 and we had it in a number of Member States. I remember the Swedish Social Democrats criticised the Swedish Government for not increasing the deficit and the spending.

Then we have seen what has happened. This is for me a reason why we need stable rules regarding the Stability and Growth Pact but also stable rules regarding the consequences. We cannot have a situation where Member States which are causing problems for financial systems and causing increased interest rates are allowed to escape from the consequences by letting other citizens pay for those interest rates.

We need to have stability, and eurobonds will not be a solution to that problem. We can have eurobonds for other reasons. maybe. As for the financial mechanism, it must be financed and based upon the risks that Member States are creating. If you take a bigger risk, run a bigger deficit, then you also need to finance the financial mechanism a little bit more. That is a way of taking responsibility for deliberate policies. Do not forget that the consequences we see in a number of countries are the consequences of the debates we had in national parliaments, and in this Parliament, when some of us argued for increased spending. Now we see the bitter results.

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

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I can understand, Mr Hökmark, that you need to give a nice speech for the people at home in Sweden. However, would you please answer the following question for me: Which country in the European Union has the highest long-term level of national debt and which party is in government in this country?

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - (Mr Schulz continued speaking, with his microphone turned off) Madam President, I hope I can proceed without further interventions. First of all my message is very much to you, Mr Schulz, because I want you to remember what you argued here in this Parliament two years ago. You argued that the Union and the Member States should increase their spending. The problem is that some of the Member States have had Socialist governments, and in all these governments, in all these countries, we have seen the deficit going up a result of the policies you advocated. Mr Schulz, can you deny that?

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

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, as my fellow Member has not answered the question, I will answer it on his behalf. The country is Italy and its prime minister is Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats have been in power in Italy almost uninterruptedly since 1946.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). - (FI) Madam President, I too would like to ask our fellow Member how the Socialists in Ireland and Greece might have caused their countries to run into debt. Since you are now the leading political party at present in Europe and the Commission is inclined to the right, is it not now the job of the right also to show the way out of this crisis and not blame previous governments or the governments that came before them?

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Madam President, I want to remind colleagues here that I said there are a number of different reasons for the deficit problems we have, but I also said it is true – and neither Mr Schulz nor his colleagues have denied this – that we have seen these problems coming up in all Socialist governments because it was a deliberate policy. I absolutely agree if we are talking about Ireland for example, that there were huge mistakes, but the interesting thing is that it was a deliberate policy to increase spending and deficits in order to meet the crisis and the problems, and now we see the results. That is the message to Mr Schulz and others.

(The speaker agreed to take three blue-card questions under Rule 149(8))

  President. − Colleagues, just to let the speaker and everybody know what is happening, we now have three more people who want to ask a blue-card question. As this possibility has been introduced by the working group on parliamentary reform, I am very sympathetic to that and we have enough time, but nevertheless I have to ask the speaker if he will take all those questions. Then I would ask everybody whether we can take the questions in turn and then ask Mr Hökmark to answer. We will then finalise that part of the speaking time.

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, I want to say to Mr Hökmark, the point that you are making about Socialist governments may be true to some extent, but right-wing governments basically choose to do the same thing by piling up private debt instead of public debt. This is no better for the economy and is really a different way of doing exactly the same thing which is unsustainable.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I wanted to ask Mr Hökmark, as he has been here for some time, whether he remembers that Belgium, Greece and Italy had debts amounting to more than 130% of their national product at the start of the monetary union and that the figure in Greece has risen, while in Belgium and Italy it has fallen by more than 30% and more than 25% respectively. Does he remember this?

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, I have a simple question to ask Mr Langen and Mr Hökmark, who like to idealise the debt crisis and obviously target socialist governments collectively:

Have you ever questioned your colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) who were governing my country up to a year ago about the fact that they gave you and the European Commission – you can ask Mr Rehn – official statistics that Greece’s deficit for 2009 was 6.9%, not the 15% recently confirmed by Eurostat?

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Madam President, this discussion has clarified some of the things that we need to remember.

Let us not forget my first point, which is – and it is interesting to note that none of my Socialist colleagues have denied this – that all the Socialist governments which implemented Socialist policies have run into deep deficit crisis. We now see the crisis coming to country after country because of a deliberate policy that Mr Schulz and others defended in this Parliament two years ago. We can look at the records of this Parliament and see that this was exactly what was said in the debate here by you, Mr Schulz, and by your colleagues. Now you can see the bitter result. I wanted to underline that. I note that all you have to say is, ‘yes, you are right but other countries also have problems’. However, you are not arguing against my main point, that your policies created the problems. That is worth remembering. I think it should be put on the record.

Mr Lamberts also draws attention to these problems. But the interesting thing is that, while it is true that a number of countries have problems because of the financial crisis, it is also true – as I think Mr Lamberts will recognise and appreciate – that in most of the countries which are taking a stable view on public finances, the governments are non-Socialist. I do not think that you, or anyone else in this Chamber, can point to a Socialist government that has not run into deficit problems.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). - Madam President, what matters are policies and not who applied them. Let him cast the first stone... The crisis of the euro may not end with Ireland and we may have not seen the worst yet.

The market predators will never endlessly attack any vulnerable opening, despite the painful austerity measures taken by all Member States. But if the EU wins this battle, and succeeds in adversity by demonstrating determination to do whatever it takes in solidarity and concerted effort to thwart regulators and convince the markets, then this would be the triumph of European integration and a great victory.

This will be achieved as a result of collective wisdom. Let us prove wrong those who predict the end of the euro and the withdrawal of countries, strong and weak, from the eurozone. Fiscal discipline, economic governance and the rescue of the euro will be incomplete without a mutually agreed plan at European level to stimulate growth. In the past, an American Marshall Plan saved the economy of Europe. The challenge today is an equivalent from Europeans for Europeans.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Madam President, today the Irish House of Representatives, the Dáil, will vote on the EU-IMF financial assistance package. These have been very difficult times for Ireland, with tax increases and cuts in expenditure. The last week’s budget was only a mere reflection of the difficulties so many Irish people are going through at the moment. This follows 14% pay cuts in the public and private sectors.

However, I strongly believe that the EU-IMF financial package will help Ireland restore confidence by getting the banks capitalised and lending again, and by repairing the public finances. I do not necessarily share in accepting the detail of the plan, but overall figures are supported by Fine Gael. The underlying economic trends in Ireland are quite good. It will require good government and Dáil oversight to ensure our finances never again get out of hand.

It will also require some thought at EU and ECB level on the contribution made by low interest rates to property inflation. I was a lone voice in this Chamber for two and half years questioning Mr Trichet on this particular difficulty. With the establishment of a permanent successor to the European Financial Stability Mechanism, from which Ireland will be receiving EUR 22.5 billion in loans if it draws them down, the EU-IMF package is a positive move for the eurozone.

May I say also in conclusion that there are many people here who consider themselves federalists and yet want to see some sort of harmonisation in taxation. In the United States over 50% of companies in the copyright business register in Delaware. Why do they do that? Because of the tax situation in Delaware. There are some very ignorant comments made in this Chamber by self-serving people who want to advance their own national causes by making inaccurate statements, and they will be challenged.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Madam President, the financial crisis has indicated that there is an even greater need for more Europe. The lesson to be learned is that acting predominantly on the basis of national considerations does not help any Member State. Tomorrow, therefore, is an occasion for joint action, fiscal consolidation and a stability pact with sanctions.

This will also be the time to solve the long-standing paradox of Europe. The EU is based on a single market but this single market is still not complete. Now is the time to start the single digital market. We need to set up a permanent crisis management mechanism, preferably group-based. Secondly, as action should be led on prevention and early intervention, there is a need to better harmonise conditions for early intervention and for activating the crisis-management mechanisms, whilst avoiding, of course, over-regulation. Thirdly, the purpose of crisis-management funds should be clearly defined. Their goal is to ensure macro-financial stability. They should not be used to solve other current problems. Fourthly, supervisory rights should be defined more precisely at EU level, such as in the case of possible intervention into the activities of financial institutions, which will include the right to stop paying dividends or stop activities that pose unjustified risks.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). - (FR) Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, I have listened to this long debate as a citizen.

I would say that Mr Barroso’s proposals were very interesting. We would like to see them acted upon. A clear and comprehensible political will and a discourse of truth are the necessary conditions for restoring our citizens’ confidence. It is imperative that we do not mask realities. There is public spending, which we must cover or reduce. There are public and private debts, which we must repay.

There are numerous experts who have ideas on everything. Those who did not see the crisis coming are now full of brilliant solutions. But in a difficult situation, let us use common sense. Let us not reproduce in the management of public finances the mistakes and errors of the private sector that led to the financial and banking crisis. Sophisticated arrangements do not create value and wealth. They create illusions and often benefit only the speculators.

The fact of the matter is that the Member States have lived beyond their means. We must have the courage to draw the necessary conclusions and ensure that the burden of recovery is apportioned fairly.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Madam President, firstly a complaint. You said this is an important debate, and it is. I find it somewhat unacceptable that Mr Barroso and many of the political leaders have departed the Chamber as soon as they have given their speeches. In fairness to Mr Schulz, he has stayed here from the beginning to the end and I would like to compliment him on that.

Secondly, I want to say that, when all is said and done, one of the main reasons for the financial crisis is that governments failed to govern and political leaders failed to lead. Thankfully, we are now bringing that situation under control with the new supervisory architecture which should be coming in on 1 January, the credit rating agencies report which we dealt with last night, and today’s permanent financial stability mechanism. They are all to be welcomed.

If Mr Barroso were here, I would like to ask him if he can guarantee that a referendum will not be required in Ireland and elsewhere to make the minimum treaty changes he spoke of.

Finally, I want to say to those who have asked that a written declaration be signed by Members that this is a direct attack on corporation tax in Ireland. That should not be done.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, an ideological debate has unfolded here, even though we could give several examples of how the Schröder government implemented a very serious reform policy, or how in Hungary the right-wing government currently in power used all means to hinder the then left-wing government in imposing fiscal discipline after 2006. Debates such as this lead nowhere. What is important is that the European Union should finally engage in proactive, rather than reactive politics. It would be welcome if the summit this weekend could reach an agreement concerning the European Stability Mechanism. The Hungarian presidency, the Hungarian Government, which will take over the rotating presidency of the EU in January, will do its best to speed up the ratification process and to ensure that the European Union can deal with substantive issues, such as making Europe more dynamic.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, honourable Council, honourable Commission, Member States attempt to react to the crisis they find themselves in through individual solutions and their own responses. After setting a strategic direction, the Council and the Commission should consolidate and coordinate Member State solutions. This means that sanctioning Member States is not enough when it comes to economic governance. Of course it would have been good to see the consistency and strictness demonstrated today also exercised by certain Commissioners when they turned a blind eye to the doctoring of data. I am convinced that the responsibility for the failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact does not lie solely with the Member States, as it was the Commission itself that softened its control mechanisms. We must acknowledge that the austerity policy that has been practiced so far has not been successful anywhere. Thus, new and clear answers will be required of you. Innovative and motivating solutions. I can assure you, fellow Members, that the upcoming Hungarian presidency will fulfil this coordinating role.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). - Madam President, Ireland has been mentioned many times in this debate. I would like to start by making it clear that I support deeper economic governance in a European social market economy. We should thank Ireland’s partners in Europe for their solidarity at this time of crisis – a crisis created largely by incompetent Conservative governments over many years.

You will not be surprised that solidarity is being presented by Eurosceptics as a loss of Ireland’s independence. That distortion is heightened by the failure of the Commission and the Council to engage with this Parliament on the Memorandum of Understanding with Ireland. When, Mr Rehn, will that Memorandum of Understanding be brought before this Parliament?

Commissioner Rehn, one of the meanest conditions and obligations in the Memorandum of Understanding is the obligation to cut the minimum wage in Ireland by EUR 2 000 per year. The Irish Government is claiming that you demanded that cut, Mr Rehn. Can you clarify that matter for this House?

A second incomprehensible aspect of this agreement is the 3% margin which you have demanded...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, it is not acceptable that essential measures should continue to be put off, measures that disregard the increase in unemployment, poverty, inequality, disparity and economic recession that these austerity plans will cause, while economic and financial groups continue to make ever larger profits. This just leads to more questions:

Why have the statutes and the guidelines of the European Central Bank not been changed with regard to their loans made directly to Member States at a rate of 1%, the same as for private banks, who then charge rates three, four or five times higher, thus aggravating sovereign debt? Why has it not been decided to apply a tax on movements of capital, and not take the necessary measures to put an end to tax havens and derivative markets, ending speculation on sovereign debt? Why not decide to increase the community budget for a real policy of economic and social cohesion that aims to increase production and create jobs with rights …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, we are debating a proposed financial stability instrument for the eurozone – an instrument which should help our friends from countries which are currently unable to pay their debts.

Everyone here is talking about creating a common financial stability mechanism guaranteed by all eurozone countries, and we expect those who have managed to keep their debts under control to show solidarity with those who have not yet managed to do that.

After experiencing the solutions to date for assisting Greece and the one-off protective bulwark erected last time, I wonder what would happen if the financial wizards from the markets picked up their calculators and began working out the actual worth of the solution and discovered that not even this was reliable enough to make them willing to risk investing their money in the area?

I wonder if we have any subsequent solutions and subsequent steps prepared? The credibility of the solution at this point in time, according to this scenario, is very low.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, most ordinary people see crises as tragedies. Eurocrats see them as opportunities to extend their tentacles of power. The European Council is to decide on a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, backed up of course by treaty amendments. We are reliably informed that these controls, and of course these treaty changes, will apply to non-eurozone countries too.

The coalition government in the United Kingdom has promised a referendum in the event of any further transfer of power to the European Union. However, this promise will be as reliable and as honestly followed as the Conservative pledge to hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. For Conservatives, promises are tactics, not obligations.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the end of the year is approaching. It would be a good idea to take a closer look at what we have done. Let us look at what we have decided and what we have said, and let us answer this question: what have we done about it? Each of us should look carefully at our own decisions in areas where we have had responsibility. It is good that we want to add to the Treaty certain provisions which will impose discipline on what we do. However, we do still have, after all, the Stability and Growth Pact, which continues to be in force. Why did we not adhere to its provisions? Why did the Commission and its services not react earlier in the case of Greece or Ireland?

The European Union is a democratic institution which comprises many Member States. It is not, therefore, able to act unilaterally in the way that individual states do – I am thinking, here, for example, of China, the United States and other countries. This is why there was a lack of decisive action to protect the euro. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new approach to economic governance, to create a true economic union, to improve coordination and to harmonise financial and even fiscal policy.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, as has also been mentioned by previous speakers, the European Union has obviously not made sufficient progress up to now in terms of ensuring the financial stability of its markets. Against a background where speculators are jeopardising the stability of the single currency on a daily basis by isolating and exerting pressure on Member States, the solution can only be achieved by maintaining solidarity at EU level. Indeed, creating a permanent mechanism for safeguarding the euro area’s financial stability has become a necessity and will have to be coordinated using the Community method.

Citizens’ interests are best protected when EU institutions are fully involved in the decision-making process and the general good takes precedence over the interests..... At the same time, we must bear in mind that it is vital for all 27 Member States to be involved in this future mechanism as part of the single market. The instability of other currencies will always have a considerable impact on the position of the euro.

  Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, the next Council meeting is, in fact, very important. Important in its response to a crisis that is extensive and international, important also in its response to a specific crisis of governments that have not done their homework on time, that have spent too much and that did not carry out the necessary structural reforms. This is why I have come here to support the need for a stable instrument to defend the euro.

The response cannot and should not be on a case by case basis. For this very reason I support this being done according to the community method, not according to the intergovernmental method, ultimately rewarding governments for not having done what they should have done in time. I emphasise the need for a growing role for the European Parliament in the discussion of these matters, with debates like the one we have had here today: spirited, with differences, but defending a stronger European Union and an ever-improved euro.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) Madam President, in truth, I agree with all of the ideas mentioned today on establishing a crisis mechanism and on additional measures that I believe both the European Council and Parliament will debate in the future. Today we heard many conflicting assessments and perhaps also some accusations over previous mistakes. These came from all sides. They came from the Member States, the European Commission and the Council, as well as commercial banks whose activities I believe will also be closely scrutinised in the future. I would like to talk about another matter. I liked the idea expressed by President Barroso that in this difficult situation we must work together in unison, shoulder to shoulder, and, Commissioner, I would really like to ask you to make every effort to ensure that all countries can participate in this newly established crisis mechanism, regardless of whether or not they are in the euro area. As we opened our markets when we joined the European Union we pay the same amount of money into the budget and many other things besides.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - (PT) Madam President, there is no stability mechanism that addresses the greatest causes of instability within the European Union. The policies that brought us to this crisis are the same ones that they now want to continue with and develop. An Economic and Monetary Union brought about in the interests of some and to the detriment of others, loosening the reins of financial speculation, with priority given to the free, that is to say the unfettered, movement of capital, the imposition of the market on all areas of society, the devaluation of work as a source of the creation of wealth, and by the same token, of rights.

At the start of the second decade of the 21st century, this European Union is not shaking off its association with the greatest social decline that Europe has endured in recent decades, the result of an unparalleled attack on people’s rights and living conditions. Economic and financial groups continue to accumulate enormous profits, unemployment continues to spread, and millions of workers are becoming poorer as they work. This is the message that is echoing in the protests across Europe, and it is time to listen to it.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the citizens’ confidence in Europe and in the euro has been seriously damaged by the financial crisis and the political manoeuvring. The citizens of Europe need easily understandable, clear prospects, which can be relied on in the long term, for the security of their currency. The Stability and Growth Pact defines the upper limits for deficits and overall debt. However, it is relatively ineffective. New rescue packages will only gain the necessary broad acceptance among citizens if they also offer effective controls and sanctions. In the case of the controls, Eurostat must be further reinforced and the sanction mechanisms must be easily implemented and effective. The existing system includes sanction options. Future rescue packages must involve continuous controls, a rapid and coordinated approach and effective sanctions.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, you are going to propose the creation of this permanent mechanism, under Article 136. I regret that you have not used Article 122 which would have allowed us to include all Member States, but we are initiating a political debate insofar as Parliament will be consulted pursuant to Article 48 on the simplified review procedures and I should like to put on the table two political issues.

Firstly, the euro area is not enough in itself. As a minimum, Commissioner, we should include all those States which are obliged, without delay, to have the euro as their currency, and this represents 25 Member States.

The second issue relates to parliamentary political control. This is not an emergency mechanism, it is a permanent one. Therefore there should logically be some parliamentary political control under appropriate conditions, ones that you should propose to us because it is the role of parliaments, especially the European Parliament, to exercise control over the executive with regard to this provision.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). - (PT) Madam President, making accusations does not solve our problems, and reveals, in some cases, a lack of knowledge of the various situations. We need measures to halt speculation on sovereign debt. A lot is spoken about the Portuguese situation, but a report this month by the International Monetary Fund concluded that Portugal has been one of the countries putting the most reforms in place to ensure the sustainability of the public finances and social security.

Before the crisis, in 2007, Portugal had economic growth of 2.4% of GDP and a deficit of 2.6%. Between 2005 and 2010, Portugal was one of the countries that most increased its exports; what we need is more unity, more responsibility and more solidarity so that the markets calm down.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, we are concentrating on the euro area, but 150 million citizens remain outside this zone, which is one in three citizens of the European Union. This is why it is important for us to have a healthy euro and a healthy euro area. We want to say this very clearly – less of national governments, more of the Union, more of Parliament.

In Poland, the opinion of the German Chancellor is much more important than that of Mr Van Rompuy, and the loudly resounding voice of Mr Cameron is more important than the opinion of Mr Barroso. What we need, then, is a stabilisation pact, a pact for stable European solidarity. Mr Schulz is right in wanting more Europe in our thinking and new tools for our work, such as a tax on financial transactions, eurobonds, supervision of banks and coordinated budgetary discipline of Member States.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, honourable members, let me first thank you for a very substantive and responsible debate on the European response to the current crisis. Indeed this latest stage of the financial crisis is proving increasingly systemic in nature, which calls for an equally systemic response from the European Union.

Therefore Europe’s policy response must be comprehensive, consistent and determined. It will necessarily have to combine broader measures applying to the entire European Union with specific measures taken by the Member States.

What should be done? In the Commission’s view we have five avenues of action. Firstly, we need a determined, collective effort to deliver on the agreed budgetary commitments. Every Member State should stick to its fiscal targets. The best defence against contagion is the ring-fencing of our budgetary positions. For instance, Spain and Portugal are taking very convincing decisions to this effect now.

Secondly, we need to advance the next round of bank stress tests and do them in an even more comprehensive and rigorous manner than last time by using the new European architecture of financial regulation and supervision which will enter into force as of January next year.

Thirdly, we need effective financial backstops, and that is why in May the Union created the European Financial Stability Mechanism and facility for a temporary three-year lifespan. Soon the permanent European stabilisation mechanism will be set up, to take effect as of mid-2013.

To go further and deeper, several initiatives on eurobonds have been floated recently. As a concept, the Eurobond is a broad church that covers a wide range of possible applications. The current focus of policy-making is, rightly and reasonably, on making the existing European Financial Stability Facility more effective and agile, to help us in the immediate response to the current stage of the crisis.

But certainly we have to continue analytical discussions on such rational alternatives that can help Europe to overcome the systemic crisis by improving the functioning of the bond markets, by facilitating fiscal consolidation through more reasonable borrowing costs, by providing a basis for enhanced budgetary coordination among Member States and by reinforcing the incentives for fiscal prudence in the Member States.

The fourth element of the comprehensive response has to be structural measures, as outlined in the strategy for Europe 2020. These are indeed necessary for increasing our potential growth and for creating sustainable employment. We must make the most of our single market, especially in services and energy, make the tax and benefits systems more conducive to employment growth, make more focused investment in knowledge and innovation and simplify our regulatory environment.

Fifthly, an essential element of our systemic response, which is very much in your hands, honourable Members, is the rapid and ambitious adoption of the legislative package on reinforced economic governance which the Commission proposed in September. I am glad that Parliament and the Council have agreed to finalise this package by next summer. This is a matter of the credibility of the economic and monetary union of the European Union as a whole. It is also a most effective crisis prevention mechanism, as it reinforces long and short-term confidence in the European economy, as well as confidence in the immediate future.

Moreover, in response to Mr Karas, it is also an essential stepping stone for completing the Economic and Monetary Union by finally complementing the strong monetary union with a true and functional economic union. It is indeed high time for the ‘E’ in the EMU to be infused with life through the creation of a real and effective economic union as the final step in European economic policy integration.

Commissioner. – (FI) Madam President, I would still like to make a couple of comments in Finnish because of the speech by Mr Soini. Perhaps he has now managed to get back here, as he left this meeting a short while ago. We have been able to, and should, approach Mr Soini’s speeches with a sense of humour, but, as in recent times he has gained a certain amount of support, they obviously need to start to be taken seriously.

First of all, I do not believe that belittling the Greeks in the manner that Mr Soini did is very useful, or even professionally appropriate. Greece is at present introducing important, actually epoch­making reforms, which deserve our respect and not our contempt.

I think that Mr Soini should recall the old Finnish saying that teaches us to be aware of our own situation, while respecting others. That is a far better way to build a peaceful Europe based on cooperation.

Secondly, I do not think it professional either to compare the European Union with the Soviet Union, as Mr Soini did. Someone with no sense of humour might even think it was insulting. Freedom, democracy and the rule of law were not the Soviet Union’s trademarks, but they are the basic values of the European Union, which the Finns have defended throughout history, Mr Soini. The powers of comprehension on the part of the Finns should not be underestimated either, not even those of the supporters of the True Finns Party. The people certainly know that the EU is not the Soviet Union.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I assume that you agree with me that it is very rude of some Members to ask questions and then to leave. I would like to apologise to Mr Rehn, because it really is outrageous for him to give detailed answers after some of the Members have already disappeared. I believe that we should work together to ensure that this no longer happens in future or at least not as often.

  President. − Mr Swoboda, I fully support what you have said. It is very rude and lacking in respect. Mr De Rossa, a point of order?

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). - Madam President, on the other hand, Commissioner Rehn has not answered the questions that I put and I am still here.

  President. – That only touched on a point of order. Mr Rehn, you do not have to respond to this. You can, of course, but this is not question time with the Commission. The next speaker is Mr Chastel on behalf of the Council.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I personally find that the Commission has contributed a great number of responses to this extremely instructive debate, all the more so given that Parliament is closely involved in the response to this crisis. In addition to the Commission, I should like to address two issues relating to what is at stake tomorrow and the day after during this summit.

Firstly, I would like to make a point about economic governance and the involvement of the European Parliament. As you know, the Presidency has already made contact with the European Parliament, with those responsible for the matter of economic governance within this Parliament. Furthermore, the Presidency wishes to achieve the best possible collaboration with this Parliament, especially through informal consultation, before the formal stage of negotiations begins. In light of the importance of this issue and potential repercussions on the markets, the Presidency, as has been said, has made a commitment to fast-track it, in line with the European Council’s wishes. Furthermore, in order to expedite the work, the Presidency has set up a working group to deal with this issue alone. This group started its deliberations at the end of November, following on from the attention paid to the issue by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

The second element on which our Heads of State or Government will focus tomorrow and the day after, is the future permanent crisis management mechanism. I do understand a number of questions about this mechanism, on the extent of the response to be made to the crisis. Yesterday at midday, in the company of President Van Rompuy, in the General Affairs Council, many of us still had unanswered questions. I can testify to you how much the Member States want to respond to this crisis, how aware they are that what is at stake today are the overall European market and the euro, and that it is not simply a question of one country after another. The response must be a comprehensive one and we must do all we can to reduce the uncertainties hanging over this market.

However, in my mind, we must also avoid arousing or creating expectations that cannot be satisfied at this time. Therefore, everyone contributed their own new idea about how we should respond to the crisis. When we know that we have to get agreement from a number of Member States for any new idea, this does not appear today to be the best possible solution. I must tell you that what will be important tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, Friday, at the conclusion of this European Council, is firstly that we can give a clear signal to the markets about the will of the Member States to respond to the financial crisis, to the euro crisis today; secondly, to affirm our will to set up a simple mechanism for amending treaties. You know precisely why this must be a simple mechanism on account of the ratifications which must take place in the different Member States; and, finally, to set up this future permanent crisis management mechanism which must also be transparent because it must be unassailable, especially before the Court of Karlsruhe.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President (debate)

  President. − I have received one motion for 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, 16 December 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) At the forthcoming European Council summit, decisions will probably be made concerning the form of the permanent anti-crisis mechanism which is to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area after 2013, and the process of making changes to the founding treaties will begin. While I understand the need for exceptional measures which has been brought about by the economic crisis, I do, however, have concerns over the speed of the changes and the way in which some Member States are trying to impose certain solutions on others. Some of the ideas – such as eurobonds, for example – are being rejected without careful consideration. I think that in spite of the exceptional situation, decisions which are important for the European Union should be made calmly and with respect for the principle of solidarity and the equal rights of all Member States. I would also like to endorse the position of the Polish Government on the changes to the way in which the level of public debt is calculated. Poland and 10 other EU Member States have undertaken reforms of their pension systems, and these reforms are currently generating significant costs for national budgets. In Poland’s case, the introduction of reforms was made necessary by the growing inefficiency of the old system, which was a source of ever greater costs. The current debt is not, therefore, indicative of a lack of prudence, but is the effect of changes whose long-term objective is the reduction of budgetary expenses allocated to making pension payments. I hope the Member States’ representatives will agree to the changes suggested by Poland. Thank you for your attention.

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE), in writing. – The establishment of a permanent crisis mechanism for the EU to strengthen financial stability is a step in the right direction. Together with stronger and more coordinated economic governance, the permanent crisis mechanism could, and would, guarantee the stability of the euro area. The specific situation in the new Member States should also be kept in mind while establishing this mechanism. These countries should be actively involved in the debate and given the possibility to participate in the mechanism if they are willing to do so. At the same time, Member States should keep their national tax policies. It is important to keep tax competition as a tool to facilitate cohesion and boost EU economic growth. Shifting policies towards tax harmonisation or a common consolidated tax base will only further aggravate the gaps in economic development and hamper cohesion. Member States that create a greater risk by their deficits and debt burden should contribute more to the assets of the crisis mechanism. This would definitely encourage strict fiscal discipline and enhance the added value of having a proper economic and fiscal policy.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) While events of recent months demanded that governments take emergency measures and decisions that could be applied directly, the establishment of a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area must be founded on unquestionable legal bases. Consequently, it is evident that the European Parliament must intervene as colegislator to implement the fundamental reforms that have become necessary to stabilise the economic and monetary union. A purely intergovernmental solution cannot be the right answer.

The reform of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is a crucial task and one with considerable implications. We are all aware of the value of the single currency to the European project. However, the current fragility of the EMU requires courageous and innovative solutions.

In a context such as this, recourse to ‘eurobonds’ is a course of action which deserves to be explored and debated and not be treated as a no-go area. Nonetheless, at the present time there are many obstacles. We must be aware of the significance, on an institutional, legal and financial level, of the introduction of such an instrument, which changes the nature of the European Union. Counter to what some of its advocates believe, it would mean even greater discipline and rigour.

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I would like to draw the attention of the Council to a problem which is threatening to paralyse the cooperation between the two institutions on the subject of fisheries policy. This is about the regulations for long-term management plans. These regulations lie at the heart of the common fisheries policy. The Council and a majority of the Member States do not accept that the Treaty of Lisbon has given the European Parliament the right of codecision on these regulations. The ministers are acting in opposition to the Council and the Council’s legal service, in opposition to the opinion of the Commission and in opposition, of course, to the will of the European Parliament. The Council currently has two management plans which cannot be adopted. The Commission cannot submit further plans, which are urgently needed in the interests of our fishermen and our seas and which have long since been completed and are lying in a drawer. This situation is unacceptable. I am calling on the Belgian Presidency and the future Hungarian Presidency to start negotiations with Parliament immediately, so that we can find a solution. We are ready to begin discussions. Thank you very much.

  Edward Scicluna (S&D), in writing. – Let us remind ourselves that the eurozone crisis is mainly a sovereign debt crisis which has been exacerbated by two significant events. One is the bail-out of private financial institutions, whereby private debts were taken over by sovereign debt, and the other is the stimulus packages used by governments to slow down the economic decline. We ignore these two events and treat all countries as if they were a reckless happy-go-lucky group lazing in the Mediterranean sun. Any mechanism we put in place to deal with crisis prevention and recovery should bear in mind that, in normal times, countries were duly following plans to reduce their deficits and subsequently their debts. Errant countries were the exception and not the rule. By all means, let us increase the surveillance mechanism and put some reasonable sanctions in place, but we should not lose sight of what we want to achieve in the medium term: growth and employment. These goals are not achieved by sanctions and imposed austerity measures. They come about when we understand how imbalances are created and reduced, and we work together to achieve these goals. This is what the citizens of the EU expect from us.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Council meeting due to take place on 16-17 December will debate and adopt the measures required to reinforce the economic pillar of the Economic and Monetary Union and consolidate the EU’s financial stability. In this context, we must also examine the measures required to ensure that the European banking system can finance the European economy, especially small and medium-sized enterprises.

Europe’s citizens expect more robust measures from the EU institutions aimed at not only bringing financial stability but also, in particular, at returning to sustainable economic growth.

In 2008, 116 million European citizens were exposed to the risk of poverty and social exclusion. This number rose due to the economic and financial crisis, with young people and the elderly being the groups most exposed to the risk of poverty and social exclusion.

European citizens’ main concern is still about keeping their jobs and ensuring a decent living. The economic and financial crisis has had a major impact on national budgets and caused a decline in education, healthcare and social protection systems It is time for the EU to adopt the measures required to ensure sustainable economic growth through investment in an industrial policy which creates jobs and guarantees competitiveness, as well as through adequate investment in research, education and health.

(1) See Minutes.

6. Citizens’ initiative (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Zita Gurmai and Alain Lamassoure, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative (COM(2010)0119 – C7-0089/2010 – 2010/0074(COD)) (A7-0350/2010).

  Zita Gurmai, rapporteur. − Madam President, the European citizens’ initiative is a unique opportunity. It is the first time that European citizens can get together and let us know, with one strong voice, if they think that we, the European decision-makers, are not doing our job properly or missing out important issues.

We badly need this. In a time when only 42% of the people who are entitled to vote in European elections take the time to actually vote, every new European instrument – especially an instrument like the ECI – is of great importance. However, we realise that the high expectations that surround the ECI may lead to disappointment and frustration. We can avoid this with a regulation that provides for its safe and efficient use, and we can help to bridge the famous gap between ourselves and European citizens. I would like to welcome the citizens here as well.

Mr Lamassoure, Ms Wallis, Mr Häfner and I were all conscious of the huge responsibility on our shoulders. Many points were raised during the discussions and we had to base our work on everyone’s strong sense of compromise. We were lucky to have good partners in this who showed reasonable flexibility and had the same goal as Parliament’s rapporteurs, namely to reach an agreement as soon as possible, while maintaining the quality of our work and making sure that one year after the Treaty of Lisbon we have a regulation for the most citizen-based provision of the Treaty.

I would like to thank Commissioner Šefčovič and the Belgian Presidency, particularly Mr Chastel, and their teams. We should also not forget the Spanish Presidency who contributed to advancing the dossier right at the beginning of the process.

Today we are presenting to you a compromise text which is supported by the Commission and has also been adopted by the Coreper. If we decide to support it and the Council adopts it – which we hope – the regulation can enter into force on 1 January and be applicable 12 months later in 2012.

We are pleased to say that Parliament’s key demands were accepted in the discussions. The admissibility check on an initiative will be based on clear criteria at the point of registration, not after many signatures have already been collected. To ensure the initiatives are well founded and have a European dimension, a citizens’ committee of at least seven members from seven Member States should be set up to register an initiative.

Apart from reducing the risk of unserious initiatives, the citizens’ committee offers incontestable advantages for organisers as well. If the initiators of an ECI are disorganised at the beginning of the process, they have a network and have many language versions of their initiative. They would have significantly less difficulty in collecting one million signatures.

It is clear that, even though the requirement for the citizens’ committee initially seems to be a constraint, it would in reality streamline the rest of the procedure. The Commission will help organisers of an initiative by providing a user-friendly guide and setting up a point of contact. If an initiative manages to collect one million signatures, a proper follow-up will be guaranteed, including a public hearing at Parliament.

The review of the regulation is of crucial importance as this tool is the first of its kind. As per our suggestions, it is extremely useful with regard to the difficult issue of how to verify the signatures. It is up to Member States to do this, but we urged them to demand as little personal information as possible. Member States will have some flexibility in choosing what information is required in each country, but I am glad to say that many of them are going for less data than originally planned. We believe that the regulation reflected in the compromise text is citizen-friendly and does not create cumbersome obligations for, and frustration amongst, the organisers.

  Alain Lamassoure, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, today the European Union is opening up to participatory democracy. It is not yet direct democracy, citizens will not take the decisions themselves, but they do win the right to question directly, publicly, in huge numbers, those who take the decisions in Europe, over the head of their government and their elected representatives.

From now on, the citizens will enjoy the same power of political initiative as that enjoyed here by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. We have benefited, as Mrs Gurmai has said, from the excellent preparatory work carried out by Commissioner Šefčovič and his teams, and from the intelligent and efficient support by the Belgian Presidency.

On the part of Parliament, the text is the result of the work of four rapporteurs, a gang of four, including you, Madam President. We are honoured by your presence.

We wanted to come up with the simplest, most citizen-friendly procedure for the public. Who might participate? Citizens, that is to say natural persons, all citizens, including, possibly, elected representatives, but only European citizens. The Treaty leaves no doubt on the subject.

The right to participate in the citizens’ initiative is now yet one more of the privileges enjoyed by citizens throughout Europe. Who might launch the initiative? It only needs seven citizens in an organising committee, not 300 000 as the Commission proposed, nor 100 000 as the Council envisaged, seven citizens from seven different countries, that is a quarter of the Member States.

Who should be contacted for information if one wants to launch an initiative? The Commission itself will publish a guide to the citizens’ initiative and will set up a specialised point of contact. What is the procedure? Extraordinarily simple. A single request to register the initiative and check its admissibility. The criteria for admissibility? The Treaty, the whole Treaty and nothing but the Treaty, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. What support can be used for an initiative? Any kind of support: political, financial, local, national, European, international, lobbies, NGOs, churches, and so on.

Just one condition: total transparency. Those who are invited to sign must know what lies behind the initiative. So it is up to the citizens to assume their responsibilities. What are the formalities for collecting the signatures? Incredibly simple. Signatures on paper but also through the Internet. Of course, it is only the Member States that can monitor them, but we have been careful, as Mrs Gurmai has said, to ensure that the forms are harmonised to the greatest possible extent.

In the long term, it is a veritable single European system which will have to be adopted in all 27 countries and a third of Member States are already prepared for it.

Finally, what will the political outcomes be? This is a point on which Parliament has been very insistent. Indeed, in accordance with the Treaty, the Commission will be the only judge of whether or not to provide legislative follow-up to a successful initiative. Therefore the Commission must be protected against political pressure seeking to make legislation proliferate at a time when the Union already regulates too much. However, at the same time, the citizens must be protected against the risk that there is no political follow-up in cases where the Commission deems supplementary legislation inappropriate. Hence the creation of two new rights to benefit authors of successful initiatives: the right to be received by the Commission to present their motion and the right to a public hearing, which can take place before the European Parliament itself.

In short, here we have a simple, innovative, democratic procedure. It is now the citizens’ turn to take the floor.

(Applause)

  Gerald Häfner, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. – (DE) Madam President, like all policy, European policy must not exclude the citizens, go over their heads or take place behind their backs. European policy must be made by the citizens, for the citizens and through the citizens. We want to close the divide between the citizens and policy and between the citizens and the institutions. To achieve this, we need procedures which allow citizens to become involved in decision-making and to express their opinions. We have succeeding in creating more democracy within the European Union, but we have not done enough to enable citizens to participate more effectively in decisions and in European debates. Today’s decision on the introduction of the European citizens’ initiative will bring this about. We have held tough negotiations and we have achieved many substantial improvements.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you look at the document which we are voting on today, you will see that wherever there is bold text, and Mr Lamassoure has also just referred to this, this is the text that we have proposed which replaces the results of the negotiations, the original draft from the Commission. You will notice that we have rewritten around two thirds of the text and introduced significant improvements to the document which the Commission enthusiastically submitted to us. I will only mention the most important points. We have significantly lowered the barriers. In particular, signatures will only need to be collected in at least a quarter of the Member States and not one third. Of course, we would prefer signatures to be collected all over Europe, but we are talking here about minimum levels. Most importantly, we have succeeded in almost completely removing the barrier which, right from the beginning, threatened to be extremely unsuccessful and which required an admissibility check to take place after 300 000 signatures, before the citizens could continue collecting more signatures. ‘Almost completely’ means that we have proposed the idea of involving a committee of initiators at the start which will ensure that not every mail which the Commission receives and which has the words citizens’ initiative on its subject line will undergo the full administrative procedure. The initiatives must be reasonably serious. In other words, anyone who wants to collect one million signatures must first involve at least seven countries in his proposal.

We have introduced greater transparency and mandatory hearings at the end of the process. These hearings will take place in the European Parliament in the presence of Parliament and the Commission. They will give citizens the opportunity to explain their concerns. This represents a major step forward. We have fought for this not on our own behalf, but – and we must never forget this – on behalf of the citizens of Europe, their rights and a more effective and simpler process for citizens to become involved in Europe.

There are some things which we have not achieved and many of these are now in the amendments tabled by those on the left. In any case, the negotiations have now been completed. We have reached an agreement with the Council and the Commission. We have had to give in on some points, but the other side has also made huge concessions and we know that the amendments are more about appearance and less about substance. This means that there will be no opportunity to change the results. However, we will be able to do this during the review in three years’ time.

I would like to thank everyone involved, including the employees, the secretariats, the co-rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council, for working together so effectively. I believe that this type of cooperation across committee and group boundaries could be a model for the future. Overall I would like to see a Europe for citizens in which citizens regard themselves as part of Europe and become more actively involved than they have in the past.

  President. − I would just like to say that it was a huge privilege for me to be involved in Parliament’s team in what I regard as a hugely impressive piece of work on behalf of Europe’s citizens.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, rapporteurs especially, one of the most important promises of the Treaty of Lisbon was to bring Europe closer to its citizens.

I do not believe that I need to list here the examples which have shown us, before and after the signature of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009, the extent to which a rapprochement of this nature is necessary. Therefore it is not surprising that any measure that furthers the objective of interesting and involving citizens in European integration is a priority for all the institutions including the Council.

I am therefore particularly keen to be able to address you about the regulation that implements the citizens’ initiative, this flagship innovation of the Treaty of Lisbon as regards improved citizen participation in decisions at European level.

This regulation was, of course, one of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency of the Council as it may be that this citizens’ initiative is the most fitting symbol for the new post-Lisbon role of the citizen in the Union. Through a citizens’ initiative, as the rapporteurs have already said, a million European citizens will be able to submit to the Commission a legislative proposal with the obligation incumbent on the Commission to examine it and express its opinion on it.

We should stop for a moment to appreciate this innovation that we are implementing today which is only the first element, as Mr Lamassoure has said, of participatory democracy at supranational level. Therefore it is not only a first at European level, it is quite simply a first at world level.

Lets us return to the legislative issue we are debating today. I am delighted with the compromise reached on this regulation in the course of the negotiations between the three institutions and, obviously, I too welcome the spirit of cooperation and the will for compromise that prevailed in the three institutions throughout the entire negotiations.

I would, of course, like to thank personally the rapporteurs for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and the Committee on Petitions (PETI), Mrs Gurmai of course, Mr Lamassoure, Mrs Wallis and Mr Häfner for their efforts and constructive contributions to drafting this regulation.

I am therefore particularly delighted with the vote on Monday in the AFCO Committee, which confirmed the text approved by the institutions. If the up-coming vote confirms the same text ratified by the AFCO Committee, we shall be able to consider this agreement at first reading as a model of fast and efficient legislation at European level. How could we fail, in this respect, to extend our praise also to Commissioner Šefčovič for his availability and pro-activeness.

In short, I feel that, on this matter, we have all benefited from the many opinions expressed at the negotiation table. The European citizen has emerged the winner from this trialogue and from this agreement.

I am convinced that the compromise reached between the institutions is a good one, not only insofar as each institution has managed to win what was dear to it, as we just recalled, but also insofar as it will result in a good regulation which will allow citizens’ initiatives to be organised flexibly and efficiently.

On behalf of the Council, I welcome the will of the other two institutions to take account of the needs and the constraints hanging over the Member States in accomplishing the task that has fallen to them, that of checking the signatures which must obviously be genuine signatures, and ensuring that there is no fraud or manipulation when they are collected.

Furthermore, Member States had to be given enough time to adopt those measures of national law necessary for the regulation to be applied. I obviously understand Parliament’s concern to see the citizens’ initiative implemented as soon as possible and it is one that I share. On the other hand, it is clear that there must be national measures if this initiative is to develop along the right lines and therefore enough time must be left for them to be adopted according to the existing regulatory framework.

Indeed, the Council has always considered that the citizens’ initiative, as an element of citizen participation in European decisions, should go hand-in-hand with the other element, that is, the election of the European Parliament.

Finally, to sum up, I am delighted with the compromise reached in the negotiations and I obviously cannot but recommend that you adopt it at today’s vote and I wish the citizens’ initiative all the success that it is predicted to have. I note that the first initiatives are already under preparation and I hope that a great number of initiatives will give fresh impetus and new ideas to European integration.

I would just like to say another big thank you to everyone for your collaboration on this issue.

(Applause)

  President. − Thank you so much for your leadership during the presidency to get this through.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, I am also very happy to be here with you this morning because we have accomplished very good things together. Just one year after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we are holding a discussion on the forthcoming adoption of the regulation on the citizens’ initiative. As Mr Lamassoure said, we are introducing a totally new layer of participatory democracy which will complement the representative democracy in which we operate in the European Union.

But for the first time we are offering citizens an innovative way of expressing their wishes, interacting with the institutions and shaping the agenda of the European Union. I believe it is a very important as a means of widening the European space. It is very important in terms of bringing more European topics to the national capitals and creating European-wide debate. We all know that the European Union needs this very much.

To achieve the potential benefits the Treaty of Lisbon and the citizens’ initiative can bring us, we need to establish a clear procedure. It was very clear, from the public consultations and the consultations with the European Parliament, that we needed a procedure which would be easy, understandable, user-friendly and well-balanced. I think we have achieved this goal. That was really thanks to the in-depth discussions we had, very often here in the European Parliament. I would like to thank all of you for organising a number of hearings, not only in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and the Committee on Petitions (PETI) but also in most of the political groups, because these hearings have been very important for all of us. I can assure you that they served as a very important source of inspiration and new creative ideas which, in the end, helped us improve the initial Commission proposal.

I appreciate also the innovative way in which the European Parliament dealt with this initiative. We had four rapporteurs from two different committees. Alain Lamassoure called them the gang of four. I must say it was a very nice gang. It was a pleasure working with all of you. It was a pleasure for me to receive your new creative input into our common thinking, because each of you approached the subject from a different angle and brought your own experience to bear on how to improve the initial proposal of the Commission. I really appreciate it.

Thanks to this new innovative approach we achieved broad consensus within the European Parliament. I am particularly pleased about the very clear vote in AFCO.

One of the important ideas which came from the rapporteurs was what kind of follow-up we should give to the citizens’ initiative. I believe the idea that an appropriately high-level Commission representative should receive the organisers of the initiative after its successful completion came from the European Parliament. The idea of organising hearings as a compulsory stage during which we could discuss the goals of the initiative more broadly also came from this Chamber.

I would like to stress that we are very pleased and satisfied that these public hearings will be organised on neutral ground, here at the European Parliament, because this will ensure that the Commission will not be in the uncomfortable position of being judge and jury at the same time. The Commission will be represented at those hearings at an appropriately high level, where possible by the Commissioner or Director-General with responsibility for the subject, and will carefully follow the debate.

I would like to assure you, and through you all European citizens, that we in the Commission are absolutely conscious of the importance and the value of one million citizens supporting a particular proposal. We will treat it with respect and great care.

The only regret I have in this debate is that we will need to wait a little while before the citizens’ initiative can be fully used. But we have to recognise that, if we want to offer our citizens an improved service, we need to change some internal rules in the Member States and we have to develop the software for the online collection system. I am sure we will do it in the prescribed time, however, and European citizens will have a chance to use this initiative as soon as possible.

I greatly appreciate, therefore, the fact that we are aiming at agreement on the first reading, because this will allow our citizens to use this new instrument much faster than initially expected.

Let me thank you once again for the excellent cooperation with all the rapporteurs, with Ms Gurmai, with our Chair, Ms Wallis, with Mr Häfner and Mr Lamassoure. As I said, all of them brought very new and very important ideas to make this proposal better than the initial proposal from the Commission.

I would also like to thank personally Olivier Chastel, because he demonstrated his enormous ability for consensus building. I know how difficult it was in the Council, how many divergences he had to overcome, and thanks to his efforts and thanks to the excellent work of the Belgian Presidency we now have this wide consensus also in the Council.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. – (PL) Madam President, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs for drafting the text on which we are going to vote, today. I hope that we will put this mechanism in the hands of the citizens, today, and that it will be further developed by the Commission. I do, of course, agree. It has been made as simple as possible. What we are going to vote on, today, is the result of a compromise – sometimes a difficult compromise – and I do understand that Mr Lamassoure and the other rapporteurs have achieved, on our behalf, a result which is practicable and feasible. Personally, I regret to have to give up the provision which gives 16-year-olds the right to sign an initiative, but I will support the text in the negotiated form, because I am certain that there should be no further delay and that the initiative should be handed over to the citizens.

I am sure we are, in fact, creating this next part of the system, today, in order to act upon something which was said many times in this Chamber by the late Bronisław Geremek – Europe is united, and the time has come for Europeans to be active. Today, we are taking a constructive step in this direction. We are not writing the Bible, here. In three years’ time, the procedures being proposed, today, can be looked at and improved, on condition that they are being used, which is something I strongly encourage people to do.

  Kinga Göncz, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. − (HU) Madam President, as one of the representatives of the LIBE Committee, I would like to join those congratulating the rapporteurs, and would like to thank the Commission for its work, as well as Mr Šefčovič and Mr Chastel for their work in the Council, as they contributed considerably to the creation of a sound and viable text which truly represents a step towards simplification, and which I believe will gain extensive support. There were intense debates, and a multitude of good proposals were tabled. The large number of good proposals also meant that they had to be consolidated, to make the final proposal as user-friendly as possible. Collecting one million signatures is an enormous achievement and requires an enormous amount of work. We would also like to reach out to those who cannot contribute online, but would rather express their opinions on paper. We would be pleased if we could receive feedback, and we would be pleased if we could resolve any problems arising in the process as early as possible. It is certain that Europe will benefit considerably from this instrument.

  Cecilia Wikström, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – (SV) Madam President, prior to the decision to adopt the Treaty of Lisbon, politicians spoke warmly of the opportunity that citizens’ initiatives would bring. We must now ensure that this becomes a powerful reform for democracy and not a paper tiger.

I was the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and I was pleased to table proposals that would make things easier for citizens. For example, we wanted to get young people involved and therefore proposed an age limit of 16 for raising an initiative. An age limit of 18 was decided on, which I may regret, but these are still young people we are talking about. We also extended the time frame to 24 months. Now it has become 12 months, but I am nevertheless pleased to have a compromise, because I am essentially a positive person.

On the other hand, we note that a large amount of work will be necessary on the part of those who submit an initiative, but I hope that we will take up the challenge to ensure that citizens’ initiatives are received with respect and in a constructive and positive spirit in the institutions of the EU.

Finally, I would like to thank all my fellow Members for their excellent cooperation on this important initiative.

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is going to vote enthusiastically in favour of this report, and I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council on this agreement.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the 1980s we coined the phrase ‘democratic deficit’. By this we meant that in the European Union decisions were taken only by the Council of Ministers, based on Commission proposals, and that Parliament was only consulted.

Parliament has been battling since the 1980s, through the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, the Constitutional Treaty and the Treaty of Lisbon, to close that democratic deficit, and I believe that through the Treaty of Lisbon, with Parliament’s new powers and the participation of national parliaments, we have achieved that objective.

We are adding to that achievement today through this citizens’ initiative, which in the work of the Convention was due to the sound cooperation between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. I would like to recall the following names here today: Jürgen Meyer, our German Social Democrat colleague, and Alain Lamassoure, who were responsible for bringing this initiative to the plenary of the Convention and getting it approved.

I therefore believe that we have completed the circle, Madam President. I believe that today, when we adopt this initiative, we will have signed the death warrant of the idea of a ‘democratic deficit’.

Now it is up to us to act responsibly, ladies and gentlemen, and today we also have the opportunity to do so. By adopting the Union budget we will be fulfilling the role that is expected of us: as a responsible Parliament with codecision powers.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think that this is a good day for Europe.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Madam President, Democracy: The Unfinished Journey is the title of a book by a recognised analyst of the theoretical and practical changes that contemporary democracies are undergoing.

We are indeed in the middle of an unfinished journey in which many stages have been completed, but we are in a period of risks, uncertainty and many doubts. However, among those doubts, we do have a few certainties.

The first is that the structure that has endured has been representative democracy: our institutions; without free parliaments based on the will of the people, democracy has never survived.

It is, however, also true that democracy now needs innovation, reforms and changes to improve its quality, while maintaining the structures that have served us so far and the strength of their foundations.

What type of changes do we need? We need to move towards a style of democracy that expands the participatory forum, so that citizens are more than just voters every four or five years. We need a democracy that increases the space for debate, in which citizens discuss, reason and exchange views, and one which increases social capital, in which citizens are no longer isolated and can integrate into the community. We also need a European dimension for this style of democracy.

I think we have achieved that by bringing in legislation for this citizens’ initiative. There are now no longer two types of legitimacy, rather there are two voices for citizens: one is here in Parliament and the other is in the citizens’ initiative. This will give us a stronger, more participatory and more legitimate democracy.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Madam President, I wish to thank everyone for their cooperation. This has been a splendidly straightforward process of cooperation. The citizens’ initiative is a welcome addition to active citizenship. I hope that it will be important for provoking political debate. Not all initiatives gain sufficient support, but they can bring new perspectives to the debate.

Parliament wanted to make the citizens’ initiative as user­friendly as possible, and it has mainly succeeded in this. I am especially pleased that the Commission and Parliament will have to organise a public hearing when a million signatures have been collected. This will compel the EU institutions actually to listen to what the signatories have to propose. At the same time, the Commission will have to justify thoroughly to them its possible negative stance.

I would have been pleased if this citizens’ initiative could have been signed not just by these citizens but also by the people who live in each country, but there was not enough support for this.

The significance of the citizens’ initiative will not be seen until it enters into force. I hope that it will some day provoke a wider debate on EU affairs than has been the case today.

  Indrek Tarand, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ET) Madam President, I am very happy that this dispute, which not long ago seemed to be a never-ending story, has now found a solution. Like the foxtrot with our beloved European External Action Service, this has taken too long. A slow foxtrot makes your back ache, and your partner may end up disappointed. The partner here, however, is none other than our citizens. I hope that this new form of democracy succeeds, and that we do not betray our citizens’ expectations. For me, the saddest thing in the whole debate was that too often we saw distrust towards the citizens, the fear that citizens would come out with brainless ideas. This fear is unfounded, as we will indeed see.

Mr Šefčovič, I would also like the Commission to start to trust its own citizens more. As a representative of Estonia, I want to thank the Council too, which has retained the option of a digital signature, because this is essential for my people. Europe is eagerly awaiting the creative ideas of its citizens. Thank you.

  Emma McClarkin, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, the European citizens’ initiative (ECI) is a much needed sign of engagement by the EU, and is a great opportunity to increase democratic participation in Europe and to strengthen the links between citizens and politicians.

Although the obstacle of the obligation to provide passport numbers remains applicable in two-thirds of the Member States, I and other members of the ECR Group have helped make this citizens’ initiative more user-friendly by deleting the terribly bureaucratic double admissibility check proposed by the Commission and ensuring that the ECI was made available to popular movements and not just large organised interest groups.

Now, truly grassroots initiatives stand a change of succeeding, even if they do not follow the spirit of European federalism. Most importantly, the Commission will be obliged to indicate the exact reasons for refusal of an ECI, as well as indicating exactly how it intends to follow up on a successful initiative. Transparency in this process is key.

It is about time that the European Union began to properly acknowledge the views of European citizens and listen to the voice of the people. I am hopeful that this scheme will engender a greater sense of democracy and of the democratic accountability of the European Commission, and inspire discussion on the future course of the EU.

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen, it has already become clear this morning during the debate on the forthcoming European Council meeting that we have a problem of legitimacy within the European Union. Its roots lie primarily in the fact that policy all too often bypasses the day-to-day interests of the citizens. They rightly expect to be more involved in policymaking. The protests taking place in numerous EU countries are an eloquent expression of this. The introduction of the European citizens’ initiative, which we are voting on today, means that for the first time in the history of the EU there will be an instrument that allows the citizens of Europe to express their expectations and requirements directly, to launch initiatives immediately, to follow them up and to participate directly in policymaking.

The current regulation is good, but my group is of the opinion that it could and should have been even better. Whether the citizens and residents of Europe will really use the citizens’ initiative will ultimately depend on us here in Parliament. How seriously are we taking our self-imposed commitment to support the necessary open approach? Will we be prepared and in a position in three years’ time to stand up to the Council and the Commission about the further development of the initiative? The subjects are already laid down in the current regulation and we want to vote on these points again today. The value of the citizens’ initiative will not be measured in terms of the interinstitutional compromise reached between the Council and the Commission, but in terms of whether it is really used. The fact that today’s result is significantly better – and I would like to thank specifically Mrs Gurmai, Mrs Wallis, Mr Lamassoure and Mr Häfner for working closely together and making such good progress on refining this regulation – is also due to the many members of civil society who have subjected our considerations and our debates to repeated reality and practicability checks. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank them.

I am calling on the citizens of Europe to take the initiative.

  Morten Messerschmidt, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (DA) Madam President, since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force a year ago, an unprecedented amount of power has been transferred to the EU’s institutions, and throughout the past year we have seen how the European Parliament in particular has been in a position to exploit this situation – divesting the Member States of an enormous amount of power.

There were two glimmers of light when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. One of these was the citizens’ initiative. That is also why – on behalf of both my party in Denmark and my group here in the European Parliament – I entered into the negotiations precisely with a view to getting the citizens’ initiative in place, which, in spite of everything, was a tiny glimmer of light in an otherwise very dark and very federal EU.

There have been areas where we have disagreed. Several rapporteurs have already mentioned that someone wants to extend the right to submit a citizens’ initiative to people who are not citizens and someone else wants to be able to decide on the voting age in other Member States and so on – something that we have not been able to agree on. However, the framework that we have now agreed on nevertheless contains positive elements and therefore, in the spirit of democracy and in order to promote the positive elements that, in spite of everything, are contained in the Treaty of Lisbon, my group will also support this initiative.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the citizens’ initiative, as proposed by the treaties and laid down by this regulation, is a parody of democracy. Firstly, it leads citizens to believe that their voice can be heard by the Eurocracy, despite the fact that the latter systematically refused to listen to them when they made it clear, by means of referendum, that they did not want the construction of a European super-state. Therefore start by listening to the public when they say ‘no’ or when they tell you to call a halt.

It is also a parody of democracy in terms of the restrictions on admissibility. Citizens’ initiatives must be in accordance with the treaties and the so-called principles that underlie them. Therefore, in the name of the principles of freedom of movement included in the treaties, there will be a pitiless refusal of any request to protect our economies, a refusal to put any brake on the financialised globalisation whose devastating effects we are now suffering, to reverse in any way migratory flows. Any initiative seeking to halt negotiations with Turkey is likely to suffer the same fate, insofar as we can request the Commission to act but cannot request it to stop acting. If an initiative receives enough signatures, the Commission is not obliged to put it into effect, merely to justify its decision. This is a veritable parody of democracy.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, firstly I should like to pay tribute to the huge amount of work done by the rapporteurs. Ladies and gentlemen, there are some unprecedented moments in the European Parliament. Today is one of them. We wanted to provide citizens with a clear, simple and effective instrument in order to bring them closer to the institutions.

Firstly, we must emphasise the efforts that have been made to simplify the procedure. The registration phase is now quick and clear. It is our duty to disseminate the criteria that an initiative must meet in order to be registered: respect for the values of the Union, respect for the powers of the Commission, in relation to the application of the treaties.

Secondly, I would draw your attention to the one-year deadline for the Member States. The fact that they are meeting this deadline and guaranteeing data protection will send a strong signal to our citizens.

Thirdly, I would like to express my satisfaction over the three-month deadline, over the political and legal arguments and the procedure that the Commission must follow for organising public hearings jointly with Parliament. Certainly, with these three points, it can be said that an instrument will shortly be in the hands of the European citizen that is simpler than expected, clearer than it appears at first sight and supposedly more effective.

Finally, I shall remain alert to the possible perverse effects of political parties financing the initiative and this is something for which I still believe that the citizens will perhaps be in a position to reproach us. Having said that, I count on all of us to sound the alarm at the first signs of it being used for party political purposes because, first and foremost, that is our commitment and we shall vote for an instrument of participatory democracy that belongs to the citizens alone.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). - Madam President, may I start by congratulating you on your contribution as the co-rapporteur of our Committee on Petitions.

As you may know, the citizens’ initiative was a major priority for our S&D Group. Firstly, I would like to congratulate all four co-rapporteurs from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions on their joint work in delivering this remarkable report, as well as on the way in which they negotiated with the Council and the Commission to achieve such a good result. I would also like to mention the very special role played by the Vice-President of the European Commission, Commissioner Šefčovič, and his readiness, openness and commitment to negotiate with both the Council and Parliament.

I am glad to be voting today only a few months after the beginning of the procedure on this unique and key instrument for participatory democracy in the European Union. The European Parliament has contributed a great deal to this text. Two-thirds of the text comes from Parliament, showing once again its constant commitment to involving European citizens in the political debate and bringing the European Union closer to them.

I consider this document to be well-balanced and to contribute to our common goal, which is to give the citizens’ initiative an important role in the practice of European democracy and enhance the capacity of European citizens to make an impact on European policies. Indeed, this instrument is designed to promote in-depth debate throughout civil society. As our group has emphasised from the beginning, this instrument is accessible and simply designed, as well as being clear and detailed in order to avoid creating frustration.

I would like to thank you very much and to wish you success after this remarkable beginning.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). - Madam President, contrary to the assumptions of some speakers, my belief is that the citizens’ initiative was always intended to be able to be used by citizens to request the Commission to propose an amendment to the treaties.

I am very pleased that the final wording of Article 2 of the regulation faithfully repeats the wording of Article 11(4) of the Treaty itself. A Commission proposal to change the treaties is certainly the Commission functioning legally within the framework of its powers, and we all know from experience that it is frequently necessary to change the treaties in order that their objectives can be fully achieved.

So citizens should be bold and fully exploit this great new experiment in post-national democracy.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, as Mrs McClarkin has said, our political group will support this scheme, because it is a good one, and it should be endorsed when the vote is taken. I am pleased that during work on the scheme it was possible to eliminate several features which were a cause for concern. Amongst other things, protection of personal data has been increased and the minimum age for supporting an initiative has been raised from 16 to 18 years. This is a good result.

However, I do have several critical remarks. Firstly, as my colleague Mrs McClarkin has said, it is, in fact, the Commission which is going to decide whether or not an initiative is accepted, and so the voice of the people is still going to be dependent on officials, even if they are acting in good faith. Another matter is that it should be considered whether the 300 000 votes needed for an initiative and the one quarter of the Member States which have to be represented is not too low a threshold. In Poland, an initiative of this kind requires the signatures of 100 000 people. On the much larger scale of the entire European Union – Poles constitute only 8% of the population – I think this is questionable. However, in spite of these doubts, the scheme is worth supporting and the European Conservatives and Reformists will certainly endorse it.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Madam President, I would first of all like to thank both you and the rapporteurs. The work of the rapporteurs represents a significant improvement on the Commission’s proposal.

However, I am disappointed that some aspects of the proposal will lead to people who should be involved being excluded. I would ask Parliament to give serious consideration to the amendments adopted by large majorities in the Committee on Petitions and which we have yet again tabled to the plenary – Amendments 71, 72, 73 and 74. We should ensure in particular that we do not suggest to people resident in the EU who have not attained citizenship that their views are not necessary or not welcome. Similarly, young people should be encouraged to participate in the issues related to EU policies.

In the current situation, not all EU residents – including long-term residents – will be able to sign the citizens’ initiative. Participation will only be open to those with EU citizenship.

The purpose of Amendments 72 and 73, therefore, which we have tabled once more to the plenary, is to ensure that residents’ signatures will be included in the 1 million signatures requesting the Commission to take action.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - (NL) Madam President, I am not sure what to make of this citizens’ initiative. Involving citizens more in decision-making sounds nice enough, although, of course, it would be better to allow the very same citizens to vote on the Treaty of Lisbon in a referendum.

Calling a treaty that has been rammed down our citizens’ throats a dialogue with citizens is, from my point of view, both cynical and ironic. Madam President, I fear that the citizens’ initiative will merely prove to be a giant piece of window dressing. The Commission has carte blanche not to consider proposals. Clearly, the hobbyhorses of the left Europhile elite, who evidently represent a pro-European position, will be accepted.

Or can the Commissioner rid me of these concerns? Suppose we had citizens’ initiatives to stop the negotiations with Turkey or to abolish this House – which, of course, would be fantastic. Will the Commission then take them seriously? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Madam President, the confidence of citizens in the European Union has already hit rock bottom. I suspect that this citizens’ initiative will do very little to change that and that does not worry me, actually, because the more people recognise the collapse of the European Union, the better.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Madam President, as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I have been fully committed to helping shape this new right to political initiative for the citizens of Europe with a view to really empowering the people.

I support the final compromise and congratulate Mr Lamassoure. It makes it user-friendly, simple and accessible for citizens. I welcome especially the transparency as regards both political and financial support. However I regret that financing from political parties and groups is allowed and national politicians are allowed to be initiators.

I do not want to spoil the party here, colleagues, but let us be realistic. There is a risk that the democratic process in Europe could not only be boosted but also derailed, and the citizens’ initiative could be exploited, if not hijacked, by extremists and populists.

I think we all have now to take our shared responsibility and make sure it is really used for the citizens. I call upon elected politicians in Member States to respect the fact that they have representative democracy to express their views and this initiative is for citizens. I call upon the Commission to properly inform citizens to avoid raising false expectations, and to be tough as regards the admission criteria.

I call upon the media to play their role in giving correct information, and on Member States to respect personal data so that the people will feel enough trust to participate. I really hope that we will be able to give our citizens the chance to be part of this debate and enjoy using this instrument.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I am not a member of any of the committees that are directly involved, but nevertheless I have given our rapporteur, Mrs Gurmai, my full support and I would like to thank all the rapporteurs. I believe that we have taken a significant step forward in the process of democratising the European Union.

I know that many people are concerned about a possible misuse of the instrument. However, it is up to us to take into consideration the worries and the problems of the citizens in our policies and then they will not be able to misuse the citizens’ initiative. It is up to us to use our policies to oppose the citizens’ initiatives, if we believe that they are going in the wrong direction. Opposition is certainly more useful than ignoring them.

In contrast to Mrs Corazza Bildt, I think that a good compromise has been reached. I believe that political parties should not use the initiative instrument, because that is what the political parties and Parliament are there for. Of course, it is absolutely right that politicians should not be excluded from the debate. Therefore, I think that this instrument represents a move in the right direction.

It is now up to the political parties to implement the right policies under the watchful eye of the citizens and the citizens’ initiative, to take up the wishes and concerns of citizens, to bring them into Parliament and to enter into a dialogue with the citizens to a much greater extent. This instrument also forces politicians to act more sensibly and to shape Europe in such a way that it really is close to the citizens and not remote from them, which is a criticism rightly made by many people.

Once again, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their hard work. I believe that this is a major step forward for democracy in Europe and ultimately this is what we in Parliament are fighting for: a democratic Europe.

  Tadeusz Cymański (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to add my voice to the expressions of support and approval for this scheme. On the other hand, the expression of certain doubts and comments does not indicate a lack of support, it just reflects a concern that the scheme will be used in the right way. I would like to point out, here, that many of the opportunities, hopes and also fears which are being talked about – Mr Migalski, amongst others, has mentioned this – concern the hope that this tool, which is so much needed and which will do so much to strengthen and extend democracy, will not, in practice, be misused.

Paradoxically, this tool might easily be misused in practice, and not only by extremists, but also by very strong and powerful interest groups, and I say this because we think a threshold of 1 000 000 statements of support is not a big threshold when compared to the Union’s demographic potential. If we point out that a decision to accept or reject an initiative is, however, going to be dependent to a great extent on an arbitrary evaluation, this, too, may attract serious criticism from the citizens themselves. In summary, I think we should accelerate work on the scheme and make it a priority, but what is also needed is for the scheme to be subjected to a very thorough, prudent and sensible analysis.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Madam President, I stand here as a democrat and someone who believes that greater participation in the democratic process is to be encouraged. Let us be honest, there is a disconnect between policymakers and citizens. It is therefore very important that the voice of the ordinary citizen is heard.

The ECI in theory is a sound concept, yet my enthusiasm is tempered with the fact that the Commission still holds considerable power. We also cannot ignore the fact that the mechanics for gathering the signatures for an ECI, even with the requirement for participation reduced to a quarter of the Member States, may mean that it is very difficult for anyone but large lobby organisations which already operate on a pan-European basis to gather these required signatures. This truly needs to be a tool of the citizen and not the NGO.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the Council, I wanted to say that this citizens’ initiative represents a very important step towards the recognition of the constitutional nature of the European Union. Only a constitutional entity, whether or not it has a written constitution, is in a position to provide its citizens with an instrument that has this capacity, and I recognise in our action something of great value: the value of providing the European Union with this constitutional nature.

I also wanted to say that this is a very important step for citizens and for solidarity between citizens. By having one quarter of the countries as a minimum condition for launching an initiative, we are also creating a trans-European and pan-European movement, because it is much more difficult to be taken over by lobbies or by partisan interests. Contrary to what is being said here, it is much more difficult when we require the citizens of seven or eight countries to sign up to this initiative, and I am therefore convinced that it will also be a way of strengthening solidarity between European States, solidarity between the citizens of European States, solidarity that at this point in time, two days from this December’s European Council meeting which will be so decisive, solidarity which we need now more than ever.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, procedure is the stuff of democracy and therefore the implementation of the citizens’ initiative was not merely a technical exercise but imposed crucial choices that made it possible to turn the citizens’ initiative into an instrument effectively capable of helping to build a genuine European political space.

Parliament undoubtedly exercised its prerogatives in an exemplary manner, significantly improving the original proposal. The main results have already mentioned and I do not need to remind you of them. I would, however, like to emphasise another one, to which our group made a significant contribution: European political parties will also be able to promote a citizens’ initiative. This is an outcome of great significance because the fate of European democracy lies at its heart, since there can be no genuine international democracy until European political parties take on an effective role in the democratic process. Today we are taking a step forward in this direction and this is another reason why it is a great day for European democracy.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank all the rapporteurs for the timeliness of the work carried out and the good compromise achieved. As Chair of the Committee on Petitions, please allow me to offer my particular thanks to Mrs Wallis and Mr Häfner in addition to the shadow rapporteurs who – making up a sizeable team – were able to correctly channel all the feelings that emerged in the debate conducted within the Committee on Petitions.

I think we worked in full awareness of the importance of the task we were carrying out. Indeed, the citizens’ initiative is a significant goal in the process of building a Europe of the people, a democratic Europe and a truly participative Europe.

We in the Committee on Petitions worked with this in mind, cooperating with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, applying the procedure laid down in Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure. As many fellow Members and the rapporteurs have emphasised, we aimed to make the procedure as usable, burden-free, transparent and effective as possible.

We worked with this in mind to impose obligations on the Commission and to limit its scope for evaluation regarding the criteria of admissibility that we have introduced. I should like to reassure the fellow Members who raised legitimate and understandable concerns, which we covered during the debate and to many of which we sought to provide responses.

Lastly, because this topic is close to my heart, I should like to emphasise the importance of introducing a public hearing for representatives of a citizens’ initiative, which will be organised by the Commission together with the European Parliament. As Chair of the Committee on Petitions I should like to express my satisfaction because, under an agreement between the parties involved, this task within Parliament is likely to be entrusted to the committee that I chair.

  Matthias Groote (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, firstly I would like to thank everyone who has made this possible and, in particular, the former vice-president Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, who did much of the preliminary work during the previous parliamentary term to ensure that the day would come when the European citizens’ initiative would become reality.

Sometimes the citizens of the EU feel as if Europe and its institutions are very remote. This instrument, the European citizens’ initiative, will bring the institutions closer to the citizens. This is an excellent instrument which will strengthen democracy, involve people more and enable them to take the initiative. I believe that two things will be very important over the next few months. One is creating access, including digital access, to the citizens’ initiative over the Internet in a way which makes it easy to use but is also secure. The second is that if a citizens’ initiative is successful, it should be followed by a legal act. My question to the Commission is therefore as follows: How will we decide in future which initiatives will result in a legal act and which simply in a hearing? Perhaps you could explain this, Mr Šefčovič. I would also like to thank you once again for your work and for the work done by the Council.

  György Schöpflin (PPE). - Madam President, the launching of the citizens’ initiative is unquestionably one of the most important developments in the process of European integration. It constitutes a qualitative redistribution of power within the European Union and has the potential to generate significant innovation in European politics.

The placing of citizens at the same level as Parliament and Council, by offering citizens the right to call on the Commission to bring legislation forward, has far-reaching implications. For one, the new institution creates space to question one of the fundamental features of the way in which the entire integration process has been designed – namely that, from the outset, it has been elite-led. In many respects, this has been very successful but there is equally little doubt now that, without the active support of the citizens, the integration process runs into obstacles. Indeed, there is growing evidence that citizens see the EU as remote, complex and impenetrable. They have had very little reason to engage with the EU because the means of doing so have been absent.

This is what the citizens’ initiative will remedy. It sets up an instrument that has the capacity to bridge the gap between the EU and the demos. It is in everyone’s interest that the instrument should now work and should work as effectively as possible.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to congratulate all the rapporteurs, and especially my colleague and neighbour Mrs Gurmai, for their outstanding work on this issue.

The creation of the citizens’ initiative is one of the most interesting innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon. In my view, it constitutes a new legislative power within the European institutions placed in the hands of the citizens.

In a context in which the feeling of belonging to the Union is still too weak and where rates of abstention at the European elections, especially, are particularly worrying, this new tool will enable European citizens to become fully-fledged actors in European democracy. Moreover, this issue gives rise to huge curiosity and undoubted interest.

Therefore to highlight exclusively the risks that citizens’ initiatives might pose would send a bad signal. While it is, of course, necessary to tackle this provision appropriately, we must not be afraid of the discussions that might arise.

The compromise between Parliament and the Council is perfectly balanced and the question will be, once this text has been adopted, to ensure that this tool comes into force as quickly as possible because the citizens are expecting this of us and this is an important opportunity.

(Applause)

  Carlo Casini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in my capacity as Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I am speaking above all to thank all the members of my committee for their good work, particularly Mr Lamassoure and Mrs Gurmai, who did a great job in achieving the aim of implementing one of the most important changes in the Treaty of Lisbon.

The committee also listened to the opinion of all national parliaments and experts, working in close contact with the Commission – for which I offer my heartfelt thanks to Commissioner Šefčovič – and with the Council’s willingness to engage in dialogue, for which I should like to thank Mr Chastel.

Applying Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure also worked very well, allowing us to work effectively with the Committee on Petitions.

I personally supported the need for an annual deadline for the entry into force of the regulation and this was certainly not to delay its application but, quite the contrary, to ensure that its initial implementation will be carried out comprehensively and conscientiously so that all Member States, without exception, are able to fulfil the requirement to prepare participation and checking instruments.

I believe that the greatest positive effect of the new scheme is to increase the awareness of EU citizenship, which has now been enriched by the power of participation in the legislative process, including providing the stimulus. I am also certain that the mechanisms provided will guarantee easy participation for citizens, while also preventing abuse.

Ultimately, I believe that, with the Christmas festivities only a few days away, the adoption of this regulation represents a nice gift for European citizens and Europe itself.

  Jo Leinen (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I am pleased to be able to speak after my successor on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, because I supported this project for 10 years and the European citizens’ initiative was included in the text of the treaty almost at the last second. Back then, it was the Members of this Parliament and of the national parliaments who took the initiative in the Convention. This opens a new chapter in the relationships between the citizens and the European institutions. All of us hope that this will reduce the distance between people and politics in Europe. The citizens’ initiative is not the cure for all our ills, but it can be a huge help. Above all, I would like to see more openness in Europe, in the form of a cross-border debate on current issues which are of interest to citizens. In my area, the environment, I can think of a number of subjects which could be put on the European Union’s agenda using this instrument and, in particular, on the agenda of the Commission in its role as European government or executive. I would also like to ask the Commission how it is preparing for these future initiatives. We must not disappoint the people.

I would like to thank everyone and especially the rapporteurs Mrs Gurmai and Mr Lamassoure for their excellent work.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - (LT) Madam President, this is a really happy and important day for the European Parliament. I very much hope that we will approve this mechanism which will enable our citizens to participate in creating the European Union’s future, not just electing the European Parliament, but also actively participating in the creation process. It is very important for citizens’ voices to be heard. A few years ago I myself had the opportunity to represent tens of thousands of European Union citizens when I presented a petition to the European Parliament and I am very pleased that at the time the European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the petition. It is a great thing when you feel that your voice, your voice as a citizen, is heard in the European Union’s institutions. There must be dialogue between the European Commission and citizens, and there must not be any situations that would de-motivate citizens. This is a step towards closer cooperation not just between institutions and citizens, but among citizens themselves. This is about recognizing and identifying certain problems and providing a single solution to them, but the process must be safe and transparent and we must apply the principle of subsidiarity.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). - Madam President, first I want to congratulate Zita Gurmai and Alain Lamassoure for this report. I strongly welcome the citizens’ initiative mechanism. It is a very positive grassroots initiative. It will serve to greatly reduce the democratic deficit between the people and the European Union institutions. Notably, it gives citizens a platform to express and propose ideas for European legislation. The need for a minimum of one fourth of all Member States to collect signatures for the initiative ensures that the initiative will represent the need for a legislative proposal by a cross-section of society.

Finally, I would like to stress that it is important to have full transparency regarding the founding of the initiative and sources of financial support for the organisers.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, because their work is going to give European men and women the opportunity to convert their concerns into initiatives in the European Parliament.

Today we are improving democracy, bringing decision-making processes closer to citizens and making them more open and deliberative, always looking towards people.

This regulation is part of the Europe 2020 policy, and is a basic tool for managing the knowledge and talent available in society. It is also going to require us to learn new skills so that we can be more visible as political leaders in virtual communities, in the digital society, and lead in different way that is closer to the people and more human. It is a step towards political innovation, which must help us to be more transparent and restore people’s confidence in politics.

Finally, the citizens’ initiative is going to be an opportunity for the regions to overcome the lack of recognition that they have in the current institutional structure of the Union. I am sure that, with resolve and imagination, the regions will also use this mechanism to bring their proposals directly to this House.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, until the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union was not open to the requests of its citizens, partly because two of its main bodies – the Commission and the Council – are appointed and not elected like Parliament, and also because there was no provision for public participation.

With the entry into force of the new treaty, European citizens can submit proposed initiatives by collecting a sufficient number of signatures. We are somewhat in favour of the regulation, because it improves on the Commission's initial text. The admissibility procedure for the proposal is combined with the registration procedure and is followed by the collection and verification of signatures.

Unfortunately, the report is inadequate due to the lack of any mechanism to verify the authenticity of signatures. This could lead to the submission of false signatures and therefore detract from the popular democratic value of the initiative.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, the citizens’ initiative has many guises. Is it a petition? Yes, but not a freely drafted one. The petitioner is told beforehand what he might ask for, which is something within the competence of the Commission, and what he might not ask for, which is something deemed by the Commission to be lacking in seriousness or contrary to so-called European values.

Is it a referendum? Absolutely not. It has been described wrongly as an example of direct democracy. However, there will be no popular vote involving all citizens. Even if a million signatures should be collected, the Commission will not have to act on it.

It will not even truly be a citizens’ initiative. Ordinary citizens are unlikely to organise themselves autonomously. Only powerful interests will find it easy to mobilise opinion. Most of all, it will be a quasi-democratic cosmetic for an undemocratic institution.

Does that mean we are opposed to it? No. I am confident that concerned opponents will use it to undo the European project.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the European citizens’ initiative is to be a tool which enables the citizens to participate more fully in the life of the Union, and this, in turn, is to strengthen the clearly impaired communication between the European Union and the citizens. Name, address, nationality and signature – I fully agree that this should be sufficient in order to ensure that the person who signs does exist and has not signed twice. Dropping the requirement for identification using an identification document – a decision which, unfortunately, has not been made – could be very influential in creating a citizen-friendly tool.

In times when the protection of personal data gives rise to particular concerns, collecting confidential personal data such as identification numbers may discourage many citizens from signing an initiative. The officials who have been promoting the obligation to present an identification document clearly have not appreciated this matter. Enabling European citizens to submit proposals for new legislation on a matter of social importance is an invaluable part of democracy, and I feel honoured that I can be part of the process of giving this tool to the residents of Europe.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work. We decided to include the right of citizens to request legislative initiatives by the Commission in our European Constitution, the Treaty of Lisbon. Our citizens have taken that on board and have already set the first initiative in motion by collecting over one million signatures. The issue they selected is an issue which truly concerns us all, an issue on which, even without the signatures, the Commission should take an initiative. They have raised the issue of the independence of the EFSA in the face of the interests of biotechnology companies, an issue which Commission Dalli recognised, and have requested a moratorium on crops until reliable control mechanisms can be set up to ascertain the impact of modified organisms on human health, biodiversity and food safety. I call on the Commission to take this initiative.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I too would like to thank our four rapporteurs who have carried out some outstanding work and who have brought significant added value from the European Parliament to the text initially proposed by the Commission.

The citizens’ initiative that we, in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), are on the point of enthusiastically adopting is a major step forward from the Treaty of Lisbon. Let us make no mistake, this instrument can truly change the European political landscape as long as we use it both sensibly and bravely. It can contribute to enabling European citizens to participate directly in the European political debate. It can contribute towards eliciting European public opinion, namely the opinion of European men and women who come together to debate, who adopt a common position and who rally together over truly European issues. However, let us not disappoint our citizens.

Let us urge our Member States to be quick to take the application measures where needed, let us not disappoint our citizens, as the strengthening of European democracy depends on it.

  Judith A. Merkies (S&D). - (NL) Madam President, I, too, would like to congratulate everyone, especially our citizens, and I look forward to us working together constructively.

It is indeed true that we need, in particular, to ensure we maintain a low threshold and that means allowing everyone to participate in a citizens’ initiative. It is therefore unfortunate that young people under the age of 18 have been denied this possibility, because they are precisely the people that we so badly want to involve in politics.

It is also unfortunate that we have left it to Member States to decide whether or not to set up initiatives online. Surely, you cannot expect us to still work with paper in this day and age when having a presence online has proved to be a very efficient tool for organising people, both politically and in terms of their interests.

What is it exactly that we expect we will be able to achieve with the citizens’ initiative? I do think that the Commission should be able to say, at a very early stage, whether certain proposals, such as those that have been put forward here, like the one about abolishing Parliament, will actually constitute a citizens’ initiative or not. What can you do about that? Who will develop these things and when can we expect a legislative proposal?

We politicians live in glass houses. People are allowed to look inside and people will now also be able to drop in and participate. I look forward to some constructive cooperation.

  President. − For those of you in the Chamber who wanted to take part in the debate under catch-the-eye, I will not be able to take any further speakers, but I would remind you that you can, under the Rules, submit a written statement that will be appended to the verbatim report of the debate, so I would urge you to do that if you wish to do so.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, first I would like to thank the honourable Members of this Parliament for their great support for this regulation. I would also like to thank them for the very positive European energy radiating from this House during this debate. As we saw this morning, this year is rather challenging for Europe, but I think this debate has shown that today is a very good day for European citizens and a very good day for Europe. I would like to underline that the Commission wants this important initiative to be a success and we will treat it in a very constructive spirit.

In answer to some questions that have been raised by Members, I would like to assure them that we are going to help the organisers. We are going to organise the contact points, and we are going to organise the helpdesk through which we will advise organisers about what is possible, what is not, what kinds of regulations are in the pipeline, what kinds of initiatives are being organised or what kinds of competing or opposite proposals we have received from other organising committees. We will try to be as user-friendly and as citizens’ initiative-friendly as possible.

We take the concerns raised by Ms Corazza Bildt and Mr Casini very seriously. Therefore, during the whole process we will insist on the importance of preserving the institutional balance in this regulation and preserving the exclusive right of initiative for the Commission, because the Commission is responsible to all citizens – not only to the organisers of the initiative, but also to general European interests. This is what we have to follow up in this process as well.

In reply to Mr Groote, I would like to assure him that once the European citizens’ initiative is successful we will follow the procedure established by the regulation. We will receive the organisers at appropriate level – Commissioner or Director-General level – then we will be present at the highest possible level at the hearings organised by the European Parliament. Within three months we will establish very precise reasons in the communication if we want to follow up with legislative proposals, if we need to study the issue further or, should the initiative be too controversial, if we will not proceed with subsequent proposals.

I hope that this new instrument will help us to have a better European debate in Europe and more European topics in national capitals. I hope that the ECI will be a very successful project and that we will see this when we review it for the first time. Thank you for your support.

(Applause)

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. – (FR) Madam President, honourable Members, let me say a few words after Commissioner Šefčovič.

As the debate has shown, this is a fascinating subject. Some questions remain unanswered, not all fears have been dispelled. This is a true compromise.

Let us bring the citizens’ initiative to life. Let us judge the regulation in the long term, as this will obviously allow us to develop its mechanism.

Thank you again for your cooperation. I wish the citizens’ initiative all the best.

  Zita Gurmai, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank my colleagues for all of their remarks. I am very glad that the majority among us is favourable to adding a new layer to our European democracy.

It is completely natural and just to be expected that there are fears, but if we try our hand at something completely new we cannot answer all questions and calm all fears beforehand. However, I am confident that the regulation that we present today tackles many of the challenges that we could imagine during the preparation of the regulation.

We should not be afraid of this new facet of democracy. We shall listen more clearly to European citizens’ voices, and we should not be afraid to do so. This is one of the long-term goals, is it not? We should only be afraid that the ECI is used not in the spirit of the Treaty, not for its intended purpose but abusively or not at all.

We have done our best to reduce this risk in the regulation with the help of Sylvia Kaufmann, who made the first report on the ECI in this Parliament. I would also like to thank Maroš Šefčovič’s and Alain Lamassoure’s whole teams and our other colleagues. I would also to thank the team working for the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union for their cooperation.

I would like to underline that the implementation of the regulation is crucially important and, to this end, I would like to offer my help and cooperation to the incoming Hungarian Presidency.

I am confident that the vote in an hour will support the compromise reached between the European institutions. This is the only way that we can give a nice Christmas present to European citizens: a solid regulation on the European citizens’ initiative. Let us not make them wait any longer.

Thank you very much for your attention and I would like to wish you, and all of the citizens here who bore witness to this, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

  Alain Lamassoure, rapporteur. − Madam President, at this time and hour, everything having been said, I am happy to leave you the last say in this matter, which you know as well as I do.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I wish to congratulate the authors of the report for the outcome of the vote achieved in committee. The citizens’ initiative is of great symbolic value and offers one of the most effective ways of strengthening democracy in the EU. Citizens must find the new instrument easy to use, accessible and credible. I should mention that during the negotiations with the Council, Romania managed to achieve a balance between the initiative’s accessibility and stipulating provisions preventing its abuse. I think that the latest amendments include faster ‘admissibility’ for checking proposals, a lower threshold for the number of participating countries and an easier process for signing petitions. I would like to stress how important it is to regulate this instrument throughout the whole of Europe. We must look for a solution which will encourage the general public’s involvement. With this in mind, communication activities and information campaigns play an important role.

  Dominique Baudis (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The citizens’ initiative is finally to see the light of day. This incredible democratic innovation will lay the foundations for a new European citizenship. It will become the instrument which enables the European public to give direct expression to their concerns on subjects which may be crucial to our common future. The scope for intervention is as important as the extended mandate of the Union. The European Parliament is encouraging rapid, effective implementation. This initiative was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, and it still remained to the European institutions to come to an agreement on practical arrangements. The conditions for organising an initiative, which Parliament wanted to be flexible (a million people from at least a quarter of the Member States, which equates to seven countries today), will give citizens concerned all they need to request the Commission to propose a new legislative text. This will become a possibility next year.

  Piotr Borys (PPE), in writing. – (PL) With the Treaty of Lisbon, we conferred nationality upon the residents of the EU. The next step is for the citizens of the EU to be given the citizens’ initiative. It is a rare moment when a legislative authority or an executive transfers some of its powers to the citizens. This shows great maturity. It is our response to the democracy deficit.

Our work is not based only on representative democracy – it is also based on participatory democracy. Earlier development policy and consultations with citizens in the decision-making process have not always met the expectations of the European Union’s residents. The citizens’ initiative, which is the result of a difficult compromise, has, firstly, ensured full transparency. Secondly, we have simplified the whole system. We have also brought in an innovation in the form of the option to submit statements of support online. Today, major efforts at promoting the citizens’ initiative await us, and these will have to be undertaken by the Commission and Parliament as well as by the Member States. We should also consider if openness to the citizens’ initiative might be threatened by demagogic or populist proposals. I do not think this will happen. Every initiative put forward by the citizens will of necessity involve increased responsibility on the part of the Commission and Parliament.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The Treaty of Lisbon has laid the foundation for the new European citizens’ initiative, which had so far been lacking in the European Union’s decision-making process. I personally welcome this new opportunity, which responds to the frequent criticism that the functioning of the EU has a democratic deficit in its decision-making processes. This new tool enables EU citizens to directly approach the Commission and request that it submit a legislative proposal to address a particular matter. This deepens the relationship between EU citizens and EU institutions, as it eliminates this often-criticised democratic deficit in decision-making processes, and gets citizens directly involved in decision making. In my opinion, the ECI brings European institutions closer to the citizens and it thus fulfils the principle of subsidiarity as a basic principle of the decision-making mechanisms of the European Union. I would also like to mention that the Committee of the Regions has said that local and regional authorities have taken an interest in the ECI. Such bodies could get involved in the process in the capacity of organisers or supporters; after all they are closest to the citizens of the EU. That is just one of many reasons why I support the introduction of the ECI.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I was eager for European citizens to benefit from this powerful instrument as soon as possible, and I am delighted to see the end of the legislative procedure one year after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The citizens’ initiative is a major innovation of the Treaty of Lisbon. It provides European citizens with a new right whereby one million citizens may ask the European Commission to propose a new EU law, thus bringing Europe closer to its citizens. The citizens’ initiative is a valuable tool by which citizens can achieve ambitious results through teamwork – this is the essence of the European project. This initiative will ensure that the Institutions continue to work on the issues closest to their citizens’ hearts, while encouraging cross-border debate on European issues. This is a work in progress and the Commission will present a report every three years on the implementation of the initiative.

  Martin Kastler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Today’s vote on the European citizens’ initiative is a milestone for more democracy in Europe. I welcome the compromise and I will support it, because the report produced by Mr Lamassoure and Mrs Gurmai is the first step in the right direction. Ladies and gentlemen, we must not be afraid of citizens having more opportunities to express their will. We must give the citizens of Europe more codecision rights, not just every five years at the European elections. This needs courage, stamina and strength. Courage to keep returning to the dialogue. Stamina, because decisions cannot necessarily be made more quickly and strength because our representative democracy includes, at last, in my opinion, more participative elements. Our goal must be to increase the dialogue in Europe between the citizens and the politicians. I am pleased that we are moving one step closer to the Europe of the citizens today with the European citizens’ initiative. I am convinced that one day we Europeans will take joint European decisions, in the form of citizens’ decisions.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – How to bring Europe closer to citizens and how to bring citizens closer to Europe is one of the main issues under discussion probably since the beginning of the European Community. The Convention on the Future of Europe worked out the basis for the current Treaty of Lisbon and also laid the ground for the mechanism for the citizens’ initiative. We now have this on our tables in concrete form, and in the very near future all citizens in the EU will have the possibility to bring issues important to them to the attention of European decision-makers. This initiative is one of the strongest measures for uniting citizens in Europe – an initiative which requires joint action, cooperation, coordination and the will to work together for a common European goal. Every voice in society matters, but only a united voice can make a real difference. I call upon the Commission and the Member States to promote this initiative and to ensure that it is easily accessible for everyone. I especially welcome the proposal for joint hearings with the Commission and Parliament. It is highly important that the directly elected European Parliament is closely involved and follows the concerns and issues of citizens.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE), in writing. – (HU) It is very important for citizens to have the opportunity to take initiatives in connection with the issues that have the greatest influence on their lives as soon as possible, in a pre-defined manner and within an appropriate framework. As it is well-known, I am the head of one of the longest-standing representative groups for persons with disabilities in Hungary, the over one hundred year-old Hungarian Association for the Deaf and the Hard of Hearing. Based on the experience I have gained during my work there, I would venture to say at this point already that the work of Mr Lamassoure and Mrs Gurmai will have tangible results in the form of citizens’ initiatives. I note with particular regret that the ‘million4disability’ initiative launched in 2007 by the community of 80 million persons with disabilities living in the European Union, which produced 1.35 million authentic signatures, remained unsuccessful. Such an initiative would now have consequences and results, and I thank everyone for their work in this regard.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – (FI) The citizens’ initiative is a welcome addition to active citizenship. Alongside the actual legal initiative, it will have an important role in provoking political debate.

The scope of the citizens’ initiative, however, is not yet cut and dried. The European citizens’ initiative should be a way to seek amendments to the EU Treaties. With the Treaty of Lisbon, even the Commission has the authority to make proposals regarding this. That is why the citizens’ initiative should also have the potential for formulating initiatives. One might see initiatives in the area of social issues, for example, justification for which could perhaps be found in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The debate on the need to amend the Treaties should therefore not end with a narrow interpretation of the citizens’ initiative: it must be more flexible and take account of the public viewpoint.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The launch of the European citizens’ initiative proves that bringing the European Union closer to its citizens, which was one of the principal objectives of the process of reviewing the Treaties resulting in the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, is more than just a simple abstract notion. The European citizens’ initiative will make a significant contribution to making the European political system more democratic, as it establishes a direct link between Member States’ citizens and EU institutions. Parliament’s text meets the requirements for providing citizens with a simple, easily accessible instrument and the opportunity to gather signatures online demonstrates the ability to adapt to the reality of modern societies. The initiative will offer Europe’s political parties the chance to change from being structures bringing together national parties into organisations which mobilise the will of citizens in joint projects. However, the impact made by the European citizens’ initiative must be measured not only on a European, but also on a national scale. Indeed, the fact that, from now on, a minimum of 24 750 Romanian citizens will be able to join forces to propose such initiatives with other citizens from a minimum of a quarter of Member States cannot be separated from another fact, which is that, according to the Romanian Constitution, a minimum of 100 000 Romanian citizens are required to submit a legislative initiative in a strictly national context.

  Algirdas Saudargas (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I am delighted that barely a year since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, an agreement has been reached on the regulation on the citizens’ initiative. This regulation is a great achievement strengthening the principles of democracy in the European Union. The right to initiate the legislative process that has been given to a million citizens will stimulate interest in EU policies and participation in them. It is very important that Parliament managed to simplify the procedures for submitting and organising initiatives. An initiative will only be successful if it is easily implemented and accessible to all. It must be clear and understandable and citizens must be able participate in it and want to do so. On the other hand, it is also necessary to ensure the transparency in the organisation and funding of this initiative, and the initiative must remain an expression of the citizens themselves rather than political or other groups. I believe that the final text of the regulation on which we will vote today will help ensure this balance. One of the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon is to bring citizens closer to Europe, and the citizens’ initiative will help achieve that by establishing this new unique form of citizen participation in politics.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Setting the conditions for the functioning of the European citizens’ initiative was a complex process of negotiation and compromise and involved many debates in the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The not-for-profit sector was also involved. During the debate, certain problem areas became apparent, such as how to maintain the European dimension of the initiative, transparency, the method for collecting signatures, and other procedural issues. However, the most important issue is the general approach to the citizens’ initiative. If we are to make the most of this new resource, then we must not be afraid to put a stop to the open debate and actually put it into practice. Yes, there will be populist and thorny issues, but that is why it will be so important to have the registration process for an initiative before any signatures are collected. This process will assess whether or not proposals meet with the basic values of the European Union. As shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Culture and Education, I welcome the compromise that has been forged, especially the reduction of the minimum number of countries needed to register an initiative to one quarter of the Member States, and the fact that the European Parliament will play an active role in the public hearing of successful initiative proposals. Of course, I am of the opinion that elected representatives should also have the opportunity to get involved in the organisation of the initiatives. I firmly believe that the European citizens’ initiative will, in future, become a true expression of European citizenship.

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

7. Voting time

  President. – The next item is voting time.

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

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to intervene under Rules 146 and 148 of our Rules of Procedure, on the subject of multilingualism and the deterioration of multilingualism within the European Parliament.

I am taking advantage of the fact that the resolution on the work programme of the European Commission, plus Amendments 19 to 28 have not, at 12.40, been translated into French to draw your attention to the unacceptable deterioration of multilingualism in the European Parliament.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you. We will bear this in mind in future and pay attention to such matters. This is something which is very important.

7.1. Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for the Lifelong Learning Programme, for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and for Palestine (A7-0367/2010, Reimer Böge) (vote)

7.2. Draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 as modified by the Council (vote)

– Before the vote on Amendment 13:

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to make the following explanation on behalf of our group about Amendment 13. This is an amendment which my colleague Mr Färm tabled to the Committee on Budgets on behalf of our group. We have not tabled this amendment again, but the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has retabled it with 40 signatures. We will abstain from voting on this amendment. However, I have come to an understanding with the Greens about this and we are of exactly the same opinion. As we have said that we, as a group, will not table any new amendments, we are abstaining. However, I would like to make it quite clear that we support this point, the financial transaction tax, and we hope that the Members on the other side of the House will support us on votes in the near future.

7.3. Parliament's position on the new 2011 Draft Budget as modified by the Council (A7-0369/2010, Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska and Helga Trüpel) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I think the Members should be given a word of explanation. We are voting on the draft presented to us by the Council, with no changes, because this draft is exactly the same as the position which the Committee on Budgets adopted last week. It is in accord with what we negotiated during the very long negotiations, which lasted for 10 months.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank in particular the specialist rapporteurs from the European Parliament committees. Thank you for your unceasing confidence and support. Thank you for making it possible for us to adopt the 2011 budget, today, so that it can be put into effect efficiently at the very beginning of January next year.

– After the vote:

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, Parliament has therefore approved the Council’s position on the 2011 draft budget without amendments. Clearly I cannot but be pleased, on behalf of the Council, with our common agreement on the 2011 budget.

(Applause)

  President. – Please listen to this statement. It is important. For the first time in history, we have applied the procedure set down in the Treaty of Lisbon. Last year, we followed a simplified procedure. This was the first time the full procedure of the Treaty of Lisbon has been followed. Therefore, I would like to make the following statement. The European Parliament has adopted the Council’s position of 10 December 2010 on the draft general budget which was presented by the Commission on 26 November 2010. The budgetary procedure has been completed in accordance with Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with this article and point 4(a) thereof, I declare that the budget for the year 2011 has been definitively adopted, and I will now sign the document officially.

Dear Colleagues, I shall say a few words at the end. I would like to thank and congratulate all the colleagues on the European Parliament’s Conciliation Committee, 27 people, for their hard work and for achieving a positive result in the end.

I would like to ask three key players to come here for a photo opportunity: Alain Lamassoure, Chair of the Committee on Budgets, and the two rapporteurs, Sidonia Jędrzejewska and Helga Trüpel.

(Applause)

Let me also express my gratitude to the Presidency of the Council, the Belgian Presidency, for its excellent cooperation and activity, especially to Prime Minister Yves Leterme and State Secretary Melchior Wathelet, who are not here at present. You were very active on behalf of the Belgian Presidency.

Let me also thank Commission President Barroso, who is not present, and Commissioner Lewandowski, for preparing the budget and for facilitating today’s agreement. Please come forward for this short photo opportunity.

(Applause)

8. Award of the Sakharov Prize (formal sitting)

  President. − Dear President-in-Office Chastel, dear High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission Lady Ashton, dear guests,

(PL) The Sakharov Prize is a symbol of the European Parliament in the fight for respect for human rights throughout the world. The empty chair standing in the middle of our Chamber testifies to how very much this is needed and how very necessary it is to draw attention to the most important examples around the world, today, of people who are fighting for freedom of expression. I did write to the President of Cuba to ask him to allow Mr Fariñas to come to Strasbourg, but unfortunately this did not bring the desired result. On Friday, there was a similar empty chair in Oslo, meant for the imprisoned Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo. On previous occasions, other winners of the Sakharov Prize – Hu Jia from China and the ‘Ladies in White’ from Cuba – have not been able to receive the award in person. Oleg Orlov, who was presented with the Sakharov Prize last year on behalf of Memorial, is not with us, today, although he was invited to the ceremony.

Ladies and gentlemen, Guillermo Fariñas has been awarded the prize for his fight to restore freedom of speech in Cuba. For years, he has actively opposed censorship, has risked his life and health, and has gone on hunger strike 23 times. He has spent 11 years in prison. Recently, while on hunger strike, he was close to death, but just then opposition figures and prisoners of conscience in Cuba began to be released. Great credit is due, here, to the Catholic Church. Just as was once the case for us in my country, the Church is filling the role of institutions of civil society for the people of Cuba. Unfortunately, 11 people are still in prison, and among them are the husbands of some of the ‘Ladies in White’. Here and now, on behalf of us all, I call for their immediate release.

(Loud and sustained applause)

I quote from the resolution we adopted in March, in which we call on the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commissioner for International Cooperation immediately to begin and to organise a dialogue with Cuban civil society and with those who support a peaceful transition in Cuba. We still have before us, today, a debate on the Andrikienė report on human rights in the world 2009 and EU policy on the matter. We will, therefore, be able to find out what Mrs Ashton’s plans are for strengthening Union human rights policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, despite the fact that people such as Guillermo Fariñas are being persecuted and imprisoned, their voice cannot be silenced. The role of the European Parliament and the role of every one of us is to strengthen that voice. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that in a moment we shall listen to a message, a short speech, which has been recorded for us by this year’s winner of the Sakharov Prize, Guillermo Fariñas. This point should be the moment at which the certificate is presented to the laureate. Unfortunately, I shall be forced to place the certificate on the empty chair, but I hope you will permit me, on behalf of us all, to wish our laureate much strength and health, success in the fight for liberty and, finally, that he will be able to come to us here in the European Parliament in the future and receive his certificate and the prize in person. Thank you very much.

(Loud and sustained applause)

  Guillermo Fariñas (PPE). – (ES) A message to the European Parliament: Santa Clara, 14 December 2010

Dear Mr Jerzy Buzek, President of the European Parliament,

Dear Vice-Presidents and honourable Members of this multi-national democratic forum,

Unfortunately, for want of the tolerance that we so much need on this tormented planet of ours, I cannot be with you as a representative of the Cuban people in rebellion and those Cuban citizens who have lost their dread of the totalitarian government which has been repressing us for a shameful total of 52 years, whose latest victim is the martyr Orlando Zapata Tamayo.

Unluckily for those who misgovern us in our own homeland the fact that I cannot leave and return voluntarily to the island where I was born is, in itself, the most irrefutable witness to the fact that unfortunately, nothing has changed in the autocratic system ruling my country.

In the minds of Cuba’s current rulers, we Cuban citizens are just like the slaves from whom I am descended, kidnapped in Africa and brought to the Americas by force. For me or any other ordinary citizen to be able to travel abroad, I need a Carta de Libertad, that is a Freedom Card, just as the slaves did: only today it is called a Carta Blanca, a White Card.

My deepest hope is that you will not allow yourselves to be deceived by the siren songs of a cruel regime practising ‘wild communism’ whose only desire, after pretending to make ostensible economic changes, is that the European Union and the European Parliament will rescind the Common Position, and allow the regime to benefit from the loans and investments used to help Third World countries under the Cotonou Agreements.

Former political prisoners or prisoners of conscience, recently released by ‘wild communism’, will surely have taken their seats alongside you. It would be a mistake to think that they were set at liberty; they and their families are subject to ‘psychological banishment’, because their nearest and dearest were blackmailed by the neo-Stalinist Cuban Government.

We, the peaceful opposition within Cuba, take a stocial, rational approach to the material or spiritual difficulties we suffer, as we do to the risk of losing our freedom and even our lives, being as we are part of the leastfavoured sector of the population. Here, inside Cuba, we are all suffering, but we do not complain, for that reason we hope to be able to rely on your support.

Dear Members of the European Parliament, I ask you not to give in to the claims of the Cuban ruling elite, unless the following five demands are met:

First: continue with the release, without banishment, of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, and make a public commitment never to imprison non-violent political opponents.

Second: put an immediate end to the violent beating-up and threatening of the peaceful opposition within the country by the regime's military and paramilitary followers.

Third: announce that all Cuban laws which contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are to be examined and repealed.

Four: grant the wherewithal, in daily practice, for establishing opposition parties, mass media not subordinate to the ‘State socialism’ system, independent trade unions and any other kinds of peaceful social bodies.

Five: publicly accept that all Cubans living in the diaspora have the right to take part in Cuba's cultural, economic, political and social life.

At this crucial juncture in the history of my country, you and all men and women of goodwill throughout the world need to pay close attention to the continual social outbursts and protests within Cuba, caused by frustration in the face of the overweening power of a government capable of issuing the order to murder my compatriots.

I hope to God that there will be no unnecessary civil war between Cubans due to a blind refusal to accept that the political model of ‘State socialism’ has been and is a failure wherever there has been an attempt to introduce it: something acknowledged by the historic leader of the ill-named Cuban Revolution himself in the foreign press.

The old men who govern Cuba, in their daily contempt for those they govern, do not wish to understand that they should be public servants, and that all genuine public servants give their compatriots the possibility of replacing them or endorsing them. No person in power should seek to be served by those he governs, as is the case in Cuba.

With our sisters and brothers in the struggle who share democratic ideals, with those who are still in prison, those who enjoy ostensible freedom in the streets, and those who have departed into the harshness of exile, we shall continue our unequal non-violent struggle against the Castrist oppressors, and with the help of God, we will win the battle without bloodshed.

If there is one thing that I do in the company of my dissident colleagues, it is to banish any rancour against my political adversaries from my soul. The fact is – and this makes us better human beings to tackle the task of rebuilding our homeland – that in this struggle I have learned to be guided by the words of the first known dissident, Jesus Christ: ‘love thine enemies’.

I thank the European Parliament for not abandoning the Cuban people in these more than 50 years of the struggle for democracy. In accepting the 2010 Andrei Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Conscience that has been awarded to me I do so because I feel myself to be a tiny part of the rebellious spirit that nourishes the people I am proud to belong to.

I am extremely grateful to you, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament, for this gesture shows that you have not forgotten the sufferings we endure, and thus your gesture brings the light of freedom that much closer to my country.

May God grant that in Cuba we shall shortly see reconciliation amongst His children, and that the country will be blessed with democracy.

Guillermo Fariñas Hernández

Qualified psychologist

Librarian and independent journalist, three times imprisoned on political grounds

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: Stavros LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

9. Voting time (continuation)

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, while I send my best wishes to Mr Fariñas and congratulate him on his prize, I would remind Parliament that one year ago we had representatives from Memorial here, who richly deserved the prize also. Since then, two of them have been arrested and yet Russia has been awarded a prestigious football tournament – the World Cup – in 2018, over and above five EU countries.

Why did the European Parliament not voice its concern? If this prize is to mean anything, you need to stand up against these human rights abuses.

9.1. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Noord Holland ICT/Netherlands (A7-0353/2010, Barbara Matera) (vote)

9.2. Law applicable to divorce and legal separation (A7-0360/2010, Tadeusz Zwiefka) (vote)

- After the vote:

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, a couple of months ago, the European Parliament gave the Council consent for the first time to set in motion an enhanced cooperation procedure. For the first time in the history of the European Union. This is an extremely important step, which opens up a completely new basis for cooperation between a group of Member States of the European Union in situations in which it is not possible to achieve the consent of all 27 Member States. This is a very important decision. We have confirmed, today, that this procedure works well.

I would like to express my very sincere thanks to the Council in particular for the position it adopted as part of its work with the European Parliament. It is an example of perfect interinstitutional cooperation. During work on this resolution, Parliament featured only as a consultative body, while the frequency of meetings and the inclusion by the Council of all the proposals which were put forward by the European Parliament and voted on by the Committee on Legal Affairs – their inclusion in the final document – is a perfect example which augurs well for the enhanced cooperation procedure for the future. I also thank the Council for its strong support for our proposal on conducting a rapid review of Brussels IIa, which is essential to find detailed solutions, for example, to questions concerning the need for a forum necessitatis rule, a matter which allows Member States to retain certainty as to the working of their internal legal systems while at the same time giving our citizens the hope that in the future they will be able to make a free choice not only of applicable law, but also of court. I would also like to thank my shadow rapporteurs from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the rapporteurs from the committees which were asked for opinions.

9.3. Credit rating agencies (A7-0340/2010, Jean-Paul Gauzès) (vote)

- Before the vote on Amendment 81:

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, this is a purely technical amendment, to take into account the date that the regulation establishing the European Securities and Markets Authority will come into effect and the fact that this regulation can only come into effect at a later date.

We should consequently adapt one recital and one article of the text on which we are going to vote. In recital 22, we should cut the second sentence and in article two, I also suggest that we cut the second sentence. This oral amendment has been the subject of an item of information and an agreement by the different groups that signed the compromise agreement. This text we will be voting on today completes the regulation of rating agencies and is part of the European Union’s policy to improve the regulation of financial services.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Barnier and the Belgian Presidency for their very strong involvement in this issue.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

9.4. Repeal of directives regarding metrology (A7-0050/2010, Anja Weisgerber) (vote)

9.5. Citizens’ initiative (A7-0350/2010, Zita Gurmai/Alain Lamassoure) (vote)

9.6. Presentation of the Commission work programme for 2011 (B7-0688/2010) (vote)

- Before the vote on Amendment 7:

  Doris Pack (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like the end of this amendment to be reworded. The wording is very negative and I would like it to read as follows:

The initiative “Youth on the Move” underlines the importance of the above mentioned programmes.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

- Before the vote on Amendment 14:

  József Szájer (PPE). - Mr President, I just want to say that we are withdrawing Amendment 14.

- Before the vote on Amendment 16:

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, this is about the Union for the Mediterranean. We know that it has currently come to a standstill and that we want to revive it. The wording does not express this clearly enough, so we would like to insert the following text:

The current stalemate of the Union for the Mediterranean.

(DE) I know that there is a contradiction here. Perhaps another wording would be possible, but the wording we are proposing is:

The current stalemate of the Union for the Mediterranean.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

9.7. Future of the Africa/EU strategic partnership on the eve of 3rd Africa/EU summit (B7-0693/2010) (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 8:

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, this is only about the correct name, about what is being referred to. It should say in the text: Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. That was what was wrong in the text.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

- After the vote:

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, could you tell us the name of the person in the secretariat who is responsible for the seating plan and whether he or she happens to be in the Chamber?

  President. − I am informed that the seating is done by the political groups in the plenary.

9.8. Fundamental rights in the European Union (2009) - Effective implementation after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (A7-0344/2010, Kinga Gál) (vote)

9.9. Impact of advertising on consumer behaviour (A7-0338/2010, Philippe Juvin) (vote)

9.10. Energy Efficiency Action Plan (A7-0331/2010, Bendt Bendtsen) (vote)

10. Explanations of vote

  President. − Dear colleagues, we have a lot of explanations of votes so we will have to be extremely strict with the time. I will cut everyone off after one minute. I apologise for this but that is the way it is going to be.

Oral explanations of vote

Draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 as modified by the Council

  Ashley Fox (ECR). - Mr President, I want to explain why I voted against the 2011 budget. I voted against it because, in a time of austerity, the EU should show restraint. We should be cutting our expenditure, not increasing it. In my view it was shameful that the Commission initially proposed a 6% increase and Parliament supported that.

I believe that my Prime Minister, David Cameron, did a good job in forcing the level of increase down to 2.9% but we know that this was a compromise. It is not a compromise that British Conservatives are particularly pleased with and I was proud to vote against EU extravagance.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, it is significant that Parliament for the first time had a chance to approve the budget. In subsequent budgetary policy I think that Parliament should ensure that the priorities are that the EU is able to increase its own contribution, that the budget supports material efficiency and policy on climate change through its own choice of policies, and that in this way the Europe 2020 Strategy and a greener economy are achieved.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, like my colleague Mr Fox, I too share the concern, as many British Conservatives did.

At a time of austerity, when governments across the European Union – and in fact governments across the world – are looking to tighten their belt and to rein in spending, how dare we ask for an increase in taxpayers’ money? Surely it is a time to tighten our belts and to set an example. We should not have been asking for an increase, we should not even have been asking for a freeze, we should have been asking for a cut in the EU budget so that taxpayers across the European Union can take their politicians seriously and know that we understand the pain that they are feeling at this time and that we share the pain with them, rather than looking like an elected elite who pay no attention to the people who put us there.

Report: Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Helga Trüpel (A7-0369/2010)

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the right to draw up a budget is the central right of a parliament. This also applies to the European Parliament. Responsibility, trust and partnership are the three key aspects of the cooperation between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The consultation process on the 2011 budget was not a confidence-building measure in this respect. I call on the Commission and, in particular, the Council to respect the rights of the European Parliament, because, as I have already said, the right to draw up the budget is the central right of the European Parliament.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, yesterday I wondered whether I had fallen through a kink in the space-time continuum and ended up in the 1970s. Today I am wondering whether it is the 1770s.

Let me quote an observation that Thomas Jefferson made about remote government. He said that ‘at such distance and from under the eye of their constituents’, governors must of necessity tend to ‘corruption, plunder and waste’. What a perfect description of what happens in the EU budget, with its unapproved accounts, the misallocation of resources, and these constantly rising figures, despite the attempts of the 27 Member States to rein in their spending. It is what happens when you have no link between taxation, representation and expenditure, when the EU expects bouquets for spending money but not brickbats for raising it.

The only way in which we will be able to bring these figures back in line with public opinion is when we restore budgetary responsibility to national parliaments and to national parliamentarians who have to justify themselves to their constituents, who are also their taxpayers.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0340/2010)

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are in favour of the measure and thank the rapporteur, who was very precise.

We nevertheless believe that this work should force the European institutions to continue to monitor future developments in this new discipline, because in the past unclear situations have unfortunately arisen all too often, which have had a negative impact on the financial system, to the detriment of businesses and savers.

We consider it very important to have a new European system for agencies and to supervise all central banking authorities in order to ensure that ratings respond effectively to the modern financial system and are useful to the public. I therefore thank the rapporteur.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the question is: Who monitors the monitoring authorities? Even football referees have to undergo a monitoring or an approval process. If this applies to football, then it must surely apply to the financial markets. Here the process of evaluating the creditworthiness and soundness of financial products, of banks and even of whole countries has been left to the credit rating agencies. However, when these agencies become a monopoly and manage to avoid any form of supervision, then they take on a godlike status and we find them being worshipped. We must not allow this to happen. It says in the Bible: ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ This report is attempting to put the situation right, by introducing supervision of the credit rating agencies. At the appropriate time, Parliament should ask itself whether these measures really have been successful.

Report: Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Helga Trüpel (A7-0369/2010)

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today's vote on the 2011 budget confirms the closing of a new procedure, which, however painful it may have been, showed the responsible and steadfast attitude of the budgetary authorities.

Although it is a compromise solution involving sacrifices by both Parliament and the Council, it has prevented the introduction of a system of twelfths that would have had serious consequences for the funding of European Union programmes.

Parliament is satisfied with the goals we have achieved. However, it points the finger of blame at those who caused the failure of the agreement on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor programme and on flexibility. The Union has in fact lost credibility with its international partners and risks not being able to fund its commitments and not being able to fill the new spheres of action deriving from the Treaty of Lisbon.

Starting from January 2011, we must therefore set priorities and make them financially sustainable for the years to come.

Report: Anja Weisgerber (A7-0050/2010)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the need to modernise measuring systems while improving regulation prompted us to repeal European directives on metrology.

I too am convinced that this is the first step to starting radical and more precise reform in this area. There is also no doubt that we need to agree on a sufficient timeframe to allow Member States to assess the effects of repealing these regulations on their own laws and to make any necessary adjustments.

Lastly, the decision to repeal the various directives responds perfectly to the need for greater simplification, which is particularly keenly felt in all sectors.. We hope, however, that the cure does not turn out to be worse than the disease.

Report: Zita Gurmai, Alain Lamassoure (A7-0350/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon has introduced a key innovation in the democratic functioning of the European Union by providing this new practical tool for civil participation in European debate and integration.

In fact, the European citizens’ initiative introduces a new concept of international democracy and gives the European Union a new form of participatory democracy. All our citizens can apply directly to the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal.

We welcome the proposal from the Commission, since the involvement of civil society and the formulation of policies in decision making strengthen the democratic legitimacy of our institutions and bring the European Union closer to its citizens.

  Oriol Junqueras Vies (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to express my satisfaction at the approval of the European citizens’ initiative, for which I was the shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Culture and Education, while complaining that Parliament has failed to vote on two issues that I consider fundamental: the rights of young people over the age of 16 to sign this initiative and votes for residents.

We know that these initiatives are not covered by the Treaty of Lisbon and these are some of the reasons why we are opposed to this treaty.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, the Danish Liberal Party has today voted in favour of the citizens’ initiative, because it encourages participation by citizens and will make the EU much more accessible. Parliament has succeeded in listing a few standardised conditions to make the citizens’ initiative accessible irrespective of the Member State in question and to ensure that the instrument remains easy to use. However, as a minimum, citizens must come from quarter of the Member States – the number of citizens from each Member State must be at least equal to the number of Members of the European Parliament from that Member State multiplied by a factor of 750, and citizens must be old enough to vote in parliamentary elections. We believe that these conditions are important in order to ensure that the citizens’ initiative also attains the validity that is required for it to be perceived as a serious contribution to the development of democracy.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I would like to say a few words about the citizens’ initiative. It is true that the Treaty of Lisbon meant that we availed ourselves of a new initiative which encourages our citizens to participate in democracy. When a million citizens sign a petition, the Commission agrees to deal with it, but is that all there is to it? In my opinion this is an excellent initiative, but we have to consider how it can be taken forward.

The premise is that our citizens would participate in the democratic process mainly by voting in the elections. That would be a way for us to take forward matters which are important to people. Consequently, this new initiative will obviously perhaps give a boost to citizen involvement, though, on the other hand, I myself see how it could result in a situation where the Commission only replies to initiatives, with nothing concrete emerging. That being the case, we need to rethink how we might genuinely encourage people to take part in political decision making.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, just to add to what has already been said in respect of the support of the Danish Liberal Party, I would like to say that, as already mentioned, this is an extremely important initiative. It is also an experiment, which – and this is what I am calling for – we must monitor very closely and ensure that the three-year period that has now been laid down for this initiative is actually followed up, and we must consider whether it is actually a proper citizens’ initiative or – if I may put it this way – whether it is being used with other interests at heart. It is important for its success – the success that we all hope this initiative will experience – that it is, quite simply, the citizens who take the initiative. In this regard, I would also like to say that I personally hope there will be some forward-looking, constructive and positive issues that citizens wish to raise concerning the EU project, so that it does not continually turn out to be the ‘no’ camp that always monopolises the use of this sort of initiative.

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have been following the legislative procedure for the European citizens’ initiative very closely and I am happy – partly on the basis of the statements by the Council and the Commission – that the first petitions will be launched a year from now.

I am also proud to be able to announce to the European Parliament that in Italy a broad grassroots movement of citizens, associations and committees has sprung up in the wake of the approval of the outrageous directive on animal research. This movement will not sit on its hands this year, but will work to prepare a proposal for the Commission: a proposal to give the European Union modern and civilised laws and that says ‘no’ to animal testing – a cruel and scientifically ineffective practice – while strongly encouraging alternative methods.

Saying ‘no’ to vivisection must be an objective of the European Union, since it is a desire of its citizens.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). - Mr President, I believe that the citizens’ initiative could be useful because it will allow citizens to speak directly to the Commission, but the question remains as to how the Commission will react to proposals it does not like.

I think we can expect a whole host of initiatives asking the Commission to do more, asking for there to be more Europe, and no doubt the Commission will respond enthusiastically to that request.

How will it react, however, to proposals for less Europe, or perhaps for Europe to do things better, or to waste less money, or perhaps a declaration that there would never be any European taxation? I wait to see with interest how the Commission reacts to those proposals. Will it treat those proposals with respect? If it only responds to the proposals it likes, then this initiative will be redundant.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was happy to vote for these proposals, and I think that the two rapporteurs have done a very good job, not only for the European Union but for our citizens in general.

The citizens’ initiative was a very important part of the Treaty of Lisbon being passed in Ireland a little over a year ago, but it did seem for a while that the whole process would be stymied by complication and regulation. Thanks to the work of the rapporteurs, simplification has been brought to the process and particularly welcome is the idea that a seven-member panel from seven different countries would initiate the process. I think this and other measures will ensure that genuine citizens’ concerns can be brought forward while hopefully stopping those of vested interests.

(GA) I would like to end, therefore, with a proverb from my own language that says that a good start is half the work. A good start has been made here.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, this is really a sham of democracy, is it not? It is such a shame that you did not actually want to hear the people of Europe before you implemented the Treaty of Lisbon which has brought in this citizens’ initiative.

To answer Mr Fox a few moments ago: after the first phase of this, the Commission could decide that it is not a worthwhile exercise. That is the problem with this, because it has no binding mandate. It can just be disregarded by the Commission. Once again we see the European Union not taking into account the wishes of the people of Europe. For Christ’s sake, please listen to the people because they do not want this.

Motions for resolutions RC-B7-0688/2010

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I welcome and voted for the Commission work programme for 2011.

The financial crisis is the big challenge, and it has to be met head on. I wish the Commission well in terms of the goals that it has set out. As regards the euro, it is absolutely crucial, from the point of view of the integrity and the cohesion of the Union, and from the point of view of solidarity within the European Union, that we have the common currency and that we do everything possible to protect it.

As regards jobs and the economy, I welcome the fact that in January 2011 the Commission will adopt its first annual growth survey. That annual growth survey will analyse the economic situation of the Union, including potential imbalances and systemic risk. This is essential to Europe’s transformation into a smart and sustainable economy.

Last, but by no means least, we are a Community of 500 million people. We have got to punch above our weight on the European stage and the world stage internationally. I wish the Commission well in the year ahead.

  Philip Claeys (NI). - (NL) I have voted against this motion for numerous reasons, but the most peculiar paragraph is the one which states that, according to this Parliament, Member States should be required to spend 0.7% of their gross national income on development aid and that the Commission should ensure compliance with that obligation.

Apart from the question as to whether or not development aid makes any sense, this also constitutes a serious breach of the principle of subsidiarity. Another peculiar thing is paragraph 52 where the Commission is being urged to take advantage of the momentum, as it were, for the enlargement process. Can somebody tell me which momentum? Are you talking there about Turkey’s constant provocations or the massive human rights violations in that country, not to mention the ever-increasing islamisation?

Motions for resolutions RC-B7-0693/2010

  Philip Claeys (NI). - (NL) There are certainly a couple of good things in this resolution, such as the condemnation of President Mugabe, who is a criminal, participating in the Lisbon Summit, and the reference to the harmful consequences of brain drain from the African continent.

The resolution also rightly emphasises the crucial role of the development of agricultural capacity. On the other hand, we really have to get rid of that absurd 0.7% standard. The USD 1 billion of development aid that has flown to Africa for 60 years has served only to plunge this continent further into misery. Instead of granting ever more aid, we need to put our energy into combating illicit capital flight, amongst other things, which is something that this resolution has highlighted anyway.

Neither was I impressed in any way by the paragraph on migration, which is why I ultimately voted against.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, when we look at the poor state that we see many African nations in, of course we in the EU and in the different Member States of the EU all want to help them out of poverty, but I think we should be more sensible about our use of aid. When there is a disaster it is absolutely right that aid plays a vital role in the short term but when we are looking at long-term development sometimes our aid is misallocated.

Surely it is not right for our taxpayers in different Member States of the EU to be sending money to governments in Africa who are not governing their country in a decent way and that money does not flow down to those who really need it. The best way to help development is to help the entrepreneurs in poorer countries who can create wealth in their own communities and take their own friends and neighbours out of poverty.

Let us open up our markets, let us aim our aid at encouraging trade and development rather than just aid money.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, along with a number of Members of this House I recently attended the ACP Summit in Kinshasa, officially the second worst country in the world. The UN runs an index of happiness and it places the Democratic Republic of the Congo above only Zimbabwe. But, of course, the Congolese, unlike the Zimbabweans, cannot tell themselves that things would improve if only there were a change of government: they have had their multi-party elections, their internationally approved constitution, and so on.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo exaggerates and concentrates the tragedy of Africa. You can, I think, blame the colonial experience there with somewhat more force than in neighbouring countries, without wanting to rehearse the whole tragedy of the Congo Free State. There is, of course, the curse of natural resources, which breaks the link between taxation and expenditure, and makes politics a scramble for honour and wealth. But, above all, there is the heterogeneity, the lack of national feeling, the lack of linguistic or ethnic unity of purpose. ‘If you love your country, pay your taxes’ said a plaintive sign in Kinshasa. Of course nobody does.

You can, I am sure, guess why I am mentioning this. The President of the European Council said that patriotism leads to war. Well I would love to bring him to a place where there is no patriotism whatsoever, and see what it leads to.

Motions for resolutions RC-B7-0688/2010

  József Szájer (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, we all know that as a result of the financial crisis, the state pillar of the pension system, which offers a greater degree of security, is becoming increasingly attractive in several European countries. Many countries are reviewing their own systems, and are making efforts to reinforce the state pension system. Although the pension system is a matter that essentially falls within the scope of national competence, the direction that debates take on these issues in Europe is still important. I therefore welcome the fact that point 30 of the Decision on the Commission work programme, which was adopted now with the support of the three largest popular, social and liberal groups within the European Parliament, highlights that the first, that is to say, the state pillar of the pension system needs to be strengthened. My home country, Hungary, took an important step in this appropriate direction with the act adopted yesterday. The pension debate within the EU, concerning the white, and subsequently the green papers, must continue in this spirit, this is what the European Parliament is calling on the Commission to do, and I am therefore very pleased with this proposal.

Report: Kinga Gál (A7-0344/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the new institutional framework introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon stresses that the effective protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms underpin democracy and the rule of law in the European Union.

I supported this report because I am certain of the need for a new internal human rights policy for the Union that is effective and comprehensive, and which ensures effective accountability mechanisms, both at national and EU level, to address the numerous violations we see every day.

We wish to stress that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has radically changed the face of European Union law. The Charter of Fundamental Rights now has the same legal force as the Treaties and represents the most modern codification of fundamental rights, offering a good balance between rights and solidarity, and encompassing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as well as third-generation rights.

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I decided to vote in favour of this report not merely because this was a decision taken by my political group, but also because I am absolutely convinced that this report is of great importance in institutional terms and is necessary at a time when Parliament's powers are defined but taking time to organise.

We clearly wished to make our first approval of the budget under the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon a significant event. It was therefore necessary for all of us to establish a common position; hence the rapporteur’s efforts to find compromise amendments to prevent the decisions that will only mean it takes longer to come to a definitive line on the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

I therefore thank Mrs Gál for her work and hope that this report will lead to a collective improvement in the activities of European institutions.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, firstly I want to congratulate Mrs Gál on this excellent report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union. This, however, is just a report. We have to remember that we still have much to do within the European Union. Unfortunately, not everyone’s fundamental rights are being implemented in practice, even if in theory people say that they are. We have an example in the huge Roma minority, whose fundamental rights are not being implemented in all respects.

We also have problems with freedom of opinion. It is for the sake of freedom of opinion that we awarded the Sakharov Prize to a Cuban dissident, but we also still have problems within Europe. Not everywhere can people speak freely or make known their opinion. We have a concrete example of that in one of fellow Members here in the European Parliament, who goes around surrounded by security guards because he has to fear for his own safety. We must stand up for fundamental rights in Europe and fight to ensure that everyone has freedom of expression in the European Union.

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is well known that the activities of the Italian Government represent a constant violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We only need to think of the agreement between Italy and Libya, which succeeded in infringing dozens of articles of the Charter, or the proposed ‘bavaglio’ law that set out to gag the press and the legal system.

We are talking about a government supported by a parliament elected in an undemocratic manner, without allowing citizens the chance to express a preference, a government that yesterday won a vote of confidence with votes from the opposition benches from Members of Parliament who publicly admitted that they had been approached with promises of standing at future elections and cash for votes.

(The speaker was interrupted by a heckler)

The facts prove that corruption has taken place. This is business as usual for the corruptor Mr Berlusconi, as the final judgments handed down in the Mondadori and Mills cases reveal.

(Do not tell me the European Parliament is letting fishwives in now?)

On 9 December, the European Parliament celebrated International Anti-Corruption Day. Yesterday, the Italian Parliament launched its first day in favour of legalising the corruption of MPs.

  President. − Ms Ronzulli, sit down and stop talking please. This is not appropriate in the Chamber of the European Parliament. You do not have the floor and you may not disrupt other speakers in this way. Please respect this. Ms Alfano, please continue. I shall give you another 30 seconds.

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). - (IT) Mr President, on 9 December, the European Parliament celebrated International Anti-Corruption Day. Yesterday, the Italian Parliament launched its first day in favour of legalising the corruption of Members of Parliament.

  President. − Ms Ronzulli, this is the last time I am going to say this to you. If you stand up again and interrupt the sitting, I will ask you to leave the Chamber. Is that clear enough? Do not do it again.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon one of the most crucial new areas for our citizens’ well­being is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, now binding on us all. The next step is for the different EU institutions to focus on the monitoring and promotion of fundamental rights in all the Union’s policy areas and in all Member States, in a way that is binding and effective as possible.

To achieve this, it is important that individuals as well as the different institutions work to ensure that the Directive on equal treatment, which at present has run aground in the Council, is taken forward and that, as a result, we acquire the legally binding means to intervene in cases of discrimination in Member States.

May I also say that it is especially important to intervene in cases of tacit, as well as blatant, discrimination. Tacit discrimination affects older people, for example.

  Philip Claeys (NI). - (NL) Mr President, I have, obviously, voted against this politically correct report. As a Flemish nationalist, I find it totally unacceptable that this Parliament should automatically equate nationalism with xenophobia and discrimination.

The proposal to complement infringement procedures against Member States with a procedure that will block certain policy measures, until such time as the Commission decides whether or not to initiate formal infringement proceedings, is downright dangerous. This boils down to nothing short of keeping tabs on Member States and this situation is unacceptable.

In the future, the European Commission will be able to block an effective deportation policy and, in so doing, it will far overstep its authority. Implementation and exercise of these tasks should be left to individual Member States, not to the European Commission.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, in an appendix to 1984, George Orwell wrote a chapter on ‘newspeak’ and he talked about how language could be vitiated and changed, and thereby change our thought. The example he gave was the word ‘free’. He could only envisage the word ‘free’ being used in newspeak to mean this dog is free from lice, this field is free from weeds; so the concept of intellectual or political freedom disappeared, because there were no words to express it. It was an uncannily prescient example, because that is more or less what has happened to the word free in our lifetime.

It used to mean a freedom against state coercion: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship; it now means an entitlement. I have a freedom to work; I have a freedom to use the national healthcare system or whatever. This report on human rights has moved from the concept of rights as a guarantee of personal liberty to a right as a claim on everybody else. Instead of guaranteeing our rights to be treated equally, it asserts our rights to be treated differently. There is not a crisis of human rights in Europe, there is crisis of democracy; and we do not tackle that crisis by shifting power from elected representatives to unelected jurists.

***

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I apologise for what happened earlier, but as an Italian I cannot stand a certain type of attitude. I am fed up because Mrs Alfano continues to use up minutes of the explanations of vote to tell lies and distort what is really happening in Italy. A vote of confidence took place yesterday in the Italian Parliament on a uninominal basis and under absolutely democratic conditions. I therefore waive my explanation of vote, declaring that I voted in favour of the report by Mr Juvin.

Report: Philippe Juvin (A7-0338/2010)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too am convinced of the important role that advertising can play in stimulating competition and competitiveness between businesses to increase the choice offered to consumers.

Europe must nevertheless succeed in applying tougher regulations to a sector that otherwise risks becoming increasingly invasive, particularly as a result of the use of new technologies It is in fact increasingly common for consumers to provide sensitive data without being aware of the results that may be derived from them.

This is why I welcome the report by Mr Juvin, particularly because of its focus on the most vulnerable individuals, such as children, who are not capable of independently assessing commercial offers presented through increasingly aggressive advertising.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, advertising is often a useful source of information for consumers and helps them to make sensible choices. The industry has also engaged in excellent self-monitoring procedures as regards codes of ethics, which determine what kind of advertising is permissible and good.

In recent years, however, this practice has fallen by the wayside, as we can see, for example, in how children are used as well as in advertising targeted at children. It is for that reason that I believe that Parliament should intervene in this matter, and at a later stage use this excellent report as a basis for examining whether the directive needs to be revised and made more stringent.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, advertising is a crucial part of a well-functioning internal market to foster competition and give choice to consumers. I voted in favour of the report on advertising. It does not propose new legislation or regular advertising nor does it control or limit the Internet.

The report contributes to raising awareness on the need for responsible advertising to combat unfair commercial practices in advertising and to respect consumers’ personal data and privacy.

I call on the business community to take their share of responsibility with self-regulation, with voluntary actions to avoid misleading, hidden and intrusive advertising. I especially appeal for children to be freed from advertising. Stop using Batman, Spiderman and Bamse against our children.

Report: Bendt Bendtsen (A7-0331/2010)

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I welcome the Bendtsen report, and I voted for it. We must emphasise energy conservation as a way of reducing energy demand and therefore of achieving energy efficiency throughout the European Union. We frequently discuss the renewable energy sources, but it is very easy to forget our electricity consumption. I voted for this report because it is extremely important. I want to congratulate the rapporteur.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). - Mr President, we have some interesting aggression from our Italian colleague up here.

Last week a lot of people travelled a long way to Cancún, but they did not move far in the fight against climate change. With today’s votes on energy efficiency, we actually took a step forward. As this report rightly points out, energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and fastest way to reduce CO2 emissions. Yet the measures being undertaken in the Member States are far from enough. On the basis of our current efforts, we will only make it half way to 20% by 2020. That is why we need the binding target on energy efficiency. This report contains many of the solutions. Now they need to be implemented. I would like to thank Mr Bendtsen and congratulate him on his excellent work on this report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - (LT) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Mr Bendtsen on this very important report on Revision of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan. I voted in favour of it because I believe that it is important not just due to economic considerations, but also in light of the Cancún conference. We did succeed in reaching some common ground there, and thus the most important thing is to continue the work the European Union had begun at home to reduce CO2 emissions. Energy efficiency is one of the most appropriate routes. The Member States must have effective national action plans in this area, including financial mechanisms. There needs to be agreement between the Member States and the European Commission on specific assistance. All Europeans would benefit from decisions like today’s, because we are talking about many independent areas – transport, new technologies and the efficiency of buildings, manufacturing and transfer infrastructure. This document is a collection of measures, aimed not just at protecting the environment, but also assisting national economies.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I also voted for this report on energy efficiency by Mr Bendtsen. In the European Union the Europe 2000 programme has also committed us to energy efficiency, energy savings and the use of renewable energy sources. We have to remember, however, that when we set these sorts of targets for ourselves, everyone has to commit to them. This has been a problem across Europe: there have been good targets, but Member States have not been committed to them.

Of course, it is to be hoped that when we talk about the efficient use of energy it will not just be confined to Europe but will apply more widely. Obviously, there is no case where energy efficiency and savings can be allowed to be an obstacle to competitiveness: we must also ensure that we can compete in global markets, thereby ensuring prosperity and competitiveness in Europe. As I said, it is important to adhere to the commitments that we have made.

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the European Union cannot back down from the energy challenge that will decide the fate of the planet.

We must dispel the myth that the economic development of a country is closely tied to an increase in energy consumption. Europe must pioneer a new sustainable economic model, based on lower use of resources, including energy, with greater productivity. We must therefore break the link between economic growth and an increase in energy sold to industries and the public and instead link it to an increase in energy services that create employment and energy efficiency.

For these reasons, I believe that energy efficiency represents a priority for the future of the EU, in both economic and environmental terms, and I hope that the Commission will immediately take the necessary measures to implement the binding objectives that Parliament established today.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted for a more binding and ambitious policy in this Energy Efficiency Action Plan, and I am very pleased with Parliament’s final position in this matter.

Climate change will not primarily be prevented just by having international commitments or declarations: we need a practical solution for achieving the emission reduction targets. Improved energy efficiency is a very crucial major project in this endeavour. For us to be able to achieve it, we need a very broad and comprehensive policy on improved energy efficiency, one which is binding and, if necessary, financially motivated, and which includes sanctions. This Action Plan is a good step in that direction.

***

  President. − Mr Silvestris, are you applauding me or are you asking for a point of order during the explanations of votes? That is a remarkable thing to do, but go ahead.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you can see I am applauding, while also taking the opportunity to make a point of order.

Mr President, do you also intend to take steps against Members who are in a fortunate enough position to use the time available to them to offend the governments of their country?

In your presence, a fellow Member has just offended the Italian Government, which yesterday obtained a vote of confidence from the Italian Parliament and also enjoys the confidence of the Italian public. The Member in question may not like this, but it is her own problem and she can sort it out with her friends. This Member took advantage of her time here to insult the government of her country, which is also my country, instead of explaining her vote.

Mr President, I would like to ask you if you intend to tolerate these things despite the Rules of Procedure, because if this is the case I will attend all the explanations of vote in the future to speak in favour of the government that leads Italy legitimately, with the consensus of the country and its Parliament.

  President. − I hope that you appreciate the fact that I allowed you to speak, although what you raised was not really a point of order. My job is not to monitor what Members decide to say. My job is to ensure that they say it when they have the time to say it, as opposed to interrupting each other and doing so, I might add, in a rather rude and loud way. So thank you for your comment. I will insist, when I chair at least, that Members conduct themselves in a civil way with each other, and I will try to keep the time as best I can. What Members say in the room, in a democratic room such as this, is their business, not mine.

***

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I have a few points to make on this topic.

I think in the fight against climate change, nearly all the emphasis up until now has been put on renewable energy which is obviously very important. But so much more could be done in the area of energy efficiency and that is why I welcome this report.

In the area of buildings, so much more could be done, particularly in relation to this building itself, the buildings in Brussels and many more public buildings. It is very important that we should make them more energy efficient. The same applies to so many modes of transport. So many huge diesel-guzzling engines. The manufacturers should be compelled to make them more energy efficient.

One group I want to commend though. In my own country the schools do fantastic work in the area of the green flag. That should be recognised and encouraged because through them they are getting to the children and to their parents and creating a positive attitude.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Reimer Böge (A7-0367/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) European Union budgetary practice meets a certain number of principles including that of specialisation. This means that a sum allocated to a particular policy can only be used for that policy. This principle, along with others, safeguards the good financial management of the Union. However, it also gives rise to a degree of inflexibility in the budget. The annual budget and even more so the multiannual financial framework cannot predict all the expenses that the Union will face. That is why, for some years now, there has been a ‘Flexibility Instrument’. This consists of a financial reserve, the amount of which is included in the budget each year. It enables the financing of policies and projects, the cost of which it had not been possible to anticipate. My colleague Mr Böge’s report recommends that this instrument be used to finance the Lifelong Learning Programme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and aid to Palestine. As these are three areas where I believe in the Union’s positive action, I did not hesitate to vote for this text.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I agree with the European Parliament’s decision to allocate additional financial assistance to implement the Lifelong Learning Programme and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme in 2011. The objective provided for in the Lisbon Strategy of turning the European Union into a globally competitive and knowledge-based economy, based on sustainable economic development and new jobs, striving for better social cohesion, could be achieved by implementing these programmes.

In order to increase the global competitiveness of the European Union, particular attention should be paid to small and medium-sized enterprises, providing them with the required assistance and financial support. Furthermore, investments in green innovations and the development of scientific research would stimulate the use of renewable sources of energy, which would facilitate the creation of new sustainable jobs in various sectors, including energy, manufacturing and transport.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. − The Böge report on the use of the Flexibility Instrument can’t count on my support. The European Commission’s proposal lacks an appropriate justification as regards the question of why this additional funding is necessary. Besides, I am in general very critical of the use of the Flexibility Instrument. It is desirable to decrease other budget lines to enable the financing of budget lines for which justified additional funding needs emerge.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Flexibility Instrument provides for the possibility of funding specifically identified expenditure that cannot be funded within the maximum limits available under one or more headings of the multiannual financial framework. Thus, its use within the 2011 budget is linked to the need for funding the “Lifelong Learning” and “Competitiveness and Innovation” programmes – within the framework of the EU 2020 Strategy – as well as funding financial assistance to Palestine, the peace process and United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Because of the importance of these programmes, I intend to vote in favour of the proposal.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Parliament must undoubtedly have a positive view of the report by Mr Böge on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for the Lifelong Learning Programme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, and Palestine. I agree with the need and consequent allocation of additional expenditure, beyond the ceilings of headings 1 and 4. Considering the current economic situation, these expenses are vital from various viewpoints, for combating the crisis and also for our international credibility.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) It is unacceptable that the financing of aid to Palestine, European education and training programmes and programmes to benefit competitiveness and free competition should be included in a single text. The malicious intent is clear to see. This combination forces me to abstain. I reiterate my full support to the cause of the Palestinian people.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report in order to guarantee the mobilisation of EU funds for a total of around EUR 70 million in commitment and payment appropriations from the European Union Solidarity Fund for the natural disasters in Portugal, which applied for funds in relation to a disaster caused by landslides and floods on the island of Madeira, and also for France, which made an application as following a disaster caused by storm Xynthia. I feel that we need to show our support for those Member States so that they can tackle and minimise the consequences of those natural phenomena. The EU Solidarity Fund was created in order to demonstrate the European Union’s solidarity with the populations of regions devastated by disasters. I voted in favour of this report as I believe that it asks for funds to be mobilised for that purpose and that it therefore aims to make correct use of the mechanism available.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The amounts referred to in this report are totally unrealistic. Apart from the fact that the current financial framework would need to be sufficient to cover these objectives, if there were to be an increase, significantly smaller amounts have been planned. Adapting the financial framework to the proposals in the report would not increase the flexibility of the Union, but would restrict it. It is for this reason that I have voted against this report.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I would like, most of all, to express my satisfaction at the fact that the European Parliament and the Council have reached agreement on financing the Lifelong Learning Programme and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme. I would like to draw particular attention to the Lifelong Learning Programme. It consists of four sectoral programmes. Of particular significance, in my opinion, is the Erasmus programme, which facilitates student exchanges on a massive scale. This is extremely important, both in the area of acquiring new knowledge and skills as well as in making new acquaintances and encountering the cultures of the Member States. A similar role – in relation to young people of school age – is played by the Comenius programme.

These programmes are not only beneficial to the European economy, but they ensure the creation of a European consciousness based on a supranational network of acquaintances. These programmes should have a high priority irrespective of the budgetary situation, for they are an investment which will profit the European Union in many areas – not only in the economy, but also in culture and politics. The decision on assistance for Palestine is significant for other reasons, but I consider it, too, to be justified.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Commission has tabled a proposal to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument as part of the new budget ‘manoeuvre’ for 2011, after the failure of conciliation. I voted in favour, above all because the increase affects two programmes, namely the Lifelong Learning and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programmes (CIP), that deserve the greatest support and the most resources from the European Union. The Flexibility Instrument is provided for by the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline. Following agreement between both arms of the Budgetary Authority (the European Parliament and the Council), it allows financing beyond the ceilings set in the financial perspectives of needs not foreseeable at the time the multiannual financial framework was set, for an annual maximum amount of EUR 200 million. This is an important result for the European Parliament, because it marks a success in the dialogue with Council over the budget.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would like to applaud the agreement reached during the conciliation, in relation to the use of the Flexibility Instrument to fund, in particular, the Lifelong Learning Programme. I believe it to be vital for the European Union to invest in the development of quality education and training and the encouragement of high levels of achievement. Only stringency and quality teaching can make Europe more competitive.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows for mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument to allow the financing of clearly identified expenditure which could not be financed within the limits of the ceilings available for one or more headings of the multiannual financial framework. For the 2011 budget, additional expenditure is required above and beyond the ceilings of headings 1a and 4. It is therefore proposed to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument in accordance with point 27 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. The amounts to be mobilised are as follows: EUR 18 million for the Lifelong Learning Programme under heading 1a; EUR 16 million for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme under heading 1a; EUR 71 million for Palestine under heading 4. The two arms of the budgetary authority are reminded that publication of the decision on the above in the Official Journal of the European Union shall not take place later than publication of the 2011 budget.

Draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 as modified by the Council

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The community budget for 2011 represents EUR 141.8 billion on expenditure for authorisations and EUR 126.5 billion on expenditure for payments. Parliament’s priorities for this budget may be considered to be the affirmation and strengthening of funding for education and innovation. Thus, under the heading 1a – Competitiveness for growth and employment, there is an increase of EUR 18 million for the Lifelong Learning Programme, and under the heading 3b – Citizenship, there are EUR 3 million more for the youth in action programme.

I am pleased about the commitment by the next four presidencies of the EU (the governments of Hungary, Poland, Denmark and Cyprus) towards involving the European Parliament in future conversations and negotiations relating to the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF).

I applaud the commitment by the European Commission to present a formal proposal towards the end of June 2011, ensuring that the proposals relating to its own resources are discussed at the same time as the MFF. The involvement of the European Parliament in these matters is also provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon (Articles 312, No 5, 324 and 311).

I hope that the need for unanimity within the Council for the adoption of the next multi-annual financial framework and for the new own resources does not translate into blocking.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) An agreement has been reached between the Council and the European Parliament on the budget for 2011. I voted for adoption of the budget in view of its underlying political and institutional principles which propose, among other things, strengthening of the role of the European Parliament in negotiations on the new Financial Framework after 2013 and participation in the debate on new sources of income, which includes the Euro tax. An additional asset of the budget is its greater flexibility in unforeseen circumstances. We have avoided the danger of operating on the basis of a provisional budget, which would to a significant degree paralyse the working of the Union. Such a state of affairs would be particularly detrimental at a time when there is a need to fight intensely against the economic crisis and to put the Treaty of Lisbon into effect. Much credit for this is due to the position of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Adoption of the 2011 budget testifies to the fact that it is possible to agree a compromise in the European Union. The draft of the financial plan for 2011 was accepted and voted through thanks to the good will of all the institutions which helped create it. This compromise should be particularly appreciated because the decision-making procedures following entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are new ones, and for the first time in history the European Parliament has made a joint decision on expenditure on an equal footing with the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. It is not an ideal budget, but I do think that outlays have been apportioned in a sensible way and cover all the priorities of the European Union. In voting for adoption of the 2011 budget, I also expressed my support for further development and for the idea of European integration.

Report: Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska, Helga Trüpel (A7-0369/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, as the community budget for 2011, which was presented by the parliamentary Budgets committee during the part-session, strengthens funding for the priorities defined by the European Parliament, such as education, innovation, the peace process in the Middle East and Palestine, the Lifelong Learning Programme, the “People” research programme, and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme. I congratulate Parliament, the Council and the Commission for also having agreed that, if additional funds are needed to comply with EU legal obligations, there will be amending budgets throughout 2011, given that, legally, the EU budget cannot be in deficit. In addition to the budget, Parliament had certain political requirements relating to the implementation of the rules laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon, namely with regard to a new system of own resources, and in relation to these it is good to know that the EC has now announced that it will present a formal initiative towards the end of June 2011, ensuring that proposals relating to the own resources are discussed at the same time as the future Financial Perspective.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution and supported the EU budget for the year 2011. I welcome the agreement finally reached between the Council, Commission and European Parliament and I hope it will be a sustainable budget that can be fully and predictably implemented from the beginning of the financial year. With the adoption of this resolution we, the European Parliament, secure financing and continuity of the budget agreed upon by the Council and the Committee on Budgets. I am convinced that it was necessary to allocate more funds to education, research and innovation as the EU needs to increase its efficiency and competitiveness to be able to rise from the financial and economic crisis. In order to reach this goal, the EU has to create a long-term strategy and this budget should be a part of it.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament’s approval of the Community budget for 2011, just a few days after it rejected it, proves that the entire procedure is a poorly set up game of disorientation from the essence of the budget, which is to serve big business better in its effort to shift the burden of the economic crisis and increasing imperialist interventions on to the workers. At the same time, this well thought out game highlighted the serious competition between the imperialists and the fact that Community bodies are jostling for position as to who can best serve the interests of the plutocracy following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon. The decision was already taken some time ago to reduce any minimum appropriations that might have been used for poor farmers, workers and the self-employed and to increase the appropriations which are channelled directly to the monopoly groups, into the services and infrastructures of civil-military interventions and into persecution and repression of the working class and grassroots movement.

The political spokesmen of capital will be unable to save themselves from calumny with tricks such as these. Their role is becoming clearer by the day. The working and grassroots classes are stepping up their fight against the policies of the EU and the bourgeois governments, thereby creating new prospects for a grassroots economy which will serve their needs, not those of capital.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The preparation of the annual 2011 budget has again given rise to real political negotiation between MEPs and the governments of the Member States. In the current context of budgetary cuts, the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the Member States, wanted to make the Union take a part in the austerity measures that European countries are imposing on themselves. Despite the fact that the European Parliament, as well as the Commission, wanted, on the contrary, the crisis to be tackled by voluntary policies, it sided with the position of the Council, in a clear display of solidarity with the Member States. In exchange for this concession, Parliament wanted a debate to take place on the Union’s resources, and in particular on the issue of it being able to have funds of its own, independent of contributions from the Member States. The Council was initially intransigent but ended up by ceding to our legitimate demands. That is the reason why other MEPs and I have been able to give our agreement to this budget, the ambition of which is limited to the short term, but yet one which allows future prospects for Union policies to be opened up.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of discharge of the 2011 budget. This budget was strengthened by new procedures provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon. These lengthy and difficult negotiations to reach an agreement on the 2011 budget demonstrate that as new budgetary principles become effective, we will be forced to find rational institutional compromises on the most important areas of EU policy. For the first time since the new treaty came into force, the European Parliament has used the powers it was granted to participate fully in the composition of the European Union budget. The first unsuccessful attempt to reach an agreement and include the European Parliament’s legitimate demands demonstrates a conflict that is still present among the institutions and that should not actually exist, as it is obstructing effective inter-institutional cooperation. The objective of all EU institutions is to ensure that agreements which are particularly important for the whole of the EU and its citizens are adopted as smoothly as possible. Therefore I believe that in future there must be fundamental changes in the operating principles of the institutions themselves and the inclusion of the European Parliament in all stages of negotiations, particularly budgetary, must be considered as particularly important for the implementation of the principle of representative democracy.

  Dominique Baudis (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union must grant itself a budget equal to its ambitions. It must not let itself be carried along by the crisis but rise to the challenges it meets. With the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament now plays on a level playing field with the Council and has made its mark as a proactive force. I voted for the 2011 budget as it is incumbent on us, as MEPs, to give Europe clear political direction. In 2011 Europe will keep its priorities on target. It will be able to revise upwards its financial needs in order to implement its new powers. Despite difficult economic circumstances, Parliament has managed to win a firm commitment from the Member States.

On the proposal of Parliament, in 2011 the Commission will begin discussions on the different types of own resources, resources which Europe needs to guarantee its financial autonomy in the future. However, I am deeply concerned that Parliament has not found a consensus on the additional funding that the ‘Iter’ project will need from 2012. The experimental thermonuclear reactor, a flagship project of international research and European scientific dynamism, could have benefited from an unused and surplus portion of the 2011 budget.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament, after having acquitted itself well in the negotiations with the Council on the 2011 budget, on the conditions for the drawing up of the next multiannual financial framework and the question of the Union’s own resources, has lost the battle. By adopting the 2011 budget, during the December part-session, we showed the Council was right. Our concerns were not about figures but rather about political demands. We have not forgotten our seven demands adopted during the previous part-session. The positive thing is that the Commission will also present a proposal in the spring of 2011 on the question of own resources. Parliament will be included in these discussions as it will in those needed for producing financial perspectives. But the terms remain to be defined, and therefore the fight for codecision to be respected in this area has only just begun.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The adoption of the EU’s 2011 budget by Parliament indicates that when dialogue is established between the Commission and the legislative, matters can be arranged for their mutual benefit. The Commission has realised that the European Parliament now has a greater say in the Union’s finances, and has decided, albeit later on, to respect this situation. In practical terms, the budget remains within the limits set by the Council but, at the same time, it also includes some of the legislative’s priorities. Before agreement was reached, we were in the odd situation of having all kinds of strategies and programmes which did not feature at all in the budget forecasts for next year. These strategies and programmes cannot just remain on paper because they would only serve to highlight inconsistency and a lack of confidence in the acts adopted by the European Union itself.

It is obvious that you cannot develop programmes supporting young people, innovation and research and you cannot claim to be an active player in global foreign policy without the funds designed to finance all these plans. Parliament has argued successfully with the Council for the need to carry out regular evaluations of the benefits of new legislation and its funding. As representatives elected directly by the European Union’s citizens, it is important for taxpayers to see that their money is being well spent.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am pleased with the budget approved today, as it retains the priority lines adopted by Parliament in October, which strengthen key areas such as education, youth, research and innovation. It is essential to provide the EU with a sustainable budget that may be implemented in a full and foreseeable manner from the start of the financial year, in contrast to a system of provisional twelfths that would put the implementation of its policies at risk. It is equally important to strive for a budget that is visionary in times of crisis and which strengthens areas that contribute to economic growth and to more and better jobs, such as science and innovation. Only through an ambitious budget will economic recovery be possible in Europe.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D) in writing. – (FR) The 2011 budget was voted with responsibility, bitterness and conviction. Responsibility: the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats and Parliament assumed their responsibility by voting in favour of this budget to avoid an institutional impasse and recourse to the provisional twelfths system. Bitterness: codecision in budgetary matters is a losing battle. Despite the concessions made by Parliament, some Member States who, unlike me, do not believe in the added value of the European budget, have remained inflexible. Conviction: the future of the Union depends on new own resources and a tax on financial transactions. We need the Commission and we need it to be committed to this, if we are to make this fundamental objective a reality. We need a Trade and Transport Facilitation (TTF), and also a 2011 budget and therefore I abstained on the amendment retabled by the Greens on this issue, which was symbolic but irresponsible. The TTF is a topic which is too important to be trifled with, within the political strategies of tabling amendments for which one is not the original author, with a budget line at zero. What was originally a socialist amendment was intended to move this debate forward during the budgetary procedure, but had it been adopted today it would have meant choosing a Union with no budget.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of a budget with a near zero increase on 2010, to show that Parliament could display maturity and responsibility in the context of an economic crisis that is crippling national governments. It is not right to start increasing the 2011 budget at a time when most Member States are entering a period of tight budgetary control. I am delighted that the tough negotiations that took place between the various institutions on this matter led to a compromise and that we have avoided budgetary crisis for 2011.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report relating to the new draft budget for 2011 because it strengthens funding in areas that have been defined as priorities by the European Parliament, such as education, innovation, competitiveness and cohesion for growth and employment, as well as the conservation and management of natural resources.

  Göran Färm (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have today voted in favour of the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011. It is a restrained budget, but it also contains important investments in research, initiatives for young people and necessary aid initiatives for Palestine, and it enables the establishment of the EU’s new External Action Service and new authorities for financial supervision.

However, we abstained from voting on both the text and the proposed budget lines relating to new own resources for the EU. We are in favour of a review of the EU’s own resources system and an examination of a tax on financial transactions, but believe that we currently have too little information to be able to take a detailed position on this matter.

Irrespective of the form that a new system for the EU’s revenue might take, we would like to emphasise that it must be budget-neutral and respect the Member States’ competence in the sphere of taxation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 2011 budget will be the first Union budget to be agreed following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Although this agreement, arrived at within the framework of the new codecision procedure, does not address all of the concerns of the European Parliament, it is the basis of a common understanding with regard to the budgetary priorities for the Union. In the light of the new challenges facing the Union, it has become crucial for a facility to be in place that enables the Commission to introduce changes to the budget when the funding set aside is insufficient to reach the strategic objectives, namely within the framework of the priorities established within the EU 2020 Strategy.

In the same way, it will be the task of the European Parliament and the Council to find common ground for a rapid and effective response, creating the conditions for a more egalitarian and competitive Union, able to face up to the new challenges.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The outcome of the budget debate for 2011 was foreseeable, taking into account the responsibilities of the Council and the main political groups within this Parliament, whether in the definition and acceptance of the current multi-annual financial framework, or in the approval of subsequent budgets which this will have to cover.

But what this agreement does not remove, indeed it reinforces them, are the many reasons to be critical of this budget that we have left out here. In view of the worsening of the economic and social crisis, unemployment and the living conditions of millions of people – to which the plans for real social terrorism that the EU intends to impose on Member States contribute a great deal – we are all going to find out once again what the true meaning of the much vaunted European solidarity is: a budget that does not go beyond 1% of community (Gross National Income) GNI, unable to perform its function to redistribute wealth, unable to ensure economic and social cohesion, and that, without a doubt, will accentuate the harmful effects of the policies that the EU is pursuing. Once again we reiterate that there is an alternative to this budget, and that is not only possible, but also truly necessary. An alternative that would involve a significant strengthening of the community budget, based on fair contributions from Member States, in line with their GNI.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I welcome the agreement between the European Parliament and the governments of the 27 Member States, especially, because in the absence of this agreement the payments which Irish farmers will receive next year would be delayed.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The threat of the introduction of a provisional budget for 2011 mobilised the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to intensify discussions, the result of which – the draft budget which was voted on today – can be considered a pragmatic compromise. The negotiations held between the institutions led to inclusion of most of the proposals being advocated by Parliament. We have obtained the Council’s assurance that it is willing to cooperate during establishment of the Financial Framework for 2014-2020, which will be a practical fulfilment of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. Parliament has also reached agreement on this matter with the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Poland, Denmark and Cyprus, in other words with those Member States which in the next two years will hold the Presidency of the EU Council. We are also pleased with the Council’s decision to maintain the flexibility mechanism in the European Union budget at a level of 0.03% of EU GDP. These funds will allow the financing of crucial expenditures which were not foreseen during negotiations over the previous Financial Framework, such as the European External Action Service and the Galileo system, for example. A concession on the part of Parliament is postponement of the debate on future sources of finance for the European Union, something for which the European Commission has also called. The idea of relieving national contributions to the Union budget fell in the face of determined opposition from a group of Member States which was afraid of the reaction of public opinion. We will undoubtedly return to this debate in the summer of 2011, when the Commission will present several new options for financing the EU.

  Julie Girling (ECR), in writing. − (on behalf of the UK Conservative delegation) The UK Conservatives today voted against the 2.9% increase in the budget because we believe that, as national capitals look for ways of cutting their own deficits or improving their fiscal situation, it is not appropriate for MEPs to demand an increase in European spending. The EU budget cannot, as some MEPs argue, be used as a supplement to national budgets in a time of austerity; rather, it should reflect the difficult situation in which EU Member States find themselves. That is why the Conservatives originally tabled an amendment calling for a long-term freeze in payments at 2010 levels, a move that would do much to assure citizens that the EU is doing its bit to bring long-term public spending under control and onto a more sustainable footing.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Today’s adoption of the 2011 budget has highlighted the European Parliament’s double failure. The budget that it adopted is too small: +2.91%, which falls far short of its first reading (+6%) and of the Commission’s initial proposal (+5.8%). The amounts adopted are exactly the same as those proposed with no real room for the Council to negotiate, hardly reassuring in terms of the negotiability of future budgets. Ever since the Treaty of Lisbon was implemented, Parliament has acted with the Council in codecision on budgetary matters: by not getting any precise commitment to date on the role that we, as MEPs, will have in preparing the next financial framework and on providing the necessary reflection on new own resources, we run the risk of allowing the Council to become lord and master over the future of the European project. So, given the positioning of certain Member States, there is a real risk that this project will flounder. What dismays me the most is the attitude displayed by the European right as they were more than determined at the start of negotiations to drop out the minute the telephones began ringing from Heads of State or Government. Everyone will make their own mind up about the political consistency of such a reversal.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the adoption, by a clear majority of votes, of the EU budget for 2011. The agreement reached between the European Parliament and the EU Council has allowed the use of a provisional budget to be avoided – something which could undermine pursuit of EU cohesion and agricultural policy. This is particularly good news for Polish local governments, farmers and business people, who in increasing numbers are making use of Union funds, because despite the economic crisis payments will rise by 2.91% compared to 2010. I am also pleased by the increase in resources for the priority areas adopted by Parliament, including youth, education, research and innovation.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted for the new budget and I am delighted that the European institutions have finally found some common ground. Through this vote, the European Parliament aims to provide the European Union with a stable budget, which can be introduced immediately in early 2011, thus avoiding having to use the system of provisional twelfths which would have threatened the implementation of many European policies. However, I do deplore the lack of flexibility that this new budget imposes as well as the choice made by certain political groups, especially the Socialists, to jeopardise ITER, the only fundamental long-term research project in which the European Union plays a leading role, by deferring the vote on its funding. By foregoing EUR 600 million of credits available to finance ITER against a backdrop of crisis where European public money is scarce, the Socialists have displayed their irresponsibility and inconsistency and are jeopardising a strategic project that creates jobs.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am pleased that despite the many complications, it has been possible to agree and adopt the EU budget for 2011 after the modifications made by the Council. This is very important, not only in view of the fact that a provisional budget has been avoided, but principally in view of the fact that we can be sure of the programming of expenditures related to cohesion policy, which is extremely important for the residents of the EU, and above all for the beneficiaries of Union funds. In addition, I would like to emphasise that resources for cohesion policy have been increased by 10%. It is important that we have reached a political agreement. In doing so we have demonstrated European solidarity, and this now gives us financial stability in 2011.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today I voted in favour of the 2011 budget. After lengthy negotiations, we have managed to reach an agreement that satisfies Parliament. Indeed, Parliament is waiting for the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon to be implemented. The treaty makes provision for our institution to be involved in negotiations on the next long-term budget and this change should be accepted at every level. Furthermore, Parliament wanted to maintain some reserves in the 2011 budget. A case in point is the sum of EUR 425 000, set aside in the 2011 budget for the European Police College (CEPOL), which can now only be released under certain conditions. The agency will therefore have to implement MEPs’ recommendations following Parliament’s refusal to endorse implementation of the agency’s budget, so that a decision can be made on full allocation of the CEPOL budget in 2011.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The 2011 budget, the first that Parliament has been entitled to scrutinise, has only gone to show what little power our assembly has. Not content with validating neoliberal counter-reforms and with working for the financial markets instead of for the citizens who elected them, it even goes so far as to capitulate in the name of urgency. I will not facilitate this despicable exercise with my vote.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) After intense negotiations, it was finally possible to reach an agreement for the 2011 budget; it was not the ideal budget, but it is nevertheless a document that will enable the objectives proposed by the EU to be achieved. This community budget for 2011, adopted today in part-session, strengthens funding for the priorities defined by the European Parliament, such as education, innovation, and the peace process in the Middle East and Palestine.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Taking into account the countless number of bureaucrats in the European Parliament, as well as in the European Commission, this resolution brings the European Community closer to the well-considered and effective distribution of EC resources in the course of time. I have carefully examined other statements in the report and am glad to discover that certain persons in Parliament understand the need to use money in time, not when it is too late. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) As was the case with the last proposal to increase the budget for 2011, I have also had to oppose this one in the interests of the citizens of Europe. It is impossible to understand how the EU can afford to raise its budget when austerity programmes are being introduced all over Europe. The latest increase is justified on the grounds of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the new institutions that it has created, such as the European External Action Service. With great foresight the Freedom Party of Austria voted against the Treaty of Lisbon, which, while it brought a few benefits, primarily resulted in an increase in red tape and in costs for the citizens. Therefore, I have opposed the budget for 2011.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I support the European Parliament’s vote on Wednesday 15 December 2010, which adopted the 2011 budget during its sitting in Strasbourg following on from the debate which took place on Tuesday. The budget adopted includes increased funding for most of the priorities set out by Parliament, whilst respecting the global limits set by the Council. During this year’s budgetary negotiations, my fellow Members of the European Parliament also entered into agreements with the Council and the Commission on a number of political demands concerning the budget.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The draft budget amended by the European Council does not fully reflect the needs and requirements outlined by Parliament, but the European Union cannot be left without an approved budget during the first few months of 2011. This is why, during the trilogue held on 6 December, the Commission, the Council and Parliament found the right compromise for a budget that may be implemented in full from the very beginning of the 2011 financial year. I voted in favour, because the responsible stance is consistent with Parliament’s efforts to give citizens of the Union adequate financial resources, as confirmed by the approval of the joint statement on payment appropriations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of Parliament’s resolution as I considered that, despite the draft budget amended by the Council not entirely satisfying the real need for a Union budget that is sustainable, coherent and effective, Parliament’s objective of providing the Union with a budget that is able to be implemented in a full and predictable manner starting from the beginning of the financial year was achieved.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of Parliament’s resolution as I agreed that, although the draft budget amended by the Council does not entirely satisfy the real need for a Union budget that is sustainable, coherent and effective, Parliament’s objective was to provide the Union with a budget that can be implemented in a full and predictable manner starting from the beginning of the financial year.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) It was a very special moment, last month, when all the political groups stepped up to the plate to achieve a political agreement, beyond the 2011 budget, on the future financing of the EU. So, after all the hullabaloo they caused during the negotiations, the three main political groups gave in on the final straight. The European Parliament, despite drawing on its new powers, has just passed up on the chance to impose itself in its role as a decision-maker on budgetary matters. The Belgian Prime Minister’s letter shown to us by the Belgian Presidency and which guarantees that the Treaty will be respected (sic) and that Parliament will be involved with future discussions does not offer any guarantee for a good political outcome. Our vote against reflects this missed opportunity and the rendezvous clause that will follow.

The best instrument for achieving this is, using the same method as the Convention, to bring together European and national parliaments, national governments and the European Commission. As for the ITER mega project, which requires and will continue to require extortionate levels of funds, we are not sorry that it has been deferred. We will again try and demonstrate the financial waste that it represents as soon as it is back on the table of the EP Committee on Budgets.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We are about to approve the European Union budget for 2011, which is being done, for the first time, in accordance with the new regime of the Treaty of Lisbon. I am pleased with the affirmation of the role of the European Parliament in this matter, and support the main priorities highlighted in the document that we are voting on today. In 2011, special attention needs to be paid to the theme of Youth, Education and Mobility, a priority that has been taken into account in all sections of the budget. We need to invest in our young people and in training for all European citizens, namely through the Lifelong Learning, Erasmus Mundus and Eures programmes.

It is also essential to promote investment in research and innovation, and the role of SMEs as an engine for making our economy more dynamic. Considering the importance of the policy of cohesion as an overarching element of all European policies, I welcome its planned inclusion in the document that is key to the successful implementation of this policy. Because of the reasons set out and because I believe that the European Union is going through a period that requires more effort in terms of making Europe stronger and more competitive, while retaining the need to strengthen inter-institutional dialogue, I am voting in favour of this draft presented by Parliament.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of the report. In its negotiations with the Council, Parliament has shown its teeth. Last year, in the context of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council made significant concessions to Parliament. In this decision on the budget, Parliament has moved towards the Council’s position. This compromise seems to be workable.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − The 2011 budget has been decided in challenging and unstable times. At a time when we are seeing severe cuts being made to budgets in member states, it is now more important than ever to make sure Europe is providing the resources to deal with the effects of the crisis. The benefits of EU funding can be seen across my constituency, and provide help for those who will suffer because of the current ‘slash and burn’ policy being implemented in the UK.

However, there are parts of this budget I cannot agree with. For example I do not think it is appropriate to vote in favour of wasteful agricultural subsidies and an increase in entertainment expenses. I believe it is important in these uncertain economic times to show restraint in spending. It is for this reason I chose to abstain on budget 2011.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − Labour MEPs have voted against the budget package because, at a time when such severe cuts are being made to domestic public spending, we do not believe it is appropriate for the EU budget to increase.

We certainly don't support the way that many governments are risking their economies by slashing public spending. But that does not mean we should automatically support an increase in overall spending by the European Union.

The EU will be doing a lot of important work next year, in many cases providing support to those areas that will be hardest hit by domestic cuts. However, where new expenditure is required, we believe it would have been possible to find savings to free up money for important projects.

Given the current pressure on domestic economies, these budget negotiations could have been an opportunity to persuade EU leaders to tackle wasteful EU expenditure in areas such as agricultural subsidies, which often undermine the economies of the very countries that the EU's international aid budget sets out to help. However, this budget package leaves those subsidies virtually untouched.

Against this background, Labour MEPs could not support an increase in the EU budget.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0353/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 613 cases of redundancy that have occurred in two companies operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 46 (wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles) in the NUTS Level 2 region of Northern Holland in the Netherlands, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the European Commission’s proposal and with the respective amendments made by the European Parliament. I also agree that the functioning and added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and various other instruments created by the Inter-Institutional Agreement of 17 May 2006, within the framework of the 2007-2013 multi-annual financial framework mid-term review process.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Assistance to workers made redundant due to restructuring and relocation should be dynamic and flexible so that it can be implemented rapidly and effectively. In the light of structural changes in international trade, it is important that the European economy is quickly able to implement instruments for supporting workers affected by such changes whilst also giving them the skills required to return swiftly to 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 lies with the companies, nor is it intended for the financing and restructuring of companies. Bearing in mind that the Netherlands submitted a request for assistance in relation to 613 cases of redundancy that have occurred in two companies within Division 18 (wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles) of NACE Rev. 2 in the region of Northern Holland, I am voting in favour of this Report or, to put it another way, in favour of mobilising the EGF to support the Netherlands.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial and economic crisis that we are going through, combined with the constant changes on the labour market caused by alterations to the structure of international trade, have resulted in countless victims of unemployment which, in many cases, is long term. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was created to respond to situations like these. In this case we are talking about the mobilisation of little more than two million, five hundred thousand euros for the Netherlands to support 613 cases of redundancy in two commercial and retail companies between 1 May 2009 and 31 January 2010. Given that the Commission believed this application to be appropriate when it considered it and to meet the requirements laid down, and therefore recommends that the request be approved, I voted in favour.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the social impact of the world economic crisis, which has had a particular effect on employment, the proper use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is of pivotal importance in alleviating the plight of many European citizens and families, contributing to their social reintegration and professional development, while at the same time providing new resources that meet the needs of companies and boost the economy. It is in this context that this intervention plan for the Netherlands is being put forward, in relation to 613 redundancies that have occurred within two companies operating within division 46 of NACE Rev. 2 (wholesale trade, except motor vehicles and motorcycles) within the NUTS Level 2 region of North Holland, in the Netherlands. I therefore hope that the European institutions will strengthen their commitment to implementing measures to speed up and improve the rates for use of such an important resource as the EGF, which currently has very low levels of mobilisation. This year, only 11% of the 500 million euros available has been requested.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a part of this. This support is essential in helping the unemployed and victims of the relocation of firms that occurs in an era of globalisation. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of lower labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights. The EGF aims to help workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses and it is crucial in facilitating access to new employment. The EGF has been used in the past by other EU countries, so it is appropriate to provide aid to the Netherlands, which has submitted a request for mobilisation of the EGF in respect of 613 redundancies that have occurred within two companies operating within division 46 of NACE Rev. 2 (wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles) within the NUTS Level 2 region of North Holland, in the Netherlands.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Employees who have lost their jobs as a result of the financial and economic crisis should be given the opportunity to return quickly to the world of work. The Member States are obliged to take appropriate measures to support these people. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund provides funding for this purpose which the Member States can apply for. I am voting in favour of the report, as the mobilisation of the fund by the Netherlands is fully justified and all the criteria have been met.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the Netherlands has requested assistance in respect of 613 cases of redundancy that have occurred in two companies operating within division 46 of NACE Rev. 2 (wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles) in the NUTS Level 2 region of Northern Holland in the Netherlands, I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the European Commission’s proposal and with the respective amendments to it tabled by the European Parliament.

I also agree that:

- the EGF should support the individual reintegration of redundant workers into employment, and I would like to reiterate that assistance from the EGF should not replace measures which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor should it finance the restructuring of companies or sectors;

- the operation and added value of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and various other instruments created by the Inter-Institutional Agreement of 17 May 2006;

I welcome the proposal of the European Commission to establish a source of funds other than unused ESF resources, in order to respond to the repeated statements by the European Parliament that it is necessary to identify appropriate budgetary mechanisms for the transfer of funds given that the EGF was set up to be a specific and separate instrument with its own aims and funding periods.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I fully agree with the rapporteur Mrs Matera, who is pleased to observe that the Commission keeps identifying alternative sources of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund resources, in accordance with the frequent requests in the past from the European Parliament.

I also agree with the rapporteur that the alternatives chosen in the last cases (budgets line dedicated to the support of entrepreneurship and innovation) are not satisfactory given the severe shortcomings that the Commission encounters when implementing the programmes on competitiveness and innovation. In a period of economic crisis these appropriations should be in fact rather increased. The rapporteur invites therefore the Commission to continue in her effort to identify more appropriate budget lines for payments in the future.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The request submitted by the Netherlands for assistance under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in relation to 613 redundancies that occurred within two companies operating within division 46 (wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles) of NACE Rev. 2 within the NUTS II region of North Holland fulfils all the legally established eligibility criteria. Indeed, under Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and Council, of 18 June 2009, which amended Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and Council on 20 December 2006 and established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the scope of the EGF was temporarily widened as it was expected to be able intervene in situations like this if, as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, within a level 2 division of NACE in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS Level 2’. 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.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − With this vote, the EP: (1) calls on the institutions involved to take the necessary action 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 and 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 and reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace either actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, or measures restructuring companies or sectors.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament Resolution on the mobilisation of the European Global Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the workers in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, made redundant in the Noord Holland region of the Netherlands.

Europe’s ICT sector has been hit by both the global financial and economic crisis and the structural changes in the global IT market, especially due to the relocation of production to China and India, also reflected by the ICT 5 indicator.

The ICT 5 indicator is a summary of the main research results linked to the business cycle, costs and budgets allocated to the ICT sector. This indicator for Western Europe has fallen from a value of approximately 160 in August 2008 to approximately 30 in April 2009.

The Netherlands has prepared a coordinated package of personalised services for the 613 workers made redundant from two businesses belonging to the company Randstad, such as offering guidance on the transition from one job to another, setting up mobility centres, placing staff made redundant, providing professional training and researching employability. The total budget required is EUR 3 934 055 and the Netherlands submitted an application on 8 April 2010 to obtain a financial contribution of EUR 2 557 135 from the EGF.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of the draft report. Once again we are able to help EU citizens, who have been made redundant after their company got into difficulties, to find new jobs.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) This application is just one of a large number of applications from the Netherlands which we have recently approved in the Committee on Budgets. Of course, I have voted in favour of Mrs Matera’s report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to support citizens in Noord Holland who have been made redundant. The purpose of the EGF is to make funding available to help individual citizens who have lost their jobs as a result of globalisation. During the budget negotiations over the last few weeks, the Government of the Netherlands has excelled itself with its stubborn response to the legitimate positions taken by the European Parliament, which is always ready to compromise. At this point, I would like to say that it seems to be compatible with the national perspective on politics to apply for tens of millions of euros in EU aid, on the one hand, and to refuse to have a legitimate discussion on the points put forward by Parliament, on the other hand.

Report: Tadeusz Zwiefka (A7-0360/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that in the EU there needs to be enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce or legal separation. I believe that EU regulation in this field should be universal. In other words, based on its global rules on conflicts of law, it can be determined that any law is applicable – that of participating Member States, non-participating Member States or non-EU Member States. The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured, therefore in order to allow the spouses to choose an applicable law with which they have a close connection or, in the absence of such choice, in order that that law might apply to their divorce or legal separation, the law in question should apply even if it is not that of a participating Member State. Increasing the mobility of citizens calls for more flexibility and greater legal certainty, which the new EU regulation can enhance.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The need to establish a clear, comprehensive legal framework on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation arises out of an urgent need to address the problems that arise in the case of ‘international’ divorces. Until now, the disparities in national rules have not favoured the safeguarding of equal opportunities between spouses and neither have they protected the best interests of the children involved. On the contrary, they have helped to encourage the so-called ‘rush to court’. As the European Parliament Mediator for children contested by parents of different nationalities and based on experience gained during the work I have carried out, I support this proposal for a regulation to create legal certainty for the couples concerned and guarantee predictability and flexibility.

One of the innovative ideas contained in the text of the regulation is the possibility of consulting a family mediator before, during and after the divorce proceedings. This is not only because this individual is of great help in informing the couple about the various forms and conditions of divorce and resolving any differences between them, but also because it protects the rights of children involved, helping them to make appropriate and amicable choices to protect the welfare of their offspring.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) When it comes to improving coherence between European rules on matrimonial matters, it is tricky getting 27 to agree on this matter. Fortunately, since the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam, Member States which so wish can come together to make progress in a specific field, through ‘enhanced cooperation’, in such a way that a core of leading States can be set up to move the Union forward. The problems encountered by spouses in having their status recognised across Europe, particularly during a divorce or legal separation, have led certain States to come together to improve the coordination of national regulations. I am really keen that this enhanced cooperation, in which France wishes to be involved, should be implemented. In my opinion, this initiative is in the interests of bringing Europeans together, in an area that concerns us all, and in which legal certainty is of the essence. I have therefore voted for the proposed regulation implementing this enhanced cooperation. In the future, such enforced cooperation must be used as often as is necessary.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report because the purpose of the regulation is to create legal security for couples belonging to different Member States, who wish to separate or divorce, guaranteeing them predictability and flexibility.

In this respect, the initiative adopted has been a step forward, but it is regrettable, firstly, that the opportunity has been lost to extend the scope of application to the recognition of marriages, annulments, custody of children and inheritance. It also does not cover the existence of other types of unions such as those of homosexual couples, which are recognised in some Member States.

Secondly, it is also regrettable that only 15 out of the 27 Member States are prepared to sign up to this enhanced cooperation, which will be detrimental to the citizens of the countries that do not do so.

It is therefore my hope and wish that, in the future, the scope of application can be extended, and the number of countries subscribing to this enhanced cooperation can be increased: they owe it to the citizens that they represent.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report on enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, because a clear and explicit legal basis must be established, according to which rules would be applied related to the applicable law. I would like to point out that one of the European Union’s main objectives is to maintain and develop an area of freedom, security and justice, in which freedom of movement of persons is guaranteed. The legal situation at European level regarding the law applicable to the divorce and legal separation of spouses of different nationalities is currently very confusing, because it is unclear which law should be applied. This often leads to a ‘rush to court’ where one of the spouses files for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he or she regards as more favourable to his or her own interests. I would like to stress that the new regulation proposed should create legal certainty for the couples concerned and guarantee predictability and flexibility.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to congratulate Mr Zwiefka for drawing up this report, which I support. The aim of this measure is to establish a clear, comprehensive legal framework in the legislation applicable to divorce and legal separation, by allowing the parties a certain degree of autonomy. The diversified nature of these rules in the Member States may, in fact, create problems in the case of ‘international’ divorces.

Indeed, as well as the legal uncertainty over the identification of the laws applicable in each individual case, there may also be a ‘rush to court’ to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which better protects one of the two spouses. The European Union must therefore limit these risks and shortcomings by introducing the possibility of choosing the applicable law by mutual agreement between the parties. I therefore agree with the need to ensure the parties fair and accurate information that allows them to be aware of their choices as soon as possible.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Member States may now work in enhanced cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice, and more specifically on matters of divorce and legal separation. This regulation defines enhanced cooperation between certain Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain). The main objective of this is to rule out any discrimination on the grounds of sex, to guarantee equal opportunities for both spouses, and to give central priority to the welfare of the children. Spouses often ‘compete’ over which one of them is the first to apply for divorce in order to ensure that the divorce proceedings are governed by a law which best protects the interests of the relevant party. The purpose of this regulation is to improve legal certainty for the couples concerned, and at the same time, to guarantee the predictability and flexibility of the proceedings. I supported the regulation, even when it does not currently affect the Czech Republic. On the whole, I believe that the introduction of this regulation will set a good example for other Member States, including the Czech Republic. In future, other Member States would be able to sign up to the regulation and benefit from the experience of the pioneering Member States.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal does not seek to harmonise the substantive law applicable to divorce and legal separation, but to establish harmonised rules for resolving international jurisdictional conflicts. What this means is that we need to work within the framework of international private law and not within the substantive framework of family law, wherein each State will continue to have its own laws.

This is why it is important to remember, for example, that the proposed regulation, through the amendment of Article 7.º-A, does not require a State to recognise as a marriage – even if only to ensure its dissolution – an act that is not considered as such by its national legislation, or which would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. However, this will not be able to limit the rights of people whose unions are not recognised within a State, a point on which a compromise solution needs to be found.

In the light of the above, I can only see the provision for greater legal certainty with regard to the resolution of conflicts of international jurisdiction within the context of family law, most especially with regard to the dissolution of marriage and legal separation, as an important step for constructing an environment of freedom and justice, in which the freedom of movement of people is a reality.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am delighted with the adoption of this report, which should enable couples, from different Member States or residing in another country that is not their own, to choose the law that should apply to their divorce.

There were one million divorces granted in the EU during 2007, 13% of which involved couples consisting of partners of different nationalities. During these proceedings, European citizens were faced with legal problems affecting their separation.

I would point out that Portugal is taking part in the process of enhanced cooperation that would enable advances to made on this issue, blocked in the Council.

I would emphasise the need for this report not to result in a Member State being required to recognise as a marriage – even if solely for the purposes of its dissolution – a situation that is not considered as such by the legislation of that State, or which would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for dealing so thoroughly with such a difficult subject as the issue of the choice of law applicable to divorce and legal separation. Just how delicate a matter this is can be seen by the fact that Rome III is the first example in the EU’s history of enhanced cooperation conducted in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Treaties. The territorial range of force of the regulation will, therefore, be restricted to 14 out of the 27 EU Member States. Poland is not among them. I think that by introducing a principle which enables parties to choose the law applicable in divorce, Rome III will contribute to greater legal predictability and certainty. However, taking into account the restricted scope of this regulation – it will concern only the law applicable on the matter of international divorce – it is also essential to answer the question as to which court has jurisdiction to decide in a particular case.

This problem is the subject of another EU regulation – Brussels IIa. Therefore, like the rapporteur, I think it is essential for this regulation to be revised as quickly as possible in order to introduce the forum necessitatis rule. This will dispel the fears of many Member States concerning whether their courts will be forced to decide on the divorces of couples whom their legal system does not regard as being married, which in turn will encourage them to adopt general European principles in the field of international divorce, and this will undoubtedly make life easier for many EU citizens.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) If two people of different nationalities or simply two people who no longer reside in the same Member State are planning to divorce, they should know which court has jurisdiction and in which country. From now on, these two divorcing people will soon be in a position to choose which European Union legal system will govern their divorce. Another very specific step forward in the gradual creation of a ‘common European legal space’, which is directly applicable in the day-to-day lives of each of us. While I welcome the adoption of this report and the use for the first time of what is called the enhanced cooperation procedure, I do regret that this procedure needed to be used and that no agreement could be reached between all the EU Member States. I do hope that other Member States will be part of this cooperation soon.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) The Czech Republic is represented in the European Parliament. The Czech Republic did not sign up to the mechanism for enhanced cooperation in the area of compatibility of the rules applicable concerning conflict of laws. This is because the Czech Republic does not feel that the proposal for a regulation is a necessary measure for the proper functioning of the internal market. Similarly, the Czech Republic finds the regulation questionable in light of the principle of subsidiarity, since it does not offer any added value that would justify its infringement on the Member States’ national family law provisions. The Czech Republic also considers the proposal to be questionable in light of the principle of proportionality, since the chosen legal form of the regulation is not a suitable tool for ensuring the compatibility of rules on conflict of laws in the area of international family law. However, having said that, it is not my intention that my vote should stop those States which have opted for enhanced cooperation as a tool for ensuring the compatibility of rules on conflict of laws, with respect to determining the applicable law in matrimonial matters, from taking this route.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) The proposal for a regulation on enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation helps to address the commonly occurring complex and sensitive issues that are associated with divorce proceedings for valid marriages, which are entered into by people of different nationalities. It makes things clearer for the divorcing couple and allows them to choose the applicable law. It also significantly increases their legal certainty right from the outset. As the adopted legislation goes beyond the Acquis communautaire, the application of the mechanism for enhanced cooperation is a step which allows participating Member States to deal with some of the legislative problems of international cooperation associated with the break-up of these kinds of marriages.

It gives other Member States, which are not taking part at this stage, sufficient opportunity to evaluate the positive and negative effects of this proposal for a regulation over time and to consider signing up to it. For several years, and in several duly justified cases, it has been foreign law which has applied in such divorce proceedings in the Czech Republic.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The new regulation will enable international couples (couples with different nationalities, couples who live in different countries or couples who live together in a different country to their country of origin) to choose the national law to be applicable to their divorce, provided that one of the partners has a connection with the country in question, for example, habitual residence or nationality. The new rules also clarify the law that is applicable in the case of there being no agreement between the partners. The new regulation will enable, for example, a Spanish/Portuguese couple living in Belgium to choose whether the law to be applicable to their divorce should be Portuguese, Spanish or Belgian.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Divorce is a serious matter. Quite often it involves broken dishes and divided properties. I sincerely admire the idealism of the rapporteur, Tadeusz Zwiefka. What happens if the German husband wants to be divorced in Germany, but his wife wants to be divorced in Sicily because her mother is Sicilian? How do you divide a vacuum cleaner and a washing machine if there is no agreement? The idea is good, but it needs to be polished. 90% of divorces are tragedy and scandal. I am ‘in favour’, but let us look at details when considering this kind of document. We need a law, not rules.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Separation and divorce are always difficult matters and involve a whole series of legal consequences. Everything becomes particularly problematic when the husband and wife come from different countries. We have been looking for a solution within the European Union, but we have only been able to agree on an enhanced cooperation procedure, which makes the situation only slightly easier for those affected, in other words, the couples from different EU Member States who are divorcing. The scope of this procedure has not been specified and, therefore, is also not entirely clear.

Of course, cooperation does not mean that judgments, like those in the case of divorce, must be recognised in a Member State where there is no legal provision for doing so. Equally, the procedure must not offer an opportunity to force Member States to recognise same-sex partnerships via the back door. Equally little attention has been paid to the rights of parents in the case of cross-border separations. For this reason, I have abstained from voting.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report because I believe it is necessary to establish a clear and comprehensive legal framework on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. For the first time, with the introduction of Article 3a, the spouses are given an opportunity to designate the law applicable to the divorce proceedings by mutual agreement. I also believe that we should ensure that the decision made by the parties is an informed one, in other words that both spouses have been duly informed about the practical consequences of their decision. In this regard, it is necessary to ensure that the information is accurate and complete. I think it is important to protect the couple’s relationship so that the act of separation can take place in a clear, transparent and consensual manner between both parties, who thus become decision-makers of equal authority.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Portugal is taking part, together with 13 other EU countries (Spain, Italy, Hungary, Luxemburg, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Belgium, Latvia and Malta) in the first enhanced cooperation trial in the history of the EU. This enhanced cooperation is being applied in the area of the law applicable to divorce and the legal separation of people and property.

I voted in favour of this report relating to the Regulation, which establishes clear rules on the procedure for international couples (where the spouses are of different nationalities) seeking a divorce or a legal separation of people or property in their countries of origin or residence. This is a fully consensual issue that will make the lives of a number of Europeans easier. It is also a symbolic moment, being the first time that enhanced cooperation between EU Member States has been applied.

The aim of these provisions is to strengthen legal certainty and predictability with regard to divorce and the legal separation of people and property. The agreement only provides for the harmonisation of conflict situations, and not for the harmonisation of basic national rules.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) One of the European Union’s main objectives is to maintain and develop an area of freedom, security and justice, in which freedom of movement of persons is guaranteed. The legal situation at European level regarding the law applicable to the divorce and legal separation of spouses of different nationalities is currently very confusing. This often leads to a ‘rush to court’ where one of the spouses applies for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he or she regards as more favourable to his or her own interests. The purpose of the proposal for a regulation is to create legal certainty for the couples concerned and guarantee predictability and flexibility. I am therefore bound to agree with the rapporteur, Mr Zwiefka, who supports the substance of the rules for determining the law applicable to divorce and legal separation.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece (withdrew its request on 3 March 2010), Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia submitted a request to the Commission indicating that they intended to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of applicable law in matrimonial matters and invited the Commission to present a proposal on this to the Council. Citizens’ ever-increasing mobility requires, on the one hand, more flexibility and, on the other hand, greater legal certainty In order to achieve this objective, this regulation must enhance the parties’ autonomy in the areas of divorce and legal separation by giving spouses the opportunity to choose the law applicable to their divorce or legal separation.

The regulation will apply only to the dissolution of the marriage or cessation of marital obligations (legal separation) and will not apply to matters relating to the legal capacity of natural persons, the existence, validity or recognition of a marriage, the annulment of a marriage, the name of the spouses, the property consequences of the marriage, parental responsibility, maintenance obligations, trusts or successions, even if they arise merely as a preliminary question within the context of divorce or legal separation proceedings.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The development of an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of people is guaranteed, represents one of the most fundamental objectives of the European Union. I therefore welcome this proposal, which introduces greater legal security with regard to identifying the law applicable to national divorces and separations, and would like to see other Member States join efforts to achieve compatibility in the national rules on legal conflicts in this area.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This text sets out to solve problems such as the following. A and B are nationals of different Member States who entered into a same-sex marriage in one of the Member States which have introduced legislation to permit such marriages. They have been habitually resident for three years in a Member State which does not permit same-sex marriages but participated in the adoption of the regulation on applicable law under the enhanced cooperation procedure. A and B wish to dissolve their marriage.

Under the rules of Regulation No 2201/2003 on jurisdiction, the only courts having jurisdiction in those circumstances are the courts of the Member State in which they are habitually resident. This is patently not fair on the couple concerned, who would be put to a considerable amount of inconvenience and loss of time in order to bring their divorce proceedings within the jurisdiction of another court.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. − (SV) When the European Parliament voted today on the proposal for a Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, I chose to abstain from the vote. In my opinion, family law, such as the regulation of divorces, is an area where the principle of subsidiarity should be upheld and where every Member State should make its own decisions. The cooperation that the report discusses is voluntary for the Member States of the EU and, as things currently stand, there are 14 countries taking part. Sweden is not one of them. In my opinion, it is not entirely appropriate for me, as a Swedish MEP, to adopt a position on legislation that relates solely to a form of cooperation that Sweden is not involved in.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) With 16 million marriages between partners of different nationalities in the EU, of which an estimated 140 000 end in divorce every year, negotiations and an agreement on this question are essential in order to guarantee the necessary legal certainty for citizens. After numerous initiatives in this area have been vetoed by individual Member States, the enhanced cooperation procedure has now given at least 14 countries the opportunity to put in place the necessary criteria.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0340/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because the world financial crisis, to which the credit rating agencies contributed in part, has demonstrated the need to introduce a mechanism for the classification and supervision of credit rating agencies. I agree with this report in its encouragement of the creation, at a European level, of a system for the registration and supervision of credit rating agencies that issue ratings used within the EU, and its consideration of conditions for the use within the EU of ratings issued by agencies in third countries. The agreement reached on the European supervisory architecture, which will come into force on 1 January 2011, now makes the effective application of supervision to these agencies possible. It is essential that, from its inception, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is in a position to exercise its powers so as to ensure the vigorous supervision of credit rating agencies active within the EU, as well as those from third countries whose ratings are authorised within the EU, in full cooperation with their national authorities. I also welcome the fact that the US has also decided to draw up stricter supervision rules in this area, given that the Commission is also considering working towards further international harmonisation.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that there is a need to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising credit rating agencies. The global financial crisis, to which the credit rating agencies made their contribution, had an influence on this initiative. I agree with the European Commission’s proposal to organise the accreditation and supervision of credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). However, it is vital for the ESMA, as soon as it is established, to be in a position to exercise its remit to ensure sound supervision of credit rating agencies operating in the European Union and also third-country agencies whose ratings will be authorised in the European Union.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In principle, credit rating agencies issue independent opinions on the creditworthiness of an entity, a debt, a financial obligation or a finance instrument. However, these agencies’ opinions can sometimes seriously impact the economy of the country whose financial regularity they are rating. In 2009, the Union adopted Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 which aims to regulate the activities of agencies to protect investors and European financial markets against the risk of malpractice. It sets the conditions for issuing credit ratings as well as the rules governing the registration and supervision of credit rating agencies. Meanwhile, a report issued by an expert panel concluded that the framework for supervision needs to be improved to reduce the risk of future financial crises and their severity. The European Securities and Markets Authority (‘ESMA’) regulation established the European Supervisory Authority . To ensure that this authority runs smoothly and is properly integrated into the overall framework of financial regulation, it became necessary to amend Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. I voted for this report, as it improves control over credit rating agencies.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Based on the report by my excellent colleague and friend Jean-Paul Gauzès from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I voted for the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the 2009 regulation on credit rating agencies and granting the all-new European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) supervisory powers over these entities. I support the improvements offered by the rapporteur, particularly the transfer of new powers to ESMA which the Commission intended to keep for itself in particular with regard to penalties. I believe it is important that ESMA can delegate part of its functions to the national authorities. I regret that no mention is made (albeit this regulatory amendment is probably not the right medium) on the matter of rating States and the specific supervision which ought to be in place when rating States. I propose the creation of a European public agency for rating States which would guarantee the necessary technicality and independence.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) The global financial crisis showed the need to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising credit rating agencies. There is a need for EU-wide joint oversight of credit rating agencies and integrated supervision of them. I approved of this important document. 2009 saw the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies. It made it possible to establish a European system for registering and supervising credit rating agencies which issue ratings used in the European Union. It also lays down the conditions for the use in the European Union of ratings issued by third-country agencies. There needs to be a reliable supervisory and control system and I therefore support the proposed amendments which will strengthen the European Securities and Markets Authority. This institution must be introduced into the supervision of credit rating agencies operating in the EU and effectively exercise its remit.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the economic and financial crisis that has affected the whole world showed the need to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising credit rating agencies. For this reason the European Commission presented a proposal to organise the accreditation and supervision of credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Importantly, this authority will be endowed with its own supervisory powers, but also investigatory powers, and it will be able to punish failure to apply this Regulation. I agree with the European Parliament’s position that there is a need for EU-wide joint oversight of credit rating agencies' products and integrated supervision of them. Furthermore, Parliament suggests focusing on the introduction of the ESMA into the supervision of agencies and on the definition of its new tasks and new powers. It is vital for the ESMA, as soon as it is established, to be in a position to exercise its remit to ensure sound supervision of credit rating agencies operating in the European Union and also third-country agencies whose ratings will be authorised in the European Union.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I abstained in the vote on the report on credit rating agencies. These rating agencies openly serve the interests of international speculators. They have played a negative role since the beginning of the crisis and they continue to do so. Their targeted and arbitrary downgrading of countries’ credit ratings, both inside and outside the EU, send those countries into a vicious circle of speculation and borrowing. The increase in spreads increases countries’ financial problems and enriches the markets at their expense. In the euro area in particular, the role and practices of credit rating agencies also has a negative effect on the stability of the euro. The EU bears serious political responsibility, having granted them the right to rate both companies and the economies of the Member States. I believe that effective measures need to be taken immediately to put an end to the speculative nature of rating agencies and, consequently, to radically amend Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. The report contains some positive but, unfortunately, weak proposals and only takes timid steps in this direction.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The need to move towards this change derives from the need to adapt Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 to the new European supervisory architecture, and from the introduction of a new mechanism for the centralisation of the operations of rating agencies.

To this end, the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority – ESMA) will be given its own powers of supervision, investigation and for the application of sanctions. We must now ensure that ESMA is in a position to exercise its powers and to ensure the vigorous supervision of credit rating agencies active within the European Union, as well as those from third countries whose ratings are authorised within the European Union.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) This report is a technical amendment to the existing directive, and it will confer powers on the new supervisory authority, EMSA, from January 2011 onwards. We must remember that it is expected that there will be a more comprehensive improvement of the credit rating agencies in the spring of 2011.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the activity of credit rating agencies is, in theory, already supervised and regulated at European level. But has this called into question the domination of the three American agencies which call all the shots on the European markets, sovereign debt and hence the rates at which European States can borrow? I am afraid not. This did not stop Standard & Poor, again quite recently, from threatening to downgrade Belgium’s rating, nor Moody's from threatening Spain nor Fitch Ireland.

None of these agencies has been penalised, neither by their customers nor by their reputation being tarnished, for not having done their work properly during the Enron or subprime crises. They are now claiming to have a political role: the threat against Belgium is an attempt to force the constitution of a government; the absence of threat against France to artificially prevent the fragmentation of the euro area. The truth is that they only have power because the markets are not regulated, and your texts, which I have however voted for, will not do much to improve things.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The regulation covers both the supervision of credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority and supervision of the use of credit ratings by individual entities supervised at national level. The national supervisory authorities will remain responsible for supervising the use of credit ratings by these individual entities. However, the national authorities will not have powers to take supervisory measures against credit rating agencies in breach of the regulation. This is the very point on which the proposal is being examined in terms of compliance with the principle of proportionality. The proposal creates a control system but, within the context of the current neoliberal environment, there is no provision for real, essential application of it; it is merely a psychologically novel action directly mainly at the public at large.

It is not designed to replace a previous system; it is designed to introduce a new control system which has not previously existed, even in this form, which is what allowed the credit rating agencies to steam ahead regardless in the first place. In this sense, it is perhaps better to have this system than none at all.

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I voted in favour of the report on the introduction of centralised supervision of credit rating agencies. I am in complete agreement with the content of Mr Gauzès’ report on the proposal for a regulation which sets out a model for the centralised supervision of credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), especially given the significant mobility of services provided by credit rating agencies and their instantaneous impact on the financial markets. Centralised supervision could lead to increased transparency in the world of credit rating agencies and could promote greater competition between the different agencies. That is the reason why I voted in favour of the report. However, I am concerned that the proposed period during which all the changes regarding the transfer of competencies and duties from the relevant supervisory bodies in the Member States to ESMA is too short, and so I think it should be extended.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I approved of this report because the global financial crisis, to which the credit rating agencies made their contribution, showed the need to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising credit rating agencies. This was the purpose behind the adoption, in 2009, of the Regulation on credit rating agencies. It made it possible to establish a European system for registering and supervising credit rating agencies which issue ratings used in the European Union. It also lays down the conditions for the use in the European Union of ratings issued by third-country agencies. The agreement reached on the architecture of European supervision which will enter into force on 1 January 2011 provides that the ESMA will exercise its own supervisory powers in relation, in particular, to credit rating agencies. It is therefore necessary to amend the Regulation on credit rating agencies in order to organise the accreditation and supervision of credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority. This authority will be endowed with its own supervisory powers, but also investigatory powers, and it will be able to punish failure to apply this Regulation. Fines will be levied by the Member States.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) A mechanism for monitoring and supervising credit rating agencies is necessary. We must take note of the fact that credit rating agencies contributed, in part, to the crisis. In 2011 we will receive a proposal from the Commission in relation to various supplementary measures concerning ratings, and introducing such measures will be possible after adoption of this report. The above considerations persuaded me to endorse the report, which I did as an expression of my conviction that it will enter into force quickly and we will see positive results.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Private credit rating agencies have been given new rights to set the standards and promises of delegation of power from the public authorities. Their dependence on private partners knows no limit. Nor does their arbitrary nature. The public authorities have given up. It is shameful.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There is a need to move towards this change so that Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 can be adapted to the new European supervisory architecture and so that a new mechanism for the centralisation of the operations of rating agencies can be introduced. Thus the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority – ESMA) will be given its own powers of supervision, investigation and for the application of sanctions. It is essential that ESMA is in a position to exercise its powers and to ensure the vigorous supervision of credit rating agencies active within the European Union.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I was not able to support this report, as although I am in favour of many of the points included and of the general propositions of increased transparency and improved information and supervision for credit agencies and other financial entities, this proposal will serve the interests of investors, who are professionals far removed from what has been described as the ‘real economy’, since it gives them greater legal security. Therefore, although I believe it is necessary, as this proposal states, to work hard to achieve transparency and the right to clear information in the financial system, I believe it is more necessary to put an end to financial speculation and work to achieve regulation that will place the financial markets under the supervision of the Member States. This report works towards transparency, information and a degree of supervision of financial agents, but it does so cautiously and from a pro-capitalist perspective that seeks to please the financial industry, which I neither share not support.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − It is a very important instrument to inform EU citizens about the situation in the companies and banks, but also to compare the competitiveness of different brands and articles. I voted in favour. I also hope that in future this regulation will be completed by control of the rates of political parties and the mass media in order to prevent the manipulation of public opinion for money. The credit rating agencies do not work hard in getting the information and analysing it. They are ready to show the convenient result to those who pay. All those who are manipulating public opinion and thus betraying society deserve severe punishment.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) More than anything else the financial crisis has made it clear to us that credit rating agencies have a dangerous monopoly and that their evaluations are not always adequate and are sometimes highly risky. Therefore, it is important to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising rating agencies. As they form part of a highly complex system of financial markets, the decision was made to introduce a double system for this purpose. In addition, the report lays down the conditions under which ratings issued by third-country agencies can be used in the European Union.

It is, of course, essential for the supervisory system to allow sanctions to be imposed. The future will show to what extent these will actually be applied. The fact that several EU supervisory bodies have now been set up, involving increased administration and costs, is not a good thing for European taxpayers. I have taken this into account when voting.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of Parliament’s resolution as I agree that:

- the registration and permanent supervision of credit rating agencies within the Union should be the sole responsibility of the European Supervisory Authority (ESA), namely the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which should have exclusive powers to sign cooperation agreements on the exchange of information with the relevant authorities in third countries;

- the ESA (ESMA) should be responsible for the registration and permanent supervision of credit rating agencies, with the right to seek, by means of a simple request or a decision, all of the information that it needs from credit rating agencies, individuals involved in credit rating activities, organisations that are the subject of rating and third parties linked to them, third parties to which credit rating agencies have subcontracted any operational tasks, and individuals of any other kind that are closely and substantively linked to credit rating agencies or activities;

- that the registration of a credit rating agency agreed by a relevant authority should be valid throughout the entire Union following the transfer of supervisory powers from the relevant authorities to ESA (ESMA).

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The global financial crisis, to which the credit rating agencies made their contribution, showed the need to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising credit rating agencies. This was the purpose behind the adoption, in 2009, of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies.

It made it possible to establish a European system for registering and supervising credit rating agencies which issue ratings used in the European Union. It also lays down the conditions for the use in the European Union of ratings issued by third-country agencies, by applying a double system of equivalence and endorsement of ratings. I therefore voted in favour and support the rapporteur, Mr Gauzes, who suggests focusing on the introduction of the European Securities and Markets Authority into the supervision of agencies and on the definition of its new tasks and new powers. It is, in fact, vital for the ESMA, as soon as it is established, to be in a position to exercise its remit to ensure sound supervision of credit rating agencies operating in the EU and also third-country agencies whose ratings will be authorised in the EU.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of Parliament’s resolution as I agree that the transparency of the information provided by the issuer of a financial instrument rated by a designated credit rating agency may potentially represent substantial added value for the functioning of the market and the protection of investors.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The global financial crisis, to which the credit rating agencies made their contribution, showed the need to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising these agencies. This was the purpose behind the adoption, in 2009, of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies. This made it possible to establish a European system for registering and supervising credit rating agencies which issue ratings used in the European Union. It also lays down the conditions for the use in the European Union of ratings issued by third-country agencies, by applying a double system of equivalence and endorsement of ratings. During the debates preceding the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, your rapporteur stressed the need for EU-wide joint oversight of credit rating agencies’ products and integrated supervision of them.

This principle was upheld and the Commission undertook to draft a legislative proposal along these lines. The agreement reached on the architecture of European supervision which will enter into force on 1 January 2011 now makes the effective implementation of rating agency supervision possible. It is stressed in the regulation establishing the ESMA that this authority will exercise its own supervisory powers in relation, in particular, to credit rating agencies.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The regulation covers both the supervision of credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority and supervision of the use of credit ratings by individual entities supervised at national level. The national supervisory authorities will remain responsible for supervising the use of credit ratings by these individual entities. Nonetheless, the national authorities will not have the power to take supervisory measures against credit rating agencies in the event of infringement of the regulation. This is the very point on which the proposal is being checked in terms of compliance with the principle of proportionality.

The proposal creates a control system for which, within the context of the current neoliberal environment, there is no provision for real, essential application above and beyond its psychologically novel action, which is directly mainly at the public at large. However, it is not designed to replace a previous system; it is designed to introduce a new control system which has not previously existed, even in this form, which is what allowed the credit rating agencies to steam ahead regardless. In this sense, it is perhaps better to have this system than none at all.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I was happy to vote in favour of this report. The gradual process of regulating the financial markets is beginning to take shape. Protection for investors has been improved and transparency has been increased. The regulations are now more wide-ranging and comprehensive and, therefore, provide better protection for those involved.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) The worldwide financial crisis, which was in part caused by credit rating agencies, has made it necessary to set up a mechanism for monitoring and supervising these agencies. For this reason, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) will come into being on 1 January 2011.

At the same time, the continuing crisis and the constant new discoveries about market mechanisms make it necessary for the tasks and authority of this body to be constantly adjusted and, if required, expanded. Therefore, I very much welcome the detailed specifications and clarifications concerning the authority of the ESMA in its relationships with the relevant national bodies. For this reason, I have voted in favour of the report.

Report: Anja Weisgerber (A7-0050/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, because it contributes to the necessary simplification of the EU legal framework. I believe that the eight directives currently in force in the field of metrology hinder more than help work in this field. At the same time I share the rapporteur’s position that the Member States should be given more time to investigate whether repealing the Directives will lead to legal uncertainty which makes European harmonisation of rules necessary. I therefore believe that a solution must be adopted which repeals the Directives, but also provides sufficient time to analyse the possible consequences in context with the broader review of the basic legal instrument in this field.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Metrology is the science of measurements. Since ancient times, Europeans have adopted a succession of measuring systems in all fields (length, volume, alcoholometry, and so on). The adoption of the metric system, for example, led to improved collaboration between the various economic operators on the continent and then globally. However, a wide variety of measurements and measuring systems prevail in many fields. Through a desire to remove these barriers to cooperation between Europeans, the Union has a longstanding policy of harmonising measuring systems. Directive 2004/22 was an important step in this movement. As we prepare to revise this legislation, a number of instruments now appear obsolete and should be removed to make it more readable. I supported this text as it provides a welcome adjustment to the law on metrology.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the need to simplify the Community acquis and to update the directives that no longer apply, adapting them to our times. The directives in question are obsolete and do not contribute to better regulation. The Commission believes that there is no need to harmonise legislation on metrology, as its understanding is that there is sufficient cooperation between Member States and that the current situation of the common recognition of rules based on the international parameters of the different Member States is satisfactory. However, it needs to be taken into account that it would be detrimental to have a void in the regulation on this issue, and that we should not contribute to legal uncertainties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report under discussion talks about the possibility of withdrawing up to eight directives relating to metrology in six sectors, with a view to simplifying the body of European law in this area: cold water meters for non-clean water (Directive 75/33/EEC); alcohol meters and alcohol tables (Directives 76/765/EEC and 76/766/EEC); medium and above-medium accuracy weights, respectively (Directives 71/317/EEC and 74/148/EEC); tyre pressure gauges for motor vehicles (Directive 86/217/EEC); standard mass of grain (Directive 71/347/EEC), and calibration of ship tanks (Directive 71/349/EEC).

The different options relating to these eight directives under consideration being - revocation in its entirety, revocation with conditions and no measures being taken - the Commission concluded that there is no option that stands out. However, for reasons of improved regulation, the Commission favours the revocation in its entirety of all of the directives, that is to say, it favours new regulation within the framework of measuring instruments.

I favour this choice by the Commission from a legislative excellence point of view, although I believe that the Member States should be given sufficient time to analyse the possible consequences within the context of a broader review of the basic legal instrument in this area, namely the Directive relating to measuring instruments (Directive 2004/22/EC).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) A simple and up-to-date Community acquis is one of the EU’s objectives. It does not make sense to keep rules that are entirely obsolete in place. With regard to metrology, the understanding is that there is no need to proceed with any harmonisation, as the legislation in place is a common recognition of rules based on the international parameters of the various Member States. However, it is important that a gap in the regulation on this issue is not created, so that there are no legal uncertainties.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council repealing eight Council directives regarding metrology as, like the rapporteur, I support the general objective of better legislation. I also support the view that ‘Member States should be given more time to investigate whether repealing the directives will lead to legal uncertainty’. I believe that these directives concerning measuring instruments need to be repealed and simplified by revising the legal basis for metrology: the Directive on measuring instruments. In general I think it is a positive step to simplify EU legislation, as it will improve access for citizens to that legislation and make it possible to work more efficiently in that field.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Eight EU directives currently cover the field of metrology in six different areas. For reasons of better law-making, the Commission is therefore proposing to repeal the directives. According to the Commission, harmonisation is not necessary, as the current situation of mutual recognition of national rules functions satisfactorily. However, the rapporteur is of the opinion that the Member States should be given more time to investigate whether repealing the directives will lead to legal uncertainty. I have voted in favour of the report, as the problems of legal uncertainty will be taken into account by the rapporteur.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Repealing European directives essentially means leaving a regulatory vacuum in the European Union’s system, but modernising a system such as that of the directives on metrology is certainly a step toward a broader and more up-to-date common system. For this reason, I voted in favour of the report repealing the eight Council directives on metrology. The principle shared by the Council and the Commission is nevertheless delicately balanced because each Member State will have to rely on mutual recognition of national standards, avoiding causing problems to businesses in the sector that rely on metrology rules until the revision of the directive on measuring instruments that will harmonise the relevant legislation at European level is adopted.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the position of the rapporteur who advocates improved regulation with regard to metrology.

The Commission was favouring the complete revocation of all eight directives relating to metrology; however, the rapporteur’s position is more balanced, giving Member States more time to investigate whether revocation of the directives will lead to legal uncertainty, making it necessary for there to be European harmonisation of the rules relating to metrology. A transitional period is thus established in order to analyse the possible consequences of the revocation of the directives, and to analyse the need to review the basic directive in this area (Directive 2004/22/EC).

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with the rapporteur, Mrs Weisgerber, who favours the general objective of better regulation. However, with regard to this proposal it is not that clear what the best option will be. The Commission concludes in their Impact Assessment, when looking at the different options concerning these eight metrology directives (full repeal, repeal with conditions, do nothing), that ‘no option stands out’.

Still, for reasons of better regulation, the Commission favours the full repeal of all directives (and relies on mutual recognition of national regulation) above harmonisation, that is,. re-regulation in the Directive on measuring instruments. To reiterate, I agree with the rapporteur, who is of the opinion that Member States should be given more time to investigate whether repealing the directives will lead to legal uncertainty which makes European harmonisation of rules necessary.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Repealing all eight directives will most likely lead to additional administrative burdens as Members States will be able to introduce national provisions implementing the measuring instruments covered by the directives being repealed. Neither the directives being repealed nor those remaining in force will enhance the common level of consumer protection. This could only be achieved by amending them. I think that Member States should be given more time to investigate whether repealing the directives would lead to legal uncertainty which would make the harmonisation of European rules necessary. I also support the rapporteur’s proposal for the process to be completed by 1 May 2014. Consequently, I voted for this report as it opts for a solution where the directives will be repealed, but also provides sufficient time to analyse the possible consequences in the context of the broad review of the basic legal instrument in this field, the Measurement Instruments Directive (2004/22/EC).

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the general objective of improved regulation in the area of metrology. However, I believe greater reflection would be advisable, as hasty standardisation could lead to more disruption and legal uncertainty than benefits.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − With this vote, the EP shows that it favours the general objective of better regulation. However, with regard to this proposal it is not that clear what the best option will be. The Commission concludes in their Impact Assessment, when looking at the different options concerning these 8 metrology directives (full repeal, repeal with conditions, do nothing), that ‘no option stands out’. Still, for reasons of better regulation, the Commission favours the full repeal of all Directives (and relies on mutual recognition of national regulation) above harmonisation, that is, re-regulation in MID. The EP is of the opinion that Member States should be given more time to investigate whether repealing the directives will lead to legal uncertainty which makes European harmonisation of rules necessary.

Therefore we have opted for a solution where the directives will be repealed and which also provides sufficient time to analyse the possible consequences in context with the broader review of the basic legal instrument in this field, the ‘Measurement Instruments Directive’ (2004/22/EC).

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of the report, because it makes a significant contribution to reducing bureaucracy, which is something that is constantly being called for, and allows more than 20 directives that are obsolete or no longer needed to be repealed. This is the right approach to achieving a simpler and leaner Europe.

Report: Zita Gurmai, Alain Lamassoure (A7-0350/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I approved of this important resolution because I am convinced that the European citizens' initiative will be a powerful agenda-setting instrument and will foster greater cross-border debates within the EU. The citizens’ initiative gives European citizens the right to make a legislative proposal. For this initiative to be effective the organisers of a European citizens’ initiative should gather into a citizens' committee composed of persons coming from different Member States. This will ensure that the issues which arise are truly European, all the while having the added value of helping the collection of signatures from the very beginning. I feel that the citizens’ initiative will only succeed if the EU regulation is citizen-friendly and does not create cumbersome obligations for and frustration among the organisers. It is also very important that the process is in line with the EU data protection requirements and that it is fully transparent, from the start until the end. The European citizens’ initiative is a new instrument of participatory democracy on a continental scale and therefore significant attention should be paid to communication and information campaigns aimed at raising awareness of the European citizens’ initiative.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The compromise between the European Parliament and the Council on the regulation on the so-called citizens’ initiative, which has been accompanied by ridiculous triumphant talk about the strengthening of the democratic institutions of the EU, is nothing more than an insulting attempt to manipulate and fool the people. The misleadingly entitled citizens’ initiative is not only useless; it may prove to be dangerous for the people. Apart from any procedural requirements agreed in terms of collecting 1 000 000 signatures petitioning the Commission to take a legislative initiative, materially it is the same: the Commission is under no obligation to propose the legislative initiative and is not bound by its contents.

On the contrary, this type of ‘citizens’ initiative’, guided and manipulated by the mechanisms of capital and the bourgeois political system, may be used by EU bodies to present the most anti-grassroots and reactionary choices of the EU and the monopolies as an apparently ‘popular request’. Moreover, this sort of ‘initiative’ will be used to set signatures, memoranda and requests against the organised grassroots and working class movement, mass demonstrations and struggles and various forms of fight. Various ‘citizens’ initiatives’ cannot hide the reactionary face of the EU, nor will they be able to reverse the escalation in the class struggle and grassroots fight.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The citizens’ initiative was promised in the Treaty of Lisbon and is now finally being implemented. This new form of participation in the formulation of European Union policy allows European citizens to directly approach the Commission asking it to table a proposal on matters of interest to them, provided these fall within the framework of the EU’s powers. We were only waiting for rules of procedure to be introduced for this new European citizens’ right to become a reality. This has now been done and I supported the proposal in the vote. A ‘citizens’ committee’ made up of individuals from at least seven Member States can register an initiative with the Commission. After this, the process to gather signatures on paper or online can begin. The million signatures that are required must come from at least one quarter of the EU Member States and must be gathered within 12 months. Member States will verify the statements of support. All the signatures must be submitted by European Union citizens old enough to vote in the European parliamentary elections. Lastly, the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, will be the final judge of whether the proposed legislative procedure should be undertaken.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I support the decision adopted by the European Parliament on the right in the European citizens’ initiative to make a legislative proposal. It is believed that the introduction of the initiative will establish a direct link between the citizens and the institutions, thus bridging the gap between them and ensuring that the EU institutions will address the concrete problems which are of importance to them. Through the ECI, EU citizens can appeal directly to the European Commission to initiate a legal act. The Commission will be the one deciding on the follow-up to be given to successful citizens’ initiatives. The European Parliament will be able to contribute to the achievement of these goals through the organisation of public hearings or the adoption of resolutions. As this is a new initiative it would be useful for the Commission to present a report on its implementation every three years and, if relevant, to propose a revision of the regulation. In order to ensure effective application of the initiative complicated administrative procedures should be avoided. It is also necessary to ensure that the process is in line with the EU data protection requirements.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After a compromise was reached on the rules governing the European citizens’ initiative, the report was adopted by a very large majority: 628 for and only 15 against and 24 abstentions. I am delighted with this vote, which introduces the opportunity starting in 2012 for Europe’s citizens to make their voices heard more clearly. The concept is simple, it is a sort of petition at European level: a citizens’ committee made up of members from at least seven Member States will have a year to collect one million signatures on a subject of public interest which requires the attention of the Commission. The Commission must then decide within three months whether or not it considers that a legislative proposal on the subject is appropriate and must give reasons for its decision. We may be opposed to some of the conditions obtained by Member States, such as the requirement to be a citizen rather than simply a resident of the European Union in order to be able to sign the petition; or the option for states to ask for individuals’ identity cards in order to check their signatures. Nonetheless, the citizens’ initiative is a positive idea and a step towards participative democracy which we must now put into practice.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the European citizens’ initiative, introduced in the Treaty of Lisbon is a huge step towards closer relations between the European Union and European citizens. The new initiative will grant citizens the same political initiative powers that the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament already enjoy. Furthermore, it will provide citizens with a means to be heard by enabling them to refer some issues of interest to the European institutions. Such a two-way flow is mutually beneficial. With the introduction of the initiative there will be a guarantee that the European Union institutions will address the concrete problems which are of importance to citizens. Moreover, the European Parliament will be able to help citizens achieve these goals by making use of all the means in its power to support the citizens’ initiatives of its choice, notably through the organisation of public hearings or the adoption of resolutions.

However, the European Union must ensure that the process is in line with the EU data protection requirements and that it is fully transparent, from the start until the end. Only by guaranteeing a safe environment where citizens can present proposals, will we be able to win their trust and encourage their interest in the work of the European Union.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The citizens’ initiative, which gives a million Europeans the right to propose legislative initiatives, incorporates the concept of participative democracy into the European Union, which is actually stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon. This is a new, important step which the EU is taking and Parliament will therefore receive feedback from the citizens whom it represents on whether it is doing a good job or not. I welcome the fact that Parliament has endeavoured, as far as possible, to make the legislative initiative procedure for EU citizens as simple and easy to use as possible because they are the ones who will actually use it. We would not have needed a complicated procedure which would have only made EU citizens frustrated.

Parliament’s key demands have been accepted, such as the admissibility check right at the start rather than carrying out a check after the first 300 000 signatures have been collected. I regard it as a victory for Parliament and EU citizens that the minimum number of Member States from which signatures need to be collected is a quarter and not a third, as had originally been proposed. I hope that when Parliament’s decision comes into force in 2012, there will be as many initiatives as possible submitted by EU citizens.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on the citizens’ initiative, knowing full well that it is simply a means of expression of the will of the citizens of Europe and not a powerful means of participating in or reversing current policies. The Commission tried to the very end to limit this specific civil right and, thus, the final text does not reflect the real ambitions; for example, it introduces particular complex procedures for exercising this right. Unfortunately, important amendments by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left were rejected and, as a result, initiatives cannot be signed by EU residents who are not nationals of a Member State, thereby precluding equal participation of residents, regardless of nationality, nor is there a guarantee that signatures will tally with signatories’ ID numbers.

Despite this, the final text is a much better version than the text originally proposed, in that it sets the minimum at a quarter of the Member States, proposes that initiatives be registered immediately and requires the Commission to organise a public hearing for every successful initiative and to guarantee absolute transparency in connection with the funding of each initiative.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I have always seen this initiative as one of the most important innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon. The possibility of a million citizens of a significant number of Member States being able to put forward a legislative initiative should contribute to the strengthening by European citizenship of civil society organised at an EU level. I have emphasised the scope of this measure, given that Members of the European Parliament do not have the right to legislative initiatives. I hope that the practical application of this legislative initiative does not turn out to be excessively bureaucratic, discouraging use of this new instrument.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Although I fully support the European Citizen's initiative, I voted against the final legislative resolution because I am disappointed with how little was ultimately achieved with this promising tool. In particular, I do not agree with the provision requesting signatories in the majority of Member States to give their personal ID numbers. I am also against the restriction of participation in the ECI to EU citizens only.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the basic rules of ‘the citizens’ initiative’ as laid down by the Treaty of Lisbon, marks another step further towards direct democracy in Europe. In future, the Commission will have to consider drawing up a new European law when there is demand to do so from one million citizens from at least one quarter of all Member States. This new instrument therefore gives European citizens the ability to genuinely influence the legislative process, by bringing a demand or a concern raised by the people’s will to European level. It is a victory for our movement which has consistently called for bringing the European Union closer to its citizens by building a more solid, a more transparent and a more accessible Europe.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that I voted, along with the huge majority of Members, in favour of the report on the ‘citizens’ initiative’, which introduces an unprecedented dose of popular participation in the EU’s legislative process. Indeed, by giving one million citizens the right of political initiative, Parliament is holding itself up as a fine example of participatory democracy. This is now the way forward for the European Union: it must become ever closer to its citizens.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI), in writing. − (DE) Some small improvements have been made in comparison with the original draft. Therefore, I have voted in favour of the report. Nevertheless, I would like to say that, even with this toothless citizens’ initiative, there is still a striking democratic deficit in the EU, which does not have any form of direct democracy. As a result, the next step must be the introduction of obligatory referendums for successful initiatives. The inclusion of a mandatory public hearing for the initiators of petitions involving the Commission and Parliament is very welcome. Now the Member States must implement the citizens’ initiative quickly, without wasting time or introducing excessive red tape.

Identity card checks by local authorities, such as those which apply in the case of national petitions for referendums, will not be needed to evaluate the statements of support. The national electoral authorities should rely on random sampling, as proposed by the European Parliament.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the draft European Parliament and Council regulation relating to the citizens’ initiative, one of the most relevant provisions introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, and under the terms of which one million citizens can ask the Commission to put forward certain legislative proposals. The proposals adopted by the European Parliament should enable the rules relating to the citizens’ initiative to be made clearer, simpler and easier to apply.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The citizens’ initiative, approved today, is one more step towards the establishment of a Europe made for people and by people, increasing its democratic nature and transparency, and encouraging Europe to move closer to its citizens and an active, interested and participative civil society. From now on it will be possible for European citizens to submit a request that the European Commission proposes legislation on a given issue, provided that a minimum number of signatories coming from at least one-fifth of Member States is guaranteed.

However, I have to express some bewilderment at the exclusion of collective entities and organisations as ‘organisers’ (Article 2, No 3), thinking in particular of NGOs and political parties, the founding organisations of representative democracy, as well as at the terminology chosen – “citizens’ committee” – to identify the group of organisers.

I am also left wondering at the attempt to set the minimum age of signatories at 16, when, in the majority of Member States, the right to vote, actively or passively, is acquired at the age of majority, at 18 years of age. This should be the yardstick, as proposed by the Commission in sections 7 and 2 of Article 3 of the proposal.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am pleased about the adoption of this report on the European citizens’ initiative introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which has the objective of assigning to citizens the same powers of political initiative as those currently enjoyed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

Each initiative will have 12 months to collect one million signatures, which need to come from at least a quarter of Member States, currently seven. The minimum number of signatories per country varies from 74 250 in Germany to 3 750 in Malta. In Portugal’s case, the minimum number of signatories required to support an initiative will be 16 500.

The validity of declarations of support will be gauged by the Member States. In Portugal, an identity card, passport or citizen’s card number will need to be included. Signatories should be EU citizens and be old enough to be able to vote in European elections (18 in Portugal).

It will then be up to the Commission to analyse the initiative and decide, within a timeframe of three months, if it will put forward European legislation on the issue. The Community’s executive will then have to ‘indicate the measures that it intends to take, and the reasons that justify these or not’. This justification will be made public.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I welcome the report by Mr Lamassoure and Mrs Gurmai on the citizens’ initiative. This vote has approved and even helps lay down the ground rules for the operation of the European citizens’ initiative, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.

A citizens’ committee composed of persons coming from at least seven Member States may register an initiative and begin to gather the 1 million signatures necessary, on paper or online, once the Commission has carried out an admissibility check. This example of participative democracy has great potential because it involves citizens at first hand and enables them, in a certain sense, to be a part of our work.

The joint work by the two co-rapporteurs showed that even ideological divisions can be overcome when work is carried out effectively and in the interests of citizens. This underlying position is typical of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which is always pro-active, open to dialogue and cooperation, but at the same time is anchored in solid and unshakeable values.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is a clearly demagogical initiative, propaganda by the European Union, which only serves to try and hide the impoverishment of democracy that is taking place, and to make us forget that it is those in charge in Europe who prevented a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon itself, which anticipated the so-called citizens’ initiative.

Meanwhile, the Treaty on European Union itself establishes limitations on such a citizens’ initiative by stating, in Article 11, that a million signatures from a significant number of Member States is required, and going on to say that they can only invite the European Commission to put forward an appropriate proposal on issues that these citizens consider to require a Union legal instrument in order to apply the Treaties.

In other words, after all the work of collecting signatures and fulfilling the requirements that the draft regulation lays down, there are no guarantees that the citizens’ wishes will be taken into account. In any case, the report approved by the EP improves slightly on the European Commission’s proposal, but must comply with the terms of the Treaty, which initially, in fact limits any deepening of the citizens’ initiative. That is why we abstained.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Any citizens’ initiative must be signed by over a million citizens of the European Union, and a quarter of European Union Member States must be covered by those signatories: that was the most important point of this Regulation. The Irish Government intends to verify the signatories from Ireland by checking that country’s electoral roll for elections to the European Parliament.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on the regulation to implement the European citizens’ initiative. In my opinion, Parliament is misguided in wanting to facilitate these initiatives as much as possible, particularly in reducing the number of Member States from which the signatures must come. I remain a supporter of representative democracy. Citizens’ initiatives will not help resolve the EU’s economic, social, environmental and societal problems. What are called citizens’ initiatives will essentially serve extremist political forces that will seize these instruments to campaign for the restoration of the death penalty, against the construction of minarets, against the ‘creeping Islamisation’ of Europe and other populist subjects.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We have all been waiting for it ever since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force last year: the regulation on the citizens’ initiative, which lays down the procedures for its implementation, its rules and basic procedures and which above all will finally enable use of this new instrument. From now on, one million European citizens, that is to say just 0.2% of the EU population, can ask the Commission to put forward proposals in certain areas: an important step towards participatory democracy, which should enable and encourage cross-border debates in Europe as the initiative must be brought by citizens residing in various Member States; a significant step forward in bringing together the citizens of Europe, in the hope that this new instrument will actually be used by European citizens, that it will be effective and that the European Commission will be able to follow the proposals put forward by citizens.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The European citizens’ initiative is one of the most interesting innovations set out in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is a European petition that will enable one million European citizens, from a representative number of EU Member States, to impose a matter on the Commission’s agenda. In other words, it marks the emergence of a genuine legislative power for European citizens, as the Commission will be obliged to respond to this citizens’ initiative by commissioning a study or proposing a directive. In a context where citizens’ feeling of belonging to the Union is still too weak and where rates of abstention at the European elections, especially, are particularly worrying, this new tool will enable European citizens to become fully-fledged actors in European democracy. For this reason, I find it somewhat regrettable to hear voices being raised today on the risks involved in the citizens’ initiative. The compromise reached with the Council is completely fair, and the criteria governing the admissibility of the project will ensure that unfair initiatives will never see the light of day. We should not be afraid of debates generated by citizens availing themselves of this tool. I voted for this text.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European citizens’ legislative initiative constitutes a fundamental step in the process of building a Europe based on citizens’ rights. Strict admissibility criteria, accessible and simplified procedures and representativeness of Member States constitute the key pillars of an instrument that restores the primacy of the value of participatory democracy.

In accordance with the values of the Union, the Treaty of Lisbon grants at least 1 million citizens, representing at least one quarter of Member States, an authentic opportunity for effective citizens’ involvement in forming rules in line with expectations of the European people. We hope that this instrument will boost citizens’ rights and that we will soon reach a time when we will be able to positively assess the results achieved and, where necessary, make due corrections in the interests of citizens to make this truly innovative project even more streamlined and flexible. In this way, the Union based on the euro will be coordinated with the Europe that hinges on the European people’s right to citizenship.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I approved of this report because the European citizens’ initiative is a new instrument of participatory democracy on a continental scale. It is a tool which should be used by the citizens themselves and its aim is to strengthen direct democracy, active citizenship, and the influence of the European citizens on the European Union policies. This initiative was introduced in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and then in the Treaty of Lisbon, with the aim of granting citizens the same political initiative powers that the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament already enjoy. I am pleased that the report promotes the use of modern technologies as an appropriate instrument of participatory democracy. The introduction of the initiative will establish a direct link between the citizens and the institutions, thus bridging the gap between them and ensuring that the EU institutions will address the concrete problems which are of importance to them.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The citizens’ initiative that has been adopted today is an important step towards bringing the European Union closer to its citizens. This finally gives the citizens of the European Union the opportunity to take an active part in political events. In addition, it enables them not only to become involved in politics, but also to call directly on the Commission to take action.

It is important to ensure that the initiative is as citizen-friendly and straightforward as possible, without encouraging its misuse. However user-friendly the citizens’ initiative is, if it is overused it will become devalued. The citizens’ initiative will introduce more democracy and will contribute significantly to making Europe more modern and to bringing it to life for its citizens. I would like to call once again on Parliament and also on the Commission to ensure that the Committee on Petitions is given an appropriate role in this process.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) One of the main objectives of the European citizens’ initiative is to bring the European institutions closer to the citizens and to make it easier for ordinary Europeans to exercise their rights and privileges. It will certainly improve the lives of the residents of Member States and help in the creation of a pro-social image for the Union. The authors of the proposal have also endeavoured to achieve the simplest possible model for organising meetings and collecting signatures as part of an initiative. If Europeans are going to want to voice their opinions on a matter which they consider to be important, it is our duty to ensure that they are heard and their requests given consideration. After all, this is what true democracy means.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) Today the European Parliament has made a historic decision, which gives civil society the opportunity of becoming much more actively involved in the decision-making process. An active civil society, which takes part in the making of political decisions, is one of the cornerstones of a democracy. It is one of the basic requirements for a politics of high quality, which has over the course of many years allowed the Member States of the European Union to reach a high level of democracy, human rights and welfare, and Europe as a whole to become the world’s most developed region. The task of civil society does not lie solely in taking part in elections. Citizens must also become involved from day to day in the decision-making process, expressing their opinion on specific decisions or events on the political agenda. It is in their interests to become involved in democratic control over authority and to criticise politicians over their activities. Without an active civil society, it would not have been possible to restore the independence of the Baltic States and secure our return to Europe. That is why I am voting in favour of the citizens’ initiative with great conviction.

Until now, European legislation has not contained sufficiently developed clear mechanisms for Europeans to become involved in the decision-making process and for drawing the attention of European institutions to citizens’ current concerns. I believe that the citizens’ initiative will increase people’s faith in the European Union and enhance the legitimacy of decisions that are made.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the proposed amendments by the EP to the citizens’ initiative, as I believe that they make the initiative stronger and enable more people to participate. This is a historic moment in which European citizens are being given a concrete measure for bringing important issues and topics to EU level. I urge the Commission to take note of the amendment asking for easy procedures and transparent information for citizens. It is one thing to create such a mechanism, but it also has to be accessible and understandable to EU citizens in order to enable them to make full use of it. Parliament is seeking an easing of the criteria with regard to signatories by asking that they should come from at least a fifth, rather than a third, of the Member States.

It is also calling for the creation of an easily accessible, free-of-charge online collection system for signatures. I would especially like to underline the need to convene citizens’ committees to organise initiatives. The citizens’ committees movement was one of the most important factors that led to the renewed independence of Estonia in 1991. This is a clear sign that citizens together can bring down walls.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I support Parliament’s decision to introduce the option of the citizens’ initiative for the citizens of the EU. The new EU-wide petition system is an important means of allowing citizens to become more involved and will ensure more direct democracy. The Treaty on European Union as a whole improves the democratic functioning of the Union. Citizens can participate in the democratic life of the Union and approach the Commission directly. The citizens’ initiative gives citizens a right of initiative similar to that of the European Parliament and the Council. In order to ensure that the citizens’ initiative is implemented correctly, at least one million signatures are needed from a minimum of one fifth of all the Member States. In addition, Parliament recommends measures in its resolution which will make the citizens’ initiative easier to use.

For example, the Commission should consider using the existing programmes which promote mobility and active citizenship, as well as new forms of communication, such as social networking, which encourage public debate. I welcome the fact that the representations and offices in the Member States will act as interfaces and advisory bodies.

  Sabine Lösing and Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DE) Despite the improvements to the European citizens’ initiative resulting from the compromise between the Commission and Parliament, it still involves unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. In addition, there is the risk that it will be used as a tool, for example by large companies and organisations, because although transparency is guaranteed, there is no limit on donations from businesses. For these reasons among others, we have abstained in the final vote.

Some of our criticisms are as follows:

1. Businesses are not excluded from the initiative.

2. No decision has been made about whether younger citizens can take part from the age of 16. Instead this is dependent on national electoral law.

3. Third-party nationals who live in the EU cannot take part.

4. No compensation is available above 100 000 signatures (EUR 0.005 per signature). As a result, the initiative will be very costly for the initiators and, therefore, is not equally accessible to all.

5. There is no ban on company donations in support of a European citizens’ initiative and they have no upper limit.

6. No specific information is provided about the possibility of appealing to the Court of Justice of the Europe Union if an initiative is rejected.

7. If the European Commission rejects a related draft legislative text, it is not obliged to justify its decision.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The citizens’ initiative will establish a direct link between citizens and institutions, thereby plugging the current gap and making EU institutions deal with the major problems facing citizens. I wish to emphasise a few points which must not be overlooked:

1. The citizens’ initiative will only be successful if the associated regulation is easy for citizens to understand and apply, without imposing excessive obligations on organisers.

2. Following the negotiations conducted with the Commission and the Council, we have a common understanding which stipulates the need for the supporters of a citizens’ initiative to provide certain elements of ID and for facilities for Member States to verify them. However, it is vital to ensure that the process complies with EU legislation in the area of data protection. Any organisation with the opportunity to support citizens’ initiatives must provide total transparency regarding the support being provided so that the signatories are aware who is behind an initiative they choose to support.

3. The European Parliament information offices in Member States and the Commission’s information networks, such as Europe Direct and the Citizen Signpost Service, must be involved in providing all the necessary information regarding the citizens’ initiative.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I was pleased to hear the result of today’s vote on the citizens’ initiative. By bringing in the citizens’ initiative, the Treaty of Lisbon has become a legislative tool for the EU’s citizens, but we have to remember that collecting a million signatures does not yet mean that a new law will be made. This process has to go the whole length of the UE legislative route, and we MEPs must make sure that procedures are simplified, to avoid disappointment, here. I think we should run a good information campaign in the Member States about this instrument, so that the issues raised under the EU citizens’ initiative correspond with what is said in the Treaties and are in accord with the EU’s values.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With this important initiative of the European Parliament, one million European citizens will be able to ask the European Commission to put forward legislation on a given issue. The rules implementing the ‘citizens’ initiative’, approved today by the European Parliament, state that signatories need to come from at least seven Member States. In Portugal’s case, at least 16 500 signatories will be required to support an initiative. Alongside the Treaty of Lisbon, a ‘citizens’ right of initiative’ was created, under the terms of which one million European citizens may ask the European Commission to put forward certain legislative proposals. The regulation adopted in plenary today sets out the necessary conditions for putting forward future citizens’ initiatives.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the citizens’ initiative because, although it only vaguely satisfies my group’s position, because it ignores important issues such as the idea of allowing initiatives proposing changes to the Treaties or that of extending the period for collecting signatures from the proposed 12 months to 18 months, I believe nonetheless that the report is an considerable yet insufficient improvement on the text put forward by the Commission. The citizens’ initiative is a mechanism for public participation laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon to make it possible for citizens and civil society to play a role in the process of drawing up European policies. I have supported the text tabled as it facilitates the creation of the mechanism and its combined procedure. For example, it simplifies the process of registering initiatives and reduces the requirement regarding the number of Member States that must be represented among the citizens (from a third to a quarter). It also represents progress compared with the Commission’s proposal, since it improves transparency regarding the funding of campaigns to collect signatures.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European citizens’ initiative will be a powerful tool for shaping the agenda of the European Union. The initiative was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon and will allow one million European citizens to call on the European Commission to put forward proposals on subjects within the framework of its powers. This initiative grants EU citizens the right to make their opinions known and in doing so confers on them a right of initiative similar to that exercised by the European Parliament and the Council.

Citizens’ initiatives should also encourage wider cross-border debate, as they will need to be put together by citizens of several different Member States. The initiatives will only be able to be implemented, however, if they meets certain procedural requirements or requirements on compliance with the European Union’s fundamental values, in order to prevent the instrument from being used for non-democratic purposes. These requirements guarantee the reliability and hence the efficacy of the initiative. It is also vital to ensure that the process complies with EU data protection requirements and is fully transparent from beginning to end.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I do not share the opinion of my colleagues from the S&D Group, which is why I have abstained from voting. It does not matter who writes the nonsense: to multiply it is foolishness. The citizens’ initiative is necessary, no doubt, but to collect one million signatures in order to be heard is nonsense. I would like to ask the rapporteurs if they ever collected signatures themselves. If they did, they should know that the minimum cost of each signature certified by a notary is 20 euros. That means 20-30 million euros to introduce a new law. Who will finance this action? Only large enterprises are able to do that, not ordinary people. Is this not then a fake? A point to remember: MEPs also represent these people.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE), in writing. − This initiative was promised during the Lisbon process, so I am pleased that it is now being moved forward.

It is imperative that the citizens’ initiative is not open to political, business or other manipulation. It should be left to the genuine initiative of citizens and not be manipulated with a hidden agenda. It should be open and transparent.

To set the ball rolling, the Commission should advertise the agreed conditions for an initiative when they are agreed.

Would it not be reasonable for the initiation of the process that the Commission organise some form of arms-length competition across the EU to test the water and find out what are the top ten issues on which citizens would welcome an initiative with fellow citizens.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The European citizens’ initiative is the first tiny step in the right direction. I have voted in favour of it because it is the first directly democratic instrument in the EU. However, overall the citizens’ initiative is simply a veneer of direct democracy, which will lead the citizens to believe that they have the right of codecision on some issues in the European Union. The citizens’ initiative does not involve any consequences, regardless of how many people sign it. The parallels with the system of petitions for a referendum in Austria are obvious. In Austria, these petitions are generally just shoved in a drawer and much the same thing will happen with the EU citizens’ initiatives. In addition, care has evidently been taken to ensure that non-conformist opinions can be suppressed. The Commission makes the final check on the admissibility of a citizens’ initiative. In the real European Union, the rulers not only put in place the legislation and directives, they also want to control the will of the citizens.

However, the European citizens’ initiative at least gives non-conformist movements and parties the opportunity to develop their ideas. It will in future be possible at an EU level, as it is in Austria, to run campaigns and to show the citizens that there are routes to a different and better Europe which lead away from the blind alleys in Brussels.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Although I naturally support the regulation on the citizens’ initiative, I am not in agreement with the possibility of members of the European Parliament, or members of national parliaments, being able to take part in these initiatives, or the possibility of them being funded by political parties or public bodies.

I believe that both solutions go against the spirit of the new mechanism, which aims to provide ordinary citizens and civil society with the means of taking part in the political life of the Union. I also disagree with the powers given to the Commission to adopt certain technical specifications required for the application of the law by means of an ‘executive act’. Measures of general application assigned to the Commission for the application of legislative instruments should not be considered to be ‘implementing acts’, under the control of Member States, but ‘delegated acts’, under the direct control of the legislator.

In the same way, it does not make sense, after the Treaty of Lisbon, to continue to apply the ‘regulatory procedure’ under the traditional committee system, as it clearly concerns issues that are currently covered by the legislative procedure or by the ‘delegated acts’ procedure. The provisions referred to are therefore contrary to the Treaty of Lisbon. Apart from these specific objections, I believe that overall this is an excellent law that does justice to the political and constitutional importance of this new mechanism for participatory democracy within the EU.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of the position of the European Parliament on the European citizens’ initiative, because I fully support this citizens’ right provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon. As an optimist I feel that this may be one of the main instruments helping to bring European Union institutions closer to ordinary people. Ultimately, a civically active part of society will be able to have a direct impact on decisions taken at EU level. It should be recognised that at a time when many European initiatives are viewed rather critically by the public, from the outset the European citizens’ initiative has largely been met with positive assessment and approval. I hope that we will ultimately have clear rules that are not weighed down by unnecessary bureaucratic requirements, and that will help European society voice its opinion.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) This report fully meets my expectations, particularly on three issues. Firstly, the minimum age for supporting a legislative initiative has been fixed at 18 years old which is the minimum age for voting in European Parliament elections and as is required to participate in instruments of direct democracy, such as referendums. Secondly, the need to request the identity documents of resident European citizens who intend to sign the statements of support, in order to carry out the checks provided for by the regulation in accordance with the laws in force. Lastly, the need to allow for a term of 12 months for the application of the regulation after its entry into force, with the aim of allowing the competent national administrations – many of which will be seeing this type of instrument for the first time – to prepare all the necessary legal, administrative and financial measures.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is with great satisfaction that I vote in favour of this report relating to the citizens’ initiative, one of the greatest innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon. This new legal instrument may become a way of bolstering the participation of European citizens. In fact, enabling millions of citizens to suggest to the European Commission that it should legislate on a given issue is a very positive step on the path of bringing Europe closer to its citizens. I applaud the work of the rapporteurs whose objective was to simplify the citizens’ initiative and remove any bureaucratic burden, so as to make it as accessible as possible.

I agree with the majority of the requests made by the European Parliament, specifically the checking of the acceptability of an initiative being made at the time of its presentation, and not after 300 000 signatures have been collected, which could raise the expectation of the signatory citizens. I support the reduction in the minimum number of Member States involved in the initial signing of the initiative. The original proposal was for signatories to come from at least one third of Member States, and the European Parliament and the Council reached an agreement that the signatories should come from a quarter of all Member States.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support the initiative by the rapporteurs Mrs Gurmai and Mr Lamassoure, which is that the organisers of a European citizens’ initiative should gather into a citizens’ committee composed of persons coming from different Member States. This will ensure that the issues which arise are truly European, all the while having the added value of helping the collection of signatures from the very beginning

I support the rapporteurs’ idea, whereby the European citizens’ initiative is a new instrument of participatory democracy on a continental scale. Therefore, the present regulation may not be flawless and practice may present European decision-makers with new challenges. For this reason, I agree with the rapporteurs’ call for the Commission to present a report on its implementation every three years and, if relevant, to propose a revision of the regulation.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The citizens’ initiative, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, has been devised to give citizens the right to participate in the democratic life of the European Union. Its aim is to provide citizens with a means of having their voice heard by enabling them to refer a number of issues of interest to the EU institutions. These may include difficulties that they face in their daily lives which they do not feel receive enough attention and support from trade unions, political institutions or any other regular interlocutors from the institutions. The citizens’ initiative will properly establish a direct link between citizens and institutions, thereby making EU institutions deal with the specific major problems facing citizens. The citizens’ initiative comes with the need to comply with certain administrative requirements, but also to respect the fundamental values of the EU, among others, thereby ensuring its reliability and effectiveness, which will be the key to its success.

It is necessary to ensure that the process complies with EU applications in the area of data protection, as well as guarantee total transparency. Any organisation, association or even political party will have the opportunity to support the citizens’ initiatives which they choose, subject to total transparency regarding the support being provided so that signatories are aware who is behind an initiative they choose to support or not.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am glad about the approval of this report, which represents a very important step in the affirmation of the constitutional nature of the European Union, providing citizens with a mechanism for accessible and effective democratic participation, which will undoubtedly contribute to the increased involvement and commitment of citizens with regard to European political life, and a strengthening of the ties of solidarity between the various Member States.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Participative democracy has made its triumphant entry into Europe with the adoption of this report on the European citizens’ initiative, one of the major areas of progress brought in by the Treaty of Lisbon. One million European citizens will now be able to approach the Commission and require it to pronounce an opinion on an issue of interest to society, provided that it falls within the framework of the Commission’s powers. One million citizens, who must come from at least a quarter of the Member States and must be of voting age, in other words only 0.2% of the population of the EU. The signatures must be collected in writing or over the Internet and must be verified. The organisers will have to be identified: who they are, what they support, for whom they are working. This is a potential leap forward for the European Union’s democratic legitimacy. It is a step towards bringing citizens closer to an EU which they often see, rightly or wrongly, as being light years away from their day-to-day concerns.

However, the risk that the initiative could be exploited by certain non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or by a given sector of industry should not be ignored. For it to be a success, the initiative must genuinely come from citizens. It must help to move the debate forward, to reconcile citizens with the European Union and to contribute towards the development of a European civil society.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today we voted in plenary on the European citizens’ initiative. This initiative was introduced by Article 11 of the Treaty of Lisbon, with the aim of empowering citizens with the same political initiative powers that the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament already enjoy. The ECI is a new instrument of participatory democracy on a continental scale.

On 31 March 2010, the Commission submitted its proposal for a regulation and on 14 June, Council approved the general approach to the ECI. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament adopted this report in November, which included a negotiation mandate. The trialogue of 30 November reached an agreement over various amendments. The main points of the agreement concern: combining registration and admissibility; the number of signatures that must come from a minimum of one quarter of Member States; setting up a citizens’ committee; the minimum age for supporting an initiative; and the online collection system.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) Our citizens have been waiting for this new instrument, which will give them some influence over EU policy. They have already demonstrated that they will know how to use it to have their say in the legislative debate: take the petition for a moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) launched by Greenpeace and Avaaz, which was sent last week to Commission President José Manuel Barroso. Sadly, the citizens have acted before the legislators and the petition arrived before the rules of procedure, which will make the citizens’ initiative operative in early 2012, had been defined.

It is up to us Members of Parliament therefore to relay and support the request expressed by almost 1.2 million people and to ensure that it is properly followed up. Parliament succeeded in using its influence in the talks with Council and the Commission to make the initiative as accessible and effective as possible and paved the way. There is now nothing to stop citizens from participating directly in the functioning of the EU.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) Today's vote has given the go-ahead for the first example of European democratic participation. The European citizens’ initiative is one of the most innovative provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and a first step toward direct democracy.

The initiative is an instrument that allows citizens to call on the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal on any issue that they consider to be in their interest by submitting 1 million signatures, which represent 0.2% of the population of the European Union. Issues relating to the environment, social matters and disasters caused by the financial crisis are among the most sensitive topics that may mobilise citizens to call on the EU to legislate on these matters.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) With the proposal for the citizens’ initiative which has been adopted, today, we have put into effect an important element of the Treaty of Lisbon, thanks to which citizens will be able to participate directly in debate about the European Union. This is particularly important for the European Parliament, which is elected by popular vote. Our role, now, is to give serious attention to this tool, which provides for even greater democratisation of public life in Europe. It would not be good if it were a dead letter and the citizens had the impression we are only giving them the theoretical possibility of participating in a legislative initiative. It will be an important test for the European institutions as to what extent they are, in fact, serving the citizens and not themselves. It is good that after this law has been in force for three years we will be able to revise provisions which have proved to be insufficiently effective, so that it will really be a system which guarantees democratic discussion.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) I have voted in favour of the adoption of rules for the European citizens’ initiative. The European Parliament has achieved enough in its negotiations with the Council of Ministers. The citizens’ initiative gives inhabitants of the European Union the possibility of getting a proposal onto the European political agenda. Once one million signatures have been collected, the European Commission is obliged to consider the proposal and state reasons why it will or will not turn it into an official legislative proposal. The European Union insisted that signatures must be collected from at least nine different EU Member States, but Parliament succeeded in lowering that threshold to seven. In addition, organisers who manage to collect a sufficient number of signatures will also be allowed to explain their proposal in person to the European Commission and the European Parliament. It is a pity that Parliament has not been able to defeat the rule that eighteen countries must require their citizens to state their identity card number when they sign a citizens’ initiative. That will scare people off. Some will fear identity fraud. There are countries that are not going to ask for the identity card number. This will create an inequality in the law within the EU. How seriously it will take European citizens will now be an issue primarily for the European Commission.

  Ernst Strasser (PPE), in writing. − (DE) Today’s vote on the European citizens’ initiative has established a new element of direct democracy almost exactly a year after the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. I took up my mandate in the European Parliament with the aim of putting the concerns of the people of Austria on the table in Brussels. I am committed to this principle and, therefore, it is essential for me that the concerns of the people are heard at a European level. The European citizens’ initiative should be seen as an opportunity to involve people more closely in the EU’s decision-making process. The citizens of the EU now have the possibility for the first time of submitting legislative initiatives to the Commission and, as a result, actively influencing EU policy.

Following long negotiations, it can be regarded as a success that the admissibility barrier has been lowered from the level of 300 000 signatures and the number of Member States reduced to a quarter. One special feature in Austria is that young people can take part in citizens’ initiatives from the age of 16. This shows once again that it is important to Austria to include young people in the EU project, because they are ultimately the ones who will take the European spirit forward.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European citizens’ initiative (ECI) is an instrument of public participation that aims to respond to the democratic deficit and, as such, to reduce the distance that European citizens feel exists between them and European institutions. The institutionalisation of this initiative, provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, makes it possible for European citizens to invite the European Commission, indirectly, to put forward certain legislative measures, provided that these fall within its powers.

This report, presented by the European Parliament, defines the criteria for implementing this European right of initiative, in order to make it simpler, more accessible, swifter, more transparent and more uniform throughout all Member States. The creation of a real European public space will be possible thanks to this initiative, which will boost civil dialogue and the involvement of civil society. I believe that all initiatives that aim to reduce distances between citizens and the European project should be emphasised, implemented and carried out in full.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the citizens’ initiative. The new provisions introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon boost participatory democracy and mark an important step towards fostering civic spirit. Forty-two per cent of European citizens have confidence in EU institutions. One of the reasons for this might be that European citizens get to know about few of the European initiatives and policies targeted at them. This is precisely why the citizens’ initiative not only offers European citizens the opportunity to participate directly in the decision-making process, but also empowers them to make a contribution to setting the European agenda. The citizens’ initiative will therefore help bring European citizens’ major concerns and requests before the European legislative. This is not a new concept. In 2007 we proposed collecting 1 million signatures to request the Commission to table a directive for integrating people with disabilities into society.

At the time, only around 700 000 signatures were collected, but the legislative proposals were submitted to the European Commission. Consequently, it will be vital, with a view to meeting our commitment to Europe’s citizens, for us to ensure that the requests submitted via the citizens’ initiative will be turned into legislative acts which will improve the situation of these citizens.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report as a way of encouraging citizen engagement in Europe by allowing EU citizens to propose legislation which could have an effect on their daily lives. Citizens will be able to let the European Union know what they think of its work. With a million signatures that must come from at least a quarter of all EU states, this initiative puts some power back into the hands of the people. The procedure has been simplified by Parliament to ensure ease of use and to maximise citizens’ participation in the initiative. Once all signatures have been verified, the Commission will decide within three months whether a new law can be proposed, and it will have to make its reasons public.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Reference is often made in this Parliament to the citizens of the European Union, whose interests we represent. At the same time, those same citizens have long regarded not only this Parliament, but all European institutions as too distant and insensitive to their problems.

The European citizens’ initiative can change this. It will enable citizens to say directly: we want this, we do not want that and this must change.

We also like to talk about European integration. What unites people from different countries, however, more than the need to look for a common view, to formulate a common proposal and to seek the support of people speaking various different languages? The implementation of the citizens’ initiative will mean in practice that citizens from various Member States will speak in one voice about the subjects that are important to them. A common initiative and a common interest will be the soil from which a true European identity may grow.

I firmly believe that in the near future this practical sense of European-ness will begin to form. I believe that, in contrast to the phrases in the brochures of European institutions, it will be vibrant and viable, because the citizen himself will be the source of the new European identity and the new European-ness.

I therefore welcome the submitted draft regulation on how the citizens’ initiative will be implemented, and I am ready to do all it takes to ensure that the voice of the citizen is not only heard but also respected.

Motions for resolutions RC-B7-0688/2010

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I believe the Commission’s Work Programme for 2011 to be ambitious, having European economic recovery as its main objective, through the political priorities of the EU 2020 Strategy together with the budget within the 2011 multi-annual financial framework, with its new funding and expenditure measures, with a new decision on ‘own resources’, demonstrating the concern that conditional funding may aggravate the situation of the weaker national economies and not have the desired effect of the EU 2020 Strategy, which is to re-launch the economy. I believe that the Structural Funds are essential for the economic recovery and competitiveness of European regions, as in a time of crisis, conditionality added to austerity measures may further adversely affect the internal development of the EU. Emphasis needs to be placed on reform of the Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies and the Cohesion Policy, with the different points of departure of different regions always needing to be taken into account, and this includes measures adapted to the different realities. SMEs should play an prominent role, and the approach involving the internationalisation of SMEs within global trade relations and efforts towards their modernisation and competitiveness provided for within the priorities of this work programme is to be applauded.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I would like to draw your attention to certain very important issues that are missing from the Commission Work Programme for next year. These concern issues related to human rights. Does the Commission intend to initiate any specific actions or legislation in the area of human rights during the next year?

We have heard that Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Baroness Ashton intends to pay special attention to human rights during her term in office. However, there has been very little attention paid so far to human rights in her actions and statements. The External Action Service is also meant to beef up EU action in the area of human rights, but now that there is no EU budget for 2011 the EEAS will not be able to fully undertake its duties as from 1 January 2011.

Can you, Mr President, tell us what your plan B is and how you intend to strengthen the EU’s credibility when it comes to defending and promoting human rights in the world?

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament was called upon to express its opinion on the statement by the Commission on the Commission Work Programme for 2011. I voted in favour of this resolution, which draws attention to the need for proper collaboration between the Commission and Parliament and to the Commission’s role as guardian of the treaties and of the EU’s general interest. The resolution also places particular emphasis on the ‘Europe 2020’ goals of growth for jobs and welcomes the ‘European semester’ aimed at more effective management of public finances. This growth must be smart (it must promote digital technology, research and development and education); sustainable (with a target of 20% greater energy efficiency) and inclusive (by combating discrimination between workers and through better industrial relations). The Commission must look further at the internal market, the area of freedom, security and justice and its external policy, which is still in its infancy.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament joint resolution because it discusses and assesses the priorities for the activities of the European Commission in 2011 and future challenges. In the last part-session at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, President Barroso presented the Commission Work Programme for the coming year, therefore the European Parliament believes that it is very important to establish a dialogue with the Commission and to pay particular attention to fundamental EU strategic objectives. Furthermore, Parliament urges the Commission to ensure a realistic and clearer timetable relating to major proposals to be put forward, which must be effective and translated into reality and better implemented than in the past. I would like to draw attention to the fact that although the Commission planned to create new jobs and implement the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy as soon as possible, in the field of employment and social affairs there are no specific proposals on the creation of new and high quality jobs in the Commission’s programme for the coming year. 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. Full economic recovery requires a common European strategy for sustainable growth and employment creation, backed by the necessary powers and resources.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Bearing in mind the fact that the current crisis into which Europe has been plunged continues to have an effect on the economies of the Member States, significant adjustments urgently need to be made at both a national level and in the Union itself. Conscious of the fundamental importance that 2011 will have for the success of the future of the Union, and the challenge that this poses to the European Commission, and in a general way to the Union as a whole, I am voting in favour of this draft resolution. I would furthermore like to highlight all of the proposals that reveal the European Commission’s intention to explore the growth potential of the single market. I believe that maximising the potential of the single market, through greater integration of the markets and the strengthening of European company and consumer confidence could have a leverage effect on the European economy. However, I believe that the Commission could have gone further on this matter, putting forward more ambitious and concrete proposals to address the needs of those operating within the market.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission Work Programme 2011 needs a top-up of European Union spirit and greater courage in facing up to the EU's main political and institutional problems, particularly in the light of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and in accordance with this. The issues to be tackled include: 1. Greater respect for the role of the European Parliament in the formulation of proposals, taking due account of the positions it assumes in its opinions and proposals for initiatives; 2. Closer and inter-institutionally more balanced cooperation on the budget and on financial prospects; 3. Greater courage in formulating proposals for the efficient use of EU resources that make it possible to achieve binding objectives and concrete benchmarks; 4. effective and incisive EU governance of the economy and finance, as well as financial participation of employees in the success of the company that allow more widespread, balanced and inclusive economic and social development. Even though the Commission Work Programme 2011 covers only some of the points listed above, I nevertheless consider it necessary to support it.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution relating to the Commission’s Work Programme for 2011, which is the first to be adopted within the framework of the new programming period and should contribute to a deepening of the dialogue between Parliament and the Commission, with the aim of improving the relationship between political and budget priorities at EU level.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has presented an ambitious Commission Work Programme for 2011, which contains the following basic points: (i) inclusive growth; (ii) sustainable growth and (iii) financial regulation. With regard to the subject of inclusive growth, within which the Commission emphasises the sustainability of social security schemes and the fight against poverty, I am in favour of the need to find an exact balance between austerity and social support, and to determine in which direction reforms to European systems of social security should go.

With regard to the subject of sustainable growth, it is important to understand how the balance between the necessary environmental protection and future reforms of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and common fisheries policy (CFP) will be achieved. Finally, with regard to financial regulation and the strengthening of economic governance, any steps to make the European banking system more robust and resistant to crisis scenarios and to strengthen the budgetary policies of Member States and their economic coordination should be seen as a number one priority, as the major challenge for 2011 will be to come out of the crisis and to lay the foundations for a policy of growth.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted against the European Parliament’s draft resolution on the European Commission’s working programme for 2011 because, on the basic issues, it supports its own positions and ignores the real need for a break with the neoliberal, militarist and antisocial policies that the European Commission favours.

Although the European Commission has been criticised for not having provided the answers that Parliament was seeking, in reality it has done so, when it congratulates itself on the priority given to economic reform, prioritising budget sustainability and making social sustainability secondary, or when it insists on favouring the deepening of the single market, or when it insists on concluding the Doha round as quickly as possible, and its respective free trade agreements.

Thus, what the majority in Parliament seek is to continue with the same policy, which is to promote the aforementioned austerity plans within various Member States, regardless of the increase in unemployment, poverty, inequality, asymmetry and economic recession that these austerity plans will cause, while economic and financial groupings continue with ever larger profits. For all these reasons, we are compelled to vote against.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) In 2011, the European Commission will publish proposals on amending thecommon agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. Those two initiatives are extremely important to the farmers and fishermen of Ireland.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) In 2011 the Commission will submit its proposal for the multiannual financial framework for 2013 to 2020. It is clear to me that the field of agriculture and rural development must have the same level of funding as it does now and that the food sovereignty of the people of Europe must be guaranteed. The production of food and the revival of rural regions as economic areas and recreational areas within easy reach of towns must in future be one of Europe’s highest priorities. The Commission’s commitment to sustainable and integrative growth takes into account the environmental and climate objectives for 2020 and requires investment in green technologies, which will in turn create jobs.

I welcome Parliament’s call for the new multiannual financial framework for the period after 2013 to take into consideration the expansion of the EU’s responsibilities. The plans for the EU’s trade policy are of great importance. The Commission is obliged to bring the World Trade Organisation negotiations to a positive conclusion. We must take a highly critical approach to the increasing focus on bilateral trade agreements, in particular the Mercosur negotiations which will be continuing next year.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have just voted in favour of the Commission Work Programme for 2011, but with reservations. It no longer contains the promised communication from the Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry (DG ENTERPRISE) on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Instead the Internal Market and Services Directorate General (DG MARKT) has started an online consultation on the disclosure of non-financial information by companies. This is alarming and suggests a possible change in policy. The DG MARKT is no longer asking whether EU regulation is needed in the field of CSR, but instead how it should be structured. The DG ENTERPRISE held several transparency workshops from which it emerged that almost all employers and unions were strongly opposed to mandatory CSR. Since 2006, the DG ENTERPRISE has been in overall control, as CSR initiatives represent contributions to a sustainable society by companies as part of their business activities. They are the result of entrepreneurial commitment and are based on individual initiative and responsibility. There is a consensus about this basic concept which has been developed over a number of years in numerous multi-stakeholder forums.

The DG ENTERPRISE has the institutional knowledge used to exercise control over these processes. I am calling on the Commission to leave the responsibility for managing and structuring CSR with the DG ENTERPRISE. I continue to oppose the idea of mandatory CSR reporting, as it will lead to new red tape and discourage companies from making additional voluntary commitments.

  Arlene McCarthy (S&D), in writing. − The financial crisis has severely damaged the economies of all Europe's Member States. In this resolution we call for a strong and determined response from the European Commission, to boost growth and ensure a strong and lasting recovery that benefits all Europe's citizens. We support the call for a review of the own-resources system to create a system that is fair, clear, transparent and neutral concerning the tax burden; we welcome consideration of options that would reduce the cost of the EU to its citizens, for example by correcting the current under-taxation of the financial sector.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s new Work Programme for 2011 is based on three points: (1) inclusive growth; (2) sustainable growth and (3) financial regulation. We will therefore need to work towards achieving the sustainability of social security schemes to fight against poverty, whilst achieving economic growth that is also concerned with the protection of the environment, the strengthening of economic governance, the European banking system becoming stronger and more resistant to future crisis scenarios, and the strengthening of the budget policies of Member States, as the main challenge for 2011 is to come out of the crisis and resume a policy of growth.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Congratulations. Finally someone paid attention to the difference between the European Commission and gods. It is time to replace idle talking by real work. The European Commission should not ignore MEPs’ questions; their duty is to fulfil the decisions of the European Parliament. It looks like some Commissioners have forgotten that. If not, what happened to the resolution on the comprehensive monitoring report adopted by the European Parliament on 11 March 2004 which opened the subject of the aliens in Latvia? It just disappeared from the agenda. Who was responsible? Whose salary was cut down? Who was reprimanded? No one. Long live the European Council!

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution relating to the European Commission’s Work Programme for 2011 because I agree with its main objectives. It is a fact that the main priority for 2011 should be to push forward with the economic recovery. Within the Commission’s Work Programme, I would point very positively to the strengthening of economic governance and the completion of reform of the financial sector, through measures enabling growth to be restored in order to create jobs. Effective, sustainable and inclusive growth of the economy is essential to restore confidence and optimism within the EU. Investment in research and development, energy security and horizontal labour policies that allow for the real movement of workers are therefore the fundamental pillars of a work programme that is geared towards growth. The objective of constructing a common area of freedom, security and justice also needs to be emphasised.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Commission Work Programme for 2011 does not reflect adequately the significant events which have had an impact on Europe since 2008, or the hopes and expectations of Europe’s citizens either. It is deplorable that this programme does not focus more on the loss of the 7 million jobs caused by the financial crisis, virtually ensuring constant unemployment in the years to come. This aspect is one of the fundamental challenges facing the EU in 2011. The Commission will therefore need to find the way in which its initiatives and proposals will create sufficient decent jobs for ordinary citizens. The Commission must heed the views of the social partners in the area of pensions and ensure that the future White Paper reflects the stakeholders’ expectations, which includes strengthening the first pillar, which is the public pillar.

I welcome the revamp of the EURES job information and advice portal aimed at young workers to make it more accessible to them. However, I regret that this proposal has been postponed until 2012, when today’s young people need it now. The Commission’s programme makes no reference to the gender issue. As a result, a European directive is needed which will tackle the 17.4% pay gap between women and men, along with a directive on eradicating violence against women.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE), in writing. − (DE) As the voting list was changed at short notice, I did not have enough time to check the contents and to decide on one side or the other.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The Greens/EFA have supported the proposed common resolution, as well as many of the amendments suggested. I'm glad that the reference remained untouched where we say that the EP strongly urges the Commission to come forward with bold and innovative proposals for a substantive revision of the own resources system.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the adoption of the resolution on the Commission Work Programme 2011. In a previous speech, I have raised the issues of the need to prepare a draft directive on violence against women, rapid and efficient transposition of the Stockholm Programme and the inclusion of sport in next year’s budget. It is also essential to renew work on the non-discrimination directive. I appeal to the Commission and Member States for decisive steps to be made in this direction in 2011.

While EU citizens impatiently await this directive, some Member States are continuing to question the validity of adopting it. It is hard to understand the lack of awareness of the need to have a single anti-discrimination law which would protect the equal treatment of all people and not just of select social groups. I am not persuaded by the financial arguments which emphasise the high costs of introducing the directive in relation to disabled people. Even during a crisis, Europe must continue to treat all its citizens equally.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has presented its Work Programme for 2011 at a particularly delicate time for the European Union. Recovery from the economic crisis is still not completely established, meaning that the programme for next year needs to continue to be focused on a dynamic of the recovery of the European economy. 2011 should be the year that the EU 2020 Strategy becomes integrated into European proceedings, with a view to pursuing the objectives of smart, sustainable and integrated growth.

I reiterate the importance of re-establishing job-creating growth by accelerating the EU 2020 programme of reforms. Within this context, I would emphasise the role of the following flagship initiatives: Innovation Union, Digital Agenda, New Skills and Jobs, and the Platform against Poverty. I believe it essential to ensure structural reform in order to improve European competitiveness and to speed up economic growth, specifically through a policy of cohesion that encourages investment in the real economy. Any future cohesion policy should also ensure that the new multi-annual financial framework is directed towards achieving the objectives of the EU 2020 Strategy, and European policies within the framework of Lisbon. The European Parliament needs to take an active part in this, and it is essential that the Commission urgently comes up with a model of inter-institutional cooperation for this.

Motions for resolutions RC-B7-0693/2010

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the EU and the African Union (AU) must jointly address key issues of common concern in order to successfully implement the partnership between Africa and the EU which is based on the mutual interest in exploiting their combined potentials. For there to be closer cooperation, democratic governance and human rights must be ensured, but regrettably Mr Robert Mugabe was invited to and actively participated in the 3rd Africa EU-Summit. I therefore call for all actors to take a stronger political stance in future in order to send a clear message of the EU’s firm belief in the rule of law and democracy.

It is also important for all member states of the African Union to ratify the African Union Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance and to fully support the International Criminal Court. This would safeguard the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and at the same time would open up opportunities to effective cooperation in economic, social, cultural and other fields.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since the Cairo EU-Africa Summit in 2000, the European Union has launched an extremely wide-reaching external policy on Africa. In 2005, the EU launched its strategy for Africa. Two years later, the standpoint was different and this time, the Lisbon EU-Africa Summit ended with the creation of a strategic partnership with Africa. The third Africa-EU Summit ended just recently. It was not a complete success: for example we did not welcome the presence of the dictator Robert Mugabe and, conversely, would have welcomed the presence of a representative from Sudan. I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the future of partnership. The new action plan is based on eight major new themes: 1- peace and security; 2 - democratic governance and human rights; 3 - trade, regional integration and infrastructure; 4 - the millennium development goals; 5 - energy; 6 - climate change; 7 - migration, mobility and employment; 8 - science, information society and space.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. It is necessary to further develop the strategic partnership between Africa and the European Union, in order to meet common challenges together, promote sustainable economic growth and develop cooperation in the fields of energy, trade and climate change. In developing cooperation it is necessary to give significant support to the fight against poverty, the protection of human rights, including social, economic and environmental rights and to address peace and security challenges on the African continent. I welcome the Africa-EU Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme and commitments made to provide Africans with access to modern and sustainable energy services, to increase the use of renewable energy in Africa and improve energy efficiency in Africa in all sectors. The EU and Africa should unite their efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and take effective measures to combat climate change. The necessary financing should be provided to implement the actions outlined, ensuring effective parliamentary oversight of the use of EU financial assistance.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I was pleased to vote in favour of this joint motion for a resolution on the conclusions of the third EU-Africa Summit. In the light of the African continent’s need to diversify its investment partnerships, specifically with Asian countries and Latin America, the proposed 2010-2013 EU-Africa strategic action plan is particularly relevant, in that it could add value to the Union for the Mediterranean and the Cotonou Agreement. I believe that the regional integration of African countries through the African Union, and trade and investment in this context, will take on a crucial importance for political and economic stability and sustainable growth in Africa. I hope, therefore, that African and EU leaders will not only honour the Tripoli agreement, but also recognise this strategic partnership, among others things, to be a valuable instrument for promoting intra-regional African trade. I also share President Barroso’s conviction that renewable energy is vital for Africa’s economic and social development, and support his call for a green energy revolution in Africa.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the future of the Africa-EU Strategic Partnership during the period preceding the 3rd Africa-EU Summit because I believe that the partnership established between the two continents three years ago, during the Portuguese Presidency of the EU, should continue to be strengthened, so that together, we can face common challenges and promote sustainable development, peace and human rights.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I was in Lisbon in December 2007 when the first EU-Africa Summit took place, launching the basis for permanent dialogue between Europe and the African continent, to which we are linked by extremely important historical, cultural, economic and commercial ties, opening up a path to cooperation that took European and African leaders to Tripoli, 3 years later.

I believe that a lasting and healthy EU-Africa partnership is fundamental to development and progress, and I therefore believe that the investment that both parties have made in strengthening their relations is fully justified. We live in a time in which traditional cooperation policies, implemented through mere humanitarian aid, no longer respond to the needs of developing countries, especially on the African continent.

Thus I believe that the future of cooperation will move, in a very definite way, towards establishing commercial relationships and economic partnerships, as well as towards an effective exchange in the areas of research, innovation and education, areas in which EU-Africa cooperation needs to be strengthened.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 3rd EU-Africa Summit took place in Tripoli between 29 and 30 November 2010. I regret that the Africa-EU Joint Strategy was not able to establish a new strategic relationship.

I reiterate my hope for a fruitful agreement at the next Summit and sustainable objectives for both partners, with the aim of combating poverty and guaranteeing fair income and support, as well as upholding basic human rights, including social, economic and environmental rights, in Africa.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The challenges for African countries are immense, within the context of a serious crisis in the world economy. The crisis, presented as financial, has finally exposed the limits of economic growth, as understood by capitalism, namely the availability of fertile land for the production of food and other organic raw materials, and geological reserves for the extraction of mineral raw materials and energy to run industries.

This situation is accelerating the scramble for Africa, a continent that is immensely rich in natural resources. The aim is the domination of markets and natural resources. The EU’s policy towards Africa should be understood in this context; blackmail for the signing of so-called Economic Partnership Agreements; the promotion of the secession of Southern Sudan; support and funding for the African Peace and Security Architecture, which seeks to position its armies so as to repress its people; in order to serve the interests of the EU and its economic and financial groupings. These are just some examples.

This resolution is therefore about neo-colonialism. The ties that keep the countries in this region subjugated to interests that are alien to its people need to be loosened, establishing genuine cooperation and helping them to consolidate their independence and sovereignty with a view to their economic and social development and progress.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It has been three years now since the last Africa-EU Summit, which was the start of a dialogue that has been sought between Europe and the African continent. This partnership is fundamental for development and progress, and it is important that both parties strive to strengthen their relations. Partnerships should not only relate to Community assistance; commercial relationships and economic partnerships should also be established, with exchanges of experiences within the fields of research, innovation and education, thus strengthening future relations.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Africa-EU strategic partnership is the European Union’s only tool covering intercontinental relations. It marks a shift in the relationship between the EU and Africa: they are becoming genuine partners dealing with each other on an equal footing and covering a wide range of subjects of shared interest in their dialogue. This is no longer a relationship between donors and recipients. It is a strategically important relationship and needs to be revitalised and strengthened if both Europe and Africa are to cope with the challenges that lie ahead of us. I am referring to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, the food crisis, the economic and financial crisis, climate change, and so on. The theme of the Tripoli Summit: ‘Investment, Economic Growth and Job Creation’, is a reminder that peace and security, economic and political governance and respect for human rights are pre-requisites for development. Legal and judicial protection of private investment is one of the keys to Africa’s economic and social development. There can be no social, human and economic development if there is no prosperity.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This future is dim, especially now, on the eve of the Africa-EU Summit. The best way to ensure it is to finance the public education programmes. People who can get secondary school education would prefer to live in their countries rather to beg in Europe. We must support the governments that focus their efforts on making their countries attractive to their own citizens. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) It is important for the EU to become closely involved with the African states and to tackle existing and future challenges by means of a common strategy. These include, in particular, bringing democracy to Africa, improving the living conditions of the people there and also the sustainable exploitation of raw materials, which offers benefits for both sides. Another problem which needs to be resolved is corruption. It prevents many African states from developing in a way which would improve the welfare of their citizens. Unfortunately, millions of euros of aid from the EU is continuing to disappear as a result of corruption. This could be used constructively for the direct benefit of the citizens. We must apply the principle of helping people to help themselves. Unfortunately, the resolution takes no account of this and simply envisages the continuation of existing practices.

Poverty is one of the main reasons why people emigrate from Africa and come to Europe. Instead of questioning the European practice of export subsidies, which have a massive impact on the ability of some African states to survive, we keep coming up with more empty words. The negative consequences of migration are being glossed over and, therefore, I felt obliged to vote against this resolution.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) European Union/Africa relations are clearly fundamental. I am therefore pleased with the adoption of the 2010-2013 Strategic Action Plan and with the partnerships established. Among these I would point to the one relating to peace and security, together with the EU’s efforts to provide predictable and sustainable funding for African peace-keeping operations, and to the need to create local empowerment, resilience and determination to protect civilians during armed conflicts. I should also emphasise the efforts towards cooperation on questions of common interest, such as: democratic governance and human rights; trade, regional integration and infrastructure, and the Millennium Development Goals. Within the context of this final aspect, the pledge by European Union countries to renew the commitment to allocate 0.7% of their gross national income to development aid by 2015 should be emphasised. This effort is crucial for meeting the Millinnium Development Goals, in particular with regard to specific policies on maternal, neonatal and child health, sex, education, agricultural policy, sustainable development, access to water and sanitation.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I regret the presence of the President of Zimbabwe, Mr Mugabe, at the summit held in Tripoli on 30 November, and the absence of numerous European Heads of State or Government. I also note that the new United States ‘Conflict Minerals’ law is a huge step forward to combat the illegal exploitation of minerals in Africa.

I therefore call on the Commission and the Council to submit similar proposals to guarantee the traceability of minerals imported into the EU market and on the African Union to cooperate in the sustainable exploitation of raw materials sector.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Among the common points several groups agreed, ours amongst them, are the following: 1. Welcomes the adoption of the Strategic Action Plan 2010-2013 and of its partnerships, and hopes that it will contribute added value in relation to the Cotonou Agreement and the Union for the Mediterranean and that it is an expression of an ambitious approach to intercontinental relations; 2. Stresses that the Africa-EU joint strategy’s founding principles should be designed to support developing countries’ sustainable needs in order to fight poverty, guarantee a decent income and livelihood as well as the fulfilment of basic human rights, including social, economic and environmental rights; 3. Hopes that the lessons will be learned from the difficulties which arose during the implementation of the first ‘Action Plan’, for 2008-2010 and hopes that the intentions expressed in principle in the Final Declaration by Heads of State and of Government will be acted on; 4. Notes with interest that both the private sector and civil society, particularly from Africa, could be allowed to make a far more effective contribution to the strategy than has been the case to date.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) An American law has already placed curbs on the illegal exploitation of ‘conflict minerals’. The joint resolution on the future EU-Africa strategy calls on the EU to do the same. Minerals which are imported into the EU must be traceable. Today, illegal exploitation is far too often the cause of civil wars and conflicts in the region, while this wealth could actually be an engine for sustainable economic development.

Action in the areas of capacity building, good governance, infrastructure development and investment are crucial. A policy which is characterised by participation, which is socially and environmentally responsible and which benefits the people is indispensable. Agriculture, too, is an engine for development. This is why we need to strengthen the agriculture and fisheries sectors in a sustainable way, especially as regards small farmers and fishermen.

The debate around agricultural land and land ownership should be conducted thoroughly. The Cancún Agreement is essential for tackling poverty in Africa, given the enormous potential of natural resources – sunshine, wind, rivers and tides – which African countries often possess in abundance. The text of the resolution does not avoid the controversial issues and I have, therefore, accepted it.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 3rd Africa-EU Summit, which took place in the capital of Libya, Tripoli, sought to strengthen the level of cooperation between the two continents. On the subject of Growth, Investment and Job Creation, this Summit emphasised the need to create economic growth, capable of generating employment, alongside sustainable social development.

The Africa-EU strategy will be put into practice in line with the action plan adopted for the period 2010-2013, which focuses on eight priority areas already established during the Lisbon Summit in 2007. Concrete measures relating to private entrepreneurship, economic integration and social questions, to peace and security on the African continent, to respect for human rights and the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals were all mentioned in the final Tripoli declaration.

First and foremost, I applaud this partnership between the two continents, which has demonstrated added value for both partners and the importance of continuing to boost the regional and global integration of the African continent. However, I believe it is important for the European Parliament to take a more active role in this partnership, and for a funding plan for the effective implementation of the 2010-2013 action plan to be drawn up.

Report: Kinga Gál (A7-0344/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The importance of the protection and promotion of human rights and basic freedoms is at the centre of the democratic values of the European Union itself. I agree that local and regional authorities could have a pivotal role in the implementation of these values, and propose a bottom-up approach. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon should be seen as a strengthening of the system at several levels of the protection of human rights, including the Charter. It has become necessary to reflect on developments in the protection of these rights following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, remembering that the Charter has the same legal value as the Treaties, and needs to be incorporated in EU primary legislation. The new horizontal obligations created by the Treaty of Lisbon are to be welcomed, and efforts between institutions need to be better coordinated for the sake of their effectiveness. It should also be recalled that a new ‘Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship’ portfolio has been created within the Commission, and new action is to be expected from the Commission within the context of this new scenario. Tangible results may be expected to be achieved from the new Commission communication: Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the EU.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) For a very long time, European integration consisted simply of working on the creation of the internal market. However, over the last ten years an unprecedented desire to emulate has come over EU legislators. In the beginning, there was an automatic tacit division of labour between the Council of Europe, responsible for matters concerning individual freedoms, and the embryonic single market that was the European Community. However, it was not long before the Member States’ national courts had to deal with disputes challenging Community law on the grounds of human rights. This is why, after a long period of gestation, the Charter of Fundamental Rights was adopted in 2000 and came into force last year with the Treaty of Lisbon. With the Charter, the European Court of Justice has a single legal basis under which to protect European citizens’ fundamental rights. However, this new system is only just beginning. This is why I supported this text, which reminds all the European parties concerned, including Member States and institutions, of their duties under the Charter and of the need to develop a genuine culture of civil liberties and effective collaboration on the subject.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The effective protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes the core of democracy and the rule of law in the EU. I therefore support the obligation strengthened by the Treaty of Lisbon to ensure the protection of fundamental human rights, combat social exclusion and discrimination and to promote social justice and protection. Even if this is achieved, it is necessary to ensure cooperation between the European Union and national institutions, establishing effective inter-institutional cooperation to monitor the situation of human rights in the EU. The Commission should continuously monitor the implementation of legislation in the field of human rights protection at national level and, in the case of gaps, should provide proposals for specific measures. It would be useful for a report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU to be issued annually to make sure EU citizens are properly informed on the new fundamental rights architecture. Furthermore, the EU institutions should increase cooperation with international organisations in the area of the protection of human rights.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I am delighted that since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, we have made some significant achievements in the field of human rights, firstly because the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights became legally binding, and secondly because the European Union is obliged to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. I voted in favour of this report, because as far as the European Union strategy on the rights of the child is concerned, it is very important to develop practical measures to combat child abuse, sexual exploitation and child pornography and to promote safer use of the internet and to eliminate child labour and child poverty. Combating trafficking in human beings, particularly women and children, is another pressing challenge. Although numerous EU and national laws have already been adopted in this area, several hundred thousand people are trafficked each year to the EU or within the EU, and therefore there is an urgent need to apply the new proposed European Union directive on combating trafficking in human beings.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The effective protection of fundamental rights and respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law should be a global objective for all European policies and an essential condition for the consolidation of the European area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The year 2009-2010 was of major importance in this respect, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, within which the Charter of Fundamental Rights became legally binding, thus transforming fundamental values into concrete rights, directly enforceable by European and national courts.

It needs to be ensured that all new legislative proposals conform to the Charter and, by the same logic, that all instruments already in place are checked. It is important that cooperation and coherence between the various bodies responsible is strengthened, at a European and national level, for the purposes of the control and application of this new general framework established by the Treaty of Lisbon, in order to ensure its effective application. I also hope that the Commission completes, as quickly as possible, the process of the EU’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which will provide an additional mechanism for the respect of human rights.

I am very pleased that citizens and the protection of their rights have finally been placed at the centre of Europe’s architecture.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report relating to fundamental rights within the European Union (2009) – Effective implementation following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, because I believe it to be necessary to promote a culture of fundamental rights within the European Union and the Member States. The protection of fundamental rights should be an objective of all European policies, especially foreign policy, in the interests of promoting peace, human rights and basic freedoms.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon creates a new paradigm in the area of fundamental rights within the Union, and makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. We have an obligation to position the Union as a community that protects fundamental rights, both internally and externally.

There are still far too many attacks on freedom of expression, as I have reported a number of times, as in the recent cases in Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. In this resolution, the rapporteur points out several situations that are more urgent and frequent, both within Member States and within the European Union as a whole. The challenge now is to respond to these questions, and to adopt the strategies and measures required to solve these problems.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon created a new situation within the EU in the area of human rights by making the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding and by giving the European Union the status of a legal entity, which enables it to sign up to international treaties.

The effective protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms are the basis of democracy and the rule of law within the European Union, and an essential condition for the consolidation of the European area of Freedom, Security and Justice, which requires action at several levels (international, European, national, regional and local). Within this context it is worth mentioning the important role that regional and local authorities can fulfil in the concrete application and promotion of these rights.

I am also pleased with the invitation to the Commission to designate 2013 the ‘European Year for Citizenship’, in order to bolster the debate on European citizenship and inform European citizens about their new rights following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) As usual, the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union has given rise to two perverse trends: the first consisting of demanding more and more rights for all kinds of minorities, to the detriment of those of the majority of our fellow citizens; the second consisting of castigating patriotic political movements and heaping the same old leftist, libellous insults on them, while attempting to dispute the legitimacy of their election victories and curb their freedom of expression. This militant xenophilia and anti-patriotism are very wearing. You are not in a position to judge the results of democratic elections held in democratic countries. The recent victories of national parties in France, Hungary, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands and elsewhere are not a sign of some worrying perversion.

They are a sign that Europe’s citizens are tired of your policies, your lax attitude towards immigration, your weakness in defending our nations’ economic interests, your complacency towards the financial interests of the powerful and your undermining of our social welfare systems. It is you who are continuously infringing their rights, especially their rights to security, to employment, to a decent wage, to the preservation of their culture and to determine their own futures.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In the forum of the European Parliament, we have raised matters related to human rights violations, the principles of democracy and discrimination against national minorities many times, and we continue to do so. We award the Sakharov Prize, we support humanitarian measures and we strive to attain rights and privileges not only for the people of Europe, but of the whole world. However, I greatly regret that we are still unable to enforce respect for fundamental human rights in the Union’s Member States.

The Polish national minority in Lithuania, which comprises nearly 7% of the entire population, is still suffering discrimination, and its rights are being flagrantly violated. Yet again, I appeal to the Members of the European Parliament who are assembled in this Chamber, and also to the President of the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Council, to take effective steps to ensure that the Lithuanian Government upholds the principles of democracy and respects the dignity of its citizens.

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), in writing. − The ECR Group is a staunch supporter of human rights and fundamental freedoms. We believe that the EU has a role to play in the defence of fundamental rights; however, it is the Member States who carry the first responsibility, in line with their traditions of democracy and the rule of law. We are of the opinion that the Gál report certainly contains good elements, but overall it stresses too much the role of the EU in areas which we believe to be the exclusive competence of the Member States, such as immigration and judicial systems. Therefore we have had to abstain in the vote today on this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has created more responsibilities for the EU with regard to the creation of a culture of defending fundamental rights within the EU and Member States. It is essential that the EU promotes protection of fundamental rights not only domestically but also throughout the world, where unfortunately major attacks on these rights continue to take place. Only in this way can peace, human rights and fundamental freedoms be promoted.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) As the report states, I regret the fact that neither the Council nor the Commission have followed the recommendations of the 2007 report on the use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners and that they have not shared information on this with Parliament. I support the general assessment regarding the need for the EU to redouble its efforts in order to prevent violations of fundamental human rights, which in too many cases have been suffered this year by immigrants and third-country nationals who live in the European Union. Although I do not agree with part of the report’s assessment of the EU’s role in the world as a guarantor of human rights and the role of the European External Action Service, as it is vague regarding the compatibility of that role with the need to respect the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states, I voted in favour of the report because I support its general spirit in terms of the need for the European Union to respect human rights in all aspects of its work.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms are central to democracy and the rule of law in the European Union. The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights will contribute a further mechanism for upholding human rights, namely the possibility of taking cases to the European Court of Human Rights. It is also important that the EU institutions and the Member States renew their efforts on awareness-raising, to ensure that citizens are aware of these fundamental rights, thus ensuring that these rights are better protected. There also needs to be more effective cooperation with the international organisations working to protect fundamental rights and freedoms.

The European Union needs to devise a strategy on the rights of the child, through practical measures to combat abuse, sexual exploitation and child pornography and to promote safe use of the Internet and eradicate child labour and child poverty. Combating human trafficking, especially that of women and children, which constitutes an intolerable form of slavery, must remain a priority.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Human rights and fundamental freedoms play a central role in democracy and the rule of law. Therefore, it is important to ensure that these basic values are safeguarded within the European Union. The right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and association, together with the right of free movement and of respect for human integrity and dignity, are the cornerstones of a free society. I did not vote in favour of the report because it did not focus on Christian values and the restrictions on residents caused by immigration.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) The EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon, is problematic. It puts fundamental rights in the EU under the control of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Apart from the legal problems which judges in the Court of Justice of the European Union are also warning about, it is clear that a court which passes a judgment opposing the presence of crosses in classrooms is not a suitable decision-making body for the EU. The cross is the symbol of Christianity, which is one of the foundations of Europe and of our fundamental values. The ECtHR has also recently attracted attention with its judgments, including its attempt to prevent transfers under the Dublin II Regulation from Austria to Greece. The ECtHR seems to believe that the Member States with the best systems of social services should bear the entire burden of refugees in the EU. This judgment by the ECtHR will not lead to the improved integration of refugees and is not an effective way of resolving the asylum challenges faced by the EU. In addition, the neutrality of the ECtHR judges is not guaranteed. One of the judges admitted that he would look more closely at appeals from asylum seekers than at other cases. Giving preferential treatment to some of the parties who are lodging appeals is inappropriate. In addition, one judge at the ECtHR comes from Turkey, where human rights are not respected and which has areas of the EU under military occupation. For me the ECtHR is neither European nor a court of human rights. Therefore, I have voted against this report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The heart of democracy and the rule of law is the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. After the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon last year, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights became legally binding, outlining a new European legal framework in which the universal values expressed in the Charter finally became concrete rights. I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Gál because this text approves the effective implementation of fundamental rights in the European Union after Lisbon. This is not only an internal step by the EU but also an external stance for the safeguarding and protection of human rights and the promotion of peace for the welfare of citizens in an atmosphere where the law guarantees peace of mind, safety and justice.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted today in favour of the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU. This report provides added value by clarifying the role which the EU institutions will play in the fundamental rights sector in the new European architecture, especially after the Treaty of Lisbon, by promoting greater transparency, democratic control and access to documents between the EU bodies. As regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is now binding and covers a broad range of rights, the Commission has been called upon to draft an annual report on compliance with the provisions of the Charter with an evaluation of the application of the various rights.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report emphasises the obligations resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to combating social exclusion and discrimination, and promoting justice and social protection, equality between men and women, solidarity between the generations and the protection of children’s rights. The emphasis on these points, together with the explicit reference to people belonging to minorities, another fundamental value of the European Union, was the reason for my vote in favour. I support the position of the European Parliament in its request to the Comission to conclude the negotiations and technical consultations so that the European Union may accede without further delay to the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − With this report the EP stresses, once again, that the effective protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes the core of democracy and the rule of law in the EU and an essential condition of the consolidation of the European area of freedom, security and justice and that it requires actions at various levels (international, European, national, regional and local level); stresses, moreover, the role that regional and local authorities can play in the concrete implementation and in the promotion of such rights; therefore calls on all EU institutions, Member States’ governments and parliaments to build on the new institutional and legal framework created by the Treaty of Lisbon to devise a comprehensive internal human rights policy for the Union which ensures effective accountability mechanisms, both at national and EU level, to address human rights violations.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the Gál report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2009). I would like to draw attention to paragraph 13, which calls for full and consistent implementation of the Stockholm Programme. In September this year, Mr Barroso assured us of the intensive work being carried out by the Commission in this area. It is important to maintain the schedule of this work and its smooth progress. All Europeans must be able to benefit from the same rights. In the Europe of the 21st century there is no place for discrimination.

I would like to ask the Hungarian and Polish Presidencies to say what action they intend to take in order to implement the Stockholm Programme efficiently. We must meet our obligations to the citizens and implement the legislation which we make. I would also like to stress that pursuant to paragraph 39 of the resolution, the Member States should provide ongoing training of national judges on fundamental rights and freedoms, including the new aspects in the field after the Treaty of Lisbon. Even the best law will not change anything, if it is not properly interpreted and implemented.

Report: Philippe Juvin (A7-0338/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because it is necessary to take measures to stop unfair commercial practices in the area of advertising, which above all have a negative impact on consumers. In order to achieve tangible results it is important to step up European cooperation in combating unfair online advertising practices, and the most vulnerable groups of people such as children, adolescents, the elderly and so on need special protection. It should be pointed out that there is a lack of information about consumers’ rights in respect of advertising, and I therefore support the proposal to take steps to facilitate access to information and make advertising more transparent. It is also essential to develop a critical attitude to the quality of media content, because well-informed consumers are in a stronger position. I believe that in view of the lack of advertising literacy, we should introduce a special education programme, aimed at children and adolescents and designed to make them advertising-literate by enhancing their understanding of advertising and teaching them how to interpret it.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union has made it a point of honour to protect consumers within the internal market. This is not simply a matter of ethics, but one of political strategy. Greater consumer confidence in the range of products crowding onto the market stimulates demand. In this respect, the role of advertising is ambivalent. It is a powerful tool for developing demand but at the same time, due to questionable practices, it can sometimes be a negative factor in the functioning of the market. These violations are more frequent in Internet advertising and the main victims are the weakest among us. I voted in favour of this resolution calling on the Commission, at the end of a consultation and study already undertaken by Parliament, to take the necessary measures to reform the current regulations. Addressing these new fraudulent practices will be one more step towards a single market that respects individuals.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of this report on the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour. Misleading and aggressive advertising is worrying consumers and businesses, and there are some good suggestions in the report to address this.

European consumers and businesses need to be protected from companies engaged in misleading advertising. To this end, the people and businesses of the EU must be made aware of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Directive on Misleading and Comparative Advertising so that they understand their rights. Goods like alcohol and online gambling must be controlled so that vulnerable consumers are protected.

I particularly welcome the fact that this report requests the Commission to study the impact of the aggressive advertising on vulnerable consumers and to correctly apply the relevant laws on child protection.

Of concern are behavioural advertising and the emerging practice of aggressive advertising, such as using social networks and reading e-mail to obtain information for use in advertising. The Commission must address these attacks on consumer privacy.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) With the rapid evolution of advertising technologies and the spread of advertising via the internet, mobile telephones and social networks, it is necessary to take effective measures to protect the consumer from the impact of unwanted and misleading advertising. Particular attention should be paid to the most vulnerable groups of people, including children and adolescents. Cooperation between the Member States in combating unfair online advertising practices should be stepped up, in order to avoid the consequences of internal market distortion and unfair commercial practices. Furthermore, there is a need to provide consumers with more information about their rights in the area of advertising and to make this information more accessible and transparent. The Commission should continuously monitor and assess the application of legislation regulating unfair commercial practices in the Member States and prepare reports on the implementation of legislation. As there is still a lack of information on the socio-psychological effects of advertising on the consumer, it is necessary to take action to research these effects.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it deals with unfair commercial practices in the field of advertising, and concentrates on issues arising from the development of new advertising practices and technologies. I would like to point out that advertising has a major impact on gender equality, particularly when advertising often communicates discriminatory and/or undignified messages based on all forms of gender stereotyping, which hinder gender equality strategies. I therefore agree that the European Parliament should call on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the media and advertising professionals guarantee respect for human dignity and make every effort to combat discrimination and any incitement to hatred based on sex, race, ethnic origin, age, religious or other beliefs, sexual orientation, disability and social status. As for the protection of vulnerable groups of people, the Commission should study the impact of misleading and aggressive advertising on vulnerable consumers. I would like to stress that children, teenagers and the elderly in particular need special protection against the negative impact of advertising.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Advertising involves unfair practices and intrusion into public and private spaces, while making a number of target public groups vulnerable. Internet advertising is the area which has enjoyed considerable expansion in recent years, generating a current value of more than EUR 14 billion on the European market alone. It is important for us to step up European cooperation in combating unfair online advertising practices in view of the success of the ‘sweeps’, that is, systematic, simultaneous website checks carried out by Member States, which have so far been confined to three sectors:airline tickets, mobile phone ring tones and electronic devices. These checks should be much more frequent and their scope of application extended. Self-regulation of national markets addresses rapid developments in the advertising sector, with the focus on instilling responsible attitudes among players and disseminating good practices.

Self-regulation must be encouraged at EU level in order to establish a tradition of self-discipline and responsible communication. The European Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which covers the aspects relating to online advertising as part of the relations between companies and consumers, has become inadequate because the area of online advertising is evolving every day. Social networks have seen a scale of expansion which was not envisaged a few years ago.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report on the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour. Indeed, considering the influence that advertising exercises on consumers and the economy, it is more necessary than ever to take action to prevent certain unfair advertising practices from influencing and conditioning commercial choices.

The spread of new systems of communication, such as the Internet, mean that even greater attention must be paid to consumers and in particular to more vulnerable sections of society, such as children and adolescents. It is our duty to combat the spread of untruthful and misleading information and above all certain practices, such as e-mail spam, which invades the private lives of users and their privacy.

I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Juvin, when he calls for action to be focused on the suppression of unfair advertising practices by broadening the scope of the directive in force. I believe that the measure we have voted on today offers an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and consumer protection.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Advertising is a fundamental instrument for the existence of a functioning market and for competition, and, in the final analysis, for consumers, given that, if duly regulated, it ensures a more informed choice. However, new technologies at the service of advertising are opening up a new area for the development of new, unfair promotional practices, which justifies a change to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

In order for advertising to fulfil its basic functions within a free and competitive market, it needs to be well regulated, and commercial practices that distort the market need to be duly punished. This is particularly important for forms of online advertising via Internet and telephone, which often reach the public in an unsolicited manner, and raise important questions relating, among other things, to unfair practices and the unauthorised use of personal data. This is why I believe this to be an excellent initiative that merits my support.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns unfair commercial practices in the area of advertising, defined within the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), and focuses on the problems inherent in the development of new advertising practices and technologies. The report does not concern relations between companies (B2B), which are specifically covered by Directive 2006/114/EC.

Unfair practices in advertising take many forms: invasion of the public space and sphere, and focusing on people who are particularly vulnerable, such as children. Given that young people and children are those most exposed to advertising on the internet, I am in favour of the need to develop an integrated European policy for combating the unregulated use of the Internet and means of communication.

To do this I propose the creation of a new, mandatory area that is specifically aimed at learning about the risks associated with the use of the Internet and means of communication, especially with regard to unfair advertising practices, directed at primary school children, and a mandatory subject within the final year of studying or training for primary school teachers and childcare workers to learn how to prepare the children for the safe and responsible use of the internet and means of communication, together with ongoing training for education professionals in this area.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The evolution of communication media and Internet developments have contributed to the spread of hidden advertising messages and unfair advertising practices that often invade the private lives of consumers.

It is essential to carefully consider the consequences that this may have on the most vulnerable groups, which must be protected from damaging and uncontrolled drip-feeding of advertising. We must also not forget that sometimes advertising conveys social stereotypes associated, for example, with an overly casual view of sexuality and violence, or inappropriate messages that can negatively affect the behaviour of impressionable children and adolescents who still lack the necessary critical faculties.

It is therefore necessary to update the legislation in force on the subject and ensure better implementation and interpretation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Lastly, I should like to emphasise that it is essential that consumers should be properly informed of the way that collected data is used and processed, particularly in cases where the data is demanded from them in exchange for price reductions and other promotional offers. To this end, it would be useful to promote effective information campaigns on relevant consumer rights and thus seek to compensate for the lack of knowledge about issues associated with the use of personal data.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report on the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour because I am in agreement with the rapporteur that, in the digital era, advertising has taken on a new dimension which necessitates – as the rapporteur has recommended – the implementation of an EU website labelling system modelled on the European Privacy Seal, certifying a site’s compliance with the data protection laws. Consumers need to have information which is clear, non-manipulative and objective in order to be able to make intelligent decisions. Sophisticated and aggressive marketing techniques have over the years prevented consumers from making informed choices with regard to goods and services. This is especially so with regard to citizens who are particularly vulnerable, such as children. We need to have a more disciplined approach which truly safeguards citizens’ interests.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I approve of this report because it deals with unfair commercial practices in the field of advertising, as defined in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and concentrates on issues arising from the development of new advertising practices and technologies. Advertising is a tool that benefits both the internal market, in other words, oiling the wheels of economic activity by stimulating competition, competitiveness, innovation and creativity, and consumers by increasing choice and lowering prices. It is a key economic sector: the EU online advertising market alone is worth more than EUR 14 billion. It must not be idealised, however: advertising can also involve unfair practices, intrude into public spaces such as advertising billboards and the private arena such as unsolicited e-mails, target vulnerable groups of people such as children and those in excessive debt, create potential entry barriers to the internal market where the outlay required is too high, distort the internal market by causing consumers to buy goods or services they would not normally have purchased and cause huge losses. As a result of these and other problems that have arisen due to the use of new technologies, the rapporteur proposes a series of measures for consumer protection. While personalised advertising, for example, offers of products or services tailored to consumers’ tastes, is not in itself a problem, it must not lead to the development of intrusive advertising based on consumer tracking, which breaches the principles of data protection and privacy.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) We want consumers to be responsible, well-informed and in a position to make sensible decisions. Our aim is to supply consumers with all the information they need to allow them to take the right decisions in economic terms. Advertising also makes an important contribution to providing consumers with information. However, it must contain objective, reliable and relevant details, otherwise what is supposed to be consumer information will rapidly lead consumers astray or even result in them being deceived. The purpose of the policy is to ensure a fair and safe trading environment, so that consumers can be involved in the market on an equal footing. However, it is also important to me that consumers do not become victims. By making purchasing decisions, they are in a position to exert a great deal of influence, but they must ensure that they make good use of it.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Advertising is an essential tool which ensures that the free market functions properly. It brings significant benefits, not only to the economy, but also to consumers, who, thanks to advertising, are ensured a range of choice of product. Unfortunately, the sustained development of new technologies, and particularly of the Internet, is resulting in the increasingly frequent use by businesses of unethical and dishonest practices in the field of advertising.

As the rapporteur points out, existing legislation does not regulate all the issues to a sufficient degree. It is essential to take steps to protect European consumers effectively, and also to educate them in the area of the rights to which they are entitled. Groups which are most at risk from unethical practices, such as children, young people and the elderly, should be given special protection. Therefore, I agree with the proposals put forward by the rapporteur.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) New media, in particular social networking sites and blogs, are opening up new opportunities for communication and advertising. The possibilities of Internet marketing result in additional demands being placed on consumer protection law. The current directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market does not provide for these new advertising methods. Young consumers and, in particular, teenagers and children are making extensive use of these new technologies and may be exposed to misleading and aggressive advertising. The study ‘EU kids online’ shows that one third of Internet users between the ages of nine and 10 use the Internet every day, while the figure for 15 to 16-year-olds is 77%. This makes it all the more important to take urgent measures in this area, including implementing restrictions and, at the same time, providing education and information. I support the resolution to give consumers more information about the new technical communication options and the risks they involve.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I can agree with many of the comments and proposals given in the material. However, I cannot identify with some of the propositions and proposals, which lean towards giving additional power to the state under the guise of consumer protection. In my opinion, the report should put more emphasis on educating users on their online behaviour, on how to make their computer secure, and on how and to whom they should give their personal data. It is not for states to provide technological solutions to be implemented under the pretext of consumer protection. A computer is as vulnerable as any other electronic device which is connected to the Internet via an electronic communications network. Politicians and states should undertake to teach citizens that privacy is something to be protected; just as one needs to lock up and secure one’s own home, today it is just as important to secure our electronic devices, and their means of communicating with the world, to the same extent. Politicians should also undertake to impose strict penalties for those who misuse personal data or breach personal privacy. Essentially, it does not matter if this happens via the Internet or via some other means.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) From the title of this own-initiative report, I thought Parliament was finally going to examine the society model sold to us by advertisers without having been asked for anything. However apart from a few interesting points such as controlling targeted advertising and discrimination in advertising, or the call for a reduction in TV advertising aimed at children, this text falls far short of what we might have expected. It contents itself with castigating illegal advertising which supposedly obstructs our sacrosanct freedom of competition and proclaims the advantages of advertising for citizens, whom it refers to as consumers, and for the media. Not with my blessing. I am against this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Unfair commercial practices in advertising need to be combated. We are getting ever closer to a serious phenomenon of personal debt. We must do everything we can to stop the problem from getting worse. Advertising can and should be an important tool for companies, serving as a source of income, stimulating competitiveness, providing healthy competition and encouraging creativity. We all know that there are vulnerable people, for example children, who are a special target for advertising campaigns. This is why I agree that this issue should be the focus of special attention, so that we can build a society that is better sustained at an economic and social level. That is why I voted as I did.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. − (HU) As far as the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour is concerned, advertising is beneficial for the internal market in the same way as it is beneficial for the consumers. It encourages competition, increases competitiveness, and stimulates innovation and creativity. It also represents an important sector in respect of the economy, as the online advertising market in itself transacts a turnover of EUR 14 billion. However, we must also be aware of the opposite side of the coin. Many advertisements attempt to manipulate vulnerable target audiences, such as children and severely indebted persons. I believe that it is important to strengthen common European cooperation in combating unfair advertising practices.

We consider the emergence of discriminative gender stereotypes, which could act as an impediment to gender equality to be unacceptable. Through the appropriate means we must ensure that media and advertising professionals respect human dignity and oppose direct or indirect discrimination or stereotypical depictions.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report on the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour as it points clearly to an improvement in the existing legislative framework for protecting consumers from advertising, and the need for a review of that framework taking into account new advertising media that are not yet regulated. I also gave the report my support as it seeks to improve harmonisation between the Member States in order to prevent legal loopholes that allow businesses to use deceptive advertising practices in the EU Member States. I think that the reference to ‘hidden’ advertising mechanisms that have developed on the Internet and are now in use there is appropriate; in many cases the advertising is disguised as opinions or comments on social networking sites, forums or blogs. I am also pleased that the report conveys concern to the Council and the Commission regarding the real risk posed by businesses that are both content providers and advertising sales houses. These are the main reasons, among others, for my vote in support of this report.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Advertising is present everywhere, in the streets, the newspapers, on the television, the radio, the Internet, and whether we like it or not it has a huge influence on consumer behaviour. It is a channel of communication. Whilst the informative role of advertising is essential for the effective functioning of the internal market, consumers have the right to be informed and protected. This is why the report on unfair commercial practices in advertising and the problems linked with the development of new advertising practices and technologies is very important. Advertising control is vital if we are to keep it sound and truthful. It is essential to strengthen European cooperation in this field, just as it is valuable to encourage joint regulation. Lastly, online advertising is often aggressive and intrusive. It needs to be looked into in greater depth.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour for a number of reasons:

1. it is time to recognise all mass media in the Internet;

2. false information and defamation should be matters of criminal liability;

3. in order to restrict access to vulnerable groups like children;

4. in order to clean the Internet of spam and punish those who make it circulate;

5. in order to induce very strict rules regarding announcements;

6. in order to oblige Parliament to establish a special structure to search for plotters and hackers and hold them to account.

Let us work and get it done.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Advertising is a powerful tool for business which in some cases can be used to address the subconscious. The purpose of advertising is to influence consumer and purchasing behaviour. However, the use of unfair business practices must be prevented. The most important task is to protect public spaces, vulnerable people and privacy. Assessing whether advertising has crossed these boundaries is, of course, extremely time-consuming. In the case of sensitive areas involving legal drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes, strict regulations have been in place for a long time.

Other areas will continue to be subject to self-regulation in the Member States, as a complement to the provisions of legislation. There is some catching up to do, not only in the field of Internet advertising, but also, for example, in cases where additional costs are covered up and where the use of new technologies and advertising methods, such as social networking sites or blogs, represents new territory. As it is important to protect consumers from ‘hidden’ advertising and similar problematic advertising tactics, I have voted in favour of the report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Modern advertising has long overtaken the legal framework of this area. Advertising on the internet – in search engines, email, social networks and Internet television – and on mobile phones is often presented to consumers without their consent, and even worse, using their data, sometimes collected without their knowledge or full awareness. Furthermore, there are dozens of loopholes in the legal framework of such advertising. Although alcohol advertising is prohibited on television for example, it is still accessible to minors on the Internet. On the other hand, internet advertising can very easily cross a country’s borders. Therefore the initiative to tighten the regulation of such advertising, and thus protect consumers, their privacy and personal data from unauthorised or disproportionate use, is very welcome.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Advertising – as the rapporteur has stressed – is an important sector of the economy. However, it carries many dangers. I fully endorse the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, which points out the necessity of eliminating advertising content which is discriminatory. It is also extremely important – and this is said by the rapporteur – to protect groups which are particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by advertising, such as children, teenagers and the elderly. I support the rapporteur’s proposal to run an educational programme throughout the European Union aimed at children and designed to help them understand the methods used in advertising. We should also consider setting up similar programmes aimed at the other two groups which are vulnerable to manipulation – teenagers and the elderly. It might be a good idea to extend this kind of education to people in other age groups. In view of these comments, I decided to endorse the report on the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The impact of advertising on the consumer often assumes enormous proportions that can lead to the risk of unfair commercial practices. My decision to vote in favour of this report is a result of the way advertising is used on the market. It acts as a tool that benefits both the internal market − oiling the wheels of economic activity − and consumers. However, above all it is an important economic sector. We must naturally also take into consideration the negative aspects that advertising can have: unfair practices, intrusion into public and private spaces, influencing of the most vulnerable groups of people, creation of potential entry barriers to the market and distortion of the internal market. It is therefore important to strengthen European cooperation in the struggle against unfair practices in advertising through a process of coregulation that can improve the efficacy and applicability of measures. It is also essential, in my opinion, to safeguard the most vulnerable categories and reinforce education and information, increasing the transparency of adverts. It would be an extremely good idea to run information campaigns on consumer rights through the use of educational materials.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The impact of advertising on consumer behaviour is a reality that should not be swept under the carpet, and this report does not do this. This report, for which I voted in favour, concerns unfair commercial practices in advertising, defined within the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, and focuses on the problems inherent in the development of new advertising practices and technologies.

Advertising is a positive tool, both for the internal market and for consumers. However, it is important to combat various abuses, among which I would highlight: unfair practices, the invasion of public and private space such as unsolicited emails, undue focus on vulnerable people and the possible distortion of the internal market, that is, thepurchase of goods and services that the consumers normally would not buy.

The analysis of the current legislation and proposals to review or improve it should focus on an assessment of these distortions. I support the rapporteur in his desire to intensify European cooperation in combating unfair advertising practices, whether by extending its scope or its frequency.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Juvin, that European Union-wide cooperation in combating unfair online advertising practices should be stepped up in view of the success of ‘EU sweeps’ (systematic, simultaneous website checks by the Member States), which have so far been confined to three sectors: airline tickets, mobile phone ring tones and electronic devices. I agree with the rapporteur, who suggests broadening the scope and increasing the frequency of such sweeps and encouraging coregulation, whereby the various stakeholders are involved in legislative developments, so that the resulting measures are more effective and easier to apply.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The report deals with unfair commercial practices in the advertising field, as defined in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and concentrates on issues arising from the development of new advertising practices and technologies. It does not discuss B2B relations, which are covered in particular by Directive 2006/114/EC. Advertising is a tool that benefits both the internal market, by oiling the wheels of economic activity (through stimulating competition, competitiveness, innovation and creativity), and consumers (through the diversity of options available and lowering prices). This is an important economic sector as online advertising alone has a value of more than EUR 14 billion on the European market. At a time when there is a lack of information about consumers’ rights in respect of advertising, steps need to be taken to facilitate access to information and make advertising more transparent.

Given that the general public is not even aware of the issues surrounding the use of personal data and the tools they have available for addressing them, information campaigns often need to be launched on consumers’ rights in respect of advertising, particularly with regard to the use of personal data, irrespective of whether it is provided voluntarily or collected automatically. It is also necessary to produce educational tools designed to inform Internet users (e.g. technologies for managing ‘traces’ left on the web and resources for protecting privacy).

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to congratulate Mr Juvin on his excellent work. With the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which does not guarantee an appropriate legal framework for combating misleading and aggressive advertising, a set of new and more persuasive forms of advertising is developing through the Internet. The resolution enables European consumers to be better informed on the new intrusive forms of advertising present on the Internet, calls for greater protection for vulnerable consumers and emphasises the role of advertising in promoting positive role models.

I would like to express my particular concern about the routine use of behavioural advertising and the development of intrusive advertising practices (such as reading the content of e-mails, using social networks and geolocation, and retargeted advertising) which constitute attacks on consumers’ privacy. I therefore call on the Commission to make it obligatory to insert the clearly readable words ‘behavioural advertisement’ into the relevant online advertisements.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This report deals with unfair commercial practices in the advertising field, as defined in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), and concentrates on issues arising from the development of new advertising practices and technologies. It does not discuss B2B relations, which are covered inter alia by Directive 2006/114/EC. Advertising is a tool that benefits both the internal market (oiling the wheels of economic activity by stimulating competition, competitiveness, innovation and creativity) and consumers (by increasing choice and lowering prices).

It is a key economic sector: the EU online advertising market alone is worth more than EUR 14 billion. However, it must not be idealised: advertising can also involve unfair practices, intrude into public spaces (e.g. in the form of advertising billboards) and the private arena (e.g. in the form of unsolicited e-mails), target vulnerable groups of people (such as children and those in excessive debt), create potential entry barriers to the internal market (where the outlay required is too high) and distort the internal market (by causing consumers to buy goods or services they would not normally have purchased).

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I would in particular like to stress the issue of online data protection in Mr Juvin’s report. It is necessary to ensure that consumers receive clear and comprehensive information about how their personal data are collected, processed and used. However, rather than regulating the Internet, I would prefer a solution which involves educating Internet users and resorting to regulations or restrictions in limited cases only. The introduction of censorship practices will only lead to other, more sophisticated fraudulent schemes and scams, which will always be one step ahead of any regulation. Activities which inform and educate users are important, as is giving Internet users more options with respect to the treatment of their personal data. It is important that the Commission starts to devise informative campaigns on the basic rights of consumers in respect of advertising, especially where this involves the use of their personal data. I would also welcome the development of EU educational programmes that teach children and other vulnerable groups how to understand the pitfalls of advertising. Equally, I welcome the report’s emphasis on the protection of vulnerable groups of consumers and the guarantee of respect for human dignity in advertising.

Advertising can effectively challenge and confront stereotypes. It can be a positive force acting against racism, sexism, discrimination and so on. However, it can also be a negative influence, contributing to violence, addictions such as smoking or alcoholism, or eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia. The report also mentions other important factors that need attention. That is why I supported the report.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) Internet advertising adapts itself to users’ behaviour. Given a user profile, advertisers can target their advertising and avoid people outside their target group. However, surveys show that users are largely opposed to personalised online advertising, which is often seen as intrusive. Many people even feel that they are being watched. A total of 62% of those surveyed are concerned that data protection is being disregarded in the case of personalised advertising and data protection specialists also have misgivings, because personal data is being stored, compared and linked with other data. In theory, every user can disable this option. However, the link is not easy to find and, therefore, this report proposes to make it easier for consumers to refuse all further e-mail advertising by means of a direct, working hyperlink.

In addition, the report enables consumers to be provided with clear, accessible and comprehensive information about how their data is collected, processed and used. Their data must be kept completely separate from that collected in the course of advertising activities. The content of private e-mails must under no circumstances be misused for advertising purposes and default settings for computer systems must be used to protect privacy on the Internet (privacy by design).

Report: Bendt Bendtsen (A7-0331/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the general objectives of this action plan, which should ensure an improved flow of information at a local level or the creation of a single point of contact, taking into account the reduced use of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) resources for measures relating to energy efficiency, with Member States and regions moving to a horizontal approach to energy efficiency for their development, given that this represents a profitable way of stimulating economic competitiveness and reducing fuel shortages. I also agree that the Commission should consult local and regional representatives in order to define the direction for development in energy policy, as well as to provide financial support to local and regional projects through innovative programmes that use existing energy resources and structural funds. Within this framework of possible action, it is suggested that major incentives are created for regions, which, up to now, have had an above-average role with regard to energy efficiency, promoting their energy independence and, on the other hand, encouraging the sharing of good practice between these regions and those having had little development in this area.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because we are committed to respecting the environment, finding economic means of producing energy and combating climate change. There is a need to ensure sustainable development, but economic development is also important. These two dimensions must be reconciled with one another. It is impossible to combat climate change without considering energy efficiency. To this end, comprehensive and realistic objectives and penalties need to be set, so that energy efficiency is not simply based on economic benefits. Energy efficiency mostly concerns buildings because there is a huge potential in energy efficiency in buildings. I therefore support the rapporteur’s opinion that the focus should be on the renovation of existing buildings, since the construction rate of new buildings within the EU is in continuous decline and many old buildings can make a significant contribution to energy efficiency, if renovated properly.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The energy question is a major challenge for Europe. We need to remember how much our continent’s development owes to the relatively easy access to energy that European countries have enjoyed for over a century. The energy question has now taken on a different aspect. The use of fossil fuels is becoming increasingly a thing of the past. The dual pressure exerted by the issue of global warming and the inevitable increasing difficulty in obtaining oil supplies and to a latter extent gas, is forcing us to think of new solutions. There has been an Energy Efficiency Action Plan in place since 2006, which deals with two particular aspects of efficiency. In order to economise in a way that will make the EU less dependent on its international partners, it needs to tackle efficiencies in both production and consumption: less energy-hungry buildings, more economic machines, but also more streamlined production technologies that will enable us to combine competitiveness, and innovation with economies of scale. Needless to say I supported this vital text (including the binding objective of a further 20% energy efficiency between now and 2020), which places the European Union among the front-runners in these fields.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) A lot has been achieved since the adoption of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan in 2006; however, the political and economic context has changed quite a lot since then. Therefore, there is a clear need to review the EU's energy efficiency policy to align it with the current priorities and developments. Energy efficiency is the most cost-efficient and fastest way to reduce CO2 and other emissions. The advantages are huge in terms of both economic growth and job creation. I believe that a thorough assessment of the achievements and shortcomings of the 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan should be undertaken as a basis for the revision of the EU's energy efficiency policy. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is not on track to meet its 20% target, therefore it is necessary to take more effective measures to promote energy efficiency. Great attention must be paid to the renovation of existing buildings, because hitherto there has been little progress in this area. The construction rate of new buildings within the EU is in continuous decline and many old buildings have the greatest efficiency potential, if renovated properly. This would facilitate a reduction in the EU’s overall energy dependence.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Adopted by a large majority, the own-initiative report of Bendt Bendtsen sends a welcome political signal on the issue of energy, several days after the end of the Cancún Summit and two months before the Summit on Energy on 4 February 2011. Energy efficiency is without doubt one of the critical issues of our fight to protect the environment. Energy savings and energy efficiency are the most cost-efficient and fastest way to reduce CO2 emissions and improve security of supply. In this report, we are calling for renewed efforts to achieve the energy efficiency objective of 20% by 2020. However, I regret that the amendment calling on the European Commission to launch an initiative for the deep renovation of existing buildings next year did not get the necessary majority. The report only mentions new buildings and not the issue of the management of existing buildings. Yet buildings are responsible for about 40% of energy consumption and about 36% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because there is a need to take specific measures on the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, in particular as it is becoming increasingly obvious that the EU will not meet its target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I would like to draw attention to the fact that energy efficiency is the most cost-efficient way to reduce CO2 and other emissions. Furthermore, it represents a unique opportunity to support and create jobs, while lowering dependence on energy imports. The European Parliament thus calls on the European Commission to design the new Energy Efficiency Action Plan taking into account the needs of vulnerable energy consumers. In addition, it calls on the Member States to adopt appropriate measures and effective policies, such as national action plans or targeted social measures to reduce energy poverty and to report regularly on their actions to address this concern. The Commission should also be responsible for presenting statistics on the development of all major elements of the EU's energy policy.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to congratulate Mr Bendtsen for this important and topical report on energy efficiency. I voted in favour of this report, because I believe that good energy efficiency can help us to cut CO2 emissions substantially.

Various advantages may be derived from this type of political action: firstly, new jobs would be created, but it would also be possible to introduce greater involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises, the connective tissue of the Italian and European economies, which could be offered innovative development opportunities. To do this, it would be necessary to arrange appropriate financial instruments to strengthen professional training, research and access to information. I therefore agree with the need to review the European Union’s policies on energy efficiency and implement concrete plans to boost competitiveness.

As far as buildings and ecodesign are concerned, I agree that the focus should be on the renovation of existing buildings, since they offer extremely high energy efficiency potential, if renovated properly. Therefore, to achieve these goals, it is necessary to promote measures, instruments and funding support from both Member States and at European level, for example through the introduction of ad hoc funds.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) The report on energy efficiency rightly calls for a greater emphasis on innovative solutions such as smart grids and smart meters, for more flexible integration of renewable energy sources, and for the creation of a global strategy for heat generation. Here we should note that the goal is for 50% of homes to be fitted with smart meters by 2015, rising to 80% of homes by 2020. I am glad that there were no proposals for the introduction of legislative measures in the area of energy poverty. Instead it was worded in such a way that it is clear that Member States are the ones who are best able to deal with the problem of energy poverty, and therefore this is a problem that should be resolved at the level of the Member States. The possibility of using 15% of the ERDF for energy efficiency programmes should also help in improving energy efficiency. However, I do believe that energy efficiency should be made a horizontal European priority, which is financed from sources other than structural funds.

I think it was right to reject proposals for the introduction of a pan-European energy or coal tax, which would only lead to increased energy costs and would hit low-income groups the hardest. I am also of the opinion that energy efficiency goals should not be legally binding and that we should not introduce a superficial conditionality for granting structural funds based on energy efficiency.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Energy efficiency is crucial for increasing security of supply, improving air quality, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and increasing the competitiveness of our society. Energy efficiency means doing ‘more’ with ‘fewer’ resources. This report sets out an ambitious vision for energy efficiency through, for example, the introduction of individual goals and positive incentives. Important elements are introduced with regard to the modernisation of energy infrastructure, such as smart networks, energy efficiency in buildings and transport, the use of ICT and the development of scientific research in the area of energy. This report underlines the need to double the funds for scientific research, technological development and demonstration in the area of energy. With regard to funding, the report also encourages the use of structural funds to support energy efficiency, and this will be a priority within the EU budget after 2013. In the light of all this, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Bendtsen, for the excellent work carried out, and for the balance achieved, and I would invite all of you to support this important report.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Buildings are responsible for about 40% of energy consumption and about 36% of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union. Energy-efficient buildings should be a priority of the next revision of the energy efficiency action plan. Today, 30% of existing homes in Europe are unhealthy and have high energy bills. It is therefore important not only to promote new sustanaible buildings but also to renovate existing buildings sustainably. That is why the Member States must immediately launch a programme of deep renovations in the existing building stock to achieve a nearly zero level energy consumption in the built environment by 2050. There is also a link between energy efficiency and energy poverty. We are therefore calling on the Commission to prepare a new energy efficiency action plan action to take account of the needs of vulnerable consumers.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I would like to welcome this report on energy efficiency as it will increase energy security and it will serve to create social and economic advantages for the EU’s economy. The S&D Group have pointed out that energy resources are not evenly distributed among Member States. We must always consider European solidarity when legislating for energy efficiency. It has been said that economising on energy is one of the quickest routes to energy efficiency. Promoting energy efficiency will create employment and it will save Member State governments billions in heating costs on an annual basis.

I strongly welcome the creation of a lower carbon intensive society but we must be careful to strike the correct balance between Member States based on their capabilities and resources. I am concerned that Member States such as Romania will be expected to perform on a level playing field with other Member States such as Sweden, who have a proven track record in the area of energy efficiency. Financial Perspective 8 will be a critical financing tool to encourage and promote energy efficiency from 2014 to 2020.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report on the Action Plan for Energy Efficiency because it puts forward important proposals for the environment and for the economy, specifically the presentation of European legislation that introduces binding goals to reduce energy consumption.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2008, Europe committed itself to achieving, no later than 2020, a 20% reduction in energy consumption, and to ensure that 20% of its energy consumption was from renewable sources. This target is fundamental for helping Europe to meet its objective of reducing CO2 emissions, and to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, but it should continue to be exactly that, a target which the various States adhere to voluntarily.

For this to happen, rather than imposing a binding limit, it will be more important for Member States to agree on solutions that allow for greater energy efficiency and less energy being wasted, without affecting development and without this being overly costly for European industries and producers, particularly at a time of economic crisis such as now.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report focuses on energy efficiency policy within the EU. With regard to this issue, I support the need to set binding targets. In the Commission’s Green Paper (2005/0265 final) on energy efficiency, it is estimated that around a million new jobs could be created in Europe, directly or indirectly. According to this Communication, the particular beneficiaries of energy efficiency measures are SMEs, and it adds that an average household could save an average of EUR 1,000 a year through energy efficiency measures.

Mandatory energy efficiency measures are also crucial for reducing the energy deficit resulting from imports of oil and gas from the Gulf and Russia.

We already have binding targets for increasing the quota of renewable energy in the European Union to 20%. Within the current framework, we could only attain half of the potential without binding targets for energy efficiency. It is also a question of legal certainty, and an important signal for directing new investment.

For the EU and Portugal I see more gains than losses with this binding objective. In addition, if the EU 2020 objectives do not go beyond simple intentions, this strategy will not achieve anything.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Promises to increase energy efficiency have multiplied, but the European Union runs the risk of not meeting the targets that have been proposed: achieving 20% by 2020. The latest data points to an actual average of only 9%, despite the contribution that an increase in energy efficiency could make to a reduction in emissions, consumption and energy dependence.

The report contains a wide selection of elements that cover the vast field of energy efficiency quite adequately, although it indicates routes that might make it difficult to achieve successfully the objectives that it aims for.

But there are aspects with which we disagree, such as the link that is claimed between energy efficiency and what is called the Europe 2020 Strategy, which provides for the creation of a single market in energy, the promotion of market-based instruments, the European Emissions Trading System masking some of the profits from energy efficiency, and overlooking the need to defend a strong energy public sector that each State needs to promote.

Although we agree with the need for there to be community funds for implementing the objectives, we still have doubts about the practical possibility of using up to 15% of the ERDF or using the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for energy efficiency, given that it should be the Member States that determine their needs and priorities for the distribution of these funds.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Numerous measures offering unexploited possibilities can be introduced to improve energy efficiency in key sectors such as transport and the built environment.

It is nonetheless unrealistic to set a binding target for improving energy efficiency by at least 20% by 2020, because there is no method of evaluation and there are no common indicators. Instead, we should focus on specific sectoral targets, such as the commitment to reduce energy consumption in existing buildings by 38%.

The lack of funding is a major obstacle to the renovation of buildings in the residential and SME sectors. Instead of engaging in a battle of unrealistic objectives, the European Commission should, instead, come up with innovative solutions and stimulate public-private partnerships, because this creative ecology is a source of jobs.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I approved of this report because it aims to increase energy efficiency by at least 20% by 2020, and thereby advance the transition to a sustainable and green economy. The advantages are huge in terms of both economic growth and job creation. The jobs created will be in both rural and urban areas. It is well known that there is a huge potential for energy efficiency in buildings. Therefore the focus should be on the renovation of existing buildings, since the construction rate of new buildings within the EU is in continuous decline and many old buildings have the greatest efficiency potential, if renovated properly. In the cleantech industry there is a need to bridge the gap between the USA and China, on one hand, and the EU, on the other. Both countries are far more progressive than the EU with regard to adopting legislative measures promoting energy-efficient solutions. Therefore, measures and instruments to boost financing should be supported by the EU and Member States. The creation of national energy efficiency funds which support Energy Performance Contracting should be incentivised through a financial instrument at European level. Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) whereby a customer purchases a guaranteed energy saving creates leverage as the investment is paid back over a time span of 2-15 years. Such a model creates jobs within SMEs, consumers save money on energy bills and emissions are reduced.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. − (FI) When I, like the majority in my group, voted against the mandatory 20% energy savings target, I was not taking a stand on the importance of energy saving, but the way in which it is trying to be promoted. The importance of improved energy savings is undeniable. Nevertheless, attempts to resolve the EU’s climate and energy security and supply problems are not, in my opinion, sustainable or prudent.

In the notorious 20­20­20 climate and energy package the energy savings target was the only non­binding one, as it was assumed that it would be stepped up in line with other mandatory targets, such as those for cuts in emissions and renewables. The energy savings target was not implemented in the way we wanted, but now, rather than burden our Community with yet another binding target, one that overlaps with other binding targets, and without knowing how it will be achieved, we should examine whether those other targets were set appropriately in the first place.

When we introduce emission cuts and targets for renewables our Member States and their companies are put under pressure, and the temptation to create short­sighted, unsustainable solutions becomes overwhelming. If on top of that we impose one more constraint, we will be in a situation where the EU will be literally sawing off the branch it is sitting on, at the same time bringing about a massive transfer of income, with no further benefit to the climate, the environment or our energy security.

In trying to do something good, we have done just the opposite. Industry is becoming less viable globally, we are unsustainably burning wood in the name of renewable energy, and, at the same time, the problem itself, carbon dioxide emissions, is growing increasingly serious beyond our borders.

It is time to take sensible and sustainable action, and not resort to short­sighted force­feeding with nothing rationally tangible.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The EU-wide increase in energy efficiency is a central component of a sustainable European energy strategy. It will allow CO2 emissions to be reduced and, at the same time, energy security to be improved in the most rapid and cost-effective way. I welcome the fact that the report highlights increased investment in energy efficiency in buildings which will create new jobs in the construction sector and in SMEs and will bring possible annual energy benefits of up to EUR 1 000 per household. The report also refers to the need to increase energy efficiency throughout the transport system by shifting from energy intensive transport modes, such as cars and trucks, to energy saving means of transport, such as rail. I welcome the aspects of the report which call on the Commission and the Member States to give energy efficiency the attention it deserves and, at the same time, to ensure that the numerous legislative provisions relating to this area which are already in place at an EU and a national level are complied with.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) At the vote, today, I endorsed the adoption of the Bendtsen report on the revision of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan. There is no doubt that increasing energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and the fastest way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The fact is that buildings account for around 40% of energy consumption and around 36% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. This is why I think that one of the most important things which needs to be done is to increase the energy efficiency of buildings, and this should be accomplished by initiating work to renovate existing equipment and by installing a more efficient common infrastructure in buildings and heating systems. I voted in favour of financing the insulation of buildings from the Structural Funds.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report on energy efficiency is extremely important with a view to adopting the EU action plan in this area for the coming years. It will have a huge impact on the methods used to cut CO2 emissions, on economic growth and on creating jobs in areas such as IT, construction and services. I voted in favour of more effective protection for vulnerable consumers. These consumers must benefit most from the energy efficiency improvements made. However, more financial resources are needed to make the required investments. Furthermore, I voted for setting up energy efficiency funds at national, regional or local level. These funds could play a key role in developing SMEs and companies supplying energy efficiency services. I voted against setting the legally binding target of achieving minimum energy savings of 20% by 2020 as this element of compulsion at EU level could have an adverse impact on the single market. I think that the transition to a sustainable, green economy will progress even without imposing excessive legislative measures.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In his report on the revision of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, Mr Bendtsen rightly points out that national policies still do not fully exploit the potential in the field of energy efficiency. We must therefore strengthen European Union strategies in this direction. I voted for the motion.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report promotes the principle of energy efficiency and advocates energy labelling. This is a good thing, although one might have wished to see the discussion extended to energy sobriety and eco-labelling. It is also concerned about energy poverty. This is good news. What a pity, then, that it makes them instruments of green capitalism, that it is in favour of free competition, calls for the intervention of financial intermediaries and extols the virtues of the carbon market. It annihilates the advances it promises.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) An action plan that complies with the European energy policy needs to address the following issues: moving towards a low carbon-emission energy system, ensuring security of energy supply, and ensuring the Union’s improved competitiveness and the supply of energy to all consumers at affordable prices. Considerable financial and human effort is required in order to achieve these objectives.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Here are 10 principal guidelines for energy efficiency.

1. Energy – efficient technologies; 2. Transport technologies; 3. Efficient use of energy; 4. Energy transportation circuit security; 5. Collection and storage of goods used for energy production; 6. The energy exploitation of countries – suppliers; 7. Forming and distribution of energy resources; 8. Anti-monopoly programmes for energy consumption and energy supply; 9. Nanotechnologies in the energy supply sector and its development; 10. Efficient energy legislation.

Unfortunately, these aspects are not covered by the present report. I voted in favour, bearing in mind that the principal task has only just begun.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Energy efficiency is an area with great potential for the future where the EU already has some experience. In addition, the EU Member States are home to many leading technology companies. Alongside the obvious benefits for the environment, this sector also offers opportunities for boosting economic growth and creating jobs. However, it has become clear in the past that the EU often sets itself ambitious targets and then has problems in achieving them or misses them altogether. This could be the case with buildings which, of course, offer enormous potential for energy savings.

It is significantly simpler to implement measures of this kind in new buildings than in existing older ones. Listed buildings present particular problems. Last but not least, we must not allow the situation to get out of hand by imposing measures to increase energy efficiency which are so expensive to implement that the cost of living becomes almost unaffordable. I have voted accordingly.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) One cannot but agree with the proposition of the rapporteur that ‘energy efficiency is the most cost-efficient and fastest way to reduce CO2 and other emissions.’ In addition, action to improve energy efficiency contributes to economic growth and the creation of jobs. This phenomenon can be observed, for example, in the new Member States, where the scale of the challenges to be faced is enormous.

It is also worth mentioning that European Union support for the insulation of buildings is one of the most visible features of cohesion policy. Modernised buildings are one of the best signs of the European Union in the region. With this in mind, I endorse the proposals contained in the report concerning an increase in expenditure on improving energy efficiency.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, because I believe it is important to push the European Union to make progress towards a green and sustainable future. Reducing energy consumption through system innovations in energy infrastructures and urban development is the goal set by Europe in the new action plan that the Commission will submit in February. I also believe that the objectives must not be binding because if we speed up the timing we run the risk of financially damaging companies and individuals. The measures for an action plan must be coherent with national plans in order to outline a common methodology for measuring energy efficiency targets.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur, a member of the PPE Group, in his review of the energy efficiency action plan, makes a balanced proposal to attain a target of a 20% energy saving, set by the European Council in 2007.

The pragmatic way of implementing an energy efficiency policy proposed by the rapporteur, through individual targets and without imposing legally binding objectives, seemed to me to be the most appropriate method, in the current economic and political context, of achieving the objective in question. However, a solution involving the introduction of mandatory targets of at least 20% for energy reduction, an amendment approved through the votes of the socialists, liberals and greens, was passed in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE).

Within the report, for which I voted in favour, I would highlight the various community and Member State actions that support energy efficiency: the application of existing legislation in this area, energy efficient urban development, the construction of energy efficient buildings and the funding of these and other measures through the creation of national energy efficiency funds.

It should be emphasised that this European Parliament report is an important contribution to the review of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan under way within the European Commission.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Partly as a result of several improvements to the original plan, I agree with Mr Bendtsen that energy efficiency is the most cost-efficient measure to reduce CO2 and other emissions and that it represents a unique opportunity to support and create jobs, while at the same time lowering dependence on energy imports. He notes that, according to the Commission, energy-saving benefits could amount to over EUR 1 000 per household per year.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and fastest way to reduce CO2 and other emissions. The advantages are huge in terms of both economic growth and job creation in the areas of IT, construction and services. These jobs will be in both rural and urban areas, often within SMEs, and they will be local jobs which cannot be outsourced. The Commission is going to submit a new revised plan at the start of 2011, which must contain the following elements: - EU binding target of a minimum 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020 - measures to combat energy poverty introduced in all energy policies - revision of the Energy Services Directive in 2011 - encouraging investment in smart grids and compliance by Member States with the requirement of the third legislative package on the internal market to install smart meters in 80% of households by 2020 - Member States must set annual building stock renovation targets - the Commission must put forward policies for achieving nearly zero energy losses in buildings by 2050 - the Commission must examine innovative funding models, such as revolving funds, in order to achieve the targets in this sector.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it is important for the target of 20% energy efficiency to be compulsory, not only for reasons of CO2 reduction, but also for in social reasons. A large proportion of the expenditure of European households is on energy bills. Introducing efficiency measures that reduce energy waste and help to reduce energy poverty is a socialist objective.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Until such time as the crazy challenge of space solar energy becomes a reality and the entire world reaps the benefits of this almost inexhaustible electric manna, the European Union has no other choice for its current energy policy than to get its energy supply from as many sources as possible and to opt for energy efficiency. This is a key priority of the European strategy for the next decade highlighted in the report by Mr Bendtsen, which was approved this afternoon by a majority of the members of the European Parliament. I particularly welcome the adoption of the binding energy savings target of 20% by 2020, which would enable the EU to save approximately EUR 100 billion. In order to achieve this, we are clearly going to have to do more in fields as varied as energy services, transport (by when will we have a framework for the standardisation of electric vehicles?) and buildings. The latter requires particular attention, as we know that they are responsible for about 40% of energy consumption and about 36% of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union. There is considerable energy saving potential in public buildings, for example, which would facilitate the transition towards a stable, green economy.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This report is a powerful and timely reminder to the Commission and the Council of the importance of a binding energy-saving target ahead of the crucial Energy Summit on 4 February 2011 and as the Commission prepares its energy efficiency action plan. Ambitious EU measures on energy saving and efficiency are essential if Europe is to respond to the challenges of energy security and climate change. They also make economic sense, create jobs and save consumers money on their energy bills. Until now, Member States have been reneging on their pledge to reduce energy consumption by 20% by 2020, by making insufficient progress. Making the target binding will help (as in the case of renewable energy) to ensure that the EU governments actually deliver on this potential.

The report also calls for stronger measures to address the energy consumption of buildings, notably by renovating the existing building stock. With buildings accounting for 40% of energy consumption in the EU, it is essential to tackle this sector head on. The Greens hope that the EU Energy Summit will also address this crucial issue.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Energy Efficiency Action Plan is a cost-effective means of increasing the competitiveness of the economy and security of energy supply to the European Union. The plan to begin improving energy efficiency is also a perfect opportunity for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Bendtsen report rightly draws attention to ways of using energy effectively and efficiently without the need to reduce its consumption, because this is continuing to rise in the Member States. The use of new energy technologies in construction and transport allows significant savings at the level of the whole Union. However, for such methods to come into use, an information campaign for the citizens is needed, as also is a reduction in the costs of energy-saving technologies. It is, indeed, the high price of innovative equipment which is the greatest obstacle to its coming into use. Adoption of binding targets for 2020 is difficult for many Member States.

We must, however, remember that each of the Member States is at a different stage of development of energy policy. A binding renewable energy target of 20% of final energy consumption by 2020 may prove to be too great a challenge, particularly for the 12 new Member States.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) I am pleased that the European Parliament has declared itself to be in favour of a mandatory 20% energy savings target in 2020. Forecasts indicate that, with the current policy, Europe will only achieve an 11% energy saving. Meanwhile, households waste EUR 1 000 of energy a year and we annually export no less than EUR 350 billion of our European welfare to oil-rich nations. Better insulation for houses, more efficient energy transport and more efficient appliances ensure a lower energy bill for consumers and businesses.

There are often barriers to these effective measures being taken, such as high investment costs or uncertainty about the benefits. If the European ministers support this proposal, governments will have to step up their support for energy conservation measures. These measures will ultimately bring in money, because the energy bill will be lower.

Energy conservation is the cheapest way for us to reach our climate target and will lead to 560 million tonnes less CO2 emissions. Energy conservation therefore makes it even easier for us to raise our climate target a little. Unfortunately, we are still hopelessly behind; according to a recent report, we need to triple the European target if we are to achieve a 20% energy saving. It is therefore important that this target be imposed as binding on all EU Member States.

  Konrad Szymański (ECR), in writing. − ECR MEPs believe that energy efficiency has a crucial part to play in helping the EU meet its renewable energy and emissions reduction targets. It also has a crucial role to play in ensuring our energy security and contributing to our economic competitiveness. We support much of the content of this report, such as the focus on smart grids and metering, financing from the EIB and the private sector, and also the potential for R&D to further energy efficiency. ECR MEPs do not, however, support binding energy efficiency targets. We believe that the EU and Member States are already incentivised to implement energy efficiency policies through renewable energy and emissions reduction targets, as well as energy saving targets under the Energy Services Directive. ECR members therefore abstained on this report.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted against the Bendtsen report, because the figures have once again been changed and the targets are restrictive. It is true that this is a non-legislative report, but the effects of the ecodesign directive have shown how carefully these issues must be handled. As result of the light bulb ban, I have had to evacuate a room after an energy-saving bulb containing mercury broke, in order to avoid damage being caused to people’s health. This is exactly the sort of thing that must be stopped in good time.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted against this report. I welcome the approach taken by the report concerning the Energy Efficiency Action Plan. However, I believe that imposing mandatory energy efficiency targets ‘from above’ and setting obligatory modernisation and refurbishment targets for private and public buildings (such as schools) is a mistake. At a time when budgets are tight in the provinces, local authorities and private households, these unrealistic requirements will put too great a strain on them. For example, the EU Commission, whose buildings were covered by the new efficiency criteria, recently had to admit that it could not meet the additional requirements for the energy refurbishment of its building stock. The EU must not require others to do things which it cannot do itself.

For the many medium-sized companies and, in particular, small contractors in Saxony these measures go significantly too far. They will overburden businesses and will obviously result in job losses and in cost increases for consumers. In my opinion, we need to take a critical approach in particular to the call for energy efficiency criteria to be applied to public procurement policy. The right way to save energy involves educating the citizens of Europe and establishing tax incentive systems.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I oppose this report. Although it contains some proposals which are worthy of consideration, I have a low opinion of the type of gesture politics which calls for restrictive measures that are almost impossible to implement in practice. The demands on local and regional authorities and on private home-owners to carry out energy refurbishments of their properties are particularly pointless, given the financial situation of all the parties involved. Even the EU Commission had to admit that it could not meet the comprehensive requirements for the energy refurbishment of its building stock. In addition, we have not yet seen any proof of the claim that energy refurbishments result in direct cost savings. As a result of investment in the production and maintenance of the infrastructure and in renewable energy generation facilities, the cost of energy is rising faster than can be compensated for by the possible savings from energy efficiency measures. The existing EU energy efficiency directive from 2002 has been implemented in very different ways in the individual Member States which means that there is no common approach in Europe on this issue. Insisting on a much greater mobilisation of structural funds to pay for energy efficiency measures is inappropriate in the light of the ongoing finance debates. I am very much in favour of a debate on energy efficiency based on a broad consensus at all political levels and involving all the relevant players and the creation of incentive systems. However, I am opposed to regulations imposed ‘from above’ for which others have to foot the bill.

11. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 14.45 and resumed at 15.05)

IN THE CHAIR: Roberta ANGELILLI
Vice-President

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

13. Economic governance and Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on

the oral question by Stephen Hughes, Pervenche Berès and Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group, to the Council: Economic governance and Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon (O-0200/2010 - B7-0660/2010), and

the oral question by Stephen Hughes, Pervenche Berès and Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group, to the Commission: Economic governance and Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon (O-0201/2010 - B7-0661/2010)

  Pervenche Berès, author. − (FR) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, both your institutions have worked very hard in the field of economic governance and, today, the European Parliament is debating the six Commission proposals on economic governance.

Today, we are under the regime of the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 9 of which provides that, in the definition and implementation of its policies and actions, the Union shall, and I quote, ‘take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health’. This article is binding on all the institutions of the Union and on all its policies.

Yet, today, you have not carried out an impact assessment on the ‘economic governance package’ on which you are asking me to deliberate. These impact assessments are very close to the heart of the Commission when, for example, it comes to implementing legislation on electromagnetic diseases.

This is to be welcomed, but we would like the same zeal to be applied to economic governance. Otherwise, what do we see? We see Commissioner Rehn explaining to us today that there would be three pillars in his strategy: growth on the one hand, economic governance on the other, and, finally, supervision of the financial markets. But if the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, the action of the European Union will be incoherent and European law in terms of Article 9 will not be complied with.

We therefore urge you to evaluate the social impact in terms of employment, in terms of the funding of retirement pension, in terms of social protection, in terms of the funding of public services, of the measures you are preparing to take.

What impact will the fight against poverty have on your 2020 Strategy objective, when we learn that, today, within the European Union, 116 million people were threatened by poverty or social exclusion on the basis of figures valid for 2008?

The reality is that the Commission seems to be applying a secret mandate asking you, in response to the concerns of some Member States, within the Council, to reform the Stability and Growth Pact to make it more binding, to provide for preventive and corrective sanctions, while ignoring the necessary investment strategy around what you yourselves have adopted, the 2020 Strategy.

We know that, as regards job creation, over the next few years the situation in terms of growth prospects will be more difficult than in the years that have just elapsed.

We are not opposed to a return to public finance scenes but we are opposed to a growth strategy that has no means of financing, with austerity plans that may have immeasurable social effects, with potential consequences in terms of inequality, and where none of the inequalities, with respect to the distribution of wealth, is addressed.

This cannot be the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon, for which we fought so hard and which you, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, have an obligation to implement.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I am delighted that the public is present. That is good.

I should like to thank Parliament, of course, for having put this issue on the agenda of this part-session. It allows us to address an important issue, on which a great deal of work has been done in recent months within the Council.

I am aware, of course, of the importance this Parliament attaches to economic governance and to its links with social issues in the broader sense, as set forth in Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The obligation deriving from Article 9 must be complied with when defining and implementing all the policies and actions of the Union, including, therefore, all the work on future economic governance.

I should first like to point out that, during the Belgian Presidency, the importance of the implementation of Article 9 and hence of the cross-section clause has been referred to so often. I should therefore like to recall the conclusions adopted by the Council on 6 December on the social dimension in the context of an integrated Europe 2020 Strategy. These conclusions call on the European Commission to strengthen and encourage the use of the existing system for the evaluation of the social impact. It calls on the Council to produce a report on the way in which Article 9 is implemented in work and in European policies through the open coordination method. It also calls on the Commission to seek out means of implementing social mainstreaming and thus, also, Article 9 in the context of its flagship initiative of a European platform against poverty, which should be published in the next few days.

With regard, more specifically, to the new macroeconomic monitoring and coordination mechanism, the Council does not see employment and social protection as simply outcomes affected by the new macroeconomic monitoring framework, the impact of which would have to be studied, but also as factors stimulating macroeconomic and fiscal growth in the short and medium term. This is important if we want to avoid an unbalanced macroeconomic framework and preserve the institutional balance sought by the treaties.

The Council’s willingness to promote Article 9 in practice is also evident in the European Semester, which has to reflect, in an integrated approach, a balanced position between the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Stability and Growth Pact. The principles contained in Article 9 must therefore apply across all these documents and legislative measures so that they become an integrated whole.

With this in mind, the Council carried out its work in two phases. In the first phase, the work of the Council consisted in developing a European Employment Strategy, as provided for by the Treaty and the new economic governance framework. In the conclusions adopted on 21 October, the Council defined the place of the European Employment Strategy in economic governance.

In the second phase, at the 6 December European Council, the Council adopted a new instrument for the multilateral monitoring of employment and social policies, the Joint Assessment Framework, which will make for better monitoring of the employment and social integration policies of the Member States and, therefore, ensure that better account is taken of these dimensions at European level.

These new instruments will have to be mobilised in the preventive phase of macroeconomic monitoring so that adequate attention is paid to the situation of the labour markets and to social problems which could jeopardise Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). They will, of course, also be central instruments for the thematic monitoring of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

The Council also recalled that it intended to contribute both to thematic monitoring, based on the five key objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and to macroeconomic monitoring, since both these frameworks are closely linked. And, in response to the request of the Belgian Presidency, the Social Protection Committee delivered an opinion on the social dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy, in which it stresses the need for synergy among the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the indivisible whole formed by the objectives set by the European Council.

I would also note that the Council referred to Article 9 in other conclusions: the conclusions on pensions and the conclusions of the Council on social services of general interest.

Madam President, honourable Members, our discussion this afternoon allows us to address issues relating to economic governance and, in particular, its social aspects. As President-in-Office of the Council, I will naturally listen carefully to your speeches and I look forward to a fruitful exchange of views, which will help us all in the subsequent negotiations.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon, to which you are referring, really defines the specific features of the European social economic model. When you read our Europe 2020 Strategy you can see it explicit reinforces this very model of Europe by bringing together efforts to improve performance in areas such as labour participation, lifelong education, labour adaptability and mobility and social inclusion.

However, this is not a sufficient answer at this time of severe challenges, when the climate of crisis in Europe is affecting negatively, or even dramatically, the real economy, public finances, the labour market and the quality of life in Europe. To address the challenges revealed by the crisis, the Commission has launched several policy initiatives. To reinforce the stability of our financial system, the EU has agreed on a new architecture for financial regulation. This has been debated in Parliament. Secondly, to address the challenges to public finances and macroeconomic imbalances, the European Commission has proposed a comprehensive strengthening of economic governance in the European Union, the legislative package you referred to in your question.

The package includes, as you know, proposals to address excessive public debt more seriously than in the past by defining a satisfactory pace of debt reduction. It also proposes minimum requirements for national fiscal frameworks to ensure that they are in line with Treaty obligations as well as a monitoring system for macroeconomic imbalances such as large current account deficits or bubbles in the housing market. It underlines prevention and prudence to ensure better preparedness in times of economic downturn. To ensure the credibility of the new framework, the Commission is proposing a wide range of sanctions that should start kicking in at an early stage.

The philosophy behind the proposed legislation is that it should help Member States to follow disciplined policies and lay the basis for stable long-term growth performance, which is critical to the welfare of European citizens, while making an important contribution to the prevention of future crises.

Given the current economic situation it is really important to have this economic governance framework in place as soon as possible. As to the impact assessment, the government reforms were prepared by far-reaching analysis in the EMU@10 study in 2008. Also, in preparing and following up the Commission communications announcing the new governance structures of the so-called EU semester that were adopted in May and June 2010, the Commission discussed its proposal with many stakeholders alongside the European Parliament and the Council and promoted vigorous, broad-based debate of the issues. And of course, we was developed the proposals in the light of past performance and lessons learnt.

And what are the major lessons? The major lesson is that preventive action is much more valuable than imposing corrective sanctions on a state that is already in difficulties. Therefore our emphasis is on influencing positively the national policy mix responsible – and here is the real responsibility – for the trade-off between real economic revival and growth, and austerity and consolidation of public finances.

Europe needs both.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, following Mrs Berès’s question, I should like to focus on the economic model on which we in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) base ourselves: social market economics. That is to say we must indeed put all of our efforts not only into ending the crisis and combating poverty, but more importantly into ensuring the social inclusion of some of our fellow European citizens who are today left by the wayside.

This social inclusion must be addressed today, on the one hand to ensure that these fellow citizens can get back into work, which means creating jobs to fight the crisis, and on the other hand – and this is extremely important – to ensure that in the years to come we can have training programmes – initial training initiatives and lifelong learning initiatives – in every Member State, which will enable our fellow European citizens to adapt to the jobs of the future, to the new qualifications that we will require, and to the rise in the level of qualifications expected in the Europe 2020 Strategy.

On the basis of Article 9, therefore, we can clearly see that, beyond everything that is being done at the financial systems level, there is also an extremely important contribution to develop to ensure our fellow citizens are trained and able to fully become stakeholders in society because they are active in this society, and active means trained and ready to take on the jobs of the future.

I therefore call for Commission policies to comply with this objective, otherwise we will lose sight of the objective of a Europe with strong social cohesion.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Madam President, representatives of the Council and the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, over the last 50 years our economy’s interdependence has increased, along with the interdependence of our economic policies.

The eyes of citizens are on the European Union; they know that the process of European integration has placed many aspects of their lives under the responsibility of the EU institutions: many decisions are made jointly.

Many of the Member States’ traditional instruments have moved to European level, and everyone recognises that economic policies are an issue of common interest at European level. The European Union is therefore the focal point of this crisis: all eyes are on the EU.

We are not, as some say, in a ‘post-crisis’ scenario. At most we might be in a ‘post-recession’ scenario. Predicted growth for this year will be low and uneven, and the problem is that next year forecasts are still indicating that growth could decline slightly. The number of people unemployed in the European Union is currently 23 million. This crisis has opened up a significant social gap, and, moreover, it has put pressure on public finances and even threatened the future of the euro.

It is essential that we strengthen the economic governance of the European Union in order to respond to the crisis and ensure the future of the EU project. In order to tackle these common challenges, we need to restore growth and employment, change the economic model and promote global sustainable development, and we must do so while ensuring the future of the European social model.

From the first economic crisis in 1929, we learnt that the public authorities have a commitment to restoring growth and employment; from the second economic crisis, which was the rebuilding of Europe following the Second World War, that the new Europe should be built on foundations of social justice. Neither of those lessons must be forgotten, and both of them must play an integral role in the future of a sustainable Europe.

Article 9 of our Treaty on the Functioning of the EU states that ‘In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.’

It is not, therefore, just a question of austerity. Austerity could cause the economy to contract. We need policies that also promote growth, in other words responsible policies. It is also not a question of growing first and distributing later: we have learnt that distribution contributes to growth. It is also not a question of making progress first and later providing for the basic needs of citizens: we have learnt that education, health, social security and public services are essential in order for societies to progress. If they are not in place, they are costs that are a burden on the future of our society, and it is not possible to have a healthy economy in a sick society.

We therefore raise the following questions: must the future legislative framework on economic governance be in line with the model of a social Europe and Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU? Does a true impact assessment exist? Finally, is what we really want for President Barroso to fulfil his commitment to there being a social impact and to clearly state that Europe needs a new social pact, in terms of both fiscal and employment standards, a model that ensures employment, fairness, environmental responsibility and global development? Any other reform will be insufficient.

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, when I was canvassing for a ‘yes’ vote for the Treaty of Lisbon, I gave Irish citizens 10 reasons to vote ‘yes’ to Lisbon. One of those was the social clause, Article 9.

On several occasions in this Chamber and elsewhere I have asked the Commission and the Council to now apply Article 9 in their proposals on economic governance and, of course, in their response to the current economic crisis, which is a real test of their commitment to the social clause. In Ireland we see the evidence of this response, where the minimum wage has been cut by one euro an hour in the last week, and where invalidity payments and payments to blind persons have also been cut. What now do the phrases ‘the fight against social exclusion’ or ‘the guarantee of adequate social protection’ contained in Article 9 signify to those citizens?

Of course, you may say that this is an internal matter for Ireland, but it is not. The parameters for austerity in Ireland were set by the EU, and our government will send monthly reports to you. Will you remind them of Article 9 when the report comes in about the cut in the minimum wage? Why has this happened? This has happened because Irish banks and European banks engaged in reckless lending and borrowing right under the noses of the ECB.

The interest rates you are now charging to Ireland for borrowing, according to today’s newspapers, are 3% more than were charged to Latvia, Romania and Hungary. Representatives from the Court of Auditors say that there is no precedent for the EU charging such a margin on loans. Can I ask you to confirm or deny this situation? If it is true, please explain to me, so that I can explain to Irish citizens, how the social clause is working for them. This situation is specific to Ireland, but if it is a template for other Member States in trouble, then Article 9 is dead in the water.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I will be brief. If we look at the policies being implemented today, broadly speaking there is an 80% cut in expenditure and a 20% increase in new revenue, and I think that is being generous.

Everybody knows very well that when there is an 80% cut in public expenditure, the first ones to pay the price are the most vulnerable people in our societies. I should therefore like to share my indignation with you by drawing on two contrasts: the first being the contrast I see between economic governance, on the one hand, and the EU 2020 Strategy on the other.

Economic governance requires harsh, immediate action and stringent rules that are binding. The EU 2020 Strategy indeed has good intentions, in particular to reduce poverty, but it is a soft, voluntary option and governments will only follow it if they really want to and have the time. There is nothing binding about any of that. I feel that is a contrast that is untenable and therefore incompatible with the spirit of Article 9.

The second contrast exists between the issue of economic governance, on the one hand, and the issue of public expenditure on the other. Public expenditure must be reduced quickly otherwise we will be heading for catastrophe. The debt must be reduced within a maximum of 20 years and, if possible, even sooner than this but without an impact assessment we are not giving it much thought.

When it comes to generating new revenue – because in any case a budget is made up of both revenue and expenditure – with taxes on financial transactions, taxes on energy, and a consolidated basis for corporate tax, we say, ‘Wait, an assessment is required, we must consider the impact, we must not do too much. Let us think about it, let us take our time, let us assess …’. I really do not understand why on the one hand we have to charge full speed ahead without worrying about the impact, whereas on the other hand we move slowly and take the time to think, while, in the meantime, the people are paying the price.

These contrasts, I think, demonstrate to everyone that Article 9 does not hold as much weight as the articles on economic convergence in the Treaties of the European Union and it is, I believe, a contrast we must resolve if we wish to win back the trust of our citizens.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). - Madam President, I want to ask the Commission if it would give the House a specific definition of how it intends to implement Article 9. We constantly hear about macroeconomic monitoring. We never hear it talking about macro-social monitoring of what Member States are doing in pursuit of European social policy and objectives.

I want it to tell us if it intends to use this simply as an impact assessment, i.e. that it hopes its measurements will have no social impact. That is not good enough, because Article 9 is intended to promote the objectives of the European Union as outlined in Article 3 of the Treaty. It is not good enough simply to have no impact – it must have a positive impact. This is the obligation on the Commission and it must implement the treaties.

I also want to address the issue of social services of general interest, on which I am a rapporteur. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the current crisis exit strategy which the Commission is pursuing is going to destroy social services of general interest in the Member States. You need only look at the Memorandum of Understanding which the Commission has concluded with the Irish Government for a demonstration of that. It is stated on page 2 that a reduction of current expenditure in 2011 of just over EUR 2 billion will be implemented, including social protection expenditure reductions, a reduction of public service employment numbers, a reduction of existing public service pensions on a progressive basis, other expenditure savings of over EUR 1 billion, and a reduction of close to EUR 2 billion in public capital expenditure against existing plans for 2011.

What other impact can that have than to decimate services of general interest, and in particular social services of general interest? So where is Article 9? Where was Article 9 when the Commission was negotiating this deal with a Conservative Irish Government on the point of collapse?

I would also ask the Commission, when it is going to present this Memorandum of Understanding it has signed off with the Irish Government before this House? It is obliged to do so under the Treaty of Lisbon. When are we going to see it? When are we going to have an opportunity to discuss it here?

One of the other aspects of this agreement which I mentioned this morning is the insistence by the Commission that the minimum wage in Ireland be reduced by EUR 2 000 a year. I repeat, the minimum wage. The Treaty of Lisbon declares that we must have adequate social protection, that we must encourage people to stay in work, that we must eliminate poverty traps, etc., etc., etc., and yet we reduce the minimum wage by EUR 2 000 a year. What will that do other than drive more people out of work into the safe haven, relatively speaking, of welfare dependency?

These are questions which the Commission must respond to. We do not want any more flannel. No more plámás. No more Eurospeak. We want clear answers on how the Commission is going to apply Article 9 of the Treaty in relation to economic governance and, in particular, on the arrangements it is making with Member States with regard to the crisis exit strategy.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, there is no doubt that remaining alert to the matter of economic governance is an absolutely right and proper aim of the European Parliament.

Article 9, mentioned in the question, is absolutely consistent with the need to take everything concerning the individual citizen into the greatest consideration.

Today, no more than a few hours ago, an important piece of legislation was passed, recognising citizens’ rights to take the legislative initiative, to give primacy to their right to citizenship.

Greater stability means more controls, it means intervening promptly and effectively, and it means making the most of competitiveness. Toughness must be combined with efficiency and substance. Social protection is closely linked to a real will to create jobs in a situation, such as our own, of particular difficulty.

For this reason, we need to talk about this – and talk about it meaningfully – with all the stakeholders.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, may I say that the question of economic governance and the targets it sets, especially as put forward under the Treaty of Lisbon, raise specific questions as to whether a policy is being applied that is socially correct, whether an economy is being applied that targets green growth and whether an economy is being applied that prevents against unemployment, especially among young people.

I should like to refer to the Republic of Cyprus, which is now under observation. The measures taken do everything except offer a way out into proper social policy and social standing, especially the measures which conflict with the interests of the young generations growing up on the island.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, the new report on employment in Europe in 2010 highlights the fact that young people have borne the burden of the crisis and that young people are facing more and more problems, with unemployment mainly affecting the 15-24 year age group. It is not enough to establish the problem; we need to resolve it. We have 3 million unemployed in the European Union. Commissioner, tell me please, what are we to do about it? I consider that the efforts you have made to record the problem are positive, but the problem needs to be resolved and you have an historic role to play. What is worrying for Greece, the country I come from, is that unemployment among young people up to the age of 24 has reached 27.5%, an astonishing and very dangerous number; and what is most worrying is that unemployment rates are not falling as more formal qualifications are obtained. As you know, employment is not merely a livelihood; it is the basis of human dignity. We need to give our young people dignity.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, there have been recent reports in the media about the directors of the failing German bank HRE being entitled to huge pensions after only working there for two years and on the basis of contracts which were drawn up after the bank had already received massive amounts of state aid. This confirms the belief of the citizens of the European Union that money is simply being thrown at the banks, while strict austerity programmes are being imposed on ordinary people.

Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon refers to ‘a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection’. For those people in Europe who have been hard hit by the financial and economic crisis and who are now being forced to make savings, this sounds like adding insult to injury. For example, when the pension reform in Hungary is rolled back and the citizens have to transfer back to the state pension system or lose 70% of their pension rights, it is clear that an icy wind is blowing through the EU. In the debate in plenary on the future of the euro area, the President-in-Office of the Council explained that events in Dublin had highlighted the importance of an economic policy control mechanism in the EU. In my opinion, completely the opposite is the case. We have too much centralism and too much conformity.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, to defend what is called the European social economic model we have to adjust the European model to reality, namely the global challenges and the crisis in Europe. If we want to defend the model, it cannot remain the same.

A major assumption, which has already been stated, is as follows – this is a basic philosophy: consolidation and the regaining of the confidence of the markets is the basis for stable, sustainable growth and jobs. That is critical to the future welfare of European citizens.

Referring precisely to the questions from Ms Harkin and Mr De Rossa – Mr De Rossa’s being Irish-oriented – we are setting the same rate as the IMF in this respect. We are not obliged to make our Memorandum to the Irish Government open to the public. I have to say that there is nothing more anti-social than to produce deficit and debt, which will be charged to future generations of European citizens. There is nothing less responsible than banking practices that are transferring the banking problem into the sovereign debt problem. These are anti-social, irresponsible actions and we cannot blame the Commission for them.

We recognise that there is a clear tension between the austerity being undertaken in so many countries and its impact upon social inclusion and the level of poverty. We recognise that and therefore we need impact assessments and discussions. Such a discussion has been conducted here in Parliament.

Again, our basic philosophy is that prevention is what is valuable. Prevention means that we should influence the policy mix at the national level. The policy mix at national level is mainly responsible for the trade-off between austerity and growth. This is the major responsibility, but we are to influence this policy mix at national level in such a way as to discourage building the future of Europe upon debts and deficits because that does not lead anywhere.

  Olivier Chastel, President-in-Office of the Council. − (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you will have understood from my first speech, the Council is well aware of the obligations pursuant to Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the need to take account of the overall aspect of the requirements associated with promoting a high level of employment, ensuring adequate social protection and combating social exclusion, as well as achieving a high level of education, training and protection of human health. These obligations are and will be duly respected in all of the Council’s work.

Given the universality of this obligation, it is also required in the field of economic governance. It applies to the results contained in the report by the task force chaired by President Van Rompuy, which the October European Council fully endorsed. It also applies to the six legislative proposals that came out of the work of the task force, which were tabled by the Commission on 29 September.

Nevertheless, compliance with the obligations in Article 9 does not require a formal social impact assessment procedure. Our obligation, which applies to both the Council and Parliament, especially since it is up to our institutions to lay down the policies and work of the Union by adopting legislation in this field, is to take account of these requirements. That is what the Council will do.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The package of economic governance measures proposed by the Commission makes provision for stricter discipline in the Stability and Growth Pact and budgetary supervision, by proposing penalties for ‘undisciplined’ Member States. In other words, it is a worse version of the recipe which led the EU into the crisis and recession and drastically exacerbated its social problems. The path marked out by the Commission, with the demand for institutional changes, is exacerbating social and regional inequalities. Consequently, the very unfortunate social repercussions addressed by my fellow members in their questions are a known fact. Moreover, we are already seeing these repercussions in practice and the workers are paying for them, not only in certain countries in the South, but in the entire EU also. The European Parliament must stand up against this policy which, apart from including harsh austerity measures and cuts to workers’ rights, is undermining its role and the role of the national parliaments. In other words, it is undermining the role of the elected representatives of EU institutions, which should, however, demonstrate greater awareness in their demands of the citizens’ fight.

14. Human rights in the world 2009 and EU policy on the matter (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A7-0339/2010) by Mrs Andrikienė, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2009 and the European Union’s policy on the matter (2010/2202(INI)).

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, rapporteur. − (LT) Madam President, Madam High Representative, I am very pleased to see you here today participating in this particularly important discussion. In particular because these are the first political debates that Baroness Ashton has participated in since the launch of the new European External Action Service.

The Annual Report on Human Rights in the World adopted by the Council of the European Union and EU policy in this field are the basis of this discussion and the European Parliament resolution, on which we will vote tomorrow. We cannot hold Baroness Ashton responsible for those actions that are discussed in the above report, that is 2008-2009, because at that point she had not yet assumed the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. We understand the great responsibility that lies with you, both now and in the future, and I would like to assure you that we in the European Parliament will do all we can to ensure that the European Union’s objectives in the area of foreign policy are realised.

Baroness Ashton, the Treaty of Lisbon has been in force for a year and the European External Action Service became operational barely a fortnight ago. In its report today the European Parliament sends a clear signal to all EU institutions. The European Parliament has clearly expressed its position that in the new European External Action Service the primary focus should be democracy-building and human rights protection across the globe and that this should be reflected both in the structure of the service and its funding. There could be a Human Rights and Democracy Directorate, an international law directorate or a structure with another name but the same content. What we should avoid is the marginalisation of human rights issues or their exclusion from the main EU agenda and the structure of the EEAS.

With the same aim in mind, the European Parliament proposes to create special representatives for human rights within the context of the service, who would work in specific countries or regions, especially those where the EU does not have diplomatic representations. These special representatives would have a clear mandate to defend human rights in the countries where they work.

I would also like to stress once more the need for a Brussels-based Working Group on Human Rights (COHOM), all the more so because an absolute majority of EU Member States support this idea. The report on which we will vote tomorrow, here in the European Parliament, discusses and assesses EU policy, the work of the entire European Union and its institutions, covering a whole range of topics and issues, including the abolition of the death penalty, the fight against terrorism and human rights, children’s rights, combating violence against women, the situation of human rights defenders in various countries across the globe and freedom of religion or belief. We are discussing and assessing the functioning of the European Union in international fora, such as the United Nations, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the cooperation of the European Union with the International Criminal Court.

My colleagues in the European Parliament played an active part in the preparation of the report we are debating and it was adopted in the Committee on Foreign Affairs by a huge majority: 50 ‘for’, none ‘against’ and two abstentions. It is appended with a list of specific human rights violations in various countries, to which the European Parliament has drawn attention. These are actual names, countries, human destinies and lost lives. I would therefore like to end my speech by mentioning a few specific severe cases of human rights violations.

Of course, having taken part in the ceremony, you are aware that today the European Parliament was supposed to award the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to the Cuban dissident Mr Guillermo Farinas. We were unable to do this because representatives of the Cuban Government refused to allow Mr Farinas to come to the European Parliament. We trust that in exercising your responsibilities, you will take this fact into account and will find a means of expressing our position, our disappointment and our regret and opposition in this matter to the Cuban Government.

I would also like to draw your attention to another painful case that we discuss in our report. Russia’s Khamovinicheskii Court was supposed to pass sentence on one of them today, but for reasons that are unclear it postponed the announcement until the end of the month. This is the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovskii and Platon Lebedev, which in my opinion mirrors the rotten state of the judicial system and the absence of the rule of law in Russia. Baroness Ashton, I would like to urge you not to forget these cases and to make efforts to ensure that justice in Russia becomes the rule rather than the exception. I believe that the current opening up of Russia and President Medvedev’s aims to modernise Russia are a very good opportunity to achieve the implementation of this objective.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, honourable Members, on Friday we celebrated International Human Rights Day. This year’s theme highlighted the work of individuals and organisations worldwide who fight human rights violations, specifically discrimination.

Over this past year I have met Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi on Iran and frontline award winner, Afghanistan’s human rights commissioner for women Dr Soria Sabhrang, and other human rights defenders across the world and I will continue to do so.

As I have expressed previously, I fully expect my colleagues in Brussels and the heads of our EU delegations to do the same.

Six months ago I stood before you to present a first vision of how the European Union should conduct its policy on human rights. Today I want to set out how work has been proceeding since then and how I see the way ahead now with the support of the European External Action Service.

But first of all I am very grateful to Dr Andrikienė for her report which responds to the EU’s annual report on human rights and sets out the European Parliament’s vision for how we can make our approach to human rights in the European Union more effective. This is an ambition which I strongly share. The range of EU action and challenges we face are well reflected in the report before the House today: attacks on human rights defenders, sexual violence, use of new technologies to curb freedom of expression, to name but a few. I want to pay tribute to Dr Andrikienė for bringing together more than 400 amendments in this impressive, informative and extremely useful report.

The report covers a lot of ground and I want to pick up three important developments of recent months. First and foremost, the EU has been working hard to advance the cause of human rights on the multilateral stage.

In a successful session of the UN Human Rights Council, the European Union held a common position on potentially divisive resolutions concerning the Gaza flotilla and the Goldstone report. At the General Assembly Third Committee, the EU also achieved its chief objectives: resolutions on Burma, DPRK and the death penalty were all passed with increased majorities – as was the Canadian resolution on Iran – and the EU resolution on eliminating religious intolerance again met with consensus.

Secondly, as announced in June, work has begun on a review of EU human rights policy. It has been an inclusive process for which I sought input from Member States’ parliamentarians, notably Ms Hautala and the Subcommittee on Human Rights, as well as civil society NGOs and academics. I will be asking the service and my senior team in the months ahead to consider the key themes arising from these consultations and how best we can put them into practice. I will count on Parliament’s continued support in this endeavour.

Third, work has begun on streamlining the patchwork of policies which have grown up over the past ten years and which make up the EU's human rights policy guidelines: toolkits, other instruments, the guidelines we have got for promoting and protecting human rights. There are good reasons why policy has grown in such an organic way, but it seems like a good time to take stock and to move on and, for that ongoing work on the review, I see three lines of action.

First of all, the need for Europe to continue to speak up for human rights on the global stage. We are working to strengthen our action at the United Nations and to resist attempts to dilute universal standards, the basis of our action. We need to find innovative ways of working with third-country partners to promote our shared values, as we have done successfully in the UN General Assembly vote on the death penalty resolution. We are also investing to ensure that our own record stands up to scrutiny.

Second, we need to tailor our approach to individual situations. That means establishing local human rights strategies for each country, reviewing our priorities and the most effective use of our assorted tools, for example by sharing experiences on child protection on the Internet or how best to tackle child labour.

Third and finally, human rights should be visibly at the centre of EU external action. That means working human rights into the activities of all parts of the External Action Service, as well as the whole range of EU external action: trade, development, CSDP and so on, and at all levels. That will be built into the structure at headquarters as well as throughout our delegations in order to be able to monitor the human rights situation and promote an effective realisation of EU human rights policy goals.

Human rights are the core of our EU identity and they go to the heart of what we do around the world. We have developed strong sets of mechanisms for promoting these values in different contexts with different partners; in the multilateral context and through support for civil society; funding specific human rights projects in over one hundred countries. Nearly ten years on from the very first EU communication on human rights, and with the establishment of the new service, I want to ensure our human rights policy is effective, innovative and targeted: the silver thread that runs through all of our external action and a gold standard for our foreign policy.

That is why I particularly welcome today the contribution in this report and I would also end by congratulating Guillermo Fariñas on the award of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.

  Inese Vaidere, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (LV) Madam President, Mrs Ashton, I should first of all like to thank Mrs Andrikienė for her successful report, which was adopted practically unanimously in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Thank you also to Mrs Ashton for her measured speech. The report on human rights in the world testifies to the critical situation in even those countries with which the European Union has for many years been conducting dialogue and consultations on human rights. For example, the report emphasises that Russia has still implemented only the first point of the six-point agreement on Georgia. Half a million people are still unable to return to their homes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The European Union must seriously resolve such situations, which is why I call on the High Representative to pay special attention to the resolution of the issues to which I have referred. It would be intolerable for the European Union to spend vast resources in terms of time and funds on human rights dialogue and yet fail to obtain good results. It is therefore clear that significant improvements need to be made in the European Union’s policy on human rights. First, by implementing a precise human rights strategy that defines not only tasks, but also structure, which ensures regular evaluation of outcomes and a review of operational tactics. Second, the European Union’s evaluation of the human rights situation must be based solely on experience and defined criteria. We must not alter our opinion under pressure from some third country or under the influence of economic interests. Third, we must establish regular consultation at European Union level with non-governmental organisations. Securing human rights and democracy must be the priority of the External Action Service and an unequivocal criterion in bilateral agreements with third countries. Thank you.

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, this report is really huge, a massive undertaking. It in fact almost exhausts the subject of human rights and, at the same time, it has flaws because of its qualities; that is to say it is dense and it can sometimes take a long time to read. The rapporteur is certainly not to blame for this but rather the 423 amendments, which she had to digest. It is therefore a feat on which we must congratulate Mrs Andrikienė.

The report, however, also highlights the fact that human rights, at the centre of European policies, is complex and multi-faceted. Consequently, when the European Parliament asks you, Baroness Ashton, for a special rapporteur on human rights, a directorate-general for human rights, special training for the staff of EU delegations abroad, and, among these staff members, a person very specifically responsible for monitoring human rights in the country in question – if Parliament wants these arrangements, it is certainly not to bureaucratise this field but rather that there is a lot of work to be carried out.

Although this report does not overlook the serious problems and violations that continue to shake the world, it is not a litany of horrors either. On a positive note, it rightly emphasises the efforts made, and does not hesitate to recommend courses of action and topics of discussion to embark on.

In conclusion, it really reflects the importance and substance of the work carried out by the European Union. The European Union has developed a set of tools that can really contribute to promoting democracy in the world. It has yet to convince its interlocutors that respecting human rights does not impede growth and international trade, and that it is not a millstone around one’s neck in external relations but rather that it brings added value in terms of stability and prosperity.

Baroness Ashton, you have taken up the cause of human rights very well and made your mark at the end of this first year after the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Leonidas Donskis, on behalf on the ALDE Group. – (LT) Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and all those MEPs, who provided amendments and participated in discussions, for their interest and efforts to create and improve this report on Human rights in the world and EU policy on the matter.

I believe that the rapporteur and colleagues from the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Committee on Foreign Affairs took this challenge and met it superbly. The ideas and assistance that we received from the representatives of non-governmental organisations also helped to improve the report. I would therefore urge all MEPs to vote in favour of this report, which following lengthy debates, amendments and discussions represents an accurate reflection of the position of the European Parliament as regards human rights.

On the subject of the amendments tabled, I would urge my colleagues not to expand on issues which have already been discussed at length in committee. It is true that human rights problems abound and there are also a lot of countries that could be mentioned and called upon to act. However, the value of the report lies in its brevity. By endlessly developing the report it would lose its effectiveness and so to me some of the amendments being debated seem unnecessary.

At the same time I would like to draw colleagues’ attention to some important amendments which did not feature in the previous version of the report. These include the amendment tabled by my group on Sodium Pentothal calling for assurances that the production and sale of this substance, which can be used to carry out death sentences, is only permitted for medical purposes. The adoption of this amendment would be an important step in the fight against the death penalty throughout the world. I would also urge colleagues to support another amendment tabled by our group calling on the European Commission to take further action to implement the 2007 Human Rights report’s commitments to strengthen efforts to combat violence.

This document is not just a set of guidelines for the European Commission, the Council and Member States, but also a very strong, clear message for the European Union’s neighbours, partners and other countries, where human rights are not sufficiently respected and defended. I hope that all interested countries and institutions will pay appropriate attention to this report and will adopt its valuable recommendations.

  Heidi Hautala, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I would like to welcome the High Representative to the European Parliament today. I would also like to warmly congratulate Mrs Andrikienė for her work. It was excellent team work, which is why it could be adopted nearly unanimously in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I was very fortunate to have been invited this autumn to participate in the discussions between the Member States on how the EU human rights policy could be made more effective and more coherent. I believe that we have now a historic opportunity to review our human rights policy, as you have indicated, Baroness Ashton. My suggestion is that this process should be as inclusive and as open as possible. I would very much recommend that you send a communication in due time – not too late, of course – to Parliament and the Council, so that we can have real high-level discussion and engagement.

Today it is very important to be reminded that the Treaty of Lisbon places respect for human rights at the core of the Union’s external policy. For this reason, we need to have the proper structures in place. We know that you, the High Representative, are committed to human rights and democratic structures at headquarters. Could we please be told what that might mean in practice? Are you able to give us the commitment that you gave Parliament in the summer? I would also strongly urge you to go for the decision to establish the Brussels-based COHOM, which is the EU Council working party on human rights. If we need to have more coherence – which we do – we definitely need to have this permanent structure in place.

Lastly, I would like to thank you for your efforts in bringing the Member States together last Friday in Oslo for the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. I have reason to believe that, without your efforts, it would not have happened. It is a very good basis for our human rights work so that the Union will have a clearer, louder and more effective voice in the world.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, I, too, would like to add my voice to the expressions of thanks for the rapporteur. We enjoyed very good cooperation, which has resulted in what I think is a very good report. I think one thing which should be stressed is that Christians still constitute the most persecuted religious group in the world, and they are suffering discrimination, being attacked and often even being killed in almost every part of the world. At the same time, the world is remaining silent. We, too – the European Union– are still doing too little.

I am very grateful to Mrs Ashton for her reaction in many individual cases recently, but this matter should continue to be reiterated. Countries in our neighbourhood, such as Egypt and Algeria, should feel that we cannot extend our political dialogue without including the subject of religious minorities in these countries. Countries such as Sudan and Iraq should be made very clearly aware that we will not agree to develop aid programmes or free trade agreements until the fundamental right to religious liberty is respected there.

Much has changed for the better on this matter in recent years, but we need to be permanently engaged in the defence of religious liberty around the world, because no one will do this for us. In the last few days in the European Parliament we have been able to meet bishops who have come here from Iraq, from Mosul and Baghdad, to share their experiences. I think we should give them not only a feeling of solidarity, but a guarantee of security for the future, so that they have the feeling they have someone to whom they can appeal for help. Otherwise, we risk our own credibility, because if we are not able to look after our friends, we lose credibility in the eyes of the world.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, our sitting seems to be particularly devoted to human rights.

This morning we adopted the Gál report. We also adopted a report on the trafficking of human beings and another on the European protection order; the rights of victims in other words. I will put on the same footing the rejection of the single permit, by which the European Parliament rejected a proposal that was far too discriminatory towards foreigners.

I shall not go back over the Sakharov Prize. I have already expressed my opinion. For me, however, this report falls within the same two-speed vision, the same narrow prism through which some fellow Members regrettably view human rights.

Here are a few examples: I am committed to freedom of religion as well as to the freedom to believe or not to believe. Many non-believers are also persecuted throughout the world. Our rapporteur rejected amendments to introduce the concept of freedom of thought, freedom of faith and freedom of religion, even though it exists in international law. Why are there 15 paragraphs on freedom of religion, primarily focusing on Christians, and only six paragraphs on freedom of expression? There is no mention of trade unionists. Why is there this double standard, which always consists in mentioning the same countries: Iraq, Iran, Russia, Belarus or Cuba, when the situation in many African countries is hardly ever mentioned, and especially not in the Maghreb, where those supporting human rights and democracy are terribly targeted, particularly in Libya and Tunisia, amid almost universal indifference? There is no mention of Colombia either.

I hope that this debate will enable us to make progress. I believe that by balancing our positions and adapting what we say and do we will progress towards a truly universal conception of human rights. There is still a lot of work to be done and I have listened to you carefully, Baroness Ashton.

  Fiorello Provera, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Andrikienė, for accepting some of my amendments on religious freedom and I congratulate her for the successful drafting of this report.

More and more tragic events are happening that concern the freedom of believers throughout the world: the number of obstacles to freedom of worship, assaults and murders is growing year by year. These criminal acts concern believers of all religions, particularly Christians. Paradoxically, religious freedom is becoming an increasingly sensitive subject instead of being one of the most natural and unquestionable freedoms.

For all these reasons, I reiterate the proposal already put forward earlier to establish a specific, accurate and annual report by the European Parliament to monitor the status of religious freedom in the world. This report would provide the information needed to plan appropriate and preventive political interventions.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Madam President, generations of Soviet school children grew up learning that Comrade Stalin had invented the internal combustion engine. It appears that European school children will grow up learning that the EU is a defender of human rights – but what have you actually done, beyond rhetoric?

The rapporteur highlights the weakness of the EU’s policy towards the Burmese junta, a weakness that is tantamount to appeasement. The rapporteur tells us that the EU is very concerned indeed about human rights abuses outside the EU – but what about the forced deportations of Roma from Belgium in 1999 during the premiership of Guy Verhofstadt, who now sits here as an MEP? What about the forced deportations of Roma from France this year?

But maybe words are all we can expected from the External Action Service. In Brussels last week, Amnesty International raised concerns over the lack of a human rights unit within the External Action Service. Words are very fine, but action might be more helpful to the oppressed and suffering peoples of the world.

Last week in committee I accused the Belgian Presidency of being a ghost presidency. To my astonishment the Presidency agreed with me, saying that was exactly what they want it to be. So can I ask Baroness Ashton to attend the next meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights – and not just in spirit – on 10 January, where she can take part in an exchange of views on the human rights and democracy network and explain to us exactly what the word ‘action’ means to her.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to thank Mrs Andrikienė, rapporteur for the report on human rights in 2009. It was not an easy job, because the state of respect for human rights continues, unfortunately, to require our attention and engagement. In our report, we repeatedly call on various countries and institutions to take specific steps intended to increase the degree of respect for human rights. It seems to me that we ought to check more often whether these institutions do in fact carry out what the European Parliament has requested. Otherwise, in a year’s time we are going to have to repeat many of today’s remarks.

We are right to demand respect for fundamental rights, but this is still not enough. We must also be effective – we must be able to persuade executive authorities to be effective in implementing our instructions. I support the rapporteur’s proposal for the European External Action Service to have a directorate for human rights and democracy and to create the position of High Representative for Human Rights. The main principle of a consistent European Union foreign policy should be the promotion of democratic values and human rights. This is probably the most important political message of the report. If it should prove possible to achieve this, successive annual reports on respect for human rights in the world would get shorter each year – and may this be the case.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. We are analysing material, today, which is clearly composed of two parts or two areas. The first area is an attempt to evaluate respect for human rights in 2009, and the second is the European Union’s policy in this matter. For we have to say whether progress was made in the world last year in terms of respect for human rights. Unfortunately, the answer to that question is not in the affirmative. In 2009, there definitely was no progress in terms of respect for fundamental rights. I am thinking, here, of the fact that capital punishment is still in use, and that torture continues to be used in many countries. I am thinking of the use of violence against women, and also of the fact that there are still hundreds of millions of children in the world who are being forced to work as slaves.

The second matter is about the Union. There is no dispute over values or objectives. The basic dispute, and what we are worried about, concerns the fact that we want the work of the Union in the area of protecting human rights to be more effective. I would like to agree with all the suggestions about this which are found in the report. If these recommendations of ours were put into effect, the work of the Union in the area of protecting human rights in the world would certainly be a great deal more effective.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, Mrs Andrikienė’s report is a remarkable reference document for all those who speak out on human rights. It is good to share lessons with our partners in the rest of the world on the subject of human rights.

Although some countries are still living in the Middle Ages as regards compliance with human rights standards, Europe would be well advised to give up on adopting too arrogant a stance.

The European Union’s criticism of the authorities of countries that continue to violate human rights would be even more credible if our 27 Member States were to agree, without exception, to enforce all the judgments of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Where do we stand on this? Is it not time to make a solemn commitment so as to avoid leaving the slightest doubt over our desire to respect the authority of the bodies that we ourselves created?

  Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, the EU has an extensive range of measures which can be used to improve human rights policy in a number of countries. The EU is a regional power which should be calling in multilateral forums for human rights policies to be implemented and ensuring that there is a greater focus on making progress in this area. Following the launch of the European External Action Service, will we take this opportunity to consider whether EU human rights policy is having the desired effect? I hope so and I welcome the review of existing human rights policy announced by Baroness Ashton.

However, I am very concerned that it will not be possible to make appropriate use of the structures which are planned for human rights activities within the External Action Service. There is a real risk that there will be even fewer resources available than there have been in the past and that we will have no visible, audible or effective European human rights policy. The human rights department which is being established threatens to become a mere front if human rights policy is not represented in any way at the highest level. The mainstreaming of human rights will not on its own produce the required results.

We need a substantial team of experts with links at the highest level and the requirement for everyone involved to take the issue seriously. Only then will mainstreaming be possible in all areas of policy and at a central decision-making level. It would be completely incomprehensible, unprofessional and retrogressive to focus only on mainstreaming. Those people who are suffering from violations of their most fundamental rights expect a new and effective human rights policy from the EU and not simply the application of administrative procedures in this area.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, I congratulate the rapporteur, Laima Andrikienė, for her balanced and sensible approach to this report.

My group, the ECR, is fully committed to promoting fundamental human rights throughout the world. However, we also recognise that human rights often need to be balanced with realpolitik. Why else would the EU be developing a strategic partnership with China, whose government shows scant regard for freedoms we consider to be essential? Equally, the EU has a moral duty to provide development and humanitarian aid to developing countries, even those with a lamentable human rights record, such as Pakistan where women and religious minorities in particular suffer from institutionalised discrimination.

I am nevertheless pleased that this report highlights countries that have been of particular concern to me during my career – Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea. The issue of impunity in Russia for human rights offenders is rightly also raised. The central theme running through this report is that democracy, human rights and economic freedom go hand in hand.

However, I do have doubts when this Parliament invokes international law in condemning certain distasteful practices, when the legal basis for this is far from clear. I notice, for instance that, in a Parliament resolution to be debated tomorrow, caning in Malaysia has been declared as clearly against international law, when such a statement is legally questionable. We must stick to the facts to remain credible as an institution.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). - (NL) Madam President, our commitment to the observance of fundamental rights means little without personal involvement and that is what Mrs Andrikienė’s interesting report clearly encourages. My specific concern in this regard is ‘religious freedom’.

I would like to mention three current breaches of the fundamental right of religious freedom as a way of urging the Council and the Commission, who are here combined in one person, you, Madam High Representative, to give a voice and, thus, a face to these and all other persecuted citizens caught up on the diplomatic agenda.

For me, there are three urgent cases: 1. Dr Fan Yafeng, a prominent Christian human rights lawyer and pastor of the Beijing house church, who has been under house arrest since 1 November 2010 and who has for weeks been weighed down by the chicanery and machinations of the Chinese intelligence service. Action point for Europe: lift the house arrest on Dr Fan.

2. Aisha Bibi, a Pakistani Christian, sentenced to death under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws on highly dubious charges. In a recent personal conversation with me in San Francisco, the Pakistani Minister for Foreign Affairs did not want to agree to more than a thorough police investigation into the charges based on blasphemy laws. Action point for Europe: bring about the release of Aisha Bibi and the abolition of blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

3. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, leader of a house church in Iran, sentenced to death on ‘apostasy’ charges. Action point for Europe: bring about the release of this minister and end permanent state surveillance of house churches in the Islamic Republic.

Ladies and gentlemen, Council and Commission, Madam High Representative, unfortunately there is no lack of homework for you.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, when China calls for a boycott of the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony and the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to power with Western military aid, both heed its call, this is for me an obvious example of the problems which regimes of an Islamic nature have with human rights. In this context, the increasing persecution of Christian minorities in the Middle East and the cases of discrimination and intolerance of Christians in Europe are highly disturbing. We can no longer ignore the growing problems in Muslim communities in the EU relating to forced marriages, honour killings, violence against women and the call for Sharia law.

In my opinion, we should also strongly oppose the sort of cultural relativism which, under the pretext of respect for foreign cultures and traditions, tolerates the fact that the right to freedom, equality and codetermination of people in some parts of Muslim cultural areas is being restricted.

  Vittorio Prodi (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, overall the report by Mrs Andrikienė report is an excellent report, which the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament have worked hard on to provide ideas of the utmost value. Human rights have constituted one of the fundamental pillars of the European Union since its creation and respect for them is an essential point that the European Parliament must encourage every day.

Wider acceptance of human and fundamental rights, globalisation and changes in our society require a new and different outlook that does not fit any of our existing canons. It therefore becomes essential to guarantee equal access to natural resources, as one of the fundamental rights of each individual.

In the coming years, climate change will lead to an enormous number of refugees fleeing the poorest areas of the Earth and it is our duty to begin to take note of these potential migratory flows so that we can establish appropriate policies that will enable respect for the dignity of these people to be guaranteed.

The expression ‘climate refugee’ has not yet entered the vocabulary of current international law. Naturally, we remain committed to the fight against desertification, just as we do to adjusting to climate change. These are the topics I have attempted to add to the text of the report, so that a serious debate can be opened on the issues.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). - Madam President, we are celebrating a significant day with the award of the Sakharov Prize today, but we have a lot more work to do than that. I would like to highlight a few elements from this comprehensive and well-drafted report.

There is the necessity to fight for justice over impunity, whether through the ICC or otherwise. It is not only important to bring perpetrators to justice, because this is often a long-term process, but in the meantime, for those who fear that violations of human rights are unnoticed or in fact tolerated by liberal democracies, starting to hold individual human rights violators accountable is an acknowledgement of the suffering and of our credibility in the EU.

In this report we ask for sanctions on Russian officials responsible for the death of Mr Magnitsky and for Iranian officials involved in the systematic censorship, rape, crackdown and executions of citizens who have done nothing other than act according to their inalienable and indeed universal human rights.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - (NL) Madam President, we have seen over the past few decades that the human rights situation has improved in a number of places in the world. I am thinking of South America and Eastern Europe, where this has been linked to democratisation and increased prosperity.

Unfortunately, we have seen no progress in countries where Islam is dominant - on the contrary. In Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia and other such countries, more and more Christians and other religious minorities are becoming the subjects of oppression.

In those countries, the extremists are leaving no stone unturned. Charges of blasphemy, prohibition of conversion to Christianity, harassment on a daily basis, murder, all that is happening. Often, these actions are directed against communities who have lived in these countries much longer than the Muslims.

Madam President, four out of every five people who are persecuted for their faith are Christians and the situation in Muslim countries is the most serious.

I call on the European Union and its Member States to do more to combat this religious persecution and, Madam Ashton, I am asking you specifically, how is your policy going to address this?

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, I must congratulate Mrs Andrikienė on the integrated report which she tabled. I would remind everyone that the Ancient Greeks said ‘man is the measure of all things’ 2 500 years ago. Two centuries later the Romans said ‘man is a wolf to his fellow man’. I want to see if the Ancient Greek saying is philosophical rhetoric or if we have progressed. We have certainly progressed, except that we have not reached the desired result in terms of safeguarding human rights and, unfortunately, the economic and financial crisis which broke in Europe and worldwide has caused a huge problem and has mainly hit the poorer sections of society, thereby depriving them of the human right of fundamental self-respect. Madam President, Baroness Ashton, we need to go beyond words; we need to take action, we need to take the measures needed for social protection, to combat social exclusion and, most of all, to find employment for young people. I would remind you once again: employment is not a livelihood; it is a means to self-respect and dignity and conditions of peace in Europe.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, a civilisation is measured not only by its technical progress and prosperity, but increasingly by its respect for human rights. This is a quotation from a programme on the subject of human rights in the 21st century and should serve as a warning to us. The credibility of the EU in this area should not be taken for granted and our policies are not immune to being measured on the basis of double standards.

The European External Action Service offers us the opportunity to follow up with actions the words which we approve every Thursday afternoon at the latest. Human rights must be reflected in every area of EU foreign policy. I welcome the comprehensive review of the effectiveness of all EU instruments in this area, because we are obviously not lacking the political will to make strict demands, but simply the will to implement them.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the European Union is based on values such as freedom, democracy, equality, the principles of the legal state and adherence to human rights.

If the Union also wants to play a significant role in the promotion of human rights worldwide, however, it is essential that it develops a coherent foreign policy, to which all Member States should make a determined contribution. The coming into effect of the Treaty of Lisbon is a unique opportunity for significant progress in human rights and democracy, which from now on should become a central element in various areas of foreign policy in particular.

The decision to incorporate human rights into the structures of the European External Action Service is therefore of clear and decisive significance. I firmly believe, however, that creating the role of special representative for human rights would contribute towards greater cohesion, and above all to the necessary visibility of the external actions of the EU in this area.

I would like to end by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Andrikienė, for her excellent work on the annual EU report on human rights 2008-2009, which provides a detailed summary of the diverse activities of the European Union in the area of human rights and democracy in the world.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Madam President, thank you to the rapporteur for producing an excellent report. Baroness Ashton, I am extremely glad that you are now in office, because your record has shown that you have absolutely no hesitation in standing up for people who have no voice and whose rights are taken away.

Human rights, of course, know no national boundaries. They know no national borders. They are universal. Yet the universality of that respect is failing across the world. We have agreements with countries such as the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries where the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are criminalised. They are not respected and, indeed, even within the Cotonou Agreement there is a question as to whether there should be respect for the rights of LGBT people.

This is why we need a strong human rights directorate within the External Action Service, to ensure this policy coherence across development, trade and foreign affairs – as you said in your statement.

We have free trade agreements where Article 2, the human rights clause, has never actually been enforced. Parliament makes recommendations and, I am afraid, the Council backs away. So we look to you to give a very strong lead in defending human rights with all those countries that we have relations with.

I should also like to express congratulations on the adoption by the Council in 2009 of the LGBT toolkit. The toolkit enables the EU’s External Action Service to work for the fundamental rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. I wish you well, I trust you and this House has every confidence in you.

  Edward McMillan-Scott (ALDE). - Madam President, I speak as the European Parliament’s Vice-President for Democracy and Human Rights and thank Ms Andrikienė for her excellent report.

In her speech Lady Ashton talked about the new structures within the EEAS – or at least she did not talk about them. When I founded the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights many years ago, I believed it was necessary to have a structure to deliver democracy and human rights. That still exists. Incidentally, the Commission wanted to abolish it and mainstream human rights and democracy through all external programmes. Lady Ashton does not talk about mainstreaming in her speech, but I fear that, when she talks about a silver thread so thin that it risks breaking at the first pressure, she is talking about a sort of filigree foreign policy. I think we need more than that. We would like to see – as others have said, right around the House – a directorate for human rights and democracy within the EEAS and, possibly, a special representative.

Like Mrs Hautala, I was in Oslo last week and I would like to just reflect on one single point. There were about a thousand people – I sat just behind Mrs Pelosi – united across the Atlantic: politicians, diplomats, civil servants and NGOs, happily united around the European Union. When there was a standing ovation, it was unanimous – no wave, no fragmented approach. Everybody stood up, because we stood as Western civil society behind a set of principles. So in the future, when the EU projects its soft power, it must also project principles. We look to you, Baroness Ashton, to bring those forward.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, Mrs Andrikienė’s report is, indeed, lengthy, but it is my profound conviction that the report does not exhaust all the issues concerning respect for human rights in the world in 2009. It devotes a particularly small amount of space to the growing phenomenon of the persecution of Christians, which is now happening not only in third countries, but also in Europe. The European Union has enough political and diplomatic instruments both to prevent these phenomena and to express categorical and resolute condemnation of them.

A second matter about which the Union should not remain silent is the question of respect for human rights in Russia. It seems to me that the cooperation agreement currently being negotiated with Russia is the perfect moment to raise in a firm and specific way the question of respect for human rights in that country. For we must not forget the people who are being persecuted in Russia – the politicians, representatives of non-governmental organisations and businessmen who are being persecuted just because they have the courage and strength to demand the truth about the operation of their country.

  David Campbell Bannerman (EFD). - Madam President, whilst we all unite in condemning flagrant human rights abuses in countries such as Iran and China, we must start distinguishing these from the grossly over-the-top EU-inspired human rights industry. The public are now bamboozled by this human rights fest. There is the EU Fundamental Charter of Human Rights in the Treaty of Lisbon; there is a European Court of Human Rights over there, which seeks to give British prisoners the vote – even murderers and paedophiles. There are excessive EU employment rights and American-style rights too for damages, and national legislation such as the UK’s disastrous Human Rights Act, which allows foreign terrorists and criminals to stay in Britain because their rights are now seen to be more important than those of the decent citizens they threaten.

The truth is the noble cause of human rights has too often descended into a deep trough, with millionaire lawyers growing rich defending the spurious rights of terrorists, criminals and the greedy. This has to stop.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the fact that the EU is increasing its activities in the field of human rights and that the issue of persecution and discrimination against Christian minorities is specifically addressed in these reports represents a step in the right direction. Christians suffer acute persecution in many countries, some of which have close contacts with the EU. Examples include Egypt, Iran, Iraq and, of course, Turkey, where Christians are in some cases fighting for their very survival, both in economic and in physical terms. We do not need a new post, such as the planned Special Representative for Human Rights, to force these countries to show more tolerance and to protect their minorities. This will give rise to unnecessary costs and is not guaranteed to be effective, because we already have enough means of applying pressure. We must take specific measures. We must ensure that no treaties are signed with the EU and no financial aid is provided without a commitment to respect human rights and to protect minorities, in particular Christians.

Ladies and gentlemen, financial arguments are very powerful, especially when humanitarian arguments do not work. Most importantly, they are well understood throughout the world.

  Kinga Gál (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, first of all, let me congratulate my colleague, Mrs Laima Andrikienė, on her excellent work. The number of letters of amendment, which had reached record proportions, imposed a considerable task on her, which she handled excellently and in a very elegant way, and the result is an exceptionally good report. I am delighted to say that the report places emphasis on the most vulnerable groups that require the greatest degree of protection, such as children, indigenous people and national minorities. I very much hope that our messages formulated in the report will be met with openness as regards the structure of the External Action Service and the future High Representative for Human Rights. We expect High Representative Ashton to ensure that human rights have a special place in the new structure, and that in addition to providing the necessary organisational conditions, the entire work of the External Action Service should be inspired by human rights mainstreaming.

The spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon has created a new moment, one that will require us to take more consistent action in this area as well, and the failure to observe this spirit should not be permitted to undermine the credibility of the EU. As the rapporteur for the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union I am particularly pleased that this debate has been brought before the plenary of Parliament at the same time, and that the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union that was adopted today, as well as the report on human rights that is currently under debate, convey the message that we consider the protection and consistent application of fundamental and human rights and the avoidance of a double standard to be equally important in and outside the EU.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I am pleased by two things. Firstly, because human rights have become an integral part of the work of the European External Action Service, and this is a very good thing. The apparatus of the European External Action Service should be used for this very purpose – to promote human rights and to protect human rights defenders throughout the world. The second thing which pleases me is this: as a member of the Delegation of the European Union to Russia, I am very pleased to see that in this report there are sections devoted to respect for human rights in Russia and that particular human rights defenders have been mentioned. This support from Brussels and Strasbourg for people who are fighting for human rights in Russia is extremely important, and I think this report deserves support if only because it treats these people with such respect. I think we should move in this direction, and I appeal to Mrs Ashton to do this.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the debate on the report on human rights in the world has coincided with sad events which confirm that human rights are constantly being violated. Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize – Liu Xiaobo – and the Sakharov Prize – Guillermo Fariñas – were not able to receive their awards, because they did not receive permission from the regimes where they live to leave their country. Yesterday’s visit to the European Parliament by bishops from Iraq is proof that we still have a huge problem with the persecution of religious groups. The persecution of Christians in the Middle East, including the recent terrorist attack on the cathedral in Baghdad, shows that new methods of violating fundamental rights are appearing, and the Union should react appropriately and effectively.

I would like to add my voice to the appeal of the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, to make the problem of the safety of Christians in Iraq a priority. We cannot agree to Christians being treated as second-class citizens. How, too, can we continue accession negotiations with Turkey, if the only Christian seminary in the country remains closed? Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU’s diplomatic service offers the chance to improve the work of the Union in the field of human rights. This work should concentrate on strengthening international cooperation and raising the level of security. Promoting democratic values and human rights should be the main principle of a consistent European Union foreign policy.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, as Vice-Chair of the Committee on Development, I am engaged with the problems of many countries, especially in Africa, where human rights are routinely violated and trampled underfoot, if not altogether forgotten at times.

I returned just last Sunday from an official mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo where, in addition to my usual institutional meetings, I wanted to meet representatives of non-governmental organisations operating in the country and visit some of the centres where they work. I must say they really do some great work. I met victims in a country where rape is seen as an instrument of war, where armed groups continue to practice mass rapes and other systematic crimes against civil society, especially against women, old people and children.

I wanted to mention the example of the Democratic Republic of Congo because this was a very recent experience for me. In general, however, I would like to call for the need for strong and ongoing condemnation of brutal violations of women’s rights. The international community must significantly increase funding for campaigns to protect women from rape and other forms of violence, such as genital mutilation, which is also a serious violation of human rights and the physical integrity of women.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the creation of the European External Action Service is a historic opportunity to address issues of human rights and democracy. It must ensure, in particular, that respect for and promotion of human rights are central to the various parts of the European Union’s external policy.

Greater synergy between the European Union delegations and embassies of Member States is desirable, with the aim of adopting one human rights strategy per country, given that the specific details vary greatly from country to country.

The death penalty, which is practised in many parts of the world, is one of the most inhuman forms of law enforcement.

The use of capital punishment is of concern in Belarus, the only country in Europe that still applies the death penalty.

It is important to put an end to the types of human right violations suffered by women, including female genital mutilation. All political means should also be brought to bear to support the United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an international moratorium on female genital mutilation.

I conclude by calling for greater efforts to be made by the Commission and the Council to circulate the European Union annual report on human rights.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I would like to emphasise that although the European Union has achieved unprecedented integration between its Member States in several areas, in the codification of human rights it is significantly lagging behind other international organisations. I fully support the statement calling on Member States to sign and ratify all fundamental human rights conventions of the UN and the Council of Europe, as well as the attached optional protocols. Of these, I would like to highlight the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, for which the future signing of the Convention on Human Rights by the EU could serve as an example. I believe that a better coordination of the work of the international organisations having jurisdiction in the field of human rights is of similar importance, and could be the sole guarantee for the assertion of the formulated rights and obligations.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, the European Union defends human rights in the world, in keeping with its principles and values. However, a great deal needs to be done and the Treaty of Lisbon has improved our efficacy in this sector. All of us here in the European Parliament are convinced that action for human rights defenders must be continued. Proper application of the instruments that already exist may provide a framework for protecting them. Top priority must be given to ratifying all international conventions against torture and any other form of inhumane treatment. Including the human rights clause in all trade agreements with third countries and monitoring its application are basic measures for exerting pressure and we must insist on them. I think special reference should be made to essential protection of the rights of women and girls, including protection of their sexual and reproductive health.

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). - Madam President, as part of our debate today on human rights in EU internal and external policies, I would like to make a special point on the situation of women in conflict zones and in particular in Congo, Gaza and Iran, where this question should no longer be overlooked.

Women, as well as children, are the ones suffering most from the devastating consequences of conflict situations. We should not allow breaches of human rights affecting women to be a side issue: the EU should prioritise the defence of women’s rights in its foreign affairs and humanitarian policies. Human rights considerations – and in particular the status of women – in a large number of third countries are too often sacrificed for the sake of the economic interests of some EU Member States. We need, and we demand today, appropriate and concrete steps to make the EU’s principles in its action within and outside the Union a real tool of human rights promotion, with a specific focus on women’s rights.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mrs Ashton, how do you feel when governments like the French and Portuguese turn back demonstrations when there are visits by Chinese dignitaries to their capitals so that they are not seen by the dignitaries when they visit these countries? Wasn’t the idea of having a High Representative so that Europe could speak with one voice on human rights abroad, for example in China? Do you not think that this is speaking with more than one voice?

Out of curiosity, why do you always sit next to the Council? What is the philosophy or constitutional theory behind this choice? A third question: I would like our European diplomats to see human rights as a daily priority, not a second, third or fourth priority, but the first priority. What will you do to ensure that some of our diplomats think about human rights as a full-time job, every day? Would it not be good to have, as several colleagues here have already suggested, a directorate permanently dedicated to this?

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, when we heard the recording from Mr Fariñas from Cuba this morning, I was impressed by the fact that he identified himself and his colleagues as a ‘non-violent’ opposition to the Cuban regime. I think it is particularly important to respect the rights of people who neither commit violence, nor encourage violence in others.

However, before we become too pious about this, we must face up to the fact that in some EU countries people such as Mr Geert Wilders in the Netherlands are prosecuted for having dissenting political opinions or heretical opinions of academic subjects without a hint of encouragement of violence. Moreover, a political party without any violent connections has been banned in Belgium. An attempt to ban a party in Germany failed in the constitutional court, only because it was revealed that the evidence had been fabricated by state agents. In the UK, a state body has been pursuing a civil action against our own party, with the express purpose of closing us down.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Lady Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, human rights and European Union policy are at a crossroads. Mrs Andrikienė’s report should certainly be encouraged and supported as it specifically states what concrete actions still need to be taken. The EU European External Action Service can carry out its activities effectively, relying moreover on the acknowledged sensitivity of Member States, but we need a comprehensive and decisive policy that has the necessary bite when required.

We must truly protect human rights: young people, women, old people, the disabled, people with particular religious and political orientations, and those with different sexual orientations must be protected, just as people’s rights to freely express their own thoughts must be protected. Today, however, Parliament has enacted some important measures and we therefore believe that any programme that is genuinely aimed at protecting human rights can only be developed truly and effectively through strong, concrete dialogue with third countries.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, it is a pleasure to listen to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs of the European Union state in no uncertain terms that we are in favour of the application of fundamental freedoms and human rights and that, as the European Union, we have to do everything we can to safeguard the application of principles and freedoms that are common to the entire world, so that we can perform this positive role.

You know our position: that we desperately want a special service for human freedoms and, more to the point, supervision and representatives. However, I would say, Baroness Ashton, that we need to look inside as well as outside. Coming as I do from Cyprus, I would point out that we have two hundred thousand Greek Cypriot refugees deprived of their fundamental human rights (access to their homes) and that we have a Turkish Cypriot community oppressed by the Turkish occupation. Set up your service. A word of advice and a request: send your first representative to the Republic of Cyprus.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, one of the candidates for the Sakharov Prize, Dawit Isaak, is still being held in prison without trial in Eritrea. He has now been imprisoned for 3 370 days. Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights will provide a greater opportunity for the EU also to demonstrate in earnest its commitment to, and defence of, human rights outside the EU’s borders.

I appeal to you, Baroness Aston, to use this opportunity to increase the pressure on Eritrea to release the European prisoner of conscience, Dawit Isaak. We must now show that we mean business and we need to have a clear message for the President of Eritrea. It has to be an essential requirement that all of the negotiations conducted with Eritrea lead to the release of Dawit Isaak. I have confidence in you. Just as Mr Cashman said:

I believe, I trust in you, Lady Ashton.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, I would, firstly, like to thank Mrs Andrikienė for her report. I would also like to say that human rights are in a new situation after the Treaty of Lisbon. The question is how we will use this instrument. We should do this not only by talking directly about human rights, but by including them in other contexts, such as where we talk about trade policy with numerous countries. Are these human rights important to our partners? I think that reactions to what the European Parliament says, or, for example, to today’s award of the Sakharov Prize, show that Parliament’s views are important, because they are being heard.

I would also like to talk about the rights of Christians in the world. It seems to me that there are now so many examples of the persecution of Christians, that we must react decisively. I think, too, that it is important to cooperate with, amongst others, the Council of Europe, the UN, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the ombudsmen and human rights representatives both of the Council of Europe and of numerous Member States, because there are many, very good examples of the effect of their work on changes in attitudes to human rights.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Madam President, although the report encompasses many significant issues, I would just like to touch upon the case of Sergei Magnitsky. His tragedy represents a great number of similar cases that have not come to our attention yet.

It is essential to make it very clear to the Russian authorities that such incidents must be investigated in compliance with the principle of the rule of law. Instead, the investigators and prosecutors involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky have been promoted and rewarded.

Such a course of action is simply an incredible perversion of justice, and the European Union and its Member States must not close their eyes to this. We should bear in mind the international commitments of the Russian Federation. Therefore, colleagues, I encourage you to support Amendment 25, which proposes to impose sanctions on 60 Russian officials involved in the case until a proper investigation of the death of Sergei Magnitsky is conducted.

  Jacek Protasiewicz, (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, as a member of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, I would like to extend hearty congratulations to Mrs Andrikienė for writing a really good draft report. Furthermore, as Chairman of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Belarus, I would also like to express my great satisfaction that the report contains references to the situation in that country. I am thinking, in particular, of the references to how freedom of association is permanently restricted in Belarus, and this includes the freedom of association of national and ethnic minorities, and also how the work of religious organisations is restricted.

I am pleased, too, that the report also reflects the restricted freedom of access to the Internet, and the fact that Belarus is a kind of shameful leader in this field in Europe. I am hoping, too, that Mrs Ashton, who is present, today, at this debate, will make every effort to ensure that the dialogue on the subject of human rights, which was begun with Belarus last year, brings tangible results, particularly where we are talking about ending the repression of human rights defenders and independent Belarusian journalists.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, I would like to address an issue that has been raised by many colleagues, and that is the suppression of the rights of Christians. I very much wish, in the name of consistency, that colleagues would be equally interested in repression of the rights of representatives of other religions, because we are very often told by other countries that we are one-sided and biased, so I think this is a question of real coherence and credibility.

I would like the guiding line of the EU human rights foreign policy to be the avoidance of any double standards, and I hope that the European Parliament will stick to that.

Lastly, can I ask Baroness Ashton if she is going to respond to the many questions that we have about the new human rights structures in the EAS, since these will be assembled in the very near future.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, I should like to thank everyone for all the contributions to this debate, which I found extremely useful.

Can I just say that I am on the Council side now but I was on the Commission side earlier today? I move between the two, and we do keep a record to make sure that I move between the two, so you must just catch me when I am here.

Again, I would like to thank Ms Andrikienė very very much for the work that she has done, and congratulate her on the report, which has been extremely helpful.

I am going to respond on three particular areas. I will begin with the issue which Ms Hautala raised right at the end and which a number of colleagues have mentioned.

Let me start by being absolutely clear: I talk about mainstreaming because I have seen, too often in my life, human rights relegated to the corner of an organisation and done as an afterthought in a way that is not going to make any kind of difference. I am not suggesting that is what the EU has done before. I am suggesting that I am determined to make sure it cannot happen again. As you will see in the structure when we finalise it, and we have not yet done so – human rights will be fully recognised in the structure and we are going to make sure we have the expertise that colleagues here have asked for within the structure. But I do not want it to sit in a corner. I want it to be part of everything that we do: a silver thread, not a filigree thread, a silver thread that is strong but that shines and is there for everyone to witness. That is what I want to achieve in my time in office and I feel 100% committed to trying to achieve that.

It will take time and there will be things we cannot do as well as I would wish, but we will absolutely do our best. It matters to me, however, that this Parliament understands what I am trying to do and that I am trying to make sure that it is everybody’s responsibility. Yes, it should be monitored; yes, we need expertise; but it is not down to just a few people within the EAS. It is the responsibility of everybody. That is the first thing to say. The second thing is that you will see the structures very soon, and it is in there. It is there for you all to witness as part of what we will be doing.

On the working group chairs, we are going to put forward our proposals for appointments. I will be appointing the working group chair who will be responsible for human rights, and that will enable them to pick up the point that was made about whether capitals should have people gathered from the capitals or whether it should be based in Brussels. We will pick that point up in that conversation.

Finally on structures: we have already done the training programme for new heads of delegations, and one session was about human rights. They are very clear about their responsibilities and about my and your expectations in that regard. So please accept that it is part – and a fundamental core – of the structure, but I will be determined to make it everybody’s responsibility.

The second point was about the breadth of the issues. I recognise what a number of people have said about religious faith and I accept that this is an important issue. It was, in fact, part of our discussions at the Foreign Affairs Council this week as well.

Colleagues have also mentioned the need to address the rights of women, of children and of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual people. I read into all that was said, about the different people and the different countries, the fundamental point about human rights, which is this: for them to apply to you, you simply need to be human and here. Those are the criteria for human rights and that is, again, how we will approach this within the External Action Service. They belong to everybody.

The third thing I wanted to say was just a bit about some of the things we are beginning to see happen and in which we are playing a part. This is particularly true on some of the work that we are doing internationally. The International Criminal Court this year saw four countries recognise and ratify the statute. That is very important because we played a part: I personally wrote to the ministers in every country that had not yet ratified, asking them to do so. These were countries which responded directly to us and which have ratified.

Equally, I would mention the importance, in the UN General Assembly Committee, of trying to extend support for the moratorium on the death penalty. I think this is a core and fundamental part of the work that we should do. It is universal, it is something we all believe in, and it is the way forward that we should be practical in what we do.

So three areas: firstly, making sure the structures are right and the people know and understand the core work they need to do; secondly, ensuring that we cover everyone in the work we do on human rights; and thirdly, ways in which we can make a difference.

The final point I want to make is how I think that, more than anything, we have to look, within the review, for practical and innovative ways of getting our messages across. I want us to be really creative in working with people on the ground in different countries where we meet human rights defenders – and I do wherever I go. I want us to be innovative and creative in finding new ways of raising these issues of human rights, new ways beyond what is so important in any event: the statements that I make, the statements that we make as 27 Member States and the statements that we make as the institutions of the European Union. It is about finding ways in which we can do as much as possible to address the concerns. It is about individuals, organisations and the collective will to be able to make a real difference.

IN THE CHAIR: Isabelle DURANT
Vice-President

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, rapporteur. − Madam President, first of all I have been told that the English interpretation of my speech was not accurate, and I am very sorry about this. Immediately after this discussion I will translate my speech into English myself and will send it to all the colleagues concerned and also to the High Representative.

Secondly, I would like to thank all the colleagues who participated in today’s debate for their positive assessment and for their critical remarks. With regard to my colleagues Mr Obermayr and Mr Poręba, who spoke about Christian minorities in different countries, saying that this issue is not addressed in the report, I would like to draw their attention to paragraph 126 among others. We have a chapter that deals with freedom of religion, and Christian minorities are also mentioned in some specific paragraphs.

On a final note, I would like to assure Baroness Ashton that Parliament will continue to scrutinise closely the work of the European External Action Service and will criticise inaction or the ineffectiveness of action taken in the area of human rights. In this year’s report, we clearly state that we are not satisfied by the fact that the EU still does not have clear benchmarks for assessing whether actions on human rights have produced results. We have also expressed our disappointment at the lack of progress achieved by the human rights dialogues and consultations.

Baroness Ashton, Parliament has come a long way to find common ground on human rights issues, especially the most sensitive ones. This shows that Parliament stands united in the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights in the world. It also shows that the days when Parliament would merely applaud the Commission or the Council are over. Parliament is now a serious player in the area of human rights. All actors operating in this field will have to take note of that.

I would like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The fact that the EU wants to increase its activities in the field of human rights and that the issue of persecution and discrimination against Christian minorities is specifically addressed in this report represents a fundamental step in the right direction.

Christians are still suffering acute persecution today in many countries, some of which have close contacts with the EU. To give just a few examples: In Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, Christians are fighting for their very survival, both in economic and in physical terms.

We do not need to establish a new post, such as the planned Special Representative for Human Rights, to encourage or even to force these countries to show more tolerance and to protect their minorities. This will give rise to unnecessary costs and is not guaranteed to be effective.

We have enough means of applying pressure in the case of business interests and international trade relations. We must take specific measures. We must ensure that no treaties are signed with the EU and no financial aid is provided without a commitment to respect human rights and to protect minorities, in particular Christians.

Financial arguments are among the most powerful and they are understood throughout the world.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Respect for human rights is one of the foundations of democracy and is the main value on which the idea of the European Union is based. This is why human rights occupy a special place in the work of the Union and of our Parliament. In its annual report on human rights, the European Parliament stresses its commitment to protecting these rights throughout the world. Since 1988, Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize to people and organisations with a record of particular distinction in the fight for human rights. We will be introduced to the winner of this year’s prize this week.

In the context of the report for 2009, I appeal to the Member States to sign and ratify all the main UN and Council of Europe conventions on respect for human rights. In order to be effective in the fight against violations of human rights around the world, we have to act together and in accordance with the principles of law and order which are accepted internationally on this matter. Therefore, it is important for the Union, as a leader in the field of the defence of human rights, that the Member States comply with international obligations in this area.

The lack of respect for the rights of defenceless children is particularly repugnant. This is why I stand for a definitive ban on child labour and for additional funds to be allocated to the fight against using children for work. It is horrifying that in the 21st century there are 215 million children in the world who are being forced to work, including around 115 million who have to perform hard slave labour. We cannot allow the economic crisis to make the situation of these children worse.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that the European Parliament has today adopted the necessary sanctions against the Russian officers involved in the trial and the death of Magnitsky. Russia, a State that is not a State with a rule of law and where human rights are flouted on a daily basis, does not deserve the attention that France pays to it. Therefore, I strongly condemn the sale by France of a Mistral class warship to Russia and regret this action.

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE), in writing. – Mrs Andrikienė’s report is a step in the right direction. The EU-Russia relationship is indeed special and should stay special, but not unusually special. Russia is bound by its own commitments to protect human rights and to defend its citizens against State abuse. The Magnitsky case, referred to in the report, follows the murders of Politkovsaya, Estemirova and Barburova. This is a pattern, not a succession of tragic accidents beyond the abilities of Russia’s judiciary. And yet, murder after murder, the Russian authorities tell the outside world that this time the guilty will definitely be found and punished. What is the result? Zero, nil, nothing! The Russian State Duma even accused the European Parliament of interference in Russia’s internal affairs and used a bunch of lies to smear the Andrikienė report. If Europe is to maintain its credibility as a defender of democracy and human rights, the Andrikienė report should be adopted as it is, with no special provisions for Russia’s constant abuses. A resolution in the Canadian Parliament already backed a travelling ban and the freezing of the accounts of those linked to the Magnitsky case. We should follow suit and send Russia a clear and resolute message. Enough is enough!

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – The European Union’s continued protection of human rights has paid great dividends worldwide and we must further our efforts in this age of globalisation. Admittedly, this is a slow and sometimes tedious process, but it is important that we expand our goals and look at real world scenarios in order to develop efficient strategies. Furthermore, I wish to voice my support for the protection of human rights defenders and policies that will provide for the continued spread of democracy to those countries that have yet to make this change. As we have seen with the recent Nobel Prize and Sakharov Prize winners, protection of these human rights defenders is of the utmost importance and these measures are a step toward that end. Parliament’s efforts to spread democracy and protect human rights continue to make progress, and in today’s globalised world we know about injustices at a faster rate. This access to information makes it easier for us to monitor and react to situations around the world. We must therefore take advantage of this and continue our efforts to ensure that all people are given the fundamental rights that we have worked so hard to preserve.

15. Composition of Parliament : see Minutes

16. A new strategy for Afghanistan (debate)

  President. (FR) – The next item is the report by Mr Arlacchi, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on a new strategy for Afghanistan (2009/2217(INI))(A7-0333/2010).

  Pino Arlacchi, rapporteur. − Madam President, the report that we considered today has been approved virtually unanimously by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of this Parliament. It is the result of one year’s work by a team which I led and is based on extensive consultations in Kabul and Brussels.

This report is an attempt to explain a paradox: why has so little been achieved in Afghanistan, in spite of nine years of international involvement? Since 2001, military operations inside that country have cost more than EUR 300 billion and several thousand human lives, and at least another EUR 40 billion have been spent on the civilian side: in total, more than 30 times the current Afghan GDP.

In spite of this huge effort, Afghanistan is still the number one producer of narcotic drugs. It is still one of the poorest countries in the world, where – for the majority of the Afghan population – life is short, brutal and nasty, as it was in our continent five centuries ago. There are more victims of maternal mortality alone in Afghanistan than the war: over 20 000 a year as against 2 300. The answer to this paradox is not simple. The opium problem and the strength of the insurgency must be taken into account, along with the belief in the illusion of a quick military victory, which dominated the early years of the international presence. Moreover, the legitimacy of the central government has been overestimated, as has the efficiency of international aid in the reconstruction of the country.

This report does not try to simplify all these matters. It accepts the challenge in its full dimension, and this document is an attempt to suggest new directions for our policies. The report approaches the subject from a European standpoint. This means that the Afghan crisis is considered from an angle that does not simply mirror the American perspective on it. European values and principles matter. They influence the way the Afghan problem is seen by European citizens, and they do not believe in a military solution in principle, because more than 65 years ago we abandoned the idea that war and occupation of foreign lands is good solution.

Today’s EU is built on an aversion to war, and this report reflects this feeling. On the specific issue of Afghanistan, EU citizens strongly support a civilian approach as an alternative to the use of force. Our approach is not naive; it is not, as has been said, Venus’s softness against Mars’s strength. It is instead the power of reason, of human solidarity, applied to a crisis like the Afghan one that cannot be approached with a simplistic solution and mentality.

This report proposes a strategy that does not exclude the limited use of coercive means. The security of the people of Afghanistan from terrorists and criminal attacks is a prerequisite for development, and this Parliament believes that the combination of peace-keeping interventions, multilateral diplomacy, domestic peace negotiations, effective poverty reduction measures, the establishment of democratic institutions and the protection of women’s rights are the pillars of a new, winning strategy in Afghanistan as elsewhere.

I hope that the strategy which is outlined here will be implemented carefully by the new system, and I take this opportunity to invite Baroness Ashton to join Parliament in this endeavour.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, I want to begin by honouring the memory of Richard Holbrooke, a dedicated diplomat, a champion of peace and a man I was proud to call my friend. I want to pay tribute to the honourable Member Mr Arlacchi for the comprehensive report and for work that I know he has done which has provoked a rich debate in this Parliament over the last few months. For my part, I look forward to working very much with him and other colleagues in Parliament in the months ahead as we enter what I would describe as a crucial phase in our engagement in Afghanistan.

As Mr Arlacchi said, the problems that face Afghanistan in a sense concern all of us. Violent extremism extends beyond the region. Drugs grown and produced in Afghanistan find their way to the streets of Europe. Our engagement is spurred by the need to prevent Afghanistan becoming a safe haven for terrorism and criminal activities. But it is equally important that we promote a better, more secure and prosperous future for the people of Afghanistan. Without that, there will not be a solution.

In response to these challenges I want to begin by saying, as I have said many times in other places, that the European Union is in Afghanistan for the long term. We have an assistance programme up to 2013 – and, I am sure, beyond – and we have now increased the baseline of our assistance to EUR 200 million per annum, which is up from EUR 150 million per annum previously.

With that funding we are able to continue to support health and social welfare as well as governance and the rule of law, and despite the fact that security concerns are in the forefront of all our minds, I believe we have had some noticeable success in key social sectors.

I have already mentioned in this House the health sector where, for example, 80% of the country now has some form of access to primary health care, compared with less than 10% in 2001. It is also true that health indictors in Afghanistan are still amongst the worst in the world, so we have a long way to go. That said, we know from the UN figures that, compared with 2001, 40 000 fewer babies are dying each year in Afghanistan, and that is due to considerably improved prenatal care.

We also continue to channel as much of our assistance as possible through the Afghan Government structures to ensure that we get Afghani leadership of the reform process. About 50% of our assistance goes either through national programmes or through trust funds that directly support the Afghan Government. This is good for donor coordination, good for building local capacity and good for reinforcing Afghani ownership. It sets a good example for many other donors too.

But there is always room for improving international coordination. We need to do more and we need to do it better. But looking at what the European Union does, I think we have made real progress, significantly enhanced by the arrival of our new EU Special Representative Head of Delegation Vygaudas Ušackas, who arrived in Afghanistan in April.

Our political messaging is more coherent, and we are enhancing the coordination of our development efforts within the EU through the action plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which was approved in October last year by the Council of Ministers.

The action plan brings the instruments that are being deployed collectively and by individual Member States in line with our policy priorities – especially those arising from the Kabul Conference, which I attended in July.

Aligning our efforts and our approach is a key aspect of the plan. It identifies areas where we as the European Union believe our action will be most effective. Indeed, European Union development ministers under my chairmanship were discussing precisely these issues last week in Brussels.

That brings me in a sense to the key message I want to give today, namely that the implementation of our existing strategies needs to be the priority. The strategic framework is in place in both the military and the civilian spheres.

Together with both Presidents, I participated in the ISAF meeting in Lisbon last month, where the transfer of security responsibility under the NATO transition plan was agreed. I have met with General David Petraeus three times in recent months and, while much remains to be done, I am confident that the current strategy is beginning to have a real impact.

On the civilian side, we had the successful Kabul Conference. The Afghan Government is to be applauded for the organisation and the focus of the event in July. It was not the usual roll-call of requests and donor pledges. Rather, the agenda focused on how best to prioritise our existing resources and commitments, channelling our efforts into agreed national programmes that have been developed by the Afghanis themselves.

These national priority programmes paved the way for transition across a range of different sectors and we need now to support them, which is precisely what our action plan is doing. We all know that there can be no sustainable military exit from Afghanistan without a civilian framework for stability that can keep the country together. More effective state institutions, better governance, access to basic services, justice and the rule of law are just as important as hard security.

We will thus reinforce our efforts to strengthen Afghan capacity and will work with the Afghan Government to foster effective and accountable state institutions, especially at the sub-national level. Indeed, in all the areas we are engaged in – rural development, law enforcement, border management or tackling the narcotics trade – we will work to build up local Afghan institutions, putting the emphasis on promoting the rule of law and governance and on fighting corruption.

On the question of Afghan institutions, I want to end with a word on Afghan undertakings. Our efforts on development will only become sustainable once the Afghan Government becomes more accountable and inclusive. We need to encourage them to take such a long-term view. At present, half the human capacity in the country is marginalised, and yet we have seen from other examples in the world that the engagement of women in the governance and development processes is fundamental. I was struck by this untapped potential when I met with women’s groups in Kabul last July. This will remain a key aspect of our engagement in Afghanistan, be it in the political support to women MPs in the new Afghan Parliament or through our support to women’s participation in local development projects such as the widely-recognised National Solidarity Programme, which we have been funding through the World Bank since 2002.

As I close, I am grateful to the honourable Member, Mr Arlacchi, for highlighting so many important issues in this report. I believe it comes at a really opportune moment with so much at stake to both our military and our civilian commitments.

  Charles Goerens, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (FR) Madam President, Afghanistan has no longer a great deal of choice.

Firstly, the status quo is no longer a realistic option insofar as the NATO forces are announcing one after another their withdrawal from Afghanistan, yet we do not yet know whether the country is able to guarantee its own security.

Secondly, would a return to the pre-2000 situation be an option? Furthermore, if we create a pocket for terrorist networks, we would expose the country once again to a trial of strength with the foreign armed forces.

Thirdly, should power be entrusted to the moderate Taliban? I am unable to say what I think about this option, as no one can tell us what a moderate Taliban is. Let us ask the Afghan women who have emerged from hell and have just rediscovered some freedom.

Fourthly, what remains is to pursue efforts to consolidate what has been achieved and to continue to fight for more democracy and greater development. Karzai, who is seeking to be the embodiment of that option, has come up against a major obstacle, namely his own person. Until there is a credible alternative, that is the only option remaining to us.

  Ioannis Kasoulides, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, our key position in this report is the counter-insurgency strategy in the EU action plan, and I thank Mr Arlacchi for understanding this.

This strategy must be given time to work according to the timetable set by President Obama, with 2014 as the deadline for the complete Afghanisation of military and police operations. The final stage will certainly be political, with an agreement reached through negotiation by all Afghani parties to the conflict.

Contact with the Taliban is an Afghani affair, but this should begin when the insurgents cease to feel in a position of strength. Aid distribution and the use of private contractors need to be rethought so that they benefit the local population – and certainly without paying protection money to local insurgents for the supply routes.

Equal importance should be accorded to narcotics – alongside security – for the sake of the lives of European young people. We are strongly against paragraph 71, which condemns the use of drones – an integral part of the counter-insurgency strategy. What are the European soldiers in the field going to think if the European Parliament condemns such an effective weapon in their fight against insurgency? I urge colleagues to vote against the third part of paragraph 71.

  Norbert Neuser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, the European Union is involved in a number of missions in Afghanistan on the basis of United Nations resolutions. Too many young soldiers from Europe have lost their lives in Afghanistan. A large number have been seriously injured or are suffering from the mental stress caused by military service. Thousands of civilian aid workers from Europe risk their lives every day to help to bring about a better future in Afghanistan. All of them and all of us have a right to know how Europe’s commitment in Afghanistan can be bought to successful and lasting conclusion and how long we will continue to have a military presence in the country.

What needs to be changed or improved and what are the objectives of the new EU strategy for Afghanistan? We need to make greater efforts in the area of civil reconstruction. We must at last make progress with retraining the Afghan police force and judiciary. We know that there will not be a military solution and, therefore, we must increase our efforts to bring about a political solution to the conflict, by means of the EU and a common foreign policy.

We must show determination and push forward with the internal reconciliation process in Afghanistan and include moderate members of the Taliban. We need to put in place specific initiatives, in particular at a regional level, to stabilise the situation. This involves, in particular, effective means of combating drug cultivation and trafficking. Our strategy includes good proposals. We call on the Afghan Government to demonstrate that it has the will to introduce a better system of governance which is free from corruption.

However, the new EU strategy can only be successful if it no longer plays a passive role, but actively involves the neighbouring countries. Baroness Ashton, we are putting our hopes on you, we are relying on you and you have our full support.

  Ivo Vajgl, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SL) Madam President, thank you for remembering ambassador Richard Holbrooke. It is right that we should remember him today as we speak about Afghanistan, in gratitude for what he did to promote peace.

For the world, for the European Union and for us all, Afghanistan is a problem with which we would be able to deal relatively quickly and efficiently if the times and the methods were different. It is obvious today that, as we are exploring other avenues, this problem cannot be solved by military means. This report, which was prepared by Professor Pino Arlacchi, a sensitive connoisseur of Afghanistan and of the dark side of global politics, is helping to make those other avenues possible. Nonetheless, we see new victims, both civilians and uniformed combatants, dying every day.

The report provides an insight into information on missed opportunities for investment, irregularities surrounding and abuses of humanitarian aid, profits made by international drug trafficking networks and the illusions which military leaders have been under. Today, it is clear that Al Qa’ida’s presence in Afghanistan is no longer the central problem. However, it is a problem which will export the fight against international terrorism into the neighbouring countries and regions for as long as fighting in Afghanistan continues.

The report warns that real and long-term solutions in Afghanistan, such as those that will raise human rights, the position of women and prospects for children closer to the standards with which we are familiar, will only be possible if the Afghan authorities, religious leaders and civil society are actively and strongly involved. We need to be more confident than before that they are able to build a society and a state on foundations that are close to their definition of freedom and their traditions and values.

This report is a valid attempt at defining the key problems and possible solutions for Afghanistan. The report is an incentive for a responsible and creative European Union policy in Afghanistan.

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Mrs Ashton, may I take this opportunity to thank Mr Arlacchi for the constructive atmosphere in which we have worked.

This report offers a very honest, very fair analysis of the shortcomings in the international intervention in Afghanistan since 2001. We approve its key message: there will be no military solution. The war is having a huge cost. The war is costing human lives both amongst the soldiers and the population and it only serves to strengthen the Taliban.

The only solution is a political one. What the Afghans are waiting for is real investment in their country’s development, in support for good governance, in the creation of a judicial system. The problem of fundamental rights, most importantly women’s rights, remains intact.

The very recent report of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan demonstrates the inability of the Afghan Government to fully safeguard the rights of women and girls. I quote: ‘As long as women and girls are subject to practices that harm them, degrade them and deprive them of their rights, little significant or lasting progress can be made in Afghanistan’.

In order to safeguard the rights of Afghan women, not only do we need written legal and constitutional guarantees, but more importantly their rapid and appropriate application.

The National Assembly has little influence in the country, the bulk of the power being concentrated in the hands of President Karzai. If it is not too late, unfailing support, to strengthen democracy and the state of law, must come from the European Union to the various institutions and, in particular, to the parliament that has just been elected.

  Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, for the past year I have served as personal representative of the chairman-in-office of the OSCE Kazakhstan, preparing a detailed report on the key environmental issues affecting central Asia. I have sent you a copy of my report, Baroness Ashton.

One of the key issues which affects the whole of Central Asia is of course the question of transboundary water utilisation. As you know there is great and constant tension between the upstream and downstream nations in central Asia involving water use.

But one aspect of this problem emerged during the course of my investigation that has, I think, been missed by many decision makers in the west. The mainstay of the Afghan economy is agriculture and any rebuilding of the economy in a post-conflict Afghanistan will mean massive investment in agriculture, encouraging for example farmers to switch from growing heroin poppies to growing pomegranates. That in turn will mean a huge additional utilisation of already scarce water resources. In other words, by helping to resolve the current conflict in Afghanistan, we could inadvertently create a series of mini-Afghanistans downstream as acute water shortages are exacerbated.

We must take care to ensure that any new irrigation schemes are properly designed, with concrete-lined channels and reservoirs, and droplet irrigation systems similar to those used by farmers in Spain. In addition, any major energy projects involving hydroelectric power plants must be carefully designed and constructed to ensure that they do not create any disadvantage for downstream water users in neighbouring countries.

  Joe Higgins, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, the United States and NATO-led war in Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster for the Afghan people, an estimated 30 000 of whom were killed last year alone. It is also a disaster for the young men and women forced to join and fight there in the armies of NATO and the United States, of whom perhaps 500 have already been killed this year.

As the Arlacchi report makes very clear, after nine years the economic and social situation in Afghanistan is extremely dire. The number of people living in poverty has increased dramatically. What a scandal this is, considering that USD 300 billion have been obscenely wasted on weapons of mass destruction and war and lost in corruption over that time. The US invasion of Afghanistan was undertaken not to advance the interests of the Afghan people but the geostrategic interests of the United States in Central Asia, which of course is rich in energy, oil and gas.

Foreign armies must be withdrawn and such wealth as exists in Afghanistan should be taken from the hands of the Karzai government, corrupt landlords and warlords and put democratically in the hands of organisations of peasants, workers and the poor to really utilise those resources and develop them for the benefit of the people.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Madam President, as rapporteur in charge of drafting the European Union’s position on Iran, I have focused, in the resolution on Afghanistan, on the Islamic Republic’s role in the Afghan theatre of war.

However, the resolution deals with the interesting influence of Iran only very fleetingly and also, in my opinion, with little regard for reality. Meanwhile, the crucial question remains: how does the European Union assess Iran’s actual influence in Afghanistan and what political consequences does it anticipate from that? For this reason, I will put three questions to Madam High Representative and I would like to think, Madam Ashton, that you will answer these in writing. I, too, would prefer to get specific answers.

1. To what extent does mass deportation of Afghan refugees on the part of Iran have a destabilising impact on the western part of Afghanistan? I am thinking here of Nimruz and Herat.

2. Do you share the official Afghan view that Iran is attempting to infiltrate foreign terrorists into the country under the cover of these deportations?

3. What kind of assistance is the European Union providing to the Afghan authorities in terms of receiving large numbers of refugees from Iran, in order to prevent Teheran from politically abusing this sensitive humanitarian issue and from instrumentalsing it in order to make Kabul independent and put it under political pressure.

  Nick Griffin (NI). - Madam President, this report demolishes the lies of the British political class about the Afghan War. I do not know the names of any of the innocent Afghan victims of this wicked war, but I do know that it has nothing to do with British interests. And I know the names of the 18 brave young men from my constituency who paid with their lives for this madness in the last year alone.

Corporal Simon Hornby, Liverpool; Warrant Officer David Markland, Lancashire; Kingsman Sean Dawson, Stalybridge; Corporal Harvey Holmes, Hyde; Corporal Terry Webster, Chester; Lance Corporal Andrew Breeze, Manchester; Marine Steven Birdsall, Warrington; Marine Paul Warren, Preston; Sergeant Steven Darbyshire, Wigan; Private Alex Isaac, Wirral; Private Douglas Halliday, Wallasey; Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Runcorn; Private Thomas Sephton, Warrington; Sergeant David Monkhouse, Cumbria; Sapper Darren Foster, Carlisle; Lance Corporal Jordan Bancroft, Burnley; Kingsman Darren Deady, Bolton; Guardsman Christopher Davies, St Helens.

What a criminal waste of brave young lives!

It is, of course, no business of the European Union what wars Britain should or should not fight. That is for the British people and our elected representatives in our House of Parliament in Westminster to decide, just as it will be for us to decide one happy day to put Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron on trial for war crimes, because Afghanistan, just like Iraq, is a criminal war.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I share with the rapporteur the idea that the huge problems still present today in Afghanistan should be approached in a new way, in other words with a different definition of priorities compared to what has been done so far.

I share his satisfaction with the fact that the Afghan President, Mr Karzai, has set a target of 2014 for the beginning of the period in which only Afghan National Security Forces will conduct military operations in all various provinces and the Afghan Government’s to commitment to a phased exercise of full authority over its own security.

All this, however, should not mean that the international community abandons the Afghan cause. The partnership with Afghanistan should instead be strengthened in every way. Firstly, we need to promote investment in the economy because this really would mean investing in the country’s stability. This must be done in the right way, in other words by establishing a model of cooperation based on an inclusive dialogue between social organisations and local institutions.

However the key issue, as the report correctly states, is the fact that there can be no stability or peace in Afghanistan without the state first of all guaranteeing security for its citizens on its own responsibility.

On this topic, I call on the rapporteur, Mr Arlacchi, to revise, if possible, perhaps through an oral amendment, the passage on the use of drones on the ground and make it more operational. In other words, it is one thing to say ‘it is forbidden to use drones’ and it is another thing to say ‘we will limit the use of this technological instrument as far as possible’, and then maybe add ‘in order not to impact the civilian population’. I am sure we can reach a compromise, I believe that Mr Arlacchi has the insight and the resources to do so. We will willingly support him in this work.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - (BG) Madam President, what we are discussing today is probably one of the most important reports on external policy and security for 2010. I would like to congratulate Mr Arlacchi for his efforts and the results he has achieved. We can judge the results of our current Afghanistan policy by the shocking figures on rising infant mortality, falling life expectancy and growing illiteracy and poverty. By comparison, five days of war cost the same as it would to eliminate poverty, and a week of war costs the same as 6 000 schools. I am aware that comparisons of this kind are not straightforward, but they give us an idea of the quandary we currently find ourselves in. At the same time, numerous reports have shown grave shortcomings, embezzlement and corruption in the distribution of international aid. Since 2002, the European Union and its Member States alone have poured in over EUR 8 billion with no palpable result.

No less alarming is the fact that the selection and training of recruits for the Afghan police force does not even meet the minimum standards: 90% of the police force is made up of illiterate citizens; and one-fifth are drug users. I mention this because we cannot speak of a new strategy for Afghanistan unless we open our eyes to the real facts. There are no easy solutions or prescriptions, but we urge everyone to be aware that the only solution is a political solution, one which emphasises a strong engagement with Afghan institutions and citizens in their country’s development which will have an effect over the long term by creating stable prerequisites for halting opium production and eliminating poverty.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Arlacchi, who has done an excellent job on this strategy. I think it is a splendid demonstration of the challenges we are facing, but also of the mistakes we have made up to now. I hope that we can learn from this document in order to improve our action in Afghanistan.

There are a few elements that are worth considering in more detail. Firstly, there is the somewhat radical, but important idea of actually holding serious talks with the so-called ‘moderate Taliban’. This is surely the only solution. At the same time, I believe that many of us would find it difficult to define exactly what and who a moderate member of the Taliban actually is. I believe, therefore, that we have grounds for holding a debate on this matter, and I think that recent events have shown that this is not really clear for any of us.

Another matter that I would like to address is the question of the money provided in aid and how that money is developed. I think it is a positive development that we are going to have the courage to channel it through the Afghan Government’s budget in future. After all, this is probably the only way to go about it, although I think it needs to be done with due consideration. We also have reason to demonstrate to the electorate in our own Member States that we are monitoring this and that the misuse of aid will not be too significant.

Last but not least, I think it is a good thing that Pakistan’s role is mentioned, because this is also vital. I think we all agree about that, and here the international community has an important role to play in putting pressure on Pakistan to do what it should be doing.

Finally, I would like to say that I come from a country where, as things stand at the moment, the debate about Afghanistan solely concerns whether or not the Finnish troops should stay there, and this is not particularly constructive. There is no discussion of the substance of the matter, only whether or not the troops should be there. The same applies to our neighbouring country of Sweden, for example, and therefore such initiatives as this serious strategy provide a sound contribution for future debate.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, four years ago I was an observer at elections to the Palestinian Authority, and I do mean the Palestinian Authority. I remember the illusory opinion of one of the more important people in the European Parliament. That person said to me: ‘Why, the people from Hamas are basically nice, cultured, friendly people. Perhaps we should negotiate with them.’ Today, I hear the same. I hear, today, that perhaps we should negotiate with the moderate Taliban. Only, the question arises – who are the moderate Taliban, and is this not too flexible a concept? I would caution against taking such a line.

It is clear that a great many soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan – including soldiers from my country, from Poland – far too many of these soldiers are being killed, our strategy is costing too much money, and NATO’s strategy is also questionable. However, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I warn against dialogue with people who in reality have objectives which are completely different objectives from ours.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I am aware that Mr Arlacchi knows Afghanistan well. Of the members of this Assembly, he is probably one of those who know this country and complex region best.

However, let us be clear, this text, in its current state, poses a serious problem. I do not agree with all our Members who are delighted and pat themselves on the back for this text. I shall tell you why.

I find that this text firstly has the major shortcoming of wanting at all cost to make us, Westerners, responsible for the ills Afghanistan is experiencing. I will give you three examples. Firstly, Mr Arlacchi writes that health conditions have deteriorated, almost by chance, since we have been there. That is astonishing. Mrs Ashton stated quite the opposite. Nobody noticed this.

My second point is that in Recital B, read it ladies and gentlemen, Western forces are forces of occupation. Those Member States in this Assembly who have lived through occupations will know what a word like this means.

My third point, on paragraph 71, concerns the question of the drones: ladies and gentlemen, I was an officer in Afghanistan two years ago, as a military doctor. I treated German, British, Polish, Italian, French, Allied Afghan soldiers. I even treated the Taliban. I can tell you that if tomorrow you were to say to our soldiers ‘You cannot use drones’, that would be tantamount to telling them ‘Make contact with the enemy, take risks’. I do not know whether it is our responsibility as politicians to say that to our men.

I am not under-estimating the complexity of the situation. I know that war is cruel, but we must, I believe, put a stop to this anti-militarism, this simplistic anti-Americanism, this self-flagellation of Western forces which turns them into the source of all the Afghan ills.

I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that everything is much simpler than that. The enemy is the Taliban, not the Americans and not the Western forces. All of this is very complex but we must be careful about how we present matters.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). - Madam President, I would like to join Lady Ashton in paying tribute to Richard Holbrooke. I admired him for Dayton, met him once for a fascinating dinner in Brussels and was very much impressed by him.

(NL) Madam President, no strategy that is, primarily, of a military nature stands any chance of succeeding in Afghanistan. The number of our troops there has grown from 20 000 in 2001 to 150 000 now and, yet, insecurity has only increased.

We are seeing more civilian casualties, more dead soldiers and a coalition army which, if my fellow member Mr Juvin will excuse me for putting it in this way, an increasing number of Afghans are now really seeing as an occupying force.

The strategy should focus on rebuilding the country, local government, the judiciary, education, health, and that includes for women, rural development, but without opium. The coalition must take its own principles seriously. We have heard some fine words about combating corruption, but nothing has been done about the corruption in and around the presidential palace. That is making the Afghans disillusioned and that has to change.

The anti-corruption efforts of the Afghan police should be bolstered by the European Union, which must set to work by instituting public prosecutors. Afghanistan cannot do without reliable administration.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, it will not be possible to establish an efficient programme of assistance for Afghanistan without stabilising its internal situation. The main pillar of these measures must be to guarantee security and victory in the fight against rebel forces. To this end, it is necessary to increase the commitment of European states as part of the NATO mission and to strengthen Europol forces which, as we know, have not yet reached the numerical strength which was announced. It is also essential to cut Taliban forces off from their bases in Pakistan and Peshawar.

In its reports, the US State Department has shown that a significant source of finance for the operations of the guerrillas is the trade in narcotics. This is another area for action from the European Union, which should increase the funds available for encouraging farmers to stop growing poppies. I do not think the idea contained in the report which talks about support for General Petraeus’s programme is warranted. Funds should be obtained on a regional basis, but authority must be central. Further break-up of Afghanistan may lead to ‘Somalisation’ of the country and its division amongst the fighting tribes.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, the state of Afghanistan is an extremely interesting issue for the international community, not only because there are military forces there, but also because forces have been deployed and will be deployed there in future that will launch terrorist attacks and create problems for the international community. The truth of the matter, and we should accept it, is that there have been forces such as these, fundamentalists and terrorists, in Afghanistan since the 14th century.

Twenty-four years ago, Baroness Ashton, this parliament voted through a report by the Committee of Inquiry into Drugs containing a special section on Afghanistan and predictions about the present situation which, unfortunately, have proven to be true. The drug problem cannot be suppressed with crops. The UN crop programme has failed in practice. Opium from Afghanistan, which (according to the specialists) is considered to be the best, funds all activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

It therefore needs to be eliminated but, more importantly, as you said, development efforts are needed, efforts in health, in reducing infant mortality; in other words, we need to show these people a model that they will like, that they will love and want for their future quality of life, that they can integrate into their perception of life. Of course, a model such as this will help women, because the state to which the Taliban reduced women is a monumental issue. Women are already in a terrible situation and under terrible pressure in Muslim countries. Here, things are even worse. The European Union needs to stay, Baroness Ashton, and your interventions need to be continuous and to keep their European face, precisely as you yourself said.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, Richard Holbrooke, to whom I also pay a heartfelt tribute, said before he died, “We must end the war in Afghanistan”. The fact is, that this country is vital for European and global security, and it is for this reason, as Pino Arlacchi’s report details very well, that we need to correct the huge errors committed in the move to investing in ‘Afghanisation’ and putting the human safety of the Afghan people first, which involves a responsibility to protect on the part of the foreign forces present.

Let us not deceive ourselves: the rule of law and democratic institutions cannot be constructed by corrupt warlords, discredited in the eyes of the people. Ending the war in Afghanistan also depends on the control that the democratically elected government has over the military power of its neighbour Pakistan, a nuclear power on the margins of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Provided they end their policy of burying their heads in the sand with regard to these fundamental political questions, Europeans within the European Union and NATO may be able to help end the war in Afghanistan, and also the descent into hell in Pakistan.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I join you in remembering Richard Holbrooke.

If my own political group had been responsible for drafting this report, our approach would undoubtedly have been very different to that followed by Mr Arlacchi, although I am grateful for the passion with which he has followed the Afghanistan file for so long.

Due in part to the numerous and crucial amendments tabled by our political group, this report is now less ideological and certainly capable of recognising the critical points encountered over this nine-year period as well as recognising the positive points and the most effective lines of development to be followed in order to help achieve a restoration of full sovereignty to the Afghan authorities.

While it is true that a military response alone is not sufficient, we must once again forcefully reiterate, on the one hand, that in recent months there have been significant military successes – we need only think of the operations in the areas of Almondo and Kandahar – and on the other hand, more incisive action against the insurgents is also an essential prerequisite to calm down the Taliban forces that we wish to bring to the negotiating table.

We can only be proud of this military engagement, which has seen the sacrifice of thousands of young soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force contingent, among them many Europeans and many young people from my own country, because it is not only a military commitment but also a commitment to reconstruction. We are taking schools, bridges and civil works to these unfortunate lands, which will help with the development of the devastated areas.

Despite the compromises achieved, I believe there are still some critical issues in the report, particularly those already mentioned on the use of drones. I believe it is a serious mistake to deprive ourselves unreservedly of the possibility of using this tool that is proving very useful in some areas of the north-east of the country, where it is more difficult to root out and defeat the Taliban forces.

I hope that the rapporteur sees fit to rethink this point, otherwise I will join my group in voting against the report.

  Zoran Thaler (S&D). – (SL) Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mr Arlacchi on his courageous report.

Today, as we rightly remember the diplomat Mr Holbrooke and what he did for peace, especially in the Balkans, allow me to quote his statement on the money spent on combating drug trafficking in Afghanistan (USD 1.61 billion). Quote:

‘The most wasteful and ineffective programme I have seen in and out of government’.

(SL) Unquote.

This is similar to all that has happened in these ill-fated ten years of war in Afghanistan. I have no time to go into why we fell into the Bush administration’s trap, but it is a fact that our citizens expect us finally to put an end to this madness, which has cost us over EUR 300 billion and countless human lives. While, back in 2001, some were all too keen to go to war, it is now time to take the difficult risk of peace. Our citizens expect us to do so. They also expect a political solution and want us to put less confidence in a military solution.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I am delighted that a consensus was reached on this report by the political groups within the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The resulting text is much more persuasive than the initial proposal.

The situation in Afghanistan still requires considerable improvements after nine years of international intervention. Socio-economic and security indicators have not visibly improved and decisions have often been made without sufficient Afghan involvement. This is why I think that it is neither a framework nor instruments that are lacking. In actual fact, we need a strategic plan in line with the commitments made to Afghanistan. The EU must assume, alongside NATO, its role in leading an international effort which will aim to treat Afghanistan as a sovereign state. I must stress that the only political and diplomatic solution is to increase the involvement of the Afghan Government. In this regard, I think that one of the report’s key elements is the support expressed for the new counter-insurgency strategy.

The Lisbon Summit outlined the move to the transition phase, involving the gradual handover of responsibility for security to Afghan forces by 2014. In keeping with the commitment it made right at the outset of the mission, my country will not withdraw its troops until Afghan territory is completely secure. I must also mention here the important contribution made by Russia in agreeing to our troops and equipment crossing its territory in transit.

I wish to end by stressing the need, once the transition has got underway, for ISAF troops, who will complete the operation, to be relocated to the areas where the security situation will continue to be uncertain. This measure is of paramount importance to the Romanian troops stationed in southern Afghanistan. Instability will remain in the region, in spite of the successes achieved in ISAF operations.

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I would first of all like to say that I support the view presented earlier by my colleague Mr Juvin, and I would like to begin my speech by mentioning that I am sorry that the report does not contain ‘European Union’ in its title. I do not believe that we have to speak on behalf of the global community, but only on behalf of the European Union. I have therefore endeavoured to highlight this as well in the amendments which I have tabled. This obviously does not mean that we have to ignore the cooperation with our allies, especially, as my colleague Mr Juvin mentioned, with the United States.

I do not think that there is any great need for us at the moment to focus on a completely new strategy. I believe that it is better to implement the strategic vision set out during the NATO Summit in Bucharest two years ago. In this regard, I do not think that it is about devising a new strategy, but about being consistent in relation to this strategic vision.

On the other hand, we certainly need to acknowledge and learn from the mistakes which have been made in Afghanistan by the military coalition. However, we must avoid the pitfall of seeing the pre-intervention situation through rose-tinted glasses. As has already been emphasised, it is important for us to stress that one of the main objectives of our strategy in Afghanistan is to get rid of the Taliban groups from this country.

However, we must also highlight the positive aspects of intervention, especially of the Petraeus plan. Nowadays, Afghanistan is a country where women enjoy more rights, more children go to school, more factories are open and more roads are being built. This can be attributed to the way in which we have conducted ourselves in this country. The integration of civilian measures such as education programmes and programmes for eradicating poverty and reconstruction and development is a vital step in safeguarding peace in Afghanistan.

Finally, I would like to stress the need for a pragmatic vision, as proposed by my political group. Let us not forget that more than 400 amendments were made to the Arlacchi report.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, I wish briefly to say three things.

Firstly, I believe, counter to what has been said, that the European Union ought to have its own strategy. In Afghanistan, we have men, soldiers, troops who are engaged, we have resources, considerable resources that we have provided and we need to have our own view on matters.

Secondly, I believe that it is absolutely necessary for the international community’s money to benefit the Afghans. This, unfortunately, has not been the case for 10 years, and it is something that we can witness on a daily basis on the ground. I think that this is probably in part the responsibility of the NGOs and the humanitarian organisations. However, and the report possibly does not state this sufficiently, it is also largely due, I fear, to government corruption and to a government which, it must be said, is neither very fair nor very effective.

Thirdly, there is the question of political dialogue. Indeed, there have been attempts to engage in this with the Taliban for a number of years. This is not new. I personally believe that dialogue is necessary. However, I believe that it will be very difficult because to hold a dialogue at a time when we are in a position of weakness on the ground and the withdrawal of troops is at an advanced stage, will, of course, be very complicated.

  Giovanni Collino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, now that the several amendments have been approved, we agree with Mr Arlacchi’s report and with the priorities that were highlighted in the report for the future development of Afghanistan. In particular a transparent financial aid system, the training of domestic police forces, the fight against drug trafficking and the coordination of international aid are the main points of political and military strategy that have been further strengthened.

It is important to stress again the need to ensure control and stabilisation of the area in order to weaken the action of Taliban forces and revitalise peace processes. I conclude by emphasising the contribution that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has made to achieving a shared text and I would also like to pay homage to the efforts and sacrifice of the soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force for their presence on the ground in the defence of freedom and the local populations.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, in my opinion, armies cannot bring peace and prosperity, and this also applies to Afghanistan.

We should give some thought to the fact that while some of our fellow Members, chiefly from the EPP, worry about whether we will support a certain type of aircraft – I am no military expert and have no idea what this debate is about – then I believe we should pay far more attention to what Mr Arlacchi is talking about in this report, as it is very important. He is talking about the situation of women and children in that country. We should definitely focus more on supporting non-discrimination against women and the fight against discrimination. We should also focus on the fact that many children in Afghanistan do not have the opportunity to go to school, for example, and many are living below the poverty line.

In my opinion, if we fail to support projects on education and health, and if we continue to invest in military solutions to this conflict, we will get nowhere.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, Mr Arlacchi’s report is well researched and informative. My slight criticism is that he seems to bemoan the fact that Afghanistan is not a liberal democracy run by a coalition of Greens and Liberal Democrats in Brighton.

The horror story of Afghanistan has involved the deaths of 346 British soldiers, many more allied soldiers and thousands of innocent Afghans. During that period, infant mortality and maternal mortality have soared and life expectancy has fallen. He tells us than in 2001 no poppies were being grown in Afghanistan, whereas now, after nine years of conflict and allied influence, Afghanistan supplies more than 90% of the heroin in Europe.

To point out that there is some discrimination against women is to get things slightly out of proportion. The answer is to support our troops by stopping the war and bringing them home to guard our own people against home grown but imported terrorists.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, while both women and children are undoubtedly an important topic, what is important, however, in Mr Arlacchi’s report is its clarity. I mean by this that it presents the legitimacy of the international intervention in Afghanistan to us and does not question it. However, it is a natural and politically responsible step to discuss the effectiveness of this intervention. The reason is that, sentimentality aside, an intervention lasting 10 years can cast a complete shadow over the effectiveness of the political decision taken on this issue. I believe that each one of us is responsible to those who elected us for coming up with an answer to this question.

I welcome the clarity of this report also because it mentions matters which we generally avoid discussing for a variety of reasons. I believe that it is a report which merely provides a starting point. We must have the courage to carry out a regular analysis and evaluation of our actions, admit where we have made mistakes and, when we have made them, we must find other solutions. This is what acting both responsibly and democratically is all about.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, we know from experience that assistance through external intervention works if the majority of the population support such external aid. After years of intervention in Afghanistan, we see that the Afghans do not understand us, do not want our help, and do not understand our civilisation or our cultural values.

In Slovakia we have a saying that ‘he who accepts no advice cannot be helped’. I do not want to say that the Afghans cannot be helped, but I cannot vote for methods that are explicitly forceful and violent. We should above all focus on how to change our assistance and how to structure it so that it meets the needs of the Afghan people.

I believe it is really necessary for us to gradually withdraw our armed forces and hand over power to the local administration and local politicians, and then to help the people of Afghanistan through the local politicians in such a way that they can identify with the values of our civilisation and understand us, and then perhaps they will be willing and able to accept our help.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Madam President, our commitment to a stable self-governing Afghanistan, capable of preventing the re-establishment of a terrorist sanctuary there, is strong and long-term, having been reasserted by both the EU and NATO. However, precisely because our commitment is a long-term one, I would foresee at least three major challenges.

The first is that the kind of state model we provide for Afghanistan does not fit the Afghan tradition. As the Afghans have to adjust, so too do we, helping them to get an achievable state model combining modernity with the Afghan tradition.

The second challenge is that the security situation might well continue to require our international military involvement beyond 2014, when the Afghans will take over. We should be ready seriously to contemplate either extending the deadline or facing the consequences.

Finally, the third challenge will be provided by the running-out of our public’s patience, which might force us to speed up our present timetable to avoid the alternative of simply declaring victory and going home. That would ruin our credibility.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, I will just make a couple of concluding remarks.

First of all, I would like to thank the European Parliament. This has been an interesting and diverse debate, and I commend you for the continued interest and energy that you put into our engagement in Afghanistan. That has been very well demonstrated by the discussion today.

As I said at the beginning, I believe Afghanistan is important for all of us and for our citizens, and that the European Union must rightly remain a key player. I hope that I spelled out at the beginning the priorities and plans for the period ahead, together with the recognition of the balance that needs to be struck between channelling resources through the Afghan Government and recognising the importance of ensuring that we battle corruption appropriately, in order to safeguard the resources that we have.

We remain engaged in key sectors: in health (as I have described), the police, justice, rural development and the sub-national governments – and of course the rule of law is essential. Moreover, as I have described, a focus for all these programmes is to ensure that we build up capacity in the local Afghan structures and that the government’s priorities in combating the drugs industry and reducing corruption continue to be fully addressed.

I also pointed out in my speech the importance of engaging and involving women at all levels of Afghan society and, indeed, in the political structures. I took note of Mr Stevenson’s report and agree that water and irrigation, as in so many parts of the world, are increasingly an issue.

Mr Belder, I promise I will reply to you, as you specifically asked, in writing.

I will conclude by again thanking Mr Arlacchi for the report. I very much look forward to continuing the discussion on the key points at issue in that report and beyond. I end by echoing what was said about Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and the fact that his final words as he went into his last surgery were on Afghanistan. That is very typical of him. How I will miss him.

  Pino Arlacchi, rapporteur. − Madam President, this has been an extremely interesting and lively debate. I just want to make a couple of observations.

The first is that I am very happy there has been no criticism by anyone of the four main points of the report. The report asked for reform of international aid, elimination of opium poppy cultivation, better coordination of police training, and support for the peace process. All the observations have been on other issues and I am happy that, after one year of discussion in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, colleagues have confirmed their support for the structure of the report – which is not ‘the Arlacchi report’. Following its approval by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, this is the committee report that has been approved almost unanimously – with 60 votes for, and one vote against. It also includes several compromises agreed on by all the political groups, so it is very important, too, to refer to the real text of the report, which is the final one.

To Mr Juvin, I would say that there is no mention of occupying forces in Afghanistan. That was the original text. The final text says ‘coalition of international forces in place’ in Afghanistan. This part of the report has been changed by the amendments.

The most important issue is drones. This is not a report on drones. There are just two lines of a compromise between the political groups on the issue of the use of drones. I believe that an agreement could have been reached sooner on that, but I trust my interlocutors and all the different positions, and I trust the compromise we reached. There is no call in the report for prohibition of the use of drones. There is moderate criticism of it, but I believe that an agreement between groups can be found on that.

I thank you, and I also thank Baroness Ashton. I hope she will take full account of the content of the report, which is a very concrete one and calls for an exit strategy from Afghanistan.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Madam President, I apologise for speaking now, technically, and I am not putting my question to Mr Arlacchi, but would only like to respectfully address a small reminder or question to Madam President. I am an independent Member, and we have very little opportunity to speak. Today I did not even have the opportunity to speak. I came in one hour early for this debate, very politely went downstairs, and indicated to the staff there that I would like to speak. I accept this, it is understandable that there was no time for this today or in this debate, and I will of course submit my speech for today’s sitting in writing. What I would welcome and what I would like to ask of Madam President is to accord more attention and empathy to independent Members, who unfortunately only have this much opportunity to speak. Thank you very much, and I wish you fruitful work.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, to correct what has been said, Mr Arlacchi is quite right, the final text proposed to us no longer contains, in Recital B, the words ‘occupation force’. Quite simply, the translations, and particularly the French translation, were not correct in the latest version, and the French translation, until this morning, still contained the expression ‘occupation force’, hence the speech by my colleague Mr Juvin.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The strategy presented and approved in Lisbon entails a gradual transfer of control over the area, region by region, from ISAF responsibility to Afghan armed forces. Its success depends on what action Pakistan will take, which is part of the problem and will also, inevitably, be part of the solution. Moreover, I do not believe that we can ignore the increasingly obvious involvement of Iran in Afghanistan. The recent events linked to this involvement are a cause for disquiet.

I believe that this strategy must go hand in hand with larger, more high-profile civilian projects, which will support the development of these regions where poverty is ubiquitous and the presence of ISAF and US forces has not brought about any fundamental changes. After our withdrawal, we cannot leave behind us the same problems which resulted in the Taliban’s rise to power during the last decade. I hope that this new strategy will work and enable Afghanistan to regain peace and stability.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The strategy pursued so far on Afghanistan has not brought the expected results. I was pleased to learn of the establishment of a calendar for NATO involvement in Afghanistan and of the signing of a declaration on long-term partnership with the country during the NATO Summit in Lisbon. The EU, too, is presenting a more consistent and better coordinated approach to the region, which takes account of civil aspects and the significance of regional cooperation.

We should continue to support reforms intended to combat poverty, discrimination against women and the production of opium. Our efforts must concentrate on increasing respect for human rights and law and order, building a state of law and integrating Afghanistan fully into the international community. They should also include building and reforming the administration and the public service corps by training programmes, help with construction and the use of existing infrastructure and advice from the EU.

Afghanistan should participate in establishing and implementing priorities which will help to build civil society and ensure that Afghans assume responsibility for the country. At the same time, we must remember to ensure the security of those we send to Afghanistan – the trainers and members of the armed forces whose job it is to see that these plans are put into effect. We cannot agree to ending the use of remote controlled aircraft, as this would cause a significant reduction in the safety of these people. Our strategy should take into account both the security of the citizens of Afghanistan and of our representatives, who are working for the development of the country.

  Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DE) The report on a new strategy for Afghanistan presents the absolutely necessary critical picture of the situation in that country. The report makes it clear that the NATO strategy of solving complex political and military problems by military means has failed. Therefore, it calls explicitly for a new strategy from the international community with a focus on civil reconstruction. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament, in contrast to many parliaments in the Member States, is sending out a clear signal with this report that the conflict must be brought to an end and that a change of policy is needed in order to achieve sustainable political, economic and democratic development in Afghanistan. We must support the fundamental message of this report. However, I disagree with the assessment that the Afghanistan strategy produced by the most recent NATO Summit can bring about a successful outcome. I call for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. The European Union Police Mission (EUPOL) has failed and should not be extended or developed. The roll-call votes on the paragraphs relating to some of these issues have allowed me to express my disagreement with the report. I also regret the fact that the report does not take a more critical approach to the tendency to give military strategies a higher priority than civil reconstruction and does not pay sufficient attention to the human rights situation, in particular with regard to women.

17. Outcome of the NATO Summit in Lisbon (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the outcome of the NATO Summit in Lisbon.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, the NATO Summit in Lisbon was a success for NATO and indeed for its Secretary-General. I was very pleased to have participated in some of its discussions.

I will outline to honourable Members what I think are the important results achieved, focusing particularly on EU-NATO relations and I will not touch on the more internal NATO issues.

In Lisbon, the Heads of State and Government agreed on a new strategic concept, a vision for the alliance for the next ten years. NATO preserved its core tasks of collective defence and deterrents and recognised the importance of crisis management and cooperative security. Lisbon also paved the way for important decisions for NATO in a number of key areas such as missile defence, cyber defence, NATO reform and NATO’s contribution to stabilisation and reconstruction.

In relation to Afghanistan, which we just discussed and which is also an important area of cooperation between the EU and NATO, decisions were taken on both transition and on long-term partnership. I am going to focus on how Lisbon will in my view improve EU-NATO relations. This was also on the agenda of the Defence Ministers’ meeting which I chaired last week and which was also attended by NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen.

NATO is a key strategic partner for the European Union. I welcome the recognition by NATO Heads of State and Government of the important contribution the European Union brings to security and stability. I would like to underline the strong political commitment to the strengthening of the EU-NATO strategic partnership expressed by all, especially from President Obama.

I have been very actively engaged with Member States and allies and the NATO Secretary-General in order to reinforce EU-NATO relations. My participation in several NATO high-level meetings, including the Foreign Affairs dinner at the NATO Lisbon summit, which also focused on EU-NATO relations, has been instrumental in this regard.

Earlier this year I took the initiative of sending NATO a set of concrete measures to reinforce EU-NATO cooperation. Many of these measures have already been implemented in the European Union with the support of the Secretary-General of NATO. This generated opportunities for informal discussions on issues of common interest, as well as more EU political dialogue with all NATO allies.

My ambition is to pave the way to even more progress. I received a mandate for that at the European Council on 16 September. In Lisbon, Secretary-General Rasmussen received a similar mandate to work with me on reinforcing EU-NATO relations.

One area of progress is EU-NATO cooperation on capability development, an area where we are achieving promising results, particularly on the military capability development, which is necessary for both enhancing military capabilities and maximising cost effectiveness. More than ever we have to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication.

On 9 December, EU Ministers of Defence warmly welcomed the progress that has been achieved in strengthening cooperation with NATO. We have already worked together, for example on helicopter availability, and we have now defined the building blocks on counter improvised explosive devices and medical support. These are both vitally important areas of work with real operational consequences for our troops serving in the field.

Just to give a couple of concrete examples. In the field of helicopter availability, we already had two exercises in France and in Spain. Similar exercises are planned for the next four years. In that context, we trained a 114 crews, that is over 1 300 personnel with 58 helicopters. As an immediate result, 63 trained crews were deployed in Afghanistan. Another example, this time in the field of countering road-side bombs, is the counter improvised explosive devices, where the European Defence Agency is in the final phase of purchasing a forensic laboratory which could be deployed in Afghanistan next year.

We have also continued to improve cooperation through the productive interaction between the European Defence Agency and the allied command for transformation.

Overall, my goal remains the development of true organisation-to-organisation relationship between the European Union and NATO. The meeting of Ministers of Defence last week paved the way to move forward towards that goal.

Pending wider solutions, it is essential that we can count on solid arrangements between us when we are deployed together in the same theatre. We owe this to our personnel. It is also essential to be able to continue to work effectively to support the Member States and the allies to develop critical military capabilities, building on the successful work we have launched already. I would argue that this is even more important in the current context of the economic backdrop.

We will all need flexibility to be able to take this forward and to find solutions. I will move forward in a concrete and pragmatic way working on behalf of all 27 Member States.

  Elmar Brok, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the NATO Summit has shown that the cooperation between NATO and the European Union which was discussed there is highly important. NATO remains essential to the collective security of Europe and it is an important means of tying in America. The summit has made it clear that the missile defence system, which is now safeguarding the whole of Europe as part of a joint NATO project, is an important step towards further cooperation. However, it also became obvious, and the debate on Afghanistan is an example of this, that there is a high level of civil and military cooperation in an area where the European Union can make a significant contribution. I believe that we need to develop this accordingly. However, we must understand that no progress has been made in one decisive area, because the necessary cooperation, which needs to be organised much more effectively, has been vetoed by NATO’s partner Turkey. Baroness Ashton, I believe that it is extremely important that this question is addressed in the context of the accession negotiations with Turkey. We should not make NATO and the cooperation between NATO and the European Union into an instrument for use in a dispute with a Member State of the European Union which is not a member of NATO. For this reason, I believe that the fact that Turkey has not yet taken the necessary steps is having a decisive impact on our ability to act. Of course, I welcome the fact that the question of arms cooperation indicates that collaboration with the European Defence Agency is possible, with the cyberspace issue, in particular, being of great significance for the agency.

  Adrian Severin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, the NATO Summit in Lisbon has acknowledged the new realities, challenges and non-conventional threats of the post-Cold War world. On that basis it has tried to establish a new balance between the alliance’s regional and global involvement. A global NATO, or a NATO with a global role, is a must. Certain consequences are implied.

Firstly, the European Union must prepare itself to assume more responsilities as far as European security and defence are concerned. This means not only developing and updating our European security and defence concept but also developing our military capabilities. Secondly, the European Union has a duty to prepare itself to face global challenges and to behave like a truly global player. This means that we have to redefine our global interest and targets, and increase our military capacities to an extent which will allow us properly to share the burdens of global defence with our American allies. Thirdly, we have a duty to include in our strategies concerning relations with other global players ideas which will lead towards a system of partnership for defence, with capacity for aggregation within a global defensive pact.

In coping with all these duties, the European Union should not only preserve its strategic connection with NATO but should also be able to make its intellectual and political contribution with regard to maintaining NATO’s ability to deter, and its ability to defend Member States against any aggression, in a context different from the one which determined the birth of the alliance.

  Norica Nicolai, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (RO) Madam President, I believe that the Lisbon Summit is the first since 1999 to make a beneficial contribution in terms of a strategic vision for the Alliance. I think that a more important consideration in this century is that not only the existing threats and security interests but also, in particular, the ability of defence budgets to offer effective military solutions raise for discussion the issue of a bipolar world.

It was time for a broad analysis to be carried out of the direction in which the Alliance is heading, and certainly if compatibility with Russia is an aspect of it. However, I must stress that, in my view, compatibility with the European security project is also vital to NATO. The Afghanistan issue seems to have given a sufficiently large boost to the Alliance and I am pleased to note that Russia has agreed to become involved in NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan. I hope that this complex problem of Afghanistan will not be one of the causes for concern with regard to this alliance’s future effectiveness.

I also welcome that the European Union has raised the issue of anti-missile technology for discussion. I believe that we will have to discuss at EU level the effectiveness of this anti-missile shield.

  Reinhard Bütikofer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, the NATO Summit in Lisbon is of great importance for the EU and for Parliament, because we can only manage European security successfully in future if NATO, the EU and other organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), each make a contribution and cooperate effectively. However, until now the results of the summit in Lisbon have essentially been glossed over. I would like to say, with just a hint of irony, that although NATO has a new strategy, it still does not know where it wants to go. The overblown fantasies of NATO as the world’s police force have been discarded and that certainly represents a certain amount of progress. It is taking a slightly more modest approach, but there is still not enough clarity.

Let me demonstrate this using some examples.

1. One example is arms expenditure. The Member States of the European Union want to reduce their arms spending by means of permanent, structured cooperation, but NATO is signing uncovered cheques for missile defence. The Secretary General says that the amount is EUR 200 million, but all the experts believe that the missile defence system is more likely to cost between EUR 40 billion and EUR 70 billion and we do not even know how it will be managed.

2. A second example is nuclear disarmament. President Obama’s Global Zero vision in Prague was impressive and we welcomed it. Europe was no longer in agreement even at the conference on the non-proliferation treaty, but NATO is determined to hang on to its nuclear deterrent, like a blind person clinging to a lamp post. Former world powers, in particular, obviously find their nuclear weapons much more attractive than an ambitious European policy for nuclear disarmament.

3. The third example is peacebuilding and civil conflict resolution. The European Union has achieved a great deal in this area. Then along comes NATO and also wants to be involved. The next thing that NATO expresses an interest in will be development policy.

Unfortunately, it has a split personality in security policy terms. Let us bring this to an end. Let us ensure that we produce a white paper in a year’s time which makes it clear what sort of security policy we want in Europe.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, NATO remains a fundamental element of Europe’s collective security and so does the bridge it builds with America. At the Lisbon Summit, NATO redefined its place at the heart of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture for its new strategic concept.

My role as Vice-Chair of this Parliament’s delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has made me more convinced than ever of the value of NATO and of EU cooperation with it. I am full of admiration for the work of NATO ISAF troops in Afghanistan but regret the lack of participation by some of our allies with restrictive caveats on military engagement, in a situation where defeat, or cutting and running prematurely on the part of NATO, would have incalculable consequences for Western security and for lasting peace in the region – destabilising Pakistan in particular. Even at a time of austerity, when many Member States are cutting their defence budgets, winning in Afghanistan must be our priority.

I was also recently in Kosovo, where I saw for myself the valuable work being undertaken by NATO troops in KFOR. NATO’s operation Ocean Shield is working well off the coast of Somalia to combat piracy, although it is in danger of duplicating the work of the larger EU Common Security and Defence Policy mission Atalanta. I welcome coordination between the two.

I also support NATO enlargement to Georgia and Ukraine one day. The Cold War is now gone and the threats we face are increasingly asymmetric and global. I welcome the new approach by NATO of looking at the broader picture, from cyber security to the threats posed by climate change and food security, but the rationale for NATO is as strong today as it ever was when the organisation was first founded 61 years ago.

  Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, the NATO Summit took place in Lisbon, and so I would like to say a few words about what happened in my country in connection with this Summit.

The Portuguese authorities denied entry to the country to European citizens, for one reason only: these citizens were carrying written material that was critical of the Alliance. The least we can say about these events is that what happened in Portugal was an arbitrary regime, real thought police. A regime that was so special that it prompted the Portuguese Government to buy five million euros’ worth of anti-riot gear, which did not even arrive in time for the Summit. These are the priorities of a government that is facing an enormous social crisis.

In the Europe we dream about, freedom of expression is a fundamental value. The Europe we dream about does not bow down before military organisations that write their history with blood.

The NATO Summit has resulted in the legitimacy of its military intervention anywhere on the planet. It has also resulted in the European Union becoming subordinate to North America’s military strategy and interests. Thirdly, it has consolidated the militarisation of access to energy sources. Finally, military defence has instituted a development model that causes environmental imbalance and disturbs the social crisis.

As a result, I would like to say, Madam President, that in my opinion, with this Summit we lost democracy, we lost freedom, and we lost so that some could win with war.

  David Campbell Bannerman, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, thank you for using my full name. I think we should celebrate the fact that NATO’s Lisbon Summit has strengthened protection for our peace and democracy, in direct contrast to the Treaty of Lisbon which is already doing quite the opposite. But NATO is threatened by the savage cuts being imposed on European armed forces.

These are deeply dangerous. It is unforgiveable that the UK Government is slashing spending to below the 2% base level every NATO member is meant to honour. It is a false economy too, because defence spending brings good jobs. Today the British Harrier jet is removed from service. This month we lost the carrier HMS Ark Royal prematurely with the loss of 6 000 dedicated personnel.

The USA cannot be expected to carry this burden with less and less contribution from us. We should be under no illusion that the Americans could pull out of NATO, as top British General Dannatt has warned, and leave us to an emboldened Russian bear still prepared to launch cyber attacks against Estonia and to systematically probe British sea and air defences, in disturbing echoes of the Cold War.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, a historic breakthrough at the NATO Summit has been mentioned. Although the dispute between Germany and France over nuclear disarmament has been settled, the fact is that we will not be able to do without nuclear weapons in future. This would lay the NATO states open to blackmail from Teheran or Pyongyang. A world without nuclear weapons and even without dictatorial regimes will remain an illusion while some states are only taken seriously when they join the ranks of the potential or actual nuclear powers.

It is also regrettable that the summit managed to avoid the subject of what will happen in the Middle East after the planned withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, which is an unpleasant topic for the United States. The much-quoted reversal of Russia’s foreign policy trend has proved, after a closer look, to be just a clever tactical move. There were declarations of intent relating to terrorism and cyber war, rather than genuine concepts. In my opinion, the NATO Summit was far from being a breakthrough.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, the new strategic concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which emerged in Lisbon, was established in order to seek to respond and adapt, firstly to a new context, in other words the disappearance of the system of blockades and the end of the Cold War. Secondly, it was established in order to adapt to the new configuration of threats, and particularly to globalisation and the fact that our armies do not have apparent enemies and our enemies do not have armies.

Based on this new strategic concept, while taking into consideration Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington regarding mutual assistance, there are three aspects that I am interested in.

Firstly, how to shape this strategic alliance with Europe: Baroness Ashton, I would like to ask you whether you think that Turkey should participate as much as possible in the actions and the development of the common foreign and security policy.

Secondly, regarding the ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) by the United States Congress, do you think that this new strategic concept will be affected if it is not ratified?

Finally, what are your thoughts on the subject of the anti-missile shield? Do you think that this notion in any way compromises the goal of reducing nuclear arsenals? It seems that there are opposing views on this among the Member States.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the new strategic concept developed by NATO contains important, positive changes to meet the challenges of the 21st century in a manner consistent with the values of the Atlantic Pact.

In particular, we welcome the revival of the strategic partnership with Russia, the explicit formulation of the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, the recognition of the importance of a stronger European defence, the reaffirmation of the principle of collective defence and, at the same time, the statements that NATO does not consider any country to be its adversary.

There are still, however, problems and contradictions that this far from new concept does nothing to dispel. Firstly, there is no clear and unambiguous commitment to the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons, which are still deployed in Europe even though they are strategically anachronistic and economically increasingly unsustainable. Secondly, the European Union's role in the strategic concept is still insufficient and the planned civilian crisis management capabilities are at risk of pointlessly duplicating those of the European Union.

We are aware of the political problems that hinder more effective EU-NATO cooperation, but this cannot get in the way of developing an operational perspective, complementarity and synergies that are a match for our ambitions. Helicopters, medical support and explosives represent significant progress but are not enough: we need vision and an active commitment and we call on you, Baroness Ashton, to deploy them both with strength and clarity.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Madam President, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary-General of NATO, stated that the NATO-Russia Council Summit which took place in Lisbon provided a historic impulse to improving NATO-Russia relations, which I very much welcome.

Although the NATO-Russia Council Heads of State and Government agreed on a joint ballistic missile threat assessment and decided to resume missile defence cooperation, President Medvedev announced after the summit that Russia will take part in the envisaged joint missile defence system only as an equal and fully fledged partner involved in information exchange and resolving whatever problems.

I would like to point out that equal partners must take equal responsibilities. There are some significant differences between NATO and Russia when defining security. While Russia perceives classical military threats to security, NATO on the other hand emphasises the lack of democracy and violation of human rights as a security threat. In order for Russia to be more closely involved in joint projects within the framework of NATO, I would expect Russia to mainstream democracy, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. To have an equal partnership, NATO and Russia must be on an equal footing on such relevant issues.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, I would like to welcome Baroness Ashton here. We have been listening to her comments on other issues and I think they are very interrelated. It would seem strange now to be very specific, but I would like to mention the further development of CSDP in the framework of general cooperation with NATO. I think that we really need an outside review of what has happened so far.

You mentioned, on human rights, that it is time to take stock and move on. I think we need exactly the same with regard to the missions that we have had so far. I think you have an opportunity to start anew. You can look back and have an external expertise and a review in order to define more what our priorities really are and what capabilities we need. I would just like to mention that we have headline goals for 2010, but now we are at the end of 2010 and we are far from reaching them, including on the civilian side. The question is how we should move forward and I think it would be good to have a view.

Secondly, I really urge you to use the synergy post, which I hope will now be created in the framework of the setting up of the External Action Service, to strengthen the civilian management capabilities in your service. We have not had the chance to create new posts but at least should use them to strengthen this area.

My last point, very briefly, is that there is a debate now going on regarding crisis response and national disaster response. I think we have to be careful there to keep the neutrality of the EU humanitarian response, even if it is sometimes difficult in crisis areas. I think this is an important issue.

  Konrad Szymański (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, NATO has, indeed, emerged from the Lisbon Summit in a stronger position. Article 5 has been revived and does not preclude the ability to mount a defence against a ballistic attack. The provisions of the new strategy must now be put into effect. The plan of action on the transatlantic missile defence architecture should be completed not later than the middle of 2011. This should also be backed up by money, including from the European partners in NATO. The signing by Russia of a new START treaty must not mean restrictions on building the NATO antimissile architecture. In addition, cooperation with Russia in this area must not mean a weakening of the defence of Central Europe.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) As stated in the conclusion to the NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon, NATO is proving itself to be a military alliance, a nuclear military alliance determined to intervene rapidly and in large numbers in any part of the world, at any time and under any pretext, asserting that it has a single and robust set of political and military capabilities, capable of dealing with any type of crisis: before, during and after conflicts.

As a worrying global threat, NATO states that it is affected by, and it can affect, political and security developments beyond its own borders and that it will therefore become actively involved in improving international security through partnerships with relevant countries and other international organisations. It is an assertion that reveals two objectives: on the one hand, to assert itself as a type of core from which dependency relationships radiate out, enabling its presence, pressure and intervention by its forces all around the globe. On the other, to strengthen the path of interventionism and the merger between international security and the internal security of states, thus aiming for the destruction of international law, a direct affront to the role of the United Nations Organisation in its approach to international security issues.

Commanded by one of the powers, the United States, it also aims to strengthen its European pillar, the European Union, considered to be a single and essential partner of NATO. So the NATO that left Lisbon was larger, more powerful, more dangerous and more covert; but the threat is considerable, and the response of the Portuguese people was more than thirty thousand people marching through the streets of Lisbon, fighting against and demanding the disbandment of this organisation which is considered to be so essential in defending peace.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, even if the negotiations of NATO member state representatives in Lisbon have resolved a number of serious topics regarding security risks in today’s world, the significance of some of the conclusions and decisions will surely have a more dramatic effect on the current political world.

The cautious new attempt at cooperation between NATO and Russia in developing a missile defence system in Europe represents just such a change in security policy, indicating that both the US and Europe may find a powerful new partner in Russia, which perhaps also realises that terrorist groups and militant regimes built on extremist ideologies have become the greatest threat to the peaceful and dignified life of civilised democratic society.

High Representative Ashton, it would be a good thing if we could also translate the words of President Obama, when he said he saw Russia as a partner and not an enemy, into a positive new impulse in the field of economic cooperation. At a time when European industry is struggling with problems to do with insufficient outlets for its products, an open and solvent market space in the Russian Federation might offer opportunities that would be helpful to both partners – Russia and Europe – in their internal economic problems.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, what will the EU’s responsibilities be with regard to security and defence in the context of the new strategic concept presented by NATO? The EU defence ministers have touched on a sore point. The EU does not have adequate capacity or capabilities. However, the financial crisis and budget constraints are increasing the pressure within the EU and NATO to concentrate military capabilities. The terms ‘sharing’ and ‘pooling’ describe what is now needed. As soon as the Member States have investigated what is possible, the European Defence Agency must be the main focus of the joint development of capabilities. In addition, the Commission must expand its cooperation with the European Defence Agency to include EU-funded research and development projects. Do you share my view?

Because I had no speaking time on the previous subject, I would like to ask a question about the topic of promoting democracy. I would like to find out from you how much money has actually been spent on the democracy and human rights instrument without the consent of the governments of the countries in question.

I also have something to say about election observers. In this area we are inconsistent and sometimes even cowardly. After parts of the Commission and some Member States had pushed for an election observation mission in Ethiopia and the report by the head of the mission could not be presented in Addis Abeba, it was completely hushed up in Brussels. What I would like to know is: What has happened to your public protest? You now have the opportunity to say something on this subject.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Madam President, indeed both the new strategy concept and the summit declaration recognise loudly and clearly that the EU is a major, and therefore indispensible, partner of the Alliance. The current international challenges confronting NATO and the EU, their simultaneous presence in a number of theatres of action and, moreover, the increasing complementarity between their respective roles require that the relations between the two organisations be strengthened.

In that regard, and taking into account the necessary collaboration in theatres of action and – inevitably – the revision of the Berlin Plus agreements, both organisations expect more concrete results from the discussions between the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative and the Secretary-General, in accordance with their respective mandates and, in that respect, the time has come to be imaginative in finding the right political compromise to allow for an unblocking of the current mechanical deadlock and permit both organisations to achieve their truly collaborative potential.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, you are perfectly aware that my parliamentary group is against the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

My group is entirely against its existence, among other things because we do not support any state in the world – or any group of states, such as the NATO military alliance – being able to use force without a specific mandate from the United Nations Security Council.

In 1999 at its Washington Summit, NATO approved in its strategic concept the possibility of using force without a mandate from the Security Council. This is a backward step, and a head-on attack on the system of international law that took so much to construct following the two world wars.

We do not, therefore, agree with this philosophy. We do not share it with NATO nor with any state that claims the right to use force without that express mandate.

Moreover, it has a direct impact on what were civil responses to problems that generate insecurity: organised crime, terrorism, and so on. They had never been matters requiring a military response, but rather a civil one through the international police sphere and the judicial sphere. We do not therefore consider that they require a military response, nor the associated risk to natural resources and uncontrolled mass migration. These are not matters requiring a military response.

The biggest causes of death in the world are hunger and poverty – the biggest weapon of mass destruction – and a military force such as NATO cannot fight them.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). - Madam President, the question is whether we are happy with the Lisbon outcome and I have a very mixed answer. It is insufficient, although it goes in the right direction. Could we have expected more? I think yes, but if you compare it to where we were two, three or four years ago, it is much better.

Clearly there is unused potential in relations between the two, but there are more words than deeds and we need more deeds than words. For the moment, there is a lot of talk about rapprochement, but these are declarations rather than concrete steps.

At the same time, there is increasing complementarity between the two. There is a certain expertise and there are capabilities on the Union side. The Union specialises more on soft power, NATO more on hard, military power, but both sides evolve. The EU has gone a long way since St Malo to affirm its role in security and defence, and NATO in turn has acknowledged the need to broaden its purely military domain by a softer dimension and has already taken the decisions. Hence both are coming closer, hence complementarity is growing. Why not use it?

The real stumbling block is the relationship between Turkey and Cyprus and the unsolved problem of Cyprus. The role of the Union is to take the lead, to undertake initiatives, to suggest to NATO means of closer cooperation, to pass from words to deeds, and I take the example of the recent letter by the Polish, German and French Foreign Ministers, to which Lady Ashton did react, as a good starting point in the right direction.

Closer EU-NATO cooperation via political will on both sides and the strengthening of CSDP, but there is also a role for, and a job to be done in, the capitals of both NATO and EU Member States.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, what is contained within the NATO Strategic Concept, adopted in Lisbon, with regard to the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is not new, it is old. The Alliance has decided to retain nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent power. Ironically, this contradicts calls by President Obama for a world free of nuclear weapons and the disarmament promised during the last NPT Review Conference.

The Alliance should lead by example, but this will not deter nuclear proliferation – tragically, it will encourage it. And in times of financial crisis, it diverts resources required for other threats with which we are confronted. What use are nuclear bombs against terrorism without address or sender, against piracy in the Indian Ocean, against organised crime, cyber-attacks, or chemical and biological attacks?

The Council of the European Union issued a statement this week about the need to increase our efforts against nuclear proliferation. Mrs Ashton, what plans do you have to play this card within NATO, where 21 of the 28 allies are also members of the European Union? And what do you have to say to the two nuclear powers that are members of the European Union and that have also been most resistant to attempts at change by the NATO Strategic Council in connection with this existential question for the whole of humanity?

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I think that we are living in an absurd world and that you have been elected to play a role in it, in order to mitigate this irrationality absurdity. As everyone has noted, the war in Afghanistan cost over USD three hundred billion. The cost of eradicating poverty in Afghanistan is equal to the cost of five days’ war. The cost of just one week’s operations is enough to run six thousand schools. USD three hundred billion could have been used to build two hundred thousand schools. The same money could have been used to build thirty thousand hospitals. Do the sums and you will see. I am talking about hospitals costing USD ten million each.

Do we need more information in order to understand that we are living in an absurd world? If we divided this money between all the families in Europe living below the poverty line, there would be enough money for every family. Does anyone believe that? Twenty thousand three hundred and fifty-five euros each for twenty-seven million families.

Where does this absurd road lead? It leads to ΝΑΤΟ. I therefore call upon Baroness Ashton, who has a leading position in the European Union, to play a catalytic role, so that this organisation is abolished from the inside.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I share your opinion on the Lisbon Summit which has come up with a new strategic concept which is satisfactory overall. However, we should nonetheless recognise, in all honesty, that the poor relation of this text is, in view of the potential of this strategic partnership, the European Union-NATO relationship, which should be a great deal more ambitious.

You rightly noted the successes and progress of capability development. You noted successes, obviously, in the case of Afghanistan, where we are managing to reach compromises on the ground. However, it is unsatisfactory that we do not have a structured political dialogue with NATO, apart from the single case of Bosnia We all know that the problem is that of Turkey. We are going to have to deal with it seriously, no doubt pragmatically, and I hope that the efforts you are making with Secretary General Rasmussen will bear fruit.

I briefly want to say that the problem of duplication is often advanced to highlight the weaknesses of the European Union and to limit the European Union’s aspiration to be ambitious. This is a false problem because there are not two armies in our Member States, a NATO army and a European Union army. There is an armed force in each country and it is up to the country to choose whether to place its troops under the NATO banner or the European Union banner. Let us stop scaremongering with this notion of duplication.

I would like to say a word about complementarity: it is essential and must be applied intelligently. I would not want to see complementarity becoming an imperative with the European Union becoming the Red Cross of what would be a NATO armed force. The European Union must keep its military capabilities, hold onto its military ambitions and must retain its ambition in the case of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) as was pointed out in the tripartite Franco-German and Polish letter.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, the Lisbon Summit certainly served to modernise the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and adapt it to the new security challenges.

We must welcome the fact that the new strategic concept adds new challenges, such as terrorism, combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cyber-defence and energy security.

It is also to be welcomed that the new concept highlights the need to strengthen the strategic relationship between NATO and the European Union. However, a clear division of tasks needs to be determined, in order o be efficient and not duplicate efforts in times of crisis.

The Treaty of Lisbon was a step forward in the common security and defence policy, which we must now consolidate. The objective is clear: the European Union must be capable of mobilising the necessary civil and military capacity to be able to take on its international responsibilities, and the common security and defence policy should make a significant contribution to Atlantic security.

What is not clear, however, is how this cooperation with the Alliance is going to be organised in order for it to be genuinely effective. It would be significant, Baroness Ashton, if you could tell us something more in this respect.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Mrs Ashton, the question has, in fact, been asked in this discussion, today, as to why in the European Parliament – an EU institution – we are talking about the NATO Summit. The answer is obvious. Most of the Member States of the European Union are members of NATO, so the European Union means us and in most cases NATO also means us.

It should, therefore, be noted that, for NATO, development of European Union-NATO cooperation was one of the most important matters discussed at the summit in Lisbon. The decisions of the NATO Summit, and also the declarations, for example, of the President of the United States, confirm that NATO is not resisting the common security and defence policy, but is trying, rather, to find a way of cooperation which is beneficial to both institutions. Therefore, we, too, must seek to cooperate and work together instead of engaging in senseless competition and expensive duplication of structures, especially today at a time of financial crisis. I hope the decisions made at the NATO Summit and the letter from the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland, which has been mentioned, here, will persuade us – the European Union – to begin a serious debate on the common security and defence policy.

Poland – I am a Member from Poland – will certainly support you, Mrs Ashton, in this work during the Polish Presidency. We must make use of the mechanisms and opportunities which the Treaty of Lisbon gives us. This is a great challenge for us. Finally, I would like to say that I welcome the NATO declaration on openness to cooperation with Russia, a declaration which also stresses NATO’s readiness to be open and to receive new states, such as Georgia, for example.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D). - Madam President, the European Union is a unique and essential partner for NATO. As a document of the new strategy concept puts it, NATO and the European Union can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security.

An active and effective European Union contributes to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. Therefore, more favourable circumstances should be developed by strengthening the strategic partnership in the spirit of full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional integrity of both organisations.

We should also point out that close cooperation between the EU and NATO is of vital importance, and this should be developed without prejudice to the principle of decision-making autonomy and with due respect for the nuclear status of some EU Member States.

  Ernst Strasser (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the NATO Summit has made good progress. It is good that it is being discussed here. New strategic elements, such as civil crisis management and cyber defence, are moves in the right direction. In particular for small, neutral countries like Austria, strengthening the strategic partnership between NATO and the European Union is of decisive importance. Developing military capacity by increasing synergy, reducing duplication and improving arms cooperation will help everyone, but especially the small Member States.

There is still quite a lot to be done, in particular for us. Europe must set itself some homework and make sure that it is completed. The initiative of the French, German and Polish foreign ministers represents a step in the right direction. In the medium term, we need a European defence architecture which promotes military cooperation between the EU Member States, which brings together civil and military cooperation between the EU, the UN and NATO and which gradually develops European defence structures. Our goal must be to become an important security partner in the world. We need to work on this.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, the Lisbon Summit outlined a new perspective on the Alliance’s security strategy. In practical terms, three major objectives were achieved: the new strategic concept was adopted, a new approach to Afghanistan was devised, not to mention the fact that new impetus was given to relations with the Russian Federation.

I think that the most important outcome was the integration of the anti-missile shield into the new strategic concept. Romania has advocated the establishment of the shield since the Bucharest Summit in 2008. This indicates that my country had a suitable vision and will make a significant contribution to implementing the defence system. At the same time, Romania has supported the open-door policy, aimed especially at strengthening NATO relations with Georgia and Ukraine.

I also welcome the fact that NATO reaffirmed the Black Sea region’s strategic importance, given the security risks that are predominant in this area. They concern in particular the unresolved conflicts in Transnistria and Georgia. In this respect, I feel that the Alliance must maintain a united front in the announcements made to Russia. The Russian Federation must demonstrate by deeds its statements of good intentions as it has a firm responsibility to the eastern border of Romania and NATO. I must stress that, as a result of the political declaration that has been adopted, NATO has assumed its commitment to the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova and Georgia.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, the historic NATO Summit in Lisbon was a turning point for the future of the alliance. Twenty-eight allies made important decisions, adopted a new defence doctrine, laid the foundations for closer cooperation with Russia, clarified the question of the anti-missile shield, approved an action plan on Afghanistan and confirmed the importance of cooperation with the European Union.

However, this is the general and optimistic view. We should not forget that, as the result of consensus, these texts express the lowest common denominator of positions and views. We all know that, in a post-cold war environment, there are discrepancies in and varying degrees of perception of threat. Eastern European countries have a different view of relations with Russia and Turkey has a different perception of Iran’s nuclear programme. We also know that Ankara waged a diplomatic war to prevent any reference to this in the Lisbon text. Ankara also takes a different approach to cooperation with the common security and defence policy, because it wants to exclude cooperation with one European partner and Member State of the Union. All this makes the role of the common security and defence policy even more important, within the context, of course, of Euro/NATO cooperation.

That is why I believe that the European Union needs to take full advantage of the new opportunities afforded to us by the Treaty of Lisbon, by retaining independent powers of decision. We need to raise the Union’s international profile and reinforce its international presence. We need a stronger Europe, so that we can have a stronger Atlantic alliance.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, I agree with the High Representative’s take on the Lisbon Summit. It really was an important turning point and an important moment. Transatlantic relations are the key to world safety and development but, on the other hand, the European Union must, where necessary, have its own voice and its own structures. The cost cuts mentioned earlier will be generated from this cooperation, both at equipment level and in civil decisions, without the need or the facility to change the NATO alliance. Europe must have its own defence system and security system and its own voice, because only then will it be able to address problems, such as the problem with Turkey or other problems with NATO members or non-members which take a different approach to Russia. Besides, I do not think that the issue with Russia is a difficult issue. I think it is an issue which Europe can handle overall, at the same time as the American side is handling it. Perhaps Europe can handle it even more effectively.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Madam President, enlargement of NATO could be seen as one of the few true post-Cold War success stories. However, the momentum of enlargement has weakened. NATO has remained rather hesitant in opening up to Georgia or Macedonia. Military contributions have decreased alarmingly. Very few NATO members meet the 2% criteria for defence expenditure and the Alliance has not conducted serious military exercises for more than one decade. The last such big exercise to prove that the US could move troops rapidly into Europe took place 17 years ago. True, the Soviet Union has collapsed. However, NATO’s credibility and potential still relies on US military might. It is vitally important that NATO’s military institutions remain well integrated and that military commanders from America and Europe have the possibility to practice together.

Only under conditions of much closer and more determined transatlantic cooperation will the EU and NATO be able to set a democratic international agenda over the next decade against the challenges of a multilateral world.

I would also like to comment on the conclusions of the NATO-Russia Council. It calls for a modernised partnership based on reciprocal confidence, transparency and predictability. It may be taken as a declaration of goodwill. However, we know that Russia’s military doctrine still views NATO expansion into Russia’s neighbourhood as an aggression and justifies preventive military strikes and landings on foreign territories.

Big military exercises in autumn 2009 in north-west Russia close to the territories of the Baltic States prepared for invasion of these states as a counter-attack, presumably against NATO actions. What is positive is that the Baltic States finally got NATO contingency plans for their defence, as exposed also by WikiLeaks.

Georgia was invaded by Russia and two of its autonomous territories practically annexed. Just recently, Russia’s missiles were deployed in these breakaway entities and Russia continues massive spying in all Western countries. When these spies are exposed, it is the West that feels embarrassment, not Russia, which decorates its spies openly with the highest state awards.

Therefore, Russian insistence on equality in relations with NATO and some sort of joint decision-making is premature and carries a risk of a Russian veto on NATO’s decisions and further enlargement.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, at the Lisbon Summit, NATO confirmed its role as guarantor of security in the Euro-Atlantic area, and also acknowledged that it has new challenges to confront.

The best instrument for performing this role is a broad network of strategic partnerships, whether with states or with international organisations. NATO must therefore be prepared to enter into political dialogue with every potential partner who shares our common effort for peace and secure international relations.

In my opinion, the key strategic partnership is the cooperation with Russia, where NATO needs to strengthen practical cooperation in order to be able to confront the modern threats of international terrorism, piracy, human trafficking and drug trafficking. NATO needs sufficient financial, military and human resources to be able to fulfil its mission. It is necessary, however, for these resources to be used as efficiently as possible, and mainly for securing peace.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - (SL) Madam President, I am pleased to have been given the floor before Mr Goerens, my colleague from Luxemburg, because otherwise that would have undermined the basic point that I am going to make, that we who have been speaking here for the past half hour have been mainly members from South-Eastern Europe. That should tell you that, for us, the questions of security, NATO and NATO’s relationship with the European Union are slightly more significant than they are for other nations.

For precisely that reason, I would like to say that those who attended the Lisbon Summit have passed up an opportunity to take a clearer and more principled and decisive stance on the wishes of two countries in South-Eastern Europe, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to strengthen their security by joining at least one of the EU or NATO.

When we in Slovenia were nearing membership of these two institutions, we said that either would do. NATO has the opportunity to correct mistakes that are made by the European Union. I think that we need to take this into account.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. This discussion, today, is about cooperation between NATO and the Union. Mrs Ashton has given us, here, a positive assessment, but I want to say that, in my opinion, it is an assessment which is greatly exaggerated. My fellow Members from Poland, Mr Saryusz-Wolski and Mr Lisek, have already spoken, and I want to say clearly that I agree with their evaluation.

This is only the beginning, and it is the beginning of a very long road. In relation to this, I would like to draw attention to three pragmatic aspects where we can see common progress. The first area concerns the joint defence planning of NATO and the European Union – here it is clear that more can be done. The second area should concern cooperation between intelligence services – here, too, progress can be made. Lastly, the third matter concerns the operation of combat groups – the question needs to be asked as to whether, today, they give added value.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, I should like to put a question to Baroness Ashton concerning the Europe of defence and also NATO.

The Treaty of Lisbon allows the Member States of the European Union to cooperate more closely in defence matters, if they so wish, of course. This is called ‘structured cooperation’ or ‘enhanced cooperation’, it hardly matters which.

Can Baroness Ashton tell me whether cooperation of this nature has already been considered by a group of countries and if so, where appropriate, can you tell me the criteria to be met to qualify for this type of cooperation?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, thank you again to all those who have contributed to a very wide-ranging debate. I will, if I may, try and pick up some of the key points that were made and at least begin to give you responses to that.

The first thing to say is that I am committed to trying to find ways forward in the relationship between the European Union and NATO, but I do not underestimate the political issues that sit at the heart of this question. My objective is to find practical and pragmatic ways in which increased collaboration can help support our people on the ground. The people in theatre, the people in operations, are those who are most in my thoughts when I look at how we can collaborate together. But I do so with the knowledge that Turkey has an important role to play, and I do so in the knowledge that I represent 27 Member States, and I work closely with the Member States who are most interested and affected by the issues at hand.

We are moving forward to try and achieve that as swiftly as we possibly can. But I do not underestimate the challenges, and I am always looking at and interested in ideas for how we might do that.

I accept that we want also to look very carefully at what we do ourselves and make sure that what we do is complementary and not duplicating other work. Actually the areas that we are working in are indeed very complementary. The example that was given earlier was of Ocean Shield off the coast of Somalia and the work we are doing with Operation Atalanta.

Honourable Members who have visited the area will know it is a huge expanse of sea, where there is plenty of room for complementary activity and very little risk of duplication, and indeed the services work very well together. Commander Howes who is in charge of Operation Atalanta at the present time was speaking with the defence ministers, making this very point that indeed there was a lot of connectivity in communication, but an awful lot of work that can be done satisfactorily together.

Mr Gahler raised a number of points which were not connected to this debate and I would just like to suggest to him that if he writes me a quick note about those issues I am happy to come back to him, but I did not want to take Parliament’s time this evening on issues that were not on this debate itself.

Concerning questions about missile defence, as far as I can see what happened was that a balance was found during those negotiations on NATO’s new strategic concept between the issues of missile defence and NATO’s nuclear posture. It is clear that NATO will want to retain its nuclear deterrents while keeping with the objective that it set itself on a nuclear-free world.

That is the approach we are taking today but of course we do not participate in all aspects of NATO for exactly the reasons that have been well understood in this House. We were not participating, for example, in the NATO-Russia Council meetings so it is not possible for me to comment on what happened there, only, as I have already done, to comment on the issues that came out of it.

In terms of START, the progress we have seen between the United States and Russia on demilitarisation is to be welcomed and I believe will pave the way for better coordination with NATO, which was certainly the objective that the Secretary-General has set himself.

Finally, structured cooperation: will it happen, what is being done? It is indeed for Member States to come forward with ideas. There are already examples where Member States, such as the UK and France, or in the letter that has come to me from the Weimar Triangle Group, have been looking at ways in which they can enhance that collaboration, partly through the European Defence Agency as well, where we have opportunities to try and develop those synergies as appropriate.

I hope and expect to see more of that in the future. Particularly I expect this with the forthcoming presidencies, especially with Poland which has made defence issues something they wish to focus on. There are no examples I can give the honourable Member that would suggest there is an opportunity to join in, but I hope that we will see objectives coming forward that enhance the possibilities of being able, in this economic crisis, to use our resources most effectively.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE), in writing. – (HU) At the meeting of the ministers of NATO member states in October 2008, General John Craddock, commander of the NATO forces in Europe, stated that Russia’s military action in Georgia prompted NATO to revise its basic assumption concerning the security of its member states. Does this statement still hold true now, after the Lisbon Summit? The agreement with Russia is an expedient political step, which could serve the reinforcement of our security. However, it inevitably raises serious moral and strategic questions as well. Does NATO intend to yield, for the sake of cooperation, the representation and protection of the democratic ideas on which the Euro-Atlantic alliance is based, and which are in sharp contrast to the Russian concept of democracy on several points?

It is perhaps unnecessary to give a separate reminder of the intimidation and abuse of people, and the unclear details of the deaths of journalists and lawyers in Russia. It would also be hard not to interpret Russia’s recent nomination of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for the Nobel Prize for Peace as a provocative gesture. Will it lessen the chances of countries intending to join NATO if Russia does not approve of their future membership? We are faced with the question whether NATO leaders are taking into consideration the vulnerability of certain member states, as well as their open and unsettled issues with Russia that exist to this day. The historic direction of peace-making and agreement must at any rate be welcomed. However, we must clearly recognise the historic responsibility of NATO in what major power it legitimises as a consequence of the agreement concluded for the missile defence programme, and what it will firmly oppose, true to our common European values.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon put an end to the strategic security concept that had been in place since the Cold War. The implementation of this new security strategy represents a move from the traditional defence of member countries of the Atlantic Alliance to a concept of global security for the 21st century.

The challenges that the new strategic security concept emphasises involve close cooperation with the various international institutions, both governmental and non-governmental, and the strengthening of partnerships, particularly with Russia. In addition to the establishment of political channels, operational questions relating to capabilities and the structure of NATO itself have been adapted to new global threats. It is also important to highlight the adoption by NATO of a mission transition plan for Afghanistan, with the objective of the Afghan authorities taking the lead in matters of national security. I believe this new strategic vision, which creates guidelines on which the international relations of the Member States should be based, is extremely important.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – For the first time since the Second World War, Russia has been invited to join the missile shield effort, something which can only be marked as a milestone for the Alliance. Russia’s answer remains to be seen, and there is potentially a real partnership with the US, whereby both would have to come to the table committed. Furthermore, this project needs major European financing, and this is not going to be easy with European defence cuts.

Lastly, Afghanistan will be the big political test for NATO in the years to come. The US acted quickly to reassure Russia that the missiles were in fact not targeted at them. It was crucial for the US not to aggravate Russia, and they proved they had no such intention by also inviting Russia to take part in the missile shield scheme. Secondly, the US was wise enough not to mention the name of Iran or, to put it correctly, granted the wishes of Turkey, which threatened to back out if its neighbour (Iran) was mentioned. The problem is that only 21 of the 27 EU Member States are in NATO, posing a threat to the development of European defence.

18. Situation in Côte d'Ivoire (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, the situation in Côte d’Ivoire is very precarious, as lives are at risk – the lives of Ivorian citizens but also of many Europeans who are living and working in the country.

I believe important issues are at stake, not only the role which Côte d’Ivoire plays in Africa, but also the vast work done by the international community over the past 10 years to support crisis resolution and enhance stability. Presidential elections have been due for several years. In the end, it is a credit to the Ivorian people, to the work of the United Nations with the support of the international community and, in particular I must say, to the European Union and the facilitator, President Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso, that these elections could finally take place.

All candidates had agreed beforehand the ground rules of the election. These included a special role for the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative, Mr Choi, in certifying the election results. A European electoral observation mission was sent to the country headed by Mr Cristian Preda, MEP. I thank him for his work and I believe he will be speaking shortly. It concluded that the elections were held in democratic conditions. I do thank and congratulate Mr Preda and his team for their courage as well as their excellent work, carried out in difficult circumstances.

The results were proclaimed by the Independent Electoral Commission and certified by the special representative of the UN Secretary-General. President Barroso and I were among the first to congratulate President Ouattara on his victory. The international community has been unanimous in recognising him. ECOWAS and the African Union have been crystal clear in their message. Mr Ouattara is the legitimate President of Côte d’Ivoire. On 3 December the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly was equally unambiguous in its declaration.

We are calling on all political forces in Côte d’Ivoire to respect the electoral outcome, to show responsibility and to refrain from any act of violence. All efforts should now be focused on the achievement of a peaceful transfer of power. UN resolutions provide for targeted measures against those who obstruct the peaceful transition and the elections.

African bodies have already resorted to sanctions on Côte d’Ivoire. The EU is ready to assume its responsibilities regarding targeted measures, and we have clearly said so this week in the Council with the EU Foreign Ministers, but we are also prepared to take measures to support the legally elected authorities.

The developments in Côte d’Ivoire are being followed closely by many actors and by public opinion, particularly in Africa and especially in neighbouring countries, many of which are also in a post-conflict situation and undergoing difficult democratic transition. The outcome of the present constitutional crisis in Côte d’Ivoire will send a strong signal to all forces on the African continent, both those in favour of democracy and those who are against.

The response of the European Union to this crisis is vital. As a major player in the international community, our role will be enhanced, and our credibility as a global champion of democracy improved, if our action can contribute to a peaceful handover of power in accordance with the will of the people of Côte d’Ivoire, clearly expressed in free and fair elections.

  Cristian Dan Preda, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I was, indeed, in Côte d'Ivoire to lead this European Union election observation mission.

I shall begin by referring to the courage and commitment of observers from 26 countries, more than 100 people, 120 observers who were on the ground and who carried out a magnificent job. They noted, in the first place, that the citizens of Côte d'Ivoire were saying, more or less on all sides: ‘We are tired’. That was the key word, the chorus which meant, indeed, that the elections were seen as the end of a political crisis. Everyone wanted all that to come to an end with these elections.

There is one exception, the outgoing President, Mr Gbagbo, who refused to give up power and who provided himself with the resources to prevent this crisis from coming to an end by setting up a partisan constitutional council which quite simply annulled the results that were favourable to his opponent. This means that today, instead of calm, instead of an exit from crisis, there is an even more complicated crisis, with an already very precarious balance and now the beginnings of a confrontation.

Further I would say that it is now really very difficult to avoid confrontation. You just have to look at what happened with the vote in the barracks, in the first and the second ballot. We are unfortunately faced with an extremely delicate situation.

I would not wish to finish without expressing my appreciation of Baroness Ashton, for her commitment to resolving this matter.

I would like to put a question to her, as I have noted that the Council has announced that restrictive measures are to be adopted shortly: can it be said when these restrictive measures will be adopted?

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, I would first like to congratulate my fellow Member, Mr Preda, and his team on the remarkable work they have done. I would also like to congratulate Baroness Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, on the determination she has shown with the entire international community in monitoring these elections. For those of us who are absolutely committed to electoral observation missions, which are an extraordinary tool for encouraging democracy in a country, the fact that there was such a rapid and determined follow-up after an attempt to illegitimately appropriate the result of the elections warmed our hearts and we hope that this may happen in other contexts if ever, alas, the situation should call for it.

Now, I would also like to say – because I have been told it often enough – that President Ouattara is not the candidate of Europe. The entire international community mobilised, which is extraordinary: the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the United Nations, Europe, and so on with a single voice, and that marks a historic milestone.

Now, on the issue of Mr Ouattara wanting to put his militants onto the streets, I am, of course, somewhat more concerned, because I cannot see any peaceful solutions in the streets in the context of opposing forces. I would like to mention a document, which is currently being drafted in the ACP countries and which had already been discussed in Kinshasa at the last ACP meeting, which some of us attended. Its title is extraordinary: ‘Challenges for the future of democracy and respect for the constitutional order’. An African representative and a European representative are responsible for drafting it. There are a great many legal things in this text and three pages are devoted to the sharing of power if one of the parties tries to gain power illegitimately. These three pages of advice describe the path to follow to prevent the situation from turning into a blood bath. It is perhaps not in the streets but perhaps through negotiations aimed at sharing a certain form of power that a blood bath is likely to be prevented. Pressure must first be exerted, of course, to ensure that the winner is acknowledged.

I advise you to read this document. It is very informative and it showed me that, although African political culture does not know much about democracy, it certainly knows a lot about how to negotiate.

  Marielle De Sarnez, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, it is just a few hours since the partisans of Ouattara reached the headquarters of the government and of Ivorian Radio and Television and I want to express my concern, because the risk of clashes and confrontation is clearly significant and absolutely real.

Our first responsibility this evening is to call for calm and dialogue. However, this is also the responsibility of the main Ivorian leaders. Both the outgoing President and the President-elect must do all they can to prevent violence breaking out again in a country that has suffered far too much for years. That is the first message.

The second message is that, from the start, the international community, Europe of course, but also the African Union, have spoken with one voice. They mobilised to ensure that the result of the election was respected. This pressure must continue and sanctions must be applied. Laurent Gbagbo must accept defeat. Alassane Ouattara must work tirelessly for the reconciliation of his people. For our part, it is imperative that we do not slacken in our efforts until the situation has stabilised.

I should like to thank you in advance, High Representative, for bearing these messages, especially this evening.

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, like those who have preceded me, I clearly deplore the seriousness of the situation today, the acute political crisis and also the risk of clashes that could well break out in the hours to come. Therefore, I obviously welcome the univocal position taken by the entire international community and I think that, beyond the need to uphold democracy, we have a responsibility not only to save the Ivorian people but also to give a clear signal that alternation of power in Africa is possible. Beyond the issue of the Ivorian people themselves, their security and the tensions affecting this country, and which could affect it in the days and months to come, the issues also concern the neighbouring countries. There will be elections in other, neighbouring countries, where the issue of the alternation of an outgoing President and a new President could arise.

I think it is extremely important that, in Côte d'Ivoire, without in any way prejudging the result, the issue of democratic alternation can be decided peacefully, in a negotiated way, with the support of the international community and in opposition to all those who, given this opportunity, would cause blood baths or, at the very least, take the civil population hostage. This is important not only because these people have already suffered enough, but also because it will serve as an example for the neighbouring countries, and I am obviously thinking of the Congo, which will no doubt be in an electoral period in the coming year, in 2011.

I welcome your statements on how to monitor, exert and keep the pressure on in the coming months in order to preserve peace.

  Elie Hoarau, on behalf of the GUE/NGL. Group – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all concerned about the serious crisis in Côte d'Ivoire.

Naturally, the decision of the Constitutional Council of this country to challenge the election results officially proclaimed by the Independent Electoral Commission, in violation of the electoral code, is unanimously condemned by the international community.

The European Union, the United Nations (UN), the African Union, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and, certainly soon, the European Parliament, demand respect for the official proclamation of the election results and the installation of the new President of the Republic, who has been recognised by the Independent Electoral Commission, which, I recall, is a body validated by the UN.

All the political groups of the European Parliament have expressed their agreement on these crucial issues in a joint declaration. They have also called for action to curb any escalation of tension in the country, which could lead to civil war, which would be a human, social and economic disaster for Côte d'Ivoire, which must, of course, be prevented at all costs.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, democracy is a non-negotiable value, just as the results of a popular consensus are non-negotiable: participation, representation and popular sovereignty are a measure of the maturity of a democratic system. The events taking place in Côte d'Ivoire, which observers have reported with objectivity, are causing serious damage to an electoral process that should have been over by now.

The people’s choice was clear and unambiguous, yet the outgoing but still acting leader of government Mr Gbagbo has not yet been replaced with the incoming leader Mr Outtara. This is unacceptable to the European Parliament as it is unacceptable to anyone who believes in justice.

Through its political manipulations, the Constitutional Council confirmed in office the outgoing leader, who unfortunately continues to be the acting representative of Côte d'Ivoire. All this threatens to fuel tensions and riots that are not easy to control. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) cannot accept that the popular vote is subverted by these Machiavellian manoeuvres.

We therefore ask that the citizens, who have freely expressed their choice through their consensus, be put in a position where they can be governed by the person whom they have all chosen in unison. The United Nations is backing us in this process. Naturally, we are asking for this troubled crisis to be brought to an end in a reasonably short time and we place our trust in an authoritative intervention by Baroness Ashton, so that Europe can speak with authority and prestige through the highest office in international relations.

  Kader Arif (S&D). - (FR) Madam President, High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, the elections in Côte d'Ivoire have just taken place.

The international community tolerated their being postponed year after year by the regime of Laurent Gbagbo. These successive reports alerted a number of us to the difficulties in which we find ourselves at the moment but, deep within ourselves, we hoped that the democratic spirit would prevail in a country that has suffered a great deal from sterile and unacceptable confrontations focused, in particular, around the concept of Ivorian nationality.

The international community and, in particular, the European Union around Baroness Ashton and through my fellow Member, Mr Preda, mobilized to ensure that these elections took place under the best possible conditions, transparently and without violence. This should be commended.

In view of the calm that prevailed and the atmosphere of mutual respect among candidates, the electoral campaign gave us cause to hope that the result would be accepted by all the parties. Today, unfortunately, the democratic result that emerged through the ballot box has been rejected by the outgoing President.

Tomorrow, like my fellow Members, I will therefore vote in favour of appealing to Mr Gbagbo to accept that what appears to him to be a reversal of fortune or a conspiracy is, in fact, simply the will of the majority of his citizens. He cannot hang on to power without calling into question part of his own militant history, which was to appear, when resident in Europe, as the man who had brought about the newly regained freedom and democracy established in his country.

The United Nations representative in Côte d'Ivoire courageously assumed his role and announced the results of the ballot.

As First Vice-President of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I would also like to point out that a declaration was adopted by our Assembly on 3 December in Kinshasa firmly condemning the decision of the Ivorian Constitutional Council for invalidating the results.

This declaration comes on top of the clear and unambiguous position taken by the leaders of the Member States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and of the African Union. Today, the regime of Mr Gbagbo is neither wanted by its citizens, nor supported by its neighbours, nor accepted by the international community. It is therefore time that he accepted the victory of Alassane Ouattara, the democratically elected President of Côte d'Ivoire, who must be in a position to take on the responsibility entrusted to him by his people as soon as possible.

Madam President, High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to conclude by asking the European Union to assume its role through the means at its disposal to persuade Laurent Gbagbo and his illegitimate government to accept that the game is over. We will not allow his obstinacy to lead to chaos in Côte d'Ivoire.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, were it not for the ego of Mr Gbagbo, Côte d'Ivoire would be a source of inspiration for all developing countries longing for democracy.

Indeed, during the last elections, the Ivorian people showed great political maturity. Moreover, the international bodies, starting with the United Nations, are not in the least bit impressed by the final machinations of a bad loser. Mr Gbagbo should go away. There is no other way for him to keep the bit of dignity he has left.

Until now, the European Union has reacted appropriately, especially at the level of targeting sanctions. Sanctions must not be imposed on the people, who have expressed themselves in an exemplary fashion, but on Mr Gbagbo and those close to him.

My question to Baroness Ashton is ‘What steps do you intend to take if the situation were to degenerate and the use of force were to threaten both the Ivorian citizens and the expatriates living in Côte d'Ivoire? Furthermore, do you think that ECOWAS and the African Union have sufficient capacity to deal with this problem?’

  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in Côte d'Ivoire is a test case and a test case we cannot afford to fail.

This applies to the European Union above all because there is no way we can acknowledge a stolen victory but neither is there any way we can stop exerting maximum pressure on the Ivorian leaders over this massive fraud. Furthermore, it will not be acceptable for a single euro from European taxpayers to end up in or even pass through an illegal government that disregards even the most elementary rules of democracy. Côte d'Ivoire must be made aware of this.

Côte d'Ivoire is now also a test case for the African Union, which is dealing with the situation in a very interesting way, so far showing a degree of firmness and unity that would have been unthinkable only 10 or 15 years ago. This is a sign that the Ivorian affair should not be exploited to revive old stereotypes of black Africa being incompatible with democracy.

Even though we hover on the brink of widespread violence, which would be catastrophic, Ivorian society is so far also passing this difficult test: it gave a majority to the reformist candidate Mr Outtara and appears to have learned the lesson of the great Ivorian writer Ahmadou Kourouma, who in 1998 published a book with the apt title ‘En attendant les votes des bêtes sauvages’ (Waiting for the Wild Beasts to Vote), which tells this very story from a democratic and very Ivorian standpoint

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, the elections in Côte d’Ivoire have resulted in an unprecedented situation after both candidates in the presidential elections claimed victory and each appointed a prime minister. There is only one legitimate president: President Ouattara. I think that all political forces must respect the will of the people expressed in the result of the elections held on 28 November. There is all the more reason for this as the UN, the Electoral Commission and numerous European states have recognised the opposition leader as the rightful winner.

At the same time, it is deplorable that acts of intimidation were carried out against EU observers, resulting in the mission having to end. The political instability is already having a significant impact. The African Union recently decided to suspend the country from all the organisation’s activities. In addition, there is the risk of resumption of the civil war which took place in 2002.

Côte d’Ivoire can therefore make the choice between two paths: one which preserves democracy and continues the progress and the other which means isolation from the African community.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, I will be brief because I think that all one might have wished to say has been expressed very well. Mr Preda, again, thank you to you and your team for your courage and your work during the elections. I commend you.

There are two quick points I want to make. Of course I have kept in touch with Ban Ki-moon throughout. He and I spoke at the very beginning of this crisis and discussed how outrageous the situation was, and we agreed to collaborate very fully. Equally I have been ensuring that the EU representatives on the ground are cared for: we have contingency plans in place for their safety, as you would expect.

I also want to answer the specific question that was raised about the sanctions. I am expecting the list to be ready within the next few days. We want to get on with this as quickly as possible and to keep the pressure on as much as possible. There is a real danger of violence and there is a real danger of ambiguity around what is happening. We need to be very firm and very clear and to work as collaboratively as possible with the international community to keep the pressure on as heavily as we possibly can, and to do the things required to get a satisfactory resolution. I am extremely grateful for the support in this House for the work that we are doing.

  President. I have received six motions for resolution⁽¹⁾ in accordance with Rule 110(4) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12.00 on Thursday, 16 December 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, two presidential candidates declared victory and took their oaths on 4 December. It is not possible, however, for a presidential election to produce two winners in one country. The situation in Côte d'Ivoire is therefore very dangerous, since we are all well aware that the country, which bears the marks of years of conflict and violence, is particularly prone to steps that may lead to a repeat of the civil war which broke out in 2002 after a violent coup.

The steps taken by the international community, represented on our side by the European Union, must therefore be considered carefully and not postponed until some later date, because they will have a decisive impact on the lives of the inhabitants of this country.

I therefore fully agree with the words of Baroness Ashton. The imposition of sanctions is one possible solution by the EU to punish those who are blocking a peaceful changeover of political elites. The sanctions must help to enforce the will of the people of Côte d'Ivoire. We must not forget the local population, however, and we must try to help improve their security, so that they can live in a free and democratic country.

IN THE CHAIR: Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

(1) See Minutes.

19. Control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A7-0355/2010) by Mr Százjer, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (COM(2010)0083 - C7-0073/2010- 2010/0051(COD)).

  József Szájer, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is only about one year since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which envisages considerable changes in the delegation of powers by the European Parliament and Council to the Commission.

A few months ago in this Parliament, we discussed my report about delegated acts. Delegated acts are when Parliament and Council delegate powers, but from now on, compared to the previous situation, we can take them back any time. We can set a deadline, we can change and we can veto if the Commission is not in line with what the legislator wanted.

In the case of the present regulation we are discussing based on Article 291 of the Treaty, we are speaking about implementing acts. In the case of implementing acts, the situation is a bit different. Here, it is the Member States which exercise their rights on how to implement the different legislation of the European Union. So there is a clear difference.

The new regulation and the new system of delegated acts gives us very wide powers. From Parliament’s point of view, it changes our influence considerably, especially in certain areas of legislation.

However, in the field of implementation, we have the right as Parliament, as legislator, to regulate how the implementation procedure for the Member State should go.

I think Parliament was right after long negotiations to take the position that we would like to confirm and get clear commitments from both the Council and the Commission that Parliament’s rights are met. After very long negotiations, we have made very serious progress in this area which has influence and an effect not only – and particularly not only – in the area of implementing acts, but also on delegated acts.

Even in the case of implementing acts, Parliament got and kept the right of scrutiny which means that, on the basis of the agreement with the other institutions, we have a procedure which we can apply.

My first priority was that we could keep these important positions. There is also another issue here, which is that there are other ongoing discussions in this Parliament represented by other committees – especially the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Development and the Committee on Foreign Affairs – and also between Parliament and Council on the legislation concerning financial instruments and whether and how they should be regulated.

My goal in this framework was that this regulation should not prejudge this discussion. We want to help our colleagues who are fighting our position in an important discussion with the Council so that we can finally end up with the cooperation of the Council.

Finally, since my time is over, I would like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their flexibility in the negotiations. I understand that it was very difficult to get an agreement in Council. I think this is the deal which Parliament wanted and this deal can be satisfying for all Members, especially because this is not only about the text we are discussing now, but we expect both the Commission and Council to take part in the common understanding concerning these important issues. We also expect declarations which make clear that there is a clear commitment from the Commission for the alignment of the remaining part of the acquis communautaire. This text attached to my report should be satisfying for all Members of this Parliament.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, this morning we heard a very good debate on the citizens’ initiative and tonight we are discussing the very important topic of comitology. I think it is a very good sign that here, after the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, we are actually finalising the main pieces of the legislation necessary for its full implementation.

The regulation on implementing acts will have a major impact on the way the Commission implements European law in the future. It will have a very important influence on the Union’s ability to deliver its policies in the interests of its citizens. When we presented our proposal we set out its main objective: that new rules should put in place a system for the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission which would be simpler, more efficient, and more transparent and in full compliance with the Treaty.

How did we achieve these goals in the proposals we are about to discuss? As in the past, the control mechanism foreseen by the regulation is based on comitology, meaning committees composed of representatives from Member States to which the Commission will submit draft measures but, contrary to the present system, there will no room for intervention by the Council as such.

As the Treaty makes clear, only Member States and not the Council can control the exercise of the implementing powers by the Commission. Moreover, the regulation provides that all special procedures will disappear and that all implementing measures including those on trade – various measures such as anti-dumping or countervailing measures – will be subject to the regulation. This will represent a real revolution in the field of commercial policy.

We want to have simpler procedures, so not only will the new regulation establish just two procedures – advisory and examination – instead of four, but it will also provide for an automatic adaptation of the existing comitology procedures. The new procedures will begin to apply to all existing legislation from day one. Of course this is without prejudice to the nature of the powers conferred on the Commission on the basic acts.

The Commission has committed in a declaration to review all the acquis in order to adapt it as far as legally required to the regime of delegated acts, and I know how important this is for this House. We have so far identified 153 acts which were not submitted to codecision before the Treaty of Lisbon, and which confer powers on the Commission that have to be turned into delegated powers. In addition there are 299 acts which were previously aligned to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which will now have to be reviewed in the light of the provisions of the Treaty on delegated acts. But our aim is that before the end of Parliament’s present legislative period all existing legislation will be fully in line with the new provision of the Treaty of Lisbon.

This means full alignment. You know how ambitious this goal is and therefore I am particularly pleased that the Belgian minister Mr Chastel kindly asked me to deliver to this House the commitment and the statement of the Presidency.

It states that the Presidency is aware of the ambitious intentions of the Commission in this regard; it welcomes these and supports the objectives. It can confirm that it is willing to do its utmost to make sure that this alignment is concluded as soon as possible once proposals by the Commission have been submitted. The Presidency is ready to cooperate in a loyal manner with Parliament and the Commission to achieve these objectives.

Of course we would like to have this statement enshrined in an official written record, but I think that we have to welcome the very cooperative spirit and collegial approach from the Belgian Presidency.

We want to have a system which is more efficient; accordingly the new rules fully reflect the Commission’s role under the Treaties – with just one regrettable exception which I will come back to later – because only a qualified majority vote by the Committee against the draft implementing act can prevent the Commission from adopting it.

The one exception I just mentioned, where the Commission explicitly needs a positive opinion of the committee before being authorised to adopt the draft implementing act, relates to definitive multilateral trade safeguard measures. Even though only a limited number of acts are adopted in this area, we were against these exceptions on institutional grounds as we would have preferred a full alignment with the new rules.

I wanted to make this institutional point here although in the end this was the only possible basis for the compromise for the legislator and we welcome it. We want to have a system which is more transparent; the whole procedure will be conducted in full transparency.

All documents submitted to the committees are simultaneously sent to the European Parliament and to the Council; these two institutions will have a right of scrutiny on a completely equal footing. At any time during the procedure they may indicate to the Commission that they consider that the draft implementing act exceeds its powers; if we are overstepping our powers you have the right to make it very clear to us.

To conclude, all in all the text presents a very good result for Europe; it clearly strengthens the Community method and it clearly expands Parliament’s power of scrutiny into all areas.

For instance, the new regulation provides that in some cases the Commission might be obliged to discuss the matter in an appeal committee. However this committee will be a normal comitology committee chaired by the Commission and subject to the same rules; only qualified majority against the Commission’s draft can then prevent the Commission from adopting it.

If the new comitology regulation is approved today by the European Parliament it will enter into force very soon, already on 1 March 2011, and this is indeed very good news. We need to have the new legal framework operating as soon as possible, and I also hope that in parallel we could launch a common reflection about the line of demarcation between the delegated powers and the implementing powers of the Commission. We need these not only to avoid further conflicts when discussing proposals for the new legislation but also to streamline the alignment exercise.

To conclude I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for all the work done throughout the negotiating process and also to all political groups for their cooperation and the flexibility they demonstrated. A final word of thanks goes to the Belgian Presidency who did a remarkable job in getting this file through the Council, in finding this very difficult compromise. I believe that what we are about to discuss, and I hope tomorrow approve, is very good news for Europe.

  Gay Mitchell, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. − Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for his efforts and for his report.

Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the current comitology provisions will be replaced by delegated acts and implementing acts under Articles 290 and 291, as has been explained, but I worry very much about the role of the Commission in implementing the decisions made in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon.

I think I heard the Commissioner just say that their aim is to do so by the end of this Parliament. That is another three and a half years, and they only have an ‘aim’! This is not a residents’ association, this is Parliament! If the Council is involved, Parliament is involved. As a parliamentarian – and it gives me no joy to say this – it seems to me that often, instead of acting as honest broker between Council and Parliament, the Commission is far too close to the Council, while Parliament, being of such numbers, is easily divided and far too easily sometimes facilitates what is a common view reached by the Council and by the Commission.

I must stress firstly that Parliament, in my view, should not be under any pressure to sign up completely to the proposed first-reading text in this regard. The most important thing is that we reach a fair compromise that is the best option available for this House and for the citizens we represent, while noting what our colleague, Mr Szájer has said. If this means waiting for a second-reading agreement, then so be it. As I said, the rule must be that if Council is involved, Parliament is involved. We are codecision makers, colegislators in this regard.

As the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development, I feel it is of paramount importance that we assert the independence of Parliament and that the Commission respect both institutions. I am not sure that this ‘compromise’ achieves that.

  Saïd El Khadraoui, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. − (NL) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for his work on what is a complex and very technical dossier, but one that is, nonetheless, very important for our future activities.

The old comitology procedure with four different options was not unknown to us, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and we have been familiar for a long time with how to deal with implementing decisions. However, with regard to the adjustments which need to be made under the Treaty of Lisbon, I would like to say that we support the compromises which the rapporteur has agreed with the Council. There are, nevertheless, two things which we consider need your attention.

First of all, we want the maximum flow of information to Parliament and also the maximum involvement of Parliament in the preparation of the Committee’s decisions.

Secondly, I would like to emphasise the importance of a good approach to the transitional period, and in that respect we ask the Commission to be generous in favour of Parliament when reforming the comitology procedure, as defined in the acquis, to the new delegated and implementing acts, where the choice between the two procedures may be open to debate.

Therefore, this does not apply to the reform alone, but also to the application of the current acquis ahead of any reform.

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. − Mr President, I worry that rejecting the inclusion of delegated acts in financial instruments might set a dangerous precedent for other policies. It also raises interinstitutional distrust and we are all concerned by this situation.

The forthcoming proposals on the legislative package for regional policy after 2013 might require application of implementing acts, but might also require delegated acts. We cannot accept the prior exclusion of delegated acts. This should be a matter of negotiation among the colegislators on a case-by-case basis.

This position is, in my view, consistent politically and legally and I believe that the Council and the Commission will evidently share it with Parliament. Ahead of us lie a number of difficult years, without doubt. Our duty as European institutions is to make the most of our policies, and by avoiding unnecessary conflicts and procedures we can be more effective in this common task.

  Paolo De Castro, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I am deeply disappointed for several reasons with the contents of Mr Szájer’s report, which is being voted on tomorrow.

Firstly, none the amendments voted for by my committee unanimously – and I stress, unanimously – were taken into account, even though the common agricultural policy is one of the policies with the most acts adopted under the comitology procedure and is therefore one of the ones most affected by the adaptation of legislative acts under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Secondly, under the text of Article 10, the European Parliament will have no power to exert pressure nor a margin to negotiate with Council over the adaptation of CAP legislation to the new treaty.

We are aware, in fact, that the Council has already demonstrated its unwillingness to agree acts delegated to the European Parliament and, with the adoption of this Regulation, the Council will not have any interest in proceeding with negotiations because the automatic adaptation – which excludes delegated acts and only covers implementing acts – has no deadline because it is transitional.

For this reason, together with other fellow Members, I tabled an amendment that makes the automatic alignment genuinely temporary and I call on you all to support it in order to reinforce the role of the European Parliament. There is no reason, in fact, to come to an agreement at first reading over such a sensitive file that sets the rules for implementing the treaty for the coming years. This is the reason why, for this all-important file, we have the right – I would even go so far as to say the duty – to improve the text as much as possible and therefore proceed to a second reading without giving in to blackmail by the Council, which is threatening not to move on this file in order to force us to accept this negative agreement.

After the budget, I think this is the most important file we have to vote on, because it redraws the balance of power between the European institutions. Here in this Chamber, we must vigorously defend the prerogatives of Parliament, which has been democratically elected and represents all European citizens.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon introduces substantial changes to the process of developing and implementing EU legislation, by distinguishing between delegated acts and implementing acts. The previous primary legislation only provided for implementing measures.

This regulation is essential for an orderly transition from the old system to the new system, and for appropriate use of the implementing powers granted to the Commission by the Treaty of Lisbon. It strengthens the democratic principle because it recognises Parliament’s right to control, increases transparency through the annual report and incorporates a review clause in order to perfect it based on experience. It therefore satisfies the requests that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs had made in this respect.

In the area of financial services, it will help to increase legal security and the effectiveness of legislation. It complements the objective of the Omnibus Directive of limiting the powers entrusted to the Commission in the old framework that are compatible with the current framework to a period of three years from the entry into force of the new Treaty, and establishes provisions so that the technical implementing standards, which are part of the new supervision structure and the sectoral regulations in the area of financial services, can eventually be adopted.

Therefore, as the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I view the report positively and I congratulate Mr Szájer.

I would like to thank the President for his generosity and to give you all my best wishes for this festive season and for the coming year.

  Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a series of explanations are needed, including here in plenary, with regard to misleading debates which have taken place in the groups, in the Conference of Committee Chairs and in some cases in the committees.

First of all, this regulation is not about deciding what delegated acts are under the terms of Article 290 and what implementing acts are under the terms of Article 291. This regulation will definitely not come to a decision on this. This is decided in the basic act. In other words, the law itself will decide on the authority under the terms of Article 290 or Article 291, if provision is made for this. The regulation only covers the procedure in the case of Article 291.

My second point concerns the criticism of Article 10. This article also relates only to the procedure and nothing else. In this context, the Commission has once again clarified that it does, of course, intend to review all the existing acts from the pre-Lisbon period as part of the alignment and to make new proposals to both legislative bodies: Parliament and the Council. This has been reinforced once again in comparison with the previous Interinstitutional Agreement.

The only thing which is really new is the procedure for external trade. I admit that the compromise which the Belgian Presidency has come up with is rather bureaucratic. There is no doubt about that. However, given the two blocking minorities in the Council, this was the only possible solution.

For me, this question is all about weighing up the benefits. We also need to weigh up, as the rapporteur has said, what Parliament has negotiated. We have a procedure for reviewing implementing acts which is not provided for in the treaty. That is a very significant step forward, in particular with regard to the involvement of Parliament, which goes beyond the terms of the treaty. Therefore, when the benefits are weighed up, it is clear that this deserves our support. This is why I am in favour of the report as it is, without amendments. We will not be able to achieve any more in the first reading than we could achieve in a later conciliation process after an unspecified period.

  Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, the regulation that is being discussed today has been largely disregarded by all the committees over a long period. However, some people in this House have now woken up at the end of the process when the results are on the table. Some of them have unfortunately not attended the debate, which is a pity because it would have been very interesting to hear their views.

As a former member, I have a clear memory of the spirit of the convention. It called openly for the European Parliament to be given specific rights in several areas, to ensure that it remained credible in the context of the institutions and with regard to the citizens.

Despite the convention’s demands, nothing was done. The very tough negotiations which the Belgian Presidency had with the Council were what enabled important progress to be made. I remember what Mr Lehne said. It was a question of the permanent possibility of investigating whether the Commission had exceeded its powers.

Of course, some of the regulations are not exactly ideal, such as the international trade agreement, but nevertheless I agree with the outcome. I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency. It has made every effort to ensure that something was achieved. I would also like to thank the rapporteur, who negotiated sympathetically and intelligently.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when we vote on Mr Szájer’s report tomorrow, we will give the go-ahead for one of the new instruments – on implementing acts – contained in the Treaty of Lisbon.

This will simplify the old comitology system. It is a measure that will ensure greater transparency during the adoption of legislative acts, regulating methods of control by Member States over the exercise of powers conferred on the Commission. The fundamental importance of the Regulation has made the legislative procedure complicated both at inter-institutional level and within Parliament where, however, because of the involvement – albeit belated – of all committees, I hope it will be possible to adopt the proposal at first reading.

I therefore congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for succeeding in achieving the priority objectives for the European Parliament: I refer to the guarantees to align the current comitology procedures with the new procedure, the right to scrutiny by Parliament and the Council, the creation of an appeal committee chaired by the Commission and the inclusion of a review clause that will make it possible to evaluate the efficiency of the procedure.

Allow me a final comment on what was the last obstacle to the negotiations: the inclusion of the common commercial policy within the scope of the future Regulation. Although the final agreement will allow the application of a simple majority voting system for the adoption of anti-dumping measures during a transitional period of 18 months, subsequently the measures will be adopted by qualified majority. This solution was the outcome of a difficult compromise but I am convinced that it satisfies both the needs of industry and the European Union executive, removing decisions of a technical nature from the risk of dangerous politicisation.

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I totally disagree with the last speakers. Personally, I find that this measure is harmful to the priorities of Parliament and is against the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon.

We are about to conclude 70% of the agreements at first reading with the Council, but I fail to understand the rush to conclude such a sensitive measure as this at first reading since it concerns the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, which has extended our powers, particularly on commercial policy. At the very opening of the anti-dumping procedures, we are changing from the objectivity of legal certainty to an intervention by Member States, which threatens to become the outcome of bargaining between the Commission and Member States.

I therefore think it is a step backwards, as is automatic alignment without any time limits from the old comitology system to the present system in the agricultural field, which strengthens the role of Parliament.

Therefore, I do not believe it is wise to rush into an agreement with the Council at first reading, because we also run the risk of disputes before the Court of Justice.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for all the contributions, which reflect how complex an issue we are dealing with.

Allow me to react to some of the comments. Concerning the review and our commitment to it in relation to all the relevant acts, we have here an extremely ambitious plan and I have been discussing it with Mr Lehne during our framework agreement discussions: we have 299 plus 153 acts to align. I think that if we say we would like to do it within the period of this legislature, it is a very ambitious plan. If I say it is ‘our’ ambition, I mean that on behalf of the three institutions because this clearly requires loyal cooperation from all of us.

I would like to assure Mr Mitchell of the Commission’s utmost respect for Parliament.

I would like to highlight one paragraph in the draft Commission statement which is attached to the proposal. I will just read it out: ‘While this alignment exercise is under way, the Commission will keep the European Parliament regularly informed on draft implementing measures related to these instruments which should become, in the future, delegated acts.’ So our commitment to transparency and clarity is absolutely clear. I would also like to confirm, here in this House, that we will offer Parliament the maximum amount of information. Parliament will receive all information at the same time as the committees, so we will do our utmost to keep Parliament informed also in this procedure.

I think I have to thank Mr Lehne for clarifying the situation in the debate. What we are discussing today are implementing acts, and this regulation does not prejudge in any way whether we should use delegated or implementing acts in the future.

Concerning the issue of alignment, I think Mr De Castro was not here when I was reading out the agreed statement of the Belgian Presidency with a full commitment to loyal cooperation to achieve this ambitious goal of full alignment in the coming years. I think there is a reassurance here that it is not only in Parliament’ interests, but also in the Commission’s and the Council’s interests to proceed very quickly. I think this is very clear and I am sure that we will honour this agreement.

Concerning the issue of politicisation of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, I think, actually, that we will see the opposite, because you know what the system is today: that a simple majority of the Member States’ representatives can block a Commission proposal. This would be much more difficult in the future because you would need a qualified majority of the Member States representatives to block it. So I think that what we are doing here will actually strengthen the Union approach and strengthen the position of the Commission in the trade talks, exactly as prescribed and projected by the Treaty of Lisbon.

If you will allow me, I will conclude by underlining the importance of legal certainty in this matter because, of course, when we are dealing with sensitive issues like trade, like anti-dumping measures, like countervailing measures, we need to have very well established procedures and we need to have a clear division of roles and responsibilities. Parliament needs the very clear scrutiny rights which have been given to it by the Treaty of Lisbon, and we need the legal certainty to operate in this very important legislative area because you know how often these measures are disputed in various international fora.

Therefore, I would plead with the honourable Members to support these proposals without amendment because I think they are really good for the position of the European Union in world affairs.

  József Szájer, rapporteur. − Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for their contributions, both now and during the last nine months we have been working on this issue.

First, a procedural thing. Many colleagues have voiced their worries about the fact that we are rushing into a first-reading agreement under pressure from the Council. Both the Commission and Council and several colleagues involved in the negotiations can testify that the pressure was the opposite. It was Parliament and myself who said to the Council that if it did not reach agreement then the whole thing could fall apart.

We got a very clear commitment from both the other institutions because like Parliament, as Mr Šefčovič just mentioned, they are for the stability of the Treaty of Lisbon. The later we accept, the later we adopt this kind of regulation, the longer the old comitology procedure – which we do not like because of its many problems – will go on. From that point of view, nine months is not a short time and could encompass two readings. There has been full transparency, and several colleagues can bear witness to that.

I have been in the Conference of Committee Chairs six times during these nine months and have also met with shadows and coordinators from all the committees. It was I who decided to go for agreement because we were getting everything I wanted. Maybe the Council and the Commission do not like it, but we got everything.

What does a rapporteur do when everything I and the different committees requested is there, although perhaps not in the form we want? Mr De Castro is right. His requests are not in the form of the text of this regulation, but this is about implementing acts, and they are there in the Commission’s commitment. I have done this alignment – the omnibus – before, and the same commitment was given by the Commission, which it honoured with very minor exceptions. In that sense, I thought I could trust this promise and if the Commission does not honour it, I will stand up and claim it and align, as Mr De Castro is doing.

In that sense, there is no pressure. The pressure came from me. Through good cooperation in many difficult negotiations we agreed on something which I can unreservedly offer to the House to take on board.

Thank you very much to everybody, especially to the colleagues who took part in this very difficult process. I apologise to the general public, which does not understand a word of what we are discussing, but I can definitely say that transparency and parliamentary control of European Union issues will be much better after this regulation is adopted.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This legislative initiative on the control of ‘executive instruments’ by the Commission has been imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which includes this under the legislative powers of the European Parliament. It is also undeniably a positive piece of legislation overall, taking account of the existing situation.

But several aspects fall short of full compliance with the Treaty of Lisbon. Amongst these negative aspects, two stand out. Firstly, there is no cut-off point for mandatory adaptation of the countless existing situations to the new system and to the Treaty of Lisbon. It was for this reason that I tabled an amendment introducing such a clause. Secondly, and principally, the derogations provided for in the case of trade defence instruments (specifically anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures, as well as safeguard measures), according to which Member States will have more intrusive control over the Commission, are unacceptable, as they will make it more difficult to apply these measures and will lead to their politicisation. These measures are essential for defending European companies from competition from imports that benefit from such illicit benefits.

There is no constitutional or political basis for this discriminatory treatment of commercial defence measures, which undermines the ability of the Commission (and the Union) to defend European industry against unfair competition from outside its own European internal market.

20. Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes

21. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 20.50)