Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 19 January 2011 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

2. International adoption in the EU (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

3. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

4. Conclusions of the European Council meeting on 16-17 December (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statements by the European Council and the European Commission on the conclusions of the European Council meeting on 16-17 December. Pursuant to the Treaty, the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, will make a presentation of the report.

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. – First of all, I wish you a Happy New Year! As simple as that and I wish it for you personally and I wish it for our Union, in these difficult times. As the last European Council is already a month behind us, let me remind you that I already give a full report each time to your Conference of Presidents on the results of the European Council just a few hours after every meeting.

At the December European Council, we focused on the first day on economic issues and on the second day on foreign policy. On economic policy, we reached some important conclusions. First, we decided on the proposal for a limited Treaty amendment required to establish a permanent mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the eurozone as a whole. Following our agreement, in principle, in our October meeting that such a Treaty change is needed, I had consulted the members of the European Council about its possible wording and content. I secured agreement on a text consisting of two sentences, to be added to Article 136 of the Treaty. I quote:

‘The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality’.

It is an essential piece in our efforts to make Europe more crisis-proof. It is important, not just for legal certainty, but also for market credibility. As this amendment will not increase the competences of the Union, all members of the European Council agreed that it was appropriate to use a simplified revision procedure. This now requires an opinion from your Parliament, as well as from the European Commission and the Central Bank. We hope to secure your approval. I need hardly remind you of the importance of proceeding as rapidly and as smoothly as possible in this matter in a period where market volatility remains a concern.

I know that you, and your responsible committees, have been following this matter closely, not least during the work of the Task Force on Economic Governance which I chaired and which gave rise to meetings between myself and the seven chairs of the parliamentary committees most involved. I would like to thank President Buzek for his contribution on this at the European Council and for informing us of Parliament’s willingness to proceed quickly in considering this matter.

With the benefit of your opinion, the European Council will be able to turn this draft decision into a full decision at its March meeting. Then, the Treaty amendment will have to be approved in each Member State. The aim is for the amendment to enter into force on 1 January 2013 at the latest, so that the permanent mechanism itself can be in place in June 2013.

The European Council also examined what could be the key features of the future mechanism. Already in October, we had asked the Commission to undertake the preparatory work. This resulted in a statement by the Eurogroup Finance Ministers on 28 November, which was fully endorsed at the European Council meeting. It foresees that the future European Stability Mechanism will be designed on the basis of the current mechanism, so IMF involvement is provided for. The EU will continue to adhere strictly to standard IMF and international practices. Concerning the role of the private sector, decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, so private sector involvement will not be a prior requirement for support under the future Stability Mechanism.

Finally, the European Council also had a very good and in-depth exchange of views on recent economic developments and on how to deal with the challenges for all European economies, short-term and long-term. The President of the Central Bank was also present and a statement by the Heads of State or Government of the eurozone and the EU institutions present was welcomed by the European Council. This discussion confirmed the sense of determination and unity amongst the Member States and the institutions. Everybody around the table shared the basic analysis. I insist: all 27 agree, even if the analysis focuses particularly on the current 17 euro countries. We thus have a joint will to make our economies more resistant to crises and to enhance structural economic growth in Europe.

Let me mention the elements of this joint approach, which reflects the statement adopted. Three points concern work to be done by the national governments: first, fiscal responsibility; second, stimulating growth; and third, the two countries with support programmes are forcefully implementing the necessary measures and we all welcome the efforts of those two governments, of Greece and Ireland, and their populations.

Two other points concern work to be done by the Member States and the institutions of the European Union together. Firstly, the European Council asks the other institutions, not least your Parliament, to make sure that the agreements reached in October, on the basis of the Task Force which I chaired, regarding the Stability Pact and macro-economic surveillance, are in place by the summer. It is our common duty. Secondly, we agree to conduct new stress tests in the banking sector to ensure full transparency in the broader context of the EU annual exercise.

Our determination is clear. The Heads of State or Government of the eurozone and the EU institutions ‘stand ready to do whatever is required to ensure the stability of the eurozone as a whole’. Work is going on to develop these elements of this overall approach.

On the second day of our meeting, we focused on our relations with strategic partners. Cathy Ashton presented progress reports on how to deal with strategic partners and I briefed colleagues about the positive outcome of three recent summit meetings, namely: the summit with President Obama, where we opened new avenues for transatlantic cooperation on growth, jobs and security, such as green growth and cyber-security; the summit with President Medvedev in which we reached the bilateral agreement on Russia’s WTO accession, a major achievement; and the summit with Prime Minister Singh of India, which showed good progress for an ambitious and balanced free trade agreement, hopefully with a result in the first semester of this year, and which also produced a joint declaration on international terrorism.

These meetings all showed that, for our partners, the European Union is not only an economic union and a trade bloc, but also a geopolitical partner.

The European Council also decided to give Montenegro the status of candidate country. It underlines the conviction within the European Council that the countries of the Western Balkans have a European vocation.

Finally, we agreed also on the position on Côte d’Ivoire, in line with what the Ministers of Foreign Affairs decided a few days previously, sending a clear signal on the need to respect the results of democratic elections.

As you know, the European Council, on 4 February, will deal principally with our growth agenda. Innovation and energy – especially energy security – are key in this regard. In March, we will have our first exercise of what is called the European Semester. It must not be a bureaucratic process but a real occasion to have an in-depth discussion on the state of play of our economy and the actions to be taken.

Colleagues, we know of course that we have to strengthen and deepen economic coordination and convergence inside the eurozone. We will work as much as possible in a comprehensive framework and I am convinced we will find the necessary consensus.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, last year, the European Union faced a series of stern tests and December’s European Council has shown just how determined we are to take whatever decisions are necessary to defend our achievements. In particular, by agreeing to establish a European Stability Mechanism and to make the linked Treaty change, we have demonstrated our total commitment to supporting the euro area and the Member States that use it for the benefit of the entire EU.

The Commission will adopt its formal opinion on the text of the Treaty change before the Spring European Council. We will certainly play our part in explaining to Europe’s citizens why this limited change deserves support. This agreement allows us to step up a gear and the Commission will work closely with Finance Ministers to iron out details of the permanent Stability Mechanism before the Spring European Council. Although this will be an intergovernmental mechanism, which was the only option the Member States could consider, it is important that it is set up in a manner fully consistent with the Treaty and that it reinforces our stability rules, in accordance with the principles and instruments of budgetary surveillance.

These decisions are linked to the wider range of measures we are taking as part of our approach to dealing with both the economic crisis and its consequences and the need to generate growth with jobs. The European Council has recognised that. The Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the European institutions in particular have also made it clear that they stand ready to do whatever is required to ensure the stability of the euro area as a whole. In particular, the Heads called for determined action in ensuring the availability of adequate financial support through the European Financial Stability Facility pending the entry into force of the permanent mechanism. These were the conclusions of the last European Council.

The European Council also called for accelerated adoption by June of the Commission’s economic governance proposals from last September. It recognised the important role the Europe 2020 strategy will also have in returning Europe to sustainable growth. The European Union Semester, which we launched last week with the Annual Growth Survey, ties all these trends together. I believe it breaks new ground, improving decisively the way in which we manage and coordinate our interdependent economies in the European Union. It is bringing in genuine European economic governance. This is our new economic governance at work – governance that should be the comprehensive response to the crisis.

The Commission has signalled this very clearly in the Annual Growth Survey. Let me just concentrate on that because I think, based also on the very important conclusions of the December European Council, it is now more important than ever to look at the next steps. I believe a new reality is emerging. The politics of economic governance and economic coordination have changed and this is not just because the so-called federalists wanted it. The markets want it. Our international partners want it. It is a matter of simple common sense and we are delivering it and will continue to deliver it.

The new European Semester combines tighter fiscal rules by reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact with effective economic coordination. It offers ex-ante coordination, which means we discuss each other’s policies, both economic and fiscal, before they are adopted. We are no longer looking back to introduce corrections, but are looking ahead to give guidance.

This ex-ante approach is at the heart of what makes this a historic step for the European Union. Effectively, we are introducing a genuine European dimension into national budgetary and economic policy making. From now on, we will be helping to shape policies upfront rather than assessing and trying to correct them afterwards.

The final decisions on national budgets will, of course, be taken by national parliaments. That is right and proper, but this new form of economic governance simply reflects a rational response to a new reality. When we see the level of interdependence in the euro area and the European Union as a whole, a country should be able to take decisions knowing what its neighbours intend to do. This sharing of information empowers and strengthens national parliaments. It does not undermine their authority.

The Annual Growth Survey launches this process and its key messages are clear: bring back stability, do not delay structural reforms any longer, and speed up growth-enhancing measures. First, we need to re-establish stability by consolidating public finances. Unless we balance the books, we will not restore confidence in Europe’s economies. If we do not restore confidence, we will risk economic stagnation and all the negative social consequences that flow from that, especially for employment.

But we have to approach this in a sober and well thought-out way. Fiscal consolidation does not mean reducing debt by taking a slash-and-burn approach to spending. It is more than anything a matter of prioritising and some areas – innovation, education, new forms of energy – are good candidates for such priority treatment.

The second key message from the Annual Growth Survey is to push forward with structural reforms so that we can create new job opportunities. The choice is a simple one: do we want jobless growth or growth with jobs? If the latter, then there are a few things we are going to have to do. We need to urge Member States to focus this year on labour market reform so that we can remove obstacles to higher employment levels. We need to help people get back to work or find new jobs by making work more attractive. We need to reform pension systems and make sure that the unemployed are not left worse-off when they find work.

Let me be quite clear: structural reform does not mean reducing our level of social protection, but it does mean bringing in those who are currently excluded from the labour market, especially our young people. Levels of youth unemployment in some Member States, even in good times, are a scandal. Anyone who truly cares about a social Europe knows this cannot continue. In the face of increased international competition, we can only sustain our social market economy if we adapt.

The third key message in the Annual Growth Survey is to frontload and speed up measures that are growth enhancing. Our Europe 2020 programme is central to this. We must focus on measures that have clear economic benefits in the short to medium term and which lend themselves to relatively fast adoption. That means investing in areas that derive growth, unleashing the full potential of our single market, increasing investment in energy, transport and IT infrastructure – in part, through innovative financing, including, we believe, the European Union project bonds – and continuing to press for a conclusion of the Doha Round, while pushing forward free trade agreements with key partners. All of this needs to be reflected in the next multiannual financial framework proposal. Europe’s next budget must be a growth-enhancing budget.

Ladies and gentlemen, our economies are starting to move in the right direction. The recovery has taken hold and is currently progressing in the real economy. This year, we should see GDP growth at around 1.5%, rising to 2% of GDP in 2012. Europe’s manufacturing sector has improved markedly in recent months. We should also see a steady improvement in employment prospects and we are starting to see public deficits decline, thanks primarily to the consolidation measures already taken, supported in some cases by a resumption of growth. In the European Union, the government deficit is expected to decline from 6.8% this year to 4.2% of GDP in 2012 on average.

But to breathe a sigh of relief and slip back into bad habits would be a grave error. The world has changed. We cannot return to the old ways of doing things. If we do not act now, in the face of the biggest crisis since the beginning of European integration, when will Member States be ready to take real steps for economic policies that are consistent with the goals they have themselves set? If it is not us at European level, who will encourage them to take those decisions, who will do it? Only by sorting out our debt and stabilising finances can we move from crisis management to fostering growth – not any kind of growth of course, but sustainable, inclusive growth.

That means structural reforms, many of which we have been advocating for several years – reforms that challenge all structures but do so to reduce prices and increase opportunities for new jobs and innovative ways of doing things. I really believe we have a responsibility towards our citizens to choose the path of growth with jobs. The Annual Growth Survey points the way.

So let us now commit seriously to proper economic policy coordination and real common European economic governance for all our citizens. Thank you for your attention.

[Applause]

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, the last European Council clearly showed that the euro is a vital pillar of European integration. Everything possible must be done to stabilise and strengthen it.

Our Heads of State or Government have since confirmed their deep attachment to the European currency and the fact that Estonia is joining the euro area at the beginning of this year is yet another signal in this direction, as well as setting a very good example of how to respect standards to the major countries that fail to respect them.

That said, no one underestimates the seriousness of what Europe is going through economically and socially within the euro area. Everything possible must be done in 2011 to overcome these problems and to reassure the markets, not superficially but structurally, in other words, by creating the right conditions for growth and employment in the long term. I think we are speaking the same language on this issue.

Firstly, this means that national public finances must be restored to better health. Push hard for this, let us not give in! Secondly, it means that the Member States must get their fiscal policies to converge more closely, and also their taxation and social policies.

It also means that we must come to a swift agreement on the euro area bail-out fund and that this fund only makes sense if it is backed up by strict enforcement of the fiscal discipline rules. Our citizens must know that the countries they are assisting in difficult circumstances are keeping a very strong check on their public accounts; otherwise, they will no longer agree to stump up, if I may put it that way.

Finally, as I said, we must create the conditions for growth and employment. That also implies completing the European internal market, investing more in research and innovation, and in lifelong education and training. My group wants the EU approach to be promoted over the intergovernmental approach in all these areas, quite simply because it is far more effective and far more sustainable.

Mr Van Rompuy, I call on you to ensure that reform of the Treaty, confirmed at the last European Council, be concluded as soon and as swiftly as possible.

The budget debate is only just beginning. My group will continue to call for a thorough review of European public finances in forthcoming years, with the aim of once again creating the conditions for growth and employment in Europe.

Mr Barroso, let us scrutinise everything, let us not be afraid and, as I have already said several times, let us take two or three different examples of budgets: for example, how can we pull Europe out of its current situation with 1%, 2% or 5%? We will not succeed by reducing resources. If we want to create jobs, we need more European resources, and this does not mean that the Member States have to spend more money.

Let us not be afraid, President van Rompuy and President Barroso. Put these proposals to us and we, the Heads of State or Government, as well as Parliament, will be forced to find the right solution – but at least let us have a number of options from which to choose.

  Stephen Hughes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, December’s European Council at least gave us political agreement on a permanent crisis resolution mechanism but – given the reaction of the markets after Christmas, with new fears over the solvency of Portugal, Spain, and Belgium – we have to ask whether, once again, this was a case of ‘too little too late’. The proposed European stabilisation mechanism itself raised new questions on the financial markets and the existing Financial Stability Mechanism is now regarded as insufficient. Opportunities have been missed again.

In December, Parliament sent a clear signal to the Council on eurobonds but there has been no constructive response from either the Council or the Commission. What we have had ever since 2008 is repeated hesitation and internal wrangling between Member States and the institutions, and each time, a painfully extracted response – but produced too late and constituting less than what was required.

The clearest illustration of the problem is the fact that, in the face of today’s economic and monetary challenges, we simply do not have the tools we need. They are inappropriate or non-existent. Our institutional decision-making processes are complex and lacking in democracy, and our economic policy strategy is divided and ineffective.

The financial markets are not keeping the pressure on us just because of high debt and deficit levels, President Barroso: they are also doing so because they want compensation for the risk of lending money to a project that seems incapable of reaching maturity or fulfilling its own destiny.

What is holding the eurozone together today is less the dream of the founding fathers than simply the nightmare of the alternative: total collapse of the system. The abject failure to deal with the crisis is driving the European project into political deadlock. What chance is there, right now, of a stronger and more democratic set of institutions emerging from a revised Treaty?

Intelligent calls for more political integration, like that last week from the head of the German Bundesbank, really do not stand a chance. Against this background, I am shocked, President Barroso, at the frontal attack by the Commission on social Europe and the interference with national labour markets, as in the case of Ireland. The annual growth survey is indeed a frontal attack on long-established, socially and economically essential workers’ rights and on the very concept of collective bargaining.

If this is validated by the European Council, it is a strategy which, in my view, is the worst imaginable in the situation we currently face. Not only will it be exposed as economic lunacy, but it will be profoundly damaging to the European project.

Big ideas can fail, Mr President, and I really worry about this European project. As history tells us, people will deny the possibility of failure right up to the last moment. Let us recognise the possibility of failure.

Mr Farage is nodding. The failure to act, President Van Rompuy, President Barroso, is feeding ammunition to Mr Farage and his allies. Let us act, for heaven’s sake!

  Sylvie Goulard, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, I would like to make two comments on the conclusions of last December’s European Council.

The first comment involves reminding you that the crisis is having a most singular impact on the Union for one simple reason: we have been a legal community from the very beginning and, in a legal community, the law is particularly important. It is not a question of undermining compliance with the law, but when dealing with such a serious crisis – as the Annual Growth Survey that you have just published reminds us, Mr President – it is time for action, not legalism.

You tell us that this revision of the Treaties is essential to reassure the markets. In the first place, if you would permit me to be slightly impertinent, it seems to me that the meetings were not particularly reassured after the conclusion of the October European Council meeting. Really do take care, therefore, when your intention is to reassure the markets. Just think what would happen if this revision were to fail.

I come from a country that has experienced the trauma of a negative referendum with no Plan B. You were there already, Mr Barroso. Sometimes we need to consider what happens when we say to the markets, ‘We need to change the Treaties, it must all be done by this date’, and then hope that it will be done. Clearly, therefore, you are choosing the simplified procedure in the hope that it will happen. If it does happen, though, you might reassure the markets, but certainly not the people.

Therein lies my second point: much ado about nothing. You are changing the Treaties for a point of law. You are not changing them in order to give citizens the answers they are waiting for. There are six of us rapporteurs here working on the ‘economic governance’ package that the Commission has produced without the need to change the Treaties. We agreed to work without the need to change the Treaties, but along the way, we were told, ‘We are going to change the Treaties’. It looks like we are saying to people that we can change the Treaties, that we can go that far amid all the legal red tape, but that when it really comes down to it, we are not doing it either for the 2020 strategy to be taken seriously or for them to have jobs and growth.

On top of all that, then, the December European Council is asking us to speed up our work. Very well, let us speed up! I would like the Council to speed up, Mr Van Rompuy. Parliament has already presented its reports. There is a very easy way to go faster: you move closer to our positions and we stop thinking of codecision as a procedure by which the Council decides and Parliament adjusts.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, my main memory of the last Council meeting was not reflected in your summary and, therefore, I would like to sum the meeting up in a different way. From today’s perspective, the most important thing which I remember is that during the summit of the Heads of State or Government in Brussels, the rating agency Moody’s downgraded Ireland’s credit rating.

That was the point at which we all became aware of the extent of our failure to manage the crisis, which we still have to deal with today. Anyone who compares the key figures for the debt crisis from different countries can only be surprised at how successful the speculation against the euro has been. In the meantime, one country which has much greater problems than Portugal and Spain, namely the USA, remains completely untouched by the war that the speculators are waging on the euro. That is the current state of affairs.

A new year has started and we have new problems to contend with. We should be dealing here and now with the problem that we predicted during the meeting, in other words, that what was decided in the meeting would not be enough. I believe that we have all realised by now that many European countries are in difficulties. They have a huge burden of debt, including both private debt and an unacceptable level of public debt. Many of the Member States of the European Union will not be able to resolve their problems without help.

What should our next step be? We believe that simply reducing national debt, as many countries are beginning to do, with the encouragement of the European Union and its joint resolutions, is not sufficient on its own and that these countries are being pushed to the limits of what is acceptable. A new agreement needs to be reached concerning how this can work in a genuinely acceptable way. I believe that developments like those in Hungary, for example, are sending out a warning signal about what happens when the distribution of wealth in the countries of the European Union is too unjust and the divide is too great. During the process of reducing public debt, we must pay much more attention to fairness than we have done so far.

In addition, we believe, and I would like to make this very clear, that the banking sector must be restructured. We are not convinced that we can justify increasing the debt burden even further in order to rescue the ‘walking dead’ in this area. I would like to endorse fully what Mrs Goulard has said. We need an approach which will allow us to prepare Europeans for the future in the context of a Green New Deal and to set a new course in this crisis. I would like to emphasise once again that Europe is a wonderful place to live and we have a lot to do to ensure that it remains that way.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the European Council took important decisions about the future management of crises, but I agree with President Barroso that the underlying problems remain: the need to return to fiscal discipline and the reluctance by some Member States to pursue seriously economic reform.

We were told that in a single currency, Member States would no longer be able to devalue their way out of trouble, and would instead have to reform their economies to make them more competitive. Whilst a superficially attractive proposition, many of us were right not to be taken in as this has proved a false prospectus. Some Member States were able to find other solutions to prop up their economies artificially: through asset-price inflation, in part, caused by an unsuitably low interest rate and a refusal to take corrective action by other means; or by injecting borrowed public funds on an unsustainable scale and, in some cases, to cover up the size of the resulting fiscal deficit.

Whilst, of course, we must find solutions to deal with the immediate consequences of these policies, and fiscal retrenchment is essential, we must equally importantly commit ourselves to economic reform: to extend labour market flexibility to create jobs, to open markets and remove barriers to trade, and to stimulate private investment so that we can fill the void left by reduced public sector spending.

The financial and economic crisis made large-scale government intervention in the economy unavoidable – but we must not confuse the palliative with the cure. The long-term solution does not lie in bigger government. It lies in economic growth being generated by successful businesses and entrepreneurs, operating in competitive markets, which are able to deliver value to the consumer and create jobs for our citizens.

That is why the Europe 2020 strategy, the Single Market Act, and the Innovation Union, for example, are so essential and must be given the attention they merit. The stakes are high. Whilst we have been dealing with this immediate crisis, other countries around the world – some with political values that seem very different to our own – have been forging ahead. If we do not come out of this crisis on a progressive path to reform, we will be condemned to inexorable relative decline with the most profound consequences for the promotion of our values and, indeed, for the future of the planet.

  Joe Higgins, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, the permanent Financial Stability Mechanism in practice is nothing more than another tool to cushion major European banks from the consequences of their reckless speculation on the financial markets. It is a mechanism to make working class people throughout Europe pay for the crisis of a broken financial system and a crisis-ridden European capitalism.

Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy, tell me this morning – because you have not done so yet – about the morality of transferring tens of billions of euro of private bad debts by speculators and bankers gambled wildly on the Irish property market and placing those debts on the shoulders of the Irish people who carry no responsibility whatsoever for them. Far from being a bail-out, your IMF-EU intervention in Ireland is a mechanism to make the Irish taxpayers vassals to the European banks. You are destroying our services and the living standards of our people. You claim to be democrats, but you enslave the working people of Europe to the markets, the financial markets, which lead you around by the nose.

Your Financial Stability Mechanism is a vicious weapon dictated by the markets, masquerading as something benign. We, on the left in Ireland, will insist that it goes to a referendum of the Irish people before it is passed.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, what is the most commonly used word in association with the euro? No, it is not ‘failure’ – although it could be. It is ‘stability’, is it not? A decade ago, everybody said that once we had the euro currency, it would bring us stability. Well, a decade on, I would suggest that what it has brought is chaos, discord and misery for millions, and yet the word ‘stability’ is still being used this morning. Mr Barroso used it, Mr Van Rompuy used it: ‘stability’.

In fact, we are patting ourselves on the back because the bond auctions in Portugal went well last week, whereas the reality is that the European Central Bank was actually using taxpayers’ money to buy their own debt. Your reassurances that all is well do not work.

Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Van Rompuy? Bond yields in Portugal rose to nearly 7% yesterday. The public right across the Union no longer supports the currency, and the battle for Spain has not even begun. The model itself is failing and yet what you want is to double the size of the bail-out fund. You even want to increase the scope of the bail-out fund so that, along with the ECB, you, too, can go on buying yet more of your own debt.

You are using the crisis as a massive power grab to take us towards fiscal union. If you succeed, then we should change the name: get rid of ‘European Union’ and call it the ‘Debt Union’. If you do succeed, you will trap those southern countries inside an economic prison, in which people’s suffering will be untold, while the northern countries will find themselves paying, forever, a massive bill and interest rates that are far too high for their own economies. We have reached a point where it actually does not matter what any of you say. Nobody believes you. The public does not support you. I hope and pray the markets break you.

  Barry Madlener (NI). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from all the fine and empty words of Mr Barroso, I have only, for the most part, been able to make out one real point, namely, that it is the job of the rich Member States to pay for the poor Member States, because that is the reality of the matter. It appears that this situation will continue for quite some time. We have to help other countries, we keep hearing, but no one has mentioned how we are actually supposed to do that. The long and short of this, basically, is that Dutch citizens are having to get their wallets out and foot the bill for the weak Member States, some of which joined the euro by fraudulent means.

Mr Barroso says: ‘Choose sustainable growth’. All those empty words, but he has not said how we are supposed to do this. What if it does not work? Why do we not develop a scenario which will enable countries like Greece to reintroduce their own currency? It seems that that is not possible and that you are not prepared to develop scenarios of this kind, although many economists believe that they could, in fact, work very well and that they might well be our best option.

Moving then to creating the conditions for growth and employment. How should we go about that? The general message that I hear is that this should be done by reducing public spending and that is exactly what we in the Netherlands have been doing. And so what does the European Union do? Rewards the Netherlands by spending even more. Do you remember asking for a 6% budget increase for the EU? Obviously, it was mainly Dutch citizens who were supposed to foot that bill, so you lack a great deal of credibility on that score, too.

In brief, my point here is: The Netherlands is paying for the poor countries with declining economic growth in the Netherlands. Dutch citizens are exposed to a risk of EUR 27 billion and that amount seems to do nothing but increase. Every year, we pay EUR 4.5 billion net to the EU, most of which is channelled through to the weak Member States, the EU’s spending is on the rise, while we are having to make cuts and while the value of the euro is continuing to slide, as a result of which the cost to Dutch citizens is rising, too. Mr President, the EU cannot be trusted.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (Blue card question under Rule 149(8) to Nigel Farage) Mr President, it is always – or at least sometimes – amusing to listen to Mr Farage because he knows all the answers, and he asks himself all the questions.

But, Mr Farage, would the alternative of 16, 17 or, indeed, up to 20 different currencies – as we had in the 1990s when the pound sterling collapsed – have been preferable? Would that have improved the current situation in Europe? No economist would agree with you on that, Mr Farage. You cannot simply say that we are living in the past. We are dealing now with issues that concern Europe today. You never answer the question of how to deal with this current situation and with the future. You are a populist and it is too easy for you to answer all your own questions.

  Nigel Farage (EFD). – Mr President, I did say a decade ago that you could not have Greece and Germany put together in the same monetary union and that it would not work. If you go back through history, you find that when people are put together in false currency unions, when governments think they know better than the markets, governments always lose.

You ask me what my solution is today. It is absolutely as plain as a pikestaff. Greece, Portugal and Ireland do not fit inside the euro. What we should be doing, what Mr Van Rompuy should be doing in order to give real leadership, is to be introducing a plan B and to allow these countries to go back to their own currency, to have competitive devaluations and to have a chance, because what we are doing with this policy is killing them off.

  José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, anyone who reads the newspapers today will find out two things: that we are at a crucial point in the sovereign debt crisis, and that the European response is a succession of isolated provisions with no internal consistency.

Even now, we have on the table the European Semester, the economic governance package, the provisional and permanent rescue strategy, the so-called ‘Eurobonds’ to cover part of the sovereign debt that is considered to be secure, plus an action plan based on the European Investment Bank and bonds for specific projects, which is in the proposal that the Commission sent us on the internal market.

The first thing that the rapporteurs are trying to do is to combine all of this and create a complete design, a final picture to be shown to the public. Secondly, this design needs to be a European design that does not divide Europe in two – let us not stumble into a two-speed Europe – and that pursues two objectives with equal intensity: budgetary discipline – as much as is necessary – and economic growth to bring us out of the crisis that we are in.

I have one comment regarding the rescue mechanism to which the President-in-Office of the Council was referring. In his first statement, he said that private investors would participate in the rescue plans, which caused shock and led to a protest by the President of the European Central Bank. It was explained, as Mr Van Rompuy did just now, that firstly, it would be case-by-case – who decides and based on what criteria? – and secondly, that it would be done according to the criteria and policies of the International Monetary Fund. The only case in which the International Monetary Fund has used this type of rescue plan was in Argentina in 2003; it plunged the country into chaos, from which it has still not emerged, and the private bondholders have still not been paid.

Regarding Eurobonds, many issues have been set out here today. I would just like to add two more. It would create a market as liquid as that in the United States, and would give a boost to the euro as a reserve currency, enabling the central banks and sovereign funds to invest their reserves here.

My final comment is that this needs to be complemented by the European Investment Bank and the specific bonds to respond to growth.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, you agreed to chair what is referred to as a Panel of Eminent Persons. It was made up of finance ministers who were threatened with a downgrading of their sovereign debt. Were they capable of providing a panel of eminent persons? The discord that pervades the current debate between Mr Trichet, President Barroso and Chancellor Merkel, just like the turbulence in the markets. tells us that this was not a panel of eminent persons.

You have been asked to manage the euro crisis. We need to manage the euro for the benefit of European citizens and not speculators. For this to happen, you have agreed to a revision of the Treaty for reasons of convenience, even though our Conference of Presidents had said how unnecessary this revision was – words confirmed by the President of the Euro Group.

However, Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, you risk enticing us down a path that could lead us along the route of ‘too little, too late’. Indeed, the day will come when you will need the wisdom of this Parliament, of a convention in order to revise the Treaty, so that we might, in future, have tax harmonisation, a European treasury, loans for mutual debt management and for restoring employment to the heart of our economic policies.

If you do not want the Treaty to be revised, take the bull by the horns and introduce stronger cooperation for the euro area in order to manage the problems and the responsibilities of the Member States of that zone, rather than letting it float as and where the markets take it.

  Martin Callanan (ECR). – Mr President, because this is a matter of such importance to the European economy as a whole, even though (thankfully) my country is not part of the eurozone, I welcome at least some of the measures that were agreed at the eurozone Council, and notably the fact that eurozone countries themselves should be responsible for sorting out their own problems.

I also welcome the somewhat belated recognition from the Council that Article 122 of the Treaty is completely inappropriate for supporting the bail-out mechanism. These are not natural disasters and they were not beyond the control of the Member States concerned. However, in preparing the basis for that mechanism to come into force, perhaps in 2013, we should not forget the fact that we remain very much in crisis now.

The situation is still very dire in a number of Member States: Portugal will almost certainly face difficulties, possibly Spain and possibly Belgium. But what is particularly of concern to me is the effect on natural democracy in these countries. These countries are, in effect, becoming economic protectorates led by Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy and others. The decisions made by national electorates in these countries with regard to the spending priorities they adopt and the economic policies they pursue now have very little effect. They are under the control of Brussels and they are under the control of the international financial institutions.

Once we get through this crisis, we really need to look at restoring democracy in these countries and restoring the will of their national electorates to be in control of their own national economic policies.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, in politics, there are reasonable measures, mistaken measures and improper measures. It is reasonable for Europe to issue European public debt, although Mrs Merkel does not approve. It is reasonable for us in Europe to be able to mutualise part of our sovereign debt, although Mrs Merkel does not approve. However, what is improper is the news that has become public that the European Stability Mechanism and the International Monetary Fund could end up mutualising part of the sovereign debt accumulated by private banks at 6% or 7% interest, in Portugal’s case, after the same banks have financed themselves at 1% interest with the European Central Bank.

Mr Van Rompuy, my question is as follows: how long is Europe going to be expected to be the miracle worker of financial capital? How much longer are we going to go on transforming private debt into public debt? How much longer are we going to force European taxpayers, workers and pensioners to pay debts that have been generated by the private bank sector which is attacking us?

This is the real issue at stake here today.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a law has been passed in the United States requiring the Federal Reserve to detail how much of the USD 3 300 billion rescue package has gone to which banks.

I wonder whether it would be subversive to ask you to adopt the same transparency criteria, unless the finance and banking super-lobby blocks it. Let us consider the situation: what future is there for this forced Union of free countries, which is based on the stronger countries bailing out the weaker ones?

Technically, do we want to acknowledge reality, which is that the euro is a virtually bankrupt currency? How can we think of forcing countries with a weak economy to use it? Is a centralised monetary policy acceptable for countries that have such decidedly diverse interest rates?

Mr Trichet himself, who has denied the danger of the European Central Bank becoming insolvent, does, however, admit that one of the reasons behind increasing its capital is to face up to the credit risk, in other words, the insolvency of the bonds purchased. It is also time for new stress tests on the largest banks and to give greater weight to high-risk bank debts, as the Minister for the Economy has requested.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). – Mr President, the political message from the last Council decisions addressed to speculators, media and the markets is that the EU Member States will do whatever it takes to safeguard the eurozone and defend the euro. Whatever internal discussions take place, whether the financial facility will need to double its capital and the right to buy bonds, whether the Financial Stability Mechanism after 2013 will include trimming or will be ordered to sell eurobonds, are ideas that are not excluded by any Member State. Only the timing is under discussion: whether and when needed and how. Let the media and analysts be under no illusion. The EU will introduce all that is needed, when it is needed.

Regarding the Financial Stability Mechanism, the Council’s decision says that the mechanism is ‘to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the eurozone as a whole’. As a Member from a small Member State, may I ask for reassurances that members like Malta, Cyprus, Estonia or Slovenia will be included, because if they are in trouble, they may not be indispensable for the stability of the whole?

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, we need to acknowledge that, even though it was completely unprepared institutionally and politically, Europe made serious steps to deal with the crisis right from the start. From the application of the support package for Greece nearly a year ago, through to the decisions taken by the last European Council to set up a permanent stability mechanism, important steps forward have been taken. However, continuing and increasing pressure from the markets, which is no longer being exerted solely on the most vulnerable economies in the euro area, prove that our decisions are fragmentary and inadequate, in terms of providing an integrated response to the crisis.

We therefore need an integrated European response to the crisis, which will not replace or overlook the responsibilities of the Member States to keep to their word and restructure their public finances, but which will protect these economies from attacks by the markets and help to ensure that their efforts are successful.

Mr President, a few days ago, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Commission to carry out a feasibility study into the issue of Eurobonds without delay.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, we have reached the end of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Has the Council taken stock of its achievements? No.

If they had done, they would have concluded that poverty has never seen such a sharp increase, and that the number of people living in poverty in this wealthy Europe has now exceeded 100 million, and that the decisions that they have made will only continue to heighten unemployment, inequality and social exclusion. However, the profits of economic and financial groups are proliferating, as are speculative gains from sovereign debt, supported by European Central Bank guidelines, and by the policies of the Council and the Commission.

Is this the purpose of the euro area?

Countries with more fragile economies continue to be pressured and blackmailed, and the governments, confronted by the protests and struggles of the workers, are resorting to repression and violence against trade unions and workers, as happened yesterday in Portugal.

The reason for our protest, our indignation and our firm conviction is that we want a different kind of Europe: one based on social progress; one that respects those who work and fights for their rights. Believe me, we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the workers in their struggle to break with your policies.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, I am happy to say that today is the 19th day of Estonia’s membership of the eurozone, but Estonia has been preparing for this since its accession. Even the design of the Estonian euro coin was already agreed by popular vote six years ago. However, joining the eurozone is not simply a question of individual choice – it is about more solidarity, taking common responsibility and actively contributing to the stability of the continent as a whole.

At a time of economic crisis, moral values and ethics have become more important. We can see that economic potential in itself is not sufficient. What is crucial is whether a country can be trusted as being willing and able to meet its commitments in time and engaging in serious structural reforms.

I welcomed the fact that the Council was able to agree on a European Stability Mechanism, but the practical way to economic growth and stability is, first of all, to complete the single market, and especially the European single digital market. The latter should be integrated into the road map of the European single market, as well as into the European digital agenda.

This could be a real chance to boost European competitiveness in the world. European citizens expect us to ease business-making in the digital sphere where operations like electronic payments and e-identification should be coherent and understandable. A single digital market also requires determined efforts to develop a services market.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, I would like to offer two thoughts.

The first thought concerns the scope of the permanent crisis management mechanism. The non-Member States of the euro area are, in fact, divided into two categories: the United Kingdom and Sweden, which are not obliged to adopt the euro, and the other states which, together with the members, represent 25 states. I would suggest that these states which use the euro should benefit from special treatment in the mechanism, something for which there is no current provision.

Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the national parliaments. The national parliaments are not involved in the simplified procedure, unless it be in the ratification procedures. I propose that the national parliaments be included in the consultation process, on a voluntary basis, since the question arises as to who will provide political control of the future mechanism. Will it be the European Parliament or the national parliaments? As, however, there is no parliamentary dimension to the euro area, we do not know how we are going to provide political control of this mechanism. This is a question that I put to you.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, ladies and gentlemen, I see two major problems with the proposed amendment to Article 136, one of them institutional and the other political.

The institutional one is that Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that monetary policy for the countries whose currency is the euro is the exclusive competence of the Union, but Article 2 provides that exclusive competence may be exercised by the Member States if authorised by the Union. It is difficult to understand why the application of a rule clearly set out in the Treaty should require reform of the Treaty.

Then there is also a political problem: choosing the Treaty reform option, rather than using Article 2 or Articles 352 plus 136, places the European Stability Mechanism, and hence the future of the euro, at the mercy of 27 ratification processes.

Do people realise that if just one of these 27 ratification processes proved unsuccessful, it would then be difficult to find a plan B for the euro? Does the European Council realise that choosing this path puts the future of the euro at great risk?

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, the stability of the euro and the setting up of the crisis management mechanism are our most important operational tasks in triggering growth that will create new jobs and which will, at the same time, reduce Member States’ public debt, with which all Member States agree. However, the completion of these tasks must not force us to postpone issues, the discussion of strategic issues such as innovation, which already took place in December. The next summit in February will be suitable for taking strategic decisions on important issues such as energy. The Hungarian Presidency has begun the preparations for the energy summit. The most important rules have already been laid down last year. The regulation on the security of natural gas supply has entered into force. Mr President, I ask you to put me at ease that the concerns relating to the stability of the euro area will not overrule the matter of the energy summit.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, as you know, the US Government has been forced, for the second time in the present credit crisis, to intervene drastically to support two major banks that collapsed and the insurance organisation ING. Thus, it has pumped USD 700 billion into its banking system in financial aid. Despite these measures, the US economy still needed more help and, without any thought of thrift, the government recently provided another USD 600 billion to get the economy out of the recession. Obviously, the United States of America is printing new money.

Unlike the US economy, the euro area has remained constant to the principle of budgetary discipline and strictly controlled monetary policy, thereby leaving a margin for various speculative enterprises to speculate at the expense of the countries less resistant to pressure. Mr President, I propose that quantitative easing be considered in the euro area; it may prove to be an egg of Columbus.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, there is no doubt that the double­edged sword of Damocles is hanging over Europe – that is, the economic crisis and an increase in nationalism – and both of these have joined forces.

Mr Hughes asked, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, whether it was the dreams of the founding fathers that were holding Europe together at present or the nightmare of its collapse. Unfortunately, this nightmare about its collapse is now the main trend. I would therefore hope that the Commission will show greater strength regarding issues relating to a social Europe. It is very odd that it should be weak on these matters. It is not even a question now of whether policy is governed by the markets or by politics: politics is coming out on to the streets. It is moving towards demonstrations and getting into the hands of various extremist groups and the extreme right. The Commission should therefore prioritise issues relating to a social Europe. Regrettably, though, nothing is happening.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, unlike many speakers, I would like to compliment Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso for at least being proactive in the present crisis and introducing measures which hopefully will be successful in the future. Whether they will or not, we cannot be certain at this point in time. If they are, they will be seen as heroes. If not, they will probably be seen as villains, but give them credit where credit is due. Hopefully, the supervisory architecture will ensure that many of the flaws which led to the present situation will not happen in the future.

Where my own country is concerned, unfortunately, we have had to avail ourselves of a bail-out and that was largely due to the recklessness of our banks and poor governance. In a few months, we will have a new government, and hopefully that will bring political stability, but I would make an appeal to Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso to try and reduce the current interest rate in the bail-out because it is too high and it could cripple the country.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all, this debate has shown the complexity of the crisis and the complexity of the answers. One thing I want to say to you – and it is clearly a huge majority that shares European ideals and need to have a European response – is that we should not be divided by some differences that are not the most important ones.

As some of you said, there is indeed a real challenge – sometimes a threat – to European integration today. We have seen that threat in this debate today. I have heard some comments, nationalistic comments, prejudiced comments that, frankly speaking, I am not used to hearing in the European Parliament.

They were a minority, but those comments were made, trying to deepen divisions between Europeans, so-called rich and so-called poor Europeans. And to those who made those comments – and I am amazed by those comments – against European solidarity, trying to deepen the cleavages between the rich and poor, I say: where were you when Europe was financing your farmers after the war to feed your own people? Where were you when Europe was financing your infrastructures for the development and competitiveness of your countries? Where were you when Europe provided the internal market for selling your services and your products? Where were you when Europe was the basis for the prosperity and growth of your countries after the war?

Only selfish, short-sighted, short-term views can sustain these kinds of statements against European unity. I think this is a serious problem and several of you have highlighted it. My appeal to all those who share the European ideal is that we should be united in trying to have a comprehensive response in a matter that, being serious, we have to admit requires building a consensus. Sometimes that is not easy in a European Union with 27 Member States, with the euro area now with 17 Member States – and I very much welcome Estonia as a new member – and with a process of decision making that is not always the simplest one, in part, because we are based on the principle of democracy. We have not only the European institutions; we have 27 democracies.

The task we have in front of us is extremely difficult. That is why I want to appeal to all those who share the European ideal to not let us be distracted by what can be some differences of policy orientation.

Mr Hughes, I very much respect your concern with social Europe, but let us be completely open about this. What is the best way to support governments like the Greek Government, the Spanish Government, the Portuguese Government, that are led by very distinguished members of our political family. Is it to support the reforms they are taking courageously, or to say simply that those reforms are against European values?

We need structural reforms in Europe, including in the labour sector. This is the reality. If you ask Prime Minister Papandreou, Prime Minister Zapatero, Prime Minister Sócrates, this is exactly what they are doing or they are planning to go even deeper in those reforms. I believe the best way to support the courageous efforts that all of us are trying to make in Europe at different paces is to have the language of truth.

In the current world of competition, with the pressure of some stronger emerging economies now, either we adapt or we will be putting at risk our social market economy. We need it. We will do it, I believe, without calling into question workers’ rights. I want once again – I am going to respond to you in a minute, I have not forgotten your question – I believe it is extremely important that we respect the principles of social dialogue. I said it yesterday, I reaffirm it today. But, in fact, if you do not make this kind of fiscal consolidation and social reform, we will not have confidence, and without confidence, we will not have growth, and without growth, we will not be able to provide employment to our citizens.

To the distinguished Member of this Parliament who comes from Ireland and asked a question suggesting that the problems of Ireland were created by Europe, let me say: the problems of Ireland were created by irresponsible financial behaviour by some Irish institutions and by the lack of supervision in the Irish market. Europe is now part of the solution, it is trying to support Ireland. But it was not Europe that created this irresponsible fiscal situation and this irresponsible financial behaviour.

Europe is trying to support Ireland because it is important to know where the responsibility lies. This is why it is important to those of us – and this is clearly the majority – that believe in European ideals that we are able to have as much as possible a common response.

Another point which was made by some of you was: what is the level of ambition? Once again, let me make clear the position of the Commission. We are for the most ambitious position in terms of integrated response. That is why the Commission will be ready to support some of the measures that some of you have proposed. But we are living a situation where we believe, in times of crisis like this, in times of market instability, that it is critically important that we make a contribution to a consensus regarding Member States and there were, in fact, some divisions on the way to address this crisis.

Revision of the Treaty: you know what was the position of the Commission. We said from the beginning that we thought it was possible to make a permanent mechanism without a revision of the Treaty. But at least one Member State of the European Union – you need unanimity for those matters – stated clearly that a revision of the Treaty was needed. Since we believe it is important to have a permanent stability mechanism, the Commission played a constructive role supporting this limited revision of the Treaty. So I think it would be a complete mistake now to be divided on this matter; since we want to reinforce stability, I think it is important that we agree on this limited revision of the Treaty.

Some of us would like to go further. I personally would like to go further in terms of the structuring and the deepening of the Community approach. But we have to be responsible at this very specific moment we are living through and to try to have the most ambitious highest common denominator and not the lowest common denominator. That is why I want to state again that some of the proposals which were put forward are indeed themselves interesting ones, but they are not able at this moment to generate the necessary consensus, and the Commission has to be very attentive to the contribution it gives to forging this consensus.

Finally, I think everybody has to make a contribution. I do not like those divisions about rich and poor or new and old or centre and periphery. In Europe, all the states have exactly the same dignity and those ideas of discriminating between Member States are, in fact, very dangerous ideas for the European project. So how should we do it? We should ask all Member States that are in a more vulnerable position to do whatever they have to do to restore confidence in their economies through appropriate macro-economic stability, fiscal consolidation, structural reforms; this is critically important at this moment. We are not helping them if we are suggesting that they can escape that route; that is not helping them.

At the same time, those countries that are now in a better position should show solidarity with those countries as well. I think it is critically important that we have a strong response regarding stability of the euro area; that we are not, as happened sometimes in the past, behind the curve but ahead of the curve; that we give a comprehensive response which restores confidence in the determination of the euro area and the European Union as a whole, and not just by statements but by acting. That is an important thing, that is a question of credibility. Statements are important but that is not enough; it is important to act and for all of us as a whole to commit to stronger governance in the euro area and in the European Union. This is indeed something that markets are asking of us.

There is a problem of perception as to how we can take decisions and how we can implement those decisions. So we need stronger governance in the euro area; we need stronger economic policy coordination in the European Union as a whole and basically, we should, all of us, commit to the principles of solidarity and responsibility. It is not just a question of responsibility; it is question of solidarity. It is not just a question of solidarity; it is also a question of responsibility. Only then can we achieve stability, and stability is the basis for our future prosperity.

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I will begin with a few positive facts. I apologise for appearing positive every now and then.

Firstly, economic growth is much stronger now than we thought it was a few weeks or months ago. Unemployment is falling in some countries. Who would have believed that in 2008 or in 2009? As far as the European Union in general is concerned, overall, from 2010-2011, employment will increase again after the biggest crisis for 70 years. I will say it again: we did not expect that a few months ago – and yet it is happening.

Secondly, of course there is a crisis, but our common currency – the common currency of 27 countries, at any rate – is stable, insofar as its exchange rate against the US dollar is now 1.30. Once upon a time, it was 0.85. At that time, no one said that the euro was at risk. Compared with other continents and other major currencies, we have a stable balance of payments and, compared with other major countries, we have a budget deficit that is practically half of theirs. This therefore explains why, despite all our problems, the euro is a stable currency. I wanted to highlight this before moving on to other points.

Clearly, we are fully aware that we need to forge ahead, but we really must remember, as I mentioned the last time I was here, that we entered this crisis in the euro area – which is more a crisis of the euro area than of the euro – without any suitable instruments. We virtually had to make them up on the spot. That is a joint responsibility, but it also explains why we did not go as quickly as we might have thought at the beginning, or also as quickly as circumstances required.

We had nothing, though. There was a Stability and Growth Pact which was not observed. There was no macro-economic oversight. There was no crisis mechanism, either temporary or stable, and there were no strong institutions to provide financial supervision. We had to come up with everything on the spot, in mid-crisis, and that is a joint responsibility. Some of you have said, ‘It is too little, too late’. Well, the fact that we had few or no instruments explains why we are not in the ‘too little, too late’ situation, but in the ‘step by step’ situation. It is a worthy explanation.

A second point I would like to make is that some of you have said, ‘Yes, but the crisis is not under control. Look at developments on the markets’. At the same time, and in the same breath, others – sometimes exactly the same people – are saying, ‘You cannot let the markets dictate how you act’. It is one argument or the other, but it is not always very coherent.

As for the measures taken, naturally, there are reforms to be embarked upon in the Member States, not only those that are facing problems, but in all the Member States: reforms to free up employment potential and to free up growth potential. Clearly, reforms are often painful. Clearly, there is a colossal job to be done to spread what is to be asked of people in a fair way.

I would remind you, however, that some major countries that are now coming out of the economic crisis more quickly took measures four, five, even six years ago, very tough measures at home which, at that time, met very stiff resistance on the social side. They were effective in terms of growth and an increase in employment, though. We have to go through difficult times, but we need to work harder for the load to be spread fairly. Our Union can hold up meaningful examples to show that this is the right approach.

Reforms are necessary at Member State level, and reforms are, of course, necessary at the level of the Union itself and of the euro area in particular. That is why it is very important to set up as quickly as possible the economic governance that was decided in the Task Force, which was debated on the basis of six proposals from the Commission to Parliament, and for all those involved in codecision to reach agreement. This is extremely urgent.

It must be done if we are to go further still in the convergence of economic growth and in economic policy within the framework of the euro area. If we can achieve it through agreements between the euro area countries, we need not only to think about it but to work towards it to reach a conclusion in the next few weeks and in the next few months. Perhaps, however, we need to go further within the euro area than was decided in the Task Force involved in the Commission’s proposals because in fact, when there is a common currency, there is greater need of a common economic policy and of parallel economic development between all the members of the euro area.

Has structural economic growth been forgotten? No! That is why, right in the middle of the crisis, in March, we decided on the Europe 2020 strategy. That is why, in a few days, at the February Council, we will be debating the innovation and energy policy. Amid all the problems that the crisis is forcing us to deal with, we must not overlook the longer-term prospects, the structural prospects for growth and employment. Furthermore, in the very short term, we are preparing for a global approach to improving the instruments created in 2010 to overcome the crisis.

There is an agenda – a clear agenda. Can we go faster? Yes! As I said, there were two obstacles. The first stemmed from the fact that we had to make everything up on the spot and the second relates to the need – because we live in a democracy – for consensus among our 27 Member States, our 27 democracies.

Ladies and gentlemen, those who support the European project are very much in the majority in Parliament. Let us not fall into trying to outdo each other to find out who is the most European. I believe that the gap is growing wider between those who support the European project and those who do not, but in spite of all our problems, the important thing is to hold our course, to maintain our direction and stay focused. That is far more important than progress made separately. The common will to work towards the same direction in terms of the European project is what counts, as was repeatedly said at the December European Council.

We will get there by this gradual, progressive approach. I am convinced that we are heading in the right direction. I am convinced that there is a common will. I am convinced that we will make it in the end.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you for your report, Mr President. The next meeting of the European Council will be on 4 February, and after that, also in February, the next report from President Van Rompuy.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. – (NL) The European Council is going to establish a permanent emergency fund for the euro area. That may be necessary if we are to regain financial markets’ confidence in the government bonds issued by the weak countries of the euro. However, this also begs questions about the foundations of our economic and monetary union. Those who have been tasked with establishing this fund do not appear to feel confident that Member States are budgeting prudently or that they are adhering to the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact. I would have liked the European Council to have said more about the significant disparities within the euro area, including the different competitive positions of Member States.

Would it appear that the diversity within the monetary union is too great to enable a uniform interest rate? Or are there adequate solutions to the differences in the competitive position, budget and social and economic structure of various Member States?

To this end, any additional guarantees for the temporary emergency fund should be accompanied by concrete commitments and progress in cuts and structural reforms from the weak countries of the euro area. I wish the Member States within the Council the wisdom they need to determine this matter! Our objectives should be compliance with the agreements and ensuring that we do not allow things to go too far again. Therefore, both Member States and the European Commission have a great responsibility.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The nature and objectives of the process of European capitalist integration are becoming ever more evident as the effects of the crisis of capitalism in the EU are deepening, which is exacerbating the economic and social situation in several Member States, exacerbating imbalances. The last European Council showed this clearly once again. Not one word was uttered on the social situation in the EU, on unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, which have increased throughout 2010, declared the Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Not one word was uttered on the causes of all of this. Not a word was spoken about taxation of financial transactions or about an end to tax havens. Changes are now being proposed for the Treaty that was once intended to last for a generation, with a simplified process, as demanded by the powers that be in the EU, in order to create a mechanism that they believe to be ‘fully consistent with [International Monetary Fund] policies’. In future, they want to further tighten the straitjacket on countries such as Portugal, making them the target of demeaning pressure, blackmail and threats relating to financial capital, with the active complicity of the EU. All this is happening alongside the deepening of antisocial and anti-democratic measures associated with so-called economic governance and the requested ‘structural reforms’.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) In his recent book, the former Prime Minister of England, Mr Gordon Brown, says that, as a result of delays on the part of the EU in passing decisions on the economic crisis in Greece, the amount that Greece needed to borrow rose by 90 billion. Germany’s filibustering in terms of speeding up the procedure to increase and restructure the borrowing fund is having an economic knock-on effect on Greece and Ireland. I ask the Commission: how can the members of the Union damaged by late decisions on the part of the Council be compensated? Will the Commission support Greece in an effort to establish why its debt has increased since the Greek crisis was announced?

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)

5. The programme of activities of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the programme of activities of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council.

A different country now holds the rotating Presidency. Hungary is occupying the Presidency for the first time in its history, which is always an important event in the European Union. During the Belgian Presidency, we developed new ways of cooperating with the Presidency and the Council, with meetings at administrative, Commission, ministerial and presidential level, or, in other words, between the Presidency and the President of the European Parliament. We will continue these forms of cooperation during the Hungarian Presidency too, as I have already established with the Prime Minister, Mr Orbán. Today, we will discuss the programme of activities of the Hungarian Presidency. I would like to welcome the Prime Minister, Mr Orbán, to the European Parliament. We are pleased that we will be able to engage in a thorough discussion of many matters relating to this six-month period and our cooperation.

  Viktor Orbán, President-in-Office of the Council. – (HU) Mr President, honourable Members, I am pleased that our presence has excited so much attention in the European … (The President takes the floor).

  President. – Colleagues, we understand that this is a demonstration and you have made your point, but please leave it now. We must continue with our debate.

  Viktor Orbán, President-in-Office of the Council. – (HU) Mr President, I am pleased to see that the sittings of the European Parliament are no less animated and rich in performances than those of the Hungarian Parliament, which makes me feel quite at home.

Thank you very much for the invitation. I extend my respectful greetings to the Members of Parliament, and to President Barroso, as well as the President of the European Parliament, my dear old friend.

Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to state that it is an honour for me to be speaking here today as the President-in-Office of the Council. For you, of course, this is a six-monthly routine. Every six months, you see a prime minister standing here, presenting the programme for their Presidency. From our point of view, the Hungarians’ point of view, however, this is far more significant than a six-monthly routine. For us, the fact that we can stand here today is an act of historic justice. I would like to remind you that it was Hungary who gave the most human lives and blood for freedom and democracy after World War II, both during the revolution of 1956 and during the subsequent retribution. We were the ones who struck the first blow against the communist regime, who took up arms against the Soviet empire and proved to the world that communist doctrine is not a harmless ideology, but a dangerous threat to western civilisation. We dislodged the first brick in the wall of communism and, through the crack we had opened, the draught swept out the entire communist system.

Ladies and gentlemen, for this reason, I feel that we Hungarians can rightly claim that we have contributed a great deal to Europe becoming unified once again. For Hungarians, it is therefore a historic justice of sorts that the Prime Minister of Hungary may speak here today as the President-in-Office of the Council. I would like to assure you that we are following in the footsteps of the revolutionaries of 1956 and intend to serve the cause of European unity through their ideals and faith.

Ladies and gentlemen, we in Central Europe, including us Hungarians, have always been interested in a unified Europe, and remain so to this day. However, creating and maintaining European unity needs strength too. Twenty years ago, Europe could muster the strength to overcome dividedness and become unified. It had realised that this was an historic moment it had to seize in order to reunite Europe. This strength is recalled in the motto of the Hungarian Presidency: ‘Strong Europe’.

Ladies and gentlemen, today we are facing a challenge of similar proportions to that of twenty years ago, and thus it is perhaps no overstatement to pronounce that the European Union is facing its most challenging period of the past twenty years. Today, we must overcome the storms of a global crisis and find Europe’s place in a global economy that is undergoing complete transformation and rearrangement. I am of the opinion that, in order to be able to stand its ground, Europe must remain unified, and even today, unity needs strength. I am convinced that all Member States of the European Union, including my home country, can only become strong and successful if the European Union itself is strong. If it is strong, it can respond to the challenges of global competitiveness, as well as demographic, environmental, climate and security challenges. The only question is from where Europe can draw such strength. This question will be answered if we ask ourselves another question, namely, what is weakening Europe today? What is impeding the competitiveness of our entire civilisation today? Obviously, it is not other continents threatening us, and it is not a foreign ideology either. Quite the contrary; our true problem is a very practical one. The English language has a very short, simple word to describe it, and that word is debt. Today, the strength of Europe is being marred and eroded by a monumental amount of debt. In the new competition of the post-crisis world, debt will be the greatest impediment and the greatest risk to the western world, including to Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Hungarian Presidency is convinced that there is only one way debt can be combated, and that is called work. We Hungarians are all too aware of this, as the ailments of the Hungarian economy have been caused by the very fact that we have the lowest employment rate throughout Europe, in all the European Union. I am ashamed even to say it out loud, but it is only 55%. And where there is no work, where there are no jobs, there is no money either, and from that follows debt and loans. Well, ladies and gentlemen, our true resource for the future lies in the traditional European mentality, which values work. It was the European mentality of valuing work that has made our civilisation successful. We have a European code of conduct, one of the cornerstones of which has, for centuries, been the principle of prudent economics, meaning that we must not spend more than we are able to produce. Another fundamental European value is that we must not pass on our debts to our children and grandchildren. I am convinced that respect for work includes the idea and the mentality that we can only acquire something if we work for it first. If we can get everything in advance that we could otherwise only have obtained as the fruits of years of work, the very meaning of our work is called into question, and that meaning is increasingly transformed to mean the repayment of our ever-accumulating debt, and changing our whole attitude to work. This is the crisis we are all facing.

Ladies and gentlemen, everyone agrees on the diagnosis of debt. To us, debating European politicians, it is like a disease. Everyone agrees on the diagnosis, but there is vast debate regarding the cure. The disease, however, is a dangerous one, and our time is short. It is my opinion, therefore, that we do not have much time for debate, especially not on whether we should automatically reject certain cures that seem unusual or new for the very reason of their being unusual or new. We need courage and open-mindedness for the governments and parliaments of the individual nation states to be able to overcome their debt crises. However, I am convinced that this is exactly what the citizens of Europe expect us to do. They expect jobs, growth and security, and therefore, ladies and gentlemen, the focus of the Hungarian Presidency, the exact point-by-point transcript of which you will also find in this small book, the focus of this Hungarian Presidency will be on economic issues, and at the top of the priority list of the Hungarian Presidency are the very issues related to the economic and debt crisis.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Hungarian Presidency believes that the direction set out by the Council, that is, the direction of crisis management, is the right way, but further efforts will be required, and we are therefore convinced that the Treaty will need to be amended and that a legal basis must be created for the current temporary crisis management mechanism to be replaced by a permanent stability mechanism from 2013. The Hungarian Presidency will do everything in its power to this end. Furthermore, at the core of the Hungarian Presidency’s thinking are the strengthening of economic policy coordination, the facilitation of economic growth and the promotion of sustainable economic growth for job creation. It is therefore a special goal for our Presidency, and in this I would also like to ask for your cooperation, to create six laws that will facilitate the achievement of this goal, that is, economic policy coordination. I would like to ask for your committed cooperation in this regard. The Hungarian Presidency will be a Parliament-friendly Presidency, and so I ask you to do everything to ensure that these six laws can be adopted as soon as possible in cooperation with us.

The Hungarian Presidency is convinced that the structural reforms of the Member States must be implemented in a more consistent manner and must be coordinated to a greater extent than before. The European Semester has begun and this is something new for everyone; not just for us Hungarians, but for you as well, as it is a completely new programme of the European Union. The Semester has begun with the Commission’s annual macro-economic growth report, and I would like to congratulate Mr Barroso on this excellent document, which is suitable for taking the first step, and which lays out the directions and issues that will serve as the basis for the debates that will be conducted in the various Council configurations during our Presidency.

Ladies and gentlemen, national credibility is, of course, also required when one intends to propose a common economic policy for Europe. I would like to inform you that there is a good chance that my home country, which has been on the wall of shame of the European Union for a long time due to the excessive deficit procedure initiated against it, now has a realistic chance of getting out of this situation. In 2011, Hungary’s budget deficit will be below 3% and we will be one of the two EU Member States whose national debt will decrease in 2011. This will be crucial for the credibility of our Presidency programme.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Hungarian Presidency considers it especially important that we strengthen the single market. We believe that the strengthening of the single market is one of the potential sources of economic growth. Our intention is to remove existing barriers, implement deregulation and extend the single market to new areas, such as digitalisation. We support the favourable business environment that is to be created for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Among the priority topics of the Hungarian Presidency are energy policy and innovation, which we will be discussing on 4 February at a joint summit. I would like to inform you that Hungary is of the opinion that it is crucial for us to remove any existing regulatory barriers in the field of energy policy and to establish the missing infrastructural links in order to create a real and interoperable energy market in Europe. A similarly important objective of the Hungarian Presidency is to ensure that Europe possesses diversified supply lines in the field of energy. European energy policy is standing before a breakthrough; the Member States have signed the agreements – I will be signing the Slovak–Hungarian agreement with the Slovak Prime Minister next week – that will enable the first north-south gas distribution network, ranging from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic and through Romania to the Black Sea, to commence operation, thereby creating a complete interconnector. Since, for the last 40 years, we have been thinking in terms of east and west, a north-south connection has been missing, and this is where I consider the treaties to be signed a breakthrough.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Roma strategy is a priority aspect of the Hungarian Presidency, because there is no point in a smart Europe if it has no heart. Europe, however, will only have a heart if it creates opportunities for social inclusion for the most disadvantaged social groups. This is not the time to discuss the Roma strategy, and I would therefore only like to point out, as the leader of a country concerned on this issue, that we are all playing with fire, and if we do not manage to establish a Roma strategy at European level, the Roma communities that are already settled and, to a certain degree, already integrated, will once again choose a nomadic lifestyle within Europe, and the problem will thus be transmitted from the countries involved today to others as well. This provides the grounds for presenting a European strategic answer to the Roma issue, which otherwise falls under national competence, and I would personally be very proud if we could jointly manage to adopt a common European Roma strategy by the end of the Hungarian Presidency in June.

Ladies and gentlemen, I must also touch upon the matter of enlargement, even though I, too, am aware that understandably, there is a fear of enlargement in Europe. We are barely able to overcome our own internal problems, and under such circumstances, coming up with newer and newer ideas for enlargement is extremely risky. Nevertheless, the Hungarian Presidency would welcome the return of an optimistic approach to enlargement in Europe. We would welcome it if the European Union found that we have unfinished business before us, as not all European nations that could be integrated into the European Community are currently part of the European Union. Furthermore, I personally find it unfair that a country like Croatia, for example, which has shown better performance over the past years than Hungary, a Member State of the EU, is still left outside and is not allowed to join the circle of Member States. The Hungarian Presidency would therefore like to see Croatia’s accession negotiations through to the signing of the treaty, the period of conclusion.

I am aware that the extension of the Schengen area is a controversial issue. The countries concerned here are Romania and Bulgaria, but as someone who knows this region well and also lives in a country bordering it, I know with certainty that these countries are ready, and although I know that the Hungarian Presidency must expect debates, I will always stand up, I will personally always stand up for Bulgaria and Romania being included in the Schengen area as soon as possible, that is, without delay.

Ladies and gentlemen, the programmes of the Hungarian Presidency also include the Danube strategy, as well as the belief that the European Union must continue to take a leading role in the global fight against climate change, and for this reason, we would welcome it if the results of the December 2010 Cancún Summit could enter into the implementation phase, and we could continue with the negotiations to ensure that legally binding decisions are adopted by the end of 2011.

Ladies and gentlemen, since my time spent talking is beginning to border on impoliteness, I will mention only briefly that the topics of the Hungarian Presidency also include the discussion of family policy and the demographic situation, and I would be pleased if Hungary could, without provoking interinstitutional debates, contribute to the European Union forming a clear and firm position on the freedom of religion and taking action against the persecution of Christians, which is an important issue for the coming six months.

Ladies and gentlemen, finally, I would like to point out that I am aware that all of us sitting or standing in this House are politicians. We all have our own points of view, our own principles, our own comrades, and also our own interests. While acknowledging this, I respectfully advise you, whatever opinion you may have about Hungarian internal politics, not to associate your criticisms and actions related to Hungarian domestic politics with the following six months of the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union. If you do associate them, I will, of course, be ready for a fight, but if you do so, it will not be Hungary’s loss, but above all, a loss for the entire community of the European Union. I therefore ask you, for the sake of the European Union and the difficult tasks that lie before us, to make this distinction whenever possible. The last debate was also pulled back to the grounds of reason and rational discourse by Hungary when I agreed with President Barroso that we would welcome EU investigations relating to the criticised media law, that we would engage in ongoing discussions about its observations, and that if any faults could be found and verified, we would, of course, be willing to amend the law. For us, these issues are not a matter of prestige, and are not about flexing our muscles or vanity. On a side note, if anyone wishes to fight for the freedom of the press in Europe, they can always rely on the Hungarian Government, which has had its share of anti-communist struggles.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are aware that an extremely difficult six months lie before Europe, but I am optimistic and believe that Europe is up to the task. After World War II, Europe managed to build cooperation between the peoples of Europe amidst hatred and ruins. In 1989 and 1990, it managed to reunite Europe, and so I have reason to assume that it will also be capable of responding to the similar historic challenge we are facing now. This means that we will need more, during and after the Hungarian Presidency, than ambitious administration. We must look further than the files massing on our desks, and we must look to an even farther horizon than that of issues which can be solved within six months or one or two years. The Hungarian Presidency is convinced that a community can only be bound together by shared goals and shared values. Shared goals can only be based on shared values. The Hungarian Presidency will carry out its day-to-day work in the spirit of this great, far-reaching European goal, will accord due respect to all of us, and will show the utmost humility to the cause. Thank you for honouring me with your attention.

  President. – Prime Minister, thank you for your speech and presentation of the programme of activities of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, the start of 2011 is an historic moment for Hungary as it takes over the helm of the Council of the European Union for the first time, but it is also a critical moment for the European Union as a whole. The Hungarian Presidency comes at a time that demands a special sense of responsibility regarding the tasks ahead for Europe.

It is particularly appropriate that the Hungarian Presidency has chosen as its motto ‘strong Europe’. Europe is at its strongest and most effective when we are united, when we act in a coordinated manner with strong institutions, when we show a common resolve to steer a course through these stormy waters, and when we show that, by working together, we are capable of finding solutions to the most pressing problems.

This is important to remember because we are not out of the woods yet. There can be no backtracking and no return to business as usual. We must implement our reforms without delay and develop the innovative policies needed to make the Europe 2020 vision a reality. So I look forward to working in partnership with Prime Minister Orbán and with the Hungarian Presidency to make sure that it is a successful one. Let me tell Prime Minister Orbán here and now that he can count on the Commission’s full support on this.

At the same time, the Commission hopes very much that it can count on the support of the Hungarian Presidency. A fruitful partnership is particularly important in the areas of financial services, economic governance, the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, energy and the internal market. So I am pleased that the Presidency’s priorities fully reflect this.

A strong partnership with the European Parliament is also essential, as in some cases, fast-tracking of proposals will be important. For example, we must have the new tools for reinforced economic governance at our disposal as soon as possible. A clear target has been set by the European Council to deliver by June 2011. The rhythm of work already set by the Hungarian Presidency and the comments we have just heard from the Prime Minister are encouraging in this respect.

As we start this new Presidency, a comprehensive EU agenda and appropriate governance tools are already in place. The European Semester, Europe 2020 strategy and its flagship initiatives and the Single Market Act – all these key initiatives have been discussed and endorsed by the EU institutions. But, of course, we need to do more and it is now also time to act decisively to implement a comprehensive programme.

The European Semester is at the heart of the reformed economic strategy of the European Union. Its proper implementation will be a major task in the months ahead. The Commission kick-started the Semester by adopting the Annual Growth Survey last week. Following discussions in several Council formations, the process will culminate at the European Council in March, which will provide essential policy guidance for Member States, to be reflected in their stability and convergence programmes as well as their national reform programmes, both of which we are expecting in April.

Since we have already discussed this in the previous debate, I will not go into detail, but, of course, the priorities are macro-economic stability, namely, fiscal consolidation, structural reform and, of course, frontloaded economic growth, employment being, of course, our most important concern.

Final agreement on the European crisis management resolution mechanism will also be a key deliverable during the Hungarian Presidency. The Hungarian Presidency will also have an important role to play in shepherding through our efforts to relaunch the single market. Following the public consultation launched by the Commission on the Single Market Act, the EU institutions will be asked to agree on a definitive action plan to be realised by the end of 2012.

Energy will also be an important area in the coming months and already at the European Council meeting on 4 February. The Commission already has a series of important energy initiatives on the table which will feed into the February European Council. These include the energy agenda 2020, our communication on energy infrastructure priorities. We will soon be adopting a ‘resource-efficient Europe’ flagship initiative in which energy also features strongly.

The Commission intends to develop its work around the following five axes: a strong energy policy as a key to competitive and sustainable growth and energy security; the internal market in energy as an asset; building the European Union’s new energy infrastructure; making decisive progress on energy efficiency; and developing an effective and united new approach to external energy policy.

Support from the Presidency and the European Parliament will also be essential to ensure an agreement on the European Union Patent. As requested by several Member States, the Commission adopted a proposal for enhanced cooperation in this field on 14 December. The Commission appreciates Hungary’s commitment to taking forward work on the EU patent under its Presidency.

Negotiations with Croatia are now in the final phase. Conclusion of negotiations under the Hungarian Presidency is an ambitious goal, especially considering the remaining requirements Croatia still needs to fulfil. This will require an all-out push on Croatia’s side.

I welcome the fact that the Hungarian Presidency considers the social and economic integration of Roma as one of its priorities. The Commission set up a Roma taskforce to analyse the use and effectiveness of EU and national funds in all Member States for Roma inclusion. Building on this work, the Commission will present a European Union framework for national Roma integration strategies in April.

The new Presidency will also put the spotlight on our Danube strategy. The Danube region has great potential that has not yet been properly exploited due to ineffective cooperation. The aim is to develop a more coordinated approach to bring European added value to this region. The Commission welcomes the Presidency’s commitment to this strategy. Hungary has already contributed significantly to its preparation, including producing policy papers and hosting a conference in Budapest which I had the pleasure of attending. It will be in charge of guiding it through the Council and launching the Danube strategy implementation.

Finally, the debate on cohesion policy will intensify in the coming months. The Commission welcomes the intention of the Presidency to discuss the proposals set out in the fifth cohesion report. We will present legislative proposals for future cohesion policy this summer, following proposals on the next financial framework. The fifth Cohesion Forum, to take place at the end of January in Brussels, will allow for a major stakeholder discussion. It is encouraging that Prime Minister Orbán himself will participate. Effectiveness and European added value must be the driving principles of the reform. The Commission is convinced that cohesion policy needs to underpin more strongly the policy priorities and reform agenda of Europe 2020. I count on the support of the Presidency in this work. It is our common interest and responsibility to make funding more effective. Only in this way can we defend an ambitious budget for cohesion policy.

Since I know this is a matter of political concern, let me add a final comment on Hungary’s media law. The principle of freedom of the press is a sacred one in the European Union. I stated this in Brussels and in Budapest when I had the honour to be received there by Prime Minister Orbán. The Commission has looked at the law and this week will write to the Hungarian authorities to seek clarification on certain aspects that could create legal problems and that have raised some concerns. On the basis of the Hungarian authorities’ answers, we will assess the situation further. The Prime Minister has already made it quite clear that adjustments will be made should the Commission decide after this legal assessment that changes need to be made.

Prime Minister Orbán has just said he is a politician. I am sure that he is a very committed politician and I think you can agree that, leaving aside the legal issues – which will be dealt with in an objective and impartial manner because we will treat Hungary exactly like any other Member State – we must also concern ourselves with the political aspects. Hungary, like any Member State taking on the rotating Presidency, needs to have the full backing of all the other Member States and the European institutions to make the Presidency a success. I hope that Prime Minister Orbán will take this into consideration.

I have no doubt that this Presidency must be a success, coming at such a critical time for the European Union. Let us allow the proper procedures to take their course and, at the same time, let us give our full support to Hungary as it takes on this heavy responsibility. During my recent visit to Hungary, I received messages from young people who said that they were proud that their country for the first time had the responsibility of leading the Council of the European Union. Let us make Hungary closer to Europe and Europe closer to Hungary.

There is a lot to do. The Hungarian Presidency can count on every assistance from the European Commission in pushing forward its priorities. It is only by achieving these goals together that we will build a strong Europe, a Europe which delivers growth and jobs, which preserves and reaffirms our values – namely, the sacred values of freedom and justice – and which positions our societies to thrive in a changing world.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Prime Minister Orbán, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, rarely will the Presidency of the Council of Ministers have had to face so many challenges: the challenge of the euro, which we must stabilise, the challenge of employment, which is experiencing stronger growth and therefore a more efficient economy, the challenge of energy independence and food security, while prices for raw materials are rising alarmingly. I have no doubt that the Hungarian Presidency will be able to deal with these challenges, alongside the Commission, the Council and Parliament.

Mr Orbán, you have won the confidence of your electorate in Hungary. Your party, Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége (FIDESZ), is based on an idea, on an ideal, on a value: that of liberty and democracy. Since your election, you have, with the Hungarian Parliament, undertaken a whole series of reforms which your people have called for by democratically giving you a large majority.

Today, one of those reforms – the one concerning the media – is the subject of legal scrutiny by the European Commission, guardian of the Treaties. You yourself stated last week – and I thank you for doing so – during your talks with Mr Barroso, and since then, that were this law incompatible with European law, you would submit it to your parliament for the necessary changes. I have complete faith in your word. For my part, I, like you, have confidence in the European Commission, which plays its role as guardian of the Treaties, and I also have confidence that you will respect the letter and the spirit of the European rules.

Prime Minister Orbán, we have known each other for a long time and I consider you a very great European. For my part, I have no reason to doubt that you will do what you have said with regard to the media law and to the other priorities faced by your Presidency.

I now come to those priorities, beginning with the first: the stability of Europe. Perhaps it is a good thing that the two presidencies of the Council that will follow one another in 2011 will be assumed by countries that do not belong to the euro area but which wish to join it in the very near future.

Indeed, both Hungary and Poland are both entitled to join it. They therefore have a stake in ensuring the stability of this currency. I repeat: the only effective way of ending the speculative attacks against the euro and of strengthening the fundamentals of the European economy is to restore order to our public finances. This involves stronger coordination of fiscal and social policies in our countries, as is quite rightly provided for by the new budgetary period for the European Semester. It also depends on greater flexibility in our employment market and greater productivity.

Like the Hungarian Presidency of the Council, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) firmly believes that the future of 500 million Europeans depends on a stronger, more united and more coherent Europe. It depends on having more of a Europe and certainly not less of a Europe.

Mr Orbán, we need European economic governance. We need more communitarianism and I am sure that you will work towards this.

President-in-Office of the Council, you have defined the setting up of a common energy policy as one of your main priorities. I think you are right. Mr Buzek, our President, has also, quite rightly, made it one of the strengths of his Presidency. I agree with you on this point, but I also want to warn you about the terribly worrying consequences that may result from the increase in the prices of all kinds of raw materials which has been particularly sharp over the last few months. We have already seen the social implications in several Mediterranean countries of such a price rise in basic foodstuffs, especially for the poorest countries. I hope that Europe will take this problem seriously and deal forcefully with speculators.

I also hope that the Hungarian Presidency – I thought that the Group of the Greens were going to be silent, but I can hear them talking; it is not right, people should be quiet all the way through – will back the Commission in its assistance to Tunisia, which is going through a crucial time and must be supported as it moves towards change.

Mr Orbán, you know that to succeed in your mandate and help Europe through its current difficult phase, you need the confidence of Parliament. In December, when we were in a difficult position with regard to the Council, you had the courage to sign the first-rate letters for us which really helped Parliament to approve its budget. Thank you, already, for what you did in December!

Even before January, you included the political groups when defining your priorities, and naturally chose Mrs Győri, one of our very fine former colleagues, as Minister for EU Affairs. These are all positive signs which, I have no doubt, will be accompanied by a perfect balance between the reforms you are undertaking and the European values that every one of us here defends.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I believe that we are currently in a serious situation. These are serious times.

Firstly, Mr Orbán, you will be familiar to many Europeans as an opponent of the Communist regime and a supporter of freedom for your country. We respect that.

I was pleased that we both had the opportunity yesterday afternoon to discuss another man whom Hungarians can be proud of and that is the former prime minister and foreign minister of your country who opened the border between Hungary and Austria, together with Alois Mock, and paved the way for German unity. This man is the leader of my party, Gyula Horn. Let us pay tribute to another great Hungarian.

(Applause)

Mr Orbán, in your capacity as President-in-Office of the Council, you acknowledged something in your answer to Mr Barroso’s question. You said that if the Hungarian media law is not compatible with European standards, you will change it. That is a good thing. However, in saying this, you have also acknowledged that this is not just an internal political debate in Hungary, but also a European debate. It is clear that this law concerns the fundamental rules and values of the European Union, which is a community based on the rule of law.

I would like to look at two elements of the media law. It will establish a media authority which is intended to supervise the balance of reporting in the media. In addition, the law will introduce an obligation on the media to take a balanced approach. You have a two-thirds majority in parliament and it is a legitimate majority. Using this two-thirds majority, you have set up a media authority which consists exclusively of members of your party, from the government or from the group of people who have close links with it. This means that a media authority with members from only one side of the political spectrum will be responsible for monitoring balanced reporting. This is not acceptable within a European community based on the rule of law.

(Applause)

In a democracy, Mr Orbán, the media monitor those who are in power. The result of this law is that those in power will monitor the media. This is also unacceptable in a democracy and that is why the people of Europe are so concerned about this law.

(Applause)

You have rightly pointed out that we have a lot of problems to solve. We are in the midst of a severe financial crisis and we have difficulties with the budget. Another pressing issue for the European Union involves rising food prices, in particular, in our neighbouring regions, but also within the European Union itself in the foreseeable future. This is a problem which we need to address quickly. We also need to focus on employment in the Member States. There are certainly many items in your programme which we can work on together. In that respect, you are a genuine representative of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

When Mr Sarkozy, the French President, was President-in-Office of the Council, he also gave a left-leaning speech here in Parliament and then proceeded to implement right-wing policies once he was at home. I told him that he spoke like Karl Marx in exile. Everything that you have said sounds good. If you can now act in accordance with your words, that will be good enough.

(Heckling)

Therefore, I believe that we must, and indeed will, assess your achievements on the basis of the programme that you have presented here. You have referred, Mr Orbán, to the fact that you have a large majority at home. That is a good thing. We have had to deal with a number of governments, including some from your party, who have done nothing but sit here and call home to find out if they were still in office. We cannot afford that sort of thing now. From this point of view, your two-thirds majority is excellent, because it gives you plenty of time. However, it also puts you under an obligation to use your strong position to make Hungary and also the European Union stronger.

I would like to ask you a question. What is the purpose of your gift of a carpet which has been laid in the Council building in Brussels and which shows Hungary with its 1848 borders? What sort of a message is this in the context of European gesture politics? As you seem intent on using symbols from the 19th century, I would like to tell you what the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, said to the German people in the 19th century. He said: ‘A great victory is a great danger. Human nature finds it harder to endure a victory than a defeat. Indeed, it almost seems to be easier to achieve a victory than to endure it in such a way that it does not turn into a serious defeat’.

I believe that you should take into consideration that a large majority provides a great deal of support, but also imposes a major obligation. Therefore, I am talking to you in your capacity as President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union and not in your role as prime minister. The President-in-Office of the Council must do everything possible to dispel any doubts about the Presidency’s readiness to defend fundamental European democratic values. It would be best for you not to wait for the Commission’s investigation. Mr Barroso, I would like to point out to you that following a ban on trucks imposed by one Austrian province, the Commission suffered a severe identity crisis and then took immediate measures against Austria. However, when one of the fundamental principles of European democracy is put at risk, you sit and do nothing.

(Applause)

You must make sure that we receive the results of the investigation soon, otherwise this debate will place a heavy burden on the Hungarian Presidency. We all want the Presidency to be a success and we do not want to see its progress blocked. You, Mr Orbán, can do something yourself to help the situation. Withdraw the law and introduce a new and better one. Hungary needs a balanced media law.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all, let me say very clearly to Mr Orbán that my group supports the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency. Mr Prime Minister, like you, we also believe in a strong euro, so we are fully backing you in your priorities for this Presidency. I think that in the six months of this Presidency, you have one top priority and that is to establish, as fast as possible, real economic governance inside the European Union and inside the eurozone. Because let us be clear: 2010 was not a good example for the euro and for the European Union. We were always running behind the facts, after the events. What we need now, as fast as possible, under your leadership and the leadership of the President of the Commission, is a global package on economic governance, a real economic and fiscal union, because it is nonsense to have a monetary union and not have an economic and fiscal union at the same time.

I am not asking you to invent new ideas but to take last week’s package presented by the President of the Commission and Commissioner Olli Rehn and to put this package with its four cornerstones on the table of the Council and the table of your colleagues. Mr Orbán and Mr Barroso, only one element, one cornerstone is missing in this package. Nowhere in the world is there a currency without one bond market behind it. In Europe, we still have 27 bond markets, 27 speculations and 27 spreads. In the eurozone, we still have 17 bond markets, 17 spreads and 17 speculations. What the markets are doing at present is not speculating against the euro but speculating on the differences inside the euro. The only way to tackle that is to have a genuine bond market in Europe of EUR 4 000 billion or 5 000 billion which can be compared to what exists in other parts of the world, with special treatment for the triple-A countries.

(Applause)

Finally, Mr Orbán I want to say something about the elephant in the room. The elephant in this beautiful room is naturally the media law in Hungary. I will not talk about the law itself; I will rather use the example of one of my favourite writers, a great Hungarian writer, Sándor Márai. With the language policy of the former Slovak Government and the current media law in Hungary, I doubt that Márai would ever have existed. Why? Well, Márai lived in Kassa, which today we know as Košice. He wrote in Hungarian which, as you know, was, until recently, a problem in Slovakia. Also importantly he was a journalist, which is becoming a problem for tomorrow because, with the new legislation, which obliges the media to provide proper information and adequate information about public life, I think Márai and his books would never have existed. The Confessions of a Citizen, his masterpiece, is quite improper and, in many respects, totally inadequate, but it is a masterpiece of literature.

In my opinion, the aim of media governance is not to guarantee proper and adequate information. No, the aim of media governance is to uphold pluralism and to guarantee that any initiative in media can be developed.

(Applause)

I hope that you will use your majority, your two-thirds majority, which is something that all politicians dream about …

(Interjection from Mr Cohn-Bendit: ‘No! No!’)

Not you – you are an exception.

I hope that you will use your two-thirds majority to guarantee that pluralism, and that you will change the law as fast as possible.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, first of all, allow me to say one thing so that there can be no ambiguity.

The Group of the Greens, and I personally, love Hungary. I cried in 1954 when Hungary lost the World Cup. My first demonstration, holding on to my brother’s hand, was in 1956 against the Soviet invasion of Budapest. As Mr Verhofstadt said, many intellectuals, many Hungarian writers have supported us politically and intellectually for years.

I sided with Prime Minister Orbán when he fought the Communists at the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s. I sided with Prime Minister Orbán when he asked liberal Europeans to expel Jörg Haider from the European liberal party. There was a Viktor Orbán who, for me, was a politician who ought to be respected. Today, Prime Minister Orbán, you are on the way to becoming a European Chavez, a national populist who does not exactly understand the essence and structure of democracy.

I am going to tell you a very simple fact, Prime Minister Orbán: there is no such thing as balanced information. Do you think that Mr Nixon found the Watergate information balanced? Obviously not! Do you think that Mr Bush found the information about Abu Ghraib balanced? Of course not! Are you familiar with one of the great political issues – the Dreyfus affair in France – in which the government found that the information was balanced? With regard to research, for example, on the life and politics of Mr Berlusconi, do you think he finds that information balanced? Of course not! Information should upset politics. It upsets us, too, and sometimes that hurts.

That is why, Prime Minister Orbán, your law today is not a law that reflects the values of the European Union. You say that you want a strong Europe, Prime Minister Orbán. A strong Europe, Prime Minister Orbán, must be a credible Europe. If we agree to this kind of law in Europe, how are we going to have discussions with Mr Lukashenko? How are we going to have discussions with China? They all want balanced information.

Prime Minister Orbán, are you aware that Europe came into being against totalitarianisms? And that the basis of democracy, the basis of freedom, is precisely freedom of expression? A democracy never died from having too many freedoms. Democracies died when people started restricting freedoms, Prime Minister Orbán. You knew that twenty years ago. Think back to that time when it was so – and, what is more, it makes sense. You see, then, that what I am telling you is right.

I want to finish on one thing, Prime Minister Orbán. If you want to fight for the world’s Christians, we are with you, but I would have imagined, and I did imagine, that you would have welcomed the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, which is the same revolution you went through, Prime Minister Orbán: freeing yourself from a dictatorship. You did not have a word for the Tunisians, and it is for that reason that I reproach you.

We are with you for the world’s Christians. I trust that you will be with us when it comes to fighting the world’s dictatorships, whether they be in Belarus or whether they be in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, China or Russia – wherever they be. These are the common values of Europe that we must all defend together.

(Applause)

  Lajos Bokros, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (HU) ‘I cannot know what this land means to other people. / For me, it is my birthplace, this little nation embraced / by flames, the world of my childhood rocking in the distance. / I grew out of her like a tender branch from a tree / and I hope one day my body will sink into her. / I am at home’. – wrote Miklós Radnóti. Hungary is at home here in Europe, and is worthy of holding the Presidency. But is the Hungarian Government at home? Is it worthy of this post? I am not merely referring to the media law here; there are nine other elephants in the room. There is a continuous and gross violation of the delicate system of checks and balances that characterise democracy.

Discharging civil servants without stating the reason. An excessive, discriminative, and structurally distorting crisis tax. Support to the wealthy to the detriment of the poor. Dissolution of the Budgetary Council, just like in Venezuela. Impairment, and soon, revocation of central bank autonomy. A 98% special tax on severance payments with retroactive effect. Nine amendments of the Constitution over the course of seven months. Restriction of the powers of the Constitutional Court. Nationalisation of the private pension system through open extortion, just as in Bolivia. The elevation of tax fraud to the level of government policy: Palinka distillation. Populist hacking, as though going at a botanical garden with an axe. Destruction of the fine fabric of society, of its solidarity. Ágnes Heller, János Kornai, Jenő Ranschburg – Hungarian scientists of world renown have written about this. Yesterday, Guy Verhofstadt said that the Belgian Presidency had been successful because their government had not allowed domestic tasks to distract them from European matters. Now we are facing the risk of the very opposite. The chaos and the diplomatic disaster at home will distract the government and the European public eye from Europe. This would truly be a shame. I, as a Hungarian, will have none of this shame. It is not too late to reverse our direction.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Orbán, I would like to make some brief remarks about the media law. Many speakers have mentioned this, but I will not repeat what they have said. I would just like to make one point. This is not interference in Hungarian affairs. I believe, and I have only learnt this late in life, that the media are responsible for monitoring those in power and the economy. This situation must remain unchanged. Therefore, the media must not be monitored themselves by other higher level bodies and a media authority of this kind would make this possible.

For this reason, the composition of the media authority is, in our eyes, not ideal. You have clearly stated that you are prepared to change this and I hope that you do move in this direction. Otherwise, and I would like to make this quite clear, it is a Hungarian affair. Of course, there are other Member States whose media legislation we could mention in this context. This does not only relate to Hungary.

I would like to say quite clearly with regard to your plans for the Council Presidency, firstly, that I welcome the fact that you have made promoting cultural diversity one of your overriding objectives. I believe that this is very important. I look forward to your initiatives to improve integration, including the integration of minorities, and you yourself have referred to the Roma. A European strategy to integrate the Roma more effectively is a very important issue.

Secondly, I am pleased to see that you are committed to the enlargement negotiations and the policy with regard to our eastern neighbours. Bringing more Eastern European culture, together with the historical and social experience of the area, into the European Union can only be a good thing. For many reasons which I do not want to go into here, the European Union is still primarily a Western European institution. I would like to see your Council Presidency exerting a greater Eastern European influence.

Thirdly, I will be interested to see how you handle the forthcoming reorganisation of agriculture and cohesion policy and the preparation of the European Union’s multiannual budgetary perspective. My group calls on you to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in all of this and we expect you take seriously your promise to support small and medium-sized businesses and to improve environmental protection, the sustainable use of resources and food security.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I welcome Mr Orbán. After the six months’ farce of the Belgian Presidency, it is nice to see an elected Prime Minister from a proper country. How I enjoyed your denouncement of Communism as a dangerous ideology – and I noted the pride that you took in the fact that Hungary was the first country to take up arms against the Soviet Union.

Twenty years after you won back your ability to govern yourselves democratically, you are now part of a new political union that increasingly shows similarities with that old Soviet Union. In fact, you are going to meet lots of Communists over the next six months, including the boss of the Commission here, old Barroso who was an advocate of Chairman Mao! You will see centralised economic planning and control and, above all, what you will see is the desire to impose a political union upon the peoples of Europe without their consent.

Wake up Mr Orbán. Look at how they are trying to bully you this morning. They are trying to tell you how to run your own country. Tell them where to go. Stand up and fight for democracy once again.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in 1956 Hungary, showed the world that a stand must be made against oppression and lies, even if it seems to be a hopeless endeavour. At that time, this was our historic mission. And now it is the same. In today’s world, lies and oppression rest on two pillars. One of them is that global plutocracy and the banks are privatising profits, while nationalising losses and costs, thus passing them on to firemen, nurses, teachers and pensioners, who suffer more and more.

The other pillar is that they – and here I am referring mainly to politicians, who, instead of representing the interests of the people, persistently act as representatives of the global plutocracy and banks, even here in the European Union – make it all seem as if it were natural, or at least that there were no other way. The Hungarian Presidency and Hungary, my home country, must show that this is not true, that the emperor is naked. Instead of a mindset centred on profits and money, we must show that a human-centred and justice-centred approach is also possible, where the question we are asking is not about what is best for money and profits, but instead what is best for the people and for justice. I wish the best of luck to Hungary, my freedom-loving home country.

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

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Mrs Morvai, we have already had a brief exchange of views yesterday. I have two questions for you. It is not surprising that you support the Presidency from your position on the far right. However, whether that suits Mr Orbán is another matter. Are you aware that the Hungarian revolution was supported by many, many people and not only by conservatives on the right of the political spectrum, as Mr Schulz has said? Have you noticed, Mrs Morvai, that the criticism of the Hungarian media law has come not only from social democrats, but also from very many citizens, including Mr György Konrád, who have nothing to do with social democracy? Are you aware of this?

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Mr Swoboda, though I may once have held the belief that there is meaning in using the attributives ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing,’ my one and a half years at the European Union have convinced me that there is no point. You left wing people continue to represent the interests of plutocracy and the banks, and show absolutely no regard for what people want. You have completely forgotten about the original ideals. There has been mention here today of your predecessor named Marx. What he said about justice is no longer referred to here. You are the greatest oppressors of the working people. This is one thing. The other thing is the media law, which is Hungary’s internal affair …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Hungarian delegation of the European People’s Party. I myself am a person with a disability, and I am perhaps more sensitive than the average person to discrimination or double standards. That is why I have been following with concern the political witch hunt about the Hungarian media law, which we could also witness here today in this House. Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union has demonstrated on countless occasions that it is doing its work in the spirit of our shared European values, and does so for the freedom of the press and with honour.

Our European values represent responsibilities. This is also proven by the six months of the upcoming Hungarian Presidency. This is also proven by its objectives. Economic governance, energy policy or, for that matter, the Roma strategy – these directions and strategies prove the existence of shared values, just as our goals are also shared in order to ensure a strong Europe. Europe is, after all, not just a community of interests, but also a community of values. In fact, you are now showing disregard for these very goals and values. Without even waiting to hear the opinion of the European Commission, you are already making statements, putting forward malicious accusations and making excessive and unfounded comments. Is your goal perhaps to weaken the Hungarian Presidency in doing so? In truth, you are inflicting harm on the European Union, on the entire European Community.

We are currently facing our most severe crisis, and you are exhibiting irresponsible behaviour. As a Member of the delegation of the European People’s Party, I reject this. I encourage the Hungarian Presidency to continue its work despite the accusations and indeed to carry on with its ‘Strong Europe’ programme. I agree with the title of the programme. Through unity, we will achieve much more, and we must strive for progress.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, it is in the interests of the European Union and Hungary, as well as of all Hungarian patriots regardless of party affiliation, that the Hungarian Presidency be a successful one. This is even more important if we consider that today, the EU, including the euro area, is facing extraordinary challenges. Prime Minister, you are a man of purpose. I ask you to put this ability to the service of Europe as the President-in-Office of the European Union, so that Europe may become much more dynamic and efficient. At the same time, however, I ask you to preserve the rules of democracy and protect the values of the European social model.

Unfortunately, as the current debate has also shown, the beginnings of the Hungarian Presidency are turbulent. Can you feel, Prime Minister, how low the confidence in your government is in Europe? People in many Member States, regardless of party affiliation, consider the anti-democratic measures of your government, its economic populism, the media law and its tolerance for the far-right to be contrary to EU norms and values. The EU Presidency cannot absolve you from criticism; moreover, you should lead by example in adhering to the fundamental values of the EU.

The famous quote by Attila József, ‘my anger is for you, not against you,’ applies in this case, because when well-founded criticism is voiced, the EU is not angry with the Hungarian Government; it is angry for it. And this criticism is especially not directed at the Hungarian people. Prime Minister, as a Hungarian and a European, I would like to go through the six months of this Presidency with pride and with my head held high.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Orbán, in an article which appeared yesterday in a major German newspaper, you cited Otto Graf Lambsdorff as one of your role models. We last met at his funeral service in December 2009. You attended as a private individual and we very much appreciated that. I would like to ask you to honour his memory by respecting, following and defending the principles of the liberal constitutional state in all the measures that you take.

You have responded to the criticism of the media law with two arguments. You have said that this is a campaign against Hungary and against you personally and that the campaign is unspecific. I would like to make it very clear on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe that this is not a campaign. It is an issue for Europe if fundamental freedoms are interfered with and called into question in a Member State of the European Union.

I would like to say to the Commission and to Mr Barroso that a legal assessment must be carried out by Mrs Kroes. However, the Commission is not just a solicitor’s office; it is also a political body. The assessment must take a political form and it must be completed quickly.

Your second argument is that the criticism is unspecific. Mr Orbán, I would like to make a few specific points: slander, defamation and incitement to hatred are against the law in Germany and in other democracies. That is what the criminal law is there for. Please let the criminal law take effect in this case. You need to improve the legal protection in Article 163, change the composition and the powers of the media authority in Articles 123 and 183, together with a great deal of other things. There are many specific points. I suggest that you postpone the application of the law until the Commission’s assessment has been carried out and this must be done as quickly as possible.

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Madam President, the European Parliament and Member States are operating double standards. We cannot talk enough of civil rights and freedom of the press when it comes to countries which want to join the European Union, but these things do not seem to apply to the existing members of this club. Are the Copenhagen criteria sacred obligations for all of us, or just for new members?

Member States are turning a blind eye to what each other is doing. If I keep my nose out of your business, then you will have to keep your nose out of my business, too! Even Hungary is asking everyone to keep their noses out of its business. That is a strange attitude for a Presidency of the European Union. It is your job, Prime Minister Orbán, to lead the European Union and, indeed, to encourage Member States to concern themselves with each other’s business to some extent. There is no place for retreat here.

Turning now to our Parliament, the house whose job it should be to preserve the high standard of European values. We are failing to do that! Madam President, it has once again been a pleasure for me to be able to speak the truth and give my balanced view here.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, it is good news that a government enjoying so much support in its own country is taking over the EU Presidency. The Hungarian Government enjoys this support because it acts in the interests of Hungarians, and because it is rebuilding Hungary after the bankrupt, scandal-ridden governments of the Hungarian socialists. It is not such good news, however, that Hungary has been subject to unfair, ideologically-motivated attacks on the eve of its Presidency. The whole matter of the media law shows the hypocrisy of these attacks. There is an identical Media Council in Poland, where it is dominated by the governing party, and it is responsible today for dozens of people – journalists with conservative leanings – being thrown out of the Polish public media. No one in Europe, Mr Schulz least of all, is defending them. Those are the simple facts of the matter.

The bizarre letter published a week ago attacking Hungarians, signed by the former presidents of the Czech Republic and Hungary, and also by the head of the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper in Poland, points to the hypocrisy of the attack. This is the very Gazeta Wyborcza which ensures that people who hold differing opinions have their property confiscated. The truth about today’s attack on Hungary is that it is nothing other than revenge for the putting into practice of successful conservatism. I hope that your Presidency of the EU is as successful, Mr Orbán, as ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, as of 1 January, the Presidency of the European Union was assumed by the Hungarian Government, which has reminded us of the fact through what might be termed a cultural carpet. I will not talk about the map, Prime Minister, only about the culture you have brought to Brussels.

Cherished symbols, portraits of figures of whom your people are justly proud, on the ground, underfoot, in a public space, trodden on and befouled by people from all over Europe. Does that seem like culture to you? Is it a dignified presentation of proud Hungary?

I do not know what led Hungarian diplomats to demean the symbols of their own history. They could have placed them with dignity on the panels or walls of this very hall. Have you seen, Viktor, where the symbols that we cherish are placed in this hall? They are in an honourable place, adorning the President’s table.

I know, Prime Minister, that your country has many problems, but I firmly believe that the proud Hungarian people do not deserve such disrespect from their own government towards their famous figures and symbols.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I basically wished to speak about the Hungarian Presidency, but the speakers before me have infuriated me, and now I must give in a little to the provocation and speak about the Hungarian media law. To put it simply, in Hungary, the Jobbik Movement for a Better Hungary also criticised the language law. We, too, disagree with it. However, to see so many turncoats and hypocrites in one place is astonishing. Where were those who now fancy themselves as protectors of rights, where were you when the Slovak language law was introduced? Where was Mr Cohn-Bendit when the Hungarians in Vojvodina were terrorised by Serb extremists? Where was Mr Martin Schulz when graves in Vojvodina, Hungarian graves, and the graves of Hungarians in Transylvania were desecrated? This is why I see this as a double standard. I cannot accept the criticism you allow yourself against the Hungarian Government and against the Hungarian Presidency.

Unlike the empty cawing of MSZMP or MSZP, Jobbik has always had positive proposals. Yes, we must bring up the matter of the Slovak language law. Yes, we must bring up the matter of annulling the Beneš decrees. Yes, we must bring up the territorial autonomy of the Székely people. Yes, we must bring up the halting and elimination of Roma crime in Hungary and in all of Europe, and it would be welcome if the Hungarian Government could focus just as much on its domestic task of implementing the will of millions of Hungarian voters and finally putting the former Hungarian dictator, Ferenc Gyurcsány, behind bars. These are the real problems and I wish you success for the Presidency.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Orbán, you have two difficult tasks ahead of you. The first involves overcoming eight years of socialist maladministration, bringing political and economic dynamism and stability back to Hungary and reducing debt levels. The electorate has given you a clear mandate to do this.

Your second task is to lead Europe in your role as President-in-Office of the Council during these difficult times and to do everything in your power to resolve the economic and financial crisis. You will have the active support of Parliament and of my group. We are pleased that you have not presented us with a wish list today, as many socialist Presidents-in-Office of the Council have done in recent years, but instead have made your priorities clear.

Thirdly, we are pleased that Hungary has been a member of the European Union since 2004 and that the governing party in Hungary belongs to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). The campaign relating to the new media law, which involves calls for the withdrawal of the right to vote under Article 7, and which was initiated here in Parliament and not by you, but by the parties that lost the 2010 elections in Hungary, they sat here and they are still sitting here now at the front, at least those who have not gone running straight to the press, is hypocritical and intolerable. The assessment will show that the media legislation in Hungary is no different to that in many other states.

In the case of Mr Schulz, who called for the law to be withdrawn, I can only say that he obviously has not read the law which was voted in by a majority under the socialist and green state government in North Rhine-Westphalia. This includes provisions for the establishment of a media authority, for sanctions and for the diversity of opinions. This is exactly what you are doing. This hypocritical approach must not gain a majority in this House.

(Applause)

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

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Langen, is it the case that the state media law in North Rhine-Westphalia puts the responsibility for supervising the media in the hands of one party? Is it the case that the media supervisory body in North Rhine-Westphalia will be used by the government for nine years? Is it the case that in North Rhine-Westphalia, one party decides on whether reporting is or is not balanced? If that is the case, then the situation is the same as it is in Hungary. I do not think that this is what you want. I would also like to ask why Mrs Merkel is criticising the Hungarian legislation, because she is a member …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I am sure you will allow me five minutes.

(The President interrupted the speaker)

Firstly, Mrs Merkel asked whether the law complied with European regulations in all respects and Mr Orbán agreed to change the provisions of the law if necessary, following the assessment by the Commission. I think that this is an approach which is correct, honest, open and fair to everyone involved.

My second point concerns the state media law in North Rhine-Westphalia. Radio programmes are not allowed to present only one opinion or to cover only one party, group, lobby, religious denomination or philosophy under the terms of paragraph 31.

(Heckling)

The law also states that the head of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia can give instructions to the state media authority and can impose fines of up to EUR 500 000.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, I would like to turn to the head of the Hungarian Government. Welcome to the European Parliament, Mr Orbán.

Hungary has taken on its Presidency at a time that is certainly not easy, and the programme you have presented to us is certainly full of major challenges. You asked us several times, as Parliament, to help fulfil this programme, and believe me, Mr Orbán, we really are here in order to support what is good and what is European in your programme.

Your speech also included a call for a strong Europe, however, and I must say that it is not entirely clear to me where your European-ness begins and what its limits are, because I cannot otherwise explain why your government has begun its Presidency with the presentation of a non-existent territorial unit, instead of presenting, as the presiding country, a new vision of Europe.

Therefore, Mr Orbán, I hope that the good European-ness in you continues to develop positively and that there will also be positive Hungarian-ness in you.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Madam President, for a long time, our Union has taken the path of setting target after target, but no one looks back to see if all these targets were achieved or properly implemented. Growth, jobs, a citizen-friendly Union: they all tend to become eternal objectives. We are actually at the point where we should recognise the failure of at least some of our policies and of the one-size-fits-all solutions that are too often applied.

To stimulate the EU’s economic growth, maybe we should start thinking outside the box and accepting the various interests and specificities of our 27 Member States.

The Commission is proposing, and the Presidency endorses, a mere coordination of our economic policies. This might turn into a trap for exactly the economic growth we are seeking, with solely macro-economic and financial targets and policies. While we have an incomplete single market, red tape burdening companies and entrepreneurs, and a messy labour market, our EU growth might turn out to be that of a whale in a pool of barracudas – because such is the global market in today’s crisis context.

With regard to other eternal objectives set out in the Presidency programme, such as achieving a common energy policy, what we need is to identify energy interests and needs common to all the Member States. I am not convinced that spending billions of euro on gigantic infrastructure projects is the answer.

Mr Orbán also talked about enlargement: I hope this does not mean the Hungarian approach of granting citizenship to all Hungarian ethnic citizens in the neighbouring countries. Is EU enlargement in a Eurosceptic context and an economic crisis actually realistic?

In conclusion, I wish us all good luck.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Madam President, the Hungarian Presidency has got off to an unfavourable start. The example which the Hungarian Government has set to the European Union with its new media law has not been a positive one. The new law gives a media watchdog very extensive powers, which casts a worrying shadow on the beginning of the Hungarian Presidency. This law is only one element in a series of worrying developments in Hungary.

Where a single political party dominates, other voices grow silent. The 17th century French author, Rochefoucauld, warned of this a long time ago: ‘Few are wise enough to prefer useful reproof to treacherous praise’. My advice to the Presidency is that it should take Rochefoucauld’s words seriously, in its capacities both as the holder of the EU Presidency and the Hungarian Government.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Strasbourg, Mr Orbán. As Mr Cohn-Bendit has pointed out, everyone here loves Hungary but not everyone loves the Hungarian Government, as you will have realised.

We, on the other hand, love Hungary, think highly of the Hungarian Government and, what is more, are shamelessly cheering your party on. Why are we cheering on the Fides party? Because that party has been a decisive factor in Hungary’s return to a democratic life after a long and terrible dictatorship.

We are cheering Fides on because over the years, over all these years, it has pursued the same values of democracy and freedom, both in government and in opposition. We are cheering Fides on because Fides is today the only real alternative to the populist trend that seems to be taking hold in so many countries of the European Union.

We are also cheering Fides on because, through the priorities that you have mentioned, Fides makes us realise that the battle for a united, free Europe is not yet over. We are backing you, Mr Orbán, and we are cheering you on, because that means cheering Hungary on and cheering Europe on as a whole.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ever since the founding of the European Union, one of its most important issues and challenges has been energy security. For a long time, we believed that the most critical point was the reduction of dependence on energy sources. The economic crisis, however, has clearly demonstrated that what is most important is accessibility and affordability. This was the first year in Hungary when more people froze to death in unheated flats than in the streets. A couple of days ago, the residents of a block of flats requested their heating to be turned off because they could no longer afford it. Ladies and gentlemen, it is very important for us to address the issue of energy security as one of the effects of the economic crisis, and we must do this on the background of our outdated energy infrastructure.

The most important task of the Hungarian Presidency at the energy summit will be to lay down the foundations of this new infrastructure, not just in respect of gas, but electrical lines as well. Our task is not to upgrade the networks of the past, but to guarantee investors and capital binding capabilities for the intelligent energy networks of the future. The task before the Hungarian Government is to convince all Member States to support unanimously the increase in nuclear waste management security. We must guarantee that all this remains within the limits of affordability. Mr President, we cannot approach this with a hot head and cold blood, but only with a clear head, a clear heart and a clear vision. We will be your partners in solving these issues.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, the peoples of Europe are experiencing a grave, destabilising crisis. I think that it is precisely at times like this that we need to go back to the fundamental values underpinning Europe.

The first of these values is the fight against all forms of nationalism. Let me tell you how concerned I am when, having offered the Hungarian nationality to the Magyar populations, you now raise the possibility of giving them the right to vote, in breach of all international conventions.

The second of these European values is the defence of democracy and freedoms. Now, since you came into office, a number of measures have been taken that are of such a nature as to cause us concern and regarding which you may now provide us with answers. The powers of the constitutional court have been restricted, the independence of the European Central Bank has been undermined – in contradiction of the Treaty of Accession – and you are getting people to vote on a media law which, under the pretext of transposing a European directive, is, in actual fact, a law that destroys press freedoms, as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) recently showed.

You explain that your law is similar to that of other Member States, but even if some of them – and I am thinking in particular of my own country – clearly still have progress to make, in what other country of the Union does any part of the media risk a fine of EUR 700 000 for infringing moral standards? The affair is now in the hands of the European Commission, which must talk to us about the main issue, and beyond merely legal issues, whether this law infringes freedom of expression. Were that the case, the Union has instruments for guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights. This is the message of firmness that we are now awaiting.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Prime Minister, Hungary is a European country. It likes the European Parliament. Hungary has chosen as President of the Republic one of our very fine former colleagues, Mr Pál Schmitt, and you have been wise enough to choose as one of your ministers a very fine colleague of ours, Mrs Győri, to whom I pay tribute.

Democracy works. You have been elected. Well done! Europe works. A law of yours is challenged and you reply, ‘I will change it’. You are challenged on the application of values, and you have stated that, when reforming the constitution, which is the former communist constitution, you will adopt the entire Charter of Fundamental Rights. Well done! Politics works. Should anyone doubt the fact, we have a political Europe. That is good news!

You face economic challenges. You are putting the economy of Hungary right, Mr Orbán. You are probably the prime minister we need at this time. It is not the first time you have done this, though. You already did it in 1998, when you were prime minister then as well.

I will end by drawing your attention to Croatia. You want it to join. We are in favour of that. I would draw your attention to the misgivings of certain groups of European public opinion and suggest that you undertake a widespread publicity campaign capable of proving to European citizens that Croatia meets all the criteria for membership, because we no longer follow the course of block membership as we did after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Mr Orbán, on behalf of the Spanish Socialists, I would like to greet the Hungarian Presidency, the third Presidency in the first trio of presidencies under the new dynamic established in the Treaty of Lisbon. That requires consistency with the common script established by the three countries – Spain, Belgium and Hungary – but also, and most importantly, consistency with the principles, values and objectives established in the Treaty of Lisbon itself, because the absolute priority is to implement it and fulfil it.

Some of these common values and principles are established in Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon: respect for freedoms, protection for minors and pluralism, which includes pluralism of information. I therefore share the concern that you expressed that such important objectives for the Hungarian Presidency may be distorted by national debates or peculiarities rather than by what unites us.

The Hungarian media law absolutely cannot and must not be approached as an internal market issue in the national transposition of the Audiovisual Services Directive. It is a debate that does not affect just the internal market or only Hungary. It affects fundamental rights and the whole of the Union, and I therefore join those who are convinced that the only way that we will come out of this crisis is through greater integration, not through competitive nationalism.

The Presidency will be judged based on its willingness to take the lead in fulfilling the values and objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon, remaining loyal to the commitments made in belonging to the European Union.

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

  Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I listened very carefully to what Mr López Aguilar said, and I would like to remind him that the Spanish Government – run by his party – is currently preparing to create a State Media Council and a law against unequal treatment and discrimination, which hang over any possible political adversaries like the Sword of Damocles, and could interfere with media content.

Therefore, Mr López Aguilar, before you criticise others – and I am not going to go into detail on the issue of the Hungarian law – give some thought to the fact that it is not good to use two different yardsticks and have double standards. Do not forget that you were Minister for Justice.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, it is not the first time that we have heard entirely inappropriate comparisons being made here between a law that has caused concern across the European Union and also among very distinguished representatives of your own political family, Mr Vidal-Quadras, and laws that respect the rights to freedom of expression, free formation of public opinion in a pluralist society and, of course, pluralism in the media. The latter establish audiovisual councils, whose task is not in any way to interfere with pluralism in the media and absolutely not to predetermine media content.

That is the case in Spain, just like many other examples that have been given in this House, which have nothing to do with the subject that has caused so much concern during this discussion.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). – Madam President, the Hungarian Presidency has a unique opportunity to put into practice energy security for Europe. There will be two consecutive presidencies – Hungarian and Polish – with strong political determination to use all the possibilities at hand. The issues we face so far are a consolidation or monopoly of supply and transit, lack of an interconnected single market and particular vulnerability on the Union’s eastern flank.

What we expect from the Hungarian Presidency is that it will utilise the geometry of the Union in the form of a triangle: a north-south Baltic-Adriatic axis or corridor, with energy ports in Poland and Croatia, complemented by the Caspian gas pipeline supplying the EU directly, separately and independently, initially from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The Southern Corridor should obviously include the Nabucco project.

So a new source of energy security for Europe is the ultimate challenge for the Hungarian Presidency. The three imperative aims are to build interconnectors, to ensure adequate funding and to boost the external dimension of EU energy policy because energy is a public good for the Union, it needs to be Europeanised, the policy must be based on solidarity, and our political will should guarantee its implementation.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Madam President, this is a time when we should be discussing issues of economic governance, employment rights and the environment, all high on our agenda; a time when we should be celebrating the fantastic achievement of Hungary which, for the first time, has the honour of the Presidency, and it saddens me that the Hungarian people – who stood up against oppression and fought for so long for democracy – are now having that democracy challenged by the new media laws in Hungary and the protectionist policies used to attack foreign companies, casting a shadow on what should be a proud period for the Hungarian people.

This is a critical time for our citizens and we must carry on with our programme of reform. However, we must also be vigilant to ensure that Europe does not slip back into the dark days of the past. We must continue to oppose and highlight any forms of state censorship and protectionist policies. We must reach out to the Hungarian people, but our future democracy cannot be compromised.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the launch of a European Roma strategy was first put forward by the European Parliament in early 2008 and, in the three years that have passed since then, a whole array of EU actions and documents have proven the importance of combating the segregation and poverty afflicting the 12 million Roma of Europe. As a Member of Fidesz and the only Roma Member of the European Parliament, I am proud that the new Hungarian Government was the first among the Council presidencies to fully embrace the commitment and mission of providing a solution at European level.

The social inclusion of the Roma is one of the most serious challenges in Europe today and, at the same time, one of the most promising opportunities for our ageing societies. In fact, the integration of the Roma is not only a human rights obligation, but also an economic necessity. As the European Parliament’s rapporteur on this subject, I sincerely hope that, based on Parliament’s report and the Commission’s upcoming communication, the Hungarian Presidency will manage to draw up a strategy which is truly in the spirit of the Community, and which will define this target group on economic, rather than ethnic grounds, while reinforcing the implementation of the directives on equal opportunities, taking account of the territorial nature of segregation and mitigating the disadvantage of citizens living in micro-regions.

Prime Minister, this process is about much more than European Roma strategy: it is about mutual trust, and about Europe’s ability to build a community of values and overcome the challenges lying before us. I wish you best of luck for these tremendous tasks. Taves bahtalo!

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the press in Europe is under no obligation to take a balanced approach. In Europe, we have freedom of the press. If a body is established in Europe which aims to bring about a so-called balance by means of penalties which cannot be followed up, by ending the protection of sources and by creating an atmosphere of fear, I expect the Commission, which is the guardian of European law, to react. However, it should not respond hesitantly, half-heartedly and defensively. Instead it should take rapid, decisive and effective action. It has not yet done this.

Mr Orbán, I have not been convinced by the aggressive and unreasonable defence mounted by your allies. We thought you were a liberal. I can imagine that this does not always feel good. However, I would like to ask you how you feel now, when you are seen as someone who is leading a country away from democracy and towards totalitarianism?

(Heckling)

How do you feel as someone who has to be defended by the people sitting up there, Mr Orbán? That is what I would like to ask you.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, first and foremost, I would like to say that on this day, when we are discussing the Hungarian Presidency, without prejudice to our ability to debate all the intended topics, Parliament should be focusing on the problems of the European Union, and this is something that is not being done here. Moreover, in order to concentrate on the problems of the EU, it is necessary to read this carefully and discuss whether it agrees with the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency or not, instead of discussing points or issues pertaining to life within Hungary, which can be regulated as part of a normal, healthy relationship between the Commission and the Hungarian Government and Parliament, if at all.

I would therefore like to say here that, quite apart from the priority that the Hungarian Presidency is, naturally, going to give to topical economic and financial issues, I am very pleased to see that the Hungarian plan for the next six months is very clear and ambitious, putting the focus and priority on three matters that will be vital to the future of Europe: food, which is entering a phase of serious global crisis; energy, which is crucial for our security and economic sustainability; and water, of which little has been said here, but which is the next challenge that Europeans will have to face after food.

I hope that you will succeed in your objectives.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) Madam President, Prime Minister, 2011 will be the first year in which the European Union will be headed by two countries from Central and Eastern Europe, Hungary and Poland. These two countries have made a special contribution to the development of democracy, to the integration of Europe, and it seems to me that these merits these two countries possess should not be frittered away in the way demonstrated today.

Mr Orbán, I implore you to free yourself from the shadow that has fallen over your Presidency. Then we will be able to say at the end of it that you fulfilled your priorities. They are what I want us to concentrate on, and not the resolutions and actions of the Hungarian parliament, which fall short of the basic principles of democracy.

You will have the full support of the socialists and the democrats in the completion of negotiations with Croatia during your Presidency.

In your submission I heard nothing about a review of neighbourhood policy. I hope that you will show the necessary initiative, and hope that in this period, you will be able to put Belarus back on track for democratic development.

I take the liberty of disagreeing with Mr Cohn-Bendit. I do not believe that Mr Orbán can be compared with Mr Chávez; there are other premiers in Europe who are far more suited to that role.

  Ernst Strasser (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Orbán, it is true that your country has suffered a great deal and that your country, you yourself and your party have made a major contribution to peace and to a united Europe. As a good neighbour and as an Austrian, I would like to make this clear with genuine respect in what is an historic hour for you.

Creating jobs, promoting growth and increasing security are the priorities of your Presidency and we are happy to support them. Other priorities include strengthening the internal market, making progress on energy policy, the Danube strategy and concluding the negotiations with Croatia. These are all areas where we want to and intend to support you.

I would like to thank you specifically for your defence of freedom of religion. Christianity is one of the cornerstones of European action and European thought and we very much respect the fact that you have reformed the communist media legislation in Hungary which dates back to 1986. This is important and it is also the right thing to do. We think that many of the opinions which we have heard in this context, including in this House, are wrong. A number of the voices remind me of the sanctions which were unjustly imposed on the Austrian Government in 2000. I think that you are being treated just as unfairly now as the Austrian Government was then.

I would like to thank you for what you have done and wish the new Hungarian Presidency every success.

(Applause)

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, Prime Minister, as a European citizen and socialist, I welcome your commitment to implement a Danube strategy, a coherent EU-level Roma strategy and, as a Romanian citizen, I welcome your Presidency’s support for my country and Bulgaria in joining the Schengen area.

However, the start of the Hungarian Presidency has been overshadowed by the heated debates about a shameful law which tarnishes the Union’s fundamental values. This law seems to have been drafted under the political influence of Horthy, Kádár, Antonescu or Ceauşescu. It undermines Hungary’s credibility and prestige as an EU Member State and is a humiliation to the Hungarian people who are valued for their commitment to freedom. This law has been sharply criticised by two major EU governments, in Germany and France, which belong to your political family. Honourable MEPs from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) have criticised this law and presume that they will not be excluded soon from the PPE Group.

We cannot accept things moving in this direction. We cannot allow it to continue.

  Wim van de Camp (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, as a result of the debate on the Hungarian media law, everyone in Europe knows who the current holder of the Presidency of the European Union is. That has not always been the case previously. I think it is a positive development that the Prime Minister has submitted the law to the European Commission and it is with confidence that we await the European Commission’s opinion.

Next, moving to the four priorities of the Hungarian Presidency. Growth and jobs. First of all, the administrative burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SEMs). What specific action are you going to take on that? The digital agenda: China is not going to wait for Europe to catch up. The second priority is a stronger Europe. We in Europe are currently up to our necks in water. I am not talking about the rise in the sea level, but about the rise in the water level of the Rhine, the Po and the Moselle. I would be grateful if you could pay attention to this issue, too.

Next, friendliness towards citizens: what are we going to do about Schengen, Romania and Bulgaria, and the admission of Croatia?

Finally, Madam President, Hungary has imposed an emergency tax on businesses from other countries. This tax is contrary to the internal market. When will it be abolished?

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

  László Tőkés (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, please allow me to draw the following parallel in connection with the media law: in 1956, the majority of western communist parties, as well as a large number of western left-wing liberal intellectuals, condemned the Hungarian revolutionaries, and spoke against them in defence of the Soviet Bolsheviks. Mutatis mutandis, something similar is taking place today. Many of our western socialist and liberal colleagues are siding with a party of ex-communists and pseudo-liberals against the true force behind the change of regime, the followers of the late József Antall, the freedom fighters of Viktor Orbán. This is apparent in the context of the media law. Ladies and gentlemen, let us by no means mistake the once-champions and heirs of the past, these post-communists, with a true and credible left wing. The two are not the same. Back in his day, Albert Camus also had to realise who the Soviet Stalinists truly were, and took the side of the Hungarian revolution.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Orbán, I agree with you on three points. The first is the Croatia question. We are taking the same approach and we hope to find a solution together with your foreign minister. The second concerns the importance of integrating the Roma and the third is the European significance of the Hungarian revolution.

I come from Austria and I was born close to the Hungarian border. I was aware of what was going on, admittedly from the better side of that border. I was assigned to teach two of my classmates German. I know all about the significance of the revolution. However, it was a revolution against the claim to power, against the monopoly of power. Its aim was to bring about freedom, including freedom of the press.

Mr Orbán, please think again about whether this law is really in accordance with the meaning, the spirit and the aims of the Hungarian revolution. When you compare it with these aims, you will be able to draw up a better law. Therefore, I am calling on you once again to consider for yourself how you can draft a better media law, which is in line with the Hungarian revolution and the spirit of that revolution.

(Applause)

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). – (SL) Mr President, I would like to address a few words of encouragement to, and support for, the Hungarian Presidency and Hungary, a country which is a good neighbour of Slovenia’s and one with which we have many things in common. I would also like to support the main priorities which you, Mr Orbán, have today outlined for your Presidency.

Hungary can make a significant contribution to a further consolidation of the stability of the region in which we all live and, in particular, to ensuring that the region as a whole embraces modern values and its future.

That is why I am going to tell you something that you might not like to hear: I think it would be best if you let the story of Trianon remain in the past. Do not use it as a reason to disturb your neighbours or open up old wounds. Everyone must learn to live with their history.

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Mr President, I would like to comment on a matter that has already received quite a lot of attention here this morning. That is Hungary’s media law. This issue, Mr Orbán, is not about Hungary or Hungarian domestic policy; we are talking about the EU’s fundamental rights and our credibility from the point of view of the rest of the world. Freedom of the press will be jeopardised throughout the EU if Hungary gets a politically appointed media council and has to pay millions in fines.

Mr Orbán, I belong to a young European generation that has perhaps taken freedom of the press for granted, but today I can see that it is not a foregone conclusion. I am pleased that you have promised to revise the law if it contravenes EU legislation and treaties, and I believe that even now, you are able to go back home and carry out revisions. You owe that to all those who have fought for fundamental rights and freedom of the press, and you owe it to my generation, which has never known anything different. I believe that we have to build up democracy in the EU, not dismantle it.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, strengthening Europe also means strengthening the Commission and extending the safety net, both from the perspective of its finances and its content. It means reinforcing democracy in Europe and it means a community of Europe. The process of making Europe stronger begins at home. Help us to make progress with ‘europeanising’ internal policy and to ensure that Europe does not become weakened by nationalism.

If we want to strengthen Europe, Mr Orbán, we must strengthen our common ground and reduce our weaknesses. Our strengths include the same legal systems, the same values, the same freedoms, the community method, the internal market with its four freedoms and the common currency. Parties are simply the instruments of democracy and not the other way around. Our weaknesses are nationalism, egoism, polarisation and protectionism. Let us use these six months to make Europe and the community of Europe stronger.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would firstly like to thank Prime Minister Orbán for his presentation of a very ambitious programme. I would also like to thank the Members for a lovely debate and an intense exchange of views.

I think that democratic debate is the best way to find the best solutions for Europe. However, there is one condition, and that is that the interlocutors must have a common goal. I believe that we have such a goal because most of us in this House want a stronger Europe. The motto chosen by the Hungarian Presidency is thus a very appropriate and good one. On behalf of the Commission, I would therefore emphasise that we must support the goals of the Hungarian Presidency.

As the debate made clear, there is a tall order for this semester. We have to introduce economic governance, find solutions to the sovereign debt crisis, and implement the EU 2020 strategy much more quickly – to name but a few of the aims in the economic field. However, we very much welcome the Hungarian Presidency’s focus on seeking a better solution regarding the integration of Roma, and on the Danube strategy.

I should like to comment on the issue of how to integrate Roma in the European Union more effectively. As you know, we engaged in a very broad programme to raise awareness and promote coordinated dialogue in the Member States on opportunities offered by EU funds. Following on from Hungary in 2009 and Romania in 2010, Slovakia and Bulgaria will be the focus this year. I believe that, together with you and with the Hungarian Presidency, we will be able in April to deliver the new EU framework for national Roma integration strategies.

I would like to comment on Mr Cohn-Bendit’s remarks because I consider it very important to demonstrate clearly at this time that the EU stands by Tunisia and its people. I would like, in particular, to pay tribute to the courage that all Tunisians have shown in recent days. I am sure that the EU will support Tunisians as they pursue their peaceful and democratic aspirations.

The new unity government should truly represent the wishes of Tunisian society. It should conduct the country through a peaceful and democratic transition and organise early elections. I would like to assure this Parliament that we stand ready to provide immediate assistance in preparing and organising the electoral process and to offer lasting support for a genuine democratic transition. If requested, we are also prepared to deploy the necessary assistance to help the Tunisian authorities with urgent needs.

In answer to the calls for swift action from the Commission on the question of media law, I would like to inform the honourable Members that our discussion with the Hungarian authorities at political level and at expert level is intense and ongoing. The Commission will send a clarification letter to Budapest this week seeking further explanations. I should like to emphasise once again that we are acting very swiftly, given the complexity of the issue. I must also repeat what President Barroso said: that we are much encouraged by Prime Minister Orbán’s political commitment to correcting the law if necessary.

We are fully confident that Hungary will take all the necessary steps to ensure that the new media law is implemented with full respect for European values on media freedom and for the relevant EU legislation as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission will, in this regard, act in full accordance with its role as guardian of the Treaties.

I should like to conclude by saying that we have full trust in the commitment and enthusiasm of the Hungarian Presidency. We have seen the solid preparation made by the Hungarian authorities for this task, with a view to being a very energetic Presidency in this important semester. We believe that together, we can further the European project. I am sure that the European Parliament will support this work and will play its role in a spirit of loyal cooperation. We clearly need to make very substantive progress on our top priorities in this semester.

I wish the Presidency all the best for the next six months. We are looking forward to working together for the benefit of Europe.

[Applause]

  Viktor Orbán, President-in-Office of the Council. – (HU) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Members of Parliament who honoured us with their speeches in today’s exciting and valuable debate. This debate was far too valuable for us to address the arguments put forward in a brief, one-minute reply. I will adhere to the time limit, but I cannot help but respond to some questions.

First, I will don the hat of Hungarian Prime Minister. Allow me to express my surprise that so many serious and respectable people, like those who have added their comments, are in factual error. It would be undeserved and embarrassing, not just for you but for me as well, if I gave a complete list of all the factual errors people, starting with Mr Schulz, have made here regarding the Hungarian media law and Hungarian democracy. Just to make the extent of your factual errors clear, let me give you one example: the Hungarian media law cannot sanction unbalanced reporting and cannot impose any financial penalties for it. So what are you protesting against? And the list could go on and on and on. I would therefore like to make it clear that I am sorry to see you have been so badly misled and deceived. I can now see clearly that in this debate, I cannot even hope to be treated fairly, and instead have to trust that the European Parliament will be able to form an unbiased, objective opinion, which, as a matter of fact, I personally will gladly accept, and will proceed according to the stated procedure.

Nevertheless, I wish to remind you that I believe that Mr Schulz’s idea that the Hungarian Presidency will be gauged not on the basis of the programme presented, but the performance delivered, is a valuable one. I can only recommend you to follow the same principle in respect of the Hungarian media law, which has been in force for weeks now. I will gladly send you German language excerpts from Hungarian newspapers and you will see that the fervent speeches of Mr Cohn-Bendit are but innocent baby sounds compared to what the Hungarian press is publishing. So much for factual accuracy.

On the other hand, I would like to remind the critics of the media law that we are living in the 21st century. How can you possibly believe that anyone in Hungary, or in any other European country, would be capable of suppressing the freedom of opinion in the age of the Internet? During the Hungarian electoral campaign, we largely won the elections through an uncontrolled Internet and Facebook. How can you believe that, in the 21st century, one could restrict the free flow of opinions? I am shocked to see how much you are living in the past.

Similarly, I would only like to note as a matter of interest that the media law you are objecting to repealed the press act adopted in 1986, during the communist regime, which, until the adoption of the new media law, allowed newspapers to be terminated simply by deleting them from the register. Nobody ever complained about this in the past twenty years, even though it was most anti-democratic. I therefore suggest that we continue this media law debate in the spirit of reason and rational arguments.

At the same time, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to inform you that, contrary to some of the opinions that were expressed here, Hungary is in the process of rebuilding the rule of law. I would like to point out that, although it was not the subject of your debates in the past years, the Hungarian secret services had been used for political purposes over those past years, and this is now the subject of court proceedings. In Hungary, the police had been ordered to use force against peaceful masses, and this is now the subject of criminal proceedings. In Hungary, information of public interest was falsified, and this is what resulted in the current state of our economy. Today, the rule of law is being reinforced in Hungary, after a policy of dismantling the rule of law, which, for some reason, never drew any criticism from you. Listening to the debate about the media law, I unfortunately had to conclude that it is not really the media law you are having a problem with, but with the fact that, in an act of solidarity unprecedented in Europe, the Hungarian people voted a two-thirds majority to a political force in Hungary. This is, without doubt, a very exciting and interesting question and I am convinced that this can be used for the benefit of Europe.

Since Mr Lambsdorff also made a personal observation, allow me to respond to that as well. Mr Lambsdorff, I address you as a European addresses a European, as a Hungarian addresses a German. Your media law is not one iota more democratic than its Hungarian counterpart, and if you dispute this claim, please do so in an objective debate. And I will not accept, either from the Germans or from anyone else, that just because we have been living under a dictatorship for forty years, anyone could call into question the Hungarian people’s commitment to democracy.

Of course the media law can and should be criticised, and I accept this as natural, but a nation should not be insulted. And I would like to make it clear that calling into question the commitment of the Hungarian people and the Hungarian Government to democracy is an insult to the Hungarian people … (interruption, applause). Please allow me to refer to the statement accusing Hungary of taking steps towards becoming a dictatorship. I was here and heard it with my own ears. What are you protesting against? I was here and heard it with my own ears! You threatened me, claiming that Hungary was moving towards becoming a dictatorship. What is this if not an insult to the Hungarian people? And, I must make this clear, I will always stand up to protect my home country, Hungary. This is not a matter of media laws!

As regards European issues, if you will allow me, I will now put on my other hat as well. I consider the issue of the bond market, as referred to by Mr Verhofstadt, to be an important one, and I would like to state that the Hungarian Presidency believes that the formation of a bond market is necessary and inevitable in the long term. We therefore support the European policies that guide Hungary and EU Member States within the euro area, and the whole European Union, in this direction. I would like to point out one thing, namely, that we should convince our own governments, the national governments, that they must not use the creation of a euro bond market as an excuse for saving on structural reforms. We must therefore first undertake the necessary structural reforms, and after that I believe the introduction of the bond market will be possible.

As regards the matter of Tunisia, I would like to point out that we are in continuous consultations with the foreign representation, and we support all democratic efforts and movements outside the borders of Europe as well and, together with the foreign representative, we will demonstrate this with sufficient emphasis. However, we must not contrast this issue with the global trends in the persecution of Christians. Both problems need to be addressed.

Lastly, ladies and gentlemen, there have been a number of comments expressing concern about the turbulent beginnings of the Hungarian Presidency, and that this could be detrimental to our EU Presidency. Let me tell you that this will all depend on you. We, for our part, are ready, as am I personally, to follow and nurture both threads of this twofold debate during the Hungarian Presidency. So if you feel that during the Hungarian Presidency, you wish to debate both Hungary and EU policies, I would like to state that we are ready for that, and will not consider this situation uncomfortable in the least. Not that we are happy about it, of course. We are not happy that critical opinions directed at Hungary are being jumbled up with matters of European policy, but we do not regard this situation as unnatural. Europe, too, is governed by democracy, and we are having democratic debates.

I never expected the Hungarian Presidency to be a simple victory procession, like a beauty pageant where the models parade themselves and everyone simply applauds. I was never under that assumption! I am well aware that we will be having serious political debates. I am ready for this, whatever the subject may be, and let me assure you that Hungary and the Hungarian Presidency possess enough strength to see the debate on both Hungary and European matters through with the necessary seriousness and strength, and that no attacks concerning internal politics or Hungarian affairs will dissuade us from following through with our EU programmes and priorities and making this a successful Presidency. My goal is to turn this half-year, which promises to be the most difficult one for the European Union as yet, into one of the most successful ones. Thank you for honouring me with your attention.

  President. – Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, personal statements may be made at the end of a debate. Mr Schulz has asked to make such a personal statement.

(Murmurs of dissent)

Ladies and gentlemen, we are acting pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, which we adopted together.

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Orbán, you have addressed me personally. You have also spoken directly to some other Members of this House. I would like to give you some thoughts to take with you for the next six months relating to the remarks about the Hungarian people and about you as the representative of the Hungarian people. Mr Cohn-Bendit has described in his biography his relationship with the Hungarian people. In my group there are Members of the European Parliament who have been locked up in communist prisons. In my group, there is one Member, Mr Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, who was subjected to torture in Spain because of his opposition to the Franco regime. We all have a joint task, you and all of us who are sitting here, and that is to defend democracy, for example, against the sort of people who are heckling us here today.

No one who criticises a law is insulting the Hungarian people. You can be sure of one thing. The Members on the left of this House and, in particular, my group, will promise you that values such as freedom, democracy and justice are our common values. If we believe that a law does not live up to these values, then we will criticise the law, but this does not mean that we are criticising the Hungarian people.

(Applause)

If we all take that to heart, Mr Orbán, then something will happen which we and you both need. We cannot create a successful Europe by dismembering it. Europe will only succeed if the sovereign Member States and the Union with its community work together. Do not play one off against the other. For the next six months, you have taken on the role of President-in-Office of the Council. We want you to join with us in defending the values of Europe and not in playing off Hungary against the European Union.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Mr Schulz. Prime Minister, thank you for your speech and for your presence. Mr Cohn-Bendit, do you wish to make a personal statement as well?

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are times in history – I can tell you this in any language – when one simply must not go beyond a certain point.

Prime Minister Orbán, you are proud of the Hungarian people and you are right to be so, but democracy tells us one thing, from Tocqueville to all theorists of democracy: ‘truth is not always on the side of the majority’.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. – Mr Cohn-Bendit, it must be a personal statement.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Are you going to be quiet up there? When Mr Orbán claims in this House …

(Noise in the Chamber)

Are you mobilising the extreme right? You are right to do so.

When he claims in this House that we have said something against the Hungarian people, it is national populism; that is to say, it is wanting not to discuss the content of something but rather to set people against each other. This is unworthy of the European Union, Mr Orbán. You invited us to dine with you. I have lost my appetite now; I will not dine with you. What you have done is disgraceful!

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Mr President, I rise to speak under the same rule, whichever one it was, that Mr Cohn-Bendit just used. I would like some enlightenment, and you are far more expert in the Rules of Procedure than I am, sir. The only rule that I can see on personal statements is Rule 151 which says that speakers must confine themselves to statements made about themselves. Under what rule was Mr Schulz allowed to give a speech? Under what rule is Mr Cohn-Bendit allowed to give a speech in these circumstances? Are all MEPs equal or are some MEPs more equal than others?

(Applause)

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Orbán was, in fact, addressing Mr Schulz directly – these are the facts – to express his concern that this may offend the Hungarian nation. These were his words.

The issues which have been raised in the Chamber have been clarified. Let us retain our dignity. The Hungarian Presidency has made an important presentation. We adopted the Hungarian Presidency’s programme, we approved it and we heard some very positive speeches about what Hungary will do over the next six months. This is extremely important for all of us. Let us show our approval once again, and calmly go our separate ways after the debate, for this was a very serious debate. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I gave the floor to the Members who asked to make personal statements. I should like to thank Mr Orbán for his speech and for taking part in our sitting, and for presenting the Hungarian Presidency’s programme.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Dominique Baudis (PPE), in writing. – (FR) For the next six months, you will hold the Presidency of the Council, and many challenges await you. You are making the exit from the crisis your top priority. I am convinced that under your Presidency, the institutions and the Member States will continue to work well together. It is our duty to ensure the long-term survival of the solidarity and stabilisation mechanisms, which have already shown their worth.

In order to achieve our aims, we will also have to focus on reforming the international financial system. We, in Europe, have been the forerunners of the regulation and supervision of the financial markets. The French Presidency of the G20 is an opportunity that must be grasped. A united Europe should set an example to its foreign partners.

The European Neighbourhood Policy is a key instrument in the Union’s foreign policy. Thanks to it, we maintain stable relationships with our closest neighbours. The Eastern Partnership, which is one of your priorities, should not be promoted at the expense of the Mediterranean Partnership. The Union for the Mediterranean is losing momentum and is equally deserving of our attention. Europe remains its firm supporter. What do you intend to do to revive it?

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. – (NL) It is a positive thing that the Hungarian Prime Minister has clearly emphasised his willingness to adjust the new media law, should the EU so request. The European Commission must now be able to do its work in complete independence. That is the only way to break free of party political games. Media pluralism and freedom of the press are fundamental European values. All EU Member States, not just Hungary, have made a formal commitment to respect them. That is enshrined in the EU Treaty and the Council of Europe has formal agreements on the matter. We are confident that the Hungarian Government will leave no room for ambiguity there.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I would like to welcome Hungary which has begun its first Presidency in the European Union. Hungary, which has taken over the helm of the Presidency from the old Member State Belgium, begins its Presidency at a rather difficult time, because not all European Union Member States are enjoying an equally successful economic recovery following the economic and financial crisis. Furthermore, even more efforts will need to be made for the crisis to be overcome fully, and therefore I agree with the priorities set by Hungary on European economic stabilisation and the issues of EU enlargement, energy and Roma integration. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the directive on maternity leave, which was rejected by the Member States, ought to be reviewed as a matter of urgency, not to mention the uncertain outlook for the Anti-Discrimination Directive, which is still blocked in the Council. These laws are very relevant to European citizens, and therefore their future must be decided as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I would urge the country holding the Presidency to pay more attention to the modernisation of higher education, which has an impact on youth employment. I am pleased that in its programme, Hungary lists combating child poverty as one of its priorities, but I would urge the country holding the Presidency to take concrete measures in this area and to cooperate with the European Commission by initiating a strategy or legislation on child poverty. So I wish Hungary a successful Presidency in the coming six months, improving the situation for European citizens and safeguarding their rights and freedoms.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – The media law adopted by Hungary’s Parliament is clearly at odds with Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that guarantees freedom of expression and information. The watchdog established under this Hungarian law has been given the job of ensuring that journalistic reporting is ‘balanced’. This could seriously inhibit press freedom and leave the way clear for arbitrary rulings. Moreover, this same watchdog is made up of elected members of the sole party in government. Such a composition does nothing to ensure either the objectivity of the watchdog’s decisions or its independence as an authority from Hungary’s government. I urge the European Commission to proceed immediately with a legal examination of this law and its implementation and, if necessary, to take action in relation to Hungary to ensure that this law is amended and brought into line with the fundamental values on which the European Union is based.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Unfortunately, Prime Minister Orbán has started off this debate in the worst possible way, beginning his speech with an anti-communist diatribe, seeking to distract attention from his own serious culpability in exacerbating Hungary’s economic situation, and in the exponential increase of unemployment and poverty which the country is currently experiencing, whilst shying away from acknowledging the violations of democracy, freedom of expression, trade union rights and other work and social rights, along with violations of the freedom of the press and fundamental human rights.

We view the way things are developing in the European Union with great concern. The Hungarian Presidency has not given any credible responses to these problems, which also exist in other EU countries. Quite the contrary, President Orbán has reaffirmed authoritarian positions, insisting on the liberalisation of the financial markets, and on the structural reforms necessary to fully achieve the objectives of capitalism which the EU serves.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) In 2011, we will be working on many important subjects, such as the directive on consumer rights, legislation in the field of financial services and intellectual property and preparations for the future 2014-2020 financial perspective. With this in mind, I hope that the Hungarian Presidency, and the Polish Presidency which follows immediately after it, will contribute to the realisation of these specific projects, by turning our age-old friendship into fruitful cooperation within the framework of the EU.

Unfortunately, the start of the Hungarian Presidency has been decidedly spoiled and dominated by the controversial media law recently adopted by the country. The EU institutions could not ignore this matter following the letter addressed to Brussels by a large number of European intellectuals. From the information available today, it appears that certain provisions of the Hungarian law, for example, those regarding the procedures for appointing and dismissing the National Media and Telecommunications Authority, and also those regarding the scope of competences of this body, may raise doubts as to the independence of the Hungarian media.

The strong reaction of my political group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, is not, however, meant as criticism of the Hungarian nation, but of the state holding the EU Presidency. The matter is urgent. It is in the interests of both Hungary and the EU as a whole that it should be cleared up without delay, so that we can concentrate first and foremost on the issues of the utmost urgency with which the entire EU is having to contend.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Mr Orbán claims to be a democrat. Any self-respecting democrat must accept criticism of his or her political actions. However, when the Hungarian Prime Minister describes any criticism of his policy as an attack against the Hungarian people, he is making a serious error. With this nationalist attempt to hijack the debate, he shows that his credentials as a democrat are suspect.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) Nobody can deny that the Hungarian Presidency took a turbulent start. I was hoping that a convincing introduction by the Hungarian Prime Minister in Strasbourg would dispel the concerns. I note with regret that this was not the case. Mr Viktor Orbán did not introduce himself to the Groups of the European Parliament as a European politician who seeks consensus and compromise, but as a ‘fighter,’ striking populist and nationalist tones, who is ‘protecting the Hungarian people’ from ‘attacks’. However, neither the Hungarian people nor the Hungarian Government had been insulted by the Members of Parliament, but a great deal of criticism has been voiced against the troubling steps taken by Fidesz, including the media law. It was mostly the Eurosceptics and far-right speakers who adopted insulting tones as they lashed out in conspicuous concert against those criticising the Hungarian Government. It saddens me that the implementation of the Hungarian Presidency programme could be jeopardised by the government’s attacks on the rule of law. How events will play out after such a turbulent start will, contrary to Mr Viktor Orbán’s warning, not depend on the European Parliament, but instead on whether Fidesz and its leader will be willing and able to engage in politics that respect European values both at home and on the European stage. In fact, the Prime Minister cannot have two hats – one for use at home as head of the government, and one worn in Europe as the President-in-Office – but only one: that of the politician who keeps our shared principles and values equally in mind regardless of where he is.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – I feel proud that my country is the current President of the Council. What I would like to mention, rather than the lack of democratic commitment on the part of the Orbán government, is the total absence of gender issues among the Presidency priorities.

There is only one plausible reference to the problem, and – at a time when women in Europe are threatened by the aftermath of a devastating economic crisis, as their unemployment is skyrocketing, as conservative governments cut back on social services and introduce disadvantageous taxation systems – that is not much. Social inclusion, demographic challenges, etc. are all important issues but the situation of women needs to be assessed separately because their problems and needs are different from those of men: on the labour market, and in relation to pension and healthcare schemes, taxation systems, etc.

I am asking Hungary not to be afraid to use the influence of the rotating Council Presidency for the benefit of women. Make sure that the Council adopts the Maternity Leave Directive as Parliament voted for it; step up sexual and reproductive health rights (starting in Hungary, of course); work towards a gender-sensitive realisation of the EU 2020 strategy; and lobby for a gender-sensitive EU budget.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D), in writing. – (BG) I would like to congratulate Mr Orbán on the beginning of the Hungarian Presidency of the EU. We all wish you a successful Presidency. It is understandable that this desire is particularly strong among the new Member States. One of the Hungarian Presidency’s stated priorities is the expansion of the Schengen area. This issue is exceptionally important to the Bulgarian socialists and all Bulgarian citizens. Since the first day of EU membership on 1 January 2007, the Bulgarian authorities have been working to make Bulgaria a reliable external border of the EU. Now, at the beginning of 2011, this mission has almost been accomplished. I expect the Hungarian Presidency to secure a European Council resolution in favour of Bulgaria and Romania’s membership of the Schengen area by the middle of 2011. When the last outstanding technical requirements have been met in the coming weeks, the European Council will have to resolve to include Bulgaria and Romania in the Schengen area without imposing any more political conditions.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I urge the Hungarian Presidency to look into problems of freedom of movement in the field of education and the job market. Today, mutual recognition of qualifications obtained in educational institutions of different Member States, as well as experiences in various job markets, is facing numerous obstacles.

The existing situation: While the Commission is doing an assessment of the progress on education, I call upon the Hungarian Presidency to ensure that this problem will be addressed seriously also in the Council. There is a need to convince the Member States to agree on easier procedures in recognising educational qualifications regardless of the country where they have been obtained.

I welcome the will of the Hungarian Presidency to energise the creation of an integrated European gas pipeline system that should end the isolation of some Member States, including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

I would like to remind the new Presidency that the European Parliament has adopted two important documents about energy solidarity and safety which need to be implemented by the Council. I hope that the February European Council will agree on a new European energy strategy. This should also include a plan for the Baltic Sea energy connections network.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I fully support the Hungarian Presidency’s priorities on account of their pro-European nature and similarity to the interests of the EU as a whole. I represent the country which will take over the Presidency next, and I should like to make it known that we will cooperate closely with the Hungarian Presidency. Good cooperation will facilitate smooth hand-overs of the Presidency between the Polish-Cypriot-Danish trio.

I am particularly pleased at Hungary’s declaration regarding its commitment to the development of the Eastern Partnership and the European Neighbourhood Policy. Similarly, I would like to express my delight at the fact that EU enlargement is one of the Hungarian Presidency’s priorities. The fact that Hungary and Poland hold such similar positions on EU enlargement should help ensure continuity during the Polish Presidency as far as this issue is concerned. I hope that the Eastern Partnership summit to be held in May will not merely summarise the implementation of this initiative over the two years of its existence, but that it will bring tangible results with regard to visa-free travel, trade and energy.

Similarly to the Hungarian Presidency, Poland believes that there is a need for a joint approach to freedom and justice, by strengthening the protection of personal data and promoting civil rights and common values throughout the EU. One of the priorities calls for the sustainable use of resources, thus acting as a continuation of the goals of the previous Spanish and Belgian Presidencies, and reflecting the Commission’s extensive efforts in this area. It is vital for planned measures to take into account the diverse conditions and potentials which exist in the Member States.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I congratulate Hungary on its programme which gives priority to economic growth and Europe’s position globally. One of the important dossiers on the Presidency’s agenda relates to the expansion of the Schengen area through the admission of Romania and Bulgaria. Accession to the Schengen area is a commitment which Romania has also assumed with full responsibility. We have made considerable efforts to make the EU’s external border secure and, as is confirmed by the reports on my country’s accession to the Schengen area, Romania is ready to implement the Schengen acquis. Romania should be assessed fairly according to the same criteria which were applied to the states which joined the Schengen area before us. I am confident of the Hungarian Presidency’s support on this matter.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I thank you for declaring your support for extending the Schengen area to Bulgaria and Romania. It is true what you were saying about the huge efforts that have been made. Romania has made major financial and human efforts. The systems implemented with the support of the Franco-German group EADS are the most state-of-the-art in the European Union. I firmly believe that Romania’s maritime border, for instance, is incomparably better protected than similar borders for other Schengen Member States.

All the evaluation reports for Romania are positive. It has met all the Schengen acquis requirements. It is normal to expect a reply in line with EU rules. The support of the Hungarian Presidency is required in this process.

Another important item on the Presidency’s agenda relates to the promotion of the Danube strategy. The Danube strategy is a common project where all the partners must fulfil their commitments to ensure it works and achieves the adopted objectives. A programme must be put into action for implementing the strategic priorities without increasing the allocation of funds from the existing budget lines. The earmarked resources must be supplemented both by the contribution from the states involved and by the possibility of reallocating unused funds from other segments.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome that the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union has included in its six-monthly programme support for the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area as a real achievement of European integration for the Union’s citizens. According to the document presented by Prime Minister Victor Orbán, the Hungarian Presidency declares: ‘We would like to admit these two Member States to the Schengen area as soon as they fulfil all the necessary conditions’. This statement is being made at a time when the discussion about accession to the Schengen area by both countries, which joined the EU in 2007, appears to be switching from a strictly technical to a political tone. There is talk already about postponing it, even if the technical requirements were met in full. This is why I think that an effort needs to be made to build up trust. Therefore, dialogue remains an essential tool. Without it, Europeans from Bulgaria or Romania will still feel excluded and discriminated against. Do we really need second-class European citizens?

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Sport is one of the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency. This is very important news for the sporting world and, above all, for the millions of Europeans who are involved in sport and recreational physical activity at grassroots level. Despite the new legal framework, there has been little progress in creating better funding conditions for sporting ventures in Europe. Amateur sport is passed over in public debate and social research, and the role it plays in preventing disease and improving Europeans’ living conditions and quality of life is underestimated. The benefits of regular exercise can be grouped under four headings: health benefits, social benefits, economic benefits and political benefits. Amateur sport makes it possible for many political goals to be achieved, including the promotion of health and culture, education, social integration, combating discrimination, reducing crime and fighting drug addition. Sport also means lower healthcare costs.

I would therefore like to draw the Hungarian Presidency’s attention to the European Parliament’s written declaration 62/2010 on increased European Union support for grassroots sport, of which I am a co-author. The declaration is proof of our commitment to sport and to improving the quality of life of the people living in Europe. In it, we call for grassroots sport to be given due attention in the communication on sport and for a guarantee of sufficient funding for the EU sports programme. Greater EU support for amateur sport means support for a healthier lifestyle for millions of Europeans.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The central motto of the Presidency as a whole is ‘Strong Europe’. The crisis and the decisions that have been made to date at Member State level have shown that we need more Europe, not less, in order to meet the challenges we currently face. Combating the crisis, overcoming the problem of the Member States’ public debt and continuing measures aimed at ensuring the stability of the euro area and strengthening economic governance should be priorities. The Hungarian Presidency is counting on the ‘human touch’ and, above all, on a rise in employment levels. Europe is aiming to achieve sustainable growth, which should be secured by means of job creation and social inclusion. In view of the need for increased security of gas supplies, we should take steps to establish a common energy policy as soon as possible. The regional aspect that can be seen in the programme of activities is to be welcomed. This includes, inter alia, the Danube strategy, a strategy on the Roma and issues relating to the Eastern Partnership. There are also plans to extend the Schengen area to include Romania and Bulgaria. This is a matter of vital importance, since all the Member States should enjoy the same rights. There is also talk of concluding accession negotiations with Croatia during the Hungarian Presidency. A responsible enlargement policy should bring stability, peace and cohesion to the continent of Europe. The point of reference for the work undertaken by the Belgian Presidency was Europe, in the full meaning of the term. This does not mean that the national approach, which is likely to be the one chosen by Hungary, cannot harmonise or even contrast with the Community approach.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In connection with the Hungarian Presidency, many people have criticised the carpet used as part of the image of the Presidency, especially its part that depicts a map of the events of 1848. The map in question is that of Europe in 1848. Among other things, this is meant to symbolise that, already in 1848, Hungary was fighting for the freedom of the people living in Europe, including for the freedom of the press. As a Hungarian of Transylvanian descent, I am today a citizen of Romania. As a citizen of this country, I would like to comment on the process of the expansion of the Schengen area. The twelve newest Member States undertook to participate in building a common Europe in the hope that the same rights and obligations would apply to them as to the old Member States. Romania, too, believed that, after fulfilling the relevant technical criteria, it could become part of the Schengen area, an area free of internal boundaries, at the pre-defined date. Yet now we can hear talk about some Member States intending to impose further conditions on Romania in addition to the pre-determined criteria. I ask the Hungarian Presidency to do everything within its power to ensure adherence to the common rules and to remind those who express their disagreement of the immeasurable negative consequences of such a decision, because maintaining the credibility of the EU is in the interest of all of us, of all 27 governments. Lastly, one final thought about the carpet: the carpet is a useful accessory, and does us a service: people can even wipe their feet on it. It signifies that the motto of the Hungarian Presidency, ‘Strong Europe’, represents service. We, the minorities of Romania, Slovakia and of Europe, will be partners in this.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Hungarian Presidency has come at a crucial time for Europe, when certain Member States are still facing a serious economic and social crisis. The stability of the euro has to be one of the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency, and I have no doubts that the Council will do its utmost to combat monetary speculation and will make considerable progress in European economic governance.

Secondly, I am looking to the Hungarian Presidency to do its utmost to define, in collaboration with the other European institutions, a genuine European strategy for Roma inclusion. The implementation of a strategy of this nature is particularly dear to my heart, and I should like to see the Hungarian Presidency addressing this issue.

Finally, I should like to express my solidarity with the Hungarian Government in the face of the controversy that has surrounded the first few days of the Hungarian Presidency, in particular, concerning the law on the media. Nobody is in any doubt that Hungary is a democracy, and Mr Orbán pointed out that he would be prepared to change that law if the Commission identified any inconsistencies with European law. I call on everyone to be responsible and to put a stop to this unnecessary controversy.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Hungary is taking up the Presidency of the EU at a time when the economic and financial crisis is continuing. The basic themes of the programme of the last country in the trio of presidencies, shared with Spain and Belgium, are economic recovery, the integration of the Roma people, an energy strategy, the enlargement process, and public involvement in the European project. In terms of economic recovery, the programme views the institutionalisation of the financial stabilisation mechanism and the European Semester as essential. I believe that strengthening cooperation and coordination at economic level is extremely important as a tool for promoting European competitiveness and innovation, and therefore for preventing and/or foreseeing future crises. The new 2011-2020 strategy for transport will be adopted, along with the amendments to the directive on the transport network that are essential in order to achieve the internal market and social, economic and territorial cohesion. Road transport, the navigation of EU rivers and the implementation of the Galileo system are other topics that will be debated. Once again, regional policy appears to be the lynchpin of the entire Hungarian strategy, capable of providing integrated responses to the economic crisis and regional imbalances. The allocation of the post-2014 multiannual financial framework seems to be the essential matter of debate for the Hungarian Presidency.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Hungarian Presidency of the EU Council has adopted as its broad objective the strengthening of the European Union’s institutional, economic, social and political aspects. The Council’s Hungarian Presidency has also committed itself to adopting and launching the implementation of the EU Danube strategy. This will play a particularly important role in all the states bordering the Danube and will help consolidate the European integration process in the Western Balkans region.

We await with interest the release of the ‘White Paper on European Union Transport Policy for 2011-2020’, a key area for economic development and the Union’s economic and social cohesion.

Bearing in mind that the debates on the future financial outlook have started, we call on the Hungarian Presidency to speed up the debates within the Council relating to this document so that the TEN-T revision process can take into account the outcome of these debates.

Given that one person in six living in the EU is exposed to the risk of poverty, we call on the Council to consider poverty reduction as a main priority and to adopt specific measures to this end.

I also welcome the Hungarian Presidency’s intention to produce a political agreement on establishing a European framework for Roma integration, as well as its intention to launch the implementation of the European Disability strategy.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) A strong Europe, the establishment of effective economic management in the EU, rapprochement with the EU’s neighbours; we wish to support the Hungarian Presidency in its work towards these priorities. It is also particularly important for us that the Hungarian Presidency is counting on a close partnership with the European Parliament. There is one more issue I would like to highlight, as a Member dealing with institutional matters and, at the same time, a representative of the country which will take the helm of the European Union from Hungary. The Hungarian Presidency is extremely important, not only because of its priorities, which coincide with those of Poland, but also because it is still a transitional Presidency. The Treaty of Lisbon weakened the role of the Presidency, but this role has not yet been fully delineated, and now is the last chance to do so. The range of instruments subsequently available to the Poles will depend on the place the Hungarian Presidency succeeds in finding for itself within the institutional jigsaw puzzle that is the EU. I shall watch its work with all the more interest for this reason.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Hungary is taking over the Council Presidency from Belgium. These two Member States could not be more different. One is the epitome of a traditional European state and the other is a country which is still looking for a way into Europe. I hope that the Hungarian Presidency will follow the route taken by Belgium with a focus on the overall interests of Europe. The Hungarian Presidency has presented a comprehensive list of priorities. As one means of bringing the EU closer to its citizens, Hungary has set itself the objective of implementing the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This should be interesting when you consider that Hungary is currently subject to a barrage of international criticism because of its new media law and this law is clearly in conflict with Article 11 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. As a full member of the Committee on Budgets, I am particularly interested in developments in the area of increased financial supervision and the permanent crisis mechanism. Belgium has set a good example and has led the way in putting the focus on social issues. Let us hope that Hungary will follow.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

6. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

6.1. Patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (A7-0307/2010, Françoise Grossetête) (vote)

6.2. FLEGT voluntary partnership agreements (vote)

6.3. EU-Cameroon forest law agreement (A7-0371/2010, Yannick Jadot) (vote)

6.4. EU-Republic of Congo forest law agreement (A7-0370/2010, Yannick Jadot) (vote)

6.5. Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States (vote)

6.6. Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States (A7-0365/2010, David Martin) (vote)

6.7. International adoption in the European Union (vote)

6.8. Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and Serbia (B7-0021/2011) (vote)

– Before the vote on Amendment 4:

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to table an oral amendment to this Amendment No 4 by Ms Brantner and me, deleting the latter part. It should read: ‘Calls on Serbia to enter into dialogue with Kosovo without any longer referring to new negotiations on its status’.

I hope I have your support for that.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I would just like to recommend under these circumstances that we vote in favour of this.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– Before the vote on Amendment 8:

  Jelko Kacin (ALDE). – Madam President, in view of the importance of human rights, I would like to have a roll-call vote on Amendment 8. It addresses the surprising and unfortunate decision by the Serbian Government not to attend the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo. At the same time, the amendment praises the Serbian Ombudsman’s decision to attend the ceremony on behalf of the Serbian people. It is a message to Serbia and all future candidate states that bargaining with human rights is not acceptable.

In order to have broader support for this amendment, I also want to submit a very short oral – basically compromise – amendment, originally prepared by Mrs Maria Eleni Koppa. I want to add the word ‘initial’ between ‘the government’s’ and ‘decision’, so the wording will be ‘Regrets the government’s initial decision not to attend the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo on 10 December; welcomes, on the other hand, the Ombudsman’s initiative to attend the ceremony as a responsible and praiseworthy decision’.

I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

(The President agreed to the request for a roll-call vote)

6.9. EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (A7-0362/2010, Jelko Kacin) (vote)

6.10. European initiative on Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias (A7-0366/2010, Marisa Matias) (vote)

6.11. Asthma inhalers (vote)

6.12. Situation in Haiti one year after the earthquake: humanitarian aid and reconstruction (B7-0023/2011) (vote)

6.13. Violation of freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania (vote)

  President. – That concludes the vote.

7. Explanations of vote

  President. – We now come to the explanations of vote.

Oral explanations of vote

Recommendation for second reading: Françoise Grossetête (A7-0307/2010)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Madam President, we have today achieved an historic compromise with this directive on patient’s rights. I believe this is the most historic agreement that we have concluded since I have been in Parliament. A historic compromise that has been cemented between two parties that have been a great distance apart for far too long, namely Parliament, on the one hand, and the Council, on the other. Through hard work, we have now succeeded in securing a compromise that will benefit patients, who will be protected against unreasonably long waiting times, and, at the same time, we have found a balance that will ensure that the Member States will be able to monitor what is happening from both a medical and a financial point of view.

The result that we have achieved here today is an extremely good one that will benefit patients and the Member States. I believe there is reason firstly to congratulate the negotiators, and then, of course, most importantly, to congratulate the European citizens on this result that has been voted through here today.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, up to now, there has been too much doubt and uncertainty surrounding access to treatment and reimbursement for cross-border healthcare. The directive we have approved today will finally enable all patients to enjoy a series of rights and healthcare services throughout Europe.

The aim is absolutely not to encourage cross-border healthcare as such, but to ensure its availability, safety and quality when it is of use or necessary. We need better information and more clarity regarding the legal rules applicable to healthcare given in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation.

The current situation is unsatisfactory. The directive will offer patients an important choice which is based on their needs, not their means, and which is informed, not made under duress.

  Andres Perello Rodriguez (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, the Spanish delegation from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament voted in favour, like the rest of our group, but I would not be happy to leave here without making clear my concern regarding the issue of organ transplants being included in this directive. They have been included, against the judgment of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as a result of the Council’s stubborn determination to include transplants in this directive.

I hope that their inclusion does not undermine the effectiveness of the sound legislation that we adopted in this House, in other words, the directive on transplants or the action plan that was adopted very recently almost unanimously. I would like to say that we will be vigilant in ensuring that the inclusion of transplants does not undermine the excellent work done by such successful organisations as the Spanish National Transplants Organisation, and, of course, the aspiration to save 20 000 lives that we had both in the directive on transplants and in the action plan which, I repeat, we adopted here.

I would therefore like to make this clear and say that we will continue to ensure that the directive is complied with in this respect.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, we are here again today with something that has been pushed through by people who have not been elected, namely, the European Court of Justice, which, by means of a series of rulings, has put pressure on the genuinely elected institutions to also draw up this directive that has been voted through today.

I would say that there is clearly something fundamentally appealing about improving the chances for Europeans to be able to receive proper healthcare. However, the problems that this directive will create clearly overshadow the benefits that it contains. What will we do, for example, if there is so much pressure on any particular country’s health system that the waiting lists become unmanageable? What will we do if doctors start to send people en masse to a particular country – with prior authorisation of course, but nevertheless? It could be Denmark, where I come from, Germany, the Netherlands or another country in the EU where healthcare is known to be of a high quality. It will mean that the citizens of the country in question will be at the back of the queue and, in any case, that they must not be put at a disadvantage in spite of the fact that they are the ones who, via their taxes, have paid to have a proper healthcare system.

I would therefore like to make it clear that the drawbacks and the potential disasters that this directive may cause in the national healthcare systems clearly overshadow the benefits that my fellow Members here have mentioned.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Madam President, Mr Messerschmidt is right. This was dumped on us by the Court of Justice but I welcome it, and I want to compliment Ms Grossetête for producing an excellent report, because with this directive, patients will benefit from complete and transparent information when they resort to healthcare abroad. It is very clear what is in this.

Patients with rare diseases will be able to benefit from cross-border expertise and diagnosis so long as the treatment is unavailable in their Member States. The directive is intended to offer patients a choice which is based on their needs, not their means, and which is informed and not made under duress, so I think it is very positive indeed. Finally, it allows cooperation between Member States.

I welcome the fact that it outlaws completely something which could be abused and that is the whole area of medical tourism. So to me it is another step in the right direction; it is another step in strengthening cooperation between the Member States and bringing about greater cohesion within the Union. I think that it is a good day for the patients of Europe.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I also wished to vote for the report by my colleague, Mrs Grossetête, on the directive on access to cross-border healthcare.

Indeed, I welcome the progress that this text represents for the mobility of patients throughout Europe. After many years of uncertainty, particularly legal uncertainty, and considerable work on the part of the European Parliament, this text offers a simplification, clarification and codification of the conditions under which European citizens can benefit from healthcare in a European State other than their State of residence, in terms of both access and reimbursement. I am thinking, especially, of all those patients suffering from rare diseases who are finally going to be able to have access to appropriate specific treatments to meet their needs.

I should like to stress that this directive is a concrete European measure that is geared towards the Europe of the people and which grants new rights to Europeans. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial for the mobility of citizens within the Union.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I voted in favour of the directive presented by Mrs Grossetête, so that the principle of cross-border treatment in the European Union can finally be put into practice after many years of negotiations. I regard the directive in its current form as a good compromise, based predominantly on patients’ rights, but also protecting the interests of the national health funds of the Member States.

For citizens of countries such as Poland, the opportunity to receive treatment abroad means equal opportunities when it comes to benefiting from modern healthcare. Patients are often deprived of access to rapid and appropriate healthcare as a result of overcrowded hospitals, long queues and waiting lists for certain key procedures. Time is a huge factor in some cases. The directive will make it possible for citizens to decide for themselves whether to wait many months for the procedure to be carried out in their own country, or whether to choose somewhere else to receive treatment. It will be easier for them to decide how to be treated if they are aware of the fact that the costs of the procedure will also be reimbursed – at least to a large extent, and sometimes even entirely – if it is carried out in another European Union Member State.

Simplifying the rules governing treatment abroad can, of course, also be seen as mobilising market forces in terms of general access to medical services. In my opinion, therefore, these solutions will help increase the competitiveness of health services and, as a result, also have a significant impact in terms of speeding up improvements in such services.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, I welcome this healthcare directive, but I am cautious because the devil will be in the detail.

It is very important for our citizens to realise that this directive will not come into force for 30 months. But, in the meantime, citizens can cross borders to get healthcare in another Member State and can be reimbursed for the care that they receive. So let there be no doubt that, even as of today, there are citizens who are travelling across borders for healthcare. That is very important.

For those who want details on this complex directive, I have spent some time writing a question-and-answer page, which is available on my website. I urge those citizens who may be watching on the Internet or elsewhere to take a look and, if I have not asked the right questions, to prompt me because we need to spread the word about this very positive move towards cross-border healthcare for all.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, European society is becoming ever more mobile. We study, work, relax and travel outside the borders of our own country. Citizens living in the European Union should have the right to benefit from free emergency medical care wherever they are in Europe. It goes without saying that we should put in place instruments which prevent what is known as health tourism while, at the same time, making it easier for the patients who need it most to benefit from new opportunities. I am thinking primarily of treatment for unusual and rare diseases carried out in specialist centres, often outside the borders of the country in which the patient lives. We cannot, however, allow interference in the shape of the Member States’ health policies. This is a domestic competence, and the Member States are free to take their own decisions in this respect. This directive takes certain steps in this direction. Naturally, I voted in favour.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, it was high time we established common European rules to protect our citizens and patients. It was also excellent that a separate directive was produced on this issue and that it was not incorporated into the Services Directive, because while this was in preparation, it was realised how many things were still completely ignored or undecided upon at the time the Services Directive was adopted.

This right of patients to cross­border healthcare will compel the Member States of the EU to ensure that there are no waiting lists in their own countries.

The prior authorisation system is necessary: without it, many Member States could have difficulties controlling the costs of their own healthcare system and planning and assessing the future. It might also have resulted in a situation where wealth, rather than necessity, would have been the decisive factor.

Nevertheless, this will not, in fact, affect very many Europeans. Most want to receive health services close to home and in their own language. Nevertheless, such a system is what is needed, and if there are waiting lists, it will be possible to receive care in another country.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, I, too, am very pleased with the agreement we reached today which I think will ensure that patients will have access to cross-border healthcare in a proportionate way and an equitable way.

As several of the speakers have already said, the current proposal is here, of course, because a citizen from your own country, from the south of England, challenged the system and because the Court of Justice vindicated her rights.

I think what we are trying to do today and what we, along with the Council, have done is to ensure that citizens’ rights are vindicated and we are linking the needs and rights of citizens to legislation, and surely this is what this Parliament should be about.

There are still a few matters that need to be ironed out. I think the mutual recognition of prescriptions between Member States is very important because this is not just about healthcare, it is about after-care as well, but we have a period of time in which that detail can be finalised.

I suppose the final comment I would make is that, in the current financial crisis, a lot of citizens are asking: is Europe working? Is it delivering for its citizens? That is an open question, but I think today, we can say with some certainty that Europe is working.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Madam President, I voted against this measure on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare because it will only mean another massive burden on the British taxpayer and on the National Health Service.

The NHS is already used as an international health service and is subject to widespread abuse by non-British citizens at costs of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds each year. The burden falls chiefly on my constituents in London. This will open up the NHS to yet more commitment to provide treatment for EU citizens who have never paid a penny in tax in Britain. The supposed means of retrospectively obtaining payment from the patient’s Member State will prove unenforceable.

It is right that a foreign national in Britain should receive emergency treatment when necessary, but no foreign nationals should be admitted to Britain unless they have first taken out adequate travel and health insurance. Such a policy is fair and just and is, of course, unenforceable while Britain remains a member of the European Union. This is yet one more reason, if one were needed, why we should leave.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I think it is excellent that this historic compromise has at last been found between Parliament and the Council. I might say that this regulation on cross­border healthcare could result in the waiting lists that have come into existence in many Member States being dissolved. This would also be an opportunity to exchange best practices. In this connection, it is also important to ensure that the interests or rights of patients are established. Furthermore, it is just as important to remember that patient safety is essential when we engage in cross­border cooperation, and to ensure, at the same time, that there are proper standards of healthcare and treatment everywhere.

I therefore enthusiastically welcomed this report by Mrs Grossetête and I hope that it will promote public health in Europe and that, as a result, we can save a lot of people and speed up their recovery.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I believe it is important that we do not use the national tax systems to work against the internal market. This is essential particularly in the case of cross-border services which is where equal treatment is needed. There is currently a negative example of this in Hungary, where retrospective price limits are being used as a form of crisis tax. This is not acceptable and it will have a serious impact on the financial, insurance and business sectors and also the energy industry. I hope that the same thing will not happen in future in the field of healthcare services.

I would like to ask Mr Orbán to re-evaluate these regulations, because they are in complete opposition to the concept of the internal market.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, Happy New Year. It is wonderful to see you in the chair.

One of the things on which we agree, on the whole, across this Parliament – though I know there are notable exceptions – is our belief in a functioning single market.

When my constituents write to me and say ‘Look, I am not getting a good service in my constituency and I would like to travel abroad to another EU Member State to get better health services’, they are uncertain of their legal position. That is why I and many others will welcome this vote today on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. I hope that what we see in those jurisdictions where patients get a poor service will be patients voting with their feet, within their rights under this directive, and moving to another Member State, thereby pressurising healthcare systems to improve their service and to ensure that they meet their patients’ needs.

However, we have to make sure that we facilitate the procedure under which Member States can reclaim expenditure by any of their citizens who have travelled abroad or are offered services elsewhere. Once we have sorted out those problems, this ought to be a directive of which we can all be proud.

Recommendation: Yannick Jadot (A7-0371/2010), (A7-0370/2010)

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Madam President, I voted in favour of the resolution relating to the arrangement between the European Union and Cameroon and between the European Union and the Republic of Congo regarding forest law and trade in timber from those countries. It is vital to preserve the tropical forests to maintain the balance of our ecosystems. It is also vital to protect the indigenous peoples of the forest, who are under intense pressure from the exploitation of the environment by large multinationals and from the felling of the forests on which they depend for their livelihood, for the sake of those companies’ profits.

It is for that reason that I put forward an amendment which states that forests and forestry industries should be in public ownership and under the democratic direction of the workforce in those industries as well as of the indigenous people who inhabit the forests.

Recommendation: David Martin (A7-0365/2010)

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, free trade is, in reality, the only way to achieve prosperity. We have seen this in the internal market amongst the EU Member States, and there is no doubt that this will also be the case where the developing countries are concerned. It is the only real development initiative that we can and should actually bring into the world.

If we take a look around the world at how the other large regions operate, conclude agreements and view their partners from a strategic point of view, we can certainly see that they are all moving quicker and quicker. We have a large free trade area between North and South America, in the ASEAN countries, Asia and Mercosur, etc. The only area which, in this regard, is standing back and is almost paralysed by the challenges of globalisation is the EU.

Even though I support the report that has been voted on today, I would like to say that a free trade initiative with Fiji and Papua New Guinea is scarcely the most impressive result that we could have expected after so many years of negotiations. What about China? What about the United States? Or India? All of those that are currently taking all our jobs? Is the EU failing European workers in this regard too?

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – It is a truism that the most prosperous societies are the freest and the freest societies are the most prosperous, and in that we should recognise the role that free trade plays. Unfortunately, when it comes to international multilateral discussions on free trade, the WTO Doha round is stalled and, for that reason, the EU is now following the example of the US and others in signing more and more bilateral agreements.

We can bring the benefits of free trade to many of the citizens of poorer countries while recognising some of the transitional problems they will have to face in adjusting to increased competition. However, at the end of the day, we should shift the focus from producer interests to consumers. Many consumers, in many different developing countries, ask me why they do not have the same choice on access to goods and services that we enjoy in the West. Well, one of the ways in which we can help them is through greater free trade, empowering our consumers to have greater choice. Long may that continue.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Madam President, for a long time, the Pacific has been a Cinderella in the European Union’s overseas development initiatives. I am very pleased to recognise now that the initiatives taken by Fiji and Papua New Guinea on creating an Economic Partnership Agreement will not only help us to trade more liberally with them, but will also enable them to trade intra-regionally with each other.

One of the greatest things to have come out of this agreement so far is the fact that the rules of origin on fishing should finally enable the people in the Pacific Region to actually add value to their fishing. Some of these Pacific countries import fish when their seas are teeming with fish! What has been achieved now is that they could actually process the fish that they catch and should be able to add value and export that fish to the EU. This is the way forward in development and this is the way forward in reducing poverty.

Motion for a resolution: (B7-0029/2011)

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today, I voted in favour of the oral question on international adoption in the European Union.

International adoption has proved to be the procedure most likely to offer the chance of a permanent family to those children for whom a suitable family cannot be found in their country of origin. Cooperation among the Member State authorities with responsibility for international adoptions is important for ensuring that adoption is carried out in the child’s best interests and with respect for his or her fundamental rights, as well as for preventing the selling and trafficking of children.

The international adoption procedure also needs to be simplified, because all too often there is too much red tape, which deters families from trying to adopt. Lastly, Romania gives cause for concern, since it is the only country in the European Union to have a law banning international adoptions. There are currently about 70 000 orphans in the country, 40 000 of whom are in orphanages and 30 000 in foster care.

The Commission should cast some light on the case of Romania, so that those abandoned children can be welcomed into families through international adoption.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, as I was unable, due to childcare responsibilities, to participate in what was clearly an interesting debate on Monday, I would at least like to express my full support now to this assembly, which I have also expressed through my vote. I very much hope that the steps following this resolution will lead, on the one hand, to a reduction in bureaucratic procedures for the international adoption of children while, at the same time, making it possible to monitor what happens to them in a better way and to help combat child trafficking.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, many Members of this Parliament may not be aware of a very nasty war of words raging on this issue of adoption, which is most unhelpful and unwelcome. If we are truly to put the rights of the child at the centre of this debate, which we did in this House and which this resolution also does, then we will do the right thing for all children, no matter which Member State they were born in.

It is important not to pick on any particular Member State but to recognise that all countries have children who are abandoned or not cared for within the nuclear family as we know it and who need other forms of caring. Yes, there are many families willing to give loving homes to children. While perhaps we need to look at the bureaucracy, let us not diminish the scrutiny.

Can I finally say that to some extent, those who adopt and are successful are put through much more rigour than those who simply give birth.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my thoughts at this time are with the thousands of couples around the world who every day face the necessary difficulties involved in adopting a child.

Adoption is a value, a genuine display of love which opens the door to a new family for a child who unfortunately can no longer count on the affection of his or her own dear ones. Those who carry inside them the hurt of having been abandoned are entitled to grow up in a happy environment with people who can offer them a new life.

It is therefore our duty to help orphans so that a bright future is no longer an unattainable dream for them. The adoption of this joint resolution today should send out a strong and urgent message. We need to promote Union policies designed to overcome difficult family situations. Bureaucratic lethargy and legislative delays cannot and must not crush a child’s dreams and hopes of having a family and a happy future.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – I welcome the motion for a resolution voted on today on international adoption. I know of several people in my own constituency who have gone, or who are right now going, through this process and it is a delight to watch the joy in parents’ and children’s faces alike at the conclusion. To get to this point, however, is too often a long road, in many instances taking many years. It can, as the motion states, be an overly bureaucratic process and we are right as a Parliament to look for ways that such bureaucracy can be reduced with a more streamlined process.

Paramount in all of this, however, are the needs and safety of the children, many of whom are in great need. It is right that all safeguards are in place to protect children from being placed where they may be vulnerable. But what often appears the case is that potential loving, caring parents are put through too much and simply leave the process. In this case, both parent and child lose out.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have been facing the problem of international adoption in Europe for many years, and today’s resolution finally attempts to bring a ray of hope to a situation that is becoming increasingly complex and difficult.

Instead of stimulating international adoption, the accession of new countries has made it even more difficult for many couples to be able to offer a new home and family to children who have experienced great suffering and deprivation in their own countries.

While growing bureaucracy prevents the adoption of children, on the one hand, the traffic in organs and child prostitution are increasing, on the other. That is why we are in favour of this motion for a resolution. We believe international adoption procedures need to be streamlined, and we must ensure that a European adoption scheme is eventually set up to give all children in need a future.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, from your fan club in this corner, may I thank you for your efficient chairing.

There is a big issue here. International adoption is, of course, vitally important. It is important that we get it right. I very much welcome this resolution, which includes, as do many of the resolutions that we pass in this House, lots of very sensible, clever and well set out words. What I really want to say here – and I have learned a lot through helping a constituent, and I am currently helping a constituent – is that it is not sufficient to lay all this out in a resolution.

We in the European Parliament are no shining lights when it comes to simplifying matters and making sure that citizens get their organisations to work for them. Can I please ask that the good words in this resolution be acted upon; that we do actually simplify matters; that we get rid of the bureaucracy and that we effect improvement. Otherwise, we will simply be trying to reinvent the wheel for Europe, and will end up making the process even more difficult.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I also want to say how happy I am with this resolution on international adoption. I have had the chance to follow a few such cases at close quarters. I know that adoption at present involves a lot of bureaucracy, and it is good that the bureaucracy can be eased in this way. As a result, the processes can be speeded up and made more transparent.

It is in the interests of everyone that adoption does not involve anything that is unethical or linked to human trafficking or child trafficking. It is very important to ensure that a child is not a means to an end, but one who, through adoption, finds a loving home and who will be treated as a unique, precious individual. It is important that the child should have the chance to have a father and mother, to have that right, and that is why, when decisions on adoption are taken, it is important to take the overall situation in a family into consideration.

These are very sensitive issues. We know that some studies have shown that we carry our cultural genotype in our DNA, but we need to ensure that a child can benefit from a good, loving home and a cultural environment where he or she can grow and develop into a well­balanced person and citizen.

Motion for a resolution: (B7-0021/2011)

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, Serbia is probably the European country that, over the last thousand years of history, has been besieged the most, first by the Turks, then by the Germans and then the Russians. Now we have the chance to turn what, both from a long-term historical perspective and in terms of recent history, have been bad times into a bright future.

There is no doubt that, seen from Belgrade, both NATO, with its massacre in the capital city, and the EU, with its barbaric support for tearing out a key part of Serbia, namely Kosovo, from the country, are not particularly appealing allies. However, they are nevertheless allies. They are friends, and everyone is well aware of that. Therefore, it is important to enter into a rational relationship so that we can put the past behind us and look to the future. For that reason, my party supports the continuation of this dialogue.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and Serbia creates a basis for close and lasting relations based on reciprocity and common interests, and contributes to political, economic and institutional stabilisation both in Serbia and throughout the Balkans.

It also represents for Serbia a new opportunity to transform and prosper through the overall restructuring and modernisation of the economy. I firmly believe, however, that Serbia must continue to strengthen democracy and the legal state, put greater effort into reforming the judiciary and public administration, applying the principles of justice, while strengthening administrative and judicial structures overall.

I consider a basic condition for the integration of Serbia into the Union to be the resolution of serious cases of human rights violations and the related issue of close cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, thanks to your staff and all the interpreters for your patience during this unusually long session.

Faced with a choice between democracy and supra-nationalism, the European Union almost always opts for supra-nationalism and nowhere is this clearer than in its policy in the Western Balkans. We are maintaining to all intents and purposes protectorates in Bosnia, in Kosovo and arguably even in Macedonia, for the sole purpose of preventing ethnographic boundaries along the lines of what local people there would choose.

It is very difficult to have a functioning democracy unless people feel enough in common with one another to accept government from each other’s hands. If you want government for and by the people, you have to have a people that everyone recognises some identity with, some allegiance to.

To put it in another way, democracy needs a ‘demos’, a unit with which we identify when we use the word ‘we’. I am not saying it is simple. People can sustain multiple loyalties, populations can be interspersed, but our prejudice, other things being equal, should be towards national self-determination. If you take the ‘demos’ out of democracy, you are left only with the ‘kratos’, with the power of a system that must compel by law what it dare not ask in the name of civic patriotism.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Madam President, this is very good news indeed. When we recall how far Serbia has travelled in terms of the rule of law and international law, and given what Serbia was some 20 years ago compared with what it is today, I think we need to commend and praise the Serbian administration for the steps they have taken to make Serbia a country subject to the Rule of Law. Even with regard to its relationship with Kosovo, the Rule of Law is now apparently paramount. In its relationship with the International Criminal Court, the Rule of Law is paramount.

The reforms of the judiciary are based on international precedents and international best practice. Even the independent civil service they are creating is of a high quality and they expect a correspondingly high performance from it. The Copenhagen criteria are being adhered to. So, in all these different respects, a country which went through a very difficult war has now emerged as a nation that is fit and suited to be a good partner to other Member States of the European Union. I congratulate them on that.

Recommendation: Jelko Kacin (A7-0362/2010)

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to say one more thing on the subject of Serbia. The agreement we voted on today between the European Union and Serbia is a milestone on the way to the association of this country with European structures. Twelve Member States have already ratified the treaty, the aim of which is to open the door to Serbia’s membership in the European Union. The agreement has my full approval, and I would like to call on the remaining Member States to ratify it as quickly as possible. Of course, Serbia’s integration into European structures requires full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with regard to accountability for war crimes, and also continued dialogue on Kosovo and the undertaking of all necessary measures to prevent discrimination against the Roma. Nevertheless, all measures aimed at extending democracy and strengthening the protection of human rights in Serbia or, in other words, measures which lead to political, economic and social stabilisation in the country, are a source of great satisfaction to me, and they have my support.

Report: Marisa Matias (A7-0366/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this report because I believe the Commission communication on a European initiative on Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias is a fundamental step towards linking up the various existing health policies in Europe in order to tackle this type of disease. I speak from experience, because my father suffered from Alzheimer’s, as did my grandmother, and I hope to end the genetic line.

We therefore intend to renew our commitment to fight the fragmented action, the uneven responses that exist in Europe and the prevailing unequal conditions regarding access and treatment for the disease. We intend instead to promote early diagnosis and quality of life, improve epidemiological knowledge of the disease and coordinate existing research, while supporting solidarity between the Member States through sharing best practices.

In this report, we call for improved coordination between the Member States and a more effective and solidarity-based response geared to prevention and the treatment of people living with dementias, particularly Alzheimer’s, as well as the people around them, whether they be healthcare professionals, service providers or relatives.

For any European strategy in this area to work, it is crucial – I am finishing – that the various countries give priority to drawing up national action plans.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I voted for this report and am pleased that it was accepted almost unanimously. I must say that I attended the entire debate in Parliament but I did not get a chance to speak. Therefore, I am using this minute to make a few points.

The most important point is that there is an urgent need for research to discover the cause of this disease. What part does the food we eat play in the disease? What part does the stress of life play in the disease? What part do our genes play in the disease? Why do twice as many women as men contract the disease?

Those are very important questions. Those questions can not be answered without research, and I urge the Commission to select one renowned medical centre to carry out that research and to answer those questions.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Alzheimer’s disease is an affliction for which humankind has not yet found a remedy. Data from medical services show an alarming rise in the number of diagnosed cases, and the trend towards an ageing Europe will have drastic consequences in the near future. The problem of dementia affects not only those suffering from the disease, but also their immediate family and friends, who are often forced to devote their lives to caring for their loved ones. We urgently need reports of this kind, in which a problem is highlighted and proposals are made for initiatives to improve the quality of our health and life. It goes without saying that combining the efforts of the EU Member States, creating preventive programmes and providing social support for entire families are all projects which merit our support in every respect. We must do all that is in our power to help sufferers and to minimise the number of those who fall prey to the disease in future.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Madam President, what I like about this report is that it is dealing in a multifaceted fashion with a startling challenge and that is the whole area of Alzheimer’s. You are talking about prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure. The reality is that the big dreads in terms of diseases are cancer and Alzheimer’s. We have done a huge amount in coming to terms with, first of all, diagnosing the causes of cancer, secondly, the prevention of cancer, and thirdly, dealing with cures. We have come a long way down the road.

Even though Alzheimer’s was discovered in 1906, there has been a special phenomenon within the whole area of dementia: we still do not know the cause and we still do not have any cure. However, this report is very welcome. At the same time, there are big challenges: what are we going to do in terms of diagnosing the causes so that we can bring about prevention and, secondly, introduce some kind of definitive cure?

Motion for a resolution: (B7-0023/2011)

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, those of us who have either visited Haiti or saw the terrible devastation that was wrought there some time ago and looked at what happened will agree that it was absolutely right that the NGOs and aid community got together and tackled the problem on the ground in terms of shelter, food, blankets and all of those sort of issues.

But now let us look at the situation a year on. We look at some of the problems that are highlighted in this resolution – the fact that Haitians only have shovels, pickaxes and wheelbarrows for clearing rather than the sort of large-scale equipment that they need. Also, the resolution deplores the serious housing crisis in Haiti and talks about the need for a land register and ownership, but also calls on the Commission, in the spirit of consensus, to ensure that a significant effort is made in conjunction with government to sort out the problem.

The one issue that seems to be missing here is the role of the private sector. If, in the longer term, we are going to tackle some of the problems that we are facing, in the short term, it is absolutely right that we work with NGOs and aid organisations but, in the long term, there has to be a role for private industry.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Madam President, one year after the earthquake in Haiti, 5% of the rubble has been removed, a million people are homeless, 230 000 are dead, 300 000 are injured, and 15% of possible resettlement in habitable areas has taken place.

Why? Why has only 5% of the rubble been taken away? When you have an earthquake, huge chunks of masonry fall. Who can pick them up? NGOs with shovels? European Commissioners with buckets? No! These things can be picked up only by heavy lifting equipment and only one set of people has that: namely, the military – air forces, navies and armies. But what happened? When the air forces, the navies and the armies came to help, the left wing of this Parliament and the left wing around the world screamed for them to get out of Haiti. So they did! And now the whole place has been left as it was for a full year.

It is politically astounding that responsibility for this situation has not been accepted, but I place ownership of the disaster firmly in the lap of the left wing of this Parliament and the international community.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I would like to say a few words about the situation in Haiti. It is very important to realise, now an update on the situation is being carried out, that levels of coordination have been unsatisfactory. We need better coordination, as shown by the fact that things have progressed slowly.

It is quite true, as Mr Deva said previously, that the situation has also become partly politicised. It is in nobody’s interests if the situation is politicised. Haiti needs help and the basic essentials a lot more quickly than was the case last year. Aid needs to reach its appropriate destination.

When we look at the work at grassroots level, the various aid organisations have done well. When we examine Europe’s contribution in Haiti, many Christian aid organisations have done excellent work at grassroots level – that is, they have helped people to survive. We should, furthermore, acknowledge these efforts and support them for what they are, but in the crisis in Haiti, there is also a need for larger-scale and better coordinated action at European and, obviously, at UN level.

Motion for a resolution: (B7-0031/2011)

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, Lithuania is a sovereign Member State. The country’s parliament has been debating new proposals concerning expressions of sexuality in the media and in public. Lithuania’s democracy is hard at work. The country’s president has blocked similar proposals twice already. The political debate on the new proposals has begun and what the end result will be is, as yet, impossible to predict.

Yet, the majority of the European Parliament have seized on this matter. Indeed, it would appear that the majority of this House have an enlightened moral compass which gives them superior knowledge of what is and what is not morally permissible. Even before it is clear whether or not the new act will be passed and what it will be like, the all-seeing eye of our Parliament’s high priests is keenly trained on Lithuania. There is no way I can support such arrogance.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the right to pass national laws belongs to the lawmaking body of the relevant state. This right of a sovereign state cannot be interfered with from outside. Lithuania, too, has its sovereign right.

In the context of the European Union, it is also necessary to state that the definition of marriage and the family belongs to the family law of individual Member States, and the EU should not interfere in this area. Protection of the family, the institution which raises children and prepares them for life, cannot therefore be seen negatively or as a kind of discrimination.

As far as the protection of minors from the harmful effects of public information is concerned, the European Parliament, too, decided recently that the various types of advertising that have been spreading via the new communications media in recent years have become a social phenomenon. This phenomenon brings with it deliberately misleading and confusing information, and the risk of abuse of trust, and the state must find an adequate response to this.

Research shows that minors deserve special protection from certain kinds of information which can have far-reaching consequences for the healthy development of the individual. I say this as a doctor.

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE). – Madam President, here are my remarks on the resolution condemning Lithuania, because nothing happened. The text adopted lacks the most important point of view. What I wished to propose, unsuccessfully, as an oral amendment to the recital part, would be: ‘whereas the intervention of the European Parliament in the proceedings of national parliaments at the earliest stage of work on any proposed legislation is contrary to the fundamental principle of sovereignty and subsidiarity of Member States and therefore compromises the European Parliament as ever more linked to former Soviet practices’, etc. as adopted.

The pretext for such a resolution was just one draft amendment introduced by one Member of the national parliament. I stress, one amendment. Nevertheless, in the Parliament text just adopted, this fact was stubbornly and unreasonably presented in the plural, and it was even mentioned six times that allegedly there were many bad amendments.

The title of the resolution includes an absurdity as well. It states ‘on violation’. There was no violation, only a proposal by one parliamentarian; there was no decision by parliament which could be blamed as a violation that happened. Statements such as these reflect an extremely low quality of drafting work, not to say a lack of responsibility by those who drafted and presented for a vote this text, which required far more intelligent elaboration at least, if it was not simply discarded for trash. Therefore, I voted against the whole thing.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, for decades now, the Member States of the European Union have been making broad and benign progress towards the principles of equality of treatment before the law, of privacy and of personal freedom, so I hope that there will not be a retrograde step in any of the Member States on this issue of equality on the basis of sexual orientation. I do not think there will be. A point that has been missed in this debate, as Mr Landsbergis has just reminded us and as Mr van Dalen reminded us earlier, is that this is a proposal. It is not a legislative resolution.

As you will remember, we went through our own debates on this in Britain. We had our own arguments over Section 28. I was very unusual in my party in those days in being against it. I was against it even in the very earliest days when it was still called Section 27. It seemed to me utterly invidious to use the law as a mechanism to signal approval or disapproval. When we did that, we put an incredibly powerful weapon into the hands of the state that was later used in the bans on pistols and hunting and so on.

But the point is I am not a Lithuanian legislator. We might in this House have very strong views about abortion law in Poland or euthanasia law in the Netherlands. These are, for our constituents, sensitive issues that ought to be properly determined through the national mechanisms of each Member State. We should have the humility to recognise the right of democracy and parliamentary supremacy within the 27 Member States.

Written explanations of vote

Recommendation for second reading: Françoise Grossetête (A7-0307/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, which aims to strengthen patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. It must be said that today, there is too much uncertainty surrounding the issues of access to care, reimbursements and responsibility for clinical follow-up in relation to cross-border healthcare. This directive is intended to allow all patients – and not only the best informed or richest – to enjoy a series of healthcare rights which have already been recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It should be stressed that the aim of this document is absolutely not to encourage cross-border healthcare as such, but to ensure its availability, safety and quality when it is of use or necessary. European Union citizens must receive better information and more clarity regarding the legal rules applicable to travel to a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation for the purpose of receiving healthcare. I agree that we must combat ‘medical tourism’, but in order to protect patients’ rights, we must introduce a simplified prior authorisation system for patients which will nevertheless ensure that healthcare managers are given advance warning of any exceptional costs related to travel to healthcare institutions in other EU Member States.

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This recommendation to the Council was vital for giving patients the greatest possible legal certainty so that they can exercise their rights in practice, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice.

This approach, however, does not interfere with the Member States’ exclusive competences over the management of their domestic health systems or their national health policy choices, as laid down in the Treaty. The main points covered are: rare diseases; quality and safety standards; reimbursement and prior authorisation procedures and up-front payments; the role of contact points as ‘one-stop shops’; the exclusive competence of Member States with regard to ‘health service shopping baskets’ and ethical choices in the health field; and e-health and cooperation between Member States.

The recommendation also clarifies patients’ rights as specified by the European Court of Justice and the improvement in overall legal certainty regarding cross-border healthcare. The aim is to facilitate access to safe, high quality cross-border healthcare with reimbursement, and to promote cooperation between Member States on healthcare.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of this report because it is true that there is a particular uncertainty at present about issues regarding access to care, medicine and reimbursements in the area of cross-border healthcare.

While it is crucial not to increase the pressure on national health systems or add to the inequality in those systems, patients must have the right and the freedom to seek cross-border healthcare and must be informed about those same rights. The legal uncertainty that exists concerning eligibility for cross-border healthcare and refunds must be removed, and accurate and clear information about when and how medical treatment in other Member States is covered must be available to patients.

I welcome what the report contains about providing contact points in all Member States to inform patients of the medical treatments available, how to apply for cross-border healthcare, and how to lodge a complaint or appeal.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important document. European Union citizens expect their Member States to provide safe, high quality, and efficient healthcare services. The Member States themselves have competence for their own healthcare systems, and therefore accessibility and quality varies somewhat. Patients are not always able to obtain appropriate treatment in their own Member State, and this is essentially contrary to the freedoms guaranteed by the EU Treaty. The issue of the recognition of prescriptions in the Union has also yet to be resolved, which causes great problems for people who travel. I do not feel that the free movement of patients and the right to choose treatment in another Member State will encourage medical tourism. I believe that it may be a positive sign to Member States to undertake appropriate reforms in the area of healthcare services and ensure that the healthcare services provided are as diverse and of as high a quality as possible, so that, if necessary, patients can obtain treatment in another Member State.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare is a vital step towards patient mobility within the European Union. It is aimed at clarifying and assisting access to cross-border and good quality healthcare, along with the patient’s right to reimbursement by the Member State of affiliation, thus also promoting cooperation between the Member States. Moreover, there are clear advantages for patients, especially those suffering from rare and complex diseases, since it will be possible to diagnose and treat them in the most suitable Member State. Such mobility will also enable patients to legitimately avoid national waiting lists, taking advantage of the medical services on offer in other EU countries. This directive will enable all patients to benefit from a certain number of rights which have already been recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This is undoubtedly a step forward in the process of European integration, in strengthening solidarity, and in a Europe which is focused on its citizens. I voted in favour of this report for these reasons.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report and would like to thank the rapporteur for the job she has done and for the suggestions. I support the idea that patients should make choices based on their needs and not according to their finances, on a fully informed basis and not under duress. Patient mobility instead of national waiting lists is a matter of urgency for European citizens, but especially for those from the new Member States, including Romania. I also voted for the idea of setting up a simplified prior authorisation system for patients.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) More and more Europeans are seeking healthcare in a Member State other than their own, but they often do so without having the first idea of what their rights are in this area. People have to jump through hoops to be reimbursed for treatment received abroad, and it is very difficult for them to find the information they need.

During this, the first part-session of 2011, we have adopted a directive clarifying the rights of European patients who choose to seek treatment abroad. The text, which was adopted by a large majority, provides for patients to be reimbursed for the treatment they receive in another Member State. This is good news for all those patients who are on long waiting lists and struggling to receive treatment in their own Member State.

To encourage mobility as a way of improving treatment for European patients: that is our aim! There will also be closer cooperation on rare diseases in order to improve treatment for patients who require highly specialised healthcare.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because this proposal for a directive aims to give all patients the right and opportunity to obtain essential healthcare services in other Member States as quickly as possible. Furthermore, it clearly lays out the cases in which these services can be used, because at present, the rules regarding reimbursement when using these services are not always clear and understandable. I would like to stress that this directive must be aimed at all patients – and not only the best informed or richest – and should ensure the safety of all patients. Already at first reading, Parliament came out in favour of this directive, but, unfortunately, the Council did not take all of Parliament’s amendments into account. For instance, the Council ignored the very important issue of the treatment of rare diseases. However, around 25 million Europeans suffer from rare diseases and they should therefore be given the opportunity to receive healthcare in other Member States. Furthermore, I agree with Parliament’s position that, in order to avoid discrimination against people on lower incomes, the Member State of origin must pay the hospital in the other Member State that is providing the treatment directly, without requiring citizens to settle an account in advance, or any costs incurred by the patient should at least be reimbursed immediately. It is also very important for every Member State to maintain national contact points to provide patients with all the necessary information, i.e. about the availability of healthcare, procedures and the required documentation.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I voted for the Grossetête report because it eliminates the uncertainty that has persisted for many years over the issue of the payment of costs and the related issue of access to cross-border healthcare. While it has, so far, been the better informed or more motivated patients that have made use of the advantages of cross-border healthcare, this possibility is now opening up for everyone else. I agree with the conditional payment of costs based on prior consent in justified and precisely defined cases, when the cross-border healthcare includes a patient stay of at least one night in hospital, and requires highly specialised and costly medical equipment, or there is a particular risk for the patient or the general population. In these cases, I consider prior consent to be an instrument for preventing excessive health tourism.

The increase in health tourism does not reflect well on many European health systems. If a patient is facing an unreasonably long waiting time in his home country, however, we should not be surprised if he wants to travel to a place where he will receive more rapid and also perhaps better quality healthcare. In countries to which foreigners travel in greater numbers for medical treatment and operations, however, there is a risk that domestic patients will be treated only after the demand from foreign patients has been met.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This directive establishes rules for facilitating access to cross-border healthcare that is safe and of high quality, and which promotes healthcare cooperation between the Member States, while fully respecting national jurisdictions. It includes the fundamental common values of universality, of access to good quality healthcare, of equity and of solidarity. There are clear advantages for patients, especially those suffering from rare and chronic diseases, since they will be able to benefit from and access centres of expertise in the area of the disease from which they suffer. This directive is another example of Europe being put at the service of Europeans, as it allows them to choose the institution that will provide suitable healthcare, irrespective of the European country in which it is located.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Member States are responsible for providing safe, high quality and effective healthcare as needed by their citizens. This directive must not, therefore, jeopardise the freedom of the Member State to decide upon the most suitable form of healthcare. We live in an area of freedom, security and justice, where European citizens enjoy freedom of movement. This means that the creation of clear rules on the provision of cross-border healthcare is essential, especially as regards the issue of costs of healthcare incurred in another Member State. In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, this directive allows the European public the greater security of enabling them to benefit from the healthcare they need in a different Member State and to be reimbursed up to the amount set out by their national system. It is important to create a system of prior authorisation for hospital care which is simplified and does not act as an obstacle to patients receiving safe and good quality medical care. This directive is a crucial first step towards ensuring patient mobility within the EU, as the existence of standardised minimum rules is preferable to recourse to case-by-case judicial decisions.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the adoption of the directive aiming to introduce new rules governing cross-border healthcare. The European Union is taking an important step with the new legislation. This will not only facilitate the provision of healthcare, particularly in border regions, and increase treatment opportunities for EU citizens; it will also foster general advances in healthcare thanks to research incentives resulting from cooperation between Member States. I particularly welcome the introduction of legislation to strengthen cooperation in the case of rare diseases. This will enable those who suffer from them to benefit from the advantages of closer cooperation in healthcare between Member States. Moreover, the requirements for reimbursement to be conditional on the treatment and costs being covered by the healthcare system in the patient’s own country, and for the prior authorisation of treatment requiring hospitalisation, are safeguards which will help guarantee the stability of national health services. The directive therefore allows for significant progress to be made in improving health services, by striking the right balance between the needs of the Member States, which are responsible for providing healthcare services, and those of the citizens, who are the principal beneficiaries of such services.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The draft legislative resolution on the Council position at first reading with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare is an important document, and adopting this resolution would mark a significant step forward from a social perspective. The possibility for EU citizens to be treated anywhere in the EU will force states whose healthcare systems are in a precarious state to change their priorities and devote the proper attention to this area.

Similarly, this opportunity will put the different systems in direct competition with each other, forcing them to develop and give the appropriate attention to patients’ expectations and needs.

At the same time, it will encourage the emergence of cross-border centres of medical excellence, which will also act as hubs for providing instruction and specialist training to students and doctors.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I regard as useful the introduction, in the directive concerning payment for healthcare services provided abroad, of the requirement to draw up a list of specific criteria and conditions for a national authority to justify its refusal to give treatment to a patient abroad. These conditions must take into account the possible risk to the patient or general public in the situation where a number of such requests are made. I hope that the directive will receive the green light from the Council as well so that it can come into force as soon as possible for the good of patients.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this proposal on cross-border healthcare. Healthcare should never be treated as a commercial market service. This initiative aims to ensure that there are no unnecessary obstacles for patients seeking healthcare in a Member State other than their home country. It seeks to implement what the European Court of Justice has laid down in many rulings. Moreover, it sets out to provide clarity about a patient’s right to be reimbursed by their home state. While ensuring high quality, safe and efficient cross-border healthcare, it is important to ensure a proper balance between the right of EU patients to seek treatment abroad and the capacity of national health systems and national healthcare priorities. This directive will clarify the reimbursement of costs for treatments that patients have received in another Member State and will ensure the good functioning and the financial balance of national health systems. It is important that Member States can decide to establish a well-defined system of prior authorisation for reimbursement of costs of hospital or specialised care.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is a strong signal that we are sending out to our fellow citizens by proposing a system in which patients’ needs will have priority. The European Parliament has maintained a united and firm position with regard to this genuine recognition of patients’ needs in Europe, which represents a first step towards strengthening their right to access safe and high quality healthcare in Europe. Under the new rules, European citizens will be able to be reimbursed for treatment received in another Member State, insofar as the type and cost of treatment would normally be covered in their own country. The authorities will have the power to demand that patients request prior authorisation for treatment requiring an overnight hospital stay or specialised healthcare, and any refusal will have to be clearly justified. Seeking healthcare abroad could, in particular, benefit patients who are on long waiting lists, or those who are unable to find specialised healthcare. We must now ensure that the implementation of this directive is overseen properly and that it yields real healthcare results for patients in Europe.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The cross-border healthcare issue has been under negotiation for a long time, and it caused an outcry when, in a previous draft, the risk emerged of creating two-speed healthcare specifically promoting medical tourism for better-off patients and harming those Member States which could not have planned their healthcare provision on the basis of a demand that depended on the quality offered ... The text that we adopted on Wednesday is more consensual. It allows European patients to benefit from treatments that are not available in their own countries or for which there are very long waiting lists. The cost of treatments received in another Member State is reimbursed in the country in which the patient is registered, but it is limited to the amount that would have been paid for similar treatments ... Patients will have to request prior authorisation for some specialised treatments or those requiring an overnight stay in hospital. However, any refusal to grant authorisation will have to be justified. This is one more step towards a more concrete Europe of health. We can only be pleased about that.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) There is a general lack of awareness and an a priori attitude of rejection prevailing in the area of access to cross-border healthcare. Within the framework of EU freedoms, every citizen should be able to make use of healthcare services in another Member State as a matter of principle, if the therapy or treatment there is of a better quality or quicker, and where he pays for this treatment or therapy himself. Enabling people to access healthcare in another Member State is therefore a priority issue. This debate has been going on for years without us achieving any meaningful progress. You can receive treatment in another Member State only in emergencies. It is therefore not possible to plan healthcare or medical treatment in another Member State.

There is always a requirement to have health insurance in the state in question, which can be obtained, of course, only by EU citizens permanently residing in that state. This is simply nonsensical, because no citizen can join health insurance schemes in two or more EU countries, since he can have only one main permanent address, and that will be in the country in which he permanently resides. We are therefore legislatively preventing EU citizens from investing in their health and treatment to a greater extent, if they try to do this. The recommendation represents at least a small step in the right direction, and I will therefore vote for its adoption.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal clarifies and facilitates access to cross-border healthcare and the exercise of the right to reimbursement by the Member State of affiliation, enabling all patients in the EU to benefit from healthcare in other Member States. In fact, these rights were already recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is a step forward in the European integration process and in strengthening solidarity, with reduced waiting lists, improved quality of healthcare and an incentive towards scientific research. Rare diseases are a priority, and diagnosis and treatment can now be carried out in the Member State most suited to that end. This directive is for all Europeans who need healthcare. The Portuguese Minister for Health is therefore quite wrong when she says that this option is for better educated people and those with greater financial resources: that is what happens now, without the directive. Portugal has excellent healthcare and cannot remain on the sidelines of this important project: the country must take advantage of this directive to modernise even further and must compete in terms of being able to provide services in this area to all Europeans in need of them.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the new legislation governing patients’ rights to medical treatment in another EU Member State. The work of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), in close conjunction with the other political groups, was once again fundamental. Approval of our French colleague Mrs Grossetête’s report comes after long negotiations with the Council, and will allow for significant progress to be made in an area in which existing legislation was not sufficient. The new legislation, which only affects people choosing to be treated abroad, establishes that EU citizens may be reimbursed for medical treatment they receive in another Member State, providing the health system in their Member State of affiliation covers the treatment and associated costs. All of this is particularly significant when we consider that seeking healthcare abroad could be of most benefit to patients who are on long waiting lists, or who cannot find specialist care.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted against the directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, even though there have been some amendments to the initial text. This final text is the result of a compromise with the majority of the Council, allowing 30 months for its transposition by the Member States.

Our vote against is due to the application of the principle of free movement to health services, without taking account of their specificities, including the need for a public national health service whose primary purpose in each country is to respond to the needs of its citizens.

We should bear in mind that this proposal by the Commission has come about following Parliament’s refusal in 2007 to allow the inclusion of health services in the directive on services in the internal market, because of the crucial struggle of the workers and the public, which defeated that part of the infamous draft Bolkestein Directive.

However, Parliament’s final decision, against which we have always fought, includes a number of concessions enabling any Member State that so wishes to use certain mechanisms to protect their public services.

Therefore, although it may make it more difficult to access health services, particularly for people who are not in a position to make use of private healthcare or who cannot afford to travel abroad, the practical consequences of its implementation will still depend on the decision of the Portuguese Parliament and Government.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) It is crucial to improve the situation regarding the right of citizens to receive healthcare when they are in another Member State. I hope that the fears of excessive interference by European legislation in that of the Member States will not be confirmed. However, I believe it is a good thing for patients to be able to enjoy the right to medical treatment in another Member State and be reimbursed up to the maximum amount allowed by their own healthcare system. Therefore, I have decided to support Mrs Grossetête’s recommendation.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I support a patient’s right to seek necessary medical treatment in a European country that is not the patient’s home country. Every Irish citizen and, indeed, every European citizen, has the right to travel to another European Union country to receive medical treatment. I would not be in favour of ‘medical tourism’, but I would favour a system that would help retired people who are living abroad, and those with a rare or unusual disease.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) During previous parliamentary committee debates, it has often been repeated that this directive is not intended to encourage ‘healthcare tourism’, but just to establish clear rules on cross-border healthcare.

It is important for medical treatment received in a Member State other than a patient’s Member State of affiliation to be based on a proven, objective need, in order to avoid burdening national health systems with excessive costs which would inevitably compromise their efficiency. A step forward has been taken with regard to rare diseases: patients will find it easier to access highly specialised treatment and will have the option of asking to see a specialist in another Member State.

I therefore believe that the establishment of national contact points to ensure that patients are fully informed about treatment available in other countries and about how to access and be reimbursed for cross-border treatment is important. Finally, I would like to emphasise that Member States’ exclusive jurisdiction over available treatments and ethical choices in the field of health should not, under any circumstances, be called into question.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare is an absolutely vital new legal instrument which can bring significant improvements to the situation of patients in the European Union. Patients today wishing to avail themselves of medical services in a country other than their own come up against many administrative and financial obstacles. As a result, only the most affluent can afford the luxury of treatment abroad. In response to these problems, the proposal for a directive provides for administrative procedures to be simplified as much as possible, for example, by limiting the obligation for prior authorisation of treatment by the national healthcare body, and by ensuring better exchange of information on medical services in other countries by setting up national contact points. This does not mean promoting ‘health tourism’, as some are claiming, but ensuring the right to reliable, high quality care when it is needed. I also believe that the directive can, in the long term, help to approximate the level of medical services in the individual EU Member States.

The good of the patient should be at the forefront of our thoughts while examining the proposal for a directive. The legislators’ role is to adopt a law that will minimise the formalities involved in accessing doctors and allow citizens suffering from ill health to have a wide choice of medical services. I am therefore wholeheartedly in favour of the proposal for a directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare and hope that the negotiations, which have already gone on for seven years, will result in an agreement with the Council.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In the end, I voted for the directive on cross-border healthcare. The compromise between Parliament and the Council is acceptable, in particular, because it recognises the right of States to take measures to safeguard the financial equilibrium of their social security systems, not least through a prior authorisation system for the financial reimbursement of hospital treatment received in another Member State. This will prevent any kind of health tourism.

The former Commission was misguided in thinking that healthcare was just another commercial service. Some MEPs are mistaken when they proclaim that ‘the Europe of health is now a reality’. The very best treatments will never be available to the common citizen, but will depend on relationships and especially on a hefty wallet. That, unfortunately, is the reality that cannot be glossed over by the directive.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the Grossetête report on the adoption of a directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. Today’s vote has brought us one step closer to codifying patients’ rights into European law. It is imperative that once this directive comes into force, patients are not left to shoulder the economic burden of cross-border healthcare and that reimbursement is carried out in a timely, expedient and smooth manner. High quality, equity, solidarity and universality in healthcare must remain the guiding principles during the transposition and implementation phases in the various Member States. In addition to this, governments should make public timelines and action plans on how best to monitor and ensure this kind of implementation.

Finally, for this directive to be truly effective, the Commission must monitor and supervise the coordination between the Member State of affiliation and that of treatment and ensure that any inequalities and disparities in access to cross-border care and treatment by patients are averted.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As someone who hails from the only region in France to share a border with three other EU Member States and who represents a constituency that is particularly affected by cross-border issues, I am very sensitive to these problems. Indeed, borders are still too often obstacles in areas of everyday cross-border life. Europe is founded on the principle of free movement of persons; this freedom, this mobility of citizens must apply to patients, too. Hence, the issue of cross-border healthcare is clearly a crucial one. That is why I voted resolutely in favour of this report on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. This text will enable patients to seek treatment more easily in another Member State. Above all, it clarifies the rules that will apply; patients will be able to access more information (in particular, via contact points) about their rights or about reimbursement. This is therefore a decisive and a very concrete step that will bring real added value to the construction of a social Europe and of a true Europe of health.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the directive on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. The provision of healthcare services in the shortest possible time and with a clear patient focus, which can also be used by other Member States, is an essential requirement in order to bring Europe closer together. Cross-border healthcare is a day-to-day reality in border areas like the one which I come from. Against this background, I am very pleased that it will be easier to access reliable, high quality cross-border healthcare and to have treatment costs reimbursed. I am particularly in favour of providing added value for patients who are on waiting lists. These new regulations will enable them to be treated more quickly in another Member State, rather than waiting a long time for treatment in their own country. It is true that establishing the rules for the refusal of prior authorisation is sensible and makes the situation clearer. However, some cross-border healthcare problems remain unresolved, in particular, for long-term cross-border commuters, who, after they have retired, will have no access or only restricted access to services which are important to them in the country where they previously worked.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which avoids, in the end, turning healthcare into just another commodity. Furthermore, I should like to thank the Spanish Presidency for this and for having supported the re-establishment of the prior authorisation system for cross-border and specialised care.

Yes, the European Union promotes the mobility of its citizens and has a duty to legislate on healthcare services. However, we must ensure that health remains a public good accessible to all and in the best possible conditions, and not a source of growth which pits national healthcare and social security systems against each other.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare is a key step towards abolishing the barriers which patients have encountered in the EU Member States to date. Its primary goal is to make it easier for Europeans to access healthcare in other EU Member States and, in particular, to access services which are not readily available in their own country. This is particularly good news for those who live in cross-border areas and, above all, for individuals suffering from rare diseases who need specialist treatment which is not available in their own country. I am also pleased to see a number of provisions which ensure certain benefits for patients, such as the mutual recognition of prescriptions, the removal of the need for additional insurance abroad and access to medical records. The idea of creating national contact points, with the task of informing patients about their rights, is also key.

Patients should be comprehensively informed about the procedures for accessing treatment abroad. They should be similarly informed about the procedures for obtaining reimbursements for the costs of such treatment, which will be reimbursed according to the current costs in the country in which the patient is insured. I believe that the solutions which have been found will make it easier for patients to access safe, high quality medical care throughout the European Union.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted for the removal of healthcare from the scope of the Services Directive some years ago, and I voted against the Cross-border Healthcare Directive at first reading. At the time, it was apparent that there was a tendency within the Commission to treat healthcare as a tradeable commodity. That is not how I regard healthcare – patients should not be treated as mere paying consumers. The Council has, however, vastly improved the draft legislation and moved its legal basis away from being a purely internal market issue. I accordingly voted in favour of the report and am confident that it will improve patients’ rights across Europe.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, because it aims to strengthen patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. It is regrettable that today, there is too much uncertainty surrounding access to care, reimbursements and responsibility for clinical follow-up in relation to cross-border healthcare. This directive is intended to allow all patients – and not only the best informed or richest – to enjoy a series of healthcare rights which have already been recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The aim of this document is absolutely not to encourage cross-border healthcare as such, but to ensure its availability, safety and quality when it is of use or necessary. The directive is intended to offer patients a choice which is based on their needs, not their means, and which is informed, not made under duress. Furthermore, I agree with Parliament’s position that, in order to avoid discrimination against people on lower incomes, the Member State of origin must pay directly the hospital in the other Member State that is providing the treatment, without requiring citizens to settle an account in advance, or any costs incurred by the patient should at least be reimbursed immediately. It is also very important for every Member State to establish national contact centres to provide patients with all the necessary information, i.e. about the availability of healthcare, procedures and the required documentation.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of adopting the Grossetête report for several key reasons. The directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare has many positive features. It abolishes barriers to treatment, ensures equal access for all to healthcare throughout the EU, marks an end to discrimination against patients, introduces the mutual recognition of prescriptions, reduces waiting times for doctors’ appointments and removes the need for additional insurance abroad. The fact that the directive introduces wide-ranging access to medical care for individuals suffering from rare diseases, and higher rates of reimbursement for disabled people, are additional points in its favour.

The directive works to prevent medical tourism by stipulating that the costs of treatment will be reimbursed up to the level guaranteed in the insuring country, and if the costs actually incurred are lower than this, they will be reimbursed in full.

The issue of authorisation has given rise to much debate. The prior agreement of the national health fund will only be required in the case of hospital treatment or expensive medical procedures, and it will not be required for any other form of treatment, provided that they are covered by what is known as the basket of guaranteed services. If a Member State has not authorised patients to receive specialist treatment at national level, the directive does not create any new right for patients to receive such treatment abroad or for the costs of treatment to be reimbursed. A key exception is the case of individuals with rare diseases.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) The directive on the right of European Union citizens to receive medical treatment in any of the 27 Member States is a significant step towards better healthcare in the European Union. It is particularly timely given the widespread labour mobility within the EU. When the directive comes into force, patients will be offered extensive information on the new rules so that citizens can come to know what opportunities they have and make full use of them. Citizens will be able to receive initial treatment in any Member State, and doctors will not be able to withhold treatment. The directive provides that, in future, citizens will be able to choose in which Member State to receive planned medical services.

They will, however, have to obtain an advance authorisation from their home state, as payment for the treatment will be made at the prices prevailing in the state where the patient is living. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction, for it will boost the availability of medical services. We should recall that citizens have the right to receive medical services in one of the Member States if such services are not available to them where they live. This is particularly important in cases of complicated or rare health problems. For this reason, both my group and I support this directive, because it represents an important step on the part of Parliament; one that will have a beneficial effect on the lives of the people of Europe.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported Mrs Grossetête’s recommendation because this proposal for a directive will benefit European citizens. The new regulations on medical treatment stipulate, in fact, that European citizens may be reimbursed for medical treatment received in another Member State, providing the treatment and costs would normally be covered in their own country. This result will benefit patients and significantly cut waiting lists, which are sometimes excessively long. Our society is increasingly mobile, and I think that, now more than ever, it is important to facilitate mobility among European Union citizens, including in a vitally important area such as healthcare. I also believe that it is important to draw attention to the new legislation on the fight against rare diseases, as it aims to strengthen cooperation between Member States in order to ensure that European patients can fully exercise their right to receive treatment.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I regard the directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare as a success, and therefore I voted in favour of adopting its provisions. Health is the most valuable asset we possess. I would like Europeans to have access to the highest possible standard of medical care. The directive is a source of opportunities and hope for patients, and it forces healthcare systems to undertake further reforms. The directive opens up European hospitals and clinics, inter alia, for Polish patients. It acts as confirmation that Europe is in the process of construction, and that our priority is to improve and promote cooperation between the EU Member States in the field of health protection.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the basis that it has now been clarified that British patients can receive abroad only the state-paid healthcare that they would be entitled to receive under the NHS. I welcome the fact that amendments seeking to extend entitlements by giving access to ‘all methods of treatment that are sufficiently tested by international medical science’ or ‘equally effective healthcare’ were defeated. The burden on the NHS of uncontrolled use of cross-border healthcare could have been enormous.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) The submitted document goes back to a debate that took place in the European Parliament in the previous parliamentary term. The actual Commission proposal contained some shortcomings and risks which might have a negative impact on consumer care, and thus on citizens. I welcome the compromise contained in Amendment 107, mainly because it improves the guarantee for patients in cross-border healthcare provision, and stresses the positive trend towards greater patient awareness. Last but not least, I consider it positive that the amendment stresses the responsibility of Member States for providing safe, high quality, effective and accessible care on their territory. I also consider it important to define the conditions under which a Member State may refuse to grant prior consent. The amendment also includes positive steps on interoperability, and supports cooperation in the areas of prevention and diagnostics.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) How can we guarantee the fundamental right of all European citizens to move freely within our common area without offering them the opportunity to be treated easily in a Member State other than the one in which they are resident? The adoption of this draft directive will finally allow patient mobility, an element intrinsic to citizen mobility, to be added to a legal text. I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on having reached an agreement with the Council on this important text, the adoption of which has been held up for too long. I very much hope that the transposition by our Member States of this legislation will enable European citizens, in the long term, to gain genuine access to quality cross-border healthcare.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The issues of access to healthcare, of reimbursements, and of responsibility for clinical follow-up in relation to cross-border healthcare, are currently unclear for the great majority of Europeans. The aim of this directive is for all patients – not just the best informed ones – to benefit from a certain number of healthcare rights, which were, however, already recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Nonetheless, this directive does not take responsibilities away from the Member States regarding their citizens’ healthcare. It only concerns patients and their mobility within the EU, not the free movement of service providers.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) If the waiting lists for operations in a patient’s own country are full, the guarantee that the cost of treatment abroad will be paid for by his health insurance company will come as a huge relief. These regulations will allow mobility within the European Union for those with chronic illnesses. However, the regulations will only be useful if they can also guarantee that there will be no health tourism, which would put even more pressure on the already hard-hit health insurance companies. Apart from the fact that some areas of medicine in countries with high medical standards could rapidly be overwhelmed, there is also the risk that poorer EU Member States, which have invested less in healthcare, will be required to pay massive costs. In this context, we must also not overlook the fact that the system which should allow the social security systems of EU countries to reimburse one another does not function and that debts of millions of euro have accrued over a number of years. Although the Member States can, in theory, exclude certain types of treatment if they are concerned that the influx of patients from abroad will put their healthcare systems at risk, in practice, this will not be so simple. We have not even managed to resolve the existing reimbursement problems and the measures for preventing health tourism are unlikely to be effective. I have voted against this draft resolution in order to prevent social security costs from rocketing.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report presented by Mrs Grossetête because providing access to cross-border healthcare is a definite achievement benefiting European citizens. Many of our citizens do not have access to care in the Member State they live in for the conditions they suffer from. This is why we must provide them with the opportunity to seek this care anywhere within the European Union, as well as the opportunity to have the cost of this treatment reimbursed.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) On 19 January 2011, the European Parliament adopted a directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, which is aimed at simplifying the rules governing treatment abroad. I am pleased to note that the European Parliament, as colegislator, played a key role in formulating clear provisions that benefit patients, inter alia, with regard to the reimbursement of the costs of medical care in other countries. Provisions concerning cross-border healthcare are all the more important as they affect every citizen of the European Union. The new directive guarantees the mutual recognition of prescriptions and easier access to information on treatment abroad, as well as increasing the scope of treatment for individuals suffering from rare diseases and providing more opportunity for disabled people to obtain higher rates of reimbursement of the costs of medical care. The European Parliament is also to play a role in establishing national contact points in each Member State, which will provide information on all aspects of treatment abroad. These points will cooperate closely with each other. Finally, I would like to say that there is an urgent need for the directive we have adopted, since the legislation on treatment abroad currently in force is unclear and overcomplicated, and it is imperative to simplify such matters for the sake of every EU Member State.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the recommendation with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare because I believe it is fundamental to guarantee adequate healthcare meeting high quality and patient safety standards throughout the European Union. Once the directive has been adopted, patients will have to request prior authorisation in order to seek healthcare in another Member State. This will guarantee the quality and safety of the healthcare treatment and services. Patients will then be able to apply to be reimbursed for the cost of their treatment, which will be based on the level of costs that would have been assumed for the same treatment in their Member State of affiliation. They will also be protected, treated and reimbursed for all cases of rare diseases, the treatment of which will benefit as a result of cooperation between Member States in research.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Each Member State is responsible for providing its citizens with healthcare. This directive establishes rules for facilitating access to cross-border healthcare that is safe and of high quality, and promotes healthcare cooperation between the Member States, while fully respecting national jurisdictions.

Highly specialised healthcare has evolved asymmetrically, with the development of centres of excellence in certain countries for rare or chronic diseases which are not common in that specific place but require specialisation. That is undoubtedly one of the premises behind promoting free movement in this area.

This directive is another example of Europe being put at the service of Europeans, while promoting solidarity between its peoples and creating benefits for patients, especially those who suffer from rare or chronic diseases and could benefit from having access to centres of excellence in the area of the illness from which they suffer.

For all these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The directive will enable all patients to benefit from rights already recognised by the European Court of Justice, while leaving social security systems fully within the competence of the Member States, since it deals with patients and their mobility inside the European Union and not the free movement of service providers.

I am in favour of overhauling the current unsatisfactory situation with regard to healthcare, which is marked by the split between case-law and the national systems. I would point out that this House took that same position at first and second reading, by codifying the Court’s case-law on cross-border treatment (European citizens have the right to be treated in another country as if it were their own) and sharing the Council’s desire to combat medical tourism.

The proposal includes a specific safeguard clause and a prior authorisation system that is flexible for patients but, at the same time, allows for possible exceptional costs to be flagged up. The aim, therefore, is to strengthen patients’ rights by ensuring the provision of information and cooperation between Member States.

The Member State of affiliation must ensure that its nationals have access to information. The recommendation for second reading goes further, by taking proper account of the potential of e-health.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report in support of Europe’s citizens as it stipulates clearer rules regarding patients’ rights to seek treatment abroad and the opportunity to make a choice which is based on their needs, not their means, and which must be informed and not made under duress. The directive stipulates the following principles: patients will be able to receive the non-hospital healthcare to which they are entitled in their own Member State in another Member State without prior approval and have their treatment costs reimbursed up to the ceiling established by their own healthcare system. Information is also a key issue. Therefore, each Member State will be obliged to maintain national contact points to inform patients about the availability of healthcare, administrative procedures, complaints, appeals and so on.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the wake of cases tried in the Court of Justice of the European Union, this directive aims to clarify and reinforce users’ right of access to safe and high quality cross-border healthcare, by promoting patient mobility within the EU, and by reinforcing the Member States’ cooperation and solidarity in this area. It therefore represents a significant step forward in European integration, which is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The legislation adopted today is an important step forward for patients’ rights in the EU. The Greens believe the final compromise adopted today strikes the right balance between guaranteeing patients’ rights to cross-border healthcare and safeguarding the provision of quality health services at national level. Patients will have the right to get hospital treatment in other Member States and be reimbursed as they would for receiving the treatment at home. However, this right should not be at the expense of the viability of national health systems. The Greens believe the final compromise allows Member States to establish a reasonable system of prior authorisation for the reimbursement of treatment costs, with MEPs succeeding in limiting the list of reasons for which a patient can be refused cross-border treatment. Importantly, Member States would no longer be able to refuse reimbursement after prior authorisation has been granted, which was a key concern.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The directive on cross-border healthcare that is due to be put to the vote today is a revolution, and I welcome that. The European Union’s healthcare remit is a very sensitive issue, and it is only right that each Member State should establish its own system of social protection and health insurance according to its own particular culture. However, why build Europe and guarantee freedom of movement if this is not accompanied by the opportunity to access healthcare throughout the European Union? For three years now, Parliament has been fighting to establish legal certainty for cross-border healthcare and to clarify the terms of reimbursement. A major step is going to be taken, and I thank my colleague, Mrs Grossetête, for the work she has done. This is an historic moment: the Europe of health is being built, and cross-border healthcare will no longer be a risk, but an opportunity. Let us ensure that we put this into practice, so that every European citizen may benefit from high quality healthcare. This is the price to be paid for health.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – I voted today to support improved legal clarity and patient mobility in cases where people need to travel abroad to receive healthcare. Ideally, no patient should have to leave their home country to get medical treatment, but in those cases where it is necessary, they should be able to do so knowing what they are entitled to in terms of treatment and reimbursement. It is also important that Member States’ health services know their obligations, and that they retain the right to choose, manage and provide their own healthcare services as they see fit.

The report addresses both of these key issues, as well as a number of other important ones, including the treatment of rare diseases and European Reference Networks to promote exchange of best practice. The issue of cross-border healthcare has not always been easy, and I extend my thanks to the rapporteur and shadows for their hard work on this issue.

  Peter Skinner (S&D), in writing. – I am in favour of this report as it deals with some of the current problems which have gone unaddressed by governments. This is not a directive telling Member States how they should run their health systems as some suggest. It is a report which the UK feels able to support largely because many of the problems relating to earlier reports have been ironed out. The implication of the directive on patients’ rights is to enhance those already allowed; in particular, those patients who cannot get adequate treatment within the UK may now travel elsewhere within the EU under provisions which already exist. The fact that there are likely to be very few people still doing this is because of the nature of family support of those ill; proximity here plays the most important part.

Costs in the UK should be met where there are reasonable grounds for treatment abroad. This is not a blank cheque for health tourism; it is the establishment of current UK rights for its citizens.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) The Cross-border Healthcare Directive – which I support – confers on patients unambiguous rights to seek medical treatment abroad and receive reimbursement according to the rates applicable in their own countries. This provides greater legal certainty to patients in frontier areas, people who are visiting another country, patients with rare diseases and patients facing long waiting times. However, in the interests of protecting the quality of care and fair access to care, Member States may require that patients obtain prior permission for such treatment. That will be a requirement in the case of hospitalisation or very expensive or high-risk treatments.

Reimbursement may also be refused in certain, very limited circumstances (for example, if equivalent treatment is also available in the patient’s own country) and Member States will be entitled to intervene if there is any evidence of over consumption. The directive therefore preserves the balance between patients’ right to quality healthcare and Member States’ right to finance their own social security and organise their own healthcare. Furthermore, I hope that the desire of patients to seek treatment elsewhere is not going to put any unnecessary pressure on high quality services which are the preferred choice of the vast majority of patients in the country where they are offered.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Patients, too, have the right to benefit from freedom of movement. That is why I voted in favour of the report on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. In Alsace, and in all border regions, the question of cross-border healthcare is crucial, when, for example, healthcare provided abroad is closer to home than that provided in the Member State of residence.

This report will allow all European citizens to obtain information on cross-border healthcare and to learn about their rights in this area via new contact points which will be set up in each Member State. The adoption of this text is the starting point for a genuine Europe of health which will benefit 500 million citizens.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Certain measures are required in order to achieve the goal of building an internal market based on free movement between the Member States. The free movement of people and services draws particular attention to the healthcare that the nationals of a Member State can receive in another Member State. The Court of Justice has recognised the rights of patients, specifically in terms of access to healthcare, ensuring that such healthcare is high quality and safe, and that patients should be reimbursed. The demand for greater legal certainty in this area implies a commitment from the Member States to cooperate with one another, particularly by recognising medical prescriptions issued in other Member States and ensuring a quality service in their own territory. I would stress the fact that the Commission is obliged to take measures in order to make it easier to understand information regarding prescriptions and instructions on the use of medicines, indicating the active substance and the dosage, which will clearly be beneficial to patients. Given the specific nature of this issue, there needs to be a separate directive from the one on services. I voted in favour of the report by my colleague from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Mrs Grossetête, as I believe that the affirmation of the right of patients to cross-border healthcare is relevant.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare is an extremely important document for EU citizens, and so I have followed work on the issue very attentively. I am pleased to note that the directive gives patients the right to choose the place where healthcare will be provided, thereby strengthening the common market, which is the main subject of my work in the European Parliament. This also means that it introduces adaptations which take account of citizens’ freedom to travel and work in any EU Member State. This directive, which could be called a Schengen for health, covers such issues as the mutual recognition of prescriptions, an end to discrimination against patients on the grounds of country of origin and the removal of the need for additional insurance abroad.

The issue of counterfeit drugs and medicinal products is another very important issue from the point of view of the common market. The directive stresses that they are a serious problem, particularly in the context of cross-border healthcare, and the same is true for medical tourism. The directive tackles this problem by ensuring that the costs of treatment are reimbursed to the level guaranteed in the country of origin, or, if the treatment or procedure cost less than this sum, that the actual costs incurred are reimbursed. The solutions introduced will help to improve the situation of patients in the European Union and will strengthen the common market, and so I voted in favour of adoption of the directive.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I was pleased to be able to vote in favour of the report, which, following the agreement with the Council during the second reading, will bring significant improvements in the free movement of patients within the European Union. Outpatient treatment now presents no problems for the citizens of the EU and inpatient treatment has become much simpler. It is in areas like this that Europe can contribute significant added value. The result is that the healthcare sector is gradually being transformed from a patchwork of individual services into a single entity.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) It is very important for our citizens to have the opportunity to obtain necessary and high quality healthcare services whether they are at home or abroad. I am pleased that this report also talks about patient mobility in the EU. Lithuanians living and working abroad must be guaranteed the opportunity to obtain treatment if necessary, without paying absurd amounts of money or waiting for months in uncertainty. Information is the key. I support the rapporteur’s proposal that every Member State should maintain national contact points to inform patients about the availability of healthcare and administrative procedures. Sometimes, however, treatment is not available for all illnesses in a citizen’s own country, and in such cases therefore, treatment should be provided in another country. We must strive to ensure that cross-border healthcare services or ‘medical tourism’ (as the rapporteur observes in this case) do not weaken our national healthcare systems. There needs to be a perfect balance. Low prices and easy travel are making Lithuania particularly attractive to other EU residents who may be looking abroad for opportunities of cheaper treatment and cheaper operations. Unless it is strictly controlled, ‘medical tourism’ could cause a surplus of services or unnecessary logistic costs, particularly for new EU Member States like Lithuania.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Health service structures vary greatly across the EU, and I support this directive that outlines a coherent approach to funding cross-border healthcare.

Although cross-border healthcare affects only a small percentage of EU citizens, clarifying the existing rights of these patients in this single piece of legislation will ensure that citizens wishing to travel to another Member State for medical treatment are financially protected. It is important that patients such as those living near national borders, as well as residents of smaller Member States who suffer from rare diseases, are provided with financial support when seeking medical care elsewhere in the EU.

The agreement will allow patients to be reimbursed for treatment they receive, up to the amount anticipated by their own national health system for similar treatment. This directive on cross-border health will also ensure that Member States establish contact points to provide sufficient information to citizens wishing to travel abroad for treatment.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) On 19 January, the European Parliament adopted European legislation on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare.

I can only support access to healthcare for all EU citizens irrespective of the State in which they reside. However, that is not the main objective of this text, which aims, first and foremost, to strengthen the internal market rather than promote universal access to healthcare.

The text states that travelling abroad to receive treatment could, in particular, benefit patients who are on long waiting lists or those who are unable to find specialised healthcare.

The first right of patients is be treated promptly and appropriately, without any obstacles, in the place in which they reside. It is obscene to present as a right the obligation for a sick person to have to move and fund a trip abroad in order to receive proper treatment.

Instead of supporting public healthcare systems to guarantee equal access to quality healthcare, patients are invited to choose their treatment throughout Europe just like any good put into free circulation within the European Union.

I cannot support such a concept of healthcare.

Motion for a resolution: (B7-0028/2011)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this resolution on FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements with the Republic of Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. It needs to be stressed that these voluntary agreements on trade in timber cannot undermine the EU’s overall objective of combating climate change and must guarantee sustainable use of forests. I hope that these voluntary agreements will help, rather than hinder, the idea of jointly stopping the trade in illegally harvested timber and contributing to efforts to stop deforestation and forest degradation, related carbon emissions and biodiversity loss globally.

I therefore support calls for the Commission to ensure that EU policy is consistent and to pay the utmost attention to ensuring that VPAs do not encourage the expansion of industrial logging activities into intact forest landscapes, and to work with all governments signing up to VPAs in the future to monitor and take steps to eliminate the negative effects, both direct and indirect, of commercial logging on wildlife.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) because of what they represent in terms of combating the trade in illegally logged timber in the EU. I would stress their importance in combating deforestation and the degradation of forests, as well as the resulting carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity at global level. The aforementioned reports simultaneously promote economic growth, human development and sustainable food sources. I call on the Commission to ensure that EU policy is coherent, with a view to making an effective contribution to the international commitments of all the parties involved in the VPAs.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) According to the United Nations, 20-40% of world timber production is the result of illegal logging. What is more, each year, deforestation increases by 13 million hectares and causes an estimated 20% of global CO2 emissions. The Voluntary Partnership Agreements that Parliament has just adopted will help combat the trade in illegally harvested timber by improving the traceability of timber harvested in the Republic of Congo and in Cameroon thanks to independent audit procedures and good forest governance policies. More generally, these agreements recall the responsibilities incumbent on the European Union when it negotiates trade agreements. The European Commission must conduct a consistent trade policy and must ensure that trade agreements do not lead to large-scale deforestation so as to satisfy the demands for free trade in timber or biofuel production. That is why Parliament insists that the European Commission present a regular report on the implementation of these agreements.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs), since negotiating these VPAs will allows us to define good practice for future negotiations with countries supplying wood, with a view to the eradication of illegal logging, and to the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources at global level.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Illegal logging is nothing short of the pillaging of the natural resources of countries that supply wood, normally developing countries, and it constitutes a clear attack on biodiversity and the quality of people’s lives and their future prospects. If agreements such as those reached with the Republic of Congo and the Republic of Cameroon prove to be effective in combating this scourge, they may come to form a good basis for future agreements of the same kind. I welcome Europe’s concern for the protection of other countries’ natural resources, but I must stress that despite the regulatory framework under the agreements, any victory in combating the trade in illegal timber greatly depends on the governments and institutions of the timber-producing countries. Without their involvement and effective commitment, any instruments that they agree upon will be useless. This model is therefore also a call for such countries’ EU counterparts to take responsibility so as to understand the need to protect the interests of their future generations, and act in everyone’s interests by resisting the appeal of instant profit.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union has been struggling to combat illegal logging, while seeking to conserve forest resources and promote their sustainable use globally.

I therefore welcome the signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreements with Cameroon and the Republic of Congo with the aim of improving forest governance and reforming existing legislation where necessary so as to ensure that activities in the forestry sector are transparent, respect indigenous peoples’ rights, and do not contribute to adverse environmental impacts.

These agreements are crucial to eradicating illegal logging, thereby bringing an end to deforestation and the degradation of forests, and to the resulting carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity at global level. To this end, I would stress the importance of calling on the Commission to regularly produce and present to Parliament a progress report on the implementation of the various provisions of all current and future agreements.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution rightly states that the large-scale industrial exploitation of tropical forests is unsustainable, as it leads to the degradation and destruction of ecosystems that are of great importance, both from a functional point of view and in terms of the natural assets that they protect. We also believe that it is right and timely that the resolution points out the limitations and contradictions of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreements. However, it still falls short of what is needed to tackle the causes of the problem of illegal or unsustainable logging. In particular, it is important to mention that this problem cannot be separated from the enormous weaknesses in the economies of these countries and the significant levels of poverty amongst their peoples, and that, at times, this activity is the only source of income for many families. This inevitably leads to the conclusion, included in our proposed amendment, which was unfortunately rejected, that it is only possible to put a stop to illegal or unsustainable logging if the terrible social and economic situation in these countries is addressed, reversing an economic model based on heavy dependence on exploiting and exporting a select number of raw materials to industrialised countries, which fosters neo-colonial relationships of dependence, and encourages the plundering of resources from developing countries and their subjugation.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Once again, I wish to use the forum of the European Parliament to remind everyone of the significance of forests for the climate, water management, agriculture and the culture of the country or region in question, particularly in rural areas. The market value of goods made from timber is also considerable. We must therefore be absolutely sure that timber from Cameroon, the Republic of Congo or any other third country has been obtained, transported and placed on the market legally, respecting the needs of local communities and forest management legislation. Entering into a partnership with these countries will result in improved forest management and greater credibility and competitiveness for exporting countries in the international arena.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this resolution which accompanies the consent procedures for the Voluntary Partnership Agreements on forest law and the trade in timber with Cameroon and the Congo. The resolution rightly emphasises that sufficient funding, monitoring and NGO and civil society involvement will be vital if the VPAs are to achieve their aims.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In the fight against the pillaging of biodiversity, the issue of forest destruction is absolutely crucial. It is primarily the result of the production-driven rationale of modern-day globalisation and is therefore still perfectly legal. The implementation of bilateral Voluntary Partnership Agreements to combat the illegal exploitation of forests is a very partial step towards the necessary establishment of a mechanism for punishing all ecological crimes. These agreements, which are still very rough and ready, nonetheless deserve to be encouraged and, most especially, improved.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Logging in African countries is often carried out illegally, which impacts very heavily on the protection of producer countries’ natural resources, as well as being an attack on biodiversity, and on the quality of people’s lives and their future prospects.

The signing of this type of agreement with the Republic of Congo and with Cameroon could help to reverse this trend, if they are effective and clearly succeed in bringing an end to illegal logging in these African countries. The EU’s use of this type of agreement to defend the natural resources of others is noteworthy. However, in order for these initiatives to be successful, it is very important for the governments and institutions of the producer states to aid in this fight too.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) We cannot expect the partnership agreements on the worldwide sustainable use of forest resources to produce any miracles. It will only be possible to combat illegal logging effectively if the local systems can be made more resistant to corruption, if the back doors which are currently being used to get around existing regulations can be closed and, finally, if significant penalties and sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the regulations. With regard to the environmental damage caused by activities in the forestry sector, it is important not to forget the damage caused by transport. Although we cannot expect miracles from the agreement, it is a step in the right direction, which is why I have voted in favour of this report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the motion for a resolution on the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union. I voted in favour because I believe that the negotiation of these VPAs enables us to obtain guidelines on best practices that could serve as a precedent for the negotiations under way for other VPAs with timber-producing countries.

In this context, I welcome the EU’s acceptance of its share of the responsibility for eradicating illegal logging, as well as the related trade, and for strengthening efforts connected with the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources globally. I welcome the fact that the commitments of the parties involved to improve forest governance are transparent and respectful of indigenous peoples’ rights, whilst ensuring forest biodiversity, the climate and sustainable human development.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution on Voluntary Partnership Agreements with Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. I would stress the need, when negotiating future agreements of this type, to provide for measures that secure the objectives of the eradication of illegal logging, the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources, and respect for the rights of the local populations.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – After a thorough scrutiny together with several NGOs, we have decided to support the signature of the two VPAs. Greens’ recommendations were unanimously adopted in committee. However, we demanded in our explanatory statement that the Commission explains some details more in depth. Thus, to raise some additional concerns, an oral question with debate has been tabled, with the support of all political groups, underlining the need for the Commission to make sure some criteria are guaranteed, not only during the signature phase, but also during the most crucial implementation phase of the agreements. For example, we ask the Commission to present, within six months of the entry into force of any VPA, a report on the measures undertaken to ensure that the dialogue between the stakeholders and civil society, including the local and indigenous population, continues and is maintained during the implementation phase. Underlined in the text are the risk of large-scale exploitation of forests, and both the direct and indirect impact of commercial logging on wildlife, biodiversity, deforestation, degradation of forests, and local populations and indigenous people. We have also tried to raise the crucial need to ensure freedom of speech and respect for human rights, so that any complaints are heard in any country concerned by VPAs.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Voluntary partnership agreements on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) represent the European model, currently at the draft stage, for combating the illegal international trade in timber.

The approved partnerships with the Republic of Cameroon and the Republic of Congo include good practice guidelines, which may form an important precedent for other ongoing negotiations with timber-producing countries. Central to the approved text is the idea of jointly stopping the trade in illegally harvested timber and products made from such timber and contributing to efforts to stop deforestation and forest degradation, related carbon emissions and biodiversity loss globally. At the same time, that would promote sustainable economic growth, sustainable human development and respect for indigenous and local peoples.

Whilst forests are the sovereign possessions of the states where they are located, the forest environment is a common heritage of humankind and must be protected, preserved and, where practicable, restored with the ultimate aim of maintaining global biodiversity and ecosystem functions, and protecting the world’s climate from the changes now occurring.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) Under the framework of FLEGT, tropical timber exporting countries have begun drawing up Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with the EU, in order to guarantee the traceability and legality of timber. Independent verification procedures are also provided for by these agreements. This enables them to set the standard for the management and exploitation of forests. I can only welcome the fact that the Commission has concluded agreements with Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. These agreements form a good basis for future VPAs: for example, with certain Asian countries and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Another important consideration for the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is the fact that the Commission has committed itself to reporting, within six months of the start of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement, on measures taken to enable and maintain an ongoing dialogue between the stakeholders and civilian communities, including local and indigenous populations. The overexploitation of forests threatens not just the local population but also the fauna and flora, and biodiversity. The kind of mass deforestation which leads to increased global warming will be reduced by these agreements.

Recommendation: Yannick Jadot (A7-0371/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the goal of providing a legislative framework for identifying and ensuring the traceability of timber products, establishing independent governmental verification procedures which certify that all timber products exported by the Republic of Cameroon to European markets have been obtained, harvested, transported and exported legally, with the aim of establishing the foundations of legal management and use in Cameroon’s timber sector, and strengthening the enforcement of forestry regulation and governance. I also believe that this agreement is of the utmost importance, as this country is the main African exporter of timber to Europe, and there are serious problems at several levels of governance, such as environmental degradation and corruption. It is also necessary to ensure that international commitments made by the EU and Cameroon are fulfilled in terms of the environment, of the adoption of civil-society oversight, and of greater involvement from local and indigenous communities, ensuring that the latter can enjoy their fundamental rights.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this recommendation. Cameroon, 40% of whose territory is covered in forest, is the largest African exporter of hardwoods to Europe. It sells 80% of sawn timber to the EU. However, the industry is beset by serious problems of governance, leading to environmental degradation, inequalities, impoverishment and corruption. Up to now, surveys by NGOs have shown that 20% of the Congolese timber imported onto the European market is of illegal origin, whether it is for production, sale, processing or export. This Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Cameroon is a good example of how, by buying responsibly, we can have a positive influence on the quality of the environment in third countries or the world in general, reduce pollution and combat climate change, poverty and corruption. I believe that the principle of responsible buying can significantly contribute towards reducing the volume of unfair and unlawful trade and contribute to safeguarding forests and biodiversity.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the commitments made between the EU and the Republic of Cameroon with the aim of improving forest governance and reforming existing legislation where necessary, so as to ensure that activities in the forestry sector are transparent, respect indigenous peoples’ rights, and do not contribute to adverse environmental impacts.

The forest environment is a shared piece of world heritage and must be protected, preserved and, if possible, restored, with the ultimate goals of maintaining global biodiversity and the functions of ecosystems, and of protecting the climate. In order to achieve these goals, it is essential that partner governments in Africa and third countries draw up resource management and land use plans. At the same time, they must identify the aid that will be necessary from foreign partners and from international organisations in order to move forward with these goals.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on forest law enforcement as it will provide a legal framework for the lawful management of the exploitation of timber in Cameroon and of its export to the EU. The aim of this is to eliminate the corruption which the illegal timber trade stems from and to develop a set of good governance practices in this area.

The involvement of members of civil society in the conclusion of the agreement is a positive step and must continue in order to ensure external control over the progress of the process for eliminating fraud and developing sustainable trade.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the recommendation on the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Cameroon as it sets out political and legislative reforms which will allow Cameroon’s timber sector to promote good governance and transparency, with a view to combating fraud and the trade in illegal timber.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon on the implementation of legislation, governance and trade in the forestry sector with regard to timber products imported by the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) is of the utmost importance given the negative impact that the trade in illegal timber necessarily entails. This agreement should allow the origin of the timber to be identified and encourage the implementation of independent verification procedures that can prove it. I hope that binding Cameroon to the FLEGT will effectively reduce the resources available to traffickers and thus establish an effective and transparent system for checking whether timber is legal.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union has been struggling to combat illegal logging, while seeking to conserve forest resources and promote their sustainable use globally.

I therefore welcome the signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreements with Cameroon with the aim of improving forest governance and reforming existing legislation where necessary so as to ensure that activities in the forestry sector are transparent, respect indigenous peoples’ rights, and do not contribute to adverse environmental impacts.

These agreements are crucial to eradicating illegal logging, thereby bringing an end to deforestation and the degradation of forests, and to the resulting carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity at global level. To this end, I would stress the importance of calling on the Commission to regularly produce and present to Parliament a progress report on the implementation of the various provisions of all current and future agreements.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) While the objectives set out in this agreement, aimed at the traceability and certification of timber products originating in the Republic of Cameroon are apparently praiseworthy, they do not respond to the extent that we believe is necessary to the problem of forest destruction, and with it the threat to the integrity of resources of immense value from an ecological and conservation point of view, and which are vital to the existence and way of life of local communities and indigenous peoples. The rapporteur himself realises the weaknesses of the agreement, setting out a long list of concerns that it does not explicitly address. In particular, the agreement does not preclude the possibility that large-scale industrial logging may increase forest degradation and deforestation, including of virgin forest with high levels of biodiversity. The rapporteur admits that the agreement will facilitate the importing of timber originating in Cameroon to the EU and that this may result in conflicts with the EU’s objective of combating climate change. It is acknowledged that local communities and indigenous people have not been directly involved in discussing the agreement. The lack of targeted funding is also acknowledged, as is the lack of technical support and human resources necessary to implement the agreement. These, amongst others, are some of the reasons behind our abstention.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The fact that Cameroon is Africa’s leading exporter of hardwood to Europe makes it necessary to regulate the flow of goods through the partnership agreement on which we are voting today. The corruption and illegality afflicting trade in Cameroon really must be tackled through the development of a system to check legality and independent audits of the whole system. Although doubts remain as to the actual effectiveness of this agreement, I believe it is right to support Mr Jadot’s recommendation.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this document, because the objective of the Cameroon-European Union Voluntary Partnership Agreement is to provide a legislative framework within which to detect and ensure the traceability of timber, put in place government and independent verification procedures to certify that all timber exports from Cameroon to European markets have been procured, felled, transported and exported legally, in order to provide a basis for the legal management and exploitation of the Cameroonian forests, and reinforce the application of forestry regulations and governance. In my opinion, we must put an end to the illegal trade in timber and corruption, and establish an effective, transparent system for monitoring the legality of timber and derived products. The Cameroon-EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement, which was concluded in accordance with WTO rules, provides for a series of political and regulatory reforms which will enable Cameroon’s timber industry to establish good governance and greater transparency. The VPA establishes an innovative procedure for combating fraud and illegal practices in the timber trade, including a definition of what constitutes legal trade in timber, a system to check legality and independent audits of the whole system designed to achieve more sustainable trade in timber. It must be stressed that these voluntary agreements on trade in timber must not run counter to the EU’s overall objective in terms of combating climate change and must guarantee sustainable forest use, stop deforestation and forest degradation, and related carbon emissions and biodiversity loss globally.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The draft resolution in question concerns the important partnership agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon. The main aim of this partnership is to provide a legislative framework within which to ensure the traceability of timber, put in place procedures to certify the quantities of timber exported from Cameroon to European countries, and check that the trade complies with legal and, above all, environmental requirements. Cameroon is the largest African exporter of hardwoods to Europe, which purchases 80% of its production. In the light of this fact, we must consider the need to adopt monitoring systems and procedures in this area of the market in order to avoid market activities being carried out using illegal procedures. I decided to support this recommendation because I am convinced of the need to develop agreements with countries outside Europe. However, I would emphasise that these partnerships must comply with the rules laid down to safeguard the environment and must be subject to stringent controls, in order to ensure that these activities become true opportunities for development and growth.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In the fight against the pillaging of biodiversity, forest destruction is an absolutely crucial issue. It is primarily the result of the production-driven rationale of modern-day globalisation and is therefore still perfectly legal. The implementation of the bilateral EU/Cameroon Voluntary Partnership Agreement to combat the illegal exploitation of forests is a very partial step towards the necessary establishment of a mechanism for punishing all ecological crimes.

The independence of decisions concerning the granting and verification of export licences should be guaranteed by public services, and the promotion of the timber trade as well as the development of forest industries should be limited to what is ecologically sustainable. The absence of such measures is particularly regrettable. Furthermore, serious reservations should be expressed concerning the reliability of the control system given the dereliction of duty on the part of the authorities in Cameroon.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Logging in African countries is often carried out illegally, which impacts very heavily on the protection of producer countries’ natural resources, as well as being an attack on biodiversity, on the quality of people’s lives and on their future prospects.

I am hopeful that the agreement negotiated with Cameroon will effectively combat illegal logging in the country, thus contributing to improving conditions for populations living off income from this economic sector, and that it will also contribute to improving biodiversity and protecting natural resources in Cameroon.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although the partnership agreement with Cameroon in the forestry sector is commendable and, as it is being introduced during the International Year of Forests, is also a very convenient way for the EU to improve its image, it is doubtful whether the agreement is worth the paper it is written on. Corruption is a fact of life in Cameroon. In the world rankings produced by Transparency International in 2010, it was in 146th place. Environmental organisations claim that the government of Cameroon is aware of the environmental crimes being committed by the forestry industry, but that corruption is preventing the companies from being monitored and prosecuted. Foreign companies are said to control more than 60% of timber extraction and processing and three quarters of the timber exports. Although we cannot expect miracles from the agreement, it is a step in the right direction, which is why I have voted in favour of this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Forty percent of Cameroon’s surface area is covered in forest – for the time being – because Cameroon is the largest exporter of tropical wood in Africa and in no other country are the forests being so extensively cleared. Experts estimate that, in 10 to 15 years, the most ecologically important tree species in the Congo Basin will have disappeared if the logging continues in the same way as it has been done up to now – aimed at maximum yield. This ultimately threatens the green lungs of Africa, which are vitally important for the global climate, and endangers the unique flora and fauna of Cameroon. To protect Cameroon’s tropical forests, what is essential is the combating of corruption and bribery (at the level of the officials and also of the community tenants of state-owned forests), effective criminal prosecutions, sustainable forestry, where the quantity felled is only as much as will regrow, and better training for loggers in order to prevent damage to the land during logging. Above all, European companies must take some responsibility, because around 80% of the yield is shipped to Europe. The EU must act in this regard by taking direct and decisive measures. I have therefore voted in favour of this report, as it is moving in the right direction.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the signing of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon, the goals of which are strengthening forest governance, promoting Cameroon’s timber products, and making the country more competitive on the international market.

These goals must respect the objectives and commitments of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Agreement: strengthening community land tenure and access rights, ensuring the effective participation of civil society – with specific attention to indigenous peoples – in policy making on forest governance related issues, increasing transparency and reducing corruption. Nothing will come of the aforementioned goals without the real and effective involvement of the authorities of the Republic of Cameroon.

I agree with the rapporteur when he highlights the need, given the new competences conferred by the Treaty of Lisbon, for the European Parliament to monitor the various stages of negotiating and implementing the VPA, and when he calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with studies of the agreement’s social, economic and environmental impact, amongst other documents for assessing its implementation.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The aims of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon (the EU-Cameroon VPA, concluded on 6 May 2010) are to provide a legislative framework within which to detect and ensure the traceability of timber, to put in place government and independent verification procedures to certify that all timber exports from Cameroon to European markets have followed legal channels, and to reinforce the application of forestry regulations and governance.

Most of the criteria derived from VPA definitions have been met. Cameroon is 40% covered in forest and is the largest African exporter of hardwoods to Europe, with 80% of sawn timber sold to the EU. There are, however, serious problems of governance (corruption), resulting in environmental degradation.

There is, therefore, an urgent need to establish procedures to combat illegal trade in timber by analysing and overseeing the trading patterns more effectively. The EU-Cameroon VPA provides for a series of political and regulatory reforms and will come into effect as soon as the promised legislative changes have been implemented and the system to verify legality put in place.

For all these reasons, I am voting in favour of the proposal allowing Parliament to follow the Council’s position.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Cameroon-EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement provides for a series of political and legislative reforms which will enable Cameroon’s timber sector to institute good governance practices and greater transparency. It is important to guarantee that any timber and derived products originating in Cameroon that enter European markets do so completely legally, as well as that any reforms implemented ensure respect for the rights of local and indigenous communities, and have a real impact at the level of combating corruption and strengthening the role of local civil society. I therefore voted for the signing of this agreement, and hope that the commitments made and the objectives of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade are fully adhered to when it is being implemented.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), in writing. – (HU) I considered the report, which agrees with the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between Cameroon and the European Union, to be worthy of support during the vote. I believe that it is very important for Cameroon, the largest exporter of hardwood from Africa to Europe, to apply strict regulations during its activities in this area. We must not allow abuse and the destruction of the environment to continue. An effective and transparent monitoring system needs to be established. I am convinced that European politicians must pay particular attention to the protection of the environment, and must support all efforts aimed at or assisting in the protection of the wellbeing of our environment, not just in Europe, but on a global scale as well.

Recommendation: Yannick Jadot (A7-0370/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the goal of providing a legislative framework for identifying and ensuring the traceability of timber products, establishing independent governmental verification procedures which certify that all timber products exported by the Republic of Congo to European markets have been obtained, harvested, transported and exported legally, with the aim of establishing the foundations of legal management and use in the Congo’s timber sector, and strengthening the enforcement of forestry regulation and governance. This agreement is crucial, as this country exports timber and derived products worth more than EUR 250 million every year, more than half of which is destined for the EU. I also agree with the need to ensure that the international commitments that the Republic of Congo has taken on in terms of human and environmental rights are fulfilled.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the commitments made in the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the EU and the Republic of Congo with the goal of improving forest governance and reforming existing legislation in this area. It is necessary to ensure that activities in the forestry sector are transparent, respect peoples’ rights, and do not contribute to adverse environmental impacts. I would stress the role of independent national civil society organisations and of independent external observers in monitoring the proper implementation of VPAs by all parties involved.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the recommendation on the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Congo as it sets out political and legislative reforms which will allow Congo’s timber sector to promote good governance and transparency, with a view to combating fraud and the trade in illegal timber.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The trade in illegal timber is a problem which seriously affects the producing countries, one of which is the Republic of Congo, and it jeopardises ecosystems, ways of life and the very economies of developing countries. Unfortunately, the European Union continues to accept illegal timber, so the measures aimed at impeding its entry into the EU are to be welcomed. In this sense, a partnership agreement aimed at identifying the origin and legality of the timber reaching the EU is clearly a positive measure. As with other consumer goods, the consumer should be able to trace the timber back to its source and ensure that it meets the legal requirements that apply to it.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union has been struggling to combat illegal logging, while seeking to conserve forest resources and promote their sustainable use globally.

I therefore welcome the signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Congo with the aim of improving forest governance and reforming existing legislation where necessary so as to ensure that activities in the forestry sector are transparent, respect indigenous peoples’ rights, and do not contribute to adverse environmental impacts.

These agreements are crucial to eradicating illegal logging, thereby bringing an end to deforestation and the degradation of forests, and to the resulting carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity at global level. To this end, I would stress the importance of calling on the Commission to regularly produce and present to Parliament a progress report on the implementation of the various provisions of all current and future agreements.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This agreement is aimed at ensuring the traceability and certification of timber products from the Republic of Congo. These objectives are ostensibly praiseworthy, but they do not respond to the extent that we believe is necessary to the problem of forest destruction, and with it the threat to the integrity of resources of immense value from an ecological and conservation point of view, and which are vital to the existence and way of life of local communities and indigenous peoples. The concerns expressed by the rapporteur himself are enough to prove the weakness of the agreement, justifying our abstention. Specifically, the agreement does not, of itself, ensure that deforestation and the large-scale degradation of intact forests will be combated, and it may even promote them in the absence of additional or complementary measures, as it is aimed at encouraging the importing of timber products from the Republic of Congo to the EU. This may throw up obvious conflicts with the EU’s stated objectives of combating climate change and protecting biodiversity. It is also worth highlighting, as the rapporteur does, the lack of targeted funding or the technical support and human resources necessary to implement the agreement.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) As with the provisions on Cameroon, and while I regret that the Treaty of Lisbon does not give the European Parliament the power of amendment, but only requires its consent, I have decided to support Mr Jadot’s recommendation. Every year, the Congo exports over EUR 250 million worth of timber and derived products, half of which go to the European Union. Despite the fact that, as in the case of Cameroon, there are still doubts as to the actual effectiveness of the agreement we are voting on, I have decided to support it, as it represents a first step towards fighting fraud and illegality in the timber trade.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this document, because the objective of the Congo-European Union Voluntary Partnership Agreement is to provide a legislative framework within which to detect and ensure the traceability of timber, and put in place government and independent verification procedures to certify that all timber exports from the Congo to European markets have been procured, felled, transported and exported legally. In my opinion, we must put an end to the illegal trade in timber and corruption, and establish an effective, transparent system for monitoring the legality of timber and derived products. The Congo exports over EUR 250 million worth of timber and derived products, half of which go to the European Union. Up to now, 20% of the Congolese timber imported onto the European market is of illegal origin, whether it is for production, sale, processing or export. The successive wars between 1993 and 1999 did nothing to improve the situation, and opened the floodgates to the scourge of corruption. There was therefore an urgent need to establish procedures to combat illegal trade in timber by more effectively analysing and overseeing the often complex trading patterns. It must be stressed that these voluntary agreements on trade in timber must not run counter to the EU’s overall objective in terms of combating climate change and must guarantee sustainable forest use, stop deforestation and forest degradation, and related carbon emissions and biodiversity loss globally.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As we are well aware, much of the timber used in the European Union comes from the Republic of Congo. Surveys by NGOs working in the area have shown that at least 20% of Congolese timber is of illegal origin. The aim of this recommendation on the draft decision on forest law enforcement is to ensure that in the Congo, too, the European Union can do what has already been requested for Cameroon, which is to take steps to ensure that the timber market does not suffer any illegal and, hence, unacceptable, interference. This can be achieved, as the recommendation proposes, through the adoption of measures which will allow the EU to ensure that the political reforms launched through the partnership agreements actually contribute to an economy which is clean, both legally and environmentally, in order to safeguard the country from criminal activities and the misuse of its resources.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. The Congo exports more than EUR 250 million of timber and derived products, half of which go to the European Union. Up to now, surveys by NGOs have shown that 20% of the Congolese timber imported to the European market is of illegal origin, whether it is for production, sale, processing or export. The successive wars between 1993 and 1999 did nothing to improve the situation, and opened the floodgates to the scourge of corruption. There was therefore an urgent need to establish procedures to combat illegal trade in timber by more effectively analysing and overseeing the often complex trading patterns. This Voluntary Partnership Agreement should help tackle corruption and significantly reduce the trade in illegal timber.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In the fight against the pillaging of biodiversity, destruction of the forest is an absolutely crucial issue. It is primarily the result of the production-driven rationale of modern-day globalisation and is therefore still perfectly legal. The implementation of the bilateral EU/Congo Voluntary Partnership Agreement to combat the illegal exploitation of forests is a very partial step towards the necessary establishment of a mechanism for punishing all ecological crimes. The independence of decisions concerning the granting and verification of export licences should be guaranteed by public services, and aid should be made available for combating the improper legal exploitation of forests. The absence of such measures is particularly regrettable.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Logging in African countries is often carried out illegally, which impacts very heavily on the protection of producer countries’ natural resources, as well as being an attack on biodiversity, and on the quality of people’s lives and their future prospects. I am hopeful that the agreement negotiated with the Republic of Congo will effectively combat illegal logging in the country, thus contributing to improving conditions for populations living off income from this economic sector, and that it will also contribute to improving biodiversity and protecting natural resources in the Republic of Congo.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) This sort of agreement will only have any meaning when we can be sure that foreign companies are no longer exploiting the local companies, which have no forestry and environmental expertise, and when the Republic of Congo clamps down on corruption. The objective must be to establish a forestry sector which acts responsibly and plans for future generations. While the local people remain unaware of these issues, the whole thing will continue to be a sham.

Until the failure to comply with regulations on felling incurs significant penalties and sanctions, the EU agreement will remain completely ineffectual. Even if ‘selective felling’ does take place, it is important to remember how many trees will be lost during the transport process, for example, in order to build roads out of the forests. Although we cannot expect miracles from the agreement, it is a step in the right direction, which is why I have voted in favour of this report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I also voted for the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Republic of Congo on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the EU. I welcome the goal of creating a legislative framework that makes it possible, inter alia, to identify timber products and ensure their traceability; to establish independent and governmental verification procedures certifying that all timber products exported by the Republic of Congo to European markets have been procured, felled, transported and exported legally, with the aim of establishing the foundations of legal management and exploitation in the Congo’s timber sector; and to strengthen forest law enforcement and governance.

From the Congo-EU VPA concluded on 9 May 2009, I would stress the fulfilment of the criteria derived from VPA definitions, including those applying to the negotiation process, which culminated in an innovative agreement, the aim of which is to combat effectively the bad governance practices from which illegal trade in timber, and corruption, stem, and to establish an effective, transparent system for monitoring the legality of timber and derived products.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The aims of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Congo (the EU-Congo VPA) are to provide a legislative framework within which to ensure the traceability of timber, to put in place government and independent verification procedures to certify that all timber exports from Cameroon to European markets have followed legal channels, and to reinforce the application of forestry regulations and governance..

Surveys by non-governmental organisations have shown that 20% of the Congolese timber imported onto the European market is of illegal origin, at whatever stage in the process. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why there is an urgent need to establish procedures to combat the illegal trade in timber.

The EU-Congo VPA provides for a series of political and regulatory reforms which will enable the Congo’s timber industry to establish good governance practices and greater transparency. It is important to ensure that the political and legislative reforms undertaken contribute to poverty reduction and a tangible improvement in people’s living conditions.

The VPA will come into effect as soon as the promised legislative changes have been implemented and the system to verify legality put in place. For all the above reasons, I endorse the rapporteur’s proposal to follow the Council’s position.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Congo-EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement provides for a series of political and legislative reforms which will enable the Republic of Congo’s timber sector to institute good governance practices and greater transparency. It is important to guarantee that any timber and derived products originating in the Republic of Congo that enter European markets do so completely legally, as well as that any reforms implemented ensure respect for the rights of local and indigenous communities, contribute to improving populations’ living conditions and to environmental conservation, and have a real impact at the level of combating corruption and strengthening the capacities of local civil society.

I therefore voted for the signing of this agreement, and hope that the commitments made and the objectives of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade are fully adhered to when it is being implemented.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of this resolution because I believe we need to try to solve the serious problem of deforestation and degradation. Maintaining the integrity of forests remains a priority.

The Commission and the Council must step up their efforts to ensure human rights are respected in the Republic of Congo. Another problem on which preventive action is needed is corruption, which must be substantially reduced. In order to ensure that corruption declines, it is important to support measures designed to guarantee the independence of the local judicial system and the creation of new judicial procedures.

It is also vital to update legal texts designed to improve social justice and respect for the rights of local and indigenous communities. I should like to end by stressing the need for additional technical and financial resources to support the establishment of a system to verify the legality of timber.

Recommendations: Yannick Jadot (A7-0371/2010) and (A7-0370/2010)

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The consent of the European Parliament to the Voluntary Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon and the Republic of Congo has resulted in an important step being taken in the fight against illegal logging and the illegal trade in timber. A certification system, which ensures clear traceability, will benefit not only the European economy and the European timber industry in particular, but also the economy and timber industry in Cameroon and Congo. I am definitely in favour of these two agreements.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – As a part of FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade), exporter countries of tropical hardwood have begun to sign Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with the EU to ensure the traceability and legality of timber and verification procedures. The objective of the two FLEGT VPAs with the Republic of Congo and Cameroon is to provide a legislative framework which aims to: (i) detect and ensure the traceability of timber, (ii) put in place independent verification procedures to certify all timber exports from the partner country to the European market, in order to provide a basis for the legal management and exploitation of the Congolese and Cameroonian forests, and (iii) reinforce the application of forestry regulations and governance. A VPA has already been signed between the EU and Ghana in 2009. With the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has codecision and needs to give its formal assent to two VPAs relating to Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. More VPAs are to come in the near future, especially with some Asian countries and also with the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of these resolutions because I believe it is important to preserve natural forests, the exploitation of which may lead to forest degradation and deforestation as well as destruction of the global environment.

Reform of the legal framework in the forestry sector is therefore necessary in order to have a Voluntary Partnership Agreement that is in keeping with the objectives of the action plan for forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) and to ensure that social and environmental criteria are met. Legal texts designed to improve social justice must be updated so as to respect the rights of local and indigenous communities, thus guaranteeing for these groups the principles of direct participation in the drafting of the new regulatory texts and in the implementation phase of the transparency agreement.

The Commission must ensure that the rights of local communities, who are often the first victims of climatic and environmental degradation, are respected.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has voted for several agreements to combat the illegal trade in timber between the European Union and the Congo and the European Union and Cameroon.

These international agreements are designed to ensure the traceability of timber exported to the EU, in order to fight against deforestation and to preserve biodiversity, as well as to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples.

The rapporteur, Mr Jadot, of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, has included a number of amendments tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left.

These reports remain to be implemented, and we must make sure that the Commission really does take the European Parliament’s views into consideration

These reports can, nonetheless, be a source of support for all those who are fighting for a different kind of relationship with the countries of the South and, in particular, with the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the EU signing a Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Cameroon and with the Republic of Congo. This year, 2011, is the International Year of Forests. Healthy forests are essential in order to maintain local biodiversity and they make an important contribution to the climate objectives we have set ourselves, because they act as natural CO2 sinks. Vegetation and woodland is being destroyed throughout the world, including in central Africa. Satellite pictures show that around 25 000 km² of African forests and other vegetation have been lost in the last 30 years. These new partnership agreements will promote the responsible management of the forestry sector in these two countries, which the EU has indirect responsibility for, as a result of its imports of timber. The EU is now accepting this responsibility. The introduction of traceability and legality verification systems for timber products will also ensure the necessary transparency.

Motion for a resolution: (B7-0022/2011)

  John Attard-Montalto (S&D), in writing. – Although this resolution refers to working visas, it is highly unlikely that citizens of the Pacific States will select Malta, as opposed to the rest of the EU, as a place to seek employment. That is why I voted in favour of the original text proposed.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The resolution explains Parliament’s doubts about the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement. It points out the objectives of the agreement (development, strengthening of trade links between the EU and the Pacific) and underlines the problems raised by the derogation from the rules of origin for processed fishery products. Nonetheless, in line with my refusal to accept the agreement, I voted against the resolution, which does not seem to me to highlight sufficiently the problems raised by the derogation from the rules of origin for processed fishery products, especially tuna.

I am looking forward to the European Commission supplying us with the impact assessment provided for by the agreement. It analyses the consequences of this agreement for employment in the EU and also in the Pacific, as well as for the European fisheries and processing sector. It is impossible to verify the origin of processed tuna that enters the European market. I shall follow the negotiations on the final partnership agreement between the EU and the Pacific States, and I shall ensure that the agreement does not contain any derogations from the rules of origin for processed fishery products from Papua New Guinea.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts made towards deepening trade relations between the Pacific and the EU, with the aim of supporting regional integration and promoting the progressive integration of the economies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states into the global economy.

The EU has an important role in fostering the sustainable social and economic development of the ACP countries and in contributing to the general efforts to eradicate poverty in those countries. Trade relations between this region and the EU must, therefore, encourage and increase trade, sustainable development and regional integration, while simultaneously contributing to economic diversification and poverty reduction.

Trade policy is becoming more important than ever to the developing world because of the current economic and financial crisis, and I call for negotiations with all 14 ACP Pacific States on a comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement to be as swift as possible.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) With regard to Amendment 6, paragraph 23(3), we believe that it should always be up to the individual Member State to decide whether a visa is to be issued to a third-country national. If it is a question of a work visa, the work should always be on the same terms as it would be if it was done by an EU citizen in the Member State in question. We would also like a more precise definition of the phrase ‘‘carers’ or in similar professions’.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The current financial and economic crisis highlights that trade policy is more important than ever to the developing countries. The specific nature of the region, determined by fisheries and fisheries-related activities and industries, shows the best potential for future export growth, provided that fisheries activities are conducted in an environmentally sustainable manner.

As far as Aid for Trade is concerned, its objective is to improve developing countries’ ability to capitalise on new trade opportunities.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States in view of the fact that it is only one step towards negotiating a new, more extensive Partnership Agreement.

At the same time, the European Commission has to bear in mind that the future agreement will have to be negotiated with a larger number of states in the region to avoid becoming a source of division within the region. Furthermore, this agreement should not allow companies from third countries to enjoy the benefits of an exemption from EU customs duties to the detriment of local industries, workers and incomes.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution because I believe that the partnership agreement will support regional integration and promote the progressive integration of the economies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States into the global economy, while also encouraging the sustainable social and economic development of these countries, thereby contributing to the eradication of poverty.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although only Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands have signed the interim partnership agreement with the EU, I believe that this merits our support because it allows European markets to be open to local products and, on the other hand, the gradual opening of those countries’ markets to European products. I hope that trade relations between the Pacific States and the EU will grow and become stronger, while respecting different areas’ specificities and bearing in mind the particular needs of those who have least. This trade mechanism should therefore be used, while keeping in mind the development needs of the countries which have signed the agreement, and employed as a tool for promoting those needs. The comprehensive agreement that may be concluded should not overlook the key issues listed in the resolution: 1) negotiations on intellectual property rights; 2) transparency of public procurement; and 3) the granting of working visas.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – My resolution, which accompanies the granting of consent to the EU-Pacific States Interim Partnership Agreement, makes it clear that Parliament, while welcoming this interim EPA covering only Fiji and Papua New Guinea, believes that any move to a full EPA must cover all 14 Pacific island states. This is important for regional solidarity, cohesion and integration.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The goal of Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and Pacific States must be to increase trade, sustainable development and regional integration, while also promoting economic diversification and poverty reduction. Although currently only Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands have signed the agreement, this is an important step towards the future economic development of this region, which is made up of 14 states and is crucial to the development of international trade.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The widely held belief that the promotion of trade relations between this region and the EU should encourage and increase trade, sustainable development and regional integration, while also promoting economic diversification and poverty reduction, is a particularly important feature of this European Parliament resolution on the Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States. The Millennium Development Goals will be achieved through this interim agreement.

This point, along with the creation of a genuine regional market, constitutes a crucial basis for the successful implementation of the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA); similarly, this is also true of a possible comprehensive EPA in the future. Regional integration and cooperation are essential to the social and economic development of the Pacific States.

I voted in favour because I am convinced that this EPA can contribute to these regions’ economic development, and I share the concerns mentioned in the resolution that such development should be accompanied by policies on environmental sustainability and inclusion. It falls to Parliament to monitor the implementation of this agreement, as part of the competences conferred by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Maurice Ponga (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the European Parliament’s decision to approve the interim agreement between the European Union and the Pacific States. This agreement reflects the commitment of the European Union to this region of the world and sends a strong political signal to the States in the region. I am pleased about that. The political resolution that accompanies this decision to approve the agreement provides an opportunity to point out our demands. We want to establish a balanced and fair relationship with the Pacific States; one which allows for the development of these island States while protecting the interests of our own citizens. While the interim agreement includes specific provisions on the rules of origin for fishery products, it was important to manage this derogation. Indeed, in order to ensure that this derogation, which should allow for the creation of jobs and wealth, is of genuine benefit to local populations and does not harm the European fishery product processing and canning industries, it was vital to provide for an assessment of its impact as soon as possible and to allow for its suspension, where necessary. Guarantees exist to ensure that the agreement is fair and that measures will be taken, if necessary, to protect our interests.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution on the Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States in the hope that this agreement – which is currently limited to two countries: Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands – could prepare the ground for a wider-ranging agreement. Such an agreement would be an instrument for promoting the Pacific Region’s sustainable social and economic development, for reducing poverty, and for strengthening regional integration and cooperation, in line with the Millennium Development Goals.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Interim Partnership Agreement between Papua New Guinea, the Republic of the Fiji Islands and the European Community was initialled on 14 December 2007.

These were the only countries of the Pacific Region to enter into the agreement as they were the most active in maintaining trade relations with the European Union, and mainly because they were interested in protecting their sugar and tuna industries. The agreement should also guarantee these countries further gains, thanks to a new regulation on duty- and quota-free access to markets.

By having better access to the European market, these countries will also benefit from new investment opportunities, which will also have a positive impact on employment. The economic partnership agreement provides for an ad hoc committee to be set up subsequently to monitor its implementation and to check its effects on local society and the local economy at regular intervals.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The resolution explains Parliament’s doubts about the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement. It points out the objectives of the agreement (development, strengthening of trade links between the EU and the Pacific) and underlines the problems raised by the derogation from the rules of origin for processed fishery products. That is why I voted for this resolution and why I supported the amendments tabled by the Greens, which are entirely consistent with our concerns. I am looking forward to the European Commission supplying us with the impact assessment provided for by the agreement, and I shall be keeping a close eye on the negotiations on the final partnership agreement.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I supported this Interim Economic Partnership Agreement with Papua New Guinea and Fiji as it is important to develop strong links with exporting countries in the Pacific Region. Despite concerns from some Members, I believe that we need to foster closer cooperation with these countries as this allows the EU to monitor catches of tuna and other fish that are canned on Papua New Guinea. This industry has also created hundreds of jobs for local people in the impoverished country.

Recommendation: David Martin (A7-0365/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution as I believe that this helps to establish new trade arrangements that are compatible with World Trade Organisation rules with the Republic of the Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea. Interim Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are agreements on the trade of goods that are intended to prevent a breakdown in trade between the countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and Europe. Although interim agreements may be seen as a first step in the process, in legal terms, they are completely independent international agreements which do not necessarily lead to a full EPA. I welcome the recommendations regarding the signing of definitive agreements, the origin of EU funds to finance these agreements, which should not come from the European Development Fund, the need for a parliamentary committee to monitor the implementation of the agreement, and a review clause envisaging a global impact assessment in three to five years.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. – (NL) Economic Partnership Agreements should promote trade between the EU and Papua New Guinea and Fiji and contribute to trade, development, sustainable growth and the reduction of poverty. Regional integration is crucial in the development of these countries. Therefore, the Commission should explain how these interim agreements will contribute to it. It is important that we sign a final agreement with the countries in this region. The relaxation of the rules of origin offer great opportunities for Papua New Guinea to promote the local economy.

However, it is important that we ensure that the poorest countries are not merely used as transit countries for products from other countries which do not qualify for this special access scheme. The interests of the local economy are paramount here. The Commission should monitor implementation and take appropriate action whenever its impact studies find serious distortions in the market.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This is an agreement that grants goods from the Pacific Region preferential conditions of access to the European market. I am in favour of the development of this region but I consider the derogation from the rules of origin for processed fishery products to be unacceptable. Indeed, this derogation gives rise to a situation of unfair competition for the European canning industry and does not truly benefit local populations.

Furthermore, imports of tuna from Papua New Guinea have doubled over the last two years, and we have reason to fear that this trend will become stronger in the future. As Vice-Chair of the Committee on Fisheries, I decided to vote against this agreement because it ignores the opinion adopted by this committee, which proposed abolishing the derogation from the rules of origin for processed fishery products at the end of the negotiations on the Interim Partnership Agreement.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Despite the low number of countries that have accepted the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), this demonstrates Europe’s commitment to supporting the development of Pacific countries by using a mechanism that goes beyond mere aid procedures and seeks to mobilise local economies, which hope to have the effect of creating businesses and jobs, and bringing about the greater movement of people and goods. Although I agree in principle with such an instrument, I cannot ignore my doubts about the impact that the EPA may have on the fisheries industry. I would therefore like the Commission to look at this issue with particular care, and I believe that the Commission’s presentation of a report to Parliament on fishing in the Pacific and the management of the region’s fish stocks is justified, as requested by the rapporteur.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with this draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and two Pacific States – Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands – for the following reasons: 1. these countries are the region’s largest economies and have signed Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU in the past; 2. despite the potential benefit of extending this partnership to other countries in the region, it has not been possible to do so; 3. this is an interim agreement which this House will need to reassess if we intend to convert it into a comprehensive one; 4. the Republic of the Fiji Islands has made commitments to the EU regarding human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law; 5. in spite of the criticisms made by members of civil society and politicians in the region, this partnership could contribute to these countries’ strategic development.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We have been criticising the signing of these Economic Partnership Agreements with the countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) for a long time. Irrespective of their purpose and the rhetoric with which they are presented, these agreements are essentially aimed at free trade, with all the extremely negative consequences that result from it. Recently, in the last ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which took place in December 2010, the Council of the ACP countries expressed their concern with the fact that the European Commission is not respecting its objections on matters relating to protecting its economies. There is also a contradiction between the Commission’s much-vaunted flexibility and the inflexible stance that it has taken in the technical negotiations. In this Interim Economic Partnership Agreement with the Republic of the Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea, the EU has also been subjected to severe criticism by social and political organisations in the Pacific Region due to the pressures that have been put on these two countries to sign the agreement, under the threat of losing their privileged access to European markets. Critics have also said that there has been a significant decline in solidarity between the Pacific States since the signing of this agreement, creating feelings of division, which has lead to the break-up of certain regional groups due to the pressures that they felt that they were under to sign the interim agreements.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) There is nothing more important than children’s health and protecting the rights and welfare of children. Children must also have the right to family life, and it must be ensured that children do not have to spend long periods living in orphanages.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The agreement between the EU and the Pacific States grants Papua New Guinea a general derogation from the rules of origin for fishery products, especially tuna. This clause means that goods from that country can be considered to be Papuan, and consequently exempt from any customs duties or quotas, even if the fishermen, the fishing areas and the factories that produce the canned fish are not Papuan.

Now, the ones profiting from this are the Chinese, Australian, Thai and any other fishing fleets which unload their catch in Papuan ports. They are the canning factories belonging to these countries, which have set up in Papua New Guinea but which employ foreign nationals in dubious conditions. It is clearly the European, and most particularly the French, sector of the industry which is feeling the full force of this unfair and unlawful competition.

In the European Union, imports of tuna from Papua New Guinea increased by 76% between 2008 and 2009; in France alone, they increased by 1 500% over the same period. The perverse economic and social effects of this derogation are well known, and fears for the region’s fish stock are well founded. That is why I voted against this agreement.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Pacific States form a unique area, made up mainly of island states which are, to a large extent, ethnically diverse and whose culture differs greatly from that of Europe. They require different political and economic priorities. By concluding an agreement with these states, we wish to facilitate the free flow of goods and services, which should bring commercial advantages to both sides. However, we must also ensure that, while striving for market liberalisation, we are not perceived as interlopers wishing merely to secure access to resources and weakening regional solidarity in the process, as the critics would have us believe. Let us conclude agreements, let us open up the markets and let us promote competitiveness, but let our actions be guided by common sense and mutual benefit in all instances, in particular, when helping regions such as the Pacific States, which are often hit by natural disasters.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and two of the ACP countries, namely Papua New Guinea and Fiji, of the other part, should be regarded as a step towards a comprehensive agreement. The Interim Partnership Agreement covers all of the important areas of a trade agreement, but could subsequently also cover intellectual property rights and developments in public procurement. I support the agreement but, at the same time, I am very aware of the possible impact this could have on the European fishing sector and, in this regard, I expect the Commission to carry out the investigation into this impact called for in paragraph 15 of the resolution adopted by Parliament.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The initiative which has been approved today by Parliament has created an agreement that will undoubtedly strengthen trade between the European Union and some of the Pacific States. In particular, the Interim Partnership Agreement has been concluded with Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands, which hope to achieve the objective of protecting their sugar and tuna industries. In my opinion this is a step forward for development and prosperity. Thanks also to the rules of origin, it will provide real added value to the fishing industry and exports from these regions. I must also emphasise that the agreement could have major implications for relations with the other Pacific States, including Australia and New Zealand.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I am delighted that Parliament gave overwhelming support to my recommendation that we consent to the EU-Pacific interim EPA. The interim agreement between Papua New Guinea, Fiji and the European Community was initialled on 14 December 2007. These two countries were the only ones in the Pacific Region to enter into the agreement, as the other members of the Pacific regional grouping – because of their low levels of trade in goods with the EU – chose not to sign. Fiji and Papua New Guinea entered the agreement mainly with the hope of protecting their sugar and tuna industries, which would have suffered greatly under the Generalised System of Preferences. The Interim Agreement covers rules of origin and market access issues. Regarding rules of origin, it covers fisheries, textiles and agriculture, leading to investment and employment opportunities. Regarding market access, duty-free and quota-free access to markets is to be granted, providing investment and employment opportunities. Trade and development issues are to be dealt with within the wider regional framework.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The Interim Partnership Agreement signed between the EU and Papua New Guinea and the Fiji Islands is the result of shameful pressure. This agreement provides for the gradual abolition of customs duties on a scale that is unsustainable for these States, the prohibition of any quantitative restrictions on exports and imports and the abolition of all subsidies for the export of agricultural produce to the Pacific States for Papua New Guinea and the Fiji Islands. It includes a rendezvous clause for the ‘successful conclusion of the currently ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA)’. These agreements are further proof of the neo-colonialism of the European Union. I voted against.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The goal of Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and Pacific States must be to increase trade, sustainable development and regional integration, while also promoting economic diversification and poverty reduction. Although currently only Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands have signed the agreement, this is an important step towards the future economic development of this region, which is made up of 14 states and is crucial to the development of international trade. This is the first step towards the extension of this agreement to other regional countries, and towards giving a significant boost to their economies and to the wellbeing of their populations.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the interim partnership agreement between the European Community and the Pacific States, because I believe that it is important for Europe to have trade partnership agreements with third countries that are able to export products which European countries have difficulty in accessing. The development of international trade is logically accompanied by agreements which facilitate trade and make the commercial network increasingly accessible. Negotiations on the new Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) began in 2002 with the aim of building on and strengthening the regional integration processes in the ACP countries. The agreement in question concerns rules of origin in relation to fisheries, textiles and agriculture, leading to investment and employment opportunities, and market access, with duty and quota free access to markets which would provide investment and employment opportunities. The interim agreement has also brought about a reduction in governments’ policy space in the form of regulatory power.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendation on the conclusion of the EU-Pacific States Interim Partnership Agreement for the following reasons. The Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea have decided to conclude the agreement mainly in the hope of protecting their sugar and tuna industries. The interim agreement covers rules of origin in relation to fisheries, textiles and agriculture whilst, however, establishing derogations that could threaten the competitiveness of some EU industries. As regards the tuna canning sector, the derogation granted enables countries like Papua New Guinea to operate as genuine hubs for the processing of huge quantities of tuna from a variety of sources: the Philippines, Thailand, China, the United States, Australia, etc. This tuna is landed in Papua New Guinea’s ports and processed in factories that have been hastily set up by operators from the countries concerned for the sole purpose of benefiting from the total customs duty exemption granted by the EU under this interim agreement. This has been damaging the European canning sector, which has been complaining of unfair competition.

I therefore join the rapporteur in calling for a report to be submitted to Parliament on the specific aspects of the Pacific States’ fisheries sector for assessment of the real impact that these measures could potentially have on the EU market.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Negotiations began in 2002 on new economic partnership agreements (EPAs) between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and the European Union to replace the previous unilateral regime of trade preferences in favour of the ACP countries.

Since specific issues of interest were the subject of individual negotiations at national level, and since partnership agreements were unlikely to be concluded straight away, it was decided to conclude interim EPAs focusing on trade in goods by the end of 2007. The aim of these was to avoid a disruption of trade, and they may not necessarily lead to comprehensive EPAs.

In the Pacific Region, only Fiji and Papua New Guinea concluded such an agreement. The agreement covers rules of origin in relation to fisheries, textiles and agriculture, leading to investment and employment opportunities. The European Commission hopes to conclude a comprehensive economic partnership agreement with the Pacific regional group, for which talks are ongoing.

I find it appropriate to support the Council’s position in favour of the Interim Partnership Agreement, because I consider guaranteeing supplies of resources a priority, especially in view of their scarcity and environmental degradation. It is also essential to keep alive the decade-old agreements with the ACP countries, even if in a different form.

  Maurice Ponga (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the European Parliament’s decision to approve the interim agreement between the European Community and the Pacific States. This agreement reflects the commitment of the European Union to this region of the world and sends a strong political signal to the States in the region. I am pleased about that. The political resolution that accompanies this decision to approve the agreement provides an opportunity to point out our demands. We want to establish a balanced and fair relationship with the States of the Pacific; one which allows for the development of these island States while protecting the interests of our own citizens. While the interim agreement includes specific provisions on the rules of origin for fishery products, it was important to manage this derogation.

Indeed, in order to ensure that this derogation, which should allow for the creation of jobs and wealth, is of genuine benefit to local populations and does not harm the European fishery product processing and canning industries, it was vital to provide for an assessment of its impact as soon as possible and to allow for its suspension, where necessary. Guarantees exist to ensure that the agreement is fair and that measures will be taken if necessary to protect our interests.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that promoting trade relations between the Pacific States and the EU could contribute to promoting the region’s sustainable social and economic development, to reducing poverty, and to strengthening regional integration and cooperation, in line with the Millennium Development Goals. However, I share the concerns expressed by the rapporteur about the exceptions to the rules of origin and their negative impact on the EU’s fish processing and canning industries, which must be adequately evaluated by the Commission.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Greens maintain their long-standing opposition to EPAs with any of the ACP regions, and consequently do not see the added value of the IEPA with two of the Pacific States.

In this specific case, Greens fear further de-integration of this region widely spread over the Pacific Ocean, as a consequence of IEPA preferential trade arrangements with the EU. Furthermore, a predictable unfettered increase in traditional exports, concentrated in raw materials such as copper, sugar, copra, fish and palm oil (agro-fuels!) is entirely at odds with sustainable development needs. Hence, Greens supported the Pacific Trade Ministers’ (unsuccessful) request to revise critical elements of the IEPA, namely, the definition of ‘substantially all trade’, the ban on the use of export taxes and weak infant industry safeguards, and the Most Favoured Nation (MNF) clause.

On the global sourcing aspect, an alternative solution would have been to limit the provision to catches inside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), rather than in any waters. Last but not least, Fiji does not have a democratic regime. Our shadow, José Bové, tabled 11 amendments in that regard.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EC/Pacific Interim Economic Partnership Agreement grants goods from the Pacific Region preferential conditions of access to the European market. I am in favour of the development of this region, but I feel that the derogation from the rules of origin for processed fishery products is unacceptable, as it allows for products manufactured in a country from raw materials which were not sourced from that country to be exempted from customs duties. This derogation is proving to be an incentive to fish in the tropical area without any concern for the management of fish stocks. Insofar as trade preferences do not only affect fishing zones in Papua New Guinea, it is difficult to monitor the origin of the catches, and this runs counter to the commitments made by the European Union to put a stop to illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing. I am also concerned about the traceability of products to be imported into Europe from this area. By voting against, I wanted to show my disapproval of such a clause, which, in my view, should no longer figure in any trade agreement in the future.

Motions for resolutions: (RC-B7-0029/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on international adoption in the European Union, which is striving for the welfare of every child and recognises the right of orphans or abandoned children to have a family and be protected. I agree with the calls to explore the possibility of coordinating a strategy with measures related to international adoption, taking international conventions into account, but it should be stressed that, bearing in mind the interests of the child, if the opportunities exist, preference should be given to adoption in the child’s country of origin.

It is very important to develop a framework to ensure transparency and coordinate actions so as to prevent child trafficking for illegal adoption. At the same time, we must improve, streamline and facilitate international adoption and eliminate unnecessary red tape, while safeguarding the protection of the rights of children from third countries.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The protection of children’s rights, enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, is one of the European Union’s objectives to which even greater attention will have to be paid following the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. European Union policy must therefore guarantee and implement children’s right to the protection and care necessary for their welfare. I voted in favour of this resolution, because I feel that there is a need to enhance policy on protecting children’s rights. The number of children abandoned and institutionalised, which is very high in some Member States, is cause for concern. Furthermore, violations of children’s rights, violence against them, child trafficking, enticement into prostitution, illegal work and other unlawful activities, remain a major problem in the European Union. I agree that it is necessary to assess the functioning of national systems at European level, so that it is possible to clarify matters as regards the protection of children’s rights, and take measures, if necessary, that would ensure more effective protection of homeless children and give them opportunities to have a family and be safe.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution as the severity of the problem of abandoned children has steadily grown in the European Union. It is important to protect the right to carry out international adoptions to avoid these children being obliged to live in orphanages. The Commission must inform us as to what measures have been taken or will be taken at EU level to protect minors due to be adopted by European citizens. I think that adoption must be arranged in line with national legislation and international conventions. The Commission must explain to us how these procedures will ensure that the child’s best interests will always be protected.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the joint resolution on international adoption, because I strongly believe that European coordination of adoption strategies and tools would not only bring about an improvement in the procedure as such, but would also ensure greater protection for orphans and abandoned children and their right to have a family. Synergy between international organisations, EU institutions and Member States would lead to a virtuous circle in which the central focus of children’s needs would be flanked by the guarantee of information, preparation and support services for adoptive families. Finally, I believe that improved coordination can ensure greater certainty for adoptees in terms of correct adoption procedures and mutual recognition of documents, thus preventing child trafficking.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on international adoption in the European Union. The protection of children’s rights is one of the European Union’s most important objectives. We must protect the welfare of each child and defend their interests. At present, there are many conventions in force on child protection and parental responsibilities. The 1967 European Convention on the adoption of minors aims to coordinate the laws of Member States relating to adoption. All Member States are signatories to the 1993 Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (the Hague Convention). Although the area of adoption falls within the remit of the Member States, I believe that there is a need to explore the possibility of coordinating at European level a strategy with measures related to international adoption. It is crucial to guarantee that international conventions are taken into account when drawing up such a strategy. We must aim to improve information services, preparation for inter-country adoption, the processing of applications for international adoption, and post-adoption services, bearing in mind that all international conventions relating to the protection of the rights of the child recognise the right of orphaned or abandoned children to have a family and be protected. For instance, the EU institutions and Member States must actively combat child trafficking for illegal adoption.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Romania is the European state which probably allowed the worst abuses to be committed regarding international adoption in the 1990s, immediately after the fall of Communism. Indeed, this was due to the lack of experience in a state which lived through a dark period for almost half a century, but equally to those who were fully prepared to exploit these weaknesses. This resulted in losing track of almost a thousand children involved in international adoptions. With the support of the European Union, which we were preparing to join, Romania carried out far-reaching amendments to its adoption legislation, in spite of the huge international pressure not to resort to a drastic measure such as abandoning international adoptions. In these circumstances, and judging by Romania’s sad experience with international adoptions, the reluctance to accept a body like the European Adoption Agency, which will result in the creation of an actual European adoption market, is understandable.

Any resolution on international adoptions can only have the safety of minors as its objective, regardless of the interests of the states or the adopters. In addition, irrespective of any resolution or decision, in my personal view, domestic adoptions must take precedence in any legal system, present or future.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament Resolution on international adoption in the European Union, based on Romania’s experience in this area. An analysis really needs to be carried out of all the national adoption systems to see what their strengths and weaknesses are and to recommend the best practices for adoption by Member States. Proper progress would be made if a situation was reached for coordinating at EU level the policies and strategies for the international adoption instrument, with the aim of improving the assistance provided in areas such as information services, preparation for inter-country adoption, processing of international adoption applications and post-adoption services, because the right of orphans or abandoned children to have a family and be protected must become a reality.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution on international adoption within the European Union. Although this is a matter for the Member States, I believe that protecting children’s rights should be one of the EU’s goals. In this context, I advocate the need to consider the possibility of coordinating strategies for an instrument for international adoption and post-adoption services at a European level, bearing in mind that all the international conventions on the protection of children’s rights recognise the right of abandoned or orphaned minors to have a family and receive protection.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of children is a particularly sensitive issue. Human dignity and, in this case, the special care required of minor’s best interests, make observance of and respect for international conventions on the matter recommended, along with a study of best practices and the exchange of experience between Member States. The European Union will be able to monitor these efforts and help to address the scourge of child trafficking, which predominantly affects the poorest countries and the people who are the least well-off.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union has always fought to protect the rights of children and to defend their best interests. The intention of this resolution is for consideration to be given to the possibility of coordinating at European level strategies concerning the instrument of international adoption, in accordance with international conventions, in order to improve assistance in the areas of information services, preparation for inter-country adoption, the processing of applications for international adoption and post-adoption services, bearing in mind that all international conventions relating to the protection of the rights of the child recognise the right of orphaned or abandoned children to have a family and to be protected. I voted in favour because I believe that, although the issue of adoption falls under the jurisdiction of the Member States, there is a need for a minimum level of European convergence, provided that children’s best interests are always respected.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We all agree with defending the wellbeing of children and guaranteeing their rights, as noted in this Parliamentary resolution. However, it is not enough to make general statements: it is also necessary to recognise the causes that have led to a situation where children are being exploited under international adoption.

The major causes behind the abandonment of children are poverty, inadequate social welfare systems, the lack of a sufficient social infrastructure network or adequate public services, as well as conflicts and military interventions.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – To determine the increasing problem of abandoned children, European institutions and Member States should play a more active role in improving the instruments of international adoption by facilitating and coordinating international adoption procedures at European level, without jeopardising in any way the security and safety of the children’s rights and by respecting all international conventions protecting the rights of the child. The Union and the Member States have to ensure stronger scrutiny in cases of international adoption, in order to prevent child exploitation, abuses, abduction and trafficking. Member States should find a balance between high international safeguards and standards in order to safeguard the rights of the child and the reduction of bureaucracy and the facilitation of international adoption procedures. Moreover, Member States should have more transparent rules with regard to international adoption procedures and should also retain a constant exchange of information on the conditions and surroundings of the adopted child in the new environment. In conclusion, the primary concerns in the international adoption procedures should always be in the best interest of the child, with particular attention to children with special needs, in order to guarantee children’s and families’ rights.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this joint resolution, which allows us at one and the same time to defend the right of parents to adopt a child from another Member State, and to ensure the protection of minors at the time they are adopted and after they have been adopted. Indeed, international adoption should have a framework of specific rules in order to avoid abuses, such as child trafficking for example.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Our national legal systems all have their own ways of dealing with adoption and other childcare issues. However, since issues such as people trafficking and the sexual exploitation of children have such an international dimension, EU-level action may be appropriate. We must never lose sight of the fact that the best interests of the child are paramount, and accordingly, I voted in favour of this resolution.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on international adoption in the European Union, because the protection of children’s rights is one of the European Union’s key objectives. At present, there are many conventions in force on child protection and parental responsibilities. I believe that there is a need to explore the possibility of coordinating at European level issues related to international adoption, with a view to improving information services, preparation for inter-country adoption, processing of applications for international adoption and post-adoption services. It is very important to establish a system that would ensure transparency and would stop the trafficking of children for the purpose of adoption. I would also like to stress that adoption should primarily be encouraged, whenever possible, and in the child’s best interest, in the child’s country of origin.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this resolution which calls for consideration to be given to the possibility of coordinating at European level strategies concerning the instrument of international adoption, in accordance with international conventions, in order to improve assistance in the areas of information services, preparation for inter-country adoption, the processing of applications for international adoption and post-adoption services, bearing in mind that all international conventions relating to the protection of the rights of the child recognise the right of orphaned or abandoned children to have a family and to be protected.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The number of abandoned children has steadily increased over recent years, and this phenomenon can be observed in all of our Member States. These children – who are victims of conflicts and social exclusion, and who are exploited by criminal networks and used in all kinds of trafficking – are the victims of a failing international adoption mechanism. Furthermore, it should be noted that the majority of these children are girls, easy prey for prostitution networks and other forms of modern slavery. One of the responses that we can bring to this sad situation is to facilitate international adoption procedures. We should devote a real law to international adoption. All children should be guaranteed the right to be adopted.

Although responsibility for this matter today still lies with our Member States, we should nonetheless point out that the protection of the best interests of the child is a fundamental principle of the European Union and enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the absence of European legislation in this area, the European Union should do everything in its power to facilitate these adoptions, in particular, by allowing, in the months to come, mutual recognition of civil status documents and adoption decisions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of children is an issue that has always been of concern to the EU and must be handled with the utmost care. Children are the future of any society and must therefore be treated with the greatest dignity. Their best interests must be taken into consideration, which means that compliance with relevant international conventions is required and recommended. The EU is therefore obligated to make every effort to confront the scourge of child trafficking, which predominantly affects children in the poorest countries and those who are least well-off.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Children are the weakest link in our society. Protecting their rights and subsequently ensuring that these rights are respected must be one of the major priorities throughout the EU. However, children are still falling victim to human trafficking and exploitation within the European Union, often as a result of unregulated adoption. Even though adoption is an effective way of ensuring that children do not spend their lives in orphanages, it is essential that strict inspections are carried out, in particular, of international organisations, in order to prevent abuse. I am abstaining, because the resolution does not include sufficient measures to guarantee that children can be protected against exploitation as a result of adoption.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Adoption is always a very sensitive issue and one that deserves special attention, as children’s futures are being decided. Adoption is often a useful way of ensuring that abandoned children and orphans do not have unhappy childhoods spent in orphanages, without the love and care that all children should enjoy. Denying innocent children the opportunity of being loved and guided through life by loving parents who are there for them would be cruel and unjust. This is why I voted in favour of the resolution, as I believe strongly in the power of adoption as a way of giving a better life to children who will be the world’s future. At European level, we need to create a coordinated structure supported by transparent and effective procedures, post-adoption support and a control mechanism to supervise the activities of each Member State. Adopting a child means ensuring they have a future which is better, protected and full of hope. Therefore, I believe that it is fundamental to implement specific legislation on the subject in order to deal with international differences.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted today in favour of the joint resolution on international adoption in the EU, the aim of which is to improve the adoption system between Member States and establish guarantees to ensure that adoption is carried out in the interests of the child, with absolute respect for its fundamental rights. We emphasise the need for the following in the resolution: to create a European adoption strategy that establishes adoption rules for the poorest to the most developed countries and which will enable the development of every child who has undergone international adoption to be monitored via periodic reports filed by the competent national authorities with the state of origin; to streamline adoption procedures and eliminate bureaucracy; to reduce the length of time that children remain in institutions and orphanages; to give priority to national adoptions; to put a stop to unaccountable action by gangs who exploit and trade in children for adoption.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of Parliament’s resolution on international adoption in the EU. This initiative is in fulfilment of the Union objective set out in Article 3 of the Treaty of Lisbon for ‘protection of the rights of the child’.

The economic development of the countries of the EU does not prevent there from still being serious failings in terms of children’s rights: specifically, the problem of precarious childhood, and, in particular, that of abandoned and institutionalised children, as well as of violence inflicted on them. Another failing is in relation to the child trafficking for adoption, prostitution, illegal labour, forced marriage, and begging on the streets or for any other illegal purpose, all of which continue to represent a serious problem in the EU.

It is this context that defines the importance of this initiative, which calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of coordinating at European level strategies concerning the instrument of international adoption. A strategy is needed that conforms to international conventions in order to improve assistance in the areas of information services, preparation and processing of applications and post-adoption services. It must give consideration to the protection of children’s rights, and recognise the right of orphaned or abandoned children to have a family and to be protected.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Halting international adoptions was one of the conditions for Romania’s accession to the European Union. Romania decided in 2001 to place a moratorium on international adoptions after the European Parliament rapporteur for Romania, Baroness Emma Nicholson, condemned child trafficking activities and criticised the Romanian state for neglecting its children. I think that priority must be given, as far as possible and in the child’s interests, to adoption in the child’s country of origin, with possible alternative solutions including finding a foster family, personal or residential care or finding a family through the international adoption procedure, in keeping with the relevant national legislation and international conventions. Indeed, placing the child in an institution ought to be used simply as a temporary solution. At the same time, it is important for an EU-level methodology framework to be devised to carry out the assessment of the adopted children’s development in their new families, using regular post-adoption reports compiled by the social services in the country where the adopted children have gone and submitted to the competent authorities in the country from which they were adopted. This mechanism ought to be implemented by coordinating actions between Member States and the European Commission, in cooperation with the Hague conference, the Council of Europe and child protection organisations which strive to prevent child trafficking for adoption.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Adoption is a particularly sensitive issue which should merit the EU Member States’ full attention. Although there has been considerable progress made following the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption, precarious childhood, violations of the rights of children, violence against them and child trafficking for adoption, prostitution, illegal labour, forced marriage, and begging on the streets or for any other illegal purpose, remain a problem in the EU.

Every effort must therefore be made to protect a child’s right to a family life. In order to achieve this, it is important to consider the possibility of coordinating at European level strategies concerning the instrument of international adoption, in accordance with international conventions, in order to improve assistance in the areas of information services, the preparation and processing of applications, and post-adoption services.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We Greens/EFA have abstained. In the joint motion for a resolution, following negotiations among political groups, the negative points of the EPP resolution were replaced. Nevertheless, the resolution was initiated by Italians in response to a very specific national need and in relation to a matter which does not fall under European competence. We have succeeded in making the resolution merely ‘a call for the possibility of coordinating at European level the strategies related to the instrument of international adoption’, with no reference to specific national problems. As we are already working on this matter in the JURI and LIBE Committees, there was no need for such a resolution.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) A child’s right to grow up in a healthy family environment which is beneficial to its harmonious development is the key concept behind this resolution. The growing number of children living in orphanages and the violations of their rights – particularly human trafficking, illegal adoption and work, and prostitution – that continue to take place in the European Union, has led to a stance of trying to reverse this situation. At the same time, it is worth noting the growing number of illegal international adoptions involving third countries which do not comply with the conditions established by the Hague Convention. The institutionalisation of children’s rights within the EU, in Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as one of the EU’s objectives, and in Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, pave the way for coordinating policies and strategies between the Member States, in accordance with the international instruments which are already in force. I believe that a mechanism urgently needs to be created at EU level which shows the functioning of the different national systems on this issue. A transparent and effective mechanism monitoring the adoption of children both pre- and post-adoption and the involvement of international organisations does not only promote the rights of children but also allows their harmonious upbringing.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) With new migration flows, the problem of abandoned children, which was gradually being resolved, is becoming increasingly serious and significant.

It is crucial to find a legal framework to cover child protection and parental responsibility, eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy from practical procedures, and harmonise the laws of Member States in line with the 1993 Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption and with the Treaty of Lisbon.

I would like to mention Germany’s handling of adoptions as an example not to be emulated, in particular, regarding the placement of children with couples where one partner is German and the other is from another EU country. The legislator’s ultimate aim must, of course, be to guarantee children the right to the protection and care they need for their wellbeing, while trying to avoid forcing them to live in orphanages.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) International adoption should be permitted for the good of the child, but only if the opportunities for adoption in the Member State in question have been exhausted. As a rule, a child should be brought up in the country of which he or she is a citizen.

Foreign adoptions also take place in my own country of Poland. They usually involve children who have little hope of being adopted within Poland due to various illnesses. In 2006, for example, 202 foreign families decided to take care of 311 of our fellow citizens – 214 Polish children found Italian parents, 25 found French parents, 22 found American parents, 20 found Dutch parents, 15 found Swedish parents, seven found German parents, six found Swiss parents, one found Belgian parents and one found Canadian parents. The problem of orphaned children is practically non-existent in Western Europe, hence the high level of interest in the possibility of adopting children from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

I believe that the European Commission should, first and foremost: 1) inform Parliament what measures have been or will be taken at European level in order to prevent international adoption becoming a front for child trafficking; 2) provide an answer to the question of how the Commission intends to prevent children being adopted to fit in with the latest fashion. Europeans are becoming ever more willing to adopt children from Africa because this has become a popular practice among film stars. This is neither an adequate nor serious basis for adoptive parenthood, however.

Motion for resolution: (B7-0021/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this resolution on the European integration process of Serbia, which reaffirms that Serbia’s future lies in the EU, and encourages the country to continue its efforts towards this aim. Serbia has made progress implementing reforms, but further progress is required for the country to comply with the Copenhagen criteria. The Kosovo issue is very important. I therefore support the call in the resolution for the Serbian Government to dismantle Serbian parallel structures in Kosovo that undermine the decentralisation process and prevent the full integration of the Serbian community into the Kosovo institutions.

The EU must send a clear signal to the Serbian Government that we expect Serbia to adopt a constructive attitude towards the forthcoming general elections in Kosovo. I agree with the opinion presented in the resolution that the participation of Kosovo Serbs in the electoral process is an indispensable element aimed at preventing the Kosovo Serbian community from being marginalised.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. The enlargement process in the European Union is based on political, legal and technical compliance with the EU’s demanding standards and norms. As far back as 2003, the countries of the Western Balkans were promised they could join the European Union when the countries fulfil set criteria. The European Union’s objective is to ensure long-term stability and sustainable development in the Western Balkans. As the speed of integration of the countries in this region varies, every country must make maximum effort, carry out the required reforms and take the necessary measures to ensure the security and stability of every country, as well as of the region as a whole. Serbia is making significant progress in many areas and there has been successful and constructive cooperation with the European Union. The abolition of EU visas since 2009 shows Serbia’s citizens that the EU has a favourable view of the reforms being undertaken in the country. I agree with the observations expressed in the resolution that reforms concerning the protection of citizens’ and minority rights, media pluralism, the independence of the judiciary, prisons and many other areas must continue. Efforts to uphold the rule of law, which would ensure the democratic functioning of government institutions and the effective protection of human rights and freedoms, must remain one of the Serbian authorities’ key priorities.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Serbia has received encouragement with the vote on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. I hope that the ratification process will be speeded up by the vote of approval given today in the European Parliament. I should remark that one issue highlighted in the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement is linked to Serbia’s failure to recognise the authorities in Kosovo and to the maintenance of parallel structures. Romania, for its part, has not recognised Kosovo’s independence, which was declared unilaterally, in breach of international law. Serbia is an excellent neighbour to Romania, with centuries of history linking us. Indeed, Romania understands and supports its friends. Serbia’s future obviously lies in Europe and its cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia should demonstrate Belgrade’s commitment to European values, democracy and human rights.

Serbia will clearly have to follow the same path for joining the EU followed by all Member States. However, it must receive equal treatment with regard to this path. Recent developments have shown that Serbia has understood the European community’s expectations of it. Tangible progress has been made, but the EU must handle tactfully certain aspects of Belgrade’s recent history which weigh heavily on the Serbian people.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is based on principles such as reconciliation and peaceful coexistence, targeting the same objectives of improving relations between the peoples in the region. In this context, I think that Serbia’s future lies alongside the countries of the EU and I believe that this country must step up its efforts towards achieving this.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution as I recognise that Serbia is in a position to become an important player in ensuring security and stability in the Balkans. The future of Serbia is inevitably the EU. I therefore feel that the country should continue towards achieving this goal. The progress already made in the reform process is praiseworthy.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Anyone who looks at a map of the European Union will quickly realise that the Western Balkans are destined to become part of it. I believe that those countries’ membership will eventually be achieved. Serbia’s route towards it has been particularly difficult since the end of the former Yugoslavia following the collapse of Soviet power. Its involvement as the aggressor in fratricidal wars, and the brutal impact that they have had on neighbouring countries and on the international community as a whole have had serious consequences for the country and its people. The secession of Kosovo, which remains a deeply controversial subject, has heightened tensions in the region and continues to have an immense potential to cause instability. I hope that Serbia persists with opting for the EU, and I must congratulate its people and their leaders for the progress that they have made in this regard.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Serbia’s future lies in the EU. I therefore welcome Serbia’s application for membership of the European Union, submitted on 22 December 2009, and the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 25 October 2010 to ask the Commission to examine Serbia’s application.

I would congratulate Serbia on the progress achieved in the reform process. I would stress that the development of regional cooperation remains a key priority for the EU and is intended as a catalyst for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and enhanced people-to-people contacts in the Western Balkans. I therefore call on Serbia to adopt a constructive approach towards more inclusive regional cooperation.

I would point out that full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is a fundamental condition for Serbia to progress on the path to EU membership. It should be noted that Serbia continues to respond adequately to ICTY requests for assistance. I call on the Serbian Government to continue working closely with the Tribunal, including swift transmission of all requested documents and timely completion of cases transferred back from the ICTY.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted against this resolution, chiefly because of the demands that are made on Serbia and the EU’s unacceptable position regarding Kosovo. For instance, Parliament is calling upon the Serbian Government to dismantle parallel structures within Kosovo which it claims ‘undermine the decentralisation process and prevent the full integration of the Serbian community into Kosovo’s institutions’, as well as the demands that it continues to make regarding cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This pressure on Serbia is unacceptable, and is all the more complicated given that equivalent measures have not been taken in relation to Kosovo, despite public complaints about the trafficking of human organs by Kosovo’s current leaders.

It is also unacceptable for Parliament to put pressure on Serbia to ‘enter into dialogue with Kosovo without referring anymore to new negotiations neither on the status nor partition’.

The ‘European integration process of Serbia’ highlights something that we have long been pointing out. Today, it is clear that the war perpetrated by NATO and the major EU powers, with Germany at their head, was aimed at dismantling Yugoslavia and dividing its territory into countries which could protect the economic interests of big business in the EU.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I did not vote for this resolution on the European integration process of Serbia. This was not because of the process itself but because of the ambiguity of the text on the Kosovo issue.

The joint resolution between the European Union and Serbia, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, is mentioned, but at no time is it spelt out that this cannot be regarded as an official recognition of the independence of Kosovo by Serbia, or by those Member States of the Union that have not recognised it.

Neither is there any mention of the Council of Europe’s very disturbing report on the trafficking by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) of organs removed from Serbian prisoners, which calls into question the current prime minister of Kosovo, while the surrender of the two most recent Serbian fugitives to the International Criminal Court is an essential condition for Serbia’s accession to Europe.

As was the case during the various wars which marked the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the evil is attributed to only one side and repentance is demanded from only one camp. In the long run, this is becoming difficult, even though the Serbian Government, blinded by the lure of the European Union, appears to be accepting it in the hope of accession.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Serbia’s moves towards EU membership are to we welcomed and will hopefully strengthen peace and prosperity in that area. Parliament’s resolution calls for full respect for minority culture and languages – issues which lie at the very core of the European Free Alliance group.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Serbia came into force on 1 February 2010. Despite the fact that 11 months have passed, not all the EU Member States have ratified the agreement as yet. With this motion for a resolution, the European Parliament wanted, firstly, to emphasise the importance of Serbia’s role within the European Union and, secondly, to approve the social and political improvements that the Serbian Government has introduced in recent years. It also wished to point out the steps that the country still needs to take in order to meet the European Union’s requests for democratisation, freedom, and the adoption of fair and sustainable policies. While I believe that Serbia’s entry into the EU is a considerable step forward for both the EU and the Republic of Serbia, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution because I believe that the country will very soon manage to overcome all the limitations which have created such a wide gap between the two for so long.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution which notes Serbia’s progress on reform and the Council’s recent request to the Commission to prepare the opinion on Serbia’s application for EU membership. Nevertheless, the resolution rightly points out that ‘full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’, including delivering the last two fugitives to The Hague, ‘is a fundamental condition for Serbia to progress on the path to EU membership’.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am voting against this text out of solidarity with the Serbian people. To add the obligation to meet the Copenhagen economic criteria to the savage social cuts resulting from the austerity programmes imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since January 2009 is a social crime that I refuse to endorse. This is without mentioning the multiple violations of the sovereign right of the Serbian state to refuse to deal with the representatives of the separatist province of Kosovo contained in this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We all agree that the countries of the Western Balkans region are destined to become part of the EU; that will become a reality in the near future.

Serbia is part of that group, and is a country that has followed a difficult path since the former Yugoslavia came to an end after the collapse of the Soviet empire. Moreover, the fratricidal wars in which it became involved and their brutal impact on neighbouring countries and on the entire international community had unfortunate consequences for the country and its people. The so-called ‘war’ in Kosovo, which remains unresolved and very controversial throughout the international community, has also contributed to the fact that peace is still not a reality in the region.

It will therefore be desirable for Serbia to continue to move towards the European option. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Serbia’s leaders and people on their efforts and on the progress that they have been making.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution on the European integration process of Serbia, because the development of regional cooperation remains a key priority for the EU and is intended as a catalyst for the implementation of the policies of reconciliation and good neighbourliness in the Western Balkans. As it aims to become an important player in guaranteeing security and stability in the region, Serbia’s future is closely linked to the European Union and therefore, it must make maximum effort to ensure that it becomes a full Member of the EU. In order to achieve the status of an EU candidate country and begin negotiations with the EU, Serbia must open a dialogue with Kosovo, adopt a constructive attitude towards the forthcoming general elections in Kosovo and make every effort to prevent the Kosovo Serbian community from being marginalised. I agree with the proposal that candidate status should only be granted to Serbia once it has begun to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Furthermore, Serbia must continue with reforms under way and carry out new ones. The Serbian authorities must make every effort to ensure that the principles of the rule of law and democracy are properly implemented in the country and be vigilant that there is a continuous decline in the level of corruption in Serbia, and that those in office who abuse their position are subject to severe penalties.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a resolution on the process of Serbia’s integration into the EU merits my support for the following reasons.

A commitment was made to all the Western Balkan states in June 2003, at the Thessaloniki European Council, that they would join the European Union once they met the entry criteria. The pace of integration of the Western Balkan countries is individual and depends on the merits of each one of them with regard, in particular, to their determination to satisfy all the requirements, meet all the obligations, carry out all the reforms and adopt the necessary measures that EU membership implies.

Serbia’s role as guarantor of the region’s security and stability is crucial. That is why this resolution reaffirms that Serbia’s future lies in the EU, and encourages the country to continue its efforts towards this aim. It commends Serbia on the progress achieved in the reform process, and welcomes the decision to open the ratification procedure of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia taken by the Council on 14 June 2010, and the fact that 10 Member States have already ratified the agreement.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution, which reaffirms that Serbia’s future lies in the EU, whilst highlighting the progress made in terms of the reforms implemented, and urging the country to continue to make efforts to achieve compliance with the requirements and criteria that EU membership implies.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Our group voted in favour, given that 16 out of the 17 amendments tabled were adopted or included in the compromise amendments drafted by the rapporteur, including the one asking that the candidacy be linked to closer cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Other amendments dealt with Kosovo, gender equality, minority rights, civil society, public transport, environment and relations with Bosnia.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This report lowers the barriers to trade between the European Union and Serbia and is a step on the way towards the prospective accession of this Balkan country.

This Stabilisation and Association Agreement was signed back in 2008, but since then it has only been ratified by 12 Member States, including Italy. The important objective achieved today must, in any case, be a new starting point for Serbia, which submitted its application in December 2009. Indeed, it must continue to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has always been an essential condition for accession.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), in writing. – (HU) Serbia is showing serious lapses in the field of respect for human rights. Residents of Hungarian nationality are considered second-rate citizens and instances of police brutality are frequent. The case of the boys from Temerin has still not been investigated. As long as there is no appreciable progress in the aforementioned areas, I cannot support Serbia’s process of European integration. Furthermore, I believe that it is crucial that full territorial autonomy be granted to the indigenous Hungarian population of Vojvodina.

Recommendation: Jelko Kacin (A7-0362/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Given the interim decision of the Council and the Commission (15191/2007) and the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and Serbia, I agree with the conclusion of the agreement.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, and it is not the first occasion when mentioning here the reasons for doing so that I include personal ones. The Western Balkans and Serbia are more than just a region of strategic interest to the European Union, and not only do the citizens in this region need us, but we all need them. The EU is Serbia’s main trading partner, which speaks volumes. Serbia is in a unique position in Europe as it is the country with the most refugees and displaced persons. I firmly believe that accelerating Serbia’s integration process is beneficial to the whole Western Balkans region.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on Serbia’s integration. One significant reason for this is that Serbia can become an important player in terms of guaranteeing security and stability in the region. At the same time, constructive strategies on regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations are key elements of the stabilisation and association process. All these aspects are a key factor in the process of turning the Western Balkans into a region of long-term stability and sustainable development.

The process of Serbia’s integration into the EU is also favoured by the progress achieved in the reform process. The efforts made by Serbia to protect minorities are commendable, although access to information and education in minority languages still needs to be improved, especially for the Romanian minority who were severely discriminated against throughout the last century.

Remarkable progress has also been made regarding the promotion of gender equality, especially the adoption of the gender equality law and the national action plan for improving the position of women and promoting gender equality.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Serbia’s pivotal role within the Western Balkans is clear: it will be difficult for the region to achieve stability unless Serbia is stable. The reforms that have been enacted by this country merit praise, as they have been aimed at strengthening democracy, transparency and the mechanisms of the rule of law. In addition to this, efforts have also been made to re-establish relations and partnerships with its neighbouring countries, its former enemies, a step I welcome as it is pressing in human terms. The agreements that Serbia has been establishing with the EU and the recent mutual opening of borders indicates that the step by step policy to create de facto solidarity has not been neglected. I hope that the EU will consider Serbia’s bid for membership with the appropriate rigour, but I hope that it does so while bearing in mind the important message that its accession, alongside that of Croatia, which is at a more advanced stage, will represent for the Serbian people, for the whole region, and for the EU itself.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Serbia’s future lies in the EU. I therefore welcome Serbia’s application for membership of the European Union, submitted on 22 December 2009, and the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 25 October 2010 to ask the Commission to examine Serbia’s application.

I would congratulate Serbia on the progress achieved in the reform process. I would stress that the development of regional cooperation remains a key priority for the EU and is intended as a catalyst for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and enhanced people-to-people contacts in the Western Balkans.

I therefore call on Serbia to adopt a constructive approach towards more inclusive regional cooperation. I agree with this draft Council and Commission decision on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the Stabilisation Agreement between the EU and Serbia. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) lowers the barriers to trade between the European Union and Serbia and is a step in the direction of that Balkan country’s possible accession to the EU. The agreement was signed in 2008, but since then, only 12 Member States, including Italy, have ratified it. Today’s vote shows Parliament’s consent to the agreement, and sends a signal to the remaining 15 Member States that they, too, should ratify it. Despite the fact that Serbia has been sorely tried by the events that have come to define its recent history, it has slowly begun to recover and to consolidate its democratic structure. Serbia’s geographic location and strategic role undoubtedly place it at the heart of the Balkan countries’ EU integration process. Serbia is also an important trading partner; it plays a crucial role in the iron and steel industries, among others. Today’s vote follows another important step forward in December 2009, when visas were abolished throughout the Schengen area, enabling Serbian citizens to feel more European.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) A new stabilisation and association agreement has been adopted today between the EU and Serbia which provides for the establishment of a free trade area and offers the prospect of the country’s accession to the EU. Given our views on enlargement, we abstained from this report.

However, we disagreed with some of its aspects, specifically, the conditions imposed by the EU and, in particular, the demand for full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which continues to be a prerequisite for Serbia’s future accession to the EU. These issues have not been put to other countries in similar positions. We should also remember that in order for the agreement to enter into force, it needs to be ratified by the 27 Member States.

The Stabilisation and Association Agreement, signed in 2008, provides for the establishment of a free trade area between the EU and Serbia and offers a prospect of this country’s accession to the EU. Serbia submitted its bid for EU membership in December 2009. In October of last year, the Council asked the Commission to prepare an opinion on this country’s request for accession, which will be presented this autumn.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In terms of the enlargement process, the situation in the Western Balkans merits special attention. A country such as Serbia undoubtedly presents problems, but the situation in Belgrade appears to be far better than that of other countries in the area. This is why, while I hope that there will be a definite acceleration in the process of cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, I support the text, and hope that it will be interpreted as an incentive by the Serbian people and authorities.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted to give consent to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia but note that so far, only 11 Member States have ratified the Agreement. I urge the other 16 to do so as soon as possible.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement, like all agreements of this nature, condemns the people to extreme poverty for the sake of a rapid transition towards a market economy and the establishment of a free-trade area over the next five years. The European Union is unworthy of its own citizens and of the citizens of the countries that wish to join it. I am voting against this report out of solidarity with the people of the Republic of Serbia.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We all agree that the countries of the Western Balkans region are destined to become part of the EU; that will become a reality in the near future.

Serbia is part of that group, and is a country that has followed a difficult path since the former Yugoslavia came to an end after the collapse of the Soviet empire. Moreover, the fratricidal wars in which it became involved and their brutal impact on neighbouring countries and on the entire international community had unfortunate consequences for the country and its people. The so-called ‘war’ in Kosovo, which remains unresolved and very controversial throughout the international community, has also contributed to the fact that peace is still not a reality in the region.

It will therefore be desirable for Serbia to continue to move towards the European option. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Serbia’s leaders and people on their efforts and on the progress that they have been making. I would stress the role that Serbia has been playing in the stabilisation of the region of the Western Balkans as a whole and, in particular, in the stability and cohesion of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution, because I view favourably the progress made by Serbia in implementing reforms in the areas of public administration, the legal framework and the fight against corruption and organised crime. I agree with the rapporteur’s call for all EU Member States to begin the process of ratifying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia. The fundamental condition for Serbia on which this report is based is full cooperation with the tribunal in The Hague in order to progress on the path to EU membership. I would also like to urge Serbia to make a firmer commitment to employment policies and social cohesion.

I would also call on the country to continue to create an environment conducive to the development of democracy, the rule of law, a free market economy and respect for human rights. Serbia has made progress in the field of the environment. Nevertheless, the country should intensify efforts in the field of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The main elements of the acquis on renewable energy remain to be transposed. The country needs to adopt a legislative framework on energy efficiency.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the European integration process of Serbia and on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union because I believe that constructive approaches in regional cooperation and good relations with neighbouring countries are essential elements of the stabilisation and association process, and will play a decisive role in the process of transforming the Western Balkans into an area of long-term stability and sustainable development. Serbia also plays an important role in terms of the security, stability and reconciliation of the peoples of the region. The European Union condemns all the war crimes that destroyed the former Yugoslavia, and supports the work of the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia). It also emphasises that Serbia’s future lies in membership of the European Union, and encourages the country to continue its efforts to achieve that goal.