Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 16 February 2011 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 9.05)

2. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

3. Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure

  President. − The interpretation of Rules 56 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, which was adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs at its sitting of Monday 14 February 2011, was announced during yesterday’s voting time. As this interpretation was not contested by anyone pursuant to Rule 211(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the interpretation can be deemed to have been adopted. As a result, the vote on the Mathieu report on the procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State has been removed from the agenda for this part-session. As you are aware, the matter has been the subject of much debate, and now we have an interpretation on the basis of the Rules of Procedure and the principles governing our work.

4. 2010 progress report on Croatia (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the 2010 progress report on Croatia.

Yesterday I met with the Croatian Prime Minister, and I was accompanied by two representatives of key institutions of ours; Mr Swoboda, the rapporteur, and Mr Hökmark, the head of our permanent delegation to Croatia. We discussed the subject of Croatia’s progress on its path towards the European Union. I am extremely pleased that today we can discuss the status of the negotiations and the outlook for Croatia’s future in the European Union directly, with all our fellow Members present. I am also pleased that Commissioner Füle, who is responsible for our neighbourhood policy, is present in the Chamber. I would now like Mr Martonyi to take the floor on behalf of the Council. Mr Martonyi and the Hungarian Presidency attach a great deal of importance to enlarging the EU to include Croatia, and this is therefore an important item on the Hungarian Presidency’s agenda. Please take the floor, Mr Martonyi.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, on behalf of the Presidency of the European Union, may I say that it is a particular pleasure for me to address the plenary sitting of the European Parliament today.

This meeting provides a timely opportunity to review progress on Croatia’s accession process and present the Hungarian Presidency’s plans for this first semester of the year.

First and foremost, I would like to welcome Parliament’s active engagement with the enlargement process, and its constructive contribution to the general debate on enlargement and on Croatia’s accession process in particular.

As we have underlined several times, enlargement reinforces peace, democracy and stability in Europe, serves the European Union’s strategic interests and helps the EU to better achieve its policy objectives in important areas which are key to economic recovery and sustainable growth.

Enlargement is a key driver for political and economic reform. It moves forward at a pace which is largely determined by the candidate country’s respect of the Copenhagen criteria and its capacity to take on the obligations of membership.

Enlargement is one of the main priorities of our Presidency, and our work during this semester will be to advance the policy in line with the renewed consensus on enlargement adopted by the European Council in December 2006, as well as with the Council conclusions of 14 December 2010, which have been endorsed by the European Council.

With regard to Croatia, conclusion of the accession negotiations, as stated in the conclusions of the European Council, is within reach, and our goal is to conclude the negotiations by the end of the Hungarian Presidency – provided of course that Croatia completes the remaining benchmarks for closing the negotiating chapters.

We would also like to finalise the accession treaty as far as possible, thereby paving the way to Croatia’s accession to the EU which we look forward to. Therefore, as highlighted in your resolution, this semester will be crucial for Croatia’s negotiating process.

Let me now speak very briefly about the outstanding issues. So far, since the start of negotiations, 34 of the 35 chapters have been opened for negotiation, of which 28 have been provisionally closed.

We are therefore very close to the conclusion of the negotiations. However, we still have to close a couple of difficult chapters such as competition, agriculture and rural development, fisheries, regional policy and coordination of structural instruments, the judiciary and fundamental rights, and financial and budgetary provisions, some of them of course with budgetary implications.

In the Council conclusions on Croatia adopted last December, we highlighted key issues that require further work in these areas. You have been informed of them. We would also like to underline some points which are duly reflected in your resolution.

The Council has noted that encouraging progress has been made by Croatia in many areas, including the rule of law and the fight against high-level corruption. At the same time, it is clear that further efforts are required. These concern judicial independence and efficiency and the fight against corruption at all levels.

The Council also encouraged Croatia to step up its efforts to fulfil the remaining benchmarks, including the building of convincing track records, in particular as regards competition policy, as well as the judiciary and fundamental rights.

In this regard, let me underline the importance we attach to the monitoring process in the alignment with – and implementation of – the acquis, with a view to ensuring administrative capacity and to building a convincing track record.

In particular, the Commission’s assessment of progress in the field of the judiciary and fundamental rights in March will be very important as regards the possible closing of Chapter 23 later in the semester. Moreover, on the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Council noted Croatia’s generally good cooperation with ICTY, while reiterating that full cooperation remains essential, in line with the negotiating framework.

Now that the Interagency Task Force has started to explore important new avenues, the Council has called on Croatia to continue the administrative investigation in order to account for the missing military documents.

In addition, the Council welcomed Croatia’s active role in regional cooperation as well as the improvement in its relations with neighbouring countries and its efforts aimed at reconciliation in the region.

The entry into force of the arbitration agreement on the border issue with Slovenia at the end of November was a very welcome development in this regard. Bearing in mind the importance of good neighbourly relations, the Council has encouraged Croatia to build on this progress in its efforts towards resolving all outstanding bilateral and regional issues in cooperation with the countries concerned.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that there is still a lot to be done during our Presidency. Croatia should spare no effort to fulfil the remaining benchmarks, to maintain and improve what has already been achieved and, in line with the negotiating framework, to conclusively address all other obligations still outstanding.

For our part, it goes without saying that we count upon the support and cooperation of all Member States, of the European Commission and, of course, first and foremost, of the European Parliament, in this endeavour.

It is essential to keep up this momentum in order to conclude the negotiations successfully, as underlined among the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency until the end of June, i.e. until the end of our Presidency.

  President. − The neighbourhood policy is very important for the European Union, the Mediterranean region, the Eastern Partnership and, first and foremost, the Western Balkans. I will now give the floor to the Commissioner responsible for that policy.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on Croatia, Mr Hannes Swoboda, and express my appreciation for his fair and balanced report. It acknowledges the impressive progress achieved by Croatia in meeting the criteria for accession, while recognising the efforts that are still necessary to conclude the negotiations.

The European Union and Croatia have provisionally closed 28 of the 35 negotiating chapters. The ministerial accession conference of 19 April should be able to provisionally close additional chapters where Croatia has either fulfilled, or is very close to fulfilling, the closing benchmarks. As noted by the December 2010 General Affairs Council, the conclusion of negotiations is within reach.

As with all negotiations, the most difficult issues remain to be tackled in the final phase. As Minister Martonyi has just underlined, the Hungarian Presidency announced earlier its goal to finish negotiations in the first half of 2011, if all criteria and benchmarks are fulfilled. This is an ambitious goal which can only be achieved if Croatia continues to make an exceptional effort to fulfil the remaining requirements in time.

The main outstanding challenges are the closing benchmarks for Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights and Chapter 8: Competition policy. Croatia has been working hard in both areas, but now is the time to go the final mile.

As regards the judiciary and fundamental rights, the main areas where Croatia is called upon to deliver on its commitments are: establishing a credible and sustainable track-record in the fight against corruption; strengthening the independence, accountability, impartiality and professionalism of the judiciary; addressing the issue of impunity for war crimes; meeting targets in the Housing Care Programme for refugees and improving the implementation of minority rights. Full cooperation with ICTY remains a requirement.

In each of these areas, there are clear benchmarks to be met. The Commission is currently taking stock of the progress achieved by Croatia for each of the benchmarks, on which we will report in our upcoming interim report on this chapter due by the middle of March.

I had a very useful and constructive meeting with Prime Minister Kosor yesterday. We discussed the importance of maintaining the momentum of the accession negotiations and of tackling the remaining outstanding issues. The Croatian authorities are well aware of what they still need to do. Indeed, I was very pleased to be reassured of the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to ensuring that the work continues at full speed until the European Union accession process can be concluded.

I could not agree more with those who call on the European Union neither to make ‘special discounts’ nor to impose artificial hurdles on Croatia. The principles of full respect for the conditionality that applies to the candidate countries, and full respect for the commitments that the European Union has made, remain the cornerstones of the enlargement process. This is the essence of its credibility.

The Commission will continue to give its full support to Croatia, which is working hard to achieve its goal of accession to the European Union. I am sure, and here I am following the line of Minister Martonyi, that the Member States will decide that accession negotiations can be concluded as soon as we can ascertain that the remaining closing benchmarks have been met. I am equally sure that, when Parliament is requested to give its consent on the draft Accession Treaty, it will play this critical role in accordance with the very constructive approach that it has shown with regard to Croatia’s accession process.

Along with your rapporteur, Mr Swoboda, I firmly believe that the citizens of Croatia, after being called upon to endorse their country’s accession to the European Union, will be able to vote for their representatives in the next elections to the European Parliament.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to all of the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation, the result of which is that we have a report that will hopefully receive broad support.

I will start by mentioning what, I am sure, was a very successful visit to this House yesterday by the Prime Minister, Jadranka Kosor. Mr President, you mentioned that Croatia’s accession is not only important for Croatia and for the European Union, but it is also important as a signal to the whole region. The first point that I would like to use to emphasise this relates to the reforms. If a country carries out the tasks that have been asked of it, then we must also keep the promises that were made with regard to membership. As Mr Martonyi and the Commissioner have said, there is still work to be done. The message must still be: please also take the final steps of the reforms so that we can achieve our common goal of concluding the treaty in June.

During the conversation with Mrs Kosor, Mr Schulz said that the dispute in the Gulf of Piran would previously have been settled by fighting a war. Today, we sit around a table and try to find a method of negotiating these matters. That, too, is an important signal to the region as a whole – I am thinking of Serbia and Kosovo here – that such disputes can be settled, not by fighting, but simply by negotiations and dialogue. The Prime Minister said that in her country the government and opposition were moving in the same direction with regard to the EU. My last conversation with Zoran Milanović, the leader of the Social Democrat opposition, also confirmed that to be the case.

Yesterday, we discussed Albania. Albania, too, could take this as an example of how to go about things when it comes to important common concerns, over and above any political debate.

We should therefore send a dual message to Zagreb and Croatia as a whole to the effect that we – the Council, Commission and European Parliament – are working together to be able to conclude the negotiations in June so that the treaty can be concluded and we can then give our consent in the autumn, so allowing the ratification process to actually be carried out, but please – and this is addressed to Croatia – deal with the issues that are still outstanding. With regard to combating corruption, courageous steps have already been taken, but there are a few final steps that are still needed. With regard to the reform of the justice system and also where the shipyards are concerned there is still work to be done. However, all of these points are also referred to in our report, and they do not represent insurmountable barriers, but provide the opportunity for Croatia to still fulfil the relevant requirements.

With this in mind, ladies and gentlemen, we should send a joint message today from all of us here to Croatia, and indeed to the whole region, to the effect that if a country carries out the tasks it has been asked to do, the European Union will also keep its promise of allowing it to become a member of this Union. Mr President, as you too said yesterday: it will also benefit the European Union if we accept Croatia, provided it has done what it has been asked to do.

I would therefore like to thank the shadow rapporteurs once again. If we are able to send out a signal that is as united as possible to Croatia and the whole region, we will have taken a major step forward for the peaceful integration of the entire region.

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to admit that I feel very moved today, because this year marks 20 years since the movement for democracy in Slovenia and Croatia was consolidated. It was a year old and the people rejoiced as they did in Hungary, the Czech Republic and elsewhere.

Then on 28 June 1991 came the brutal attack by the Yugoslav People’s Army. At that time, everything seemed to have reverted back to how it used to be. I was in Vukovar when this small, blossoming model of Europe was destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes and thousands lost their lives. Since then, I have been able to accompany Croatia along the path towards the European Union. We quite clearly have to acknowledge that Croatia has made an extraordinary effort to move along this path.

The Commissioner has come up with the key word today. He spoke of fairness. We could give the Swoboda report the overall title of ‘Fairness for Croatia’, because that is the heart of the matter. It is not about privileges or discounts – that has rightly been said – but about fairness. Croatia is ready for accession to the European Union now. Final efforts still need to be made in a few areas in the next few months. However, we must not create artificial barriers for this country, as has, unfortunately, repeatedly been the case over the last few years. Croatia belongs in a historical and cultural context with Slovenia and Hungary. It should have been accepted into the European Union along with these Central European countries – Croatia is also very much a Central European country. This did not happen for a multitude of reasons, but now the time is ripe. That is why we are pressing for this. We are not setting any dates – we are sticking to our line that criteria are more important than dates. However, we are calling very strongly for no artificial barriers to be created and for this country to be treated fairly and justly.

  Ivo Vajgl, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SL) Mr President, today is the last time we are debating the report on the progress of Croatia as a candidate for full membership of the European Union. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Hannes Swoboda, who has been doing this work for a number of years, for his constructive and friendly approach, both amongst the shadow rapporteurs and in his dealings with the Croatian Government, and I would say, the Croatian people.

In retrospect and given the circumstances in which Croatia became an independent country twenty years ago, we could perhaps say that it has been waiting long enough, if not too long, for membership. Minister Martonyi, you have given us very specific information about your plans concerning Croatia’s accession negotiations. We support your plans and hope that they will become a reality in their entirety.

For the leadership in Zagreb, there remains much to be done in the months before Croatia wraps up negotiations. Chapter 23 has throughout been the subject of the special attention of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). We discussed and agreed on this yesterday during the friendly conversation between Mr Verhofstadt, President of the ALDE Group, and Mrs Kosor.

This chapter holds the key to the rule of law, to dealing seriously with the legacy of the past, to an effective and impartial judiciary, to legal certainty and equality for all citizens. Any democratic country based on the rule of law – any member of the European Union – must ensure freedoms such as openness and media independence, protection of minorities, gender equality and protection of everyone who is different.

The Croatian Government and Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor deserve credit for tackling corruption and crime in a determined way. Croatia should also be credited with successfully establishing friendly relations with its neighbours, but it should be encouraged at the same time to resolve the issues outstanding.

When we give Croatia the green light for the last round of negotiations and for its last push on the way to full membership, we should point out that this report is addressed to all the countries of south-eastern Europe which have the same expectations. We, too, have expectations: we expect Europe to complete the enlargement process and become a continent of cohesion and equal values.

Please allow me to add just one more sentence. Only in this way will the European Union, in today’s world, be able to become, and play the part of, a world leader. Thank you for your patience, Mr President.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to join those who have thanked Mr Swoboda for the good cooperation last year and, for the first time, this year.

I agree with Mr Posselt that it is a fair report. We very much look forward to welcoming Croatia – as has been said – as soon as it has met all the criteria. It is a special country to be joining, and the EU will have a special responsibility to make sure afterwards that all the other countries in the Western Balkans will be able to join too. It is from that regional perspective that Croatia needs to be the best in the class now, so that its fellow classmates can join afterwards. We have a responsibility to the other countries, because if we fail now and make mistakes now it will be much harder for others to join. We cannot give up on this objective for the Western Balkans.

Some of you have mentioned Chapter 23 on corruption. We believe that the EU also has to be honest about itself, and really to consider to what extent it was also implicated in corruption. Therefore, we also call on OLAF to look at what the implications are for the EU. I urge all Groups to join that effort, as we need to be honest with ourselves too.

My last point is that how we deal with the past is an important part of joining the EU. The ICTY has been mentioned. This is crucial, but we also feel that the local war crimes tribunals need to work better. A report by Amnesty International highlights that there are still a number of pitfalls and deficiencies. We feel there is room for improvement, for example on witness protection, and we would like to see improvement there as well. We feel it is crucial for the EU to insist on that aspect of the past and working with the past.

Apart from this, we are all looking forward to welcoming Croatia to this House.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, we believe that enlargement is one of the more successful aspects of EU policy, provided it is carried out according to rigorous criteria and that lessons are learned from previous accessions.

According to the Council, the conclusion of accession negotiations with Croatia is within reach, but we know from the Commission that corruption issues and judicial reform have not yet been properly dealt with. This is very serious. Our concerns are not artificial.

Croatia, with a population of 4.5 million, apparently suffers from nearly a million backlogged court cases, with a significant number of cases connected to the abuse of property rights. Media freedom is also under assault. Former ministers have been charged with corruption. Some might see this as evidence of action. Actually it reveals the depth of a malaise that has hardly been addressed. Widespread corruption among politicians and the judiciary has meant a failure to tackle organised crime directly connected to the Balkan route.

Despite the litany of problems outlined here, Croatia’s early accession seems a foregone conclusion. It would be a pity if the accession process became a mere formality, dependent on subjective political whim, completed before these fundamental problems are resolved.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, we in the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left are in favour of the accession of Croatia to the European Union and trust that it will soon become a full member, provided that this is the will of the Croatian people and provided that the country satisfies all the accession criteria.

The progress report notes, and we welcome, the progress which has been made in returning refugees, in women’s rights and gender equality and in bridging differences with neighbouring countries. However, we insist on further reforms, especially in the judiciary and in stamping out corruption.

However, we must also pay attention to the socio-economic problems of the people of Croatia, such as poverty, long-term unemployment and the undermining of labour rights. Unfortunately, the proposals to promote a liberal economy will exacerbate the socio-economic situation of the Croatians.

We therefore support the promotion of real social development which will guarantee quality of life for all citizens of Croatia by modernising the social protection system, addressing unemployment, improving access to health services, housing and education and wiping out discrimination, especially towards minorities.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Mr President, since October 2005, when the decision was taken to commence talks over Croatia’s accession to the EU, the Croatian Government has made extensive changes to the running of the country, with the aim of best preparing Croatia for EU accession.

The greatest progress in the accession process was made in 2010, when our Croatian friends concluded negotiations on a number of complex chapters and made fundamental changes to the constitution, as well as making progress over a civilised solution to border disputes with neighbouring countries. The official visit of Serbian president Tadic to Vukovar showed that relations between Croat and Serb citizens can also be built on mutual respect, esteem and understanding.

The speed at which the accession process is finalised now rests solely with the Croatian side, who, after fulfilling all of the conditions for EU accession, must also seek the consent of their citizens for such a step in a nationwide referendum. I sincerely wish our Croatian friends well in rapidly concluding the final chapters and in being capable of confirming, through a popular vote, their readiness to become part of the European Community.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, less than 20 years ago Croatia fought to secure its independence. Now it is being handed out without a shot being fired.

Croatia has had to make extensive and intrusive legislative changes. It has also had to withdraw support from its vital industries and the people who work in them. The Croatians must do all of these things before the European Union condescends to accept Croatia for membership.

Of greatest importance, all of these changes are being conceded before the consent of the people through a promised referendum has been granted, or even asked for. Despite opinion-poll evidence of majority opposition to EU membership, a positive outcome of the referendum is taken for granted. When enormous changes are carried out in anticipation of a consent that is yet to be obtained, we can be assured that consent is seen as a mere formality.

The report here says that editors and journalists complain about undue political pressure. However, it is silent about how this pressure will allow the referendum to be conducted freely and fairly.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are in fact now in the last round before accession, insofar as we are to discuss this matter here in the Community institutions, because then there still remains the ratification process in the national parliaments, which will certainly not be easy, either. However, as I was able, during my time as chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to closely observe the previous twelve Member States to join as part of the enlargement process, I can say that Croatia is a country that has done a considerable amount of work over a long period of time in order to fulfil the criteria and, for that reason, the progression to a ‘yes’ is a positive one.

We should support this for political reasons. It is also a signal to other countries that may perhaps have to wait a long time until the door to Europe is open rather than, by and large, being closed. The general political message is important. However, based on our experiences with other countries, I would say that Croatia needs to work on reforming its judicial and administrative systems in its own interests, too – irrespective of the accession process. When proceedings remain unresolved for too long or accusations of corruption are made but the proceedings taken against the accused take too long, it damages the overall development of the country. More work ought to be done in this regard.

  Göran Färm (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, first of all I would like say a big thank you to the rapporteur, Mr Swoboda, who has done an excellent job. Croatia’s membership of the EU is getting close now, but a few challenges still remain, for example the fight against corruption. Croatia has adopted new and better legislation, but now the reforms need to be implemented. Effective investigations, prosecutions and court rulings are needed.

Right now all eyes are on the case of the former conservative Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader, who is in prison in Austria. We applaud what journalists and politicians in Croatia have shown by uncovering the corruption in the political elite. However, the case of Ivo Sanader also represents a moment of truth for the EU, as corruption requires the involvement of two parties. Given the accusations that Ivo Sanader attempted to influence the EU in an improper manner, I have proposed that the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, should work together with Croatian investigators to clarify this information because, of course, we do not know if it is true.

The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) wants to delete this important part of the resolution, but, along with the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, we are calling on all of the political groups to support it. The EU must be proactive and not simply place the responsibility on Croatia.

  Lena Ek (ALDE). - Mr President, in the stormy waters of the global economic crisis, it is encouraging to see that Croatia is holding a steady course towards membership.

The progress so far has been impressive, but I want to emphasise that this positive momentum should now feed into other areas where much remains to be done.

There are two points I would like to stress here today. The first is the reform and strengthening of the judiciary. A robust and independent judicial syste m is absolutely essential in order to fight corruption and to ensure the rule of law in the long term. It is not merely a matter of arresting criminals; it is about dealing with them afterwards. Otherwise, efforts to tackle corruption and organised crime will have no effect.

The second point I want to mention is the need for society in Croatia to build on tolerance. The European project is about reconciliation, and this applies not only between countries – and I applaud the improved relations with Croatia’s neighbours – but within them as well. Threats of violence against minorities are completely unacceptable. I fully understand how difficult this is, but I am of the firm belief that this would not only boost the accession talks, but also that the effort itself would be of direct benefit to Croatian society.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, we should without a doubt support the Hungarian Presidency in its ambitious plans to conclude negotiations with Croatia during the first half of this year. Croatia’s membership in the European Union will mean we gain an important and constructive ally, since the country is already playing an important role and acting as a major stabilising force in the region, and setting an example for many other Balkan countries also thinking about acceding to the European Union in the future.

Today I would like to express my great respect and admiration for the reforms undertaken by the Croatian Government and Croatian society, particularly those relating to the fight against corruption and organised crime and reforms of the public administration and the judiciary. It goes without saying that there are still areas requiring improvement and completion. I hope that this is achieved as soon as possible. It is also true that we are hearing reports from Croatia that the Croatian people are not entirely convinced that membership will benefit their country. I believe that it would be wise for us to take steps which help to reverse this trend without delay, in cooperation with the Croatian Government.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). - (NL) Mr President, Croatia has made good progress on its way to achieving EU membership. That is beyond dispute and I am pleased about that. There are two issues, however, which I am still seriously concerned about.

Corruption in this Balkan country is still widespread, see for example recitals 7 and 8 of the resolution we are debating. That is having a major impact on the economy and on trade relations with this country. We urgently need a better approach to tackling this problem, possibly in cooperation with European institutions.

My second concern is the poor administrative organisation in the country, see recital 28 of the resolution. Sound administrative organisation is necessary if EU legislation is to be properly implemented and if Croatia is not to be caught napping by events.

As long as these two bottlenecks remain unaddressed, I will continue to feel concerned about the swift pace with which the Hungarian Presidency wants to bring about Croatia’s accession. In my opinion, past experience should lead us to make the quality of accession our objective, not accession itself. That will help us to secure people’s support, and the support of my Dutch citizens.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, overall, developments in Croatia are going in the right direction. The theory is complete, but it still needs to be proven in practice. However, there are three areas where significant work still remains to be done.

Firstly, Croatia must work closer with the International Court of Justice in The Hague to speed up progress with regard to human rights and the prosecution of former war criminals. As stated by Amnesty International in ‘Behind a Wall of Silence’, there are blatant individual cases of human rights violations that are still be dealt with. The protection of human rights is a key issue for the EU. We must not be prepared to compromise where this is concerned, and indeed we are not prepared to compromise where this is concerned.

Secondly, there is the corruption. It still permeates society, industry and politics. I welcome the efforts of the Croatian Government to tackle corruption in its own country, but at the same time we must insist that this problem is also rigorously pursued.

Thirdly, Croatia must ensure, in its own interests, that swift progress is now made with regard to the reforms initiated in the judicial system.

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, two years ago, when I was the chair of the Polish Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, I had the pleasure of playing host to members of Croatia’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. On this occasion, the members of the Croatian committee asked me if I knew how many Poles were currently on sailing holidays in Croatia. It turned out that the answer was several tens of thousands in total. The millions of tourists who visit this beautiful country today can tell us that Croatia is a modern and democratic country, and confirm that it is ready for membership of the European Union. Yet those same members of the Croatian committee also asked me how Poland was restructuring its shipyards. In other words, several problems still remain, as everyone here has mentioned, and they are problems which need to be resolved. In spite of everything, I hope that Mr Martonyi’s hopes will be fulfilled, that our Hungarian friends and the European Commission will conclude the negotiations and that today we will hear from Mr Sikorski, the head of Polish diplomacy, who will be with us in Parliament, that Poland will have the pleasure of witnessing Croatia’s accession to the European Union while holding the Presidency of the European Council.

  Zoran Thaler (S&D). - (SL) Madam President, allow me to join in the chorus of praise for rapporteur Swoboda’s approach and work.

I sincerely hope that, for Croatia and for Mr Swoboda, this really will be the last report and that Croatia will join us as soon as possible. In any case, membership will allow Croatia to make up for some of the time it has lost in joining the EU.

Indeed, if we go by the stage of development of Croatia’s economy, society, culture and arts, this country could easily have joined the group of countries which joined the European Union seven years ago. I suggest that the authorities in Zagreb take advantage of Croatia’s accession to the European Union in order to tackle decisively the culture of corruption and crime. Developing the freedoms of objective media and protecting objective journalists working for the Croatian public television broadcaster is another matter of paramount importance.

Croatia’s accession to the EU will mean that we are embracing and holding out a hand to the Balkan region. I look forward to us working together with our Croatian colleagues to bring stabilisation and progress to this, still turbulent, region.

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). - (BG) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Swoboda for his good work and I really hope that this report will be the last one before Croatia signs the Treaty of Accession to the European Union.

I believe that Croatia's entry into the EU will give an impetus to reforms in the region and will be a success for the whole of Europe. Croatia recently signalled this itself by providing free legal translations of the acquis communautaire to its neighbours from the former Yugoslavia – Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. The country has thus shown that it is willing and able to contribute to the region's European future.

Accepting Croatia into the EU will give a clear signal that the EU honours its undertakings towards the Western Balkans and that expansion is an open-ended process. I would like to highlight that although every country on our continent has its own problems, we should be careful when pointing the finger at eastern European countries, when talking about corruption and crime.

These are not a trademark just of this region, but a challenge for all of us, and only through combined efforts can we limit the negative tendencies in this area. Transparency and democracy are immutable values and it is for this very reason that we have to support and encourage reforms in the Western Balkans. I wish Croatia all the best and look forward to greeting it here as the 28th Member State of the European Union.

  László Tőkés (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, we must note with strong criticism towards the EU that even though Croatia was, in several respects, already prepared for accession at the time of the last enlargement wave six years ago, it is still being prevented from joining. For this reason we can only agree with the objective of the Hungarian Presidency of making the integration of Croatia one of its highest priorities during its term. Similarly, we can only agree with the statement of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán that the unification of Europe cannot be complete without the integration of the countries of the Western Balkans. The states of the former Yugoslavia that remain outside are like gaping black holes in the map of the EU. The accession of Croatia marks the beginning of the change of that situation. As Croatian Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor said yesterday, it is our moral obligation to provide this encouragement for the countries of South Eastern Europe, because for them there is no alternative to integration.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, both the Swoboda report and the statements by the Presidency and Commissioner Füle indicate that the climate for concluding negotiations with Croatia is very positive. Particular emphasis should be given to the determination shown by Croatia itself, for example by the Prime Minister, Mrs Kosor, not only with regard to concluding the negotiations themselves, but also with regard to cooperation with the country’s neighbours and the International Criminal Tribunal. The prospect of concluding negotiations in the near future and the mood prevailing in the Chamber will also help Croatia. It is an important sign that any future problems will not be allowed to accumulate, and that the 20-year wait will end with the signature of the Treaty of Accession. Let us also acknowledge the symbolic gestures made by Croatia, for example by passing on a translation of the full acquis communautaire to all its neighbours working towards membership. I would like to acknowledge the work done by Mr Swoboda, and I too am sure that this is the last report on Croatia’s progress in preparations for membership. We will soon welcome the country as a Member State of the European Union.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, I clearly support the Hungarian Presidency in its endeavour to conclude the accession negotiations of Croatia in June. In several respects, Croatia has achieved a higher degree of development than some EU Member States. It is obvious that, as Mr Martonyi mentioned, there is still a lot to be done. Mr Hannes Swoboda has an excellent understanding of the complexities of the Western Balkan region.

The success of Croatia could serve as an incentive for Serbia and the other countries of the Western Balkans. It is important for our friends in the Western Balkans and our Croatian colleagues to understand that their internal reforms must be implemented not for the sake of the EU, but for the sake of their own people. I believe it is of exceptional importance to improve the situation of Serb, Hungarian and other national minorities, and to ensure the well-deserved return of the Serbs who fled or had been driven away, the Serbs of Krajina, and to settle the neighbourhood relations between Slovenia and Croatia. We must appreciate that the Croatian head of state has made several gestures toward the historic reconciliation of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia.

  Jelko Kacin (ALDE). - (SL) Madam President, to the Croatian Government and the European Commission I wish plenty of determination, patience, perseverance and energy in finalising reforms and I also wish that perhaps Croatia should mark the twentieth anniversary of its independence by concluding its negotiations.

That is my sincere wish. What will prove possible, however, depends on the Croatian Government and the cooperation between it, that is the ruling coalition, and the opposition in the Croatian Parliament. What we also need now is much greater social sensitivity and responsiveness amongst politicians. The current economic crisis is pushing any benefits which accession to the EU might bring Croatia’s economy and its citizens to the margins of social priorities and is increasing criticism of the European Union.

Last but not least, Croatia also needs its people to vote yes in a referendum. Any slowing down of the momentum of Croatia’s accession would not have any disastrous consequences for Croatia, but it would send out an extremely negative message to the countries of the Western Balkans which are on the way to the EU. Without negotiations being concluded, Croatian MPs will not be able to gain observer status in this House and there will be no membership. I therefore call on you to keep up the pace and to make every effort.

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE). - (NL) Madam President, I am happy that Croatia is coming ever closer to accession. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is strongly in favour of the accession of all the Balkan countries, as well as Turkey. However, we are such great advocates of their accession precisely because we attach such great importance to the reforms that are required in order to attain membership. Croatia has not completed these reforms yet. The process must continue.

When voting, we will therefore seek to ensure that no specific date is given in the report. It is possible that the negotiations might be completed in the first half of this year but, equally, that might not happen. This is not about when negotiations are completed. This is about Croatia complying with all the criteria by then.

Indeed, if there is one lesson we have learned from the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, it is this: that we should not be giving a specific date. Instead, we need to make clear what still needs to be done. One more point: one of the issues on which Croatia could be doing a little more is the protection of sexual minorities. It would be nice if our current EU Presidency set a good example by allowing the gay pride in Budapest on 18 June 2011 to go ahead.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Madam President, Croatia’s progress towards EU membership continues smoothly, as the report makes clear. British Conservatives support the enlargement of the EU to include countries that fully meet the Copenhagen criteria, as we believe that a larger EU should result in a more flexible and less centralised union.

Croatia should be congratulated for its efforts to stamp out corruption, as evidenced by the arrest of former Prime Minister Sanader. I am pleased that Slovenia will no longer be blocking Croatia’s accession over the two countries’ border dispute. This was always a bilateral issue but should in no way preclude Croatia from joining our Union. There is also a small dispute with Montenegro, for which I am the rapporteur, which will be resolved by the ICJ.

I also believe that Croatia’s accession will accelerate the integration of the whole region of the former Yugoslavia into the EU, in particular as Montenegro’s rapporteur and a strong friend of Serbia. I hope that Croatian membership will inspire both countries to press ahead with reforms and that Croatia will not try and settle old scores, once it is in the Union, by blocking Serbian accession.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, among the candidate countries, Croatia is known to be the country that has made the greatest amount of progress. That is not surprising, as culturally and historically it is firmly rooted in Central Europe. Croatia has proven its readiness to join the EU many times, for example with the settlement of the fishing dispute. Further efforts are, of course, needed in connection with corruption, but clearly there is no lack of will here, as can be seen by the arrest of the former prime minister, Ivo Sanader. There has also been some movement with regard to dealing with war crimes. In this regard, it remains to be seen what role the German arrest warrants issued for high-ranking former members of the Yugoslav secret service will play.

Croatia seems to be prepared to move away from its past, for example by providing support for returning war refugees. In this regard, it would also be desirable if the EU were to support not only the war refugees, but also the displaced people and to seek a solution to the restitution claims of the Danube Swabians.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I would like to pay tribute to the balanced resolution of my colleague, Mr Swoboda, and say that it is vital for us to make a success of this accession. This leads me to draw attention to the considerable misgivings of certain sectors of public opinion, as this accession has come at the wrong time. History does not work to a timetable and we are in a period of crisis. The people of Europe have misgivings.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a wave of post-communist accessions and today we proceed on a case-by-case basis. That is why, Commissioner, I think that a major communication campaign is needed in all EU Member States, and perhaps even in Croatia itself, to explain all the work that has been achieved, that all the chapters are well respected and that serious preparations have been made for this accession.

That is my proposal, because the competence for accession does not lie with Europe. Competence for accession lies with the States and with the peoples of those States. We have a duty to make a success of this accession. Let us use all the resources at our disposal during this difficult period of European integration that we are going through.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me thank you very much for this encouraging and constructive debate. The draft European Parliament resolution, with its balanced message, is of vital support for the work undertaken by the Commission. It provides much useful guidance for further work by Croatia, and I particularly welcome the many references to fairness, quality and credibility made during today’s debate.

I also fully agree with those statements made today underlining that this whole process and the efforts required are for the benefit of Croatian citizens. Those benefits will have to be clearly communicated in the months to come.

The constructive and steadfast support provided by Parliament for Croatia’s accession process is an important signal. It is important not only for Croatia itself, but for all the candidate countries and potential candidates. Indeed, your support will encourage them to keep up the intensity of their efforts on the path towards the European Union and closing negotiations successfully.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, first and foremost, on behalf of the Presidency, I would like to express my acknowledgement and thanks for Parliament’s – and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Swoboda’s – continuous engagement and positive contribution to the efforts we are making to advance not only towards the successful enlargement to include Croatia, but the progress of the enlargement process as a whole.

I firmly believe that all these efforts have been very well demonstrated by this morning’s very constructive and very useful debate. I also firmly believe that the resolution to be adopted will underline Parliament’s crucial role, which indeed goes beyond the concrete item of Croatia’s accession.

This will send an extremely important message to European public opinion, to the citizens of Europe, to the effect that enlargement does indeed serve their best interests, and it will perhaps convince them that the enlargement fatigue which developed, and was felt, right after what we now call the reunification of Europe, has gone, and that the train of the enlargement process has to go on.

At the same time, it will also send an extremely important political message to the other candidate and aspirant countries. This is also underlined in your report and resolution. We all know that the key factor of stability, cooperation and reconciliation in the Western Balkans is indeed the European perspective.

So the European perspective has to be credible and has to be underlined and demonstrated by concrete measures. That is precisely the upcoming accession of Croatia to the European Union. We all know that what we have here is unfinished business. Europe is still not a whole and our fundamental objective is to take this process on.

Some extremely important remarks and comments were made with respect, for example, to whether the accession negotiations have been too long or not. It is true that they have lasted almost six years and that this is longer than the negotiation process was for our countries. What I would recommend now is that we look to the future and try to speed up this process as much as we can.

Very many important advances and achievements have been made on both sides, and I would only underline again and again our determination that, with combined efforts on all sides, we can now make a credible, good quality enlargement. This would be an extremely important message for all of us, inside and outside the present European Union.

I would like to thank you again for your extremely important thoughts and comments, and also to express my thanks to the Commission – all that of course in the hope that we will be able to realise our objective, which is, I repeat, to conclude negations before the end of June this year.

  President. – I have received a motion for a resolution in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure on the subject of this debate⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12:00 today, Tuesday, 16 February.

Written Statements (Rule 149)

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) We hope that Croatia makes fast progress in the negotiations for EU membership. Speeding up Croatia’s accession is crucial if one considers its strategic geopolitical position as a gateway to markets in Central Europe. Hence the need for an integrated development of ports and connections to the European corridors, especially in view of the fact that Croatia will enjoy a significant flow of EU funding, of which 60% will be allocated to infrastructure.

For this to happen, Croatia should continue to adopt the necessary reforms. In particular, it should strengthen public administration and the judiciary, fight corruption and ensure full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I welcome the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. I am disappointed about the situation of the Croatian shipbuilding industry, a sector that was once the pearl of Yugoslav industrial exports, but which is now in almost total ruin.

I hope that the Croatian Government is able conclude the restructuring process as soon as possible so that it can also close the chapter on competition. In particular, I emphasise the importance of the accession of Croatia in relation to the integrated maritime policy in the Adriatic, which will soon officially be an almost completely European sea.

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report is generally favourable for Croatia. It shows that the country is close to completing the accession negotiations. However, at the same time, as in previous years, it draws attention to persistent, and often serious, shortcomings. In light of previous experience with the Croatia-Slovenia territorial dispute, it is concerning that there has not been significant positive progress in respect of Croatia’s numerous territorial disputes with its other neighbours (in particular, Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also Serbia and Montenegro). The extremely slow approach to the punishment of war crimes against the Serbs continues to raise some important issues. ‘Several hundred cases’ remain to be investigated and prosecuted; the fact that the Croatian judiciary is ignoring these cases ensures the continuing distrust of the Serbs. Croatia has also still not submitted the documents known as the artillery diaries to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (ICTY). The time has therefore come to consider how far the EU should get involved in this matter. Even the 2010 return of Serbian refugees was very limited. The report does not say how many of the 130,000 Serbs who returned to Croatia after the war were from Serbia and how many were from the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The number of Serbian refugees in the Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) has remained relatively stable for several years (between 25,000 and 35,000 persons). The Croatian authorities have made their return impossible mainly by failing to resolve issues such as the return of property, housing, tenancy rights, pensions and so on.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Croatia, as a candidate country since 2003, when it submitted its application, has completed the demanding preparation for EU membership. This process requires profound reforms which are often highly unpopular with the public. As a representative for Slovakia, which completed this demanding process only seven years ago, I admire Croatia, and believe that Croatia will complete the remaining 10 chapters as soon as possible. Since the break-up of Yugoslavia and the end of the military conflict, Croatia has made great progress in a short space of time in infrastructure, services and tourism, which is the dominant branch of the country’s national economy. As a tourist who visits Croatia every year, I think Croatia belongs within the family of EU states, and I will join my colleagues in supporting Croatian accession.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Croatia is one step away from the fulfilment of its historic goal. The question is what this step will be like. Will it be a long step fraught with obstacles, perhaps even artificial ones? Or will it be an easier, shorter step, one that is based on cooperation and one that appreciates the performance of the difficult commitments undertaken so far? The Croatian people have done considerable work to ensure the conclusion of the accession negotiations, and the recognition of their cooperation is well deserved, whether it be for their efforts in the reduction of corruption, conflicts of interest and organised crime, or for the improvement of their neighbourhood policy. Some questions, of course, still remain open to this day, most of them being of a bilateral nature, but it is important to stress that these should not be confused with European matters.

I am convinced that Croatia is worthy of becoming a Member State of the EU, and is worthy of successfully concluding the negotiations during the term of the Hungarian Presidency. The position of Croatia in the Western Balkans is of strategic importance. This role is reinforced by the three agreements signed by Croatia and the Hungarian Government on the strengthening of energy supply security, joint research in cross-border hydrocarbon fields and the storage of oil supplies. I honestly wish for the Croatian people that all natural – and perhaps artificially erected – barriers are removed from the path of their accession, because Croatia is not only mature enough for, but also worthy of joining the EU. What I ask of you, my fellow Members, is to contribute with your supporting votes to Croatia joining the EU as soon as possible, because that way, the accession would be achieved in the symbolic 20th year of Croatia’s independence.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The acceleration of the Croatian accession negotiations brings the possibility of EU integration in the South-East European region within reach. Not only Croatia, but the other countries of the Western Balkans, too, are looking with optimism towards their future in Europe. This, in turn, will bring about stability, and the irreversibility of the process of democratisation, and economic growth in this region, which carries a heavy historic legacy. I commend the efforts of the Croatian Government in combating corruption, ensuring the proper use of EU funds and endeavouring to conclude the chapters of the negotiations that are still open. Significant progress has also been made in improving relations with neighbouring countries. I consistently support the EU accession of Croatia taking place as soon as possible, because, as a Romanian Member of Hungarian nationality, I have been closely monitoring the fate of the Hungarian community in Croatia. It would be to my great satisfaction if we could soon welcome another Hungarian community living outside their home country into the European Union. The European Parliament must clearly support Croatia’s accession efforts. It is not the easing of requirements that is needed, but the facilitation of meeting those requirements. I agree with my fellow Members who are asking the European Commission to specify the further dates for the conclusion of the process as soon as possible, and to close the accession chapters while we are still in the term of the Hungarian Presidency.

  Giovanni Collino (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Hungarian Presidency’s intention to conclude the negotiations in the first half of 2011 makes us very optimistic about the future of the Balkan region and about the accession of those countries to the European Union. The Croatian Government has gone to great lengths to tackle the process of reform and protection of human rights. Improvements are still required on some points to ensure that Croatia can be considered ready for the European Union and the objectives enshrined in the Europe 2020 Strategy: the fight against corruption, protection of minorities, including Italian minorities, shortening the duration of judicial proceedings, support for court infrastructure and equipment, strengthening of tax reforms and public spending cuts.

If Croatia continues to implement all the reforms necessary for the completion of the acquis communautaire, then from next autumn the European Union will have a valuable addition to help increase its wealth and ensure geopolitical balance between East and West, starting from the Mediterranean region and the north-east of Italy. The development of European macro-regions, from the Adriatic and Ionian region, which will include Italy, will quickly bring Croatia into the heart of European programmes and policies.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Croatia’s accession to the European Union is the subject of lively public debate. The country is an extremely attractive destination for European tourists, yet it also has problems to contend with. I would like to note that Croatia still faces many challenges and many state reforms, which should be carried out effectively so that the country can meet the EU’s requirements as soon as possible.

An enlargement policy which facilitates the consolidation of democracy, particularly in the Balkan countries, should however also be in the interests of the European Union. The European Parliament should be positive in its assessment of the changes made in Croatia to date, since the country is demonstrating a great deal of willingness to resolve its internal problems. We must be open to new Member States. I hope that the pace of negotiations will make it possible for the Croatians to sign the Treaty of Accession during the Polish Presidency, since this country deserves to be a member of the European Union. Thank you.

(1) See Minutes.

5. Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States - Europe 2020 - Implementation of the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (debate)

  President. – Τhe next item is the joint debate on

– the Council and Commission statements on Europe 2020;

– the report (A7-0040/2011) by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States [COM(2011)0006 - C7-0033/2011 - 2011/0007(CNS)];

– the Commission statement on the implementation of the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, I very much welcome this opportunity to appear before you to talk about a subject which is of particular importance for the Hungarian Presidency: the Europe 2020 Strategy. Indeed, it is of particular importance for all of us.

It is clear that Europe has to overcome a number of serious challenges if it wishes to remain competitive with the rest of the world. Some of these challenges have been generated by the financial and economic crisis, but some of them are inherent in our limited capacities and determination to fulfil the objectives and targets of the 2010 Lisbon Strategy.

As is often said, crisis can be an opportunity – both in the Ancient Greek and in the Chinese interpretation. It can be an opportunity for a breakthrough, for a solution and to make progress. That is why we believe that the crisis is currently a key factor in motivating Member States to adopt quickly a new European strategy for jobs and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This is the Europe 2020 Strategy.

I am convinced that this strategy will play an important role in helping Europe recover from the crisis and emerge stronger, both internally and at international level, by boosting productivity, growth potential, social cohesion and economic governance.

This is essential if we are going to be able to remain competitive globally, not least in the face of rapidly growing markets in Asia. It is also essential if we are to maintain the social model, our way of life, which is a key characteristic of Europe, dear to us all, and which we must preserve.

The 2020 Strategy confirmed five EU headline targets which constitute shared objectives guiding the action of Member States and the Union as regards promoting employment, improving the conditions for innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, improving education levels and promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty.

As part of meeting these targets, the Commission developed and presented seven flagship initiatives containing the actions it proposes to take to strengthen the single market and to boost growth and jobs: the Digital Agenda for Europe, Innovation Union, Youth on the Move, Resource Efficient Europe, an Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era, an Agenda for New Skills and Jobs and the European Platform against Poverty.

For each initiative, both the EU and national authorities have to coordinate their efforts so that action at national and European level is mutually reinforcing.

In December 2010, the first implementation report prepared by the Presidency, in close cooperation with the Commission and the incoming Hungarian Presidency, provided an overview of work undertaken since the launch of the strategy in June. The report highlights the most important work done in the Council, in all its forms, regarding the seven flagship initiatives. Furthermore, the report stresses the technologies progress achieved in the various policy areas which play a major role in the new strategy: the single market, cohesion policy and agricultural policy. It also lists the activities and initiatives that have been conducted at EU level in the last six months as regards the five EU headline targets.

Let me emphasise some important elements concerning economic governance. The implementation of economic governance reform is a fundamental condition for fighting the crisis and boosting the European economy. This is why the 2020 Strategy is closely linked with what is known as the ‘European semester’: a new key instrument of macroeconomic surveillance, to be applied for the first time under this presidency. This new process started in January 2011 with the presentation of the Commission’s annual growth survey.

The Hungarian Presidency is paying particular attention to ensuring that the European semester runs smoothly and successfully. To that end, we will organise a series of debates in all relevant Council meetings in the run-up to the March European Council.

The General Affairs Council has, in particular, been tasked with preparing a synthesis report for its meeting of 21 March, which will set out the main messages on the work being undertaken in the various sectoral councils. This report will be presented to the European Council in March and will form the basis for the discussions, with the aim of agreeing on a set of priorities for structural reforms and fiscal consolidation.

Following on from the March European Council, Member States will finalise the drafting of the national reform programmes and stability or convergence reports, which will be submitted to the Commission in April. After that, work should be taken forward with a view to elaborating country-specific recommendations which the Member States will take into account when finalising their budgets for 2012 and implementing their growth strategies. I recognise that this calendar is very tight, but we hope to complete it by June or July.

The 2020 Strategy is key in ensuring the future economic success of the European Union. It is closely linked to economic governance reform, which will also play a key role. Unless we remain competitive and can secure strong growth in the future, we will find it increasingly difficult both to maintain a sufficiently high level of social protection internally and to bring Europe’s voice to bear on events externally.

This is the major challenge for Europe in the years to come. I am absolutely sure that we can count on the support of the European Parliament to help us deliver.

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

  President. − Mr President-in-Office, thank you for your introductory speech. We are talking about a very important issue: the Europe 2020 Strategy. We are in a crisis and the unemployment rate is very high, which is the biggest threat for our citizens. Employment policy is therefore absolutely crucial, including under the 2020 Strategy. We welcome the Commissioner responsible for that area, Mr László Andor, to the European Parliament.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, as you know, the Commission adopted the first Annual Growth Survey in connection with the Europe 2020 Strategy last month. The Annual Growth Survey makes a break with the past and sets in motion the first cycle of economic policy coordination under the European Semester.

The main idea behind the European Semester is very simple: to ensure the stability of economic and monetary union, we have no choice but to carry out ex-ante coordination of economic policies within the EU. The recent debt crisis in some euro area countries illustrates this all too clearly. This more robust and demanding approach shows that the European Union recognises how closely interlinked the Member States’ economies are and how policy choices in one Member State can have an impact on the others.

Managing the European Semester will be a real test for the EU. Strengthening political ownership of the Strategy and local partnerships has been a key priority for us. The challenge now is to demonstrate that the Union can collectively identify the key policy reforms most urgently needed and provide the right policy responses.

The Annual Growth Survey is very clear about the top priorities. It sets out an integrated approach to recovery with 10 priority actions under three main headings: first, a rigorous fiscal consolidation and restructuring of the financial sector to step up macroeconomic stability; second, structural reforms for higher employment; and finally, growth-enhancing measures.

We have taken good note of your concerns on the key messages of the Annual Growth Survey, to the effect that they may seem to depart from the Integrated Guidelines. However, I want to be clear on this. The Commission has deliberately chosen to focus this year’s Annual Growth Survey on the most immediate challenges stemming from the current economic crisis and on the need to frontload the reforms that are necessary for economic recovery and job creation. The Annual Growth Survey is fully consistent with the Integrated Guidelines, including the Employment Guidelines.

I welcome Parliament’s support to the Commission’s proposal to maintain the Employment Guidelines unchanged for 2011. Indeed, it is vital to ensure a stable policy framework until the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy in 2014 for Member States to have enough time to implement the necessary reforms.

The Employment Guidelines also provide the basis for the draft Joint Employment Report (part of the Annual Growth Survey), which identifies the most urgent measures in the area of employment, including: first, introducing employment-friendly taxation systems, namely by shifting taxes away from labour; second, reducing labour market segmentation; third, removing barriers to balancing private and work life; fourth, supporting unemployed people, through high-quality training and job search services, to get back into work and go into self-employment; and finally, increasing the participation of older workers in labour markets.

More importantly, the Employment Guidelines will form the basis for possible country-specific recommendations which the Council may address to Member States on the basis of Article 148 of the Treaty.

The Annual Growth Survey provides the basis for discussion at the Spring European Council in March and for the economic policy guidance to be addressed to the Member States. The Commission expects the Member States to take this guidance into account when they draft their stability or convergence programmes and the national reform programmes under the Europe 2020 Strategy.

The Commission will examine the national reform programmes, which are due in the second half of April. On the basis of that examination and in line with the Treaty, we will propose country-specific policy guidance and recommendations that Member States should take into account when finalising their budgets for 2012. The policy guidance and recommendations should be adopted by the Council before the summer.

Let me close by stressing the importance of your role in the successful implementation of Europe 2020 and specifically the seven flagship initiatives. Your role as co legislator is fundamental to their successful implementation. Setting the right framework conditions is vital if we are to meet the Europe 2020 targets. Discussion of the new multiannual financial framework will start soon. The Commission will present its proposals by June. Your role as a budgetary authority together with the Council will be crucial to ensuring that the Europe 2020 priorities are reflected in the EU budget. If we are to be credible we need to make sure our financial priorities are in line with our strategies and political priorities.

At a time of fiscal constraints, it is more important than ever to show that the EU has added value and that a euro spent at EU level can have a greater impact than a euro spent at national level.

To ensure the success of Europe 2020 we need political ownership at all levels. Only if everyone plays their part can we achieve our objectives and set the right course for future growth.

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I would like to say how much I welcome this first opportunity to debate the European Semester and the importance that should be given, in this semester, to the Annual Growth Survey.

Within this framework, you, Commissioner, along with the members of the College, have decided to renew the Employment Guidelines and this Parliament intends to acknowledge that decision. We would simply like to draw your attention to three points.

The first concerns the content of this Annual Growth Survey. We are struck by the fact that the issues of employment and unemployment appear to be secondary to budgetary consolidation objectives. When you raise these issues, which are directly linked to the operation of the labour market, we feel that you are breaching the social contract between the people of the Member States and their governments. You are proposing that the retirement age should be raised, that the amount paid in unemployment allowance should be reduced, that wage levels and the mechanisms for calculating these should be modified, and that shops should be allowed to open on Sundays.

We believe that this constitutes an extremely dangerous breach of the social contract. We also believe that greater attention should be paid to the most vulnerable populations, whether they are young people, women, older people or the disabled. We also think that there is a considerable danger of seeing budgetary consolidation as the be-all and end-all of this Annual Growth Survey.

Our second concern is the fact that, as you have said yourself, you are going to draw up national reform programmes on the basis of this Annual Growth Survey. However, it is here that important matters will be decided. How are you putting the debate in Parliament on those issues to good use, now that the guidelines are being renewed? How do you envisage democratic debate on this issue? How do you join up Article 148, which coordinates employment policies, with Article 12, which coordinates economic policies?

There is a great deal of confusion today for the European Parliament, insofar as we are considering at the same time, the Europe 2020 Strategy, President Van Rompuy’s working parties, the package on economic governance, into which this Parliament is putting a great deal of effort, and a revision of the Treaty to maintain a European financial stability mechanism. Moreover, while this is in train, we are also debating the possible amendment of that mechanism. You are launching the European semester at the same time as Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy are launching the competitiveness pact. At the same time as all this, you are renewing the Employment Guidelines, which in all likelihood will be no more than a very vague space to be defined in these national programmes.

So, Commissioner, I would like to alert you to a third concern of ours. When, last year, with the support of the Belgian Presidency, we managed to change the direction of the Employment Guidelines, there was one point on which we placed great emphasis: the issue of governance. What do we mean by this governance? It means that economic and social policies cannot be conducted successfully if they are not accompanied by genuine democratic debate. Now, democratic debate means giving power to the European Parliament, power to national parliaments and genuinely respecting, involving and including social partners. We often have the impression that your proposals ignore these elements, which are part and parcel of the democratic life of our countries.

I believe that, unless we get to grips with this issue, we are in danger of being inconsistent, of turning our people away from what we are trying to achieve together and of neglecting that which is the key to our success, namely the Community spirit.

  Sharon Bowles, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. − Mr President, we are moving into a new era of economic governance. The European Semester offers a structure into which the existing tools of the Integrated Guidelines, provided for under Articles 121 and 148 of the Treaty, should be incorporated, with the strong involvement of Parliament.

Looking wider, it is in the Semester that monitoring of the Stability and Growth Pact and macroeconomic surveillance can join up with the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Integrated Guidelines. This means that the Semester can provide a coherent framework for the various economic governance processes in the Union in a mutually enhancing fashion. More broadly, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs emphasises that economic governance must be based on the Community method. Processes must be transparent and accountable if they are to connect with, and have the support of, citizens. This mandates the involvement of Parliament.

Where Parliament already has been given a role, it must have the time required to fulfil its democratic mandate. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs stands shoulder to shoulder with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in pursuing that demand.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) Mr President, the financial and economic crisis has made it painfully clear that our competitiveness, and consequently the sustainability of our social market economy, is at risk. That is why we now need to draw lessons from the crisis, if we are to make better use of our internal market, bolster the sustainability of our pensions and also enable the labour market to function better.

Our group therefore welcomes the Annual Growth Survey and the Ecofin conclusions of 15 January 2011, which encourage ambitious expectations for the European Semester.

All of us in this house want a Europe of sustainable economic growth with healthy businesses and enough jobs for all our citizens. We can only achieve that with a stable currency and a stable economy. In order to attain both, the Member States must keep their domestic finances in order, because that will not only help us prevent problems such as those we are currently witnessing in Member States which are struggling with soaring deficits and debt, but also lay the foundation for growth and jobs for our citizens, and also for our children and future generations.

Mr President, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will continue to work for a strong European economic governance package, based on three pillars: a robust Stability and Growth Pact, ambitious macroeconomic surveillance and an ambitious Europe 2020 Strategy. However, that demands that we use the community method and involve the European Parliament and national parliaments. If we do that, we will not need a new competitiveness pact, because we will have already achieved our objective.

  Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I have listened closely to what you have said, I have read the Annual Growth Survey, I have read the Ecofin conclusions and now I am absolutely clear about one thing: the European Union is not only experiencing an economic crisis, it is also experiencing a political crisis. What you are recommending to us is nothing new. Ask your staff to show you the documents from the last ten years. The same thing can be seen in all of them, namely that public expenditure is too high, and the only mechanism for adjustment to new times relates to wages and they are always too high. I have not seen any other recommendations. Whether it is raining or snowing, whether we are in a crisis or a boom – it is always the same ideology, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical economic reality.

Allow me to suggest something to you: send those people who write these things for you, who carry out the economic analyses in the Council and the Commission, to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs sometime. We want to get to know your economic models. We want to discuss with them whether they do not see that Europe is on the brink of recession. Remove the German export rates and the German growth rates for example and then you will see what I am talking about. I will then ask you why there is not a single word about investments – when we have lowest level of investment so far, which we ourselves can no longer afford – why there is not a single word about improvements in revenue and nothing about following the cycles or about the fact that we must finally learn to grow together or how we will get out of the crisis. There is nothing about any of these things in your documents.

You missed the start of this year, and you will have to make a great effort to meet the expectations of citizens in Europe. However, let me tell you something: if this is the spirit in which you intend to take a decision in March concerning the cconomic governance package and the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, my group will be unable to be involved in this.

  Lena Ek, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, a year ago we debated here in this Chamber what actions were necessary to tackle the global financial crisis. At the time, some of my Group’s proposals on economic governance were dismissed as too ambitious and too far-reaching, but today I am happy to note that several of our suggestions are realities.

Today, however, there is a significant gap between the ambitions declared in the Europe 2020 Strategy and the financial resources needed to attain the goals. In the draft 2012 budget, the Commission needs to clarify, clearly identify and make visible the expenditure related to the Strategy. This is also true for the upcoming revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework.

I would also like to address the Member States directly. There is a clear unwillingness in the Council among the Finance Ministers – including my own, Anders Borg from Sweden – to invest in the future. National budgets need to reflect the Council’s stated ambitions, and EU projects need budgets if they are ever to happen. Mark my words, without the money in the right place there will be no growth and jobs strategy, and we risk failure.

I therefore urge the Commission to come forward with more concrete legislative proposals and the Member States to show more commitment. We need binding commitments to reach headline targets and legislation in key job-creating areas, such as energy efficiency targets at a common European level. Existing initiatives, such as the Strategic Energy Technology Plan, the Lifelong Learning Programme and the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, have already been adopted, but you in the Council failed to bring the money to the table. We need financing of these projects. They all have the potential to create jobs and growth.

With our 2020 resolution, the ALDE Group sends a strong message to the Council that the current governance structure is too weak, the method of open coordination has failed and the Community method should be restored. I applaud the huge majority behind the joint resolution. This is a strong message from Parliament that we need action.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, you know that the Greens are strong supporters of a more integrated Europe in order to be able to ensure sustainable development for our citizens, but also in order to ensure the possibility of Europe to mean something on this planet in the 21st century.

– (FR) Our confidence has today been seriously shaken by an act of yours, namely the Annual Growth Survey, because here you have revealed an ideological bias which has nothing to do with the facts of the matter and everything to do with ideological choices.

What exactly is your recommendation? To cut public expenditure! You do not get stable public finances by cutting expenditure. There is no talk of revenues. The aim is also to increase flexibility, to reform, as you will argue, the labour markets – in other words, to clearly create flexisecurity without the security. You will argue that we must take these measures to enable the economy to recover.

However, that is not all. There are also measures for the financial sector. Let us talk about those, because this is a good example of double standards. What do you have to say about the measures on pay and public expenditure? We must strike soon and strike hard. However, when it comes to the financial sector, you say that we have to look at things, examine the impact, and, above all, have transition periods.

In the case of economic governance and budgetary consolidation, you are quick to state: 1 January 2011 –1 January 2012. For the banks, it will be 1 January 2019, just as if no study or transition period were needed to help the labour markets adapt or to put public finances on a stable footing.

Can you tell me what Europe 2020 has to do with all that? This is, after all, the issue but it is not what you are telling me about. Europe 2020, Commissioner, Members of the Council, is rendered absolutely impossible by the recommendations you are making within the Annual Growth Survey.

You are taking us for a ride when you pretend that it is possible to conduct the necessary investment policies in the areas of research, education, poverty reduction, the fight against climate change, and employment by conducting the policies that you are recommending. That is a lie, and in my view this debate is a farce.

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, my group has signed, and will support, this resolution. I am not saying we agree with everything in it, but we endorse the core passage. I want to put this to both Commission and Council and will read out the headline that we have agreed: ‘A bold single market act and small business act to create jobs’.

Now where are the jobs going to come from? They are going to come from private investment enterprise and new business start-ups. We already know that small enterprises have been the main engine of job creation over the last decade. My message to both the Commission and Council today is that all 27 Member States have got to start taking job creation enterprise seriously at the level of the single market. We all believe in the single market and Member States have invested huge amounts of money and resources in opening up the services market, but have they told their businesses about it? Have they promoted the single market? Have they encouraged enterprise? Have they encouraged online trading?

Why do they not get down to doing these practical things to unleash the power of what we already have, alongside all the other projects that my colleagues have talked about? They need to start on that tomorrow, today even, rather than talk about some of the other longer-term projects. They should get down to work!

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Harms mentioned something important yesterday. Hardly anyone on the outside knows any more what strategy, what stability mechanism, which pact is being proposed, supplemented, brought into force or amended by whom and pursuant to what regulations. One thing that is clear is that the Europe 2020 Strategy has not so far provided a solution to the problems experienced by the people during the crisis. Quite the contrary – it continues to pursue the misguided EU policies that were part of the reason for the crisis in the first place. It continues to count on the Stability and Growth Pact. This is now intended to be tightened up and strengthened with better sanction mechanisms.

In practice, this means austerity measures to the detriment of citizens. It means extending working life, in other words pension cuts. Whether the indexation of wages and salaries is now to be abolished or the basis for negotiation between the social partners is to be restricted or the rules governing working hours made more flexible – all of this means wage restraint and cuts. It also means the reduction in the formative state intervention in the economic life of society. In this regard, many people talk about limiting debt. It makes no difference to me if it is called economic governance, the stability and growth policy, the competitiveness pact or a Commission recommendation on the basis of the Annual Growth Survey. This antisocial policy is not something that my group and I can support.

However, it does of course make a difference whether parliaments still have some say with regard to this policy. Yesterday’s debate on the amendment procedure for the Treaty gives reason to hope that the Members of this Parliament are united on one point. We should not allow ourselves to return to the governmental secrecy policy of the 19th century. Nobody wants that. Equally, however, we should not allow ourselves to revert back to a two-speed Europe.

  Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Energy 2020 is a vast programme, but we should ask ourselves if we can achieve the target of 20% renewable energy by the due date, not least because the financial crisis is slowing investment.

There remains one problem: supporting solar energy. Indeed, we subsidise China, now the world’s leading exporter of solar panels, and India, the leading exporter of wind power equipment. Hence the need to support research into the production of solar panels designed and produced in Europe and to promote the adoption of economies of scale in the photovoltaic-solar sector, by introducing such devices, for example, extensively in European cities.

Something very different should have been done: a pan-European energy company should have been set up to safeguard a European public service, given that the distribution networks and their infrastructures already constitute existing, natural monopolies, which should clearly come under the same management.

Instead, due to over-enthusiastic economic liberalism, priority was given to other solutions that certainly do not benefit consumers or users, but the shareholders of these big monopolies. We should remember that the production of CO2 from cars has not dropped for 150 years. We are entitled to wonder if it could be time to dust off research projects into water engines.

  Philip Claeys (NI). - (NL) Mr President, if we are to implement the employment chapter of the Europe 2020 Strategy, it is of the utmost importance that we make adjustments to the immigration policy of most Member States and that of the EU.

As the Commission’s proposal itself states, the priorities include increasing labour market participation, reducing structural unemployment, the development of skilled manpower to meet the needs of the labour market, lifelong learning and so on.

The large-scale importation of workers from outside the European Union bears witness to a short-term vision and is out of kilter with the priorities I have just mentioned. Some 25 million people in the European Union are unemployed. Let us start by helping those people into work first, instead of resorting once again to large-scale immigration.

Bringing skilled workers into Europe, or what we might describe as a brain drain, creates even greater problems in their countries of origin, which only serves to further crank up the immigration of unskilled people into Europe. This is a vicious circle and we need to recognise that no one stands to benefit from this situation in the long term.

It is high time that we made a cost-benefit analysis of immigration from outside the EU. That aspect, too, should be part of the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the Europe 2020 Strategy features objectives which cannot be achieved without attaching suitable importance to areas which are not explicitly mentioned in it. A dynamic and competitive agricultural sector is required in Europe, which can make an effective contribution in terms of boosting sustainable, smart growth that is also conducive to inclusion. Reliable food production, sustainable management of natural resources and maintaining the territorial balance and diversity of rural areas are key elements of an effective common agricultural policy and of a productive agricultural sector.

Industrial policy needs to have an infrastructure. Implementing a single railway area is a vital step towards deregulating rail transport. The completion of the Single European Sky and speedy implementation of the SESAR project are just as important. One of the most important factors is the development of trans-European networks, not only in the transport but also in the energy sector, by allocating sufficient financial resources to value-added projects for Europe. The Nabucco project, for instance, will deliver benefits for all Member States by removing the European Union’s dependency on a single source.

IN THE CHAIR: Rodi KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). – (SV) Madam President, if we are to be able to start over after the economic crisis, it is vital that people have confidence. Richard Wilkinson, the British researcher who has written the book ‘The Spirit Level’ and who visited the European Parliament in Brussels last week, has described it very well: we need equality and we need small gaps in order for us to have societies where security and confidence reign. This can be translated directly into the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Firstly, if we want to succeed, employees and their trade union organisations must be involved and respected. At the moment, however, the crisis is instead being used to attack trade unions, employees and free wage formation and to strike at unemployment benefits and pensions. These attacks must stop.

Secondly, we women in Europe must, of course, have the same opportunities as men. This is not always evident in Parliament’s resolutions, but it needs to be evident in practice.

Thirdly, a strong, modern industry and industrial policy and far-sighted investments, including in infrastructure, must play a central role in our work going forward. The work on climate-smart, resource-efficient processes and products, green energy and green jobs must be stepped up. How else are we going to compete?

Fourthly, we need to have clear support for the energy efficiency policy. We know that we will not meet our current targets because they are not binding. We must have binding targets, because that is vital to enable us to achieve the targets for growth and competitiveness that are the main elements of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The low level of ambition and the lack of political will are astounding, particularly as energy efficiency measures are one of the best and smartest ways to reduce financial costs for consumers, strengthen companies and really make a difference.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). - Madam President, if we want the Europe 2020 Strategy to be a success, then the Employment Guidelines have to be implemented effectively, and national reform programmes put in place and given the priority they actually deserve.

We have to make sure that no one is left behind. Unemployment rates among older people and disabled people are disgracefully high. I am pleased that both texts refer to the need to implement anti-discrimination laws in the workplace so that jobs are open for all.

It is important that the targets we have agreed at EU level are actually achieved. Yes, it is up to Member States to set specific targets and adhere to them, but the European Union has an important role to play in improving the exchange of best practice. That is why I am pleased that paragraph 27 of the committee resolution makes this very clear.

We have had months of introspection and debates about what shape the Europe 2020 Strategy should take, but we have the Employment Guidelines. Now is the time to start delivering on them.

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Madam President, there is a great deal of talk about economic responsibility in Europe these days, and economic responsibility is very often identified by cuts in public expenditure and very rarely by an improvement in the employment situation. I believe that we should ask ourselves what economic responsibility actually means. We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance see a very large discrepancy between the policies pursued in Europe and those pursued in the Member States right now. On the one hand, we can see the Annual Growth Survey, and we can see the European Semester leading to fewer jobs and less growth in Europe. On the other hand, in the Europe 2020 Strategy and in the Employment Guidelines we say that we want to create more and better jobs. There is inconsistency here.

It is a fact that we have 23 million unemployed in Europe. We have 5.5 million unemployed below the age of 25. We have increasing numbers of poor workers. The figures are rising, and the economic policies that we are pursuing are not improving the situation. I believe that, if we want to create new jobs in Europe, it is vital that we truly implement the Europe 2020 Strategy and the guidelines for employment in our economic policies. That would be a demonstration of economic responsibility, but I doubt that it will actually happen.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, poverty, climate change, low birth rates, immigration, energy and, more importantly, combating unemployment are the main problems we face today in the European Union. Addressing them takes money and needs appropriations. However, unfortunately, funding is being cut back throughout Europe. What does this mean? It means that the Europe 2020 Strategy is at risk and will be hard to achieve. However, we must try.

I think that we need to pay particular attention to unemployment, which has risen to a ten-year high. I also think that we need to provide a high standard of education to young people in Europe, in keeping with the needs of the labour market, and that courses should be revised and Member States should commit to reducing the school dropout rate.

Job vacancies need specialised labour. I call on Europe to adopt without delay the proposed European vacancy monitoring system, which will also include a European skills passport. We must succeed. Words are not enough. We need action.

  José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE). - (ES) Madam President, this issue raises a question, just one question: at European level what can we do to give work to those who do not have it?

To respond to that question I want to make clear the first agreed point. There can be no sustainable growth without a stable macroeconomy. Some of the quick solutions that have been proposed here, especially from the leftwing Members, would mean bread for today and hunger for tomorrow.

The second agreed point is that Europe 2020 is a compendium of good intentions, it sounds good, but we have to move from contemplation to action. What are we going to do? How are we going to finance the proposed initiatives and actions? Is the ambition contained in the words of the 2020 Strategy compatible with the budgets cuts that have been announced?

The third agreed point is that we need a complete picture if we are to set ourselves on the right path towards stable growth. To date this picture does not yet exist. What is currently happening in the Economic and Financial Affairs Council shows that among them there are a huge amount of scattered, incoherent and inconsistent ideas.

There are three important actions to be taken. Firstly, stifling countries in difficulties cannot continue, and can be solved by a joint issuing of European bonds. Secondly, the bonds specified in the Monti Report have to be implemented, but they are not mentioned in the Europe 2020 Economic Strategy. Thirdly, we have to use the European Investment Bank’s resources, two thirds of which are the Commission’s, and which would only have to be increased fourfold in 10 years in order to equal the money that the Marshall Plan had for the reconstruction of the European economy.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, the EU has been debating an efficient, cohesive and viable response to the crisis for several months now, a response that will ensure that our strategic objectives of viable growth, protection for employment, social progress and social cohesion will be attained.

However, there are two problems: firstly, the debate on the Europe 2020 Strategy is still cut off, structurally, from the economic governance package, from the European Semester and from the Annual Growth Survey and, as a result, we have either a fragmented strategy or parallel strategies, strategies which run in tandem, without adequate coordination, which thus risk undermining each other.

The second problem is that the Council’s and the Commission’s current emphasis is on tightening up the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and budgetary discipline and reform, with no convincing answers or solutions for the effective implementation and financing of the Europe 2020 Strategy objectives.

I think that there is a risk, as happened with the Lisbon Strategy, that many of our objectives will get no further than the drawing board and I worry that this will happen unless we are able to put persuasive arguments to the people of Europe, who are bearing the brunt of the crisis, who cannot and should not have to follow technical debates on the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact and on indicators and penalties. We must understand that we cannot focus solely on indicators and figures. We must focus on people.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, if you would be so kind as to listen to what I have to say, Commissioner, I have only one minute of speaking time, even though I have a good mind to keep quiet, and to say nothing, since I believe that this Europe 2020 Strategy is very far removed from what we need. You have given us a lot of fine words. Do you really think that guidelines, ‘flagships’ and all manner of things that you dream up and which keep you busy for hours and days at a time will enable you to provide employment and give confidence to the people of Europe? You are wrong. If you look at the state of the world today, I do not think that the Chinese, the Indians or the emerging countries are very impressed with what we are doing about growth.

Therefore, in my capacity as rapporteur on the economic governance package, I am almost inclined to keep quiet in your presence, and I would like to say just one thing to you: in our work, we shall be extremely firm. Do not think that if you Council Members simply tell us to speed up, we will have an agreement in June. We will have an agreement when this Parliament has held debates and when the Council has listened to us. As far as I am concerned, the creation of Eurobonds, which could create a global market backed up by the euro, is part of this package.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). - (NL) Madam President, whenever I hear the word ‘eurobonds’, I always feel a little bit sick, even though it is a word which is frequently bandied about here. Most jobs come from economic growth and a healthy private sector. There is no alternative to that. Governments do not create jobs and are not job creators.

The major problem in Europe is the lack of competitiveness. The difference between Germany and southern Europe is almost 35%. That gap is very large, which is why Mrs Merkel has spoken of a competitiveness pact. I agree with that, in itself. Actually, the Lisbon Process was supposed to be an idea along those lines, but little has come of that.

However, there is one thing I would like to warn you about, and that is the harmonisation of corporation tax. That is a very bad idea. It is also a very French idea, and we must dismiss it, just as we must dismiss the idea of an economic government. It will be a job killer. Last week, a study conducted by the OECD in 21 countries showed, once again, that if we want greater employment in Europe, we need to lower corporation tax. That is the sort of thing we need to be looking into, because this Parliament does not create any jobs.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we are in the midst of a major economic crisis – we have been talking about this for months and everything we have said is true – as a rule, however, we tend to talk in very broad terms and then cheerfully continue to make decisions here as if nothing is happening. I believe this is because here in Parliament we do not act in a specific enough way and we are not honest enough, but rather pursue something resembling a general, headlines policy.

What are we actually doing to promote growth and stability? Are we ourselves actually contributing to a more proper and wiser way of dealing with finances? Are we really carrying out a critical review of whether we are making the right kinds of expenditure, or does every one of us not have a new idea every day about where we could spend more money? If we do not have the strength to focus our financial resources on projects for the future – and that will involve altercations, debates and decisions – then there is no point in talking about innovation and research only to then fail to make the necessary funds available. That is rather dishonest.

If we want to breathe life into the economy, we must also pursue a policy that stimulates the economy and not endlessly sit thinking about how we can interfere with industry or the economy. We cheerfully take more decisions – even today we are constantly calling for new decisions that will interfere with the development of the economy. Does anyone believe that the question of mandatory energy efficiency – to name just one example – will help to drive the economy forward? Do you really believe that, with the decisions we have often made in connection with energy, we have stimulated the economy? Or have we obstructed it? I would like us for once to talk a bit more honestly about this and then to make somewhat fewer decisions, but perhaps ones that will really bring about progress. That will be more challenging and it will take more effort, but it is in the interests of democracy.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, the financial and economic crisis has transformed into becoming a social and employment crisis, which is why it is particularly important that the realisation Europe has come to, namely that tighter coordination is necessary in both economic and employment policy, is actually implemented. This also means that all countries that introduce structural reforms or changes in fiscal policy or, for example, review the Sunday opening hours of shops, must also examine whether such measures facilitate the development of the employment system and contribute to increasing the employment rate.

It is also crucial in all decisions to consult with social partners. The European Semester will be the first real test to this realisation, when Europe together, led by the Hungarian Presidency, will be able to assess for the first time the degree to which these directives can be transposed, and whether we will be able to embark on the path of implementation. I believe that the Hungarian Presidency and the Hungarian Government has a special role in this, not only in its position of presidency, but also in leading by example, in taking this into account in all economic policy changes and all employment policy decisions, and in providing an example to the other countries.

(The Member agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, I am under the impression that Mrs Göncz has a very good understanding of this whole issue, that is, how the European Union intends to put an end to unemployment. I have been sitting through this whole debate here and still do not understand it any better. Please help me answer this question: what are we supposed to tell the people in Borsod or Szabolcs County? Where and when will they find work? And I expect an answer to the very same question, from Mr Martonyi, by the way, who is here representing the Council, as well as from the Commissioner, who is fortunately also of Hungarian nationality. Where will the Hungarian people and, for that matter, people in other regions of Europe that are in a catastrophic situation, find work? Where and when? I expect a concrete answer.

  President. – We need to be consistent in our exercise of the right to ask a blue-card question. A blue-card question is not addressed to plenary in general or to the Commissioner or the Council representative. It is addressed to a colleague expounding a matter on which you would like to ask for clarification.

Mrs Morvai, that was not the spirit of your question.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, I would be happy to answer, but obviously our time is too short to discuss this in too much detail. However, what I had in mind was, for example, that if there is a change in the tax system, does that tax change reduce social differences; does it help companies continue development and job creation, or does it instead urge them to hold back on their intentions of creating jobs? What I was referring to is that if we are speaking of a restructuring of the educational system, is it really in the service of social integration? If we are speaking of further education, does it really prepare people for the market; for the labour market? This is what I was specifically referring to.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). - (FI) Madam President, our fellow Member on the right insisted that policy only interferes with the economy and that people in this House only do things that interfere with policy. Does my fellow Member really think that economic governance, for example, only interferes with the economy?

(The speaker puts the question to Mr Reul by raising a blue card under Rule 149(8) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) If you take a look at the measures that have been adopted here in the last few months and calculate the costs that have resulted from these, they have – not always, but very often – contributed to the disruption of economic development. Thus, we need to be more careful in our considerations. The idea presented by the Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship in his industry communications, that we should always gauge future decisions by whether they will serve or damage the competitiveness of European industry, is therefore a very wise one.

  Richard Seeber (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, it is clear to everyone here in this Chamber that the closer Europe grows together, the closer the agreement on issues relating to economic policy needs to be. Therefore, an instrument like the European Semester makes sense. However, it must stop at interfering in tasks that have traditionally been the job of the social partners, such as wage negotiations and negotiating collective agreements. We really must exercise restraint in this regard. It does not make any sense for Europe to decide how high wages should be in the individual countries. We ought to concentrate more on eliminating market obstacles in order to allow the European economy to flourish. This relates to oligopolies and monopolies, but also to barriers to market access. It should also not be the case that various sectors are assured of particular profit margins. More competition is needed here to enable the European economy to develop its potential.

It must also be the task of the European Union to bring our infrastructure up to the state of the art. I am talking here about energy, transport and communications. Europe ought to have the necessary resources in this regard, in particular so that we can eliminate the existing bottlenecks between Member States. We also need to consider what resources we can make available to Europe. This includes a clear basis for our own resources. Therefore, I would make a clear appeal to the Council and the Member States at long last to give Europe the resources it needs.

Clearly this also concerns education, as well as the area of research and development, where, as Europe, we have a part to play. However, the question of money is crucial here, too.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Europe 2020 Strategy is very important, not only for the development of European social and economic policy, but also for national social and economic policy. We must take care to ensure that this strategy is not misused at European level to pursue a social clearance policy in the Member States. I am extremely shocked that, in its Annual Growth Survey, the Commission is proposing pay cuts and a reduction in social protection. Some previous speakers have already talked about this. The impact on the people locally will be disastrous. It is unacceptable for the people, the workers, to bear the costs of budgetary consolidation alone.

I, too, would like to appeal to the Member States to be guided only by the integrated guidelines when they draw up their national reform programmes, as these enable a much better balance between social protection and economic growth. The Annual Growth Survey once again mentions open-ended contracts, which were previously mentioned in the Agenda for New Skills for New Jobs. Mr Andor, we debated this once before in November 2010: young people cannot be integrated into the labour market by watering down employee rights. Experience in Europe has shown that this watering down simply results in a shift to precarious working conditions and does not create new jobs. We need specific measures in order to help those people who are most at risk and not flagship initiatives that operate alongside each other rather than being integrated with one another.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). - Madam President, my reading of the reality of today and of tomorrow is that European jobs will be sustainable only if they are underpinned by a competitive economy, and it is no secret that this not one of our strong points.

To be successful on competitiveness in Europe, we need an institutionalised competitiveness process. We have to identify success factors and we also have to see how to tailor them to the situation. We already have a large number of instruments – competitiveness-related instruments – indeed, with a little bit of political will, we can use a substantial part of the institutional framework to launch a Commission-led competitiveness process based on the Community system.

I am referring here to the European Semester, the growth survey that has already been mentioned. I could also mention imbalances and precision – especially in the scoreboard, which should include structural competitiveness-related factors. There is also the 2020 Strategy, which should be vigorously implemented now and not after 2013. All policies should contribute to improving the competitiveness of the European economy: we need all hands on deck and decoupling Europe’s core from the rest of it would simply generate a divided Europe. Sustainable jobs can only be created if Europe sticks together.

A divided Europe will not be a competitive Europe.

  Csaba Őry (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak, both as the rapporteur for the 2010 Employment Guidelines and as the coordinator of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). I welcome the Commission’s proposal, which intends to maintain the 2010 Employment Guidelines in 2011. We are in agreement with this and we support this. However, the Treaty of Lisbon requires annual guidelines, and we must therefore indeed track and monitor the changes, maintain contact between each other, between the Commission, the Council and Parliament, and must, of course, still make modifications if necessary.

I therefore recommend that, during the review of the 2020 Strategy and during the work under the European Semester, the Integrated Economic and Employment Guidelines be used as a guide of sorts, and if there are any differences, we should take the trouble and make amendments. Problems might very well arise. I recently learned that, in the preliminary National Reform Programmes, there has already been a certain slippage in respect of employment commitments, and instead of the 75% target we are looking at commitments of around 72%. This obviously needs re-thinking in order to avoid a similar case to that of the Lisbon Strategy, where we undertook too much and then managed to implement little. Still, I would advise that some basic principles be laid down.

I agree on the issue of pensions and wages. There should be no intervention, subsidiarity should be respected, and specific national commitments are required with regard to special groups, young people, people with disabilities and people with multiple disadvantages.

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

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, I am once again compelled to ask a fellow Hungarian Member a question. Does subsidiarity with regard to pensions and wages mean that the pensions and wages of pensioners and employees in Hungary and other post-communist countries will consistently, continuously and permanently be a fraction of those in Western Europe? Because it would be very sad if we were to understand it as such. This is the case at the moment. Nurses make 70 000 forints a month, and teachers make 90 000; pensioners have basic subsistence difficulties. How are we to understand this?

  Csaba Őry (PPE). – (HU) No, Mrs Morvai, this is not how it is to be understood, but the issue of pensions essentially depends on economic performance. It depends on what we are able to produce, and it is this on the basis of which we can provide appropriate pensions. As such, the strategy we are discussing, the one that intends to make Europe competitive, functional and successful, is what gives us the possibility to increase pensions even in countries that are currently still in a less advantageous situation. However, uniform rules cannot be introduced, as there are enormous differences at the moment. Obviously, a gradual approach will be needed in the future as well.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, as part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, these Employment Guidelines must address three major challenges.

The first is to emerge from the crisis through research, innovation and competitiveness so as to ensure a true economic recovery that will enable us to achieve this social recovery. The second is to replace a whole generation of wage-earners who are now retiring. The third is to be competitive in a globalised economy by freeing companies from a number of tax burdens which hamper them and weigh them down.

Against this background, we must target three particularly vulnerable groups in society.

Firstly, young people, and it is absolutely vital that we fight to prevent these young people from leaving school with no qualifications, as this will exclude them permanently from the world of work. Young people because we must facilitate their entry into the world of work, and not only on temporary contracts or work experience placements; we must fight against youth unemployment. This is a long-term problem which has a considerable impact in the current climate where the crisis that has hit them harder. The second target group in society is women, women who fall victim to temporary contracts and who are underpaid. The third target group is senior citizens whom we must be able to keep in work. We have European tools to help us achieve this, notably the European Social Fund, and I believe that we must rely on this lever.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, almost a year has passed since the Commission presented the Europe 2020 Strategy. It has not been an easy time for Europe. The Member States are still struggling to cope with the aftermath of the crisis. Measures to implement the new strategy have been put on the back burner. The ambitious Europe 2020 plans, which include an increase in employment levels to 85%, a 20% reduction in the number of people at risk of poverty and an increase in research spending to 3% appear to be under threat already, less than a year after implementation of the strategy began. Unemployment currently stands at 10% in the EU, and there are still no signs of it dropping significantly. In fact the opposite is true; if we assume that Europe continues to exit the crisis at the current slow rate, unemployment will rise even further for at least the next few years. Low levels of employment create favourable conditions for the spread of poverty and social marginalisation, as confirmed by the Eurobarometer report of June 2010.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - (ES) Madam President, looking towards 2020 and beyond, the EU runs the real systemic risk of losing its ability to compete due to the existence of large economic sectors which are increasingly more technological and powerful.

We need the capacity to compete: to compete in order to grow, to grow in order to create employment and to create employment in order to protect and safeguard our social model.

The only indispensible commodity we have is knowledge and we must use that knowledge to innovate, to adapt to changes and, above all, to lead in those changes.

Therefore, we need to invest much more in universities, in our education system and our research and development in order to be a power in the area in which we can be: knowledge.

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). - (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, the aims of Europe 2020 are good and ambitious. In my speech I would mainly like to focus on what the practical factors are, what the tools are, for taking these aims to grassroots level, which we failed to do with the Lisbon Strategy, for example.

Firstly, we really need Europe as a whole. We need the regions of Europe. We have to be able to identify each region’s success factors and skills potential. We can largely respond to this need through cohesion policy. For us to be able to create more jobs, innovative activity, and, in particular, practice­based innovation, we need a cohesion policy that covers the whole of Europe to implement these targets in the regions. We also obviously need research and development policy and funding for that sector, but I believe the core issue is effective cohesion policy.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, it is unacceptable that social problems continue to be the poor relation of EU policy, as is the systematic devaluation of the social consequences of budgetary, financial and competition policies that insist on neoliberal dogmas, indifferent to the almost 25 million people unemployed, the almost 30 million people working precarious and poorly paid jobs, and the more than 85 million people living in poverty, while the profits of economic and financial interest groups never stop rising.

Madam President, I would therefore relay here the cries of indignation expressed by various social organisations during the Citizens’ Agora held recently by the European Parliament in Brussels. This is the reason for the indignation among millions of workers, unemployed, women and young people who continue to fight against such policies throughout Europe.

It is time to break with the Stability and Growth Pact, the competitiveness pact and other pacts of this kind. People and workers must be respected.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree that Parliament must be allowed sufficient time so as to be able to propose the best employment policy guidelines for 2020. During a time of crisis such as the one we are experiencing at the moment in Europe, we cannot disregard the needs of our people. It is essential to provide aid to families, to young people seeking employment, and to those who find themselves out of work during their career.

Europe must have the courage to make choices, guaranteeing work first to its own citizens and then to those of third countries, and establishing links between employment offices in the various Member States so that anyone, from any country, can know what jobs are available.

Particular attention should be paid to border protection so as to prevent an uncontrolled invasion by the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are about to flood into our countries as a result of the political situation in North Africa. The integration of third-country nationals should be permitted only through controlled immigration and should be limited to the actual availability of jobs, thus preventing tension and discrimination from occurring at the expense of economic growth and social welfare.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, expectations in relation to the strategy are widely divergent. While some people are certain that this is all just hot air and that the strategy is not worth the paper it is written on, we see very dramatic and real scenarios that we will have to face – I am thinking about measures to increase the flexibility of the labour markets. These are bringing hoards of poorly qualified, cheap workers to Central Europe, and the result is wage dumping.

The goal formulated in the strategy for 40% of the younger generation to have a higher education qualification seems particularly naïve. I would like to know what the point of that is. We already have a situation – I am thinking of Italy – where there are hardly any appropriate jobs for young academics, who have to keep their heads above water by taking low-paid jobs. Why do we actually need such a high number of academics when there are no suitable jobs for them? It is true that we need higher qualifications, but we will not achieve that simply by hanging a university degree around the necks of 40% of the population. That is not the right way to go.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, I should like to mention that, at a time when there is a severe sovereign and financial debt crisis, it is crucial to commit to economic development through growth and growth strategies and, not least, to have an employment policy in place. I believe that, by having an employment policy, we shall not only resolve an economic problem but also a social one. I should therefore like to send out a message to a specific category of workers that must be taken into account in the Europe 2020 Strategy.

There has been talk of young people, a lot of which took place just this morning. However, there is a category of workers – a crucial generational category of workers – comprising those who are over the age of 50 and therefore close to retirement. Should we wish to raise the retirement age and create a more active society, we must adopt a strategy for workers in precarious jobs and for workers over the age of 50 who are experiencing difficulties.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, the Europe 2020 Strategy must pave the way for a new model of economic growth in Europe by promoting structural reforms coordinated at Member State level. I think that these reforms are essential for every Member State, given the high level of youth unemployment. At the same time, we must support small and medium-sized enterprises in leveraging their full potential with the aim of creating new jobs. The inclusion on the European Union’s list of objectives of economic growth, the social objective and the fight against poverty is also important for Europe because achieving them will help safeguard the European Union’s economic independence.

Last but not least, I believe that the Europe 2020 Strategy must be accessible to Europe’s citizens as they must understand the responsibilities which fall on all the actors involved in implementing this strategy, such as national, local and regional authorities, whose efforts are also supplemented by the contribution from European citizens.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the Employment Guidelines are and should be treated as a fundamental tool in the process of economic governance as expressed in the concept of the European Semester. These guidelines represent a foundation upon which the Member States’ National Reform Programmes are currently being constructed, and it is after all these programmes which will determine the success of the Europe 2020 Strategy. According to the schedule, work on the National Reform Programmes will be completed in April. I would like to stress the importance of involving both national parliaments and regional and local authorities in work on the National Reform Programmes, and in this respect I would also like to make reference to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions. Making changes to the guidelines at this stage could disrupt the process. I would like to draw attention to the need for an integrated horizontal approach to the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy. I would therefore also like to reiterate the significance of the cohesion policy instruments for the Europe 2020 Strategy.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the four guidelines of the Council on employment policy should also remain in force in 2011. The guidelines relating to improving qualifications would probably end up being implemented through the principle of supply and demand, even without state intervention.

Increasing the employment of women does require such intervention, but before we proceed to that, Member States should recognise the work of women as mothers looking after their children, and the benefit this brings to gross domestic product. Let us not give work to those who already have enough of it.

The state should therefore focus on combating poverty and social exclusion, as few people can escape the poverty gap by themselves.

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur. − (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, perhaps you could tell President Barroso that we would have liked him to have taken part in this debate as it is the first debate on the issues at stake in the Annual Growth Survey, the cornerstone of this European Semester that he so very much wanted and which he believes is a key element in getting the European Union out of the crisis.

Perhaps you could also tell him that, under these conditions, the European Parliament will not be an easy partner and that the economic governance package needs the Commission to pay greater attention to what emerges from this Parliament.

Finally, you could also tell him that the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, of the entire Treaty of Lisbon, and particularly of Article 9, which requires you to make social issues a horizontal issue, will not go unheeded by this Parliament. We are waiting for the Treaty of Lisbon to be applied in full. We are constantly being told that a minimum revision of the Treaty is needed and that its potential must be fully exploited. As far as the potential of Article 9 is concerned, we sometimes get the impression that the Annual Growth Survey completely ignores it.

Finally, I should like to tell you what has struck me at the end of the debate. We sometimes get the impression that, even after this crisis, people at the European Commission continue to think along ‘old lines’, believing that the most important thing is to reform the labour market. We are well aware that, according to the dominant way of thinking in the European Commission – one that you undoubtedly do not subscribe to – to talk about labour market reforms is to talk about flexibility – not about flexicurity, but about flexibility.

However, the last 10 years, even before the crisis, have taught us that this mindset – the belief that growth is all it takes to create employment – is no longer enough. The real challenge we face is that of employment, whether our own employment or that of the countries around us.

However, when I see the debate getting under way on the subject of competitiveness, I see a debate that overlooks this priority for employment, and that worries me.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank Members for this very substantial, inspirational and stimulating discussion. I would like to answer all the major points that have been raised as questions or comments and observations concerning the annual growth survey, the Economic Semester and Europe 2020 in general.

The most important thing is that we get the picture right, both about the documents and also about the economic situation in the European Union. The inconvenient truth is that Europe is experiencing a recovery. Last year we already had economic growth in the European Union – but not in every Member State – and that is where the second part of the inconvenient truth comes. We are experiencing a very fragile and divided recovery. The Commission has looked at this situation very thoroughly and developed policies accordingly.

We need to maintain and strengthen the recovery, and we have to address the current division. This will not, however, be possible without addressing the weaknesses that have been exposed by the crisis in economic and monetary union, which we will do by developing further the architecture of economic and monetary governance in the European Union. That is where the complications begin and where it may be true that the priorities are not always immediately recognised by everyone.

For us, economic growth is the priority and all other policies in this phase serve this. We need to strengthen growth and make it more robust, but in order to do this we need a greater level of financial stability, and for that we also need fiscal consolidation. It is inevitable that, in the coming years, fiscal consolidation will remain on the agenda in the interests of stabilisation and of being consistent with the kinds of cyclical intervention which the Member States implemented against the recession in previous years.

We need a smart consolidation which does not undermine demand in the economy and which preserves the integrity of the EU economy as a whole. This lesson has to be learned. This must begin by stabilising the euro. I could obviously use stronger expressions here, but let us just stick to this one. We need to stabilise the euro and economic and monetary union. The lesson we share is that, in order to do that, we need to strengthen the economic leg of this Union and the economic leg of policy coordination at European level.

Let me just ask a question and leave it as a question on this. The question is whether the strengthening of the economic leg of governance can succeed without a collective effort on wages, on coordinating wage developments in the European Union. When I say that, and when we include suggestions in this area in the annual growth survey, it does not mean that we would question the importance of the social dialogue – quite the contrary. We have praised countries with a tradition and culture of strong social partnership. We recognise that they suffered less from the crisis and, in particular, suffered fewer losses in terms of human resources. Unemployment remained lower in these countries. We advocate the strengthening of social dialogue in other Member States which have suffered more and which responded to the crisis with less flexibility than countries like Germany, the Netherlands or Austria.

We have also increased the level of social dialogue at European level. We recently held macroeconomic dialogue with the social partners and we will have a new tripartite social forum in March in order to enhance coordination and dialogue with the social partners.

I would like to reject very categorically the notion that the Commission is doing business as usual. In the last year the Commission has introduced a number of qualitatively new initiatives. We are pursuing a robust agenda for Financial Regulation. Commissioner Barnier’s work should not be underestimated.

As part of Europe 2020, we outlined a new concept for industrial policy at European level which does much more for competitiveness and the sustainability of jobs in the European Union. We are pursuing a number of innovative approaches to boost investment and to find funding for it. A group of Commissioners has been working to develop innovative financial instruments. The first example of this is going to be an outline for supporting developing energy networks in Europe. This is absolutely necessary in order to develop the energy markets and the necessary infrastructure that is vital for it.

We have launched the microfinance facility. I am grateful to Parliament and the Council for the final consensus that made this possible last year. Just last week I was present in the Netherlands at the launch of the first EU-supported microfinance facility and there are more in the pipeline in order to support potential entrepreneurs, perhaps after the experience of being unemployed: women coming back to the labour market after childbirth or people who have already been working and want to seek a new form of enterprise beyond 50, or even 60.

When we discuss employment policies – and a good example of this was a couple of weeks ago when the EPSCO Council was hosted by the Hungarian Presidency in Gödöllő – we focus on how to generate job-rich goals, but also on the groups in most difficulty. In this case I must mention in particular young people.

Youth unemployment is very dramatic in some Member States. Again we have to be aware of diversity. Luckily, there are some Member States where youth unemployment is low, but the European average is too high. In some Member States, like Spain and the Baltics, it is at a tragic level. The governments have been alerted and a complex set of policies, from education to employment services and other types of measures, is required. But youth is not the only problem group. It is true that we have to do more with regard to the employment of older workers. That is why we designated 2012 the European Year for Active Ageing.

On the institutional questions concerning the Employment Guidelines – which I believe continue to be our focus and provide guidance and substance – there is a clear role for the European Parliament under Article 148 of the Treaty. The Employment Guidelines are to be renewed. This is confirmation that we want them to continue until 2014; they should neither be subject to major changes nor overruled by annual growth surveys. The guidelines provide long-term orientation, while the growth survey is an annual exercise that concerns its substance. But it is obviously true that the NRP exercise is crucial and that the Commission is pursuing it very seriously in the context of Europe 2020. Parliament will be involved in the discussions in various ways. I should refer here to the multiannual financial framework negotiations. The EU budget also has to reflect 2020 priorities and we will keep Parliament informed about the preparation of the national reform programme as the country-specific recommendations develop.

It is clear that there is concern at this early stage about the future of Europe 2020. In a way, a spectre is haunting Europe 2020: that of the Lisbon Strategy. I have had many opportunities in this House to discuss why we believe there is a much better chance, through a more focused system of targets and also a more focused system of reporting and implementation, of success with Europe 2020.

Only the Commission can ensure that there is consistency between these initiatives. We have a number of balls in the air and we have to make sure that none of them falls while conducting economic policies: Europe 2020, economic governance, the single market and cohesion policy. None of them must be damaged in this exercise. All of them need to be pursued in a very robust way, ensuring that all 27 Member States are involved. The Commission is obviously against the concept of a two-speed Europe. We have to ensure that the divided recovery which we are experiencing does not turn into political divisions in the coming period.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, first and foremost I would like to thank you all for the very constructive and useful debate. I also would like to extend my special thanks to Mrs Perez for her excellent report and the very important observations and criticisms that she made.

We may have a different reading of the reality, as referred to by Mrs Danuta Hübner, both for a crisis and for the recovery, but I believe that we all agree on one point, and that is that nobody is interested in a jobless recovery. We are all striving for a balance between fiscal consolidation and growth and job creation. Indeed, fiscal discipline and the raising of employment levels should go hand in hand.

On a more general note, on economic issues, we all know that now we have a comprehensive approach, a comprehensive ‘package’ or ‘Gesamtpaket’, as some people say, most of the elements of which have just been referred to by Commissioner Andor. As far as the Presidency is concerned, I would just like to underline again that we have to focus upon two of all the elements of the package. One is certainly the implementation and the application of the European Semester. This is the first time, it is the first exercise. It will have a major impact on the subsequent development of the whole European integration process.

Just to mention two things briefly. One is that we have a very tight schedule, so the deadlines must be respected by all, and the headline targets will have to be achieved. We have to make all possible efforts to ensure that the overall deadlines are met through the contributions of the individual Member States, in the fields both of employment and innovation, and of energy.

Let me just mention, about energy, that there was a very successful meeting of the European Council on 4 February. For many of us it represented a kind of breakthrough, both for the establishment of the integrated energy market and for energy efficiency. Important decisions were also made with respect to the external aspects of the common energy policy.

Last but not least, I would just like to mention the fight against poverty, the fight for social inclusion. In this respect, I would like to congratulate you on the resolution you have just adopted on Roma integration. I would like to extend my very special congratulations and thanks to Lívia Járóka, who played a decisive role in the preparation of the report, and also in the adoption of this extremely important resolution, which will be very helpful for us when we work on and finalise the European framework strategy for Roma integration.

The other element we want to concentrate upon is the six legislative texts. Here I would like to assure Sylvie Goulard that we do not only want to listen to Parliament. We indeed would like to have, and we have to make, an agreement with Parliament under the terms of the ordinary legislative process. We will have to do everything possible so that this process is accelerated and can be successfully concluded by the end of the Hungarian Presidency.

I do not want to get into the other elements of the comprehensive package. I would just like to underline one thing. The Council wants to fully respect the Community method. We have no reservations whatsoever in this regard. As we said many times before, the Treaty of Lisbon changed many things. There were major shifts in competences. We all know about them. But the Treaty of Lisbon did not change the heart of the European architecture and this is the Community method. We will strictly abide by that. Of course, we always have to be in line with the Treaty. I would just like to refer to the fact that if you read carefully the conclusions of the European Council of 4 February, you will find there that everything must be in line with the Treaty.

Now my last remark is very short. It is about the money. As was pointed out by Lena Ek, policies need money and policies need financing. I could not agree more. But we know very well that there are divergences in the approaches of the Member States. At this point in time I would just like to underline one thing from the point of view of the Presidency: we warmly suggest that first we discuss the substance and thereafter discuss the figures and the monies and the resources. There will be a long debate. We will have very useful orientation debates on cohesion policy, on energy policy, on agriculture and so on, but, as is said sometimes,

(FR) You should not put the cart before the horse.

So, all in all, we would really like to help all these debates and then come to the real debate, the final debate about the resources. Again, I would like to congratulate you all and thank you very much for the guidance we have received.

  President. – I have received six motions for resolutions in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure on Europe 2020 and one motion for a resolution in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure on the employment policies of the Member States⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12:00 tomorrow, Thursday, 17 February.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, the Minister quite rightly referred to respect for the Treaty, and he pointed out that there had been a meeting of the European Council on 4 February. Pursuant to Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, I would like to know when the President of the European Council will come and give an account of the European Council of 4 February to the European Parliament, because I do not believe he is coming to this part-session.

  President. – (FR) We have taken note of your point. Thank you very much.

Written Statements (Rule 149)

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I reaffirm the importance of developing as soon as possible all the technical aspects for the ‘Youth on the Move’ initiative. It is crucial that the more than 100 million young people in the European Union have the necessary resources and appropriate tools to enable them to make their contribution to achieving the targets set for 2020. I welcome that the lifelong learning scheme and the inclusion of young people in such a scheme are basically coordinated to promote smart, sustainable growth and ensure a healthy life for the adults of the future.

The provision of high-quality higher education and support for the involvement of young people in research and development activities can ensure the success of the effort to boost economic competitiveness. New activities can be developed, bearing in mind the creative potential offered by young people. Furthermore, I think that offering employment opportunities, in addition to high-quality training, can provide much greater chances for integration on the labour market. Therefore, we need to have the technical details of this initiative as soon as possible to be able to launch the activities required to take full advantage of this year, which is the European Year of Volunteering.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The quality of human capital is of decisive importance for the success of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The principle of gender mainstreaming is key to the professional education and training system. It is an essential requirement if women are to benefit from long-term professional development which is adapted to labour market demands, if better use is to be made of their potential and if employment levels among women are to rise, particularly in traditionally male professions, low carbon sectors of the economy and senior decision-making positions. I would call for professional education and training to be adapted to women’s needs, and for more women to participate in such education and training. At present, it does not take account of the different needs of women and their economic and social conditions. This means that women find it much harder than men to return to work or enter the labour market.

If it is to function effectively, the professional education and training system for women must be comprehensive, or in other words it must encompass experience, life stage and women’s multi-dimensional needs as regards education, including the specific needs of disabled women, elderly women, women living in poverty and female immigrants, for example. Flexible, affordable access to high-quality training should be a priority. A significant role should also be played by incentives for employers, which would facilitate the organisation of training courses for women working in small and medium-sized enterprises and at home. In order to achieve the aims of the Europe 2020 Strategy, it will be necessary to link professional training more closely to the demands of the labour market, in order to create new training opportunities for women in the fields of science, mathematics and technology.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – The Europe 2020 Strategy should help Europe recover from the crisis and come out stronger, through jobs and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth based on five EU headline targets as regards promoting employment. A strong social protection system, investment in active labour market policies and education and training opportunities for all are essential to reduce unemployment and prevent long term exclusion. The flexicurity is not applicable in Member States with low possibilities of strengthening social protection systems due to budget restrictions and macroeconomic imbalances, as in Romania, and I consider that reducing labour market segmentation has to be achieved by providing adequate security for workers under all forms of contracts. Any labour market reforms must be introduced by reaching a high degree of social consensus through agreements with the social partners at national and EU level. A legislative agenda is essential to eradicate the existing pay gap between women and men by 1% every year in order to achieve the target of 10% reduction by 2020. The Europe 2020 Strategy should include a target of reducing poverty amongst women in the EU as 17 % of the women are classed as living in poverty, mostly single mothers, immigrants and older women.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Europe 2020 Strategy must be supported by the 2014-2020 financial framework. Transport, energy and communications form the backbone of the European economy. Investments in these areas will create jobs and ensure economic and social development. The Union’s industrial policy is a key element of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Industrial growth and job creation across the EU will ensure that the European Union is globally competitive.

In recent decades industrial production has relocated to third countries with low production costs, as a result of European companies being in hot pursuit of profits, and at the cost of job losses in the EU. A strong cohesion policy, which is financed appropriately and covers every European region, must be a supplementary key element in the Europe 2020 Strategy. This horizontal approach is a prerequisite for successfully achieving the targets proposed within the Europe 2020 framework, as well as for achieving social, economic and territorial cohesion. One example of this is the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, which will contribute to its prosperity, economic and social development, as well as ensure security in the region. Given that European citizens’ main concern is still linked to job security, I think that the Europe 2020 Strategy will only succeed if social Europe becomes a reality.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The Europe 2020 Strategy is ambitious, particularly in the field of employment, and the implementation of the Employment Guidelines is a factor in its achievement. Its objectives are fundamental, especially when it comes to enabling us to fund pensions and construct a European social model based on well-being. The elements that could constitute the foundations of this social model have been brought into question by Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy’s proposals. Indeed, the proposals contained in the competitiveness pact include the abolition of the automatic indexing of wages to inflation. The argument is that such a move would increase competitiveness and consequently employment. There is nothing to show that this will automatically be the case. The abolition of automatic indexing could even cause, in certain circumstances, developments which increase inflation, something that nobody wants. There are still many other means by which to strive to create employment, such as strategic investment or training in sectors of the future. The indexing of pay and social benefits is an instrument which some countries have embraced in order to reduce the risk of poverty among workers, which is a growing phenomenon in Europe. This provides an opportunity, therefore, to meet another objective of the Union for 2020: 20 million fewer poor.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Europe 2020 Strategy is revealing its true agenda. The last European Council confirmed it. It is driven by greater liberalisation; moving the market into new areas; labour market flexibility; and unrivalled attacks on wages and social rights. The instruments for implementing this agenda have been set out: so-called ‘economic governance’ and the recent Franco-German ‘competitiveness pact’. In practice, they want what the European Union and the International Monetary Fund are applying in various Member States under the umbrella of the ‘assistance plans’, as they are perversely known, with catastrophic consequences in economic and social terms, to be more widespread and imposed as a rule. The implementation of the proposed measures conceals the real causes of the difficult economic and social situation in countries like Portugal. Worse still, it would have particularly serious consequences for these countries and for the living conditions of their citizens. We are facing an extremely serious threat to the rights of European workers and citizens, which is bordering on a revanchist crusade against employment and social rights. It seeks to degrade these rights by attacking wages, raising the retirement age and removing restrictions on the free movement of workers within the EU. This could lead to the devaluation of the EU labour force and even greater flexibility in terms of employment laws.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) One year has passed since the new Europe 2020 Strategy was adopted, and the time has come to draw the first conclusions. The strategy was greeted with some scepticism, which was reasonable considering the complete failure of the Lisbon Strategy. Many commentators forecast that it too would remain nothing more than an empty document, full of goals that were as noble as they were unrealistic. There can be no one among us who has forgotten the fundamental goal of the Lisbon Strategy, namely that by 2010 the Union would become the most competitive economy in the world. Where are we now? The great economic crisis and budgetary crises in the euro area have forced the Union to fight for survival, rather than for a position as a global economic leader.

Is the Europe 2020 Strategy also doomed to failure? There is good reason to believe so. Instead of thinking about how to create a knowledge- and innovation-based economy, or how to reduce social exclusion, we are discussing the extent to which funding will be limited in the Community budget. It is becoming increasingly evident that there is a lack of political will actually to address the strategy proposed by the Commission. It seems that once again the problem of a long-term vision for the Union’s development has been obscured by current problems. In order to enable the Community to retain its place in the global economy, to compete not only with the US and China, but also Brazil and India, it has to set long-term goals for itself and work towards them consistently. We already have a plan; now we just need to ensure that it is implemented consistently.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The Europe 2020 Strategy not only pointed beyond the Lisbon Strategy at the time of its formulation, but had to be expressly adjusted to the new period of crisis; what is more, it now also has to reflect upon the period of economic governance and the rescue of the euro. The new Member States must also make sure that they maintain sufficient freedom of movement and competitiveness in order to resolve the deepening structural and employment problems they have retained after the Eastern European changes of regime. Wrong decisions and serious governmental negligence in the past also require us to pay attention to the situation of families: the labour market does not only consist of employers and employees, but also of multi-generation families maintaining more or less close relations. These not only represent the foundation of society but also the key to its future. Closer cooperation between generations could in itself give a considerable boost to employment (e.g. employment of young mothers, support to people with disabilities in finding work, maintaining the activity of the elderly, even in the civil sector), and common planning (e.g. housing situation) could also help avoid individual and family debt crises and bankruptcies, which are sufficient to force families into the grey economy due to high repayment instalments. This previous way is no longer feasible. New approaches will also be required, as the old formulas are no longer sufficient, and the European Union, too, must come to realise this. The EU must also support solutions which may seem unconventional at the moment.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – The Europe 2020 Strategy is one of the most important projects we've created, yet, there is no guarantee of its success. We should include gender equality in all targets, flagship initiatives and national reforms – and women should be considered in all policy areas. The open method of coordination is a weak means to carry out common goals, therefore results will only come if there is real commitment!

The Europe 2020 Strategy's employment targets call for an increase in women's employment. This, the reconciliation of work and family life and the elimination of gender stereotypes in the labour market are a must. We need to involve more women in vocational training, the sciences and educational fields that have been until now considered as 'masculine'. We have to end the gender-based segregation of the labour market, especially when it comes to the new green jobs.

Fully including women to the labour market is a way to put an end to the demographic crisis. If we provide secure and decent work, the means to reconcile work and family life and if we manage to include men more intensively in household duties, then all studies show that women would be more willing to bear children.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – The Euro 2020 Strategy is about economic growth and employment. We must remember that a smart energy system is the future both in terms of the environment and these jobs. Such a system would allow us to decouple economic growth from energy consumption. If this will be the case, we will be able to produce more for the same or less energy consumption and create thousands of jobs which can not be outsourced. We have to make sure that smart energy does not remain a dream. We are building today a whole new energy infrastructure in Europe. We have to ensure this lessens the divide between Western and Central Europe in terms of sustainable jobs. A two-speed Europe on energy will not solve energy poverty or inefficiency. We should give a helping hand to those regions which are behind, even if it is not easy in today’s economic realities. We need a smart energy system for all European citizens at the same time. We must prevent a piecemeal system where some citizens only see the future 50 years after the others. Simply put, we need smart energy jobs for all Europeans, not just for those who would have received them even without Europe.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Straight away after the entry of Latvia to the EU, the Latvian government decided that for the allocation of resources from EU funds it was enough to declare Latvia to be one region. (Poland is divided into 16 regions).

As a result, one of the 4 regions of Latvia – Latgale – remains one of the most unprotected. Application of funds in Latgale is many times less efficient than in Latvia as a whole. This situation is reflected on the labour market of Latgale. While the unemployment rate in the capital city of Latvia (Riga) is 8-9%, in Latgale it is 20-25%. European employment programs are inaccessible to the population of such towns as Livani, Preili, Kraslava, Ludza, Aglona and Dagda.

Instead of solving the issue of organisation and stimulation of production in Latgale, the Latvian government is continuously increasing taxes, which leads to widespread bankruptcy of small and medium-sized companies. To avoid social tension the inhabitants of Latgale are given LVL 100 per month as a sop.

The common policy of the Latvian government has resulted in the emigration of more than 150 000 workers. I appeal to the European Commission for urgent intervention in the situation. It is necessary to work out an Employment Framework for outlying regions of the EU such as Latgale.

IN THE CHAIR: Gianni PITTELLA
Vice-President

  President. − The next item is the vote.

(For the results of the vote: see Minutes)

(1) See Minutes.

6. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the report by Marisa Matias, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of medicinal products which are falsified in relation to their identity, history or source (COM(2008)0668 – C6-0513/2008 – 2008/0261(COD)).

6.1. Falsified medicinal products (A7-0148/2010, Marisa Matias) (vote)

6.2. Practical aspects regarding the revision of EU instruments to support SME finance in the next programming period (B7-0096/2011) (vote)

6.3. Adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems (A7-0025/2011, Ria Oomen-Ruijten) (vote)

6.4. 2010 progress report on Croatia (B7-0094/2011) (vote)

– Before the vote on Amendments 8 and 7

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, in relation to the next two amendments, I am withdrawing our Amendment No 8.

In return, as discussed with Mr Swoboda, the rapporteur, and his shadows, we have an oral amendment to Amendment 7 which reads, ‘in order to address remaining shortcomings with regard to the domestic prosecution of war crimes ... ’ the text would then continue with that in Amendment 7 by Mr Swoboda.

(The oral amendment to Amendment 7 was accepted)

7. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Marisa Matias (A7-0148/2010)

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I support the compromise reached on the proposal for a directive because, despite some sticking points, I think it is a good text which protects patients from the great dangers arising from taking falsified medicinal products. Over the years we have seen a huge increase in the number of these products, and the most recent estimates indicate that about one and a half million medicines are sold illegally in Europe, particularly via the Internet.

These data constitute a serious threat not only to patients but also to European producers. At stake here are the protection of public health and the safeguarding of consumers, who must be given an assurance that strict safety measures and effective sanctions will be employed by Member States. With today’s vote, effective and flexible rules will be introduced, and we will also fight against organised crime.

To understand the safety requirement affecting the sector, one need only think that, in 2008, approximately 34 million illegal medicines were seized. We could perhaps have been a little bolder with regard to the traceability of medicines and active ingredients from third countries. Nevertheless, the step we have taken today is still important.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the Commission proposal on preventing the entry of falsified medicines into the supply chain highlights a concern that is becoming a priority for all Europeans: the quality and safety of the medicines we use every day.

It is therefore necessary to introduce a new European strategy to combat the rampant phenomenon of the spread of falsified medicines, with the dual purpose of being able to respond to this growing threat to public health and of being able to ensure the safety of all patients.

The latest reports on the subject have indeed recorded a truly sharp increase in seizures of falsified medicines by customs, as well as a growing, and therefore extremely dangerous, trend for falsifying not only ‘lifestyle’ medicines but also life-saving medicines, including medicines to treat cancer, heart disease, psychiatric disorders and infections.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the number of falsified medicines seized along the border of the European Union in 2007 was 384% higher than in 2005. We also saw an increase in the trend for falsifying even life-saving medicines, including medicines to treat cancer and heart disease, psychiatric disorders and infections.

These figures reflect an alarming scenario, in which patients are likely to encounter situations such as treatment failure, thus endangering their health and, in some cases, their lives. I welcome the Commission’s proposal. Mrs Matias’s report rightly points out, however, the negative aspects and points on which we are bound to reassure our citizens.

In particular, I would stress that the Commission’s proposal fails to provide exhaustive answers concerning the nature and characteristics of a falsified medicinal product, active ingredient or excipient, or any definitions of the various parties involved in the supply chain, whose roles and responsibilities should be clarified.

The sanctions in the Commission proposal are inadequate, but above all the proposal takes no account of the sale of medicines on the Internet, one of the main channels through which falsified medicines enter the European market.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the report by Mrs Matias since the entry of falsified medicinal products into the legal supply chain poses a threat to the entire European pharmaceutical system, as it undermines the confidence citizens have in the quality of medicines sold in pharmacies and other places of legal distribution.

It is important to curb the steadily growing phenomenon of falsified medicines in all European countries in order to protect and ensure the health of our citizens. The active ingredients contained in a falsified medicine may in fact be sub-standard, completely absent, or present in an incorrect dose.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the official figures say it all: 1% of the medicines sold legally in the European Union are falsified. What is more, the latest surveys show that the phenomenon is steadily growing and that its proportions have now exceeded the warning stage.

As Mr Antoniozzi has already emphasised, the falsification of life-saving medicines is particularly profitable when those medicines are produced in India or China and then passed off as European products. These substances pose an unprecedented risk, and they could threaten the lives of those who use them for therapeutic purposes.

I voted for the report to say No to cowboy sales via the Internet, the preferred channel for placing these poisons on to the European Union pharmaceutical market. With the adoption of this document, Parliament will finally be able to make its voice heard, acquiring the means necessary to find and punish these people who are no better than drug dealers, unscrupulous criminals who have been getting rich for too long at the expense of sick people.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the problem of falsified medicinal products is one that is having an ever greater impact at international and EU level, in terms of the increased number of cases as well as the advances in the development of these products. These are the challenges to which Mrs Matias’s report – the outcome of long and painstaking negotiations – sets out to respond.

The report, for which we expressed our support, has established a regulatory framework which, taking as its basis more precise and detailed definitions, took into account all the actors, stages and aspects of the pharmaceutical supply chain – safety, traceability and obligations of the distribution chain – in order to achieve a good compromise.

These are some of the issues on which we must try to work in order to achieve the main goal of establishing more stringent standards and to prevent the entry of falsified medicinal products, thus achieving a positive and more comprehensive regulatory framework that safeguards the health of citizens, protecting them from the risk of serious consequences.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE). – (SK) Mr President, according to estimates, about 1% of the overall volume of medicines supplied to patients legally through the pharmacy network in the EU today are fake. That percentage is constantly rising. This is about people’s health. Fake medicines may have effects other than those of the tablets prescribed by the doctor. They may also be a risk to health.

Counterfeiting is a crime and must carry specific penalties. The new legislation, which I support, introduces more safety elements, as well as penalties for counterfeiters. It defines a monitoring system improving the identification of medicines, so that in future the flow of medicines can be traced all the way from the producer to the consumer.

The sale of medicines via the Internet is also included within the framework of the new rules. This represents one of the most common ways for fake products to get onto EU markets.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I too gladly supported this report, because, as my fellow Members have mentioned several times, WHO estimates indicate that falsified medicinal products are circulated in large quantities in EU Member States. Their number is continuously increasing, and we must therefore do everything in our power to prevent falsified medicines from entering the supply chain. Even though this does not threaten the entire pharmaceutical industry, it still undermines people’s confidence in pharmacies, not to mention the fact that falsified medicinal products may contain sub-standard active ingredients. Estimates indicate that the number of boxes of falsified medicines could reach 42 million by 2020, exposing the European economy to significant risk.

The European pharmaceutical sector realises a total annual turnover of more than EUR 170 billion. We must prevent unfair competition from foreign producers that place medicinal products on the market, the manufacturing process of which cannot be checked. Furthermore, I believe it is important that we discuss matters such as the sale of medicinal products over the Internet. Through virtual pharmacies, products which are clearly subject to medical prescription are available over the worldwide web. Not to mention that this is the easiest way for counterfeiters to introduce their products into the supply chain.

Motion for a resolution B7-0094/2011

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the motion for a resolution on the progress of Croatia’s accession to the European Union within the framework of the enlargement process, because I attach great importance to starting this process and to the progress made by Croatia.

In essence, we hope that the enlargement will extend beyond Croatia and end up encompassing the whole of the Western Balkans. This is one of the key points of Europe’s neighbourhood and enlargement policies.

My vote is therefore, without doubt, in favour of the Swoboda report.

Report: Marisa Matias (A7-0148/2010)

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, we have been obliged to adopt a report today on the protection of patients from falsified medicines, partly because the market liberalism advocated by the European Commission has opened the door to the market in falsified products. Deregulated competition leads to medicines being falsified for the benefit of companies. The victims are consumers.

I voted for this report even though I am not entirely convinced that the definition of a falsified product is correct. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear who should be punished when a falsified medicine is found. However, it is an initial step in the right direction, and we shall see in a year’s time if our action was effective.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, the resolution adopted today has established important principles for the protection of consumers, increasing safeguards against the spread of falsified medicinal products. This is an extremely dangerous phenomenon, and one of the most significant remedies has been to stem the online sale of medicines of dubious origin. Moreover, through the adoption of a number of guarantees, we will establish strict regulations that require permits and inspections.

This does not, however, mean that forms of health protection and medical prescriptions are cancelled out. It must be remembered that the legislative power of Member States is unaffected in this respect and that they may retain or limit the ban on the online sales of drugs within their territory.

This is an opportunity for Member States to better regulate the matter, but we must remember, Mr President, that citizens can order medicines from another Member State and that this regulation should not be seen as another opportunity to benefit the pharmaceutical industry. Instead we must continue to progress along the trail of liberalisation that the EU is currently blazing by adopting measures such as this.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, we are debating a law on counterfeit medicines. We know that, after weapons and drugs, the pharmaceutical industry makes the largest profits, and it is no accident therefore that criminals are focusing on counterfeit medicines, in order to deceive those of our fellow citizens who are patients.

Frequently a medicine that is supposed to treat cancer or the heart does not contain any of the effective ingredient, or only a small percentage of it, and this crime puts at risk the health and often even the life of the patient.

It is good that we have also adopted principles in this text, new principles, which tighten up the penalties for those who engage in criminal activity in this area, and I am pleased that Europe has taken a step in the right direction. Sales on the Internet will be better monitored, of course, as well as sales through the standard supply system, which often sells fake medicines.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). - (IT) Mr President, in recent years the number of falsified medicinal products has increased exponentially, and it is regrettable that, despite a 384% increase in the sale of these products between 2005 and 2007, the Commission has been so late in taking action. We are absolutely convinced by the stance taken by the rapporteur, who has sought to improve the Commission’s text by also considering the sale of medicines via the Internet.

In recent years I have repeatedly questioned the Commission on this topic and highlighted the dangers involved, but no answers have ever been given or any concrete action taken. Today we therefore welcome the rapporteur’s efforts to improve the text, and hope that from now on Europeans’ health will actually be a matter of primary concern to our institutions.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the report by Mrs Matias, as it is vitally important to increase safety standards and establish effective, efficient and tough rules to prevent falsified medicinal products from entering the European Union. This is a requirement and a duty that we must fulfil on behalf of all European citizens, who are often unaware that they are buying a falsified medicine.

I agree with the thrust of the report, which introduces obligations to be met not only by distributors but also by all those involved in the supply chain. Indeed, it is often in the intricacies of the various steps in the distribution chain that high-risk products are introduced. Monitoring must not, however, only be carried out when products are placed on the market. Rather, inspections should take place at the sites where medicinal products and active ingredients are produced, including in third countries.

I do have one concern, however, which I must voice: I would have preferred the regulation to have regulated matters more effectively, by harmonising the various national laws, including online sales, in order to fully protect European consumers.

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this report because the regulatory framework that emerges from it is much better than the one laid down by the 2001 Directive. The latter placed the sole responsibility for compliance with wholesale distributors, thus failing to guarantee the reliability of the pharmaceutical supply chain in any way.

The report we voted on today introduced measures to further ensure the safety of pharmaceutical products such as, for example, the stepping up of inspections of manufacturers outside the European Union on the basis of a risk analysis. The proposed amendment also includes the need to publish in an EU database a list of certified wholesale distributors, in other words distributors for which compliance with EU legislation has not been established through inspection by the Member State alone.

We could nevertheless have hoped for a more ambitious outcome. I refer particularly to the introduction of mandatory inspections of active-ingredient production sites in third countries. These were omitted on the grounds that implementation costs would have been too high. If they had been introduced, we could have avoided the oft repeated situation of European companies having to meet very high quality standards, while companies that produce in other parts of the world benefit from regulatory frameworks that are undoubtedly less stringent. I therefore hope that improvements can be made in the future.

Motion for a resolution B7-0096/2011

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, more than 100 million workers depend directly or indirectly on small and medium-sized enterprises today in Europe. Yet small and medium-sized enterprises are experiencing an unprecedented crisis: lack of liquidity, bureaucratic obstacles and constraints and administrative barriers.

Herein lies the crux of this motion for a resolution: Parliament is calling for credit and loan guarantee programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises and a vigorous European drive that is more than just a pipe dream to combat the new – and for many prohibitive – business-banking requirements, particularly with regard to higher collateral guarantees and risk premiums.

Lastly, I agree with the need to significantly increase funding within the framework of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, and to revive the issue of simplification with strength and determination: streamline and simplify, so that firms wishing to access funds are able do so without having to resort to very expensive outside consultants. These are the reasons why I voted for this resolution: the SMEs and the 100 million European workers employed in the sector expect it of us.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE). – (SK) Mr President, of all the practical aspects relating to the revision of EU instruments supporting the funding of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), I would like to highlight in particular the problems of external funding. It is clear that a large number of SMEs will continue to depend mainly on credit and loans. It is disturbing that the banking sector is demanding ever greater securities and higher risk premiums, which reduces the chances of funding and of these businesses making use of entrepreneurial and job opportunities.

I therefore consider it necessary to strengthen individual programmes at the Member State level, and also to boost the resources of the EU and the European Investment Bank focused on innovative financial instruments. It is necessary to support the further implementation of guarantee instruments in connection with revolving loans - and I would emphasise this - and the exploitation of financial instruments involving risk spreading, as well as the expansion of microfinancing institutions.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, this is an important motion for a resolution on the mechanism of financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises. Occasionally, we face criticism that on one hand we talk about the important role of this business sector – in manufacturing, in the creation of one third of the GDP in the European Union and in the creation of secure jobs – but without good instruments providing financial support to these companies. Most of the EU funds for development and innovation go primarily to large companies due to their requirements. This should be changed, since small and medium-sized enterprises are unable to meet the demands made of them.

The crisis has severely limited small and medium-sized enterprises’ access to credit and loans, and new regulations that are targeted at the banking sector may make matters even worse. Let me mention here the Basel III package, which has already been approved, with regard to its precautionary standards. I believe that access to funding for business development, particularly in the field of innovation, is especially important. We emphasise the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly as a group of ‘sleeping innovators’. These small and medium-sized enterprises need to enter the European market on a wider scale. This will help to revive the economy, create jobs and achieve the objectives established in the Europe 2020 Strategy.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, it is necessary to evaluate and review existing instruments to support the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises in view of the next multiannual financial framework if we wish to focus on promoting the recovery of the real economy in this and other sectors in order to overcome the crisis once and for all.

This need is also imposed by the protection of small and medium-sized enterprises’ interests if – as Basel III proposes – higher equity capital requirements are established for banks. It is also required by the situation of many financial intermediaries, who are deterred by the administrative burdens created by complex European financial regulations, and it is influenced by the difficulties created by different tax and support systems. It is prompted by a requirement to make European Union support programmes consistent in order to provide better guarantees and a good balance between national and EU schemes.

I therefore support the proposal to establish a one-stop shop for the various EU financing instruments aimed at SMEs. Simplifying bidding and procedures for access to markets is an important means of support even if it proves necessary to increase funding. Massive sums have been spent to save careless banks: I feel that spending on 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises can only be an asset.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the motion for a resolution because I believe that we need a European strategy for SMEs which, as we all know, are the backbone of our economy and need support and help.

The next European Union financial programming cannot therefore ignore these considerations and must increase and diversify the resources available. However, this is only one measure and inadequate at that: more are needed. It is important to act with the aid of a long-term strategy to avoid stopgap or one-off measures – I refer to the new financial rules that the EU is preparing to implement. We need to ensure that these new regulations do not make it tougher to lend to businesses – I am also referring to Basel III.

This is the real new challenge: to reconcile and regulate the banking system while preventing costs from being passed on to companies, citizens and SMEs. We need growth to help rehabilitate and support the sector, putting our ideas into practice.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I am happy to support this resolution, but of course one of the main problems faced by SMEs is access to credit. This is a major impediment to job creation and indeed growth. In countries undergoing severe austerity measures – like my own country, Ireland – this issue is particularly severe and I believe it needs to be dealt with immediately.

We need to act at EU level to ensure that banks are willing and able to finance SMEs. Recapitalisation of banks is important, but recapitalised banks with the SME sector on its knees is a recipe for disaster.

My real fear is that we are going to end up with a highly capitalised banking system, while the real economy is on floor. We all talk about growth, and that is the only way that many of the peripheral economies can climb out of the abyss that they are already in. Yes, it is a balancing act, but we have a situation where the health of our financial institutions is improving day by day but SMEs still remain in intensive care.

Report: Ria Oomen-Ruijten (A7-0025/2011)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, demographic trends recorded in recent years lead us to consider the need to implement a strategy for fresh cohesion and coherence in the pensions field, to promote solidarity between generations and between people, while helping to ensure a safe and adequate income after retirement.

I agree with the rapporteur when she notes that there are major differences between pension systems in Europe. They have been greatly affected by the severe financial and economic crisis with rising unemployment, declining growth, lower investment returns and growth in public debt. Pension funds find it more difficult to ensure adequate pensions and, in some cases, to honour their commitments.

During the reform of their pension systems, many Member States have made swingeing cuts. Financial sustainability is important, but we should also take into account the need to ensure an adequate income. Budget sustainability and adequacy of pension systems are not conflicting goals but two sides of the same coin: true sustainability cannot be achieved without an adequate retirement income.

By virtue of my experience as Minister for Employment in Italy, Mr President, I can confirm that if there is no compliance by the Member States, it will be very difficult for individual States to adapt to this type of legislation.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, not so long ago, the European Court of Justice ruled that Germany must have greater transparency with regard to its occupational pensions and that it must put these pensions out to public tender. I had great expectations that this would be a ruling that would have a knock-on effect on other countries in Europe. This, unfortunately, did not happen, and the Commission has not been willing to put pressure on other countries that tie their people to certain pensions. Therefore, it is also important that the European Parliament has now determined that pension systems shall have an earning capacity for citizens. There is to be transparency with regard to costs and returns and we must remove the barriers to mobility across borders. All of these are good and sound liberal principles, but if we take this to its logical conclusion, people should also be able to move their pensions from one fund to another if the unemployment or pension fund that they have been assigned to by their trade union or employer does not do its job properly. We did not achieve that much this time round, but we have nevertheless taken a step in the right direction today, and I think this is good for the internal market and for citizens’ chances of getting a decent return on their pensions.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, given the pressure it exerts on budgets, efficiency in social spending currently plays a key role in the economic systems of Member States. This has been illustrated in recent years, when we have seen a rise in unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, resulting in worsening budget deficits in many Member States, followed by pension funding problems.

I welcome the report by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, which aims to provide new impetus at national and European Union level, helping to create solid pension systems that are adequate in the long term, sustainable and safe.

However, I take this opportunity to recall that we still lack a common set of criteria, definitions and an in-depth analysis which would thoroughly explain the various pension systems and their capacity to meet the needs of citizens. I wonder how we can tackle such a sensitive issue in the absence of such a study. I therefore call on the Commission to remedy this shortcoming by taking appropriate action to come up with a typology of pension systems in Member States as well as with a common set of definitions in order to make systems comparable.

  Philip Claeys (NI). - (NL) Mr President, I would just like to make a suggestion. I notice that an awful lot of speakers have run way over their allotted speaking time, sometimes by as much as 30 seconds. I would ask you to be stricter about ensuring adherence to the set speaking time. You can, of course, be strict with me in this respect, as well.

  President. − Having concluded the vote so quickly, I thought I would be more flexible with fellow Members who have run over their allotted time. If you ask me to be strict, I will be strict, but always in moderation of course.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I, on the contrary, appreciate your generosity, because during the discussions we never have an opportunity to go over one minute and this is therefore another chance to speak and debate, on the explanations of vote in this case, which after all go to the root of the reports that we vote on.

European pension systems are in an increasingly alarming state. We must act now to ensure that men and women have equal opportunities, protecting those who decide to retire today and, at the same time, protecting those who are only now taking their first steps in the labour market. In Europe, women still earn on average 18% less than men.

The main effect of this wage disparity is apparent at retirement age: because they have earned less throughout their working lives, women also have lower pensions. As a result, women are more affected than men by persistent poverty. Especially in times of crisis, we need to include a gender perspective in all policies, adopting national measures that are agreed on and coordinated at European level.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the purpose of the Green Paper is to gather the views of the Member States on how to achieve the intended goal of adequate, stable and secure pensions, given that the report adopted by the Commission rightly concludes firstly that there is no reason to harmonise pension systems, and secondly that Member States should provide various forms for the development of future pensions, and above all that they should recognise a minimum pension in order to protect people from poverty. Thirdly, Member States such as Poland which implemented a difficult pension reform, resulting in a deficit increase and public debt, should not be penalised by the excessive deficit procedure. Fourthly, the pension system should encourage longer working lives, which is consistent with the trend in the labour market. In my opinion, the conclusions are fully in line with the EU’s Europe 2020 economic strategy, and in particular with the employment strategy and the fight against poverty and social exclusion.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this resolution because I believe that the compromise reached with such difficulty within our committee is essentially positive, insofar as it is a tool to remind Member States to ensure that pensions are adequate, sustainable and portable throughout Europe, in the context of a significantly ageing population.

I would however like to make three criticisms, which I hope the European Commission will implement in the coming White Paper. The first is the lack of recognition of the importance of the third pillar in pension systems. Second, although the difference in retirement income between men and women resulting from the pay gap, breaks for periods of care and greater unemployment among women has been acknowledged, there are no flexibility criteria for women of retirement age who cease to be employed, and there is no adequate recognition of periods of care for the purpose of defining retirement age. This would, however, be desirable. Thirdly, European citizens’ right to a common programme of welfare education and information about their pension and insurance situation should be affirmed, in particular for young people and workers throughout the course of their working lives.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, it is very important at European level to try to move towards adequate, sustainable and safe pension systems. We obviously have to remember that there are 27 different Member States in the EU. Their economic circumstances still vary in many respects, and pensions differ greatly in terms of size. We basically have to ensure, however, that pension income is adequate in the different Member States.

I am mainly concerned about the pensions of those young people who work in the different countries, the different Member States of the European Union. How can we make sure that pensions can be transferred more satisfactorily from one country to another, and not just from pension fund to pension fund, as there are big problems with those too? I would hope for flexibility in this. In this we perhaps need European­wide coordination.

I know that the pensions debate will continue, as recently I read that in 2010, for example, the life expectancy of children born in Finland is 100 years. If we consider that 30 years are spent studying and 30 years are spent at work, then they will be on a pension for 40 years. We will therefore definitely have to think about systems in a new way, so that this situation can be dealt with in a manner that is sustainable for everyone.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report, even though the Green Paper drawn up by the European Commission has its shortcomings. The 2020 Strategy presents a dream future to us. The Green Paper launches a discussion on the actual future, but ignores reality. One motif runs through the entire Green Paper: let old people work.

The authors of the Green Paper do not even try to look for a solution at the point where life begins. They use the word ‘woman’ only six times. They use the word ‘family’ three times and ‘child’ only once. I therefore think that the Commission should draw up its White Paper in a substantially more comprehensive way, emphasise the importance of motherhood and the informal work of women, listen to the Confederation of Families from all over Europe and incorporate a new imperative into all of its policies and strategies: family mainstreaming.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the differences between the various Member State pension systems are enormous, which results from the fact that this area belongs within, and should continue to belong within, the direct powers of the Member States. Of course, a certain consultancy is essential, in my opinion, because the European Union and the Member States must look for a solution immediately to economic and demographic challenges such as, for example, forecasts that the ratio of inhabitants over 65 to the population of productive age will rise to 53% in 2060. At the same time, there are only two workers to every pensioner. In this context it is natural that average public expenditure on pensions and expenditure related to ageing will increase, and it will become ever more difficult to provide adequate pensions. It is therefore necessary to encourage people to enter the labour market, increasing employment levels and economic growth. The importance of the family is also not sufficiently emphasised, as my colleague Mrs Záborská has said. Nobody talks about the need to have children to improve our pension system.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). - (BG) I voted for this report, because I believe that the development of adequate and sustainable European pension systems is very important, especially when you consider the demographic processes which Europe is undergoing and that we have a continent, which continues to an increasingly ageing population and an increasing number of people will have to be supported on less and less.

I would also like to say that the changes, which I also support, and which involve the Commission setting up groups of experts to draft projects with which to help the national systems, should not extend their authority too much. Pension policy is a policy of the Member States and the Commission must not exceed its authority, even though its advice will be useful in all cases.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, we have adopted an extremely important report on pension systems in Europe. We are in fact facing serious demographic challenges. The birth rate is very low, life expectancy is increasing, and public spending is growing due to ageing societies. Debates on raising the retirement age are being held in many countries. The current economic and demographic situation forces us to give serious thought to this issue.

As I said, life expectancy is increasing. We are working under better conditions, which allows us to work for longer. Pension systems fall under the competence of the Member States. However, the time has come for them to be coordinated at EU level, for example in relation to the functioning of the internal market and the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. Expenditure on pensions and medical treatment significantly affects the state of public finances in the individual Member States. We need to encourage people to extend their careers by means of improved working conditions and higher wages.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I welcome this report. Hopefully it will put the issue of pensions centre stage in EU matters.

I think the core issue is: how are Member States going to finance adequate pensions for their citizens? What systems will they put in place using some combination of the three pillars to ensure that their pension systems are sustainable?

There is a yawning gap between current pension provision and what will be needed to provide pensions at current levels for the next 40 years. Indeed, an estimate from a major insurance company states that the gap between what we are currently providing, both public and private, and what will be needed to ensure that pension provision remains at the same level in 40 years’ time for the EU 27, is EUR 1.9 trillion per year. That is a staggering figure and, while measures such as, perhaps, longer working lives or other initiatives will help to bridge that gap, there is still an enormous fiscal black hole.

I hope that this debate and the subsequent White Paper from the Commission will ensure that we begin to deal with this matter in a realistic way.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was pleased to vote for this report, because I feel that it is more than time for us to discuss this issue in Parliament.

Without a doubt the pensions problem at this point is a ‘bomb ready to explode’, and it will be worse in the future. But certain practices must be eliminated; for example, in my own country, there will be politicians resigning now who will receive more on pension than if they continued working. There is no sense whatever in that.

In addition, there are people on pension who are getting more on pension than they were getting twenty years ago when they had young children and a large mortgage.

These issues must be discussed, and in particular a huge reserve must be established to provide pensions in the future.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, we now see what is meant by European economic governance, by fiscal federalism. Whatever else we say about the leaders of the EU, no-one can fault their lack of ambition. We see here their sheer hunger for power. Awesome. Inexorable. Rude and incontinent.

Not only are we talking about tax harmonisation, about a European debt union, about automatic fiscal transfers, but we are also talking about the harmonisation of pensions. We are talking about the harmonisation of public sector salaries. We are talking about the full machinery of single EU economic governance.

I am sure you can spot the logical flaw here. This is being done as a result of the failure of monetary union. European monetary union has not worked, so let us have European economic and fiscal union. Closer integration has failed to deliver, so let us have more integration. In the process, what we are doing is condemning the peoples of several of the Member States to preventable poverty and preventable emigration, in order to sustain our own conceit.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, it is quite clear that across the political spectrum we all want adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems. If we confined ourselves to the idea of making sure that a worker in one State can move to another Member State and take their pension with them, that might be a valid idea to pursue.

We should, however, be careful about the different structures of pension systems in different Member States. Some are more private-oriented and some are very much State-funded. As we move towards more harmonised European pension systems, the concern I hear from my constituents is whether they will have to bail out underfunded or badly managed State pension funds in other countries, just as we have had to bail out badly managed countries and their national debt.

We talk about sustainable pensions, yet at the same time we bring about policies in this place such as the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, which will reduce the returns on savings and investments for tomorrow’s pensioners. We must make sure we have a consistent message.

  Martin Kastler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the Oomen-Ruijten report and would like to emphasise two points. Firstly, when we see that in some countries in Europe too many pensions are being paid out too early, but these countries are getting into difficulties and the others are having to bail them out, that is unfair. This unfairness cannot, of course, be refinanced via the EU. We need European coordination in this regard.

The second point that I am very pleased with in this report is the fact that it makes it very clear, according to the principle of subsidiarity, that the Member States themselves are responsible for pension provision. That is indeed the case.

I therefore consider this report to be a step in the right direction in that, on the one hand, we in Europe are recognising that our citizens want more coordination in the social sphere because they feel unfairly treated and, on the other, we are making it clear where the main responsibility lies, namely with the Member States.

This report represents a step in this direction. We will do everything possible to ensure that the White Paper continues to push ahead with this.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this proposal, though I want to remind everyone that pension policy, like social policy, is a national matter and the power of decision must also remain national. Nevertheless, European cooperation is needed in cases where people who have been working in other EU countries and who then possibly return to their country of origin receive their pension from those countries where they have been working. Today that is difficult and there are flaws in the system. This is something that the Member States of the European Union should put right. If there is free movement of labour, pensions must also always move from one country to another.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) I am very glad that we have dealt with this report and that we are adopting it today. I voted for it as well. I am glad that this report does not infringe on Member States, but that it takes into account the principle of subsidiarity: it provides guidelines rather than mandatory rules. It is clear that the aim of the report is to give a new momentum to the consolidation of the pension system while keeping its sustainability in mind.

The report provides Member States with new ideas for dealing with their own pension systems in order to make them more satisfactory. Several points in the report have been tackled positively, including mobility and transferability, retirement age, the framework for pension systems, and their relevance to the 2020 Strategy. Another positive point is that the report stipulates the reviewal of European Union legislation. I also supported the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisory Office, because the economic crisis has shown us that there is a need for an institution such as this.

Motion for a resolution B7-0094/2011

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I visited Croatia several times in the early 1990s, during the war, precisely in order to take humanitarian aid, and this is one of the reasons why I care about Croatia’s entry into the European Union.

Croatia has done a lot: it has reformed the judiciary and public administration, it has combated corruption and organised crime, and it has protected minority rights. I am convinced that Croatia’s accession will encourage the other Western Balkan countries to launch and implement new democratic and transparent reforms, and also an excellent neighbourhood policy.

However, there is still much to do in memory of the extensive ethnic cleansing campaign conducted against the Italian population between 1945 and 1948 by the militias of the Croatian authorities of the former Yugoslav communist regime. During that campaign, more than 20 000 innocent victims were slaughtered. On 10 February, the Day of Remembrance, Italy commemorates the Foibe Massacres and the Istrian and Dalmatian exiles in order not only to remember those who were brutally killed, but also to reaffirm the rights of those exiled, starting with rights to property confiscated during those years, and the right of repatriation.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to return here to points I raised in some of the amendments tabled along with Bernd Posselt, which successfully passed through the Committee on Foreign Affairs. First of all, I would like to repeat the hope that the accession negotiations with Croatia will be concluded in the first half of 2011, as announced in the Hungarian Presidency’s programme. From this perspective, it would be a symbolic act because it would take place 20 years after the declaration of independence from the former Yugoslav Republic. On the other hand, concluding the negotiations in this manner would send out a very strong signal to the other candidate countries in the Balkans at a time when, as we are aware, the Union’s power of attraction seems to be waning. Finally, I would like to highlight the Croatian authorities’ determination to combat corruption and organised crime. This is an indication, as we have noticed on other occasions too, that corruption is not fatal if political will exists.

  Philip Claeys (NI). - (NL) Mr President, I have voted against this report, despite the fact that I am in favour of Croatia joining the European Union. My problem with this report is that, even though it reads like one long list of the current corruption problems in Croatia, we still seem to be insisting that the negotiations be concluded in the next few months. We should actually be learning from our past mistakes.

In 2007, we admitted Romania and Bulgaria, even though we knew that they had not met the conditions and that corruption was a major problem. Knowing, as we do, that there are still so many major problems, I think that it is totally inappropriate and unacceptable that we should now be pinned down to a specific date.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, unlike Mr Claeys I gladly voted in favour of this report on enlargement and the conclusion of negotiations with Croatia. This is a key objective of the Hungarian Presidency, which will also be a great success for Croatia and send out an important message to the other countries in the region hoping to join the European Union. The few chapters that are left until negotiations can be concluded should be closed before the middle of the year. The most important factor here is the political will demonstrated by Croatia, which has declared its determination to implement all the provisions and criteria for membership. This political will also relates to the resolution of difficult relations with its neighbours. All of the countries that have recently become EU members know that final negotiations are the toughest, because they include many provisions that apply to large social groups. The example of the shipyards in Croatia is also a good example of this. I wish Croatia much determination, and I would be very glad if the Treaty of Accession could be signed during the Polish Presidency.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Croatia is one of those states which should have joined the European Union a long time ago. I voted for this report and I congratulate the rapporteur. I would like to thank Commissioner Füle for having voiced the central concern of European integration policy: reciprocal loyalty. Nevertheless, I regret that the section on freedom of religion was not examined in sufficient depth.

Croatia’s accession to the European Union does not signify the abandonment of the Croatian people’s long-standing traditions. Religion is one of these and I would stress that, in future, respect must also be shown for aspect’s relating to the Croatian people’s freedom of religion. This too is an example of reciprocal loyalty and richness of diversity, which should, in theory, characterise the European Union.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the accession talks with Croatia are entering the final phase. Over the past year, Croatia has shown the will to continue with the necessary reforms, particularly with the adoption of substantial amendments and supplements to the constitution, but also with the harmonisation of legislation with the Community acquis, and I would like the Hungarian Presidency now to complete the accession talks with Croatia. I applaud the significant progress achieved in the area of public administration, the economy and the judiciary, and I am pleased that Croatia is actively cooperating over the prosecution of war criminals.

On the other hand, widespread corruption remains a significant social and economic problem, which it is perhaps also necessary to resolve with the assistance of the EU, so that this negative feature is not then transferred into European structures, and I believe that in the popular vote, in the referendum in Croatia, the citizens will confirm the decision of the Croatian state to become a new Member State of the EU.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the integration of the Western Balkans into the European Union guarantees that the region will be stabilised and that its development will be accelerated. The country farthest along in its efforts is Croatia. Its progress in many areas is encouraging, including in the fight against corruption, yet at the same time further efforts are needed, including with regard to the independence of the judiciary and greater efficiency of the latter, the public administration reforms and competition policy. We are encouraging Croatia to persist in its actions to defend the rights of minorities and to support returning refugees. One of the problems which must be resolved by Croatia is improved cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It should also adopt and accelerate the restructuring and privatisation plan for the shipyards which are experiencing difficulties. The biggest challenge, however, may prove to be the scepticism of Croatian society towards accession to the EU. I am pleased with the active role played by Croatia in regional cooperation and in improved cooperation with neighbouring countries, and with its efforts towards reconciliation in the region.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, I look forward to the accession of Croatia to the European Union, particularly as an Irish MEP. Croatia and Ireland are very similar in terms of population – 4.5 million – and will have the exact same number of MEPs – 12. Also, at a time when many Eurosceptics are talking about the implosion and the disintegration of the European Union, it is rather paradoxical that countries are queuing up to join the European Union – Croatia being a case in point. They are not joining willy-nilly: they are joining as a result of a very rigorous accession process and Croatia has made much progress in that regard.

Granted, there are problems, particularly regarding the judiciary, but I am sure in due course these matters will be dealt with. Of course, no country is without its faults. As Our Lord himself said: ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’. I look forward to Croatia joining the European Union and think it will be a very good member.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, the history of Croatia is in some ways the story of a series of political unions contracted by a ruling elite without the consent of the people: first the union with Hungary, then that with the Habsburg monarchy, then the short-lived Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and then of course the Yugoslav Federation. So it is progress of a kind that at least the ordinary people of Croatia will have the final word over EU accession. Under the current constitutional arrangements, a referendum must be held within 30 days of the contraction of the accession treaty.

I think there are real losses potentially to Croatia. It is a country with an educated and industrious workforce that could do extremely well pricing itself into the market and exploiting the advantages of relatively cheap exports; but I am a democrat, and of course, if the people of Croatia vote in favour of EU accession, if that is their considered will, then I will support their bid when it comes before this Chamber.

I just raise the question of why some of the existing Member States should not also consult their people on the issue of continued membership. On a major constitutional issue of this sort, it seems quite proper that the existing politicians should not be allowed to make permanent derogations of sovereignty without first asking the permission of those they represent. Our parliamentarians are not the owners of our freedoms. They are their temporary and contingent custodians and, if they want to alienate power from Westminster, they should have the courtesy to ask our permission.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, when I discuss the issue of enlargement with my constituents, many of them raise concerns about some of the previous enlargements. They worry about certain Member States that were let in which, they feel, had not addressed issues such as corruption and property rights. I get many letters from constituents from Member States who joined many years ago, in particular the rights of property holders in Spain, as many of my constituents see their property rights undermined and often lose their life savings. I get similar letters from people in Cyprus and from property-owners in Bulgaria.

Leaving that aside, let us look at the picture in Croatia at the moment. The issues that people write to me about quite often are those of press freedom, corruption and property rights. It is important that we do not just brush these under the carpet and say ‘do not worry about it; it will all be sorted out in due course’. These countries and new Member States which apply for membership of the EU need to reassure us over these concerns so that they are not problems we inherit when the EU enlarges and they do not cause problems for the citizens of existing EU Member States.

  Roger Helmer (ECR). - Mr President, I have spent some considerable time in Croatia and also taken pains to follow developments there. Croatia is a country which is characterised by endemic bribery, corruption, crony capitalism and unexplained wealth amongst the political classes. It lacks the basic infrastructure of a free society. The rule of law, the rights of property and enforceable contracts are all seriously challenged in Croatia. The judicial system is completely log-jammed, so the citizens and companies operating in Croatia cannot effectively appeal for justice. The Croatian media are subject to censorship and intimidation.

If this country, Croatia, is considered a suitable country for joining the European Union, then heaven help all of us.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Marisa Matias (A7-0148/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) In light of the alarming increase in falsified medicines, I am voting for this report. The compromise reached in the series of trialogues during the Belgian Presidency demonstrated the importance of harmonising safety issues, especially as regards non-prescription medicines, and the conditions surrounding the removal and replacement of medicines by packagers, which will thus lead to increased transparency in the sector. The implementation of penalties has also enhanced these measures, which are considered vital in the fight against falsified medicines in legal supply networks.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution, in which the European Parliament expresses its position on the directive on the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of medicinal products which are falsified. We must take into account the concern expressed by EU citizens over the quality and safety of the medicinal products they are consuming. All the more so given that experts are observing alarming tendencies: a sharp increase in seizures of falsified medicines by customs (an increase of up to 384% since 2005); a trend towards the falsification of life-saving medicines, which can have fatal consequences; counterfeit medicines are increasingly being found in legal supply chains. EU citizens must be very careful when purchasing medicines online, because here the chances of acquiring falsified medicines increases by up to 50%. Patients need to be absolutely sure that the medicines they consume really are the medicines they expect them to be. The EU must therefore react swiftly and constructively to the dangerous tendencies mentioned. This directive is a first step towards ensuring that only high quality medicines are distributed in the EU. To achieve this objective I feel that it is very important to establish strict controls and determine responsibility at all levels of manufacturing, distribution and sales. Then EU citizens will feel safe when using genuinely high quality medicines.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I support the statement by Mrs Grossetête, who regretted that, ‘we are not as demanding about medicines as we are about food’. Figures released by the WHO and also quoted in European studies are alarming. Falsifying of medicines is steadily increasing: in 2008 alone, 34 million falsified medicines were seized in the EU, and that is without mentioning the online market for these products, in which it is estimated that 50-90% of the medicinal products available are falsified. We are talking about traffic not only in anabolic steroids, stimulants, diuretics and hormones, but also in medicines used to treat a number of dangerous illnesses, which in this case are sold freely and at a lower price, even though they require a prescription.

I believe that strict regulation to protect public health is essential not only in the legal pharmaceutical supply chain, through the implementation of devices to detect tampering with packages and to track active ingredients in order to establish the source, or through inspections of third-country production sites, but also on the Internet. Provisions should also be laid down for online sales, including the introduction of an EU certification logo, a centralised database at national level listing all authorised retailers and severe penalties for traffickers in illegal products.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Falsified medicines are a global danger. Representatives of the World Health Organisation (WHO) warn that falsified products are far from containing the active ingredients mentioned in the package leaflet. On the contrary, they are based on substances which are highly toxic for the body. I think that European citizens should be informed at both European and national level about the risks posed to their health by products ordered from various uncontrolled websites or from the illegal supply chain, given that the Internet is one of the main routes by which falsified medicines enter the EU market.

I support the new legislative proposal because it will update the regulations in force and introduce safety features which will guarantee the identification, authentication and traceability of medicines from the factory to the consumer. This is the reason why I voted for this report.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this important document. The report presented by the Commission notes that seizures of falsified medicines are increasing, and that life-saving medicines intended to treat cancer and heart disease are being falsified. Falsified medicines are also increasingly finding their way into the licensed distribution chain. This poses a major threat to the health of EU citizens. Falsifying of medicinal products must be viewed as a criminal act that denies patients the necessary medical treatment and is harmful to their health, sometimes even leading to their death. Therefore the objective of the directive should be the protection of public health, ensuring a high level of quality control of the import of medicinal products, since this is one of the key entry doors of falsified medicines to the European market. Furthermore, it is crucial to create an inspections system and an efficient falsification detection system. I believe that it is essential to properly regulate and control the sale of medicines on the Internet, because this is one of the main routes for falsified medicinal products to enter the European market.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as European citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about the quality and safety of medicines. Patients must be absolutely certain that the medicines they are taking are actually the medicines they expect to take. The use of falsified medicines may cause the treatment to fail and jeopardise lives. I think, as the rapporteur also does, that falsifying medicines is a criminal act which deprives patients of the medical treatment they require and harms their health, even resulting in death in some cases. For this reason, the directive’s first and most important objective should be to protect public health against falsified medicines. The level of public awareness also needs to be raised about the risks of buying medicines via the Internet. We must guarantee patients that they can recognise websites which comply with the relevant legislation. A directive intended to combat the falsification of medicines without targeting the Internet, which is the largest distribution channel, cannot be justified to the public.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Now that population ageing is the long-term demographic trend throughout our European continent, it is certain that expenditure on medicines will increase further in our countries. While, on the one hand, we must gauge the impact of this and reflect on consumption, it is also essential to fight against the increasing falsification of medicines. Leaving aside the detrimental financial impact on European research, this is an urgent public health issue for Europe today. The European Parliament was right to take things in hand.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report in question on the prevention of the entry into the supply chain of medicinal products which are falsified highlights an important element of concern for the European public, namely the quality and safety of the medicines they use. Therefore, I welcome the provisions that will make it possible to combat the phenomenon of falsified medicines and which represent a necessary step towards responding to this rising public health threat and ensuring patients’ safety.

After some six months of negotiations, the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council is certainly an improvement on the existing regulatory system. More specifically, it regulates the sale of medicines over the Internet, which is one of the main channels through which falsified medicines enter the EU market. In fact, in order to operate, online pharmacies in Member States must obtain special permits to supply products to the public over the Internet.

Lastly, because I believe that the falsification of medicines should not be viewed as a minor offence – we need only think of the implications of falsifying life-saving drugs – but rather as criminal activity that endangers human lives, I fully support the strengthening of sanctions.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. − (PL) Health is the most important asset in everyone’s life. The commercial availability of a variety of falsified medicines, especially life-saving medicines, has therefore rightly aroused the fears of citizens. The vast and steadily growing number of counterfeit products seized in the EU every year may be reason for concern. It is therefore necessary for us to respond decisively to this phenomenon, which is nothing other than organised criminal activity. Patients must be absolutely sure that the medicines they take are authentic.

This is why I support the rapporteur’s position that protection against counterfeit drugs should be the overriding aim of the directive, from which we must not be diverted. I fully agree too with the proposal to include the online distribution of drugs in the directive. In such cases patients are mainly reliant on themselves, and their medical knowledge does not necessarily enable them to identify a fake product. The rules must be clear when it comes to such an important issue as health. We should eliminate any risks.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we must take into account a concern which is getting higher and higher on the agenda of the European citizens: the quality and safety of the medicinal products they are consuming. There is data indicating a sharp increase in seizures of falsified medicines by customs. For instance, 2.7 million medicinal products were confiscated at EU custom borders in 2006 and 2.5 million in 2007, hence seizures of medicines are up 384% compared to 2005. The report observes a trend from the falsification of ‘lifestyle’ medicines to life-saving medicines, including medicines to treat cancer and heart disease, psychiatric disorders and infections. Treatment with such falsified medicines can have fatal consequences. Furthermore, there is a trend towards targeting the classical supply chain. Besides the Internet, the licensed distribution chain is increasingly targeted. Out of the 13 Member States that had data, seven reported incidences of counterfeit medicinal products in the legal supply chain. Patients need to be absolutely sure that the medicines they consume really are the medicines they expect them to be. The use of falsified medicines can result in therapeutic failure and can put lives at risk. I therefore believe that the protection of public health against falsified medicines should be the main focus of the directive. This focus should not be troubled by other additional objectives.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The counterfeiting of medicines has become a profitable business, with minimal risk of accountability before the law. This situation is highlighted by the fact that, in 2008 alone, the customs authorities announced that more than 34 million counterfeit medicinal products were confiscated in Europe. Admittedly, the EU has not yet reached the situation of other geographical areas where up to 30% of the medicines available on the market are counterfeit. However, the EU must not allow this situation to be reached. It is currently estimated that 1% of medicinal products sold are counterfeit, but there are warnings indicating that this proportion is on the rise. The new safety regulations adopted by Parliament, the penalties imposed on the manufacturers of counterfeit medicines and the control system between manufacturers and consumers are intended to halt the growth of the pharmaceutical black market in the EU.

Therefore, the introduction of new, mandatory safety regulations governing the trading of medicinal products, including those sold via the Internet, is a welcome step. Selling counterfeit medicines is a criminal activity with serious repercussions which can affect a huge number of consumers who very often choose the easy route of the Internet to order medicines which they would otherwise not be able to access without a medical recommendation.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The number of falsified medicinal products is rising sharply in all European countries. This is confirmed by recent findings indicating that 1.5 million falsified boxes are sold each year in Europe by the legal pharmaceutical supply chain. New estimates also suggest a worrying increase in this phenomenon, which also includes online medicine sales and, even more seriously, increasingly involves novel ‘life-saving’ drugs.

A new European strategy must therefore be implemented as soon as possible so as to combat this phenomenon and to better protect public health and European consumers. I therefore voted in favour of this report, because I think it has the merit of having achieved a good compromise, the main aim of which is to protect patients so that they do not take falsified medicines.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) We must act as a matter of urgency in response to the alarming increase in medicinal products which are falsified in relation to their identity, history or source. These products normally contain low-quality or falsified substances, representing a serious threat to public health, and also leading to a loss of patient trust in the legal supply chain. The verification requirements pharmaceutical manufacturers are subject to should be stepped up in order to avoid these risks. Safety features for medicines should also be harmonised within the EU, and should enable each individual pack to be identified and its authenticity verified. They should also identify any falsified products, while ensuring the functioning of the internal market for medicines. The risk-assessment process should take account of criteria such as the cost of medicines and the history of falsified medicines in the EU and in third countries, as well as the effects these falsified products have on public health, in terms of the specific nature of the products in question and of the severity of the conditions they are intended to treat. The safety features should enable the verification of every pack of medicine that is supplied, regardless of the method of supply used, including those available via distance-selling channels.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The marketing of falsified medicinal products has increased public health risks over recent years. There are worrying data that, apart from the Internet, more and more falsified medicinal products are entering the legal supply chain.

I voted in favour of the Matias report because:

1. It puts patient protection at the heart of the legislative proposal, by adopting measures to provide access to a high standard of safe and appropriate treatment and information.

2. It includes and regulates online sales of medicinal products, which were missing from the Commission proposal, despite the fact that over 50% of medicinal products purchased online are falsified.

3. It establishes safety features for prescription and non-prescription (black-listed) medicinal products, in the aim of preventing falsified medicinal products from entering the legal supply chain.

4. It demands full traceability of medicinal products and, at the same time, establishes an early warning system in all the Member States, so that medicinal products which are suspected of being dangerous can be withdrawn.

5. It sees falsification of medicinal products as an organised criminal activity and imposes strict penalties on the offenders.

6. Exports of medicinal products from the EU to third countries must satisfy the same safety criteria as those which apply to imports.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The falsification of medicines is an organised crime that endangers peoples’ lives just like narcotics trafficking. Nevertheless, this type of crime is neither regulated in the same way nor subject to the same level of penalties as narcotics-related crimes. Illegally producing medicines by copying, or quite simply omitting, their active ingredients does not require large-scale facilities or investment. It is easy to make a large profit. Estimated figures have revealed that proceeds from the sale of falsified medicines in 2010 exceeded EUR 50.6 million, which therefore represents a 95% increase as compared to the estimated figures five years ago. This increase is largely due to the lack of detailed legislation in some countries because of either a lack of resources or the unwillingness to implement it, and to the fact that the level of penalty set out does not have a truly deterrent effect.

I support the compromise reached by the rapporteur: it is balanced and its primary objective is to protect patients. This is a step in the right direction, even though it excludes important issues such as, for example, the fact that generic medicines and non-prescription medicines are not covered by the implementation of safety features.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Given the ever-growing risks to patients from counterfeit medicines, I think that interim measures to strengthen patient safety need to be introduced urgently. These measures must stipulate that manufacturing authorisation holders who remove or cover up overt safety features applied on a voluntary basis by manufacturers be held strictly liable in the event of counterfeits entering the supply chain as a result of their actions.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, as it aims to combat at EU level falsified medicines within the legal supply chain without hampering the functioning of the internal market in medicines. It aims to do so, for example, by introducing obligations for operators in the distribution chain, by prohibiting those operators situated between the original manufacturer and the final operator in the distribution chain (generally the pharmacist) or the end user (doctor/patient) from manipulating (that is removing, modifying or covering) the safety features on the packaging, and by establishing stricter criteria governing the importation of active pharmaceutical ingredients from third countries and product inspections.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − The quality of medicinal products is crucial to ensure safety, and to give peace of mind to consumers. It is clear that there is a rising threat to the health of our constituents as a result of these products flooding the market, especially with falsifications becoming more sophisticated year on year. This is a public health crisis on a global scale. It is currently estimated that perhaps 15% of the global medicine supply is counterfeit, while it is estimated that in some developing countries over 30% of medicines on sale may be counterfeit. The public needs to be 100% sure that the products they consume are safe and fit for purpose. The use of falsified medicines can have a serious detrimental impact on a patient’s health, in some cases leading to death. It is clear that a comprehensive strategy on tackling this issue is vital, both at national and international level, in order to ensure that high standards of public health and safety are maintained.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on falsified medicinal products, which includes measures for combatting the alarming rise in falsified medicinal products in the EU, such as safety features for verifying the authenticity of the product throughout the supply chain, with a view to patient safety and protecting public health. I am delighted that the European Parliament has decided to enforce these safety features not only on the conventional supply chain but also on sales via the Internet, which is the main gateway for falsified products. I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament advocates the need for controls on medicines entering and leaving the EU and plans to implement heavy penalties, as these crimes are endangering lives.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that consumer safety is a matter of vital importance, particularly when the consumers involved are also patients who are seeking a cure from the medicines they take, or at least a significant improvement in their health. Consumer safety is of even greater importance when it aims to safeguard the authenticity of medicinal products sold on the open market, whether through traditional channels or over the Internet.

For this very reason, I consider it vital that very clear regulations be adopted on the falsification of medicinal products, as this is a growing phenomenon throughout Europe and the rest of the world which has devastating effects on consumer confidence, on companies and, even more importantly, on the health of those who take these falsified medicines.

I therefore support this report and would congratulate Mrs Matias on the work she has carried out and on all the compromises that she has negotiated.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The clandestine trade in medicinal products has already been compared with the illegal trade in weapons of war and drug trafficking. It is a scourge that affects millions of people around the world, and which is a nightmare for those whose duty it is to look after public health: someone who is ill, often with chronic or terminal diseases could take something that is harmless and has no effect, or even take something that could even be harmful. We know that there are increasing amounts of counterfeit or falsified medicinal products in circulation, with the figures running into the millions. It is essential that we fight organised crime and cross-border traffickers and put an end to parallel marketing circuits, for example on the Internet. I therefore welcome the adoption of tamper-evident packaging and the creation of an early warning system.

I welcome the adoption of this directive of Parliament and the Council which, by tracking the entire product cycle, will prevent falsified and/or counterfeit medicinal products from being brought into the European Union and will reinforce the protection of public health by improving the quality and safety of the medicinal products consumed. Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, my compatriot, Mrs Matias, on the work she has done.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is a problem with serious effects on public health and on the economies of the Member States. The falsification of medicinal products and the alarming quantities entering the legal supply chain are worrying issues that need to be duly addressed and combated. It should not be forgotten that medicinal products are only falsified and sold illegally because there are economic reasons that encourage this phenomenon, as the existence of generic medicinal products at prices that people can afford makes falsification less profitable. The report tackles the relevant issue of sales via the Internet, which is part of the legal supply chain. It refers to the importance of raising public awareness to the risks associated with purchasing medicinal products in this manner. We would highlight the importance of strengthening cooperation and coordination between competent national authorities, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other international bodies, with a view to exchanging information, enabling increased knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon and, in this way, improving the fight.

It should be remembered that such cooperation must also work in other areas, such as pharmacovigilance. Greater transparency is demanded from existing European structures, such as the EMA, with regard to the studies they carry out and their operations. We believe that the compromise reached is a positive step in the essential fight against this problem.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The quality and safety of the medical products being sold to the people of Ireland is a matter of great concern. I welcome this proposal, which aims to curb falsified medical products. This is an important and necessary measure.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) We voted for the Matias report on falsified medicines. This is indeed a public health and safety issue in a Europe without borders where the worst counterfeit or simply poor-quality rubbish can circulate freely. However, there is no guarantee that, in matters of health, medicine or pharmacovigilance, the European Union is best placed to resolve any problems that may arise. It may even be the cause of them, for example with the 2004 Directive on traditional herbal medicinal products, coupled with the 2006 Regulation on health claims. The former includes the requirement for products to be registered with the European Medicines Agency, a procedure so complex and so costly that only 200 herbal medicinal products had been registered by the end of 2010. The other gives the European Food Safety Authority the power to authorise or not health claims for food supplements, including plants, an authorisation which it gives so rarely and refuses on such arbitrary grounds that it has even upset the Commission. The upshot is that European legislation will end up favouring chemical medicines and pharmaceutical laboratories. Is there a desire to eradicate the natural medicines sector? Who or what will benefit from this? Not necessarily the health of the people of Europe.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Falsified medicines now account for 10% of pharmaceutical products sold worldwide, and Europe is by no means safe from this scourge, which is, moreover, developing in a worrying fashion. I am therefore pleased that this text has been approved by Parliament, since we MEPs have fought to improve the European Commission’s initial proposal in which the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industries took precedence over the health and safety of the European people. Thus this new text also takes account of online sales of medicines, which are to be better regulated and controlled, for the good of all.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I agree with the Matias report’s assertion that patients must have absolute certainty as to the quality of the medicines they take. From studies it is clear that the use of falsified medicines is so dangerous for patients that it puts lives at risk: it is therefore right to consider falsification to be a criminal act warranting the adoption of a strong stance by the European Union.

Hence my support for the points contained in the report, namely: that there should be clear definitions relating not only to the scope, but also to the different actors in the supply chain, in order to clarify their roles and responsibilities; that sanctions should be equivalent to those applied for illegal acts involving narcotics; and that there should be enhanced transparency and regulation of medicine sales on the Internet, thereby enabling consumers to distinguish between illegal operators and online pharmacies.

Today, more than ever, active collaboration between different national and international agencies is emerging as a key factor in a more effective system to combat pharmaceutical falsification. Such a system can ensure appropriate monitoring not only of pharmaceutical falsification within the European Union but also of falsified medicines exported to third countries, the numbers of which continue to increase. The guiding principle should be patient welfare in all cases.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we must take into account a concern which is getting higher and higher on the agenda of European citizens: the quality and safety of the medicinal products they are consuming. It is estimated that 1% of medicinal products currently sold to the European public through the legal supply chain are fake. In other parts of the world more than 30% of the medicines on sale can be fake. More and more innovative and life-saving drugs are counterfeit. It is well known that the Internet represents one of the main routes for falsified medicinal products to enter the European market. Medicinal products purchased over the Internet from sites that conceal their actual physical address are estimated to be falsified in more than 50 % of cases. People looking for cheaper medicines on the Internet are often hooked in by fraudsters selling counterfeit medicines with ingredients that pose a health risk. A lot of fake medicine is getting into the legal supply chain during repackaging. For too long we have lacked a proper response to dishonest repackagers and fraudsters rampant in the vastness of the Internet, while an ever increasing number of people buying medicines from untrustworthy websites have begun to put their health or even their lives at risk. I am pleased that penalties for counterfeiters have been set, along with measures to ensure a more stringent review. Registered pharmacies in countries where the sale of medicines over the Internet is permitted must obtain a special licence; their websites must carry the European logo and be included in the European database. Patients need to be absolutely sure that the medicines they consume really are the medicines they need to take. The protection of public health against falsified medicines should be the main focus.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I am very pleased that Parliament and the Council were able to agree on a compromise with regard to the problem of falsified medicinal products. This is particularly important because the falsification of medicinal products has now become a very serious problem, which has widened to include life-saving preparations. With the measures that have been adopted we have taken an important step in the right direction, without excessive bureaucracy. First and foremost, new safety features are to be applied to the packaging and the monitoring of distribution channels is to be improved. In this way, we will achieve greater safety for patients – which, in view of the extent of the falsification of medicinal products, was urgently needed – without imposing excessive burdens on the parties involved.

  Jaroslaw Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) We take medicines to relieve pain, to alleviate the symptoms of diseases or to save our lives. It happens frequently that we spend significant sums on them, which in many instances account for the majority of our income. This is why dishonest people, devoid of moral principles, counterfeit medicinal products. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the case that a patient dies as a result of taking these medicines. It is therefore necessary to step up precautions with regard to imports of drugs from third countries, to limit the sale of medicines over the Internet to a minimum, to initiate a campaign to raise patients’ awareness of the risks of taking non-certified counterfeit medicines and a campaign that ensures that those buying medicines are aware that counterfeit medicinal products are in circulation. I agree with the rapporteur that copyright protection is not a priority here. The most important aspect is human health and life, and it is our duty to do everything in our power to protect them.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted for the directive on combating falsified medicines. In light of the number of counterfeit medicines confiscated in the European Union (more than 34 million counterfeit pills were confiscated in 2008), it is high time for the European Union to set up an effective traceability system to guarantee the origin and the quality of medicines available in the European Union. This is all the more necessary given that counterfeit medicines pose a real risk to European’s health in view of the substances – toxic substances at times – that they may contain. The new measures introduced, that is, electronic serial numbers on the packaging of prescription medicines allowing them to be traced from the factory to the patient; limitation on handling during repackaging stages; and strengthening of inspections of manufacturers and wholesalers, represent a concrete step forward that will guarantee the people and patients of Europe a greater level of safety.

Finally, I should like to point to the progress made in this text in relation to online medicine sales. Given that an estimated 50% of medicines purchased on the Internet are counterfeit, this text establishes a common logo to allow for the identification of legal online pharmacies. Nonetheless, it is up to the people of Europe to exercise vigilance when making purchases of this nature online.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Falsified medicinal products pose a real threat to the entire pharmaceutical system in Europe since, apart from the danger patients are exposed to by taking such products, this results in a decline in the general public’s confidence in the quality of the medicinal products available in pharmacies. The number of falsified medicinal products is rising extremely rapidly in the EU. They may contain inferior or falsified ingredients, or they may not contain any at all or their doses may be incorrect. Although the scale of this problem is still relatively minor in Europe, unlike in other regions, I voted for this report as I think that there are a number of factors indicating the need for measures to be adopted promptly at EU level. The new directive will include penalties imposed on the manufacturers of counterfeit medicines, enhanced safety regulations and a verification system whose aim is to prevent dangerous medicinal products reaching the European market.

One encouraging aspect is that the European Parliament has successfully added to the European Commission’s proposal the regulation of the sale of these products via the Internet, which is the main channel for introducing counterfeit medicines into the EU market.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. − (PL) In today’s vote I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Matias on falsified medicinal products. I believe that the document adopted today will reduce the growing problem of counterfeit medicines and introduce a well-functioning system for monitoring the European market, from the manufacturer to the patient. I am convinced that coordination between the various national and international bodies is necessary, and we are taking a step forward towards strengthening this cooperation by approving the report. I believe that the problem of counterfeit medicines in Europe is a serious one and the European Parliament, by adopting the report, is sending out a clear message to the Commission that only effective cooperation and the effective enforcement of sanctions will make it possible to reduce this practice. Thank you.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Counterfeit medicines are already widespread in the developing world where 20-30% of medicines on the market are fake. They are now being found increasingly in the EU. Around 1% of medicines sold in Europe are estimated counterfeit. This new agreement, which I welcome, will introduce mandatory safety features, such as seals and serial numbers for prescription medicines. This will allow for their traceability. Generics will not be included in the requirements unless a certain product is at exceptional risk of being counterfeited.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) The draft report does a good job of continuing the work carried out in the previous parliamentary term. The Commission proposal avoids giving specific definitions, despite the many recommendations. This kind of approach may lead to incomplete or unenforceable protection for patients who are consumers of medicinal products. That is why I welcome Amendment 120, which makes the Commission's proposal much less ambiguous. Particularly useful is the definition of a ‘falsified medicinal product’. The proposed text regarding ‘supply chains’ is also excellent, and if approved would strengthen the right of patients to protection. I consider the implementation of Recital 5c of Amendment 120, enabling the enforcement and monitoring of compliance with EU rules, to be imperative. The amendment brings EU regulations into line with the findings of the Court of Justice. In this context, the proposed text also allows Member States to take their own action in support of greater consumer protection.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Parliament’s amendments do not call for the safety systems to be extended to over-the-counter medicines. Nevertheless, our fellow citizens purchase larger numbers of these medicines. Their health is therefore at risk. Nor do they call for the obligation for the European Medicines Agency to exercise total transparency with regard to its research and to the collusion between its officials and the pharmaceutical companies. This, however, is necessary. The scandalous case of benfluorex, known by the name of Mediator in France, is proof positive of this. However, the amendments tabled are along the right lines, particularly those concerning the public authentication of Internet sites and sanctions. I am therefore voting for this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since this is a very serious problem that puts public health in the EU at risk, I believe the implementation of new rules is key to protecting patients from falsified medicinal products. That is why, on 23 April 2010, I asked the European Commission a question about a joint operation involving the 27 Member States, called ‘Medi-Fake’, which at the time had confiscated 34 million counterfeit tablets in only two months.

For this reason, I have always supported severe measures to combat this situation, as a way of closing down a trade that represents EUR 45 billion of profit to some criminal networks. That is why I voted as I did.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I have voted in favour of the legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of medicinal products which are falsified in relation to their identity, history or source, as I consider that it positively strengthens the measures against counterfeit medicines and their distribution and, therefore, improves the protection of citizens. Furthermore, I think it is very positive that Parliament’s position reinforces the transparency and the right to information as a means to prevent this illegal activity. I consider it important that it focuses on the improvement of preventative measures in regard to the supply of counterfeit medicines through the Internet. I support stepping up the legal fight against the distribution of those medicines via the Internet since the majority of cases of counterfeit medicines entering the European market occur in this way. I have voted in favour of the text as the amendments considerably improve the text put forward by the Commission as they strengthen control measures, increase transparency, improve access to information and, therefore, enable improved protection for citizens.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) President Jacques Chirac said that the most intolerable inequality is inequality in health. That is why I voted in favour of this report, which focuses on health and therefore the protection of consumers. Falsified medicinal products are a scourge that has long been ignored. While developing countries are an obvious target, because the cost of legal medicines is often beyond the reach of the majority and the controls are scarcely effective if not indeed non-existent, we are also seeing more and more falsified medicines entering the EU, particularly via the Internet. This is a growing threat to public health and to safety in general, and it exists throughout the world.

The EU must remain vigilant and energetically pursue a purposeful policy against this unacceptable corruption. At present, it is difficult to put a figure on its economic implications, as production has become more industrialised. This is a moral and ethical problem that undermines the credibility and efficacy of health systems. For this reason, the fight against falsified medicines should appeal to the conscience of political leaders around the world.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I completely support the report of Marisa Matias. However, I consider the measures featured in the report to be insufficient. It is necessary to work out and make obligatory for all EU Member States a package of measures covering responsibility for distribution, assistance, production and realisation of counterfeit medicines. Measures should include forfeiture of licence from suppliers and distributors of counterfeit medicine, maximum fines and criminal responsibility for all people related to illegal activity in the area of medicine trading. The responsibility of the guilty should be no less than if they were drug dealers. Only in that way we can stop the distribution of counterfeit products and eradicate the black market in medicines.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) People’s health is the greatest asset of our society and we should use appropriate means to promote and maintain it. The increased occurrence of falsified medicinal products is exposing more and more patients, including in Europe, to incalculable risks that could even result in them paying with their lives. However, I have voted against the report because the proposed measures, particularly the import controls, do not, in my opinion, go far enough.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the counterfeiting of medicinal products is a significant problem throughout the EU, and we therefore need to take radical measures to ensure that counterfeit medicines, which could have adverse effects on human health or even life, do not enter the market. We must ensure that only safe and effective medicines reach consumers, and we must stop criminal gangs profiting from counterfeit medicines. We must make every effort to ensure that a strict labelling system for prescription medicines is in force in the EU, including safety labels that establish the manufacturer and supplier. I feel that there should be harsher penalties for medicine counterfeiters, and the control mechanism must operate effectively across the whole of the EU, including every link in the medicine supply chain. Particular attention and safety measures must be devoted to the sale of medicines on the Internet, establishing strict licensing, monitoring and control systems. Every Member State must take all the measures necessary to ensure the effective functioning of a system that warns the public about dangerous counterfeit or low quality medicines and even creates opportunities to remove such medicines from the market.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is based on a Commission proposal aimed at preventing the introduction of falsified medicinal products to the supply chain, drawing attention to an issue that is of increasing concern to Europeans: the quality and safety of the medicinal products that they use. We should highlight the positive effect of this proposal, which promotes debate on a crucial subject, with the ultimate aim of combating falsified medicinal products. In fact, the falsification of medicinal products is a crime that deprives the patients of the medical treatment that they need and damages their health, possibly even causing death. The main objective of the directive, as the rapporteur rightly points out, should be the protection of public health. This objective must be reflected in the directive’s legal basis. It also seems essential to me to safeguard the distribution network for medicinal products, establishing clear and precise definitions, not only with regard to the scope of the directive’s application, but also with regard to the roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved in the supply chain: retailers, distributors, brokers. I voted in favour, as I believe it is essential to promote a legislative measure on this, in order to deal with this growing threat to health and to improve patient safety.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. − There is an alarming increase in the EU of medicinal products which are falsified with regard to their identity, history or source. The directive introduces obligatory safety features for all prescriptive medicinal products and a rapid alert system; harmonised safety features to verify authenticity and identify individual packs, providing tampering evidence for medicinal products subject to prescription (possible exclusion of certain products following a risk assessment); no safety features for medicinal products not subject to prescription, unless a risk assessment demonstrates the risk of falsification and consequently a threat to public health; traceability: there will be a unique identifier for the safety features (e.g. a serialisation number) which allows the authenticity of the product and individual packs to be verified throughout the supply chain up to pharmacy level; in addition, Member States have to set up systems to prevent suspected medicinal products from reaching patients; Internet sales: conditions for the supply of medicinal products to the public are determined by Member States; increased transparency as regards wholesale distributors; penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions must be applied.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After branded products and cigarettes, counterfeiting has spread to the medicine market, and the seven million medicinal products seized each year account for around 5% of all counterfeits. The challenge for the European authorities, judicial as well as customs, is enormous: they have to trace the sources and curb this trafficking, which is endangering millions of lives worldwide. I therefore welcome the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council to establish a common legal framework in the 27 Member States to limit the risk of falsified medicines. Of the main advances, I would mention: the principle of cascading accountability covering all actors in the chain – manufacturing authorisation holders, wholesale distributors, brokers, and so on; the compulsory use of a security device (serial number or seal) on the packaging of prescription medicines; the introduction of stricter rules on inspections carried out in cooperation with the European Medicines Agency; and the drafting of a list of entities authorised to sell products remotely.

To conclude, this is an important piece of legislation. However, more international cooperation and cyber controls are needed to eradicate falsified Viagra, slimming products, dermatological creams, and so on, which are available at the click of a mouse.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to offer my congratulations on the excellent work carried out by Mrs Matias. Falsified medicinal products are ‘silent killers’, even if they have no effect, because they contain toxic substances that can damage or even kill those who take them. The absence of a framework law encourages falsification, which is an organised crime.

We have seen disproportionate growth of this criminal activity, with a 400% increase in seizures of falsified medicinal products since 2005. It is estimated that 1% of the medicinal products currently on sale to the European public through the legal supply chain are falsified and that this number is increasing. In other parts of the world, more than 30% of the medicines on sale may have been falsified. In addition, increasing numbers of innovative and life-saving drugs are falsified.

We have therefore approved today a new law to prevent the entry of falsified medicines into the legal supply chain and to protect patient safety. The legislation also covers Internet sales and introduces new safety devices and traceability measures, as well as penalties for counterfeiters, to prevent the sale of falsified medicines to European Union citizens.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − To be able to better safeguard the distribution network for medicinal products it is crucial to have clear definitions not only of the scope, but also of the different actors in the supply chain. What is a falsified medicinal product? What is an active ingredient or an excipient? The Commission proposal does not provide the required clarity. The same applies for the definitions of the different actors in the chain of supply, clarifying their roles and responsibilities. It is essential to make a distinction between those actors who are already formally recognized - and which role is considered liable - and those who are outside that category, although being relevant to the liability of the distribution chain.

Therefore it is important to make the distinction between traders and brokers, as well as to clarify their roles and responsibilities. The same applies for other actors, such as transporters or parallel traders. The directive should prevent confusion and should not allow any room for 'grey' areas. It should clearly identify which actors are able to operate in this domain and under which conditions. Clearer definitions will result in simpler implementation.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. − The opportunities for selling falsified medicinal products have increased rapidly in recent years. The ever-increasing risk of these medicines entering the supply chain means there is an urgent need to update the legislation. In particular, regulation of sales on the Internet is notoriously difficult and can only be tackled effectively at international level. This issue was not addressed in the Commission's proposal, and the work of the ENVI committee has therefore substantially improved it by adding important safeguards for consumers who purchase medicines online. But the nature of the Internet means that we cannot eliminate the risk. Consumer awareness of this risk needs to be improved, and so I welcome the inclusion of awareness-raising campaigns for the public which has been agreed as part of the compromise. The Commission is in a unique position to coordinate education campaigns for the public and must ensure that the Member States fulfil their obligations in this regard.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) There has been an alarming increase in counterfeit medicines in the EU. They may contain inferior quality, counterfeit or inaccurately measured substances, whether active or not, or they may contain no active substances at all, and thus pose a serious danger to the patient. For industry, the direct and indirect social costs of taking no action on this certainly amount to more than EUR 10 billion. Together with the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, I support this agreement. It brings existing rules up to date and introduces safety features which ensure the identification, authentication and traceability of the product, whilst regulating the sale of medicines on the Internet. That is one of the main routes by which counterfeit drugs end up on the European market. It is estimated that more than 50% of medicines purchased over the Internet on sites which do not specify their actual physical address are counterfeit.

We therefore have to distinguish between legitimate mail order or Internet pharmacies and the illegal distribution chain, which includes uncontrolled Internet purchases. A legitimate mail order pharmacy must be connected to a legally registered pharmacy and we have to make sure that any legitimate mail order pharmacy complies with all the legal requirements which apply to pharmacies in the Member State where it is legally established.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report which aims to prevent falsified medicinal products from entering the legal supply chain by increasing harmonisation, improving traceability and by ensuring that penalties are dissuasive and effective. Patient safety has to be the priority when dealing with medications.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I voted in favour of the report because it provides new bases for combating falsified medicinal products. There has been a gradual progression from, firstly, the sorts of medicinal products that are susceptible to falsification to later include other medicines in secure packaging. The marketing of medicinal products is prevented by the procedure of enquiry and readability. Increased protection is provided for consumers. The costs for the industry are manageable.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. − (LT) Ladies and gentlemen, the amount of falsified medicines entering the EU is growing at a terrific rate. This is a particular worry for countries like Lithuania, which forms part of the EU’s eastern border. Eastern Europe is the main route of the trade in falsified medicines worth billions. This is a major problem – the Commission puts the number of boxes of falsified medicines sold within the legal supply chain each year in Europe at 1.5 million. Even more alarming is the fact that volumes are increasing by up to 20%. Falsified medicines are silent killers. The people distributing them are dangerous criminals and should be viewed as such. Penalties for counterfeiting medicine should be the same as for drug trafficking. This will require improved coordination between various national and international institutions. We must clamp down on the sale of falsified medicines online, because the Internet is one of the main routes for falsified medicinal products to enter the European market. According to the World Health Organisation, 50% of the medicines sold online are falsified. I believe that one of our priorities should be to draw the public’s attention to the risks involved in buying medicines online.

  Jaroslaw Leszek Walesa (PPE) , in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of the legislative motion for a resolution of the European Parliament on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of medicinal products which are falsified in relation to their identity, history or source. There can be no doubt that the appearance of falsified medicines in official distribution channels represents a threat to the entire European pharmaceutical system, by undermining the trust of citizens in the quality of drugs purchased in pharmacies or other legal outlets.

In my opinion, the most disturbing aspect is the change in the risk profile. To date, counterfeit products have mainly come under the heading of ‘life-style’ drugs, whereas there is currently a dramatic increase in the number of counterfeit life-saving medicines. It is therefore important to establish a clear and unambiguous definition of a ‘falsified medicinal product’. but also to define all the entities in the distribution chain, such as sellers and agents who must operate on the basis of permits and abide by the rules of good manufacturing practices, as do the manufacturers and distributors. In view of the above, I consider that it is necessary and a matter of priority to support any measures aimed at minimising this problem.

Motion for a resolution B7-0096/2011

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I only voted for this motion for a resolution because of the Commission’s strong commitment to improving the finance schemes currently being used to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have greater access to capital to fund their growth and innovation policies. One thing that is relevant in the current context of the economic crisis is the removal of the ‘red tape’ effect in the current EU support schemes. Despite agreeing with the measures proposed in this resolution, I would draw the Commission’s attention to the need to make progress with a more ambitious measure, the ‘Small Business Act’, for the post-2013 programming period. It should be remembered that in the current situation it is more important than ever to have strong institutional and financial support for SMEs, as they are the backbone of the European economy and will only manage to grow with adequate and sustainable finance istruments.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important motion for a resolution on practical aspects regarding the revision of EU instruments to support SME finance in the next programming period. The 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU, which account for around 99% of all businesses and provide over 100 million jobs, make a fundamental contribution to economic growth, social cohesion and job creation, are a major source of innovation and play a vital role in sustaining and increasing employment. However, the limited ability of SMEs to access finance is a major impediment to their creation and growth, particularly faced with the current financial and economic crisis. I therefore agree with the resolution’s call for a significant increase in funding for innovative financial instruments under the EU budget to cater for the financing needs of SMEs, and in light of the Europe 2020 Strategy. However, it should be noted that the current EU financial regulations on the use of European funds and programmes are unduly complicated, and the expense in terms of time and money involved in complying with these regulations is out of all proportion to the benefits for the final recipient of the funding. I therefore agree with the call for the Commission to propose simplified and less costly regulations and guidelines, especially for programmes intended to support low-volume SME finance.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Last October, the European Commission presented a policy paper entitled ‘An integrated industrial policy for the globalisation era’, which contains a number of specific initiatives intended to give a strong impetus to European industrial policy.

SMEs are, as Commissioner Tajani described them in Parliament yesterday, the ‘lifeblood’ of economic development. One job in four depends on the industrial sector, as do our global competitiveness, innovation and research. Commitment and coordination between European and national institutions, banks and SMEs are required if we are to bring down bureaucratic barriers and simplify rules. Many forward strides have been made in recent months with the adoption of the Late Payment Directive, the protection of trademarks and products, the opportunities for the development of the green economy and new policies focused on tourism, but much more remains to be done.

Many companies in the EU are dependent on EU funding and incentives, which is why access to credit must be guaranteed and improved. This is in fact a priority objective that I hope will be thoroughly addressed in the review of the Small Business Act, which will be presented on 23 February in Rome by Commissioner Tajani himself.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU account for around 99% of all businesses and provide over 100 million jobs. They make a fundamental contribution to economic growth, social cohesion and job creation. The limited ability of SMEs to access finance is a major impediment to their growth, and the continuing financial and economic crisis has restricted their access to funding even further. The banking sector is asking for more collateral and higher risk premiums. I believe that the availability of credit and loan guarantee schemes are crucial to ensuring this sector’s viability, growth and potential to create jobs. Much attention must be paid to European Investment Bank SME loans, as EUR 15 billion was allocated to these in 2008, but research shows that only a small proportion of this money reached SMEs, because the banks administering loans in the Member States tightened bank credits. I believe that the European Commission must take the necessary measures to make sure that allocated funding reaches SMEs, ensuring the viability and growth of this very important sector.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I am impressed by the number of SMEs in the European Union, 23 million, and by the number of jobs they provide – 100 million. These figures clearly highlight that we need to strengthen the scheme for financing this sector. However the European financing scheme is both diverse and complicated. I agree with the initiators of this motion for a resolution that the scheme needs to be as coherent as possible during the 2014-2020 financing period. I support the initiators’ idea of asking the Commission to encourage Member States to carry out the necessary reforms. These SMEs encounter each other on the single market, but receive different levels of support in their national environment. I also believe in the benefit of a point of single contact for all EU financial instruments intended for SMEs as a solution for balancing national support systems with European systems.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The employment crisis is more than sufficient grounds for adopting a text in which the appeal to apply the principle of subsidiarity to the area of pensions finally recognises the fact that the governments must be the main players in the rebuilding of social Europe. Only a brave decision in favour of grass-roots democracy, based on employment reforms that make work more attractive and on payslip federalism that takes account of the different costs of living in each region of Europe – against which both wages and pensions would be readjusted – would constitute a real change of direction towards renewal. I would point out the central role of SMEs in all of this. There are large numbers of them in Europe, which means that they create jobs and sustainability. Lowering the cost of work by reducing taxes, and giving our small enterprises the chance to carry on working and investing in the region are essential moves to ensure equalisation of contributions for the older generations and a future of certainty and quality of life for the new ones.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) It should be noted that a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will continue to depend mainly on credits and loans when it comes to external financing. We need to draw attention to the fact that an increasingly capital- and risk-sensitive banking sector is asking for more collateral and higher risk premiums, both requirements resulting in insufficient financing and missed business and employment opportunities in this very large sector of the economy. Given this, I believe that the availability of credit and loan guarantee schemes are crucial to exploiting the growth and job potential offered by SMEs. There is a need therefore to leverage existing programmes at national and EU levels. It is very important to continue to implement guarantee instruments in the framework of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP), the Risk-Sharing and Financing Facility under the Seventh Framework Programme and the Structural Funds (JEREMIE). Their proper implementation is currently being hindered by overly complex administrative procedures, therefore the Commission should make it easier to use the Structural Funds in connection with SME finance instruments, particularly to finance revolving funds for guarantee schemes, whilst avoiding the creation of structures which duplicate existing schemes.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) Given the fact that many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) depend on credit and loans for external funding, there is a need to create credit and loan guarantee schemes, and to boost the role of the European Investment Bank in this area. The Commission should also push for the removal of barriers to the development of European venture capital and bond markets, and should expand risk-sharing facilities for investments in equity. There is a related need to increase awareness of the risks of many national taxation and support systems, which provide strong incentives for debt financing and disincentives for equity financing. I think that the complexity of EU financial regulations and guidelines for European financial instruments is a serious problem, in particular when European funds and programmes are used to support individual enterprises through the provision of relatively small amounts of funding. The expense in terms of time and money involved in complying with these regulations is out of all proportion to the benefits for the final recipient of the funding. The fragmented nature of programmes supporting SMEs is also problematic. The Commission should establish greater coherence between the CIP, FP7 and JEREMIE programmes and create a one-stop shop where SMEs would be able to obtain clear and comprehensive information about how to make use of these instruments.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU play a crucial role in economic growth, social cohesion and job creation. I find the limited access that SMEs have to finance regrettable, and this is aggravated by the current financial and economic crisis. It is crucial that credit lines and guarantee schemes be available, so that the potential for growth and employment offered by SMEs may be explored. I welcome the creation of ‘Progress’, a new EU micro-finance facility for jobs. I support the implementation of the guarantee instruments within the scope of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, the Risk-Sharing and Financing Facility under the Seventh Framework Programme and the Structural Funds, and the Joint Action to Support Micro-Finance Institutions in Europe initiative. However, I call on the Commission to make using the Structural Funds easier and more flexible with regard to SME finance schemes. I also call for increased funding for innovative financial instruments in the EU budget, for the development of simplified, less costly regulations and guidelines.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that the European Commission’s specific strategies, measures and action plans for European SMEs need to be improved. I support the creation of a new European instrument for providing micro-finance for employment and for improving the regulations and SMEs’ access to the single market and financing.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As the providers of some 100 million jobs in Europe, SMEs are the backbone of the European economy. However, only 2% of them have access to EU funding. That is why I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution adopted by the European Parliament calling in particular for special attention to be paid to SME finance in the next EU programming period (2014-2020), through the use of innovative financial instruments. I welcome the clear message sent to the Commission and the Council by Parliament: it calls on them to remove the administrative obstacles that are particularly difficult for small businesses to overcome and which prevent them from gaining access to EU funding and support programmes.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − Small and medium-size enterprises will play a vital role in reinvigorating economies across Europe that are currently witnessing economic contraction or, at best, slight economic growth. In my constituency of Northern Ireland, 98% of all companies can be classified as SMEs. It is essential that SMEs are given as much support as possible to play their part in the economic recovery, yet what do they currently face? They face a squeeze from banks when it comes to existing credit and the future credit that is necessary to their existence. The EU must therefore look at ways of encouraging banks to lend whilst ensuring that the mechanisms put in place by the EU to support SMEs are accessible.

The current programmes must be streamlined and simplified, making application and access easier. Already burdened by huge amounts of EU red tape, many SMEs with limited manpower simply do not have the capacity or time to go through the current application processes. Some are not even designed with those who are in real need in mind. The programmes in place have the potential to help, but that help must be easier to obtain.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution as I advocate changing the way that small and medium-sized enterprises access European finance, which constitutes an important means for their creation and growth, bearing in mind the effects of the current financial and economic crisis, which has exacerbated the problem of these companies’ access to public and private finance.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There are approximately 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the European Union. Their importance to national economies and their growth potential for the labour market is undeniable. Portugal is an example of this: approximately 300 000 SMEs represent more than 99% of the total number of companies, and these are directly responsible for more than 2 million jobs and have a combined turnover of some EUR 170 billion. As a result of the recent economic crisis, the financing capacity of these SMEs, which was already limited, became significantly worse, specifically because of even more restrictive credit conditions imposed by the banking sector. The functioning of SME finance schemes therefore becomes all the more essential, specifically through a greater Union budget allocation for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme of the Structural Funds and the Seventh Framework Programme. It is also important to progressively correct market failures and remove administrative barriers. The right measures should be taken at the right time so that the national economies of the Member States can achieve their potential for growth and contribute to the growth of the labour market; this will enable the Member States to develop, which will result in social cohesion.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This European Parliament motion for a resolution deals with practical aspects regarding the revision of EU instruments to support finance for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the next programming period. The number of small companies has been increasing significantly in Europe in recent years. They already represent 99% of the total, are responsible for approximately 100 million jobs, and make a crucial contribution to economic growth and social cohesion. Despite this situation, it has been very hard for them to access finance, and this has worsened with the current financial crisis, during which the banking sector has introduced tough requirements for accessing their finance mechanisms.

I therefore welcome the adoption of this resolution, and I hope that there will be a significant strengthening of SME finance schemes and a simplification of administrative procedures, specifically by reducing the number of programmes, and by making national and EU programmes complement each other better.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution is very contradictory given that, although it contains some positive references to the measures needed to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it ascribes legitimacy to and calls for the same type of policies that form the basis of the problems currently affecting SMEs, specifically the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), the liberalisation of the financial markets and so-called free competition. This only serves to protect the economic and financial interest groups that charge high prices to make ever greater profits, whether by issuing credit or through the prices of energy and other commodities.

Right now, what is needed is an effective change in Union policy. The time is right to abandon the SGP and its irrational criteria, and replace it with a genuine pact for employment and social progress that incentivises small-scale investments; that gives micro-enterprises the opportunity to grow and, especially, to support groups – for example, young entrepreneurs – that are having problems finding borrowing opportunities for their business ideas; and that promotes employment with rights and improved living conditions, so that the population’s purchasing power increases.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I believe that this motion for a resolution constitutes in some respects an overdue action for an economic sector – that of small and medium-sized enterprises – which plays a significant role in the EU economy. A review of support tools is also appropriate in the context of an economic crisis that has had a particularly virulent effect on SMEs, as eloquently documented by the loss of 3 250 000 jobs between 2009 and 2010 alone (more than a third of the new jobs that this sector had created). In this context, I consider it important to stress the cooperation between the European Commission and the European Bank, giving particular support to investments that are able to maximise the effectiveness of SME finance programmes. In particular, it is necessary to ensure the continuity of credit through action on liquidity and capital requirements and new initiatives in three strategic areas to boost the competitiveness of companies in a phase that is still difficult but certainly more development-oriented: internationalisation, innovation and growth in size. With its directive against late payment by public authorities, Europe has already sent out an important signal to support SMEs, and it is right to continue in this direction if it wishes to stimulate economic growth in Europe.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − SMEs form an essential part of the backbone of the European economy and are the main drivers for job creation, economic growth, social cohesion and innovation in Europe. The participation and active role of SMEs are imperative for the advancement of the competitiveness of the single market. Following the financial crisis, it has become evident that the European financial markets are currently unable to provide SMEs with adequate finance mechanisms. Innovative and growth-oriented small businesses need to raise equity capital from external sources, because they either do not have their own financial resources or cannot access bank credit facilities. A more business-conducive environment for micro and craft enterprises should be supported through the promotion of high-quality support services, better legal and fiscal measures, and social protection for new entrepreneurs.

More adequate and sustainable financial instruments should guarantee that SMEs have better access to capital. The Commission should redouble its efforts to remove red tape from existing EU support schemes and facilitate cross-border banking, by removing all existing obstacles to the usage of competing clearing and settlement systems and by applying common rules on trading. The Commission should conduct a comparative analysis of what is actually being made available to SMEs in the equity investment market and what their actual needs are.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document, because 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for around 99% of all businesses in the EU and provide over 100 million jobs, make a fundamental contribution to economic growth, social cohesion and job creation, are a major source of innovation and play a vital role in sustaining and increasing employment. However, the limited ability of SMEs to access finance is a major impediment to their creation and growth, and the current financial and economic crisis has exacerbated this problem. The banking sector is asking for more collateral and higher risk premiums, both requirements resulting in insufficient financing and missed business and employment opportunities in this particularly large sector of the economy. The availability of credit and loan guarantee schemes are crucial to exploiting the growth and job potential offered by SMEs. I agree that we must make every effort to ensure that existing financing facilities are effectively implemented both at national and EU levels, simplifying administrative procedures and making it easier to use the Structural Funds.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this resolution, as it highlights one of the crucial problems we are currently facing. The crisis in the financial sector has led to more collateral and higher-risk premiums, which means it has become much more difficult to get start-up credits and other financial resources. We cannot afford to have SMEs suffering from greater burdens and higher administrative costs. We cannot afford to have SMEs falling bankrupt because of bureaucracy and because of stricter rules in the financial sector. SMEs are the driving force of our economies – they should not be punished for mismanagement in the financial sector. It is important that we pass such resolutions frequently enough to remind ourselves, the Commission and the Member States of our obligations to ensure a sustainable economy. This is only possible with sustainable SMEs.

  Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DE) Support for small and medium-sized enterprises will safeguard numerous jobs and strengthen the innovation potential of the European economy. It is therefore absolutely right to ensure the reasonable provision of loan capital for these enterprises, as only then can they make the necessary investments. However, the increase in venture capital called for by the European Parliament is to be rejected on principle. Instead of placing banks under an obligation to support the real economy by providing appropriate credit, Parliament is calling for it to be easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to get contributions from investment funds and private equity firms on the capital markets.

With a motto of ‘locusts for everyone’, the motion for a resolution calls in places for private equity firms to make it easier to do business with them. This would turn smaller enterprises in particular into the pawns of investors to an even greater extent than they are now. These investors are very often on the look-out for absurdly high two-figure profits, which they can usually only achieve by carving up the acquired enterprises and selling them off bit by bit.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Small and medium-sized European companies make a major contribution to economic growth in the European Union. There are 23 million SMEs, which corresponds to 99% of European companies. These numbers alone explain why we wish to and must protect these companies, which are the true driving force behind our economy. We have tried to send clear messages to the Commission with the motion for a resolution voted on today: these companies must not be abandoned. For these reasons, my vote in favour is part of our call for an increase in funding for SMEs, of our demand for less red tape and an adjustment to the standards required to obtain funding so that SMEs can really benefit from it, and also of our call for more funds for research. The economic crisis that has afflicted Europe in recent years must be overcome, and we can only hope to revitalise our economy by supporting these companies.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution which strongly supports the continued implementation of guarantee instruments in the framework of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP), the Risk-Sharing and Financing Facility under FP7 and the Structural Funds (JEREMIE), with the aim of enhancing SME lending, and under the JASMINE initiative to support micro-finance institutions; points out that their proper implementation is currently being hindered by overly complex administrative procedures; asks the Commission to make it easier to use the Structural Funds in connection with SME finance instruments, particularly to finance revolving funds for guarantee schemes, whilst avoiding the creation of structures which duplicate existing schemes, e.g. at national level.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the EU we have 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), equivalent to 99% of all companies and more than 100 million jobs. These make a crucial contribution to economic growth, social cohesion and job creation, provide an important source of innovation, and are vital for maintaining and expanding employment.

However, they lack choice when it comes to accessing finance and this is a major obstacle to their creation and growth. The current financial and economic crisis is exacerbating the problem. In the light of the Europe 2020 Strategy, a significant increase in financing for innovative financial instruments in the EU budget is therefore crucial, in order to satisfy SMEs’ financial requirements.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Small and medium-sized enterprises make a fundamental contribution to growth and social cohesion and play a vital role in sustaining and increasing employment. However, SMEs’ limited ability to access finance is a major impediment to their creation and growth, and the current financial crisis has exacerbated this problem. Banks are increasingly reluctant to finance riskier business projects, innovative products or business transfers. We therefore need to strengthen the functioning of SME finance schemes, support the continued implementation of guarantee instruments and increase funding for innovative financial instruments. Enterprises must have better access to equity-based financial instruments. The complexity of financial regulations and administrative burdens also restrict the development of SMEs, and it is therefore important to remove any administrative barriers and propose simplified and less costly regulations and guidelines.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the most useful resolution for the whole period from 2009 to 2011. I very much hope that the authors of the resolution will move forward and consider questions regarding the alleviation of the tax burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, will make available credit financing at reduced rates and improve communication between EU funding structures and SMEs, and finally monitor the situation in outlying regions of the EU, e.g. Latgale (Latvia). The government is conducting the well-planned and calculated liquidation of SMEs in Latgale by closing access to information about stabilisation funds, and by increasing taxes and the number of controlling and repressively fiscal bodies. All this leads to the elimination of the tax base, and as a result Latvia is on the edge of bankruptcy today.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Small and medium-sized enterprises provide 100 million jobs in the EU. Following the crisis, however, these enterprises are increasingly faced with the problem of financing, as most of them are externally financed. Banks now only offer them credit under the strict conditions of a subsidised loan. It would be good to be able to provide solutions in this regard that involve as little bureaucracy as possible and that would meet the requirements of both sides. I voted in favour of the report, as SMEs should, in my view, be supported financially in order to keep the economy stable.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this draft motion for a resolution, because small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make a fundamental contribution to economic growth, social cohesion, job creation and innovation. It is very important to establish effective instruments to support SME finance, paying particular attention to mezzanine financial instruments in the next programming period, which would remove obstacles to financing and would promote the creation and growth of new innovative enterprises, providing greater access to European venture capital and bond markets, while at the same time removing the barriers to the development of these markets. I agree with the proposal aiming to create better conditions for start-ups and innovative enterprises to have access to private equity. We must make every effort to ensure that existing financing facilities are effectively implemented both at national and EU levels, simplifying administrative procedures and making it easier to use the Structural Funds. It is very important for the Member States to implement fundamental reforms in SME taxation and support systems. There also needs to be increased funding from the EU budget for innovative financial instruments, with more funding being allocated to the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme. Furthermore, administrative obstacles must be reduced for SMEs, streamlining management in connection with innovative financial instruments, coordinating SME financing programmes and creating a one-stop shop.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution to support SME finance during the next programming period. Small and medium-sized enterprises and family businesses form the backbone of most European economies. They are the workshops which produce innovative ideas and original products. They are also the undertakings that have always driven economic growth. In Greece in particular, this category of undertaking, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of business activity in Greece, is in need of support in the current recession. The European Parliament wishes to make clear in this motion for a resolution that the new generation of EU programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises must be predicated on the new situation in Europe, on facilitating access to borrowing by small and medium-sized enterprises and on creating flexible financing mechanisms, such as micro-finance.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This motion for a resolution on the practical aspects of the revision of EU instruments to support finance for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the next programming period is essential in the current situation. In fact, the limited ability of SMEs to access finance is a major impediment to their creation and growth. The current financial and economic crisis has exacerbated the problem of SMEs’ access to finance. If we consider that SMEs contribute to economic growth, social cohesion and job creation; are a major source of innovation and play a vital role in increasing employment, we can understand the importance of the proposed amendments to this legal framework, which aim to improve the functioning of the SME finance schemes. For the above reasons, I voted for this resolution.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The European Parliament notes that a large number of SMEs will continue to depend mainly on credits and loans when it comes to external financing; it is concerned that an increasingly capital- and risk- sensitive banking sector is asking for more collateral and higher risk premiums, both requirements resulting in insufficient financing and missed business and employment opportunities in this very large sector of the economy; it regards, therefore, the availability of credit and loan guarantee schemes as crucial to exploiting the growth and job potential offered by SMEs; it sees a need to leverage existing programmes at national and EU level and it endorses the important role played by EIB SME loans.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I believe it can go some way to helping the more than 23 million European small and medium-sized enterprises, which make a crucial contribution to economic growth and social cohesion within the European Union through the 100 million jobs they provide. All too often in recent years, banks have demanded ever greater guarantees from SMEs needing capital to expand or revitalise their businesses.

For this reason it is necessary to significantly increase the financial instruments that can help such businesses, and to encourage the implementation of instruments that allow, for example, risk sharing between the various stakeholders. The complexity of European Union financial regulations, moreover, often involves an enormous expenditure of time and money on red tape alone. Now we have agreed on the guidelines, it is up to Member States to adopt ad hoc measures to revitalise and support the specific situation of their own SMEs, fuelling growth in a sector that by itself represents over 90% of all enterprises in the Union and constitutes the very lifeblood of our economy.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Today I voted for the motion for a resolution supporting the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). I believe that the situation of SMEs and the use of the European Union’s resources need to be made more effective so as to ensure that the liquidity crisis that occurred during the financial crisis, which had an impact on SMEs in particular, will not be repeated. Both in Estonia and in the European Union as a whole, SMEs constitute 99% of all businesses, which is why it is important that this particular majority should have access to financial backing, especially during difficult crisis years. I sincerely hope that both the European Union and SMEs will bring the European economy to a new ascent, and that in the future, we will be better prepared to face any new crisis.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of Amendment 6 of the proposal. I believe that start-ups and innovative enterprises must be supported in order to give them better access to equity-based financial instruments. The Commission should place stronger emphasis on programmes and financial instruments scheduled for the upcoming period, and on supporting these instruments with risk-sharing funds and facilities.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are an essential element of economic growth and job creation in the European Union (EU): they account for more than 100 million jobs, and play a crucial role in contributing to social cohesion. However, these companies’ access to financial credit and loans is limited, and the economic crisis has been exacerbating this situation, already made very complicated because of administrative burdens. I view an attempt to improve the way that SME finance systems work as broadly positive. I believe that such an attempt must include increasing the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the loans scheme, as well as implementing the instruments that already exist within the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, the Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises (Jeremie) programme and the Joint Action to Support Microfinance Institutions in Europe (Jasmine) programme.

I also advocate simplifying SMEs’ access to the Structural Funds, particularly as regards guarantee schemes, so as to prevent their duplication. It will also be advisable to consider new and effective financial instruments for the next multiannual financial framework, for example joint instruments with the EIB.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. − (LT) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of our society and the engine of our economy. Both in Lithuania and the EU SMEs account for 99% of all businesses. SMEs create more than 70% of jobs for Lithuanians. SMEs make a fundamental contribution to implementing the objectives of the Treaty of Lisbon, which promote innovations, competitiveness, social cohesion and job creation. It is therefore important to create an environment in which this can develop. SMEs, as well as start-ups and innovative enterprises must be given better access to the EU’s financial instruments. The availability of credit and loan guarantee schemes is crucial to exploiting the growth and job potential offered by SMEs. Currently many investment plans risk not being implemented due to uncertainties and a lack of funding. It is therefore important for banks to upgrade liquidity provision and support investment in the real economy. It is also important to support equity markets for start-ups and innovative enterprises. We must try harder to remove administrative obstacles. This will require progressive management and economy linked to innovative financial instruments.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) constitute around 99% of all businesses within the European Union, contributing greatly to the European economy through innovation, economic growth and the creation of over 100 million jobs. My vote in favour of this report reflects the importance of enabling SMEs to function in a manner not over-complicated by regulations, but one which encourages efficiency, flexibility and investment.

I recognise that advances have been made to ease the financial and administrative burden on SMEs, such as the 2010 establishment of the SMEs finance forum, but urge the Commission to do more in order to create a more competitive and accessible economy for the SMEs which are so vital to the success of Europe’s economy.

Incentives must encourage the necessary reforms to financial systems in Member States, investment must be made to nurture innovation in SMEs and administrative systems must work for, not against, these enterprises helping to create a more stable, more varied European economy.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I welcome the results of today’s vote. It is planned that approximately 70% of EU funds for entrepreneurs will be disbursed using the loan funds. Non-repayable grants will be reserved primarily for high-risk projects, which find it difficult to obtain loans. According to the experts, assistance provided in the form of a preferential loan or guarantee is better in the long term than non-reimbursable aid. Entrepreneurs benefit less from preferential loans. However, many more companies can benefit from these loans, and the money lending system, once supplied with money, should theoretically work indefinitely.

I therefore subscribe to the idea that after 2014, 70–80% of support for entrepreneurs should be disbursed in the form of loans and guarantees, and the rest in non-repayable grants. The latter would be reserved for supporting innovative high-risk projects, or in other words those which would find it difficult to qualify for a loan.

Report: Ria Oomen-Ruijten (A7-0025/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) The future of the European public’s pensions is one of the key challenges for the future of Europe and I acknowledge the difficulties that the Member States’ pension systems are encountering.

Nevertheless, I disagree that the only way to solve the problem is by paying more, working more and receiving less during retirement. I would also stress that it is the Member States that are mainly responsible for pensions. However, the European Union can add value by providing coordination between the various schemes and by sharing best practices, since it also has competence in the area of pension portability and supervising institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORP Directive).

I am only voting for this report because of the compromise based on more than 450 amendments, which include some of the main concerns regarding the White Paper. I would also caution that a decent and sustainable pensions system can only be achieved by combating an economy with jobs that are precarious, low paid and of a poor quality. Financed pensions must be based on solidarity and this must be taken into account in EU regulations.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this very important resolution on European pension systems. Europe is ageing and due to the worsening of the demographic situation and the declining birth rate, the number of people of retirement age is constantly rising. The importance of social security and pension funds is therefore undoubtedly increasing, particularly given the current economic crisis. People have to feel safe in their old age, and this can only be achieved with stable, well functioning pension systems. There are currently 100 different pension systems in the European Union. Due to major differences across the Member States, EU citizens feel unequal. People who have worked hard all their lives, particularly in the new EU Member States, receive different sized pensions compared to citizens in the old EU Member States. This makes them feel like second-class citizens. Undoubtedly, the regulation of pension systems is a Member State issue, but it is clear that there needs to be more European Union coordination in this area. The EU must care for those who need help most: the disabled, the unemployed and people of retirement age. In the interests of the welfare of its citizens and through the Member States, the European Union must try to level out pension systems. This would undoubtedly contribute to improving people’s living standards and the EU’s economic growth.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In the European Union the number of pensioners is rising due to the increase in life expectancy. Pension systems come under Member States’ remit, with different rules about the retirement age and the money spent on social security. The financial crisis has led to a rise in unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, as well as to an increase in budget deficits and to problems relating to the funding of pensions. This has highlighted the fragility of certain financing schemes. The predominance of temporary jobs has reduced the level of contributions to pension systems, thereby adversely affecting their stability. The European Parliament’s report and the European Commission’s Green Paper seek to maintain pension systems which are adapted to citizens’ needs without questioning the states’ authority and suggesting that a single model would suit all.

I think that solidarity between states and generations is an important factor in EU policies’ success. There is coordination at EU level of aspects of the pension systems relating to the operation of the internal market, such as compliance with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact and the EU 2020 Strategy. I voted for this report which encourages the efforts of Member States to meet the expectations of their citizens in terms of an adequate, sustainable and safe pension system.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. − (GA) The European population is ageing and it will not be long now until the age group ‘55 years old or older’ will be the largest age group in the EU. Although there are four people of working age for every person over 65 at present, the ratio will be half that by the year 2050.

I voted in favour of this timely report. Although it is the responsibility of the individual Member States to decide pension matters, the EU and the Member States must work together to develop a definite, sustainable and financially viable system. The workforce of today is especially mobile; therefore it is imperative that pensions can be transferred from one Member State to another. The pension systems must be brought up to date so that they are flexible, transparent and accessible. Information must be provided regarding the options available and the various aspects of different pension types.

I support what is in the report about placing more emphasis on financial education and about encouraging awareness of saving for a pension.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) The European Union faces enormous challenges, one of the most important of these being population ageing. Due to changing demographic trends, life expectancy is increasing, and older people remain healthy and active and participate in society for longer. At the same time due to the low birth rate, the number of people of working age will fall and therefore the Member States’ social security systems will face great difficulties. The financial crisis has led to a growth in unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, and has demonstrated the fragility of certain pension fund systems. There are rising budget deficits in many Member States and problems in the financing of pensions. Some private pension funds were also no longer able to meet their obligations, and therefore in future it is very important to properly regulate the activities and monitoring of such funds. I agreed with this report and believe that it is necessary to provide new incentives at national and EU levels to create strong, sustainable and safe European pension systems.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The issue of the sustainability of social security systems has become an unavoidable subject on Europe’s political agenda. Increased life expectancy, an ageing population, weak economic growth and increased unemployment are factors that have been contributed to an imbalance in social security systems. The current situation makes it necessary to take decisions that ensure the sustainability of social security regimes.

I am voting for this report because it advocates the need to build a system together that is sustainable, safe, and that provides adequate pensions at Member State level. It recognises that freedom of movement in Europe is not confined to first-pillar provision, but that mobility is indispensable for an effective and efficient labour market. It advocates the creation of a European pensions platform involving representatives of EU institutions, social partners and relevant stakeholders, in order to exchange information about best practices and help to prepare policy initiatives, all in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. It calls on the European Commission to consider setting up a special task force on pensions.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report and concur with the rapporteur, who mentions in a clear and well-argued manner not only the need for intergenerational solidarity, but also the major differences between national pension systems in Europe. I agree that coordination is required at EU level, with the best arguments for this provided to us by the effects of the crisis, which we hope we have emerged from. The impact of public expenditure in a Member State is easy to pass on even to another Member State, whereas pension funds are part of the financial markets. I welcome the idea of a flexible labour market for pensioners, in view of the demographic changes we are going through and the obvious trend for extending working life. I agree with the idea that not only each Member State but also the Union as a whole must adapt their policies to the concept of active ageing.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. − (NL) The sustainability of our pension systems is a problem which has been passed around like a hot potato in Europe for far too long. The percentage of people who are retired is rising. In an effort to keep pensions at a sustainable level, the Member States have no choice but to reform their pension systems. This is directly linked to the sustainability of public finances and the rules for a healthy eurozone, the Stability and Growth Pact. I wholeheartedly support rapporteur Oomen-Ruijten when she highlights the importance of pension build-up via the employer (what is known as the second pillar) and individual pension build-up (the third pillar). Unfortunately, we can no longer assume that the state pension (the first pillar) will be enough to sustain the level of lifestyle which workers have worked to achieve. The aspect of subsidiarity requires further elaboration. At the eurozone level, we need agreements by which Member States will guarantee that the reform of their pension systems will translate into sustainable public finances. Which choices are made as part of that process should, in my view, remain a matter for Member States alone. Questions such as women’s participation in the labour market should be a matter for their social and labour market policy. Where people voluntarily choose part-time work, in order to better combine work, family and caring responsibilities, this should not be discouraged by Europe.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Although Member States remain fully responsible for the choice and organisation of their pension systems, the fact remains that European economies have become interdependent and that economic governance discussions also focus on the viability and sustainability of pension systems. Therefore the EU has a coordinating role to play.

The rapporteur has gone to great lengths to obtain a compromise; this text contained some good points, not least the idea that pension systems should guarantee all citizens a decent standard of living, that diversity should be respected, that inequalities between men and women are unacceptable and unjustifiable, that a life course approach should be taken and that older workers should be rehabilitated.

However, at the same time, by trying too hard to compromise, we have arrived at a text that is unclear in places and too open to interpretation. In addition, there are still certain ideas that I cannot subscribe to, such as calling upon the Member States to improve citizens’ access to private savings schemes and encouraging work by older people through fiscal and social security exemption measures. For these reasons I abstained from the final vote.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Demographic development, that is, the inverted population pyramid that we can expect in due course, and longer life expectancy, which means that older people remain in work and participate in society for longer, make it necessary to consider social welfare systems. The financial and economic crisis, combined with demographic changes, has had an impact on pension systems. Because of higher unemployment, slower growth, smaller returns on investments and larger public deficits, it is more difficult for pension systems to provide adequate pensions. In particular, young people with a high level of education are entering the labour market later, and so they do not work long enough to claim a pension when they reach the legal retirement age.

It should also be borne in mind that inadequate pensions may lead to a decline in consumption and, because of reduced demand, to economic instability in a country. As a result, I feel that steps really must be taken to redefine the future of young and old, thus contributing to secure and adequate income provision after retirement, while the need to give fresh impetus to the responsibilities of Member States, the two sides of industry and Europe must also be kept in mind.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report, because given the rapid ageing of Europe’s populations, it is necessary to devote particular attention to the age of retirement, to ensuring the security of pension saving funds and strengthening common minimum pension standards, in order to guarantee normal living conditions for all of Europe’s older people. Although setting the retirement age and the size of pensions is the responsibility of the Member States themselves, the European Parliament and the Commission are proposing measures that would help to overcome the threats to pension systems. Furthermore, a certain amount of coordination of the reforms of national pension systems is unavoidable as we establish the internal market and implement the Europe 2020 Strategy. It is unfortunate that the Commission’s Green Paper scarcely pays any attention to gender equality. Women have atypical contracts more often than men, or take precarious jobs, and therefore they earn less on average. Furthermore, women interrupt their careers more often due to motherhood and to care for children and elderly or disabled family members, and they therefore lose insurance guarantees and ultimately receive smaller pensions. It should be recognised that there is no such thing as a perfect pension system. Economic and financial capabilities vary across the Member States, therefore more attention needs to be paid to the means of improving pension systems, such as timing the start of working life, ‘flexible’ assessment of retirement age, better reconciliation of work and family life, and the general criteria for setting a minimum pension.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Public pay-as-you-go systems operating in some Member States are facing big increases in costs, which means growing pressure on solidarity and a heavier burden for the younger generation.

The year 2060 may seem far away, but this does not change the predictions at all: an increasingly ageing population, a low birth rate, and therefore huge pressure on budgets. Each of the Member States is obviously directly responsible for establishing their own pension systems. Indeed, this power is irrefutable and there is no suggestion that a single model would suit all. However, it is important to call for adequate, sustainable and safe pensions at a time when Europe will be facing a demographic disaster in a few decades, the early signs of which have already started to show.

Raising the pension age is one of the relevant solutions when discussing the fact that states are no longer going to have a working population of sufficient size to pay for the pensions of those who have left the labour market. Indeed, a gradual increase in the retirement age is a natural solution in these circumstances, which is supported by the fact that life expectancy is much higher than 40 years ago.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I congratulate the rapporteur on bringing such a relevant and sensitive subject to the attention of Parliament. It is true that the financial and economic crisis and demographic change, with the increase in life expectancy, have prompted all Member States to strengthen their pension policies. These measures therefore prompt a drive to modernise and coordinate national policies on the adjustment of pension systems, sustainability, balance between the duration of working life and pensions, greater transparency of pension systems and protection of solvency. I agree, in particular, with the attention paid by the rapporteur to female workers, who are often discriminated against with regard to male workers where pensions are concerned.

I also agree with the need to prolong workers’ careers through a modern employment policy and improvement of working conditions, and I agree with the need to make pension systems and the information provided to citizens more transparent.

I am very concerned, however, about the serious impact that the measures called for in this document may have on the Member States’ coffers, many of which are already under great pressure as a result of the tough economic crisis.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption by the European Parliament of this report inviting the EU Member States to establish adequate, sustainable and safe pension systems. It reaffirms the main aim of pensions: to guarantee social cohesion in a spirit of equity between generations. In a context of demographic change and economic crisis, pensions must remain a fundamental part of our social pact. Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear that each Member State is free to organise its own pension system and that the European Union is there to simply facilitate coordination between the States.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The economic and financial crisis has greatly added to the demographic challenge facing the EU, and has led to a growth in unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. The goal of a 75% employment rate laid down in the Europe 2020 Strategy should help secure the sustainability of pension systems, as it is linked with higher levels of employment, greater productivity and economic growth. The holistic approach adopted by the Green Paper intends to impart fresh impetus, both at national and EU level, with the objective of establishing pension systems that are robust, suitable for the long-term, sustainable and safe. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are one of the main sources of employment in the EU and make a significant contribution to the sustainability and adequacy of pension systems in Member States. I call for the development of sectoral, intersectoral and/or territorial funds to increase affiliation of workers in SMEs to pension systems.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the report on the Green Paper on European pension systems. The report clearly promotes the harmonised, anti-social policies of the European Union and the reduction of social rights to the lowest common liberal denominator. The text makes provision for an increase in the retirement age of European workers and for retirement ages to be linked to life expectancy. European workers, having paid to rescue the banks and been subjected to exhausting austerity measures, are again being forced to pay for the consequences of the crisis, a crisis which they did not cause, by working longer years for a smaller pension. The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left moved an alternative resolution, which was, unfortunately, not accepted, against the Green Paper on pensions and highlighted the potential for improving pensions and retirement ages for the benefit of the workers. This can be done without increasing the age limit, through increased labour rights, especially for young people, better pay and, at the same time, higher taxation on financial capital and financial transactions.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Although the responsibility for paying pensions falls to the Member States, it is, nonetheless, important for there to be coordination at European level on certain issues. I am aware of the disparities between pension systems in Europe. However, there is a clear need for a strategy to be created that increases cohesion and coherence on pensions, with full respect for the subsidiarity and solidarity principles. This strategy must take into consideration the current economic and demographic situation, but also the completion of the internal market. We must therefore not forget that freedom of movement within Europe is a fundamental right of European citizens, which entails the mobility of individuals and namely of workers who must be able to benefit from an effective and efficient labour market, as well as from the guarantee that they will have access to a sustainable, secure and adequate income after retirement. It is also important to provide the public with adequate and continuous information about their rights regarding the pension system, especially as regards systems relating to cross-border activities and mobility.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution for which I was appointed rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I find the final text of the resolution balanced, emphasising both the importance of the public pension pillar and the need for a proper second pillar in all Member States. An idea which I tried to suggest was to define a minimum EU-level pension, which will guarantee a secure, decent income for European citizens. Unfortunately, it did not receive sufficient positive feedback from among my fellow Members. However, I hope that in future the Commission will come up with this kind of proposal.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I feel it is beneficial that the Europe 2020 Strategy supports an active, focused labour market policy, which will help increase the employment rate of older workers, women, members of minority groups and the long-term unemployed. By achieving this objective, I believe that Europe will see an increase in the number of people in work and, by extension, economic growth, which will have a positive impact on the viability of pension systems at EU level.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) I today voted in favour of the Oomen-Ruijten report on pensions. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) on this report, I have had the opportunity to work constructively with the rapporteur. The IMCO opinion has largely been reproduced in Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report. I believe that the report is measured and balanced and that at its heart is the notion that, for Member States, pensions should be subject to subsidiarity. This will ensure adequate protection of the Dutch pillar system.

However, what I absolutely cannot support are elements in the report which appear to call for binding European agreements on Member States’ pension systems. That is at odds with everything the Belgian Socialist Party stands for.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the proposed text because pensions are one of the fundamental institutions of the system of worker’s rights and duties. They are essential for the continuation of a decent standard of living for the people concerned and for their whole families, especially when it comes to receiving adequate support so as to attain a decent standard of personal and family life. By setting this threshold as a long-term goal, it is obvious that sustainable pension systems are necessary to offer certain minimum prospects to workers. While I respect the principle of bottom-up subsidiarity, with primary authority and responsibility for adequacy and opportunity for reform lying with the Member States, there is a need for convergence of pension systems in Europe, so as to ensure full and genuine freedom of movement for workers and enterprises and also full and mutual recognition and parity of the various pension systems within the Member States. Indeed, while I acknowledge the differences in the cost of living and in wage levels between Member States, there is a need to establish long-term convergence both internally within each Member State and within the EU as a whole, so as to promote a decent and adequate level of life expectancy.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that pension systems throughout the whole European Union are already facing major sustainability problems, which are likely to get even worse in the future, thereby requiring a rethink. However, the review done by each Member State must be carried out in compliance with the fundamental scope of providing a decent income at a reasonable cost for elderly people after they have contributed for a lifetime. Reducing pension levels below the subsistence limit, which has been done in some Member States, is inhumane and must be avoided.

The most glaring example of exploitation is Romania, where the current government has decided that all pensions should be cut drastically and taxed, along with a levy for health care insurance. Under the guise of subsidiarity, the Romanian Government probably wants to create an ingenious pension system by making pensioners physically disappear through depriving them of minimum financial resources and medical assistance. I think that one of the EU’s goals in this area must be to curb the excesses of governments in certain Member States against pensioners.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report because I advocate the need for the EU and the Member States to coordinate their various policies on pensions in a more effective way, and to guarantee the adequacy, safety and sustainability of pension systems for women and men. It is essential to separate pension entitlements according to gender, and to set specific criteria to be used in calculating women’s pensions in such a way as to guarantee the economic independence of both men and women.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) With regard to paragraph 6, we Swedish Social Democrats chose to vote in favour of the removal of the reference to the inclusion of direct pension liabilities in public debt and deficit calculations. The reason for this is that we feel there a risk that a link like this between pension liabilities and debt deficit calculations could, in the short term, have a number of undesirable and disproportionate consequences in certain Member States. However, in the longer term, we believe that each Member State should establish procedures that will result in public pension liabilities being accurately reflected in relevant debt and deficit forecasts.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Increased average life expectancy and the inversion of the population pyramid in Europe present significant challenges for a society that is ageing, and will have to ensure adequate living conditions for its older people and a role that, in many cases, can and should be active. However, faced with the real threat of the collapse in traditional pension systems, the Member States must, bravely and head-on, adopt the necessary measures to save their social security systems, which do not just involve raising the retirement age. However, emphasis must be placed immediately on modernisation, with the possibility of mixed models. This will ensure that those entering the system now can freely choose which model they want to protect them in their old age.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The current crisis has highlighted a problem which, it became apparent, was serious: the bankruptcy of the social security systems. In truth, the proximity of the reversal of the age pyramid – as a result of demographic changes caused by the population’s increased longevity – is threatening the financial sustainability of the pension schemes. On the one hand, the number of unemployed is increasing; on the other, more funds are being expended on pension payments. Moreover, young people are entering the labour market increasingly later, and so are not taking part in the contributory system. Since we do not want ‘old age’ to become synonymous with poverty, we must create a guaranteed minimum pension that grants quality of life to the elderly. Such a measure will help to eradicate poverty and enable older people to live in dignity.

All these problems are reflected in the European Commission’s Green Paper on pensions. What is now needed is a series of policies coordinated at EU level. I therefore express my full agreement with this report’s conclusions, and welcome the initiatives aimed at intergenerational solidarity that will allow all pensioners a sustainable and dignified income.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We find it regrettable that the alternative motion for a resolution that we tabled has not been adopted. The majority of the Members of the European Parliament, including those of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, therefore took the side of the antisocial policies that the Commission and Council are implementing, so legitimising the neoliberal path that they are following and wish to develop.

In doing so, they have forgotten the workers in various European Union countries who have been struggling against the rise in the legal retirement age, fighting to safeguard a caring and universal social security system; a system that values the smaller pensions, and respects the elderly, enabling them to live in dignity, whilst contributing to the eradication of poverty.

As the alternative resolution that we tabled says, it is possible to improve pensions without increasing the legal retirement age, provided that there are more jobs with rights, particularly for young people, better salaries and more taxation of financial transactions. For example, recent studies show that a general tax of 0.1% on financial transactions in European Union Member States could provide an increase in annual revenue of around 2.1% of gross domestic product, or almost EUR 262 billion.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) There are 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU at present. Small and medium-sized enterprises comprise 99% of all EU enterprises, and are responsible for 100 million jobs in the Union. It is very clear that the issue of the cost and unavailability of credit is the biggest problem for the small and medium-sized enterprises sector at present.

Many viable enterprises still have difficulty accessing credit at a reasonable rate from the banks. Considering the amount of support received by the banking sector from the Irish taxpayer, this is incredible and unacceptable. Other costs such as rents, utility bills and local charges also hamper the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises in the present difficult times.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report on adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems. The report is full of good intentions, but just like the Commission’s Green Paper, it leaves us with doubts about the true political goals of this debate. I cannot help but think that the latter’s fundamental aim is to prepare public opinion for the gradual privatisation of pension schemes. After seeing the losses recorded by private pension funds in Europe and the United States during the financial crisis, I prefer to stick with the intergenerational solidarity of pay-as-you-go schemes.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Despite the constant references to the principle of subsidiarity, it is very much a case here of laying the foundations for the harmonisation of pension systems in the European Union, if not in terms of the level of pensions, then at least in terms of their structure. How can we believe, in your ultraliberal and internationalist Europe, that such harmonisation can be anything other than an encouragement to take out individual insurance with private companies? A potential market of hundreds of billions of euros. At the same time, pensions paid under the first pillar – public, compulsory and pay-as-you-go pensions – will be whittled away as a result of the Stability and Growth Pact, and tomorrow as a result of Mrs Merkel’s pact. The occupational pension funds that one would like to see developed are still pension funds, and we know what part they played in the global financial meltdown. We also know what they are good for during a financial crisis: ruining savers. One cannot but worry about the pathetic prudential regulations to which they are subject, even in Europe. The social security system as a whole, and the pension system in particular, is the responsibility of the Member States alone. The problem that needs to be resolved is not just financial, it is demographic, too. The European Union, which has a serious responsibility where these matters are concerned, is by no means the appropriate level at which to address them.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) With regard to the report on pension systems in Europe, this is a very sensitive subject. Although some truly positive elements can be found in this text, it would be totally unacceptable for the mechanism of old-age insurance to be considered through the prism of budgetary constraints, with capital-based pensions encouraged as a result. Being in favour of intergenerational solidarity, I could not vote in favour of a report that would be liable to promote the development of capital-based pension systems.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained during the vote on this text. It contains many very positive points, but unfortunately it also contains certain ideas to which I am opposed. Removing the obstacles to workers’ mobility by making pensions portable, respecting the diversity of national pension systems, reducing gender inequalities and the unacceptable gaps that exist between men and women with regard to employment and retirement provision, including older workers in the labour market, providing greater redundancy protection for older workers, and so on, are all recommendations that are made in this report and which I very much welcome. Nevertheless, other points have led me to abstain. They include, for example, the fact that the report calls for private savings schemes to be encouraged.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) Demographic change towards an increasingly older society in conjunction with the setbacks in the areas of economic growth, state finances and the financial markets caused by the economic and financial crisis make it necessary to adapt our practices with regard to pensions. This adaptation is in keeping with the completion of the European internal market and the Europe 2020 goals for employment and the long-term sustainability of public finances.

However, I welcome this proposal above all because it provides for more efficient pension provision that is to be both sustainable and safe. I am firmly convinced that pension provision should not only enable older EU citizens to live in dignity, but it should also be a reward for their working life as a whole. If we want the European citizens of tomorrow to be motivated in their work and to be open to cross-border activities, it is important, even today, to offer them the prospect of adequate and sustainable retirement pension provision, harmonised at European level. Nonetheless, the responsibility for pension provision remains with the Member States, meaning that pension systems primarily fall within the competence of the Member States and therefore the only thing that should be provided by Europe is coordinated guidance for Member States.

In this regard, the principle of solidarity between the generations and that of national solidarity ought to be taken into consideration in particular. In addition, with regard to subsidiarity, all pension systems should remain ‘exportable’ for citizens.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Although this text has positive aspects, particularly the importance given to promoting employment to ensure the sustainability of pensions systems or the position of the social partners, other aspects seemed to me difficult to support, which is why I abstained on this text.

The deletion of paragraph 24 on the link between life expectancy and the retirement age is, however, a major victory for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, who thus wished to defend the European social model, contrary to what this measure advocated. In fact, the life expectancy of certain social categories is diminishing as a result of their working conditions and the difficulties they encounter when trying to access preventive and medical care. We have to ensure that all European citizens can live out their retirement with dignity.

  Richard Howitt (S&D), in writing. − Labour MEPs voted in favour of this non-binding report on pensions and the challenges of ageing societies and spending pressures being faced across the EU. We welcome the fact that this report explicitly states that there is no 'one size fits all' approach to pension provision across Member States but that the EU can clearly add value in sharing ideas and coordination.

We voted to remove from paragraph 8 the inclusion of private debt in the sustainability assessment of public finances, as we feel that current market conditions would not be supported by this kind of assessment. We also maintain concerns over the issue of applying Solvency II-type capital requirements to pensions as this could potentially drive up costs without adding security for the UK's employer-sponsored occupational pensions. The UK's system, including the Pension Protection Funds set up under the Labour Government, provides a high level of protection to pension scheme members and beneficiaries.

Labour MEPS will continue to work to ensure that people who save with the State, with their employer or privately are given the genuine pension protection they need to feel safe about their retirement.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) Demographic trends, in other words, the inverted population pyramid which we can expect in due course and the longer life expectancy, which we have the good fortune to enjoy, in which context older people remain healthy and active and participate in society for longer, make it necessary to consider a strategy for fresh cohesion and coherence in the field of pensions. There are major disparities between pension systems in Europe, and new Member States and their citizens face extra problems because it is so desirable to establish a diversified pension system (with several pillars), in order to spread risks. The financial and economic crisis has shown that no pension system is immune to such events but that large budget deficits, high unemployment and very limited scope for increasing the burden of taxation and other levies particularly hit pay-as-you-go systems, and some Member States, such as Lithuania, even had to take drastic measures, that is, reduce pensions, which in my opinion is intolerable and unacceptable. The Member States must make every possible effort and preclude such reduction measures, which are painful for the poorest people. I abstained on this report, because many of the decisions proposed are socially sensitive and there is also insufficient evaluation of the benefits and risks in the report, particularly when we are talking about increasing the retirement age or Member States losing influence in pension policy.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I abstained from voting on the European Parliament report on a European pension system. Although it is, in principle, to be welcomed that the European Union is considering how it can support the efforts of Member States to provide adequate pensions, pensions policy is, and remains, the task of the relevant Member States, in respect of which the EU should only take action with the utmost sensitivity and with consideration for national circumstances. However, the decisions in question are not favourable for the German occupational pension model in particular. In my opinion, regulations jeopardising occupational pension systems that have been successfully implemented in many European countries should not be enacted at European level. Considerable improvements are still needed in this regard.

  Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I supported the report on the creation of adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems, since I believe that changes to the existing pensions model are essential to secure its sustainability. Currently, European countries run the risk that future generations will not be able to draw pensions capable of providing a decent old age. We must admit that at present we are living at the expense of future generations. We borrow in order to pay today’s pensions. This must change. The pensions system must be balanced in such a way that current revenues can cover current expenditure. Any other solution would mean living beyond our means. This can be done in various ways, but we must also admit that we can no longer rely on drawing a pension soon after we reach the age of 60. Retirement age must be raised in stages throughout Europe, and it must approach the 70 years of age threshold. That is one of the ways to ensure that the social security budget does not become a burden on European countries’ economies.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report is based on the Commission Green Paper submitted in July 2010 and on the issues that this Institution has raised for debate with regard to the adequacy and sustainability of European pension systems. This paper serves as a precursor to the future White Paper containing a general analysis of the 27 Member States and a projection of the guidelines that the EU is laying down for its members, from which an effective response is expected. My reaction upon reading the report was positive, which is why I voted in favour of it. This draft is certainly too conservative considering what needs to be done. However, we can describe it as a good starting point, since it provides an overview of the pension system enlarged to 27 States. The establishment of a European pensions platform could be a perfect opportunity to open a debate between the EU Institutions and social partners concerned. The ultimate goal is to adapt pension systems and place them in the context of the demographic and economic variables our world is subject to.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this report, as it advocates capital-based pension schemes to the detriment of pay-as-you-go public pension schemes, and increasing the retirement age. It also advocates an approach that would create further insecurity for older workers by encouraging ‘flexible’ pensions, combining work with retirement.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) It was with great satisfaction that I took note of the result of today’s vote on Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report on the subject of adequate, stable and secure pension systems in Europe. I believe that pensions should be secure and stable, especially nowadays in the context of an ageing European population and the financial crisis. Current statistics provide a clear signal that the problem is getting worse and that demographic changes in Europe are unequivocal. Experts have shown that at present in the EU four people are working to support one pensioner, but in about 50 years’ time there will only be two.

It is clear therefore that further work on the pension system is needed and further reforms are essential. This is why we must strive for increased international activity by the Member States to ensure that the coordination of pension systems will be effective and efficient. In addition, in accepting the report, the European Parliament is stating clearly that there can be no room for discrimination on the grounds of age or gender, which is particularly significant in the context of the social debate on equality of men and women in the workplace.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) To work for months on the sustainability of pension systems in Europe, to draw up an ambitious report, to negotiate compromises for hours without wishing to state the obvious, which is that many European Union governments have engaged in reforms of pension systems, giving priority to extending the contribution period, is, for me, an act of the utmost levity. The denial of reality is an act of gross negligence. The European Parliament is not tackling the core issue, because it is divisive!

I disapprove of this way of doing politics: instead of seeking unanimity at all costs, the European Parliament has fundamentally chosen the wrong method.

It has a duty to explore coherent and courageous courses of action. That is what our citizens expect when pension systems, which are the real prizes of the European social model, are in danger.

I am therefore unable to support a report that has turned into a vain exercise, since it fails to take account of the reality of the situation.

  Toine Manders (ALDE), in writing. − (NL) The delegation of the Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) in the European Parliament today voted against the initiative report on the Green Paper on European pensions, because it contained several ambiguities and inaccuracies. We support a number of improvements, such as the encouragement of a good combination of state and occupational pension schemes in Member States and a European tracking system for increased job mobility, so that every citizen knows what they can expect from their pension and make their own choices. However, rising unemployment, problems in the financial markets, high national debt and slow economic growth could lead to difficulties in terms of Member States’ pension payment obligations, with repercussions on the Stability and Growth Pact and therefore the stability of the euro.

In addition, the increasingly ageing population is having a major impact in many Member States, because they do not save as much as the Dutch. We therefore need harmonised supervision of pension systems, and some Member States ought to organise their pension systems differently. We do not, however, want any tampering whatsoever with the Dutch pension system. In order to guard against this, despite voting in favour of a number of good points in the report, we remain against the report as a whole. The VVD Group in the European Parliament: Hans van Baalen, Jan Mulder and Toine Manders.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this Report which makes it clear at the beginning (Paragraph 1) and the end (Paragraph 61) that the main responsibility for pensions rests through the subsidiarity principle with the Member States, the EU contribution being to provide coordination where possible and the sharing of best practice.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report irresponsibly advocates increasing the legal age of retirement while hypocritically suggesting that a ‘social and civic dialogue’ on the subject takes place and that the result is duly taken into account. The necessary referendum is, unfortunately, a long way off. As expected, it is also an ode to the privatisation of the pay-as-you-go pension system, which we all know to be effective. Retirement transformed into a financial product on the internal market of pension funds, with free and fair competition – that is what this report proposes. I am voting against, and absolutely condemn, this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The serious problem of demographic trends, in other words, the reversal of the age pyramid which we can expect in due course, as well as longer life expectancy, in which context older people remain healthy and active and participate in society for longer, make it necessary to consider a strategy to increase cohesion and coherence in the field of pensions. This new reality makes it necessary to take initiatives which redefine the future of young and old, as well as solidarity between generations and people, thus contributing to a sustainable, secure and adequate income after retirement.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I have voted against this motion for a resolution as I consider it to be an unacceptable attack on workers’ rights, as it advocates an increase in pension contribution years, the raising of the retirement age and the progressive privatisation of the public pension systems. I believe that these types of measures are aimed at establishing pension systems that benefit the interests of the financial sector and they do not represent a move towards public pensions systems that are more fair, sustainable, secure and beneficial to European citizens. As such, I am opposed to the progressive construction of an anti-social Europe, governed by the markets and financial powers, which have submerged us in this crisis by their ambition and excessive greed, which will be incomprehensibly compensated through the privatisation of public pension systems. Furthermore, I consider it unacceptable that the resolution which, while emphasising the importance of granting a relevant role to social dialogue in pension reforms, defends antisocial measures, such as the raising of the retirement age, which have been rejected by the majority of Europeans through massive general strikes.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) According to László Andor, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, the number of retired people will double by 2060 in relation to the active population able to finance pensions. It is therefore urgent to give thought to the future of pension systems. Although it falls within the competence of the Member States, this issue must not prevent the European Union from assisting Member States in their deliberations in order to guarantee European citizens an adequate, stable and sustainable pension system. To be able to have an adequate and appropriate pension in a Member State of the EU is the necessary complement to the principle of the free movement of people. The economic and monetary crisis demonstrates the need for an integrated approach, encompassing the demographic and social aspects as well as the economic and financial aspects.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I hope that Parliament will not confine itself simply to producing reports and votes. It is necessary to analyse all 27 pension systems in the EU. I am confident that violations of the rules on a massive scale will be revealed in this sphere in Latvia, where the Government constantly tries to solve the budget deficit problem at the expense of pensions. As a result, pensioners in Latvia have become hostages to the current Government’s risk-taking activities. In the majority of cases, pensions in Latvia are below the official minimum subsistence level. The situation is complicated by the Government’s decision to retain payments to the second pension tier. This can have very sad consequences. I voted in favour in the hope of an independent assessment of the situation in Latvia.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Within the European Union we are still seeing a considerable decline in prosperity, which will certainly be evident with the loss of the periods of protection for the labour market. Every country is having to grapple with the demographic changes and the associated lack of financial viability of its pension systems. Private pensions, which were to provide additional support, have not brought the much talked about relief to the pension systems but have instead placed state pensions under even more pressure. Against this background, the people in Hungary, for example, have almost been forced to go back to the state system. In this regard, the unfulfillable promises of returns by pension funds are also problematic, as revealed during the course of the economic and financial crisis. Interference like that at EU level often brings with it a whole series of problems, for example in connection with the compensatory allowance for pensions, which opened the floodgates to abuse. The details of pensions are regulated differently in the individual States and they must also remain that way, which is why I strongly reject the report.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I wanted to express my support for the Oomen-Ruijten report on future pension systems in Europe, since it clearly illustrates a principle on which European actions and initiatives should always be based: the principle of subsidiarity. In an effort to respond to a real need, that is, to a new assessment of European pension systems in the wake of changed demographic, economic and social conditions, it has been decided that individual Member States will be given the flexibility to act within the framework of a general European guide. The situations and conditions in the various countries are too diverse for us to conceive of drawing up common binding rules, and so the decision to respect the essential principle of subsidiarity was a good one.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) Before long the population pyramid will be turned on its head in the EU: the over 55s will represent the largest proportion of the population, life expectancy will continue to increase, the birth rate will remain low and young people will start their working lives ever later. We are all aware of the consequences of this: an overageing population and ever more bottlenecks when it comes to the financing of pensions. What we actually need, in particular, is a more family-friendly policy in the Member States – I am thinking for example of the introduction of family tax splitting into income tax law. The contribution of families to safeguarding the intergenerational contract should be taken into account in social legislation by means of a gradual reduction in social insurance contributions. These aspects are not, or are insufficiently, taken into account in the report. However, the much lauded mass immigration is the wrong way to go about safeguarding our pensions. At the end of the day, pensions policy should remain within the sphere of competence of the Member States. Therefore, I have voted against this report.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) In today’s vote I supported the acceptance of the report on stable and secure pension systems in Europe. The issue of pensions in the future is a problem not only in Poland but all over the European Union. In the report, the European Parliament confirmed that in matters concerning pensions systems, the Member State is responsible for the organisation of its national pension system. However, EU institutions will support the activities of the Member States on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity.

For me, a very important issue is that attention has been focussed on discrimination against women in the context of pension systems, and we need to overcome this. At the same time, current demographic changes which are leading to an ageing population are causing problems in establishing a stable pension. The number of pensioners continues to increase, while we have falling numbers of people active on the labour market.

Another important issue is the problem of young people who are unable to find employment due to the situation on the labour market. In this regard it is essential that more people should be employed and should remain employed for as long as possible.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report because I believe that trying to lay the foundations for a goal as important as that of a common European pension system, while having due regard for the principle of subsidiarity, is a big step towards true socio-political integration. The legislative framework is certainly complex, but the European Commission White Paper on pension systems already indicates which way the Union is heading. The report specifically aims to establish adequate, sustainable and safe criteria, calling on Member States to debate the subject, to publicise the proposals formulated and to work together to produce a true joint plan through the Open Method of Coordination. We are discussing the economic governance package at EU level in order to reform the Stability and Growth Pact and to establish common rules. No State can get away from pension reform if it wishes to put its finances in order. For this reason, I think it makes sense to have common rules in this area too, because it would make monitoring and implementation of the SGP much easier.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report on adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems represents an important step in implementing a coordination policy in the European Union. In fact, although this falls under the jurisdiction of the Member States, the pension system is directly linked to the financial market, as well as being one of the areas covered by the Stability and Growth Pact. It is becoming necessary, for demographic reasons of which we are all aware, to consider a strategy that increases cohesion and coherence on pensions. We must create initiatives which redefine the future of young and old, and solidarity between generations and people, thus contributing to a sustainable, secure and adequate income after retirement. There are marked differences between the various pension schemes in Europe, but it is important to create a common platform by clearly defining the division of responsibilities. In this way, it will be possible to create a sustainable and safe system together; a modern system which recognises freedom of movement in Europe, which is based on the assumption that mobility is essential, particularly for the younger generations and, of course, for an effective and efficient labour market. For all these reasons, I voted in favour.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In November 2009 Romania had 5.54 million pensioners and 5.65 million contributors to the public pension system. Providing EU citizens with an adequate, sustainable pension, now and in the future, is a priority for the European Union. Achieving these objectives in an ageing Europe is a major challenge and Member States must prepare for this by reforming their pension systems. Member States must improve the adequacy of pensions by combating gender discrimination on the labour market, especially through a 10% reduction in the pay gap by 2020. The public pension system must be strengthened to the detriment of the private system. We must not privatise the public pension system simply to ensure the stability of pension funds for current and future pensioners.

Although the trend at European level is to raise the retirement age, it should be applied flexibly according to the sector and the severity of the working conditions, while also taking into account the number of years’ service. Active support is required for job creation. The quality of work also needs to be improved in order to increase the number of people who will actively contribute to funding their future pensions.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Making pension systems sustainable is one of the major challenges facing the political class if it wishes to maintain the common good and social peace. Although European competences are limited in this regard, it was also important or the European Parliament to give its opinion as a follow-up to the Green Paper issued by the Commission. That has been done with the adoption of the very comprehensive Oomen-Ruijten report, which confirms the need to reform pension systems due to the unfavourable trend in the ratio of the number of people aged over 65 to the working population. Moreover, the resolution is in line with the recent Eurobarometer survey, showing the wisdom and maturity of European citizens, 73% of whom take the view ‘that they will have to work longer or save more for their old age’. The predominant idea of prolonging working life beyond the age of 65 has, admittedly, met with mixed reactions among the general public. However, this may be a blessing in disguise, as other levers will necessarily have to be activated. In the case of my country, Belgium, alone, where the rate of employment among older workers is one of the lowest in the European Union, there is an urgent need to encourage Belgian workers to remain longer in the labour market.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Today Parliament voted on the report entitled ‘Towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems’. The Commission, taking account of demographic trends and the effects of the economic and financial crisis, has decided that in order to modernise pension policies it is necessary to take coordinated action on: adjustment of pension systems, sustainability, balance between the duration of working life and duration of pensions, removal of obstacles to mobility, greater transparency of pension systems and protection of solvency.

In this report we wish to acknowledge and maintain individual responsibilities in order to create a sustainable and safe system that is capable of ensuring an adequate pension at Member State level. A modern system that acknowledges, in particular, the new generation’s need for mobility and offers solutions not only for the present but also for the near future.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (ES) Despite the fact that the vote has allowed the incorporation of some crucial elements of the social conscience, there remained some unfortunate aspects that led me to abstain in the final vote. This is the case, for example, in the part of paragraph 21 where it is asked that Member States improve access for citizens to private saving schemes.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) European pension systems are in an increasingly alarming state. We must act now to ensure that men and women have equal opportunities, safeguarding those who decide to retire today and, at the same time, protecting those who are only now taking their first steps in the labour market. In Europe, women still earn on average 18% less than men. The main effect of this wage disparity is apparent at retirement age: because they have earned less throughout their working lives, women also have lower pensions. As a result, women are more affected than men by persistent poverty. Especially in times of crisis, we need to include the gender perspective in all policies, adopting national measures that are agreed on and coordinated at European level. I voted in favour of the Oomen-Ruijten report, because I think it is a good compromise that can support the dialogue between Member States and European Institutions on the modernisation of pension systems.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) We support the report on the Green Paper ‘Towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems’, as the European Commission aims to assist Member States without taking away responsibility from individual countries, which must evaluate the connection between life expectancy and the compulsory retirement age. It also aims to remove obstacles to cross-border mobility and establish a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority with responsibility for setting up a system of coordination in emergencies and supporting Member States.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s 27 Member States have different pension systems. However, the inverted population pyramid and the increase in life expectancy require a European strategy to be devised for strengthening the cohesion and coherence of pensions in the European Union. I would also like to mention, nevertheless, the inadequacies which are evident in the case of labour mobility between different Member States. There are cases where pension rights are not transferred adequately between different European Union Member States. In this respect, we must encourage cooperation between Member States.

On the other hand, we have a moral duty to safeguard our citizens’ right to enjoy pensions which provide them with a decent living.

  Peter Skinner (S&D), in writing. − I can support the overall objectives of this report as its fundamental concerns are to create a sustainable approach to pension provision. The regulatory exercise which will come about from the Green Paper will, I believe, bring supervisors up to speed with the necessary consistency to maintain a safe and sustainable pension system.

However, given the current diversity in pension systems in Member States as well as in scope and depth of pension provision, it is important that the Commission follows through on Parliament’s wish not to impose capital standards akin to insurance or banking standards. It is my belief that pensions can and should be treated separately for their own capital adequacy requirements.

This all said, the need for a truly European approach is paramount, given the way in which demographic trends will force future generations into sustaining expensive schemes, overloaded, with past generations facing potential poverty.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Mr President, there is much to like in this report. However, I cannot, on balance, support it. It is right that we in this house should have concern for the pension provisions of our Member State governments, and it is right that we should share best practice. However, I was simply unable to support the report as a whole because I simply disagree that the EU should have anything beyond an information-sharing role for pensions. The best authorities to deal with pensions, and indeed all social matters, are the national or local authorities, not us. This initiative report calls for too much centralised control, which I am simply unconvinced will either work or add value.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) The problem of our increasingly ageing population is hitting us hard and the crisis is prompting Member States to make cuts. However, we should not allow the ageing population problem to lure us into a new European debt crisis. The Member States that are making savings should not go about it unthinkingly. The resolution emphasises that the first pillar of the pension system is the main one. This implies a healthy and balanced national budget. Moreover, it goes without saying that a steady income is a safeguard against poverty. I am also pleased with the recognition of pension rights for women and a greater emphasis on gender equality, along with the recognition that discrimination against older people in the labour market should not be allowed. The resolution also pays due attention to the transferability of accrued pension entitlements. No one these days works for the same company, or even in their own country, for their whole life. It is fundamental, in a united Europe, that citizens are able to transfer such entitlements. The European Parliament is therefore asking the European Commission to better coordinate the transferability of pensions at a European level.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The report drafted by Ria Oomen-Ruijten on the Green Paper entitled ‘Towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems’ makes an important contribution to the debate on the future of European pension systems. I think that Member States need to draft provisions for ensuring adequate pensions for their citizens. We encourage Member States to set up the most adequate pension system to guarantee a decent standard of living for everyone, with particular attention being focused on the most vulnerable groups in society. I voted for point 24, which calls on Member States to encourage older people to continue working through fiscal and social security exemptions.

I also voted to encourage and facilitate combining work with retirement and to put in place dissuasive measures so that companies find it harder to make older people redundant.

I voted against raising the retirement age because I think that people who pass a certain age, but who will and can work, should be encouraged and not forced to work, especially at a time when the unemployment rate in the EU-27 is 10%, and 20% among young people.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Commission’s Green Paper on European pension systems adopted today under the report by the alliance of the political representatives of capital in the European Parliament (social democrats, conservatives and liberals) is an anti-grassroots monster. It is intended to form the basic element of the new anti-grassroots EU Competitiveness Pact designed to demolish European social security systems and replace them with private, individualised insurance, a new cash cow being milked at the workers’ expense for the benefit of capital. In practice, public spending on social security, pensions and welfare is being abolished. The three pillar system reduces the State pension to a poorhouse benefit, thereby throwing the gates wide open to the so-called third pillar of private insurance. There are calls for an increase in the retirement age, depending on life expectancy; in other words, work to the grave. The Greek Communist Party voted against the EU’s abortive anti-labour paper on European pension systems. Faced with these developments, we would point out that the workers urgently need to rise up en masse and stop these new anti-insurance measures and the new savage attack being organised by capital and the bourgeois governments in the new EU Competitiveness Pact.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of the Oomen-Ruijten report on the Green Paper on pension systems. The results of the negotiations are appropriate in the opinion of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and provide the appropriate basis for the subsequent White Paper. What is important going forward is retention of the German occupational pensions, the length of service and protection against the risk of bankruptcy for existing commitments. Under no circumstances must occupational pensions be transferred to a compulsory European system.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. − (LT) I am pleased that the rapporteur recognises that there are significant gaps in the pension systems in Europe and the fact that the citizens of some Member States − for instance, Lithuanians − face additional problems. Life for pensioners in my country is not the easiest. Recently it has become even harder − last year Lithuanian pensioners’ monthly pension was reduced by 5%. The time has come to stop applying double standards. In some European countries, such as Lithuania, the government maintains that the crisis is over and that the economy is gradually beginning to recover. However, when we need to take practical measures, our leaders state that they cannot find the required resources to return pensions to their former level. Suddenly they declare that the crisis is not yet over. In reforming our pension systems financial sustainability is important, but so too is providing an adequate income. Genuine sustainability cannot be achieved without ensuring that pensions are adequate. Ageing society and financial pressures show that our labour market is changing. It is necessary to take this into account when reforming pension systems. A balance between flexibility and security on the labour market supports the adaptability of the economy and thus contributes to sustainable, secure and fair pensions.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR), in writing. − (NL) Europe and pensions, now that is a sensitive issue. Various Member States are considering arrangements to shrink their national debts by tying pension funds to their debts. Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy have already directly mentioned the centralisation of pensions in their plans for a single, centrally-ruled Europe. I am against any regulation of pensions at a European level. Pension systems are structured differently in the various Member States. They are almost incomparable. In addition, the pension systems in the various individual Member States vary considerably, in terms of size, reliability and supervision. I do not want to see the robust Dutch pension system suffer because of the chaos in some other Member States.

What I do find sensible, however, is that Member States should share information about their pension systems with each other and that they should make efforts to address specific problems by that means. I refer here, for example, to university researchers who move to other Member States, whose tax authorities then collect additional levies on the pensions they have built up elsewhere. An immediate halt should be put to such excesses, but that does not mean that we need to revamp the entire system on a European model.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report urging Member States to ensure pensions are sustainable in light of the challenges of ageing societies and the spending pressures being faced across the EU. I welcome that this report recognises that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to pension provision across Member States, but that the EU can clearly add value in sharing ideas and coordination.

The inclusion of private debt in any assessment of sustainability of public finances should not be included in this report, as current market conditions would not support this kind of assessment. Furthermore, applying capital requirements to pensions could potentially drive up costs without adding security for employer-funded occupational pensions. This should not be made compulsory where there is an existing protection scheme; for example the UK’s Pension Protection Fund, set up by the previous Labour Government, already provides a high level of protection to pension scheme members and beneficiaries.

I, and my Labour colleagues, will continue to work to ensure that people who save with the State, with their employer or privately are given the genuine pension protection they need to feel safe about their retirement.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, although I feel that the text adopted is overcautious in repeatedly indicating the importance of the principle of subsidiarity. I nevertheless believe that this report, pending the imminent publication of the Commission White Paper, can allow the continuation of an effective working relationship between the Member States and EU institutions on the difficult issue of the modernisation of European pension systems.

Motion for a resolution B7-0094/2011

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this motion for a resolution, as I believe that the accession negotiations with Croatia may be concluded in the first half of 2011, provided that the necessary reforms continue to be pursued. To achieve this, during this last stage Croatia will need to mobilise all its efforts to strengthen public administration and the judiciary, to make progress on combating corruption, to ensure full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, to continue with the privatisation process, and to adopt restructuring plans. I am also voting for this resolution because it recommends the implementation of an arbitrary border agreement between Croatia and Slovenia, and because of the progress made in resolving other bilateral disputes, such as border issues with Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although Croatia still has to conclude negotiations on six political chapters of the acquis communautaire, I believe that the good results achieved in 2010 will serve as a basis for the Croatian authorities to make final efforts to complete the negotiations.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution on the 2010 progress report on Croatia. With this document the European Parliament confirmed that Croatia has made significant progress in the talks on integration into the European Union. I agree with the resolution’s provision that the accession negotiations with Croatia can be completed in the first half of 2011 provided that the necessary reforms continue to be pursued resolutely by, in particular, strengthening public administration and the judiciary, continuing to combat corruption, ensuring the sustainability of refugee return, full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the continuation of the privatisation process and the adoption of restructuring plans for the shipyards in difficulty. These are very important conditions, and their proper implementation or at least significant progress in the areas mentioned will show Croatia’s commitment and willingness to become an EU Member State.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I agreed with this motion for a resolution, through which the European Parliament supports Croatia’s accession to the European Union. The accession of Croatia entails both a European and a regional dimension, and would encourage the rest of the countries of the Western Balkans to launch and implement accession-related reforms. The accession negotiations with Croatia have progressed significantly, but fundamental reforms in the areas of public administration and the judiciary, corruption, refugee return and so on, have yet to be completed. Croatia must make significant progress in the resolution of bilateral disputes with neighbouring countries, such as the border issues with Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, so as to prevent these disputes from becoming an obstacle to further enlargement of the EU once Croatia has joined.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of adopting the progress report on Croatia because I think that the EU accession process highlights the significant improvement in the situation in this area. Indeed, respect for fundamental rights, the situation of refugees and the privatisation of the shipping sector are the most advanced chapters. I would also like to welcome at this point the implementation of the peace agreement and everything that this entails. Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is crucial to the successful conclusion of the negotiations. I hope in the future that the Croatian authorities will allow investigators to have access to the necessary documents. One of the issues mentioned in the document is war crime trials. Those who have been brought to justice are either not convicted or receive token punishments. I wish to stress the importance of administering a fair justice system for any candidate country.

The legacy of conflict in the 1990s and a lack of respect for minorities’ rights are unacceptable from a future Member State. Legislative intervention is desired in this area. The Hungarian Presidency’s intention to complete the negotiations by the end of the first six months in 2011 is commendable and Croatia can potentially cross the finishing line on time. Its accession will send out a positive signal in the region, reaffirming the EU’s credibility with regard to the conditionality of this process. I wish to end by confirming Romania’s unreserved support for Croatia’s accession to the EU.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The country report on the progress made by Croatia in 2010 indicates the determination of the government in Zagreb to meet the European Union’s accession criteria. However, the European Union is confronted with a first-time situation in that the majority of Croatia’s citizens do not think that accession to the EU will benefit the country, which is in contrast to the significant wave of optimism seen among the population of the Central and Eastern Europe states which joined in the last two rounds. The 2010 country report on Croatia highlights the EU institutions’ concern about this situation. This is why an appeal has also been made to authorities and civil society to get involved in convincing Croatians that EU membership will have a positive impact on their country. I welcome the efforts of the Croatian authorities and their ambition to conclude the accession negotiations this spring.

Croatia also deserves to be congratulated on the fact that a state ravaged by conflict for so long has managed to make remarkable progress to implement the acquis communitaire. Furthermore, any kind of mention about Croatia’s accession possibly being deferred can only be treated as a throwaway remark made without too much thought.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted decisively in favour of this report because I believe that Croatia is correctly continuing with its implementation of the reforms necessary for EU membership. At an economic level, I think that Croatia is ready to deal with other EU countries. In fact, despite the global crisis, it has managed to maintain a certain macroeconomic stability, particularly through the development of service and tourism infrastructures. I think the country should be encouraged to take full advantage of its resources, particularly its geographic position as a strategic transport link between Western Europe and the Balkans, between Central Europe, the Adriatic and the Mediterranean. Further development of its infrastructure could provide enormous potential to the country. With this in mind, its cooperation with the European Union on the implementation of sections of the TEN-T, TEN-E and e-TEN, which also affect Croatian territory and could be developed into a PPP system in full cooperation with the EU, is proving very fruitful. The negotiations will close in the first half of 2011, when the accession process will be concluded. I am confident that this deadline will be met.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I would commend Croatia for the substantial progress achieved in attaining the benchmarks needed to conclude the accession negotiations. I strongly believe that Croatia’s swift accession will contribute to encouraging the rest of the countries in the Western Balkans to implement accession-related reforms. I welcome the efforts of the Croatian Government to take a strong stance against all forms of corruption, but call on the Croatian authorities to further strengthen the administrative capacities of anti-corruption bodies and to foster a culture of political accountability. I welcome the progress made in the area of women’s rights and gender equality, as some 25% of parliamentary seats and almost half of administrative positions in the public sector are held by women, demonstrating the progress towards gender equality. However, the percentage of women occupying positions of business leadership remains low and gender wage differences persist. I call for further active promotion of the participation of women in economic and political decision-making bodies, and for swift implementation of the Gender Equality Law, including the principle of equal pay.

  Daniel Caspary, Ingeborg Gräßle, Elisabeth Jeggle, Andreas Schwab, Thomas Ulmer and Rainer Wieland (PPE), in writing. − (DE) We expressly support Croatia’s swift accession to the European Union. The people of Croatia have great expectations of this membership. However, these can only be fulfilled if Croatia is truly ready for accession and all accession criteria are met. Croatia has already come further in this process than many current EU Member States had come on accession.

The Commission’s progress report clearly shows, however, that there is still work to be done in some areas. This gives reason to hope for a swift conclusion to the accession negotiations – expectations must not be raised by today’s decision, however. Thoroughness is more important to us than speed and reliable implementation is more important than promises. We must not repeat previous mistakes. Anything else will not be in the interests of the European Union or Croatia and its people. We have therefore abstained from voting today.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the motion for a resolution on the 2010 progress report on Croatia, as I believe that the negotiations on Croatia’s accession to the EU will be completed by June 2011, provided that the necessary efforts toward reform continue to be made. I am in favour of expansion, provided that candidate countries meet the pre-established criteria. The more countries there are in the European project, the better it is for the EU and for its citizens, who will enjoy a single area of peace, freedom, democracy, progress and well-being.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Croatia has been meeting the accession criteria with undeniable success, and has been making an effort to continue down this path, despite the additional difficulties it faces in the current international situation. It is a good example for any country intending to become part of the European Union. I cannot fail to notice that the most recent surveys show Croatians to be suspicious of their country’s future entry into the Union and critical of the EU’s actions. Instead of questioning the opinion of the Croatian people, I believe that their doubts merit serious reflection on how the European Union has been run. I find it regrettable that, in her motion for a resolution, the rapporteur has chosen to give opinions about issues such as sexual orientation and its constitutional protection, which not only have nothing to do with the real issues in question, but should also be the exclusive competence of the Member States.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This motion for a resolution is on the 2010 progress report on the process of Croatia’s accession to the EU; a commitment by the European Parliament, for which no diplomatic efforts have been spared. I welcome the progress made in the accession negotiations, which should be completed by the end of the first half of 2011, as well as all the efforts made by the European Commission towards the other countries of the Western Balkans joining the EU.

I find it regrettable that the Croatian Parliament and government have not made the desired progress on constitutional amendments, namely as regards decentralisation and reform of public administration, particularly by depoliticising it, combating corruption and freedom of the press. I hope that all the problems mentioned in the report will be resolved or, at least reduced, so that accession is quick and can act as a catalyst for membership by neighbouring countries.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Regarding this report, it is important to point out that the majority of Members of the European Parliament are not happy about the fact that, according to Eurobarometer, the majority of the Croatian population believe that accession to the EU ‘would not benefit them’. What can be done to counter this perception? The answer, as always, is to increase the propaganda, seeking to manipulate the reality of what the EU is.

The same old neoliberal dogmas are being wheeled out: the reduction of state intervention in the economy, and the creation of an open and competitive market, by destroying public services, by changing labour relations in capital’s favour under the pretext of their ‘rigidity’, and by doing away with sovereignty and with an independent project for Croatia’s development.

Lastly, the report makes it very clear who the beneficiary of NATO’s aggression and the breakup of Yugoslavia was. Croatia is in a privileged location: it is a transport corridor of great importance for the import and export markets of the East and Far East. It is clear that accession to the EU is not to promote the right to development of Croatia and its people, but above all to benefit the great powers and their economic groups.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Recently, Croatia has made considerable progress towards EU accession and will probably soon become the twenty-eighth Member State of the EU. In 2010, negotiators for the EU and Croatia closed 11 chapters, achieving a total of 28 (from the required 35). Last year’s achievement emphatically shows Croatia’s determination to continue with its reforms and will soon allow its citizens to benefit from EU membership. During the last meeting of EU and Croatian ministers which took place on 22 December 2010 in Brussels, the negotiators closed three important chapters, namely those concerning justice, freedom and security, foreign, security and defence policy, and the environment. The closure of these chapters indicates that Croatia’s legal system has been strengthened and that progress has been made in several areas simultaneously, such as wider cooperation between Croatia and the international community concerning military missions and civil affairs (“foreign, security and defence policy), and the guarantee of better air and water quality for the population of Croatia (environment).

Negotiations on the accession of Croatia to the European Union began in October 2005. In spite of some logistical problems, Croatia’s accession is strongly supported by EU Member States and many of them expect a rapid progress towards the closure of the seven remaining chapters by the end of 2011.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the motion for a resolution. Croatia clearly has a place in the European Union. However, I will not vote for further membership unless the budget of the Union is substantially increased. Further enlargement cannot be achieved without additional funds for the Union.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) My vote on the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of this Parliament on the progress of Croatia towards membership is a sign of no confidence in the benefits of the European Union which, according to the opinion polls, is shared by the majority of Croatians. It is regrettable that the authorities of a country which has become independent and sovereign in the wake of a terrible conflict have not wished to rest until they have placed the country under a foreign yoke, against public opinion. I voted against the Treaty of Maastricht. I voted against the European Constitution. I would have voted against the Treaty of Lisbon if my Government had had the courage to put it to the French people. I hope that the Croatians will be consulted directly on the accession of their country to the Union and that their will, unlike that of the French, the Irish and the Dutch, will be respected. To vote in favour of a resolution which regrets that the fate of minorities practicing this or that sexual deviance is not a central preoccupation, which advocates intensive propaganda to reverse negative opinion polls, which encourages the same economic errors as those committed in our countries, was really not possible.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the progress made by Croatia, which confirms the efforts made by the latter with regard to its forthcoming accession to the European Union. Indeed, Croatia’s membership has several advantages, such as consolidating peace and stability in the Balkan region and strengthening the position of the EU in that region. The text we have adopted also raises issues that remain problematic and on which Croatia must continue to work, such as combating corruption, which remains one of the major scourges in the country, and giving support to returnees, which is still inadequate. I hope that Croatia will continue further along this positive route.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution on the 2010 Progress report on Croatia, because with this document the European Parliament confirmed the fact that Croatia has made progress in the talks on integration into the European Union. Accession negotiations with Croatia can be completed rather quickly, provided that the necessary reforms continue to be pursued and implemented resolutely. It is necessary to continue to strengthen public administration and the judiciary, combat corruption, ensure the sustainability of refugee return, and fully cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and so on. Furthermore, the Croatian Government urgently has to address the structural weaknesses of the economy and devote greater attention to regional cooperation, in order to tackle bilateral issues with neighbouring countries. Proper implementation or at least significant progress in these areas will demonstrate and strengthen Croatia’s willingness and opportunities to become an EU Member State. I believe that the accession of Croatia would also encourage the rest of the countries of the Western Balkans to move closer and more quickly towards EU Membership.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With its motion for a resolution on the 2010 progress report on Croatia, Parliament’s aim was to applaud the improvements made by Croatia in several respects, which are bringing the country ever closer to the European Union. That country’s achievements over the last year deserve to be mentioned, as substantial changes have been made to the Constitution in order to adapt it to the founding charters of the other 27 Member States. With regard to the judiciary, efforts have been made to make that power impartial and independent. Trials have also been organised for war crimes, and considerable progress has been made on women’s rights and gender equality. I fully agree with this motion because I strongly believe that Croatia deserves to become a Member State. There is no doubt that even more must be done, especially as regards the fight against corruption, but the fact remains that the country is making significant headway in its path to membership of the European Union.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because what we all want is a stable, prosperous neighbourhood. Indeed, these aspirations can only be fulfilled by integrating the Western Balkans into the EU and Euro-Atlantic structures. Croatia is the state in this region which is at the most advanced stage in the EU integration process, highlighting that it has and wants to use robust mechanisms to combat corruption in the public sector. Zagreb has already made progress on this matter through its parliament’s approval of a law allowing the confiscation of assets obtained illegally, as well as by the actions taken against senior officials. I welcome these measures, but Zagreb needs to demonstrate convincingly that it has left behind its widespread culture of corruption and impunity. Croatia can continue to count on Romania’s support in the European Union accession process by sharing common experiences regarding both the pre-accession process and the aspects after the country’s EU accession.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution in order to acknowledge Croatia’s progress towards EU accession and highlight the remaining goals to be achieved for the benefit of its people. I voted against Amendments 1 and 4 because they were intended to delete references to government efforts in Croatia to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation and race, which are required for EU accession.

When the resolution was in the AFET Committee, I contributed amendments concerning the efficiency and predictability of the justice system. They called for increased funding for courts to work fast and efficiently, unification of jurisprudence, and timely publication of all judgments. Corruption cases have to come to court and not remain at the prosecution/investigation stage, and sentences must have deterrent effects. The efficiency of the pre-accession funds spent in the area of justice reform and the combating of corruption must be assessed.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report but retain serious doubts about Croatia’s suitability for membership. Significant progress needs to be made in a number of areas, not least in tackling corruption.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Croatia’s accession to the European Union is a significant incentive for the Balkan countries to pursue their own efforts and reforms with a view to their future accession to the Union. Croatia’s accession to the Union will extend the area of peace and stability in Europe, and it therefore entails a dual European and regional dimension, which should encourage the Western Balkan countries to achieve greater cohesion at regional level.

I welcome the positive progress made by Croatia with regard to respect for and protection of minorities, though the country should also take appropriate measures to ensure greater protection of the Roma minority and its participation in civil society. The Roma are still discriminated against and do not have adequate representation in Croatian central and local political authorities. Synergies must be developed and implemented at regional level, particularly within the framework of the Danube Strategy, as more social interchange and economic trade would benefit the entire Danube macro-region.

I refer in particular to cooperation in the areas of transport, the environment and economic development. Greater cohesion at regional level will facilitate the future access of the entire Western Balkans region to the European Union.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) It is not surprising that the Eurobarometer has indicated that the Croatians think that the European Union is not beneficial to them, as that is indeed the case. I am voting against this motion for a resolution and its antisocial injunctions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Negotiations with Croatia on its accession to the EU may be concluded shortly. However, the necessary reforms need to be pursued with determination. The most important reforms are the strengthening of public administration and the judiciary, combating corruption, supporting the return of refugees, fully cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and restructuring the shipyards.

We must applaud the enormous progress already made. However, at this final stage it is necessary to continue resolutely with the reforms needed to be able to conclude the negotiations regarding EU accession on time. The fact that that the majority of Croatian citizens believe that accession to the EU would not benefit the country is worrying, so we need to work to ensure that Croatians see the European project as being theirs as well. It is therefore crucial to give the citizens clear and factual information on the implications of Croatia’s accession to the EU.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES)While I consider the accession of Croatia to the EU to be positive, provided that the Croatian people see it as so, I have not supported this motion for a resolution since they are various points that I reject, above all those related to the EU’s economic requirements. I think the request that the Croatian authorities adopt measures that define and improve the participation of civil society players in the process of policy formulation and supervising the activities of the public authorities activities is both appropriate and valuable. However, I cannot support the resolution given that I am totally against the neoliberal economic focus it contains and the measures that it asks to be implemented in this area. Thus, I think it unacceptable that the EU demands that the Croatian Government reduces the redistributive role of the state and public spending and I reject the call to apply ‘profitability’ as a principal criterion to evaluate the public health and social systems.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted with the progress made by Croatia in its accession into the European Union, including the amendment of the Constitution, the reform of the judiciary, freedom of the press, the protection of minorities, and closer cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I therefore fully support the 2010 progress report on Croatia. The prospect of joining the European Union is a powerful incentive for the other countries of the Western Balkans moving towards European integration to carry out the necessary political, economic and legislative reforms, to strengthen stability, and to promote coexistence and reconciliation in the region. However, the Croatian authorities still have obstacles to overcome and challenges to address, such as combating corruption, getting the economy back on track, resolving bilateral disputes with neighbouring countries, and very low employment. It is therefore necessary to urge Croatia to press ahead with the necessary reforms so as to meet the final criteria and to complete the negotiations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) By supporting the motion for a resolution on the 2010 progress report on Croatia I would like to express my support for the swift acceptance of this country into the EU. It is not only culturally and historically rooted in Central Europe, it also meets the accession criteria. Although work still needs to be done in many areas, such as the fight against corruption, in light of the prosecution of the former prime minister, Ivo Sanader, there is no lack of positive will. Croatia also seems to be prepared to deal with its past, as evidenced, for example, by the support for returning war refugees. This has also been described in detail in the resolution.

However, by supporting several amendments, I have also expressed my rejection of the politically correct language of the resolution. In several paragraphs it is absolutely intolerable. However, so as not to block the Croatian people’s path to the EU and to demonstrate our good will, I finally voted in favour of the report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) Among the candidate countries, Croatia is the country that has made the greatest amount of progress. Thus, Croatia has proven its readiness to join the EU many times, for example with the settlement of the fishing dispute. Progress has also been recorded with regard to the fight against corruption, as can be seen by the arrest of the former prime minister, Ivo Sanader. When it comes to addressing the issue of war crimes, Croatia seems to be moving away from its past, for example by providing support for returning war refugees. The motion for a resolution contains a few superfluous, overly politically correct platitudes, for example with regard to the protection of transsexuals in paragraph 5. However, the report is, by and large, acceptable. It refers to the progress that has been made and seeks a swift accession process. That is to be welcomed, as, from a cultural and historical point of view, Croatia is firmly rooted in Central Europe. I therefore voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Croatia is one of those countries which are drawing nearer to accession to the European Union. During the last few years, Croatia has shown great initiative and has made progress in many areas, from the judiciary, to human rights. Progress in these areas has given me great satisfaction, as a year ago I called on the Croatian Government to increase its efforts in amending its legislation in exactly these areas.

Croatia is currently struggling with the same problems as the majority of previous and current candidates for accession to the European Union, namely corruption, settling historical differences with neighbouring countries, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Solving problems of this type requires a huge effort not only from the authorities, but also from society. One cannot change the situation of sexual or ethnic minorities without exerting some influence on the citizens’ outlook. However, as the example of new Member States has shown, belonging to the European Union gradually helps to foster acceptance of persons of foreign descent or differing sexual orientation.

The message that the European Union is ready to accept a new member into its community should be conveyed to Croatia. I hope this will happen soon.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, because Croatia has made huge progress in attaining the criteria necessary for the conclusion of the accession negotiations. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that the accession of Croatia would also encourage the rest of the countries of the Western Balkans to move towards EU Membership more quickly. I welcome the Croatian Government’s efforts to combat various forms of corruption and the reforms of the public administration, and the judiciary being implemented. However, in order to properly implement the principles of the rule of law and gain citizens’ confidence in the judiciary, the number of unresolved cases must be significantly reduced and the length of court procedures shortened. Furthermore, we must ensure that war crimes trials are unbiased and impartial. I agree with the proposal that greater attention must be paid to the safety of the Danube power plants due to be built. Furthermore, the Croatian Government urgently has to address the structural weaknesses of the economy and devote greater attention to regional cooperation, in order to tackle bilateral issues with neighbouring countries. I believe that negotiations with Croatia should only be completed once all the necessary reforms and other obligations have been implemented and without setting a specific time limit.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Balkans region is crucial to the future geopolitical configuration of the European Union and, in this regard, Croatia is the country that has made the greatest progress in the accession process. Europe could make a real difference in that region by acting as a real driving force through economic and political reforms. That is why I voted for the motion for a resolution, given the policy of integration and expansion toward the democracy and market economy of south-west Europe. It is my opinion that disrupting and/or impeding enlargement to embrace the Balkans will certainly not save the fate of the European economy. It is important, then, to see Croatia as a nation that will help the entire Union to open its doors to other countries in the region. It will thus play a strategic role as a forerunner of this new process of integration and development.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Croatia’s path to accession of the European Union has progressed significantly; progress has been noted particularly in attaining the benchmarks set in the negotiating chapters. It should be stressed that, according to Eurobarometer, the majority of the Croatian population believed very recently that accession to the EU would not benefit them. It is important to give consideration to whether or not the Croatian people want to join the EU and to allow them a free choice. The expansion of the European project is desirable, and beneficial to the creation of a single area of peace, freedom, democracy, progress and well-being. However, it is crucial that this project is and continues to be based solely and fundamentally on the will of the people. Croatia’s accession is important in geopolitical terms in order to encourage the rest of the countries of the Western Balkans to launch and resolutely implement reforms related to accession to the European project. Following these benchmarks, I voted for this resolution.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the progress made by Croatia in fulfilling the criteria required to conclude the accession negotiations. However, the Croatian Government needs to improve the coordination of central administrative institutions responsible for environmental management, in particular those for spatial planning, as well as waste, water and air quality management, in order to be able to preserve sufficiently a unique environment and maintain a high level of biodiversity. I think that the region’s economic development could be accelerated through close cooperation between Croatia and the other countries as part of the Strategy for the Danube Region, using various forms of cooperation in the field of transport, the environment and economic development within the Danube macro-region.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) I abstained from this vote. I am not opposed in principle to any country’s entry to a Union that I do not wish to see as a club closed to countries that respect minimum values of democracy and human rights, and whose people freely choose accession. However, I cannot accept the pressures being applied to Croatia to speed up processes of privatising public companies. Nor can I accept the Commission’s political interference in the internal decision-making process by supporting organisations that advocate accession in a country where, as the latest Eurobarometer shows, the majority of citizens believe that it would not be beneficial; this is not surprising if we consider the antisocial nature of current EU policy.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Accession negotiations with Croatia can be completed in the first half of 2011 provided that the necessary reforms continue to be pursued resolutely by, in particular, continuing to combat corruption, ensuring refugee return, restructuring shipyards, as well as reforming the Constitution and the judiciary.

Regarding corruption, although I acknowledge the commitment of the Croatian Government, which is evident for example in the trials involving two former ministers and a former prime minister, this is nevertheless a phenomenon that continues to be a serious and widespread problem. Judicial system reforms must also continue, notably by continuing the prosecution of war crimes and improving witness protection programmes.

The biggest challenge, however, could be that of explaining the benefits of EU membership to a somewhat sceptical population. Indeed, a recent Eurobarometer survey indicated that the majority of Croatian citizens believe that EU membership would not benefit the country, which is a concern. I therefore call on the government and civil society to work to ensure that the Croatians see the European project as being theirs as well. EU membership will in any case be subject to a referendum.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − With this resolution, the European Parliament commends Croatia for the substantial progress achieved in attaining the benchmarks necessary for the conclusion of the accession negotiations; it asks Croatia to pursue resolutely the necessary reforms in order to be able to attain the final benchmarks and to conclude the negotiations; and it calls on the Commission to use all its capacities to support Croatia's efforts to attain the benchmarks.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this report because it sheds light on Croatia’s progress in terms of completing the procedures for accession to the European Union. If Zagreb continues on the path of reform as it has done in recent years, there is a very good chance that negotiations will already be completed by June.

Now, however, the greatest challenge seems to be to convince local people that EU membership will bring real benefits to their country, since a recent official Eurobarometer poll seems to suggest that they believe otherwise. In view of the fact that membership will still be subject to a referendum, we must work to ensure that the Croatians see the major European project as belonging to their history and their future.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR), in writing. − (NL) By June 2011, candidate country Croatia will have completed its negotiations for accession to the European Union. I am pleased with the progress of the negotiations, but I want to see action before then. I do not want us to regret Croatia’s accession later: let Bulgaria’s and Romania’s accession be a hard lesson to us. On paper, combating corruption is clearly one of the priorities of the Croatian Government, but we have seen very few corruption cases actually come to court. The vast majority of cases remain stuck at the investigation stage. This is remarkably often the case where senior officials are under investigation. I want to see Zagreb take action. After all, Croatia will receive some EUR 4 billion euros after it joins the EU. We must be able to trust the Croatian politicians who will be responsible for spending that money.

We must learn from our experience with Bulgaria and Romania. These countries joined the EU too quickly and, as a result, European money has found its way into all the wrong kinds of pockets. Thus, as long as the fight against corruption remains stuck at the current level, we will be unable to complete the negotiation process with Croatia: it is as simple as that.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − The ECR Group is very much in favour of EU enlargement. We believe it is one of the more successful aspects of EU policy, provided it is carried out according to rigorous criteria and that lessons are learned from other recent accessions. For this reason, we voted in favour of this resolution. However, we believe there are serious issues which still need to be resolved before Croatia accedes to the EU. Corruption and judicial reform have not been properly addressed. We are also concerned about media freedom, the prevalence of organised crime and the massive backlog of court cases. Furthermore, there are still unresolved border issues with Croatia's neighbours and we do not wish to see these imported into the EU. We do not wish to see Croatia then blocking the aspirations of other candidates. We already suffer from examples of this elsewhere.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) The motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs is a very balanced one. It mentions all of the remaining weak areas that are currently preventing the closure of the last remaining open negotiating chapter. In its recommendations to the Croatian authorities, the report is mindful of sustainability, including with regard to the reforms of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, the guaranteed independence of which will be the key to Croatia’s future democratic development. Moreover, the report does not forget to make the important point that the good work of the Croatian Government must continue with the same level of ambition after accession to the EU.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Recent months have shown that Croatia’s efforts to accede to the European Union as quickly as possible have had tangible results. Reforms which began in previous years have contributed significantly to the development of many areas of life. It is particularly heartening to see increased cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague and also progress achieved in the field of women’s rights and protection of ethnic minorities. Regional initiatives, such as an understanding between Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia for a joint railway undertaking are indications of a desire for peaceful cooperation, and contribute to increased economic development in the Balkans.

European Union Member States should continue to support Croatia’s reform programme, paying particular attention to its most pressing problems, namely corruption, high levels of unemployment and the difficult situation the fragmented agricultural sector finds itself in. I hope that, in accordance with assurances from the Hungarian Presidency, we will complete negotiations with Croatia in June, and that in the second half of 2011 during the Polish Presidency, Croatia will become a Member State of the European Union.

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13:25 and resumed at 15:00)

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

9. Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure

  President. − Colleagues, we shall start with the signing of the Lex Citizens’ initiative. Dear Minister Martonyi, President-in-Office, dear Chairs, rapporteurs, today we are considering legal matters: the very important signing into law of a very important piece of European legislation. It is important because we are giving another check to balance the powers of our institutions.

This regulation on the European Citizens’ initiative, which has been adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, aims at providing our citizens with the same political initiative that the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament already enjoy. One million signatures are needed – only 0.2% of our citizens – to invite the European Commission to act in matters that concern them directly. It allows them to be heard. I will indeed establish a direct link between the citizens and the Union’s institutions, bridging the gap between them, between all of us in the European Union.

The European Parliament and the Council worked hard to achieve a rapid adoption of this citizen-friendly regulation at first reading. I would like to thank all those who contributed to this success: the various Presidencies – in particular the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies –, the Commission and the Members of this House. I would like to give particular thanks to the Chairs of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and the Committee on Petitions (PETI), Carlo Casini and Erminia Mazzoni. I will ask you to come forward for the signing of the procedure. The four rapporteurs, Alain Lamassoure, Zita Gurmai, Diana Wallis and Gerald Häfner – I hope you are present and we can go through the procedure together – as well as the many other Members involved as shadow rapporteurs.

You can be proud of the work done for our citizens. With the Council we shall now sign this act into law but, before that, I will ask our guest, who will often be present in the European Parliament this half-year, Minister Martonyi, to say a few words.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, in this unique and solemn moment, I recall the early days of the European Convention when we were discussing how what used to be called the ‘democratic deficit of the European integration process’ could be eliminated, or at least reduced. There was a common goal which we all shared, and that was to enhance the democratic functioning of the European Union.

One way of doing that has just been found, and that is to foster the participation of the citizens themselves in the democratic life of the Union. That is how, and that is why, the right of the citizens’ initiative was included in the Treaty, and now citizens can approach the European Commission directly and invite it to submit a proposal for a legislative act of the European Union.

I firmly believe that this is a milestone on the path towards more democracy in the Union. It is also the first element of direct democracy. It establishes direct contact and dialogue between the institutions and citizens and encourages cross-border direct dialogue and cooperation. It also encourages a sense of ownership: Europe is not them – Europe is us, and Europe will develop as we shape it ourselves, all of us together. Yes, our motto, ‘A strong Europe with a human touch’ depends upon all of us.

To achieve these goals and to implement the Treaty, clear, simple and user-friendly rules of procedure had to be established. This has now been done and was the result of the good cooperation between all the institutions – the Commission, the Council and first and foremost, the European Parliament. I would like to extend my special thanks to Mr Maroš Šefčovič of the Commission; I would like to express my thanks to the Spanish and the Belgian Presidencies, both of them members of our trio; and very special thanks and congratulations also have to be extended to the European Parliament, to all those who were involved in this extremely important job: the chairs of the committees, and also the rapporteurs Alain Lamassoure, Zita Gurmai, Diana Wallis and Gerald Häfner, and all the other Members who participated in this extremely important work.

This is a demonstration of the excellent cooperation and understanding not only between the European institutions, but also among the different political families or groups. I can only express my hope that this cooperation and this understanding will have set a model for the future, both for the institutions and for the political groups.

IN THE CHAIR: Roberta ANGELILLI
Vice-President

10. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes

11. Rising food prices (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on rising food prices.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, thank you for inviting the Hungarian Presidency to participate in this debate on rising food prices.

For a second time in three years, the issue is on the agenda. Once again, rising food prices are causing social unrest and political instability in several countries. Families in the poorest regions of the world are in difficulty. Moreover, the Food and Agriculture Organisation tells us that the outlook is not good, with prices set to rise further this year as a result of adverse climatic conditions. This is a pressing issue. It was discussed between Agriculture Ministers and WTO Director-General Lamy in Berlin on 22 January 2011, and once again in the Agriculture Council on 24 January this year.

The reasons for this latest rise in prices are complex and are a mixture of structural and temporary factors. On the demand side, we have more people to feed than ever before. On the supply side, droughts and floods have played their part in wrecking harvests, input costs have risen and this has all been compounded by financial speculation in the commodity markets.

So what can the European Union do to address this problem? We need to get our internal policies right, we need to improve global governance in this area and we need to make a real contribution to the most vulnerable. Now is not the time for complacency, but we did make some important progress in all three aspects as a result of the last food prices crisis. The Council, along with Parliament, is engaged in an intensive debate on the future development of the common agricultural policy. This is highly relevant with regard to global food security. Recent Council debates put food security at the centre of the discussion, asking the question how best to ensure that agricultural production in the EU will be both economically viable and environmentally sustainable in the future.

Let me also say that we have read with great interest Parliament’s resolution on the recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security, based on the report by the honourable Member, Daciana Sârbu. There are ongoing discussions in the Council concerning the Commission’s Communication of 18 November 2010 on the future of the CAP, and the Hungarian Presidency plans to adopt Council conclusions at the Council meeting of 17 March.

We hope that the discussions concerning the legislative proposals scheduled to come out in the second semester of 2011 will lead to concrete progress. We have made important progress towards a more coordinated and long-term international response to world food security. We are a long way from reaching the Millennium Development Goal to halve the world’s hungry people by 2015. Hunger and food insecurity remain a reality for a billion people, but one of the UN’s recent achievements, following much work by the EU, has been the creation of the global partnership for agriculture, food security and nutrition. This is being implemented by the revitalised Committee on World Food Security in the FAO.

The EU has also been spearheading the renewal and modernisation of the Food Aid Convention in order to better contribute to world food security and to improve the ability of the international community to deliver food assistance to the most vulnerable populations. This is the way forward in order to enhance global governance in this area.

From a food security perspective, I would like to remind you of the Commission’s Communication on humanitarian food assistance, adopted at the end of March 2010, and the subsequent Council Conclusions in mid-May 2010, thus outlining a new policy framework for EU humanitarian action to strengthen efforts to tackle food insecurity in humanitarian crises. The Commission’s Communication on assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges, also adopted last year, called at the same time for a new common food security policy framework, further strengthening EU leadership in the global food security agenda and improving the effectiveness of EU assistance. To this end, the Commission and Member States are jointly developing an implementation plan to translate this policy framework into concrete actions on the ground.

Let me also mention the EU’s EUR 1 billion food facility, which was agreed by Parliament and the Council. We are in the third year of operation of this instrument which helps farmers in the developing world to increase agricultural production capacity. This is a tangible sign of our determination to bring real assistance to the most vulnerable.

Decisions are about to commence on the future orientation of the EU development policy based on the Green Paper on EU development policy in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development. With the Green Paper process, the Commission takes the initiative of attributing priority to economic growth generation, agriculture and food security in development cooperation in order to achieve inclusive and sustainable development in developing countries on the grounds of pro-poor solutions. Given the rising food prices and rapid population growth, enhancing developing countries’ own food production capacities is of paramount importance.

We also welcome the new impetus given by the G20 Seoul summit to the WTO Doha development agenda. The EU would give full backing to a deal which would make a significant contribution to providing stability by getting rid of export subsidies and prohibiting export restrictions. The latter only serve to exacerbate price volatility and have exactly the opposite effect of the one desired.

Let me now come back to the issue of financial speculation. The extent to which it contributes to price volatility is unclear, but there is a good reason to enhance transparency on the commodity markets. The French Presidency of the G20 has identified this as a priority for the coming year. The Hungarian Presidency of the EU is ready to work shoulder to shoulder with the French Presidency of the G20 to achieve concrete results. The Hungarian Presidency is fully committed to working with you towards a first reading agreement on the Commission proposal on over-the-counter derivatives.

The world’s poor and hungry deserve an adequate and lasting response to their worries about rising food prices. The European Union has been at the forefront in efforts to tackle the issue since the first crisis three years ago, but more needs to be done. The Council remains fully committed to a collective and coherent response, both at EU and international level. I am sure we can count on your support in all our efforts.

Thank you very much for your attention.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me this opportunity to make a statement on behalf of the Commission on rising food prices. It was at my request that this issue was debated at the Agriculture Council of 24 January. I therefore also welcome the opportunity given to me to have this dialogue with the European Parliament on a subject of such vital importance.

On this point, I would like to address two topics, which I think are interconnected: firstly, the situation on the world’s agricultural markets, where prices have been rising for several weeks, and, secondly, the G20 process on issues of food security and the volatility of agricultural prices.

Let us begin with the situation on the world’s agricultural markets. Different reports produced by several international institutions, including that of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), on rising agricultural and food prices have once again placed the world on alert. Are we in the process of reliving the same rise in prices as in 2007-2008? Although prices, particularly grain prices, have risen sharply since the summer, and also more recently, we do not seem to have reached the price levels of 2008.

The situation around the world as regards common wheat is tight, but there is not a problem with market supply. Current harvests in the southern hemisphere are larger than expected. Nonetheless, to facilitate the end of the marketing years for the European Union market, we are thinking of suspending customs duties for imports under the tariff quotas for common wheat of low and average quality and for feed barley in the belief that this is one of the measures that could help to ease the market a little at European level. It should be noted that the forecasts for global common wheat stocks at the end of the 2010-2011 marketing year are higher than in 2007.

As for sugar, the prices are once again at record highs with, for white sugar, a price close to EUR 625 per tonne in mid-January. The increase in prices follows two years of a global deficit resulting from low production. The production of the current marketing year was recently revised downwards in certain countries, including Australia. However, according to the latest forecasts, the world sugar balance should be in balance for the period 2010-2011.

However, there is a lesson to be drawn from all this. While markets may be tight, there has certainly been an over-reaction at the level of prices given what the physical fundamentals tell us. Food security and the underlying issue of the volatility of agricultural prices are clearly global issues, which must be dealt with at a global level, and I am glad that the issue of food security and volatility is one of the priorities set by the G20 in Seoul. This is a major challenge for the Commission as a whole.

As Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development I have already, and repeatedly, expressed my commitment in this area, in Berlin at the end of January for example, with my counterparts in the various countries involved in the G20, but also recently, within the United Nations, with the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, during a recent visit to New York.

Let us also remember that the issue of food security is clearly stated as being one of the challenges of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in the Commission Communication on ‘The CAP towards 2020’. It is a crucial issue both for the European Union and the world’s poorest countries, which is why I am working closely with Commissioner Piebalgs on these issues in order to also adapt the EU’s development policy to this issue of food security better.

Today I would like to share with you my thoughts on these issues, in particular on four areas: transparency, stocks, volatility management options and the role for trade. We hear that volatility is aggravated by a lack of transparency both for the physical markets and derivatives markets. For the agricultural markets there are sources of data on production, consumption, trade and stocks. International organisations, national services and specialised organisations, such as the International Grains Council, produce detailed data on this subject.

That said, certain data can be improved, especially data concerning stocks, on which there is a lack of information, in particular on the worldwide distribution of stocks. The G20 leaders meeting in Seoul also asked the competent international organisations to improve information on stocks and production forecasts. Improving the relevance of these data is a prerequisite for improving the transparency of the markets. We also need to examine the issue of a forum for discussion at a global level among key market makers, both exporters and importers, so that crises are not simply noted when they occur. That is why these three issues are linked: we must first have the information, then be able to process these data, and, finally, have a forum, at international level, where the situation noted can be discussed.

The Commission has published several communications on the price of agricultural products and foodstuffs. In its most recent communication, the Commission launched actions to improve transparency along the entire food chain, and I am cooperating with European Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani to move this key issue forward.

Proposals have also been announced to improve the transparency and supervision of products derived from agricultural commodities. As volatility increases, it is important that futures markets continue to fulfil their risk hedging and price discovery role. We therefore need a balanced and rigorous approach, and I welcome the work carried out by Commissioner Barnier in this area and am fully in favour of his work also covering the specific issue of agricultural raw materials.

On 2 February the Commission published a new, more global, communication on the commodities market and the financial markets that are derived from it. This constitutes a contribution to the discussions conducted within the G20 both on the volatility of commodity prices and on the supervision of derivative markets. We want to contribute, together with our G20 partners and more broadly, to more effective regulation of derivative markets in the interest of producers and users alike.

Therefore, I think that we need to work as a matter of priority in the coming months – until the summer I think – on the following issues: first, the availability and transparency of information relating to private and public stocks as well as to production and consumption; second, the collection, processing and dissemination of this information; the security mechanism for countries facing a situation of food tension; the role and organisation of food aid at international level and in the European Union; the improvement of international governance, for example through mechanisms for institutional dialogue between key countries; the levels of investment in sustainable agricultural production and research not only in the European Union but also in the poorest countries. The priority to be assigned to agriculture in development policies is also an issue to be addressed, especially as the Commission is preparing to adapt and reform development policy. I think that, in this context, the European Union should have a far greater presence, not only with food aid but, above all, by providing support to countries in the south to enable them to develop their own local production capacities in a sustainable manner.

In the European Union we need to look more seriously – and I have every intention of doing so – into identifying market mechanisms that would enable us to prevent catastrophes in certain sectors as a result of temporary squeezes on the income levels of producers and input costs. I am thinking in particular of livestock breeding.

Let me turn, finally, to the role of trade. We believe that trade can contribute to global food security as it enables available food to be distributed around the world. Export restrictions have only strengthened the spiralling increase in prices to the detriment of already fragile countries. However, trade policy concerning foodstuffs should be connected to other policies relating to food at the international level if we want a coherent approach on this issue.

In conclusion, I can assure you that I am closely monitoring trends in food prices and I want to work in the future in consultation with you, here, in Parliament, and with the Council, on this issue, so as to come forward with concrete proposals, first and foremost with the reform of the common agricultural policy, but also with other, more specific, instruments.

  Mairead McGuinness, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, can I thank both the Council and Commission for a very clear statement of their intent on this very crucial issue of rising food prices. Those of us in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development who are in the Chamber today are more accustomed to debating agricultural matters at midnight. I am delighted that when agriculture suddenly becomes food, we debate this very important issue in the middle of the day when people can hear. I think we should remember this.

(Applause)

Let me say very clearly that the disconnect between agriculture and food is part of the problem that we are debating here today. The realities of agriculture and the low farm incomes in both Europe and the developing world are central to this debate and, lest we also forget, one of the crucial problems – and the Commission identified it in its position paper – is that rising commodity prices and rising food prices do not translate into higher farm incomes. The real problem is that the costs of producing food are rising faster, and this is a treadmill on which farmers cannot continue.

The challenge for us as policy-makers is how to increase food production in a sustainable way, how to produce more from less, how to manage our stocks and how to deal with the issue of stock dislocation that the Commissioner has identified. Global stocks are no longer the key figure; we need to know where the stocks are and to realise that they will not come out of China or India.

What we need to do – and I think this has started to happen since my report during the last Parliamentary term – is to put agriculture and food centre stage.

Let me finish by saying this: we need to be cautious as to how we reform our agriculture policy. We must maintain and increase food production within the European Union as part of our contribution to global food security. And yes, let me endorse your point about agriculture in the developing world: it has been neglected for far too long. It is now high time that our policies assisted that agriculture.

  Stéphane Le Foll, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I fully agree with the remark that Mairead McGuinness has just made on the fact that there is a fundamental link between the issues of food and agriculture.

The issue we are addressing is rising food prices and the consequences that may have for a certain number of populations around the globe, as well as in Europe.

I would first like to make the following observation. The trend towards ever higher agricultural and commodities prices is, in my view, a long-term trend, which will continue for three main reasons: first, world demographic trends and a rising world population; second, the fact that, with global warming, we are experiencing problematic weather hazards such as drought and floods; third, because the world is also developing. With new emerging economies consumption levels are increasing. Therefore, the tight situation on agricultural markets and agricultural commodities is a trend that is on the increase. It is aggravated by price volatility, and price volatility is a consequence of the financialisation of the global economy.

This is what we should be addressing if we want to resolve the agricultural issue and the food issue. To do this – what the Commissioner said is important – there are two elements: yes, there needs to be transparency on stocks, but we also need a public policy on stocks in Europe and stock management at a global level, especially at the level of the United Nations.

Secondly, regulation of the financial markets and market speculation is essential, in particular by ensuring that there is no longer any connection between the speculative volume and the physical quantities exchanged on the markets. As regards food, it is unacceptable that speculators speculate without taking account of the consequences this may have for world food and humanity.

This leads me to draw two major conclusions. Firstly, we need a strong European policy and to strategically reassert Europe’s commitment to being a global player in the food and agricultural sectors. Secondly, we need to change our development policy to ensure that globally – and Europe is a global player – we once again invest in agriculture, because we need agriculture to feed the world.

(Applause)

  George Lyon, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, it is welcome that we are actually discussing agriculture and food issues in the middle of the session on a Wednesday afternoon rather than at midnight. I very much welcome that. One of the reasons is that the massive volatility that we are witnessing today in food prices has at long last acted as a wake-up call to politicians across Europe.

Over the last 30 years, we have all become complacent as food prices declined year after year after year in real terms. Food has never been cheaper than it has been in the last few years. We have come to expect our supermarket shelves to be overloaded and groaning with food 24 hours a day. Too much food was thought to be the problem. That dominated the debate up until 2007, rather than the problem being too little.

The recent price spikes are a turning point, a sign that the days of plenty may be drawing to a close. Our current agricultural production model has been based on cheap energy, an abundance of land and plentiful supplies of water. That model cannot meet the challenges we face in the future. A rising population to 9 billion, growing demand from developing countries and the impact of climate change. As Professor John Beddington, the UK’s Chief Scientific Officer, recently predicted, unless we take action we face a perfect storm of scarce energy supplies, scarcity of water and food shortages.

We need to act now and build a new agricultural model. Europe needs to take the lead and the reform of the common agricultural policy gives us the opportunity to map out a sustainable food production system that can meet that huge demand in world food supplies that is going to be needed in the future.

  José Bové, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, as in 2008, the price of agricultural raw materials is soaring on world markets. We are only at 3% of the 2008 level. The fall in production in certain traditionally exporting areas due to climate change, the diversion of cereals to biofuel production and the financial speculation accentuating the price rises are responsible for this situation, as evidenced by the reports of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the French authorities, and as also indicated by the Commission.

The consequences of this new food crisis are exacting a heavy toll on the 1.2 billion people in the world who live on less than USD 1.5 a day. Since October, 44 million more people have joined those who live below the poverty line.

Just two days before the meeting of the G20, what is Europe waiting for before it takes measures similar to those voted in favour of by the United States? Since 13 January 2011, the US administration has demanded the limitation and the transparency of the positions taken by the financial funds on the agricultural commodities markets. This is a first step towards countering the appetites of the speculators.

The impact is also dramatic for European farmers. They are no longer able to feed their animals. Hundreds of farms have gone bankrupt. Five years ago, wheat was worth EUR 100 per tonne; today it is traded at close to EUR 300. This is a whole new ball game.

The Commission is demanding that farmers adapt to market signals. It would do well, today, to follow its own advice. Faced with this crisis, the European Union cannot wait until 2014 to find solutions. The crisis must be confronted and I propose three concrete actions.

Firstly the immediate creation, in the relevant countries, of cereal stocks to be made available to farmers at a subsidised price. Secondly, the indexation of meat prices paid to farmers to fodder prices. Thirdly, for 2011, a mechanism for transferring part of the aid directed at supporting cereals towards livestock farming.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, rising food prices can bring governments to their knees. We have seen that in recent days.

I would just like to take us back a little bit. I have been a Member of this Parliament since 1989. When I came to Europe in 1989, we did not have a food problem. We had beef mountains, we had butter mountains, we had milk lakes and we had cereal mountains. Now they are all gone and we are not producing enough food fast enough to feed ourselves.

So where has the food gone and why have we only a small supply? When a drought in any part of the world can actually cause total confusion in the whole market for everyone else, this is not a situation that we can allow to continue.

We have a situation in the European Union where farmers are leaving the industry hand over fist in every Member State. In actual fact, what we are doing is to encourage them to go even faster, and we have no young farmers coming into the industry.

We must act before it is too late to reverse the trend in rising global food prices. This action must be taken sooner rather than later to alleviate the pressure that has been put on ordinary people.

Shelter for ordinary people can be constructed through a strong common agricultural policy which ensures high-quality food at reasonable prices without negative impacts on the environment. A strong pillar of direct payments is vital for the world and to meet food demands. Further steps can be taken to solidify this in the future, which is much needed as far as investment and, indeed, research and development is concerned. Hopefully we can find a way to do that.

The problem as I see it is that everyone comes here to these debates and makes all the right statements, says all the right platitudes, but they are not prepared to take the tough decisions necessary to help those most in need.

I have to say that talking is no longer enough: it is action we need on global stocks and volatility in the market, and until you start to tackle that problem, you will not solve the problem.

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, as a politician involved in development policy, I always ask myself why it is actually so difficult to learn lessons from past crises and disasters. It seems to me that the drama of the hunger riots of 2008 has still made too little impression on the minds and hearts of those with political and economic power and also of those who are unscrupulously speculating on the agricultural commodities markets. The number of starving people worldwide has once again risen above a billion, and it is the poorest people in the world who are most affected by the price rises on the food markets. They have to spend more than 80% of their money each day on food.

The global promises of 2009 to provide more than USD 20 billion in agricultural aid to the developing countries, including USD 6 billion via the World Bank, for the fight against hunger have not been honoured. So far only USD 925 million has been paid. Speculations on the agricultural commodities markets no longer concern foodstuffs but are now almost exclusively concerned with financial market activities and transactions, which have a direct effect on food prices. I am therefore pleased that the Commission is now starting to abandon its reticence towards this situation.

Nevertheless, the speculation in relation to price developments has not become more transparent, nor has it been controlled or restricted. However, that is crucial if we are to be able to act effectively here and to bring about changes. I therefore call on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to give the fight against hunger top priority in all policies, agendas and strategies and also to consider new methods and new approaches, such as food sovereignty, so that ultimately those who work the land have more creative power and influence over the supply of food to their own people in their regions.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, whilst food prices are undoubtedly rising, the situation at the farm gate is very different. British farmers producing beef, sheep meat, pig meat and eggs have actually seen a drop in the value of their produce over the last year; poultry meat is unchanged and milk only marginally higher; sugar beet will fall next year.

These businesses are facing huge cost increases themselves and cannot sustain the status quo for more than a few months. Then they will either succeed in claiming higher prices from the retailers or they will cease production. Either way, retail food prices can only go higher.

What is the EU doing about this? Well, it is making it unnecessarily expensive to import non-GM soya beans. It is charging farmers a global warming levy on their electricity bills, whilst those same farmers have lost thousands of tons of sugar beet and potatoes in the ground due to very cold weather. The EU wants to increase the public subsidy to organic farming rather than allowing this sector to be consumer-led. Any switching of conventional production systems to organic will lead to a reduction in food supplies.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Madam President, the main reasons for food inflation have been rising global commodity prices, soaring energy prices and volatility within the marketplace, and there is no doubt that the consumer is suffering. It is, however, the agricultural industry which has been dealing with this for some time, as well as rising feed prices and rising fertiliser prices. Profit margins have been reduced and many farmers, especially those in the intensive sectors, face financial ruin.

I would ask Parliament today to consider the consequences if we did not have support for farmers from the common agricultural policy. What would we be paying for food in that financial climate? I would also urge Parliament to consider very strong support for the common agricultural policy in the very important debates that are coming up.

It is important that we have a policy that will support farmers and ensure adequate food supply at a fair price. I would also say that fairness is absolutely essential, and in fairness we need transparency within the food supply chain. This will only come, particularly in the United Kingdom, if we have a supermarket ombudsman.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). - (FR) Madam President, Mr President, Commissioner, I will address an issue that has been raised on several occasions and often presented as a single reason: speculation.

I believe that, with regard to speculation, moderation is required. It is clear that there is a definite link between certain financial activities and increased volatility and prices for raw materials. However, looking at the entire issue solely in terms of financial speculation would certainly be a mistake, since part of what we call speculation is actually the legitimate hedging of prices on the part of producers and, as we are well aware, these producers could not do without this hedging possibility.

However, a situation must be avoided in which direct investment in commodities has a harmful impact on price volatility because of its massive scale or its purely speculative nature.

In this regard, the proposals made by Commissioner Barnier on financial matters, in particular the regulation of short selling and derivatives, and also the revision that is going to come from the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), must give Parliament the opportunity to take account of aspects of commodities speculation in financial regulation and supervision, which will be put in place to ensure that those markets are also regulated in an effective yet pragmatic manner.

Commissioner, you said that these efforts should continue, and I believe that Parliament which, in a financial crisis, has complied with and, sometimes, anticipated what the Commission proposed, will live up to its responsibility.

Finally, I welcome the declaration of the Hungarian Presidency indicating that Europe would support the French Presidency of the G20, which has made the regulation of the commodities markets one of its priorities.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, prevention is always better than cure when it comes to disasters. There is a real risk of a global food crisis. That is not my phrase: it came from the government of one of the founding Member States of the European Union. The signs are worrying. The prices of some essential food products such as cereals do not stop rising and even hit record levels in January, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. The problem is obviously not European and, as has already been highlighted here today, the contribution of each of the hypothetical causes explaining the phenomenon is very far from being known

We know that the Commission is not ignoring the issue, and its communication of 2 February is a document that deserves to be read closely.

Nonetheless, the specific nature of agricultural production deserves particular attention in the context of the common agricultural policy (CAP), by dedicating proper risk-analysis instruments to development cooperation policy, and by backing food production to the detriment of other forms of international aid.

I should also like to welcome France’s stance in the G20 here, influencing the regulation of the financial markets and the combating of price manipulation, as well as establishing rules that could prevent the sudden interruption of trade flows, as happened with Russia recently, for example.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, feeding our population has to be the highest duty of government, and indeed feeding our population is the primary objective of the common agricultural policy.

Food security is our North Star and this is an EU success story. It is worth remembering there have been food riots on every continent but ours over the last year, and we are seeing governments fall on a virtually daily basis, it seems, across the rest of the world, while we have at least been able to provide a degree of a safe haven for our citizens so far.

So, food security is our priority. You would not think it listening to some of the NGOs and lobbyists and, indeed, some of the politicians who have been involved in the debate about the reform of the common agricultural policy going forward.

Food security must be our focus and must be our priority, and I would disagree on one point with colleagues. I do not believe that free trade is the answer. I do not believe that global food security is something that we can achieve or should strive for. Export bans caused by countries seeking to feed themselves are not, in themselves, unjustifiable, and I would quote the English President of the National Farmers Union, if you would forgive me briefly: ‘if we are talking about morality, a country seeking to feed itself is nothing compared to rich countries allowing their agriculture to decline and then expecting the rest of the world to feed them. We have a responsibility to lead the world in producing more, not less’.

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, if we are to have a genuinely serious discussion about rising food prices, we cannot avoid the issue of how the European Union is itself contributing to this unwelcome trend, however uncomfortable that may be for some. All commodities market analysts agree that there are two main factors behind the rise in food commodity prices.

The first is the large-scale printing of new money in the USA and the European Union in recent months. This influx of new money into the markets is pushing the price of food and other commodities upwards. It is not speculators that are to blame here, as the report under discussion today asserts, but rather the misguided policies of American, European and other central banks.

The second factor pushing up food prices is the EU and US policy of forcing consumers to make ever greater use of biofuels. The commitments that the EU and the US have assumed in this area have led to a sharp increase in the amount of non-food commodities grown on agricultural land. As a result, less and less agricultural land is used for food production, and it is therefore only logical that food prices increase. If we want to succeed in lowering global food prices, we must abandon this absurd policy on biofuels.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). - (FR) Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, all the hungry people in the world, all those who have to pay more to feed themselves or to clothe themselves, expect us to respond with more energy to the greatest calamity afflicting our planet today, that is, the calamity produced by money-grabbing food speculators. They are the ones who are driving up food prices to the detriment of farmers and consumers.

I listened carefully to the impassioned plea by Jean-Paul Gauzès, but he will be aware that, in his region, cereals have been bought this year for the next harvest even before they have been sown. Consequently, we are indeed talking about speculation. The only way forward is for the European Union to act in several directions.

Firstly, it must act to stop these financial speculators by setting up a global agricultural and food fund, building up emergency stocks, putting in place mechanisms for stabilising real prices for actual and not virtual production under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation (UNO). Our common agricultural policy must also revert to a system ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

IN THE CHAIR: Silvana KOCH-MEHRIN
Vice-President

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, today in the European Parliament we are discussing the issue of rising food prices. This phenomenon, of rising food prices, is felt by consumers in Hungary and other European countries alike. Those who do not feel it are farmers and, in particular, smallholders. How is this possible? Where does the money go? This puzzle, this mystery is solved, among others, by point (d) of the excellent motion for a resolution submitted by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, but the whole motion for a resolution is in itself excellent and I must congratulate them on it. It also offers detailed answers and solutions. Point (d) draws attention to the phenomenon of speculation. It states that there has been an increase in speculation by purely financial institutions, that is, the commodity market speculation of money capital, which is causing an artificial inflation of commodity prices. We therefore partially have the solution. The money goes to the speculators, and to the purchasers and traders whose hunger for profits often knows no bounds.

How proud the Hungarian people would be if the Hungarian Presidency treated the resolution of this issue, that of food speculation, as a priority. I must ask the attending representative of the Hungarian Presidency whether we can by any chance count on this, and I ask Mr Cioloş, EU Commissioner for Agriculture, what solution he envisages to food-related speculations.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Madam President, in developed countries the average household spends 10% to 20% of its income on food, whereas in developing countries the figure is generally as high as 80%. This underlines the dreadful consequences for those suffering countries. We must respond and we must continue responding until they stand on their own feet.

In December 2008 this Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of my report on the EUR 1 billion food facility to provide financial aid to developing countries in light of soaring food prices at that time. The purpose of this facility was to respond to those soaring prices, the causes of which were mainly, though not exclusively, droughts in grain-producing countries and rising oil prices. The situation remains extremely volatile, affecting producers and consumers in both the EU and developing countries.

We must learn how to cooperate with other countries such as Thailand. In the region, Thailand is a major producer of food, yet when some of its neighbours like Burma and Vietnam were in poverty and running out of food, we did not accept Thailand’s offer to cooperate with us and act as our agent in the region. We have to learn how to do that. We must ensure a quick transition to stability in North Africa. We must ensure that aid is delivered to regions hit by unforeseen natural disasters such as Haiti and Pakistan, and in this regard we must continue to mobilise the reserve for emergency aid, allowing the EU to respond promptly to specific aid needs arising from such events.

  Kader Arif (S&D). - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first allow to me to express the regret that it took a crisis in Europe to trigger the debate we are having today and the motion for a resolution we will vote on tomorrow.

Just last year, when the developing countries rose up in what was called the ‘food riots’, Europe simply proposed emergency response measures, that is, to send seedlings and fertilisers, as though the problem were cyclical, when we have long been warning of structural problems. We have a common agricultural policy (CAP) that lacks effective regulatory mechanisms because the liberal majority still believes that nothing must restrict the market. There is widespread, economically destabilising and morally unacceptable speculation on agricultural products of developing countries that are prisoners of single-crop farming for export, with a Europe that does not support them and allocates only 4% of its development aid to the agricultural sector.

With this resolution, Parliament as a whole finally acknowledges that the right to food is a basic human right, that it is unacceptable that the hunger of some is exploited for the benefit of others, that regulation is indispensable in ensuring price stability, and that trade agreements must preserve small family farms and the right to food.

Today, Parliament is delivering a clear message. It is up to the Commission and the Council to translate it.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - Madam President, by the time I sit down, 16 people will have died of starvation. That is about the size of that part of the Chamber over there. Every day 36 000 people die of starvation around the world because they do not have enough food to eat.

The European Union was self-sufficient in food until recently. Now it is importing food. It is actually taking food away from the poorest people’s mouths. I am told that the EU is importing from the rest of the world an amount of food that would take about 35 million hectares of land to grow. We should be self-sufficient in food, and we should help the developing countries to be self-sufficient in food.

There is an answer to all this. In the 1960s in India, there was a revolution in green agriculture under Professor Borlaug. People said that India would starve. India did not starve. Brazil is now self-sufficient in food. We can do it if we have the will.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, three years after the crisis of 2008, the world is on the brink of another food crisis. To prevent it, we have to look at its causes and attack them.

We have to look at the agricultural and trade policies that are destroying small and medium-sized agriculture, that promote models of intensive production for export and that, in this way, threaten food security and sovereignty; as is the case with the common agricultural policy (CAP). We have to look at the trend towards increased oil prices and at farmers’ high level of dependency on this raw material; this dependency must be reduced. We have to look at the enormous power of the agribusiness multinationals that have a monopoly on the key factors of production; at the growing use of fertile soil for purposes other than food production; at the appropriation of land from the local communities that live and work on it.

Above all, we have to look at and attack the irrationality of an inhuman system that allows speculation on foodstuffs. We have to put an immediate stop to the financial instruments that enable speculation: the EU has to accept this or be complicit – as it already is – in its consequences.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, eating and drinking – hardly anything could be more commonplace and self-evident for us. However, what we take so much for granted is, for many people, becoming a serious challenge that they are barely able to cope with. Food prices have now risen sharply, which has made the situation even worse for many people.

A package of measures is needed to tackle the multiple causes of the price rise. In this regard, it is important to prevent price speculation and to establish stocks. In so doing, the dominant position on the market of some food corporations and chain stores must also be examined. The developing countries also need greater support from us to develop their agriculture. That is the only way we will succeed in providing food for the poorest people and improve their economic situation.

In order that we may have no misconceptions about this: appropriate prices for agricultural commodities are not the problem. On the contrary, they represent the solution to the problem. Appropriate prices for agricultural commodities – appropriate, as far as I am concerned, means free of speculation – are, in my opinion, the crucial prerequisite for the establishment of agriculture in the developing countries.

Adequate food is a human right and hunger is a crime against humanity. Supplying the population with high-quality and affordable food within the European Union, but also worldwide, must therefore be a central concern of European agricultural policy.

  Richard Ashworth (ECR). - Madam President, for the past 30 years food prices have been both low and stable. Now, the United Nations FAO has warned that rising energy costs, growing world population, greater wealth and climate change are about to present huge challenges to the world food system and to the cost of food.

This will have two important consequences on European governments. First, the rising cost of food and energy hits the very poorest families hardest. Second, at a time when Europeans most need a period of price stability while the economy recovers, rising food prices will fuel inflation. In the short term, the temptation will be to import cheaper food and to expect the food and farming industry to absorb the greater cost.

Neither route would be wise. Over-reliance on imported food would dangerously expose consumers to price volatility, and over-pressuring the farming sector, which already faces steep cost increases and depressed margins, would endanger productive capacity.

We need to invest in the common agricultural policy. Technology will be the key and now is the right time to do this.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the increase in food prices requires two types of response. The first concerns the need to plan medium- and long-term actions. In this sense, answers must come from the new common agricultural policy, which must ensure food security for European citizens, provide consumers with food at affordable prices and protect farmers’ incomes. With the new CAP we must give – and this is what we are in fact doing – strong support to farm incomes under the first pillar and support measures for rural development, increasing investment in agriculture and food security.

The second response is the need to intervene with emergency measures to protect the weakest link in the chain, because when food prices fluctuate, the effects are actually quite strange: when prices rise, producers and farmers do not derive any benefit, but when prices fall, producers see their profits and their already meagre earnings decrease. It is clear then that there are problems in the supply chain and a lack of transparency.

Commissioner, these serious problems in the supply chain include, for example, abuse of dominant purchasing power, unfair contractual practices – including late payments – unilateral changes to contracts, advance payments for access to negotiations and uneven distribution of profit margins along the food supply chain.

The Commission must propose measures …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Paolo De Castro (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, social tensions, such as the recent ones in North Africa, are almost always triggered by rising food prices. The record increase in the prices of cereals, sugar and vegetable oils is a clear sign of the increasing imbalance between global supply and demand.

A further – sadly possible – rise in prices would have dramatic consequences particularly for those parts of the world where food expenditure accounts for more than 40% of per capita income. It also poses a real risk of creating tensions throughout the entire planet in an increasingly interdependent world economy. The European Union must therefore have a clear awareness that agricultural policies – the common agricultural policy for the European Union and the Farm Bill for the United States – have a role of extraordinary and strategic importance to play in the world order, a role that goes far beyond the legitimate protection of farmers’ incomes.

We need, Madam President, a new global food policy capable of coordinating agricultural policies at international level. Personally I hope that the forthcoming G20 summit will be an opportunity to actually embark on this new path.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). - Madam President, the relentless increase in the price of oil and its consequent upward pressure on fertiliser prices, together with swingeing increases in the price of wheat, maize and other cereals, is creating a crisis in our farm sector, as well as a growing global crisis.

It is worth remembering that the uprising in Tunisia which set off the domino effect across the entire Middle East began with the self-immolation of a poor street food trader.

Europe’s farmers can make a positive intervention in helping to resolve this crisis if they are provided with the appropriate tools. It is time we grasped the opportunities provided by biotechnology to help us meet growing demand for quality food products.

More than 125 million hectares of GM crops are being grown commercially worldwide by more than 13 million farmers, and yet we do not mention biotechnology in this resolution.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Europe, before we have food riots on our streets!

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, there are several reasons for the widespread volatility in food prices: extreme weather conditions, limited natural and energy resources and the increase in the world population. Another two reasons should also be highlighted: concentrations, by which I mean the oligopoly of the multinationals in the food supply chain, and a lack of transparency and speculation on the commodity markets.

In the wake of deregulation of the financial markets, futures trading on the commodity exchanges changed from a hedging tool to a tool for speculative transactions. The most important exchanges are located outside Europe.

Following the financial crisis, various hedge funds turned to the commodity exchanges, where financial reserves are now fifteen times higher than actual agricultural stocks, in order to recoup their losses. We therefore need an institutional framework limiting their investments in derivative agricultural markets directly linked to the food sector.

I welcome the initiatives being taken by the French Presidency of the G20 and I firmly believe that maintaining a strong European agricultural sector in order to safeguard food security depends on securing a fair income for farmers and taking effective measures to regulate the market within the framework of the new CAP.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Madam President, let me make it absolutely clear that I speak on behalf of those in the developing world and not in defence of the common agricultural policy.

According to the World Bank, over 44 million people have been plunged into dire poverty as a result of rising food prices. There are a myriad of contributory factors – fewer smallholdings, deforestation, desertification, lack of access to water and climate change.

Hence, we need a holistic approach to ensure that we encourage people to take care of their own development needs and to ensure food security at local level. We need to reform the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy so that there are no direct or indirect negative impacts on the developing and developed countries.

We must promote local land ownership and, finally, we must strip away the obscenity of land grab, whereby land is bought and used by foreign investment companies and foreign companies for their own needs. There is no defence for this obscenity.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, consumers as well as farmers have every right to ask us politicians what is going on. Why is the food market in the situation it is in? Farmers know what profits they make, how much they sell their products for, and they know how much they and other consumers pay for food. What can we say to them today? Let us remember 2008 and the situation the food market was in. Did we learn from this? My answer is that we did not.

We are still limiting production. To make matters worse, we are paying to reduce production, while previously we paid to increase it. This Chamber has heard other comments concerning agriculture. Maybe our colleagues should come here today and listen. Maybe they would learn something about food security.

There is a continuing debate about the future of the common agricultural policy post-2013 and once again everyone wants to lower expenditure on the CAP. The current situation, this crisis, has occurred to warn us against a disastrous political decision. We have a chance to rectify our mistakes. We talk about stability. We ask why there are no reserves but we are limiting agricultural trends. Where are these reserves to come from? Who will pay for them?

Commissioner, this situation, this crisis is providing you with exceptionally strong arguments. Ladies and gentlemen present in this Chamber, we must convince those remaining of the seriousness of the situation and of the responsibility of this House for the future of the CAP and for feeding our society. The problem of food security is becoming a global problem. It is good that …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, rising food prices hit the most vulnerable population groups. Against a background where, in 2010, the number of undernourished people in the world reached 925 million, providing food security must become a priority for the European Union. Extreme natural phenomena are not the only cause of rising food prices, but the volatility of the markets and the subsidy on biogas production also play a role.

I call on the Commission to create instruments to combat price volatility and excessive speculation, which in turn help exacerbate the global food crisis. I must also stress that, in most cases, the rise in food prices does not result either in an increase in farmers’ incomes. On the contrary, due to the poor operation of the supply chain, the remuneration received by farmers is far from fair. I believe that the problem of rising prices helps dismantle the arguments against maintaining a strong common agricultural policy.

  Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, a few days ago one of the largest German newspapers had a picture on the front page of a bread roll with barbed wire around it. The article was about the fight for bread. I think that there will hardly be a topic that will occupy us as much during this and the forthcoming decades as the question of the availability of food. It is therefore good that we are talking about it as the reason for that – namely increasing demand – will not be going away and so prices will also continue to rise. We must now give political attention to this whole situation. We must consider how we can produce food and make it available. Commissioner, the idea of proposing further set-aside areas within the framework of the common agricultural policy by means of screening is the wrong approach. We need to make the land that we have productive.

However, we should not view all of this in too negative a light. For years we have complained that food prices are too low. If we consider, for example, whether EUR 100 for a tonne of wheat really is an appropriate price then we have to say perhaps not. If we consider what proportion of the price of the final product, for instance bread, is represented by the price of the raw materials then I think that the increase in the prices of the raw materials is not the only reason for rising food prices; other factors are also involved. Thus, this whole issue is also an opportunity for agriculture to put itself in a better position for the future.

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, food prices have reached new record highs. The volatility of food prices has increased in recent years for various reasons. There is, therefore, great cause for concern. Climate change is causing extreme weather conditions and in some countries whole crops have been destroyed. In addition, there is increasing speculation on food, the danger of which cannot be overestimated – you only have to look at the financial crisis. Moreover, there is increasingly often competition between providing food for the poor and running the cars of the rich.

We need to find solutions so that farmers have sufficient incentive to produce food and that only areas that are not used for food production are used for the production of the likes of biofuels.

For me as a Social Democrat it is important that everyone has access to wholesome food at reasonable prices and at the same time that farmers are able to receive a reasonable income for their work.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, let us just say openly that there are powerful trade lobbies active in the European Union in whose interest it is to weaken European agriculture so that greater profits can be made by importing food from all over the world. We have heard it said many times in this Parliament that markets should be opened up in order to prevent prices rising. We reformed sugar production, opened up the markets, restricted sugar production in Europe and abolished export subsidies. What was the result? The result was that sugar prices did not fall, they simply increased. This should be a lesson for all of us. It is not the way forward. I agree with Mr Smith who said that the market is not the answer. We really should not bow to the trade lobbyists, but look to guarantee reasonable food prices by better protection of our agriculture, its production potential, and food security. Only then will we have sensible prices.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I fully share the concerns aroused by rising food prices, and I could hardly do otherwise, as this is an issue that is very closely connected to the lives of European citizens and especially of the less well-off classes. These increases result in an inability to meet the basic food needs of the populations of all countries in the developing world. Faced with this scenario, the developed countries, with the EU Member States among them, cannot remain indifferent.

In the new common agricultural policy, we must therefore provide instruments that are capable of reducing price volatility, limiting speculation on agricultural commodities and ensuring an adequate level of production within the EU. I must therefore stress the fact that we cannot leave land idle at a time when the world population is growing, making it necessary to increase the supply of food.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, I would like to present a statistic, an observation, and three courses of action. The statistic is that, whenever food prices increase by 1%, 16 million people around the world are plunged into dire poverty. The observation is that, it is impossible to prevent volatility, especially on agricultural markets, extreme volatility is not inevitable and it can be combated, however difficult this may be.

The three courses of action, which have already been mentioned, are: firstly, to give priority, in development policy, to subsistence farming and regional food markets; secondly, the need for a public regulation policy, including through stock-piling and stock management; thirdly, an outright ban on speculation on basic food products.

Europe must be there, at the forefront, especially at the level of the G20. What I have heard from János Martonyi, Commissioner Cioloş and, in other places, from Commissioner Barnier, is to be welcomed. President Sarkozy was very clear and we have great hopes that the French Presidency will be a driving force in this area at the level of the G20.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, market fluctuations are important for the proper functioning of markets in order to create incentives for the buying and selling of goods. For us farmers, commodity futures trading is a basic component of the buying and selling of harvested crops. It provides an important opportunity to achieve planning certainty through the early setting of prices and quantities.

In contrast to the situation in our prosperous industrialised nations, rising food prices are a particular problem in the poor regions of the world where people have to spend a large proportion of their income on food.

We must not intervene in the markets every time the prices change in an attempt to combat natural fluctuations. However, without internationally applicable framework legislation for the financial markets, we cannot even start to think about regulating the commodities markets, because if there is too much money in the financial market it will find suitable equivalents, and commodities are currently highly regarded. Therefore, we should not be surprised if agricultural commodities are now also a sought-after trading objective.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, the food crisis caused by the exceptionally poor harvest last year has highlighted to us the shortcomings of our agriculture and food policy. The current food price increases can be blamed partly on the poor harvest. If something is in short supply, the price of that item naturally rises on the market.

However, the issue is that the shortage of certain agricultural products, Commissioner, may to a large extent be ascribed to the misguided agricultural policy of the European Commission, which has long discriminated against the new Member States and their famers through its subsidy policy. Do not be surprised, Commissioner, if farmers who cannot get prices for their products that will at least cover production costs simply do not sow the crop or break up their herds. They are waiting patiently until hungry and rightly annoyed citizens direct their anger against those officials in Brussels who have long failed to resolve the general and widely recognised problems of agriculture.

You know, Commissioner, the shortage of agricultural products in the new Member States is not caused by poor harvests but by the fact that it no longer pays our farmers to produce under your subsidy and pricing policy. They are waiting, however. When they are given the same subsidies as their counterparts in France, they will definitely start planting crops.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the provision of daily necessities, and in particular agricultural commodities, must not be left at the mercy of the efforts of speculators to maximise short-term profits. The projects announced by the Commission in the new strategy for commodities and raw materials, aimed at securing transparency and stability on the commodities markets, are therefore welcome. In view of the forecasts that food production will have to be increased by 70% by 2050 in order to meet demand, particular attention should be paid above all to pillar 3 – recycling and boosting resource efficiency – and proposals should be tabled soon.

In the area of raw materials diplomacy, I expect the EU to provide developing countries with the expertise to bring about the sustainable and environmentally sound extraction of raw materials.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, an intense debate has been conducted on an issue which clearly causes us concern and which is highlighted when the situation so requires. It is, however, a permanent concern of the Commission and the European institutions, since we are lucky enough to have a common agricultural policy, which needs adapting, but which is an important tool in enabling us to manage these issues.

However, I think that this debate has also shown us that our stability now increasingly depends on international balances and world stability. This must be incorporated, even when we talk about our common agricultural policy.

I think it is also clear that rising food prices is a worrying trend which, in addition to the issue of volatility and the considerable variation in prices, makes the problem we have to solve even worse.

It is clear that, if there is a need for greater production on the market, there is a need for investment in agriculture. However, for farmers to be able to invest, they need, above all else, stable incomes to give them the courage to take this step.

That is why, in the medium and long term, our common agricultural policy must be conceived with this in mind. It must offer a minimum of stability and encourage investment so that our farmers can produce and supply our markets.

It has also emerged in the course of the debate that it is necessary to ensure that our common agricultural policy and the agricultural policies of developed countries are also in step with the development of agriculture in the southern countries and that our policy to support cooperation and development with the southern countries is in step with the common agricultural policy.

At the same time, our common agricultural policy must guarantee the sustainable development of agriculture. It may be necessary to review the instruments at our disposal for managing these extreme market situations, while allowing the market to play its role without, however, being deprived of the necessary instruments to enable us to act and to avoid being caught unprepared for crisis situations. The common agricultural policy still has work to do on this point in the months and years ahead.

The issue of speculation, and hence of volatility, needs to be addressed, and I am not speaking euphemistically. The Commission has already set out proposals, which it intends to follow up, to deal with this situation. On this point, therefore, we are not talking simply of wishes but of concrete proposals.

We must also consider the role that the European Union has to play on the international scene with regard to the food problem. This issue cannot be stabilised in the European Union if it is not stable at international level.

It may also be necessary to review our role in agricultural policy and in development policy and the way in which we address the food issue through different policies: trade policy, development policy, and financial policy. Perhaps here too we need concerted action.

I have also taken account of the need to act in the short term in certain sectors, and I am thinking in particular of the animal sector which, it is clear, is going through a difficult period as a result of strong pressure from all sides, low prices for producers, who are not benefiting from rising prices, and also high prices of inputs. I have taken note of this issue.

I have also noted the various proposals and suggestions that you have put forward. As regards the balance of aid between the crop sector and the animal sector, for example, the Member States already have the possibility to act on the decisions taken in 2008 in the health check of the common agricultural policy.

On the issue of stocks, it is an issue that must be analysed once again and reviewed since, with high prices, it is now impossible to speak of intervention stocks. However, it may be necessary to decide what role such stocks can play and how they could influence the proper functioning of the markets. I think that these are questions we must ask ourselves before we put forward proposals to this effect.

Finally, I would like to say to Jaroslav Paška that differences in payment between Member States do not necessarily come from the Commission. It is a decision taken by the Council, and by the agriculture ministers. The final decision always comes from the regulation proposed by the Commission, but these are regulations of the Council and, now, of the Council and of Parliament.

I also wish to make clear that no subsidy is given to agricultural production for biofuels in the European Union. Therefore, it is not the common agricultural policy that is stimulating the production of biofuels. Nor is it the intention of the Commission to set land aside. Something quite different is involved but, in any event, land is not going to be set aside in a situation where we actually need to produce.

These are the various points I wished to add in response to the issues raised. I also thank you for this fruitful debate and I hope that today’s debate will still be fresh in people’s minds in a few months’ time when we will discuss the resources to be allocated to the common agricultural policy, a policy that is a basic instrument in addressing food security.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, I would like to thank all the Members for this constructive debate. I believe that the high level of political attention afforded by Parliament to this issue provides a helping hand to the Presidency to fulfil its agenda with regard to the rising food prices.

As has also been highlighted in this debate, due to the extent and depth of this issue, it requires multifaceted cooperation and complex solutions across various areas such as agriculture, regulation of financial products and services as well as development policy.

With respect to biofuel production, I would just like to repeat that the EU is fully aware that the unsustainable production of biofuels can have negative effects, notably mass deforestation and food shortages. That is why the EU is committed to stepping up the development of second-generation biofuels made of non-food crops. The EU has also abolished the perverse financial incentives for biofuel production at the expense of food production.

Given the deep structural global roots of the problem, Europe needs to play a leading role in tackling food prices and food security at global level. This is already taking place through a number of international organisations and programmes such as FAO and the World Food Programme, as well as through more general forums such as the G20.

I would just like to add that, on a personal level, this debate has reinforced my long-standing conviction that, to tackle global challenges, such as hunger in the world, volatility of food and raw material prices, turbulence on the financial markets, regulation of financial products and services, there is a need for much more global governance and more global rule-making.

Europe, based upon its unique experiences with governance and rule-making, does have a very special mission and responsibility here. It is for this reason that we believe that Europe and the European Union have to take a leading role in combating all these challenges.

The Hungarian Presidency is pleased to note that it can count on Parliament to maintain the work being made by the EU, both in terms of policy and of efforts at international level.

  President. − To wind up the debate⁽¹⁾, six motions for resolutions have been tabled under Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 February 2011.

Written Statements (Rule 149)

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Global food security is a crucial issue for the European Union. Immediate and sustained action must be taken to guarantee the food security of the citizens of the EU and the planet as a whole. It is essential to develop sustainable agriculture in developing countries and to allocate an appropriate share of EU development aid to the agricultural sector. The spectacular reduction in the level of development aid allocated to agriculture since the 1980s is regrettable, and it is to be hoped that recognition of this need will reverse this trend. The European Commission really must give priority to agriculture in its development aid, particularly aid to allow farmers to gain access to markets and aid to small and medium-sized family farms. Humanitarian food aid must respond to the needs, challenges and structural limitations of developing countries, with account being taken of production, distribution and local transport as well as the trading capacities of these countries, in order to help lay the foundations of their long-term food security.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Security of food supply is a major concern today. There are 79 million people in the EU living below the poverty threshold and during the winter of last year food aid was given to 16 million people in the EU.

Since the cost of food is at a new high level for the seventh month in a row and since the volatility in prices is creating serious problems in the food chain, more people will have difficulty finding wholesome food at a reasonable cost. Common agricultural policy (CAP) programmes, like the Programme for Deprived Persons, are of critical importance for providing food. Programmes of this kind must be supported and prompt, long-term measures adopted to ensure security of food supply in the EU and throughout the world.

Currently 30% of the food produced in the world is wasted. This is unacceptable, immoral wastage and must be curbed. A strong agricultural industry, a strong CAP and a food supply chain in which every effort is made to curb food wastage are essential for tackling the food supply challenge.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing – (PL) I approve of the fact that the European Parliament has focused on rising food prices. Unfortunately, these price rises are not a short-term phenomenon, but seem to be developing into a long-term trend. This is compounded by a growing demand for food, notably for cereals, poor harvests in recent years and low stocks, and also unfortunately financial operations and a weakening dollar. All this is causing chaos on the markets. From our point of view the social consequences are more significant. The populations of many countries are growing exponentially, and they are permanently malnourished and hungry. Their despair creates a source of increasing political tension.

We cannot observe these events passively. We need international cooperation under the auspices of the UN and the European Union. Countries that are members of the G-20 should effectively counteract speculation in agricultural products. We should look again at the regulation of agricultural markets in Europe so as not to artificially restrict potential growth. There should be no speculation in global hunger as the effect of this speculation will be that many innocent people will die of hunger, especially in the poorest nations.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – (ET) During the second half of 2010, the wholesale prices of agricultural produce increased by 32%. World grain consumption increased to 41 million tonnes between 2005 and 2010 compared to 21 million tonnes between 1990 and 2004. According to various analysts, a substantial food crisis in 2011 is a reality; it would take just a single failed crop. The biggest exporting countries Russia, Ukraine, China and Mexico have already been forced to import in order to ensure their supply. The reasons for the increase in prices are vague, and one can no longer talk about the trends of the agricultural produce market. Recent price increases have been dramatic and unpredictable as a result of various speculations. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the growing use of biofuel is increasingly reducing the share of grain used for animal and human consumption. This has caused a very tense situation where we need to realise that increasing food prices lead to a growth in inflation, feed protectionism and cause unrest, all of which could lead to social, economic and political instability in Europe as well as globally. Europe, as one of the biggest importers of food products, has a great influence on global food prices, but that equally makes it vulnerable to various price shocks. I support the endeavours of the European Commission to accept a new legislative package by spring 2011 which would give the Commission greater authority to regulate markets and prevent speculation. The European Union must find means to ensure sustainable prices and a sustainable economy. A balance needs to be established between security and openness as well as development. We must be ready to face a potential crisis.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) The current high prices are a good thing for some people and a bad thing for others. For example, they benefit wheat farmers in the EU, but not animal-based food producers. They benefit countries with cereals available for export, but they create a deadlock and hunger for the people in developing countries who depend on cereal imports for their food. Of course, the final outcome may differ from one area to another and/or from one producer to another. That is because, concealed behind each group of winners and losers are problems in the agrofood chain in the EU, the threat of climate change to food security and the deadlocks created by superficial and inconsistent choices in connection with production, trade and development. The EU must find realistic and balanced solutions, by evaluating the conditions calmly and seriously, with a sense of its role on the international markets. The CAP reform must help in this direction.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The steep rise in food prices is caused by the simultaneous effect of three factors: the loss of yields caused by natural disasters, the growing demand for food, especially on the part of China and India, and commodity exchange activities, that is, price speculation. French President Nicolas Sarkozy raised a very pertinent question a couple of weeks ago: If money markets are regulated, why aren’t commodity markets? We must take action against speculation far more effectively at both EU and global level. The main cause of the food price shock has been the tremendous fluctuation in supply. Only 10–20% of cereals change hands on the global market, and yet a reduction in production can result in a state of panic. Based on forecasts of diminishing supplies, importers drive up prices.

It is not fair towards either the producers or the consumers that internal prices, too, are determined by export prices, since at least 80% of production is used where it has been produced. Russia, in its former position as an exporter, and currently as an importer, has been a fundamental influence on the European cereal and oil seed market. The supply shock is further exacerbated by speculation on the futures markets, resulting in a food price shock. The main problem is therefore not caused by a physical lack of food, but by food prices the poor can no longer afford. This results in foodstuffs remaining in storage instead of being sold at equitable prices. High prices have a debilitating effect on consumers, in particular those in the poor strata of society.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) We are discussing a problem that is above all a political issue requiring a vision for the future. However, much more than short-term remedies, what is needed is the courage to establish a new architecture that reconciles the need to increase food production by 70% in the next 40 years with the increasingly limited natural resources. Therefore, what is done or not done in Africa, in Asia, in the Americas or in Europe affects everyone, everywhere, with consequences for availability, for access and for food prices. This is severely affecting the poor, as well as producers of meat and milk. That is why the response must be global and goes far beyond the field of agricultural policy: it is essential to invoke a set of other policies, without which we will not truly be achieving the necessary solutions. At global level, these solutions include advocating food as a right, supporting the countries’ abilities to feed themselves, supporting farmers and ensuring their fair access to value in the food chain, limiting financial speculation, protecting access to land, and creating food reserves.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – (FI) People’s right to adequate nutrition is a human right that has been acknowledged in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights since 1948. We should therefore remember that when we discuss the price of food, in fact we are talking about fundamental human rights.

The reform of the European Union’s common agricultural policy is taking place at the same time as a rise in global market prices for food. If we are to respond to these changes in a sustainable way, based on human rights, we will need a comprehensive outlook and policy. The price of food and food price trends are affected by several critical issues in global agriculture, such as climate change, energy policy, and the availability of natural resources and how efficiently they are used. The European Union should be a pioneer for a new way of thinking about agriculture. We need a food policy in which whole elements of the entire food production chain are assessed critically and its effects on health and the environment are taken into account. A more natural and resource­efficient food policy needs to be supported and guided by means of both economic and policy measures.

Speculation on food prices should furthermore be restricted. Michel Barnier, Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, has proposed new measures to curb speculation on basic commodities in the derivatives market. Barnier has the right idea. The dramatic fluctuations in the price of food are harming farmers, consumers and even entire national economies. Commitments made in the derivatives market must be made more transparent and subject to greater monitoring, and, if necessary, restrictions on trading using the price of food should be introduced. The creation of a sustainable food policy is at present one of the most important issues for the European Union.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. – (CS) According to a statement from the World Bank, food prices have risen by over 15% since October 2010, and the price of grain, for example, has risen at an annual rate of 39%, according to the FAO. Not only does an increase in food prices threaten the lowest income groups, but it also reveals much deeper and more serious problems that will pose a major threat in the future. Global food production is threatened by a number of factors, such as pests, diseases and natural disasters. These factors are currently being exacerbated by extreme weather conditions that are probably due to climate change. A good example of this would be the drought and fires in Russia in 2010, or the floods in Pakistan, and more recently in Australia. We can expect the problem of rising food prices to get worse in the future. It is pointless to discuss the causes of climate change here, because the risks are real and to doubt them is an unacceptable gamble. However, food prices are also affected by economic factors, especially abuse of the market system through government manipulation of the US dollar exchange rate and irresponsible speculation in commodity trading. Europe must realise that decisions made now will affect the future of the whole food system. In the short term, we can focus on minimising food waste, decreasing dependence on imports, reducing or stabilising demand, and establishing regulatory mechanisms on the market in order to prevent speculation.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) In view of current political conflicts, the fact that food prices are at their highest level since records began is a more pressing problem than ever. At the end of the day, this is a matter of food supply, and in developing countries it is a question of the essential supply of basic foods. The European Union is called on to speed up the progress of the global fight against poverty and hunger – there are around 1.4 billion people suffering extreme poverty. Poverty is an issue within European borders, too. The only means of guaranteeing food supply in Europe is through the European common agricultural policy. The challenges faced by agriculture are huge and they encourage the tendency to produce ‘more from less’. Higher food prices will not automatically be reflected in higher incomes for farmers; the gap between producer and consumer prices is widening. The reality of price management is complex: scarce raw materials, higher production costs, high fuel prices, dependency on harvests, exports and the world market – a dense network of causes that have to be disentangled by means of targeted measures. In order to tackle these causes, measures and agreement across all policy areas are urgently needed. I call on the Commission to make fundamental progress in strengthening agricultural production in Europe and in the developing countries. Speculation on our most vital goods is unethical and we must take stronger action in this regard.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Food prices have been rising significantly in recent years, not so much because of the laws of supply and demand, but above all because of speculation. The fact is that these increases primarily affect poorer people who have to spend more than half their income on food. It is unacceptable some should profit from the hunger of others, whether in Europe or in developing countries.

Citizens have a right to food security, a precondition of which is access to healthy food for all. Food shortages have a number of causes: examples include, inter alia, the wrong spatial planning and agricultural support policies, and climate change. It is therefore crucial that the EU support farmers in cultivating their land and producing the necessary food products. It is unacceptable that consumers should pay a lot and producers earn little, while speculators reap the rewards. Climate change must also be an EU priority in the interest of food security.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) The last few months have seen a sharp rise in food prices, as a result of which the number of people living on the margins of poverty has rapidly increased. The situation in Europe is not so critical, as our citizens’ incomes are incomparably greater than those in developing countries. Nevertheless, our voters too are becoming aware of increasing food prices. According to World Bank statistics, around 44 million people in developing countries have fallen into poverty since last June, since food prices at the beginning of 2011 have reached the 2008 level, when rising food and oil prices had a significantly adverse effect on poverty throughout the world. Of course, the price of oil in the world has an effect on food prices, but we should still remember that in the summer of 2008, oil was standing at USD 140 a barrel, whereas today it costs about USD 100, which means that the rise in prices has been partly caused by speculation. In order to avoid such situations in the future, the G20 countries must develop a mechanism to prevent such a price rise and speculation in foodstuffs. In order to achieve this, we must have joint working at an international level. The problem posed by variable food prices is further proof that we need a powerful common agricultural policy that is fair and provides a level playing field for all European farmers, so that our population can obtain good-quality food of high value at acceptable prices.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) On the subject of food prices, I would like to draw attention to two areas. Firstly, as recent experience in my country shows, by manipulating public opinion a little it is very easy to influence rising food prices. Due to resellers the price of sugar rose by more than 10% in one day in the whole of Lithuania. Therefore we cannot leave everyday foodstuffs to self-regulation. They may be considered an investment, the management of which requires specific knowledge that the growers of agricultural products (farmers) do not possess. Although the free movement of goods is one of the fundamental principles of the functioning of the EU free market, it is necessary to take more stringent measures both at Member State and EU levels, to restrict speculation in foodstuffs and defend the rights of the weaker half – consumers, small-scale farmers and traders – in relations with large processors and shopping centres. The second dimension is the close link between food products and energy sources and the interrelationship between their prices. On the one hand, in order to combat gas emissions that are driving climate change, we promote the use of biofuel (and have even set obligatory quotas for its use). On the other hand, the growing on agricultural land of plants intended for biofuel, rather than products intended for food, is precisely the thing that is driving up food prices. Thus, although combating climate change is one of our priority objectives, we must find a means of not influencing the prices of foodstuffs, for instance, only land that will never be suitable for growing agricultural products should be used for biofuel.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The resolution on rising food prices addresses the finding that food prices are steadily increasing. It is because of this increase that we are calling for urgent measures to combat price manipulation. Climatic phenomena are one particularly noteworthy cause of this increase; in other words, better water and soil management are needed. The direct impact on the world’s population of an increase in food prices, which could provoke riots and unrest, must also encourage the G20 leaders to come to an agreement on market measures to combat speculation.

(1) See Minutes.

12. Situation in Egypt (debate)

  President. − The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Egypt.

Commissioner Füle will take the floor on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, it is my pleasure to be here with you today. As you are certainly aware, the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission is visiting the southern Mediterranean at the moment and has asked me to address you on her behalf on the events in Egypt.

The political reality of Egypt changed spectacularly last Friday when President Mubarak stepped down after 30 years in office. His departure has opened the way to the possible transformation of Egypt. Let me repeat this in front of this House: the European Union salutes the courage of the Egyptian people who have pursued their struggle for democratic change peacefully and with dignity.

A great responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the Supreme Military Council to guide Egypt towards the democratic future for which its people have striven. We have taken good note of the commitments to revise the Constitution, to hold parliamentary and presidential elections, to honour international treaties and obligations and to limit military rule to six months.

There are already reports on the first steps taken. The proposal for a constitutional amendment should be delivered within ten days and submitted to popular vote within two months. We will closely watch the steps that are taken and we hope they will pave the way towards democratic, free and fair elections later in the year.

The European Union responded to the events in Egypt as soon as the public protests escalated. We repeatedly called on the Egyptian authorities to ensure an immediate transition and to respond to the democratic ambitions of the people. The High Representative contacted directly the Egyptian Vice-President Omar Suleiman when concerns of rising violence or human rights abuses arose.

The European Union immediately expressed its readiness to lend full support to Egypt’s transition process towards democracy. The European Council asked the High Representative to develop a package of measures supporting the transformation process in Egypt and Tunisia. She was also asked, together with the Commission, to adapt European Union instruments to stimulate the transition and the country’s economic and social development.

We have started work on how we can best support Egypt and we are aiming at the kind of joined-up foreign policy response that the Treaty of Lisbon allows. In doing so, we are listening to all voices, including those of the Members of this House. You have a crucial contribution to make as democratically elected representatives and also as an arm of the budgetary authority.

The High Representative and I will also report on this process to the Foreign Affairs Council in a few days’ time. I would like to add at this point that High Representative Ashton has convened a special session of the Foreign Affairs Council for this Sunday.

In Egypt, as in Tunisia, the European Union is unequivocally supportive of the transformation process that has started. There is, however, an important difference. In the case of Tunisia, the political situation has become a little clearer. We have managed to establish a dialogue with the transitional government on the needs of the country and the possible European Union response.

The High Representative has been in close contact throughout with international leaders to discuss the challenges facing the region and to ensure a coordinated and, therefore, strong international response.

We will first seek to adjust our ongoing programmes to support the aspirations of the Egyptian people for reforms as and when matters clarify. The European Union already has a wide portfolio of programmes in place in Egypt and spends close to EUR 150 million a year there.

For several years, we have been financing projects on democratic reforms, good governance and respect for human rights. EUR 40 million were allocated to this objective in 2007-2010 and EUR 50 million are planned for 2011-2013. We also have more funds mobilised, in particular for civil society, through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. The new situation in Egypt should create the right environment to put these funds to maximum use and push forward the implementation of much more ambitious programmes than was possible in the past.

Beyond the existing programmes and funds, we intend to listen to the Egyptians and hear where they consider the country needs our support most. Their demands, in terms of democracy, social and economic perspectives and free, fair and inclusive elections, must be met. The European Union stands ready to support this reform process based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Egyptian authorities have already approached us with initial requests, including on dealing with suspicions of the misappropriation of public funds. We are coordinating with Member States on this and the Foreign Affairs Council is expected to address this issue. As and when other requests come, we will do our utmost to be responsive and mobilise our expertise on democratisation, elections, human rights, economic and social reforms, as well as any other issues where Egyptians may see a need.

However, let me be clear. It is not for us to dictate outcomes or impose solutions. The future lies firmly in the hands of the people of Egypt.

I mentioned at the beginning that the High Representative and Vice-President is travelling in the region as we speak. She was willing to visit Egypt as part of her trip and she expressed that will to her Egyptian counterparts. She has now been invited to Cairo by the Egyptian authorities and will travel there on Monday evening, after the Foreign Affairs Council. This will be an opportunity for her to listen to the Egyptians and to assess the priority needs of the country on the road to democracy.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Mubarak has disappeared from the scene and everyone seems to have breathed a sigh of relief. Firstly, the Egyptian people, who have seen their legitimate expectations of greater dignity and democracy satisfied, and, secondly, the international community that, not without a certain cynicism, has gone from being the ally of yesterday to the nuisance of today and, perhaps, to the accused of the future.

However, Madam President, I do not believe that we should deceive ourselves. The departure of Mr Mubarak and Mr Ben Alí are necessary conditions, but not sufficient, to guarantee the process of democratic transition, over which there still hang many uncertainties. The most important thing is: to consolidate democracy.

Madam President, it is also evident that, although democratic freedoms and human rights can be initiated by sixteen days of protest and public spiritedness, and be proclaimed by law from morning to night, economic and social progress cannot, unfortunately, be marshalled in the same manner. We have seen this in the heavy economic losses that both Egypt and Tunisia have been suffering in recent days.

Returning to the Commissioner’s speech, I would like to say that, after the initial hesitations and some problems with the EU’s image, it appears that things are back on track. Baroness Ashton is in the region and what Mr Füle proposes makes a lot of sense.

Firstly, to firmly and wholeheartedly support the process of democratic transition and the political reforms in those countries.Secondly, to carry out a critical review of the European neighbourhood policy in a way that strengthens the democratic clause.

We have heard today, in the Enlarged Bureau, from the Polish Foreign Minister, the next President-in-Office of the Council, and his initiative to establish a Polish foundation on the subject of democracy and human rights. This could also be extended to the entire EU.

Madam President, the EU has mobilised large amounts of resources in its Euro-Mediterranean policy with poor results. The EU’s image has suffered in this conflict, even more than that of other international players. However, the EU’s appeal remains intact.

I would like to say, Madam President, that this is a good opportunity to underline that the EU understands, once and for all, that today history is being made in the present and in these historic times we are living through we have to act as a global player and perform the necessary duties or we will have to resign ourselves, Madam President, to not playing on the international stage in the role we want to maintain and we will have to restrict ourselves, as was the case until now, to picking up the bill for major global problems.

  Adrian Severin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, for years the Euro-Atlantic players thought that Islam could not possibly produce democratic behaviour and institutions. Therefore, they opted for either supporting authoritarian regimes or mechanically transferring the Western model of democracy to the Arab countries. Not only did both strategies fail, but they are responsible for the emergence of Islamic fundamentalists and the alienation of secular parts of the civil society.

The present events in Egypt prove that Islam need not only be fundamentalist, but that it can also be democratic if we accept that democracy may have a variable geometry, and if we let it grow naturally from its specific soil. At the same time, we must admit that the popular uprising was on one hand the result of the evolution of Egyptian elites in the cyber or Internet society, and on the other hand the consequence of the existential hardships brought on by the global economic crisis. If the European Union does not immediately and consistently address the need to overcome these hardships, the revolution might move towards anarchy; and from there towards another dictatorship.

Finally, we must not only applaud the fact that no Israeli flags were burnt during the recent events in Egypt, but also observe that the lack of a long-due solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the origin of the feeling of failure which upset Arab society and fuelled its neurosis. Therefore, the European Union should immediately take the initiative in order to use the transformation in Egypt – which today is a mere hope – and turn it into a real opportunity for internal democracy and regional peace.

In this context, the trips of the High Representative/Vice-President to the region, and her readiness to adapt and upgrade the necessary European instruments to cope with the challenges, are good news. Her action must be supported by all of us.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, Mr Cohn-Bendit and myself we were very critical of Baroness Ashton two weeks ago, and I see that Mr Severin has adapted his language slightly and is speaking more boldly. This intervention was absolutely necessary two weeks ago because the European Union had taken a wishy-washy attitude.

It is clear that the situation in Egypt demands three things: first of all, the Commission has to come forward with a credible and global plan for Tunisia and for Egypt – how to strengthen civil society, what to do to fight corruption, how to help in building democratic institutions, how to create an independent justice system and how to help economic construction and development. These are questions not of millions, Commissioner, but of billions. I think you will have to come forward as fast as possible with a global plan.

Secondly, yesterday our group had a videoconference with Dr Ayman Nour, one of the leading opposition leaders in Egypt, and there are a number of concerns. In all this debate in Egypt on the change of the constitution, I can tell you that the secular democratic political parties are not involved for the moment and that is a message to give. Secondly, to deal with this in two months and to organise elections in two months is a non-starter, because it means that we will not have normal political parties there participating in this. Then there is the whole question of the proportional representation or an individual representation system there.

I sent a message to High Representative Ashton to ask that, in her contacts on Monday, she raise these three questions that are fundamental for a real democratic society in Egypt in the near future. I think that Parliament should back her in these three claims and hope that she expressed these three elements, these three concerns, in her contacts in Egypt.

Thirdly, Commissioner, this is not the end. We see things happening in Bahrain, in Yemen, in Algeria, in Iran, in Libya, in Morocco and in Kuwait. What we also need now is a bold message from the High Representative on what is happening in these countries; we should not wait until a number of things have happened. On these issues we also need a clear communication from the Commission, and mainly from Baroness Ashton, on what is happening in these countries, expressing our support for the masses in those countries.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I believe that we are, indeed, faced with several issues. The first issue, which will not be resolved in two weeks, is that the Commission is wondering what a realpolitik means in a climate that has existed for years in the Mediterranean region and perhaps elsewhere. In other words, what kind of relationships can and should the European Union have with these dictatorships and what form should they take. For it is all rather extraordinary. Today everyone says that Mr Mubarak was a dictator. I did not hear that a month ago in the European Parliament. He was not a dictator then. So if you wish to freeze assets, do not simply freeze the assets of Mr Mubarak’s friends, but freeze those of Mr Mubarak and his family, as you did in Mr Ben Ali’s case; you did not just freeze the assets of Mr Ben Ali’s entourage.

Secondly, I believe that what we are seeing today in Egypt and Tunisia is a democratic tsunami. What did we do when a tsunami claimed scores of victims? We mobilised exceptional funds precisely to help the peoples affected. We must now mobilise exceptional funds to help the peoples of Tunisia and Egypt, because the reasons behind the revolt were primarily hunger and poverty, and if this poverty is not alleviated during the democratic transition, there is the danger that some of the protestors will join the ranks, for example, of the fundamentalists and the hardliners. We cannot delay.

I therefore believe that the Commission should offer a substantial package to Tunisia and Egypt and say that democracy is a good thing, because it also brings funding. At the same time, I do not think that a trip by Baroness Ashton is sufficient as things stand today. There must be a special envoy, because we must continue discussions with the committees. For example, in Tunisia and Egypt, the committees re-drafting the constitution do not include members of the opposition parties or women. There are only men, even though women took part in the demonstrations. We must therefore support this process, and I believe that the Commission should do as it did in the past for the East, and offer its help with any constitutional aspects needed – in other words, it must be present on a political, legal and economic level.

I have one last point. On the subject of this region, you are aware that discussions are currently taking place on the technical upgrading of the association agreements with Israel. I do not think that this is the right solution. I do not think that this is the right signal to send out. Israel must be protected, but the policy of everyone in that region, including the Israeli Government, must be reviewed. This is not about calling Israel into question, but rather the policy of its government. To gift Israel today with the technical upgrading of the association agreement would send out a bad signal to the entire region.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: Stavros LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, during the first thirty years of Israel’s existence, Egypt was its implacable foe. For the past thirty years, the two countries have, mercifully, been at peace.

It is hard to overemphasise how important the Camp David accords are to Israel’s security. Israelis are really afraid that the radical Muslim Brotherhood will indeed fill the vacuum created by the Egyptian revolution. It is bad enough that Israel faces the terrorist threat of Hezbollah on the Lebanese border, the fanatics of Hamas launching rockets from Gaza and the existentialist threat from a nuclear-armed Iran. However, an Islamist takeover in Egypt would almost certainly result in the revocation of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the opening of the Rafah border to Hamas.

The EU should make our help conditional on preserving the peace treaty, and not countenance supporting any political developments in Egypt that threaten the security of our strategic ally. Supporting a democratic Egypt is incredibly important for us, and the economic challenges are massive. I fully support the idea of mobilising loan finance from the EIB and EBRD, as suggested by the High Representative yesterday in the Financial Times. Our political parties and groups in Europe must also help set up secular, pluralist, democratic sister parties in Egypt to compete freely in elections in six months time, when the military will hopefully leave power.

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

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Mr President, I cannot help but ask my fellow Member how balanced he thinks the picture he provided about Israel and the situation in the Middle East is, considering that he did not say one word about the gross violations of human rights committed by the state of Israel, including its disgraceful attack on Gaza, the so-called Security Fence, which has nothing to do with security, or all those human rights violations, which have been condemned by the UN and several other organisations and human rights groups.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, this debate is about how we helped Egypt. Of course, I emphasise the need to also help our strategic ally, Israel.

I do not need to debate now why Israel is our ally, why it shares our common democratic values, why the security wall has actually reduced terrorist attacks and suicide bombers by over 90%, or why Israel has a free press and has free elections, unlike any of its neighbours.

That is a debate for another time. All I am saying at this stage is that the peace treaty with Israel is essential for regional stability and security and, of course, you must remember that the EU is a very big player within the Quartet.

  Willy Meyer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Füle, the European Union has a very serious problem with its neighbourhood policy, which must be corrected. We have shifted from our necessary tutelage over the Mubarak and Ben Ali regimes –a collaborative approach which as I say was necessary– to a situation in which we are now seeking to decry these dictatorships and also seeking to have a degree of tutelage over the revolutionary process for democratic change staged by some sections of civil society.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have something in common. The protesters are very young, the role of political organisations has been negligible –although this has not been the case with trade unions– and both revolutions are demanding a democratic welfare state, with religion completely out of the picture, which is something we should rejoice in.

However, our neighbourhood policy has been lacking in credibility. One cannot play a necessary collaborative role towards two dictatorships one day only to revile them the next day and seek to have tutelage over the Egyptian constitutional reforms, which will shape the future state.

Mr Füle, we fail to understand why Article 2 of the association agreements has never been implemented. Clause 2 has never been implemented. Not in Egypt, not in Tunisia, not in Morocco, not in Israel. Never. This clause is a key element of the association agreements, yet it has never been implemented. Its terms are very clear: any countries signing association agreements with the European Union must observe international law and human rights. This key clause has never been put into practice, it has never been activated. Therefore, we do not share this philosophy whereby free trade takes precedence over human rights in the Mediterranean region.

This is what needs to be changed, Mr Füle.

  Fiorello Provera, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fall of President Mubarak has paved the way for democracy, but it is also a tremendous opportunity to liberate the Egyptian people. The reform of the country’s democratic institutions will allow for, amongst other things, further development of the economy and the possibility of spreading prosperity to all members of society, even the weakest.

Without democracy, economic development will serve only to enrich a few families, as has always been the way in countries that have no social justice. European policy must therefore support Egypt as it embarks on reforms and help the Egyptian people to choose their own future unaided.

On the other hand, we must be clear with the future government of Cairo and emphasise that a new and more generous partnership policy will be conditional upon regional security and peace with Israel.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, it is only natural for revolutionary events to be accompanied by a great deal of emotion. However, as Europeans standing on the outside, we should guard against such emotion and keep in view the reality of the situation. If we now generally rejoice at the bursting out of democracy in Egypt or even in Tunisia, then we are ignoring reality. The reality is that we have a military regime in Egypt, which – we hope – is only a transitional regime, and in Tunisia there is a regime that is not in a position to keep thousands or tens of thousands of people from emigrating illegally.

Europeans must, of course, be the friends of the peoples and the allies of freedom. However, with the future in mind we must also act accordingly in relation to regimes and dictatorships that are still firmly in place in other Arab countries. I believe that we can only do so if we are under no illusions and if we help these peoples to develop what is needed for democracy: the rule of law, a free market economy and the structures that are required for democracy to even be conceivable.

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

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, (Verts/ALE). - (DE) Mr Mölzer, do you think it is in good taste for the EU currently to be negotiating with Colonel Gaddafi over the return of refugees when there have been 40 people injured in demonstrations in Libya today? Do you think it is better, together with the dictator, to now force the refugees to return? Do you think that is in good taste?

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr Cohn-Bendit, you heard me say that the EU must take a position with regard to dictators that are still in power and are currently still accepted partners of the European Union, and we should do so before revolutionary changes occur in the countries concerned with regard to human rights, democratisation and the rule of law. However, democratisation in these countries does not really provide grounds for asylum and if democracy now breaks out there it must also be possible for the people to be able to stay there.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, there is something we need to recognise and it is something that we have not yet learnt, namely that we often have to work with undemocratic regimes because many countries in this world are ruled by dictators. In so doing, however, we must not forget to work together with civil society. We need to do that in order both to support human rights and to develop democracy.

My second point is that we need to recognise that stability is not the only decisive factor. Real stability will only come about if we support freedom. If we do not seize the opportunity now and provide assistance to the courageous people in these countries, there is a risk that we will then find ourselves in a vacuum and unable to bring about a change – a wind of change – as we did in 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe, but instead we will see a situation like that of Iran in 1979.

Providing assistance now also means stability and security for us – freedom and stability go hand in hand. I am therefore thankful that, after the difficulties during the start-up phase of our new service, the External Action Service and the Commission are clearly now making progress and coming up with sensible proposals. In this regard, it is important that we not only improve and enhance our assistance from a structural point of view, but also offer – whether our offers are accepted is up to the people there – to help these countries to build democratic structures so that they are in a position to enter into a democratic contest and so that the democrats win the elections and not, at the end of the day, those people who are perhaps organised by a military regime or the Muslim Brotherhood. In this regard, we need to be more courageous and perhaps set out our programmes in a slightly more intelligent way than we have done in the past.

I hope that we are on the right track here. If we achieve this, we will no longer make many of the mistakes of the past and we ought to use this to seize an opportunity for ourselves.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). - (NL) Mr President, Mubarak may have gone, but that can only be an intermediate step. Many other measures are needed, and the army, which is now holding the reins of power, must find a credible way of guiding the transition process which has already started. That means lifting martial law and involving all democratic forces in the steps that are now being taken. Drawing up a new constitution will be the first important test, in that respect.

For its part, the European Union should employ all possible means, direct and indirect, to guide that process. Amongst other things, that will, indeed, mean helping democratic parties and civil society to develop. It also means freezing the assets of those who have misused state funds. Obviously – and this will be much harder and will require more work – we need to adopt a package of economic support measures, because the transition can only really be judged to be a success when the economy has picked up.

Finally, we have indeed noted that the democracy clauses which are in place, but which are not being applied, have proved unsuccessful. They will therefore have to be evaluated.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the course of a revolution is seldom predictable. That was the case with the American and the French revolutions, as well as the major revolution in Europe in 1989/91. It is important for us to be clear about one thing: this is and remains the Egyptian revolution. It is not a European revolution that we would be able to steer. Instead, what Baroness Ashton is doing there is right, namely to listen and not to try to dictate events there as Europe would wish.

However, one thing is key: there should not only be an election in Egypt in August, the Egyptians must have a genuine election. It is good that the Muslim Brotherhood has involved itself in the process to amend the constitution, has founded a party and will take part in elections. However, the secular powers must be equally involved so that the Egyptians will have a genuine election in this revolution for freedom.

I would like to say a few words about adaptation of the instruments. That is jargon and hardly anyone understands what it means. What does it mean? Firstly, it means providing more money to enable the European Investment Bank to do something. But what else does it mean? We need a European foundation for democracy to enable us, in future, to work more efficiently, more quickly and more democratically with these civil societies.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – (PL) – Mr President, once once again, Parliament is debating the situation in Egypt which is dynamic and requires monitoring. In the meantime, the President of Egypt has resigned, but this has not lessened the fear of destabilisation in this country and the whole region. The threat that power may be seized by extremist elements still exists. Previously, I suggested that Parliament and the Commission should send a special observation mission to Egypt, and now we should grant this delegation the power to make decisions. At stake is not only support for free elections, but also the provision of an emergency aid package, especially in view of the fact that the Egyptians themselves are appealing for financial aid for Egypt. A deepening of the existing crisis could lead to the growth of unrest and anti-democratic feeling. For the steps taken to be effective there should be consultation with diplomats from the United States, who are actively engaged in the politics of this region.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). - (NL) Mr President, an appalling lack of political freedom, coupled with a harrowing socio-economic situation, has led to weeks of mass demonstrations and the eventual resignation of President Mubarak.

The word on the streets of Cairo was that only one Egyptian citizen was actually still adhering to the curfew: Hosni Mubarak. However, witty remarks alone will not improve the average standard of living of the Egyptian people. That will definitely be one of the first tasks of Mubarak’s successors, if they wish to avoid the risk of the explosion of a new wave of protests. At the same time, we are still waiting for the internal democratisation process to get off the ground. Ensuring the peaceful unfolding of that process will be of great importance, not just to Egyptian civilian society itself, but also to the region as a whole.

I welcome any assistance which the European Union can provide for this double transition process, and that also applies to the vulnerable position of the Copts and the continuity of Egyptian-Israeli relations.

  Barry Madlener (NI). - (NL) Mr President, now that the dust has settled in Egypt, it is time we opened our eyes to what is really happening in North Africa.

Many of the protesters are seeking, not democracy, but the imposition of sharia. ‘Allah akbar’ was a slogan which was often heard during the protests. Journalists were harassed, a Dutch correspondent was threatened with death and the saddest thing of all is that the splendid American journalist Lara Logan was sexually abused by a mob.

The ayatollahs behind dictator Ahmadinejad and Al Qaida must be having a field day. The Muslim Brotherhood can now continue their holy war against Israel and the West.

I call on our members not to be naïve today. The Egyptians are facing an important choice. Will the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood come to power, or will Egypt get a secular government? Under sharia law, Coptic Christians, apostate Muslims, women and gays will have no decent future in Egypt. If the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamists have their way, Israel will once again be the target of violence.

The only fair position that we can adopt today must be: Egyptians, choose freedom, not sharia! Islam and democracy do not mix. The new Egyptian constitution must not be given over to sharia. Imams should not be allowed to control politics. The Dutch Party for Freedom has the guts to say that out loud. Do Parliament and the European Commission have the guts to say that today? That is the question we must answer today.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). - Mr President, the departure of Hosni Mubarak signals the transition towards a pluralist democracy responding to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.

The Egyptian armed forces now have the responsibility of leading their country, in a short period of time, towards genuine democracy, the rule of law with an independent judiciary, good governance and accountability on suspected cases of corruption. The military leadership is cautioned not to disappoint the youth, who were at the forefront of the demonstrations and whose representatives should be called upon to play their role in building democracy during the transition.

The message of Egypt is a message for the whole Arab world. The Arab countries are our partners; we have no intention of patronising them or imposing anything from the outside. However, the message for them, as sent by the Egyptians and the Tunisians, is: ‘Reform and reform now. Democratise, govern well, fight corruption or face the wrath of the people.’

This message is not only for the Arab world. Yesterday it was relayed in Diyarbakir in Turkey, and in Teheran and other Iranian cities. The people can do it!

  Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, I am delighted that the High Representative will be the first and most senior foreign diplomat to visit Egypt, and following this debate she will take with her Parliament’s support for the immediate release of political prisoners, for legal accountability for those responsible for the violent suppression of peaceful protest and for an asset freeze and other actions for the authors of past human rights abuse.

Commissioner, this was the social media revolution, planned in an Internet cafe, with Wael Ghonim of Google one of its heroes. But companies like Vodafone must learn the lesson of turning off their services and we should call on them to join the global network initiative alongside human rights organisations to show that they will defend the principle of freedom of expression where it is under threat.

Finally, this Parliament was shy of discussing Tunisia; we debated Tunisia as Egyptians took to the streets and today debate Egypt when perhaps we should be asking ourselves how we can better support democratic transition now in Yemen, Syria, Libya and elsewhere in the Arab world before people have to die in the streets of their capitals to shame Europe and the world into so doing.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I do not believe that history would forgive us if the events that have just occurred and are continuing to occur were to prove beyond us. I therefore believe that it is very important for the European Union to be able to draw conclusions quickly from its relative invisibility, to put it mildly, during the recent events.

That is why I believe that no effort must be spared, that we must offer our full and unconditional support to the democratic transition process, both in Tunisia and in Egypt, that we must be on the side of these peoples and must tell them so, and that we must do everything in our power to ensure that the rule of law emerges, stronger, from these revolutions and these changes, particularly in the case of Egypt. I believe that the rule of law alone will provide an element of stability and serve to stabilise the entire region. In other words, this is extremely important. We must organise a donor conference and, above all, we should not be scared. These revolutions are secular revolutions on the part of Tunisians and Egyptians who simply want democracy and development, which are intrinsically linked. However, we should review our neighbourhood policy and explore the issue of relations between states, but also relations between different public opinions. This is precisely the role of the European Parliament.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, today we are having a very different debate to the one that took place only a matter of days ago in this Chamber. It is essential that the people of Egypt should know that we are standing by them. I welcome the fact that our High Representative is currently in that part of the world.

The people of Egypt are now reliant upon the army to come forward and deliver free and fair elections, to bring about the sort of society that they have paid for with their lives and blood. It is now for the international community to make sure that we step in to help them build their institutions and allow the political parties to come forward and take part in those election processes. I hope that the European Union will play its part in that.

Finally, Commissioner, the siphoning-off of funds by leaders in developing countries is something we are only too well aware of. It is about time that Europe said that we refuse to be used as a vehicle for such people to park their funds any more.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - (asking Mr Madlener a blue-card question under Rule 149(8)) Mr President, the tragic outcome of the Egyptian transition to democracy has been described. It has been said that it was inevitable that Islamic fundamentalists would take over power democratically, and so on and so on.

Do you not think that this picture is catastrophic, and wrong? Why do we not take into account the fact that the reasons for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East are strongly linked to tyrannical governments, and that there is now an opportunity for democratic regimes to reduce both?

  Barry Madlener (NI). - (NL) Mr President, I am outlining here one of the real dangers that Egypt is facing, namely that it might fall prey to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. I am also calling on us and the Commission to face up to that risk and to send out an important signal to the Egyptians, and that is that they can forget our support if they opt for the Muslim Brotherhood and sharia. That is, I think, a very important signal to send out today and I hope that you will support me in this.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, 18 days of riots, Hosni Mubarak’s resignation and the taking of control by the Supreme Military Council basically pave the way for transition. We hope that this will be a transition to democracy. The situation is without doubt evolving, at a rate which revolutionary events basically do. As you are aware, the constitution was suspended and parliament dissolved recently, and the committee set up to revise the constitution is proposing to make changes in 10 days and hold legislative and presidential elections in six months.

I believe that the European Union must use every means to support any move indicating democratic transition. On the other hand, I would like to warn against a certain degree of haste because all these construction processes require a certain amount of time. Let us not forget either that the democratic forces are in critical need of renewal and strengthening so as to avoid causing an imbalance in the political landscape.

  Rosario Crocetta (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Egypt: from the virtual community on Facebook to the real one, with millions of people seeking fairer distribution of wealth and greater justice, and protesting against corruption. We must move on from the transition period of soldiers and tanks to a true democracy: a new constitution, new elections, abolition of the death penalty, more humane prisons, social rights and freedom.

It will be difficult. Those who are willing to deploy any means in the name of an idea are lying in wait. We want to believe in the great Egyptian people, who have not, however, ever experienced democracy. We want a secular democracy, with a distinct separation between religious authority and political power, a democracy that integrates minorities and establishes true rights: to public healthcare, social security and work.

Europe is supporting this approach by investing resources with the ability to promote real development in Egypt: no more dictatorships, no more misery, no more poverty.

  Edward McMillan-Scott (ALDE). - Mr President, colleagues will have received an e-mail from me on Monday describing my experiences during an informal visit to Cairo last weekend. It was a privilege to be there as Vice-President for Democracy and Human Rights.

Mr Kasoulides referred to the role of young people in the recent revolution in Egypt. He is absolutely right. They played a fundamental role. I spoke just a few moments ago to one of the organisers and said, ‘Are you still optimistic?’ He said, ‘Of course I am. Things are going in the right direction.’

But there are problems. The timetable for elections is wrong and the timetable for reforming the Constitution is far too short. We need much more time. We are talking about Egypt, but this process is spreading. It is like 1989 and the European Union needs special procedures – this House, the Commission, the Council, the EAS – and we welcome Cathy Ashton’s down payment for democracy, but we need to do more. We need to reward reform.

As I said in Cairo on Sunday – and I hope to be saying it among other peoples – ‘I am not here as a Briton or as a European, I am here as an honorary Egyptian.’ I still am.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - (ES) Mr President, we need further clarification on the Supreme Military Council’s plans in Egypt.

One specific undertaking is the holding of democratic elections within six months, following a constitutional reform led by experts. However, I have also read that next week we will see a new government supposedly including opposition representatives, according to the British Foreign Secretary.

I think we all agree, in any case, that the best way forward is to have a transitional process, supported by the widest possible political consensus, until the elections are held. It would also be desirable for the social forces to work together to ensure that this transition is unburdened by major tensions.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union must support the democratic process and contribute to its success. Egypt is a key country, and developments there will be felt throughout the Mediterranean and the Arab world. I therefore welcome Baroness Ashton’s visit to Cairo next week.

One further point: The Tunisians and the Egyptians have given us a lesson in the people’s desire for freedom. I hope the foreign ministers will not overlook this lesson when they come to assess the common position on Cuba, which is precisely aimed at attaining a democratic transition in that country, and which defends those who defend freedom.

  Kader Arif (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, it can never be said often enough that what is happening in the southern Mediterranean and, more generally, in the Arab world, is historic, especially for those peoples who, half a century after their countries gained independence through decolonisation, are today gaining their individual and collective freedoms. It is historic, but also unexpected, as are all popular revolutions, I hear you say. However, this new situation requires us to totally rethink our vision, our policies and our relationships with these countries. Proposals have been made.

Indeed, the caution with which we have reacted to date is easily and worryingly explained by our obsession with stability, by which I mean that safety-first approach fuelled by our fears, an approach of which the sole priorities were the fight against immigration, terrorism and radical Islam, along with some economic interests, not least access to energy.

We accepted authoritarian regimes, when their sole aim was to confirm our fears. The people’s revolt has made the failure of our policies plain to see; we no longer have the right to go on basing our analyses on the same fears, or, worse still, the same xenophobia-tinged beliefs. That is why we must stand side by side with those who aspire to greater freedom and democracy, in places where it is possible to be Muslim, democratic and secular. That is the message that we are being sent.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are already creating a political domino effect in numerous Muslim countries. Communities are rising up with demands and requests which have been repressed for decades.

Beware! Nothing has ended. It is all just starting. New challenges and new prospects. The question is what is Europe doing? What can it do and what must it do? Certainly not what is has being doing to date. It has basically been absent, with no cohesion and no reflexes. What will it do, for example, about the new influx of immigrants? Surely not what it has been doing to date, with the lack of solidarity on the part of the North for its partners in the South?

That is why we and our colleagues from Cyprus, Malta, France, Spain and Italy have tabled a question to the Commission on the subject. Developments in our wider neighbourhood are becoming a yardstick for European foreign policy. Will we succeed or will we fail? Time is running out. Lampedusa is calling us.

  Carmen Romero López (S&D). - (ES) Mr President, my voice will also be one of praise for Baroness Ashton’s recent visit to Tunisia, and for her trip to Egypt next week.

What can Europe do, as the previous speaker said? It is crucial to give a clear indication of our support for these countries at this point in time. Geography and history make Europe the natural ally of the countries in the Mediterranean region. This is the right time to let them know how important they are to us, how radical a change they have brought to our neighbourhood policy, and what high hopes we have for this new Mediterranean region engendered by the young people of Egypt and Tunisia, much to our surprise and disbelief.

We should now support this transformation, as other speakers have said. Above all, we should do this by dismantling the machinery of repression –let us not forget that the dictatorship continues even though the dictator may have stepped down–, lifting the state of emergency and helping pro-democracy forces so that Europe can make a genuine contribution to this process, so that democracy can become truly consolidated and a new partnership can be established.

What has been said about the need to adapt instruments is by no means gratuitous. The truth is that one page has been wiped and we are now moving on to a new one.

  Boris Zala (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, it is quite clear from the context of what Mr Verhofstadt has been saying here that the Egyptian democratic opposition forces have failed to organise a unified body representing the revolutionary forces from the streets. It is one thing to get rid of a dictator, but quite another thing to introduce a democratic regime.

One of the fundamental features of the revolutions in Central Europe in 1989 was the ability immediately to create genuine organisations to represent the democratic, secular revolutionary forces.

There is room here for the European Union to provide assistance. This is possibly more important than funding and other matters. These will be important in future stages.

Who will sit down at a table at this point and genuinely negotiate with the military leaders? Who will genuinely come forward in elections as the representative of these democratic forces? This question remains undecided and the European Union can provide assistance here. If this can be done, we will not have to fear that Egypt will take the path of Iran but, on the contrary, we can be sure that Iran will take the path of Egypt.

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

  Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, I would like to say to my friend Mr Zala that I very much benefited from what he has said about his personal experience of being in a revolution. Mr Zala, there are two questions in this debate I would like your views on. To the people on the ground, if foreign countries fail to speak out for democracy, does that not help extremism, rather than hinder it? If foreign countries do speak out for democracy, is that seen as interference and inappropriate? I would appreciate your views.

  Boris Zala (S&D). – (SK) Thank you very much for the question. In my opinion, we now have sufficient experience of revolutions against dictatorial regimes to be concerned that we would be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries through our advice. In 1989, we undoubtedly knew and had consultations with many people from abroad. We should rely on our own historical experience. There are many, many issues we can advise these countries on, and I believe that if the advice is sensible, it is acceptable.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Mr President, considering the enormous importance of developments in Egypt to the whole region, and EU relations with that part of the world, it is very important that we show our timely attention and interest and take a pro-active role rather than a reactive one.

When a nation – Egyptian or any other – comes together to claim its right to democracy, the EU should offer to help its people to transform their dream into reality.

Taking into consideration that the constitution is suspended, Parliament dissolved and presidential elections scheduled later this year, it is very important to ensure that free and fair elections are granted in this country. People will exercise their right to free media and freedom of expression.

At the same time, we face a risk that if elections are held without the foundations of deep democracy being laid, then yes, it is possible that extremists will triumph.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, I strongly support all the steps being taken by the High Representative to help Egypt achieve democracy and prosperity without further bloodshed. However, this does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the growing violence being committed against Coptic Christians by radical Muslims. I am in contact with European citizens and Czechs who are helping the Copts, but in doing so they are literally risking their lives. The European Union must openly ask the Egyptian Army to set an example by punishing those who persecute Christians. At the same time, the European Union should actively help those Copts who are at risk to temporarily relocate to a safe country.

I would like to ask you to propose that the Council initiate temporary protection measures under Directive 2001/55/EC, in order to save the lives of Copts until Egypt is a safer homeland for them. Commissioner, can you do this?

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Mr President, there are three things that we will need from now on. Firstly, we need immediate assistance during the transition stage to be provided to Egypt, just as it needs to be provided to Tunisia, so that they can work towards a full and stable democracy. Secondly, we need a long-term plan – which I call a Marshall Plan – for each country that, like Tunisia and Egypt, plan to take the road to democracy. In this way we can show that we are there to lend a helping hand to those who opt for democracy – and demonstrate that democracy is the precursor to success.

Finally, we need a complete revision of our policy on the Mediterranean. We must appreciate and admit that this lacked the necessary vision to understand what could have occurred in the Arab countries, and which did, in fact, occur.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Mr President, last time some of us voiced our frustration over the mild tone of our public – I repeat, public – pronouncements, not activity, on the events in Egypt before Mubarak’s resignation. Of course, in her position, Lady Ashton is caught between a rock and a hard place, but if we want the EU’s voice to be heard it must be loud enough to be heard.

Coming back to Egypt, based on my own experiences as a Romanian, I would expect the real difficulties to be only just starting. Far from solving their concerns, the departure of the former President will complicate and multiply the problems facing Egyptian society. Some of those problems, like the army not fulfilling the promise to organise free elections at the set time or the denunciation of the Treaty with Israel, will affect us directly.

Nevertheless, I am encouraged by our willingness to try, through constant contact with the local authorities, to anticipate such problems and prepare to intervene with the most appropriate means.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I come from Berlin, and the whole world rejoiced with us Berliners when the border in our city fell and the borders opened everywhere in Eastern Europe. Now, in the case of Egypt, we reacted too late, too cautiously and, above all, too unemotionally. Where was our joy? Every other word from us was simply about ‘maintaining stability’. However, freedom is the most important thing for every person in the world.

We Germans in particular know what we are talking about. What we had in Egypt was not stability; it was oppression. Freedom and stability can go hand in hand any time. Therefore, we should not dictate to the Egyptians who they should elect. Provided the elections proceed in a fair and democratic way, we will have to recognise the result and must not be so arrogant – as we were at the time in Palestine or even in Algeria – as to decide whether or not we will recognise those who are elected. We must recognise the choice that is made.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Füle that we really need to focus on insisting on a transition to civilian government, and on making sure that the military regime now in place will fulfil its promises.

I think that a committee has now been set up to work on the constitution, but there is not a single woman in it. That it is rather a pity when we consider how many women – young women – were in the streets making sure that this democratic transition, this revolution, includes the whole of society. So, we need to support them, we need to demand, when you go there and when Baroness Ashton goes there, to meet with women: to meet not only those who might be called ‘the usual suspects’ but also those who were involved in the revolution and whose voices are not so often heard.

We have to insist on all prisoners being released and on an investigation being conducted into the violence that has occurred. Lastly, I think that Baroness Ashton is right: this is a time to think big. This is about EU trade, about visas, about money – and it is about courage.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). - Mr President, at the beginning of this debate, the Commissioner praised the courage of the young people who took to the streets in Egypt and Tunisia and created the uprising.

Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in Teheran and other cities in Iran on Monday and were brutally suppressed. They were crushed. One young student was killed. Others have been tortured and taken to prison where they will no doubt be executed for trying to rise up against that fascist regime.

Why do we never say anything to encourage them? Why are we like rabbits caught in the headlights when it comes to dealing with the Mullahs in Teheran? Why do we say nothing to condemn the brutal psychological torture and siege of the 3 400 opposition Iranians in Camp Ashraf? It is time we took action and showed that we support the Iranian opposition.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, the recent popular uprisings and all the others which are looming on the African rim of the Mediterranean should be a deep cause for concern to us. We need to identify the cause of these uprisings; is it poverty, religion, injustice, corruption or the lack of democracy and freedom? What exactly do these people want, who are rebelling against regimes which they have voted for, as their guide and governor, for the past 30 or 40 years?

It seems to me that we here in this House think we are the be all and end all of full democracy. The first solution we propose is money. They had money and a few shrewd people socked it away. However, we need to understand that the important issue is geopolitical instability, the changes which it may bring to the area, the impact of popular reaction and the new balances that will emerge.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I should like to thank the honourable Members for their valuable comments and questions. I have very much appreciated today the opportunity to exchange views on the events in Egypt and on the best response to them. I have heard a lot of constructive remarks and proposals and I will pass on your messages to the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

We will reflect together on how best to address these issues and we will keep them high on the priority list as our response to Egypt develops. Let me assure you that, through the ongoing review process, we will address comprehensively both important elements: firstly the transition and reform needs of the countries concerned, but also, secondly, the strategic reflection of these tremendous and historic transformations in our neighbourhood area and our neighbourhood policy. This House has an important role to play to play in that.

The Egyptians have proven their ability to take their future into their own hands. They ask for democracy, they ask for socio-economic reforms, and the European Union must be able to lend its full support to the democratic reform process. As I have said, these are still early days, but the European Union is fully mobilised to listen and react to the demands coming from the Egyptians themselves.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, I would like to compliment you on the way you handled catch-the-eye today. It was the first time I have heard the names being called out in advance, when the number of speakers was limited, so that other Members who would not be able to speak could go about their business. I did not ask to be included in catch-the-eye in this debate, but I did note what you did and I hope other Presidents will emulate it.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written Statements (Rule 149)

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Egyptian authorities made plans to have their country’s constitution revised. A group of lawyers has been briefed and will have 10 days to table its proposed amendments. This is very good news. The most controversial articles, in particular regarding the unlimited number of presidential terms, the restrictive conditions concerning who can stand in presidential elections, the methods for supervising elections and the limited opportunities to appeal after legislative elections, will have to be revised. The democratic transition is therefore under way. However, the revision of the constitution is not the only issue which must be tackled. Economic well-being and social cohesion are essential conditions for the emancipation of a people and the smooth running of a country. The European Union, for its part, cannot stand by and do nothing while these changes take place. Once she has welcomed the democratic transition, Baroness Ashton will have to upgrade the partnership agreements and place the rule of law, justice and human rights at the heart of her concerns. These values cannot be allowed to sink into oblivion on the pretext of stabilising our relations.

  John Attard-Montalto (S&D), in writing. – It is essential to define the role of the EU in the turmoil taking place in many Arab countries in general and Egypt in particular. The turmoil has taken everyone by surprise and it does not seem that any contingency plan was made for such an eventuality, which is not localised but widespread. The socio-political base provoking the changes in the Arab world is not dissimilar across those countries which are now in transition to what we hope will be a democratic environment.

Baroness Ashton is on record as stating that the EU has a ‘democratic calling’ to listen to people who want change – and we are witnessing a changing world because what will happen in the Arab countries will have an effect on political, social and economic issues worldwide. One particularly important issue is that of security and stability, and there is no doubt that the ‘democratic calling’ concerns countries mostly considered as being allied with others that currently have democratic political systems. At this point, it is not known where the democratic transitional process will lead or what position will be taken by the traditional democracies and especially the EU.

13. Media law in Hungary (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on media law in Hungary.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I am pleased to inform you that, when the plane was touching down this morning in Strasbourg, I got the good news that the Hungarian Prime Minister has agreed to amend the media law so that it complies with all aspects of EU law that we, the European Commission have raised, including the concerns raised regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

They assure me that the amendments will be adopted by the Hungarian Government at its next session. The body language of the representatives of the Hungarian Government gives me the feeling that this is correct and that it will be tabled in the Hungarian Parliament within the coming days.

The four areas where the Hungarian authorities agreed to amend their law are the following.

Number one: balanced coverage. The amendments agreed would limit the balanced reporting requirements to broadcasting, as in other Member States, and would no longer apply those requirements to on-demand audiovisual media services or the written press. Moreover, any restrictions on broadcasters would need to respect the principle of proportionality. Of course the Commission will monitor the way that principle is translated into secondary law.

I mentioned four areas. The second one is the country-of-origin principle. The amendments agreed would mean that foreign broadcasters could no longer be fined for breaching the Hungarian media law’s provisions on protection of minors or incitement to hatred. Instead the Hungarian authorities could suspend transmission of such services on Hungarian territory, which is in line with the AVMS Directive.

What does that mean? It means that broadcasters legally established and authorised in other Member States, and compliant with the laws of those countries, would be free to broadcast to Hungary without running the risk of being subject to fines by Hungarian authorities.

Number three: media registration. The amendments agreed would mean that audiovisual media service providers would have to register only after they begin offering their services, and that is in line with the directive. It means that audiovisual media service providers and publishers would no longer be subject to prior authorisation by the Hungarian authorities.

Number four: offensive content. Additionally, the Hungarian Government agreed to amend another provision of its media law that raised concerns with respect to the freedom of expression. A provision of the media law specified very broadly that media content may not cause offence, even by implication, to individuals, minorities or majorities. The amendments agreed would limit the prohibition to discriminatory treatment. Moreover those provisions would no longer apply to media service providers established in other EU countries.

We will work closely with the Hungarian authorities to make sure that the agreed changes are now adopted into Hungarian law and applied in practice. We will continue to monitor the situation, but that is quite clear. Needless to say, the Commission is also verifying the national rules implementing the AVMS Directive in other Member States and will raise similar concerns where necessary. The Commission does not shy away from using its powers. It does not shy away from defending media freedom and pluralism when it is needed, and the present case hopefully pre-empts and proves that.

I can assure you that the Commission acknowledges and shares the concerns that many of you and parts of civil society have about the general state of the media in Europe. I am ready to go further and take action in the matter of media pluralism within the EU competences, of course respecting subsidiarity.

The Commission not only has a duty, but also a sincere interest, in facilitating the dialogue amongst stakeholders and policymakers at a European level. The changing structure of the media landscape in Europe causes concern for the future. It brings opportunities but also wider risks for media pluralism beyond the ownership use. It is quite clear that we need an approach to measuring media pluralism in a broad sense; one that will bring together legal, economic and social aspects, rather than treating them quite separately, as has often been the case up until now.

Therefore, I intend to establish a multi-stakeholder group and ask them to address the challenges for the media at present and in the future, including the situation of media pluralism in Europe. Since you know that I value your input very much, the European Parliament will be represented in the group of experts, if you will accept that invitation. I will announce details quite soon. The group will be asked to advise me on the next steps to be taken concerning the media landscape and I am fully committed to taking concrete action within all the competences that I have.

  Marco Scurria, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am taking part in the discussion a little shamefacedly, because the Commissioner has more or less told us that it is pointless to conduct this debate because there is nothing to argue about.

We would not be in this situation if my fellow Members had listened to us when, on previous occasions – in committee meetings and discussions in this Chamber – we asked if it was possible to wait for a while, because the Hungarian Government had, after all, always proved willing to accommodate the European Commission’s views – and it would have been strange if it had been any other way, given that Hungary currently holds the Presidency of the European Union.

Yet they resolved to go ahead anyway, perhaps – no, definitely – because of political and ideological elements, deciding that this debate should take place. Resolutions have been submitted that are due to be put to the vote tomorrow. More caution probably should have been exercised and more confidence shown in those governments elected democratically by their peoples, starting with the Hungarian Government, which was elected by such a large majority of its people that it certainly did not need to manipulate the media in order to achieve an internal consensus.

Personally I think the most useful thing to do is to ask our fellow socialist and liberal MEPs, who submitted resolutions of a certain type, to withdraw them, thus stopping us from making fools of ourselves and letting Parliament get back to dealing with the real problems of European citizens. I am of course grateful to the Commissioner for her work.

  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the Socialist and Democrat Group of course welcome the advance in the four key areas of balanced information, the country-of-origin principle, and so on. Commissioner, of course we welcome it. That was the text of our resolution; that was the pressure we were placing on you and the Hungarian authorities to deliver.

First of all, I have to ask you about the timing. Was it purely coincidence, as you were waiting in the airport as you said, or was it the fact that pressure by this Parliament has brought forward four key amendments in the four key areas we asked for? Please let us know those concessions have been secured. Of course Parliament has still not been able to see the text of the negotiations between the Commission and the Hungarian authorities; therefore we require more time to fully state our position on the matter. However, it seems clear that negotiations have not fully addressed many other serious concerns of this Parliament and, of course, of our Socialist and Democrat Group.

Crucial issues still unanswered include the composition and time frame of the media authority and of the Media Council, which are politically homogenous and still exert pervasive and centralised governmental, judicial and political control on all media. We need answers on where we go on this crucial issue. Furthermore, it is regrettable that the Commission has not acted upon the recommendations of Parliament, the Council of Europe, the Commissioner, and the OSCE for example, on the violation of the principle of confidentiality of journalistic sources, extremely disproportionate sanctions, and abolishing the political and financial independence of public service broadcast media.

There is a list, Commissioner, which you know of, which still needs to be answered and we need these questions to be answered, preferably in this debate. Obviously we commend the Hungarian authority’s willingness to amend the legislation. We also encourage the implementation of amendments to address the outstanding areas of concern for all of us in this Parliament, whilst fully embracing the spirit of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and, in particular, Article 11, which protects the freedom of expression. We would like further answers on whether you believe Article 11 has been fulfilled. We must involve civil society and stakeholders to uphold principles of transparency and accountability and to ensure best practice.

Commissioner, we tabled a resolution for our group because we wanted the concessions that you have already announced, but we want more. Democracies are built upon the principle of a free and independent media. We make no apologies within our group for firmly defending this principle and we will do everything in our power to protect it, for Hungarians and all EU citizens.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, in the past in this Parliament we have discussed cases when different governments have shown their desire to control the media, but the attempts never went as far as in the case of the Hungarian media law, where from television to radio, to the written press, to on-demand media, bloggers, everything is controlled, from registration to performance and suspension.

When we, the Liberals and the Democrats, the ALDE Group in this Parliament, first raised our voice against this law, we were accused of being politically motivated. However, experience has shown that we were right and today even the Hungarian Government admits that something is very wrong with this law. Therefore several amendments are envisaged. We trust the Commission that this is indeed the Hungarian position, hoping to receive it in writing, and we will closely follow the changes.

Nevertheless, the four areas requested by the Commission are only a part of a much bigger picture. Other aspects must be changed as well: the enormous control powers vested in the hands of a politically appointed person who has been heading two media control authorities for nine years, the lack of protection of journalists’ sources and the lack of effective judicial remedy, to name just a few. After all, not only our critics, but also the European Commission itself, will have to answer to the Hungarian and European civil society and journalists to say why the OSCE and the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe have also harshly criticised the aspects I have just mentioned.

We cannot all be politically motivated. Quite the opposite, we are motivated by a genuine interest to see that media freedom is a reality for the benefit of our citizens.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, my first questions are for Commissioner Kroes. Mrs Kroes, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive refers to an independent regulatory body. Yet, positions in the new Hungarian media authority and the Media Council, who have powers to impose heavy penalties on vague grounds, are being taken up exclusively by supporters of the ruling party. That is taking place in an already highly polarised political environment.

Why has the Commission not objected to this lack of independence? Why have you failed fully to assess the powers of the media authority and the Media Council, which, in my view, fall within the scope of European law, against the Charter of Fundamental Rights? You, Mrs Kroes, have said that the Hungarian Government has so far made four amendments. For the foreign press, for the audiovisual media, but not for domestic newspapers. You would also like to see Mr Orban and his people triumphantly waving the stamp of approval, your Brussels flag, and then continue, uninterrupted, preaching intolerance, slandering philosophers and banning gay pride. All of that, too, while Hungary is holding the presidency of the Council. You must be deeply unhappy about that.

Moving next to my fellow members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), who said in their resolution that there was nothing to be concerned about and who have accused critics of the media law of making manipulative and politically motivated comments. That is quite an accusation, and one which is also directed at the OSCE and the Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe. It is quite an accusation, given that we know that even Mr Orban himself has, in the mean time, realised that a few amendments need to be made to his media law. This reminds me of the Stalinist days, where people were airbrushed out of photographs.

Together with us and the OSCE, you ought to be protecting European values, not becoming a mechanism for imposing your power at home.

(The Member agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Mr President, well, the Fidesz government deserves what is happening right now, namely that the left wing, from Mr Martin Schulz to Mr Cohn-Bendit to all the others, is now applauding them, and our dear fellow Members on the left are giving them lectures on democracy. Let me ask you, what is your message to left wing parties, such as MSZP, which had people shot in the eye in Hungary in 2006? What guarantee does the nation of Hungary have that such incidents cannot happen under the government of your left-wing party, and that you will not have protests dispersed by force as you did between 2002 and 2010 …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I do not think that the independent media creates violence and I do not see the relevance of this question, but I thank the asker of the question for her question.

  Zbigniew Ziobro, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, freedom of speech is of great value. We all know this, which is why we should have a serious debate. Unfortunately, it seems that today’s debate cannot be described as such. It seems to be a pretext for the centre-left to attack the right-wing, conservative government of Prime Minister Orban.

The fact is that we could point to many European countries where freedom of speech is not respected. Just look at Poland’s experience. In Poland, where it could be said that the ruling party has an overall majority in every governing body, a monopoly of power, where it controls government, the Senate, the President, the National Broadcasting Authority, the body which oversees the media, and finally has control over public broadcasting and the support of the largest electronic media corporations, journalists are being thrown out of their jobs for the simple reason that they hold conservative, right-wing views. Right wing or conservative programmes have been withdrawn, such as the programme Warto rozmawiać directed by Mr Pospieszalski or Misja specjalna directed by Mr Gargas. It begs the question: where is Mr Schulz, where are you, ladies and gentlemen, when these violations are being perpetrated in Poland? Let us discuss actual violations, those that have already occurred.

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

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – (DE) If I have understood you correctly, you said that there are restrictions on the freedom of expression and freedom of the press in many countries in Europe. I would be interested to know to which countries you are referring and what you personally intend to do about it.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Thank you for your question. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that freedom of the media is a fundamental problem. If we are to address it, we should separate it from political sympathies, independently of whether we have socialist or right-wing and conservative views. In short, if journalists are dismissed only because they have left-wing views or only because they have conservative views, we should protest. For example, in Poland today, journalists are dismissed purely because they have conservative views. I would expect support and protests from Mr Schulz and from other socialist and left-wing members, because this would show that we are concerned with standards and not political point-scoring. We are concerned with protecting the freedom of the media. We protest against situations like this anywhere they may occur, even if they are taking place now, for instance, in Poland.

  Rui Tavares, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Commissioner, I have listened to you carefully and frankly I do not know whether I am disappointed or shocked at the Commission’s efforts because I still do not understand whether the Commission fell intentionally or unintentionally into the Hungarian Government’s trap.

The Hungarian Government has decided to discuss concessions on some trivial details, but to make no fundamental changes to this law. The highly disproportionate and biased composition of the Media Council, the exceptionally steep fines for newspapers, and all the factors that led to censorship and self-censorship of the media are still in place. However, what is utterly disgraceful, as previous speakers have said, is that as soon as the Commission extracted the concession that foreign newspapers and publications would be exempt from the fines, everything else was forgotten about. It seems to me that the principles of post-1989 Europe, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, have been undermined.

What the Commission actually meant to say was that we would not abandon our fellow Europeans from any country to censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression. Apparently, the Commission has done this, but Parliament shall continue to keep an eye not only on the Hungarian Government but also on the Commission now, because it is our duty and our responsibility not to let this issue drop, as the Commission has disgracefully done.

  Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, this will certainly not be remembered as an exhilarating chapter in Parliament’s history. The criticisms and attacks rained down on the Hungarian Government, in conjunction with the EU Presidency, with regard to the Hungarian media law’s alleged total failure to comply with European legislation, have been reduced to what they really are: an instrumental and specious attempt that, apart from anything else, is based entirely on ideological bias, which is even more shameful when it is used against a country that today has the struggle for freedom encoded in its DNA – and this has indeed been the case throughout its history, which we all remember very well.

The political forces that have promoted this far from exhilarating debate are still heavily weighed down by the responsibility for what is certainly not a high level political manoeuvre. Rather, it is seriously invalidated by these purely ideological overtones, and it also has the failing of casting an undeserved shadow on the European Union Presidency, which is being held for the first time – and this is certainly a great political and historical fact – by a former communist country, joined with us today in freedom.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). - Mr President, in the light of the announcement made by the Commission today, it is clear that this debate has been overtaken by events and that there is no longer any reason whatsoever to proceed with the vote on the resolutions tomorrow.

I believe that those who expressed genuine concern about the media law in Hungary were entitled to a response. What I find worrying is that this Chamber is increasingly engaging in crusades against individual Member States – that coincidentally happen to have EPP governments – before the Commission has fully investigated the matter, let alone reached its conclusions. Worse than that: in this case, this was done despite the fact that we had a clear undertaking from the Hungarian authorities at the highest level that, should the Commission raise any concerns about this law, they would be prepared to change it, as they did.

What exactly was the point of this debate? What is the point of the resolutions tomorrow, if not political instrumentalisation? The EPP stands firm in its commitment to respect for human rights and the rule of law, regardless of the Member State concerned. There is no question about that. However, it is not willing to single out individual Member States and condemn them summarily before the due process of law has been completed. Once it has been completed, we should respect it. When this issue first came up last month, I said that politicising this issue was not just attacking a Member State, but was also undermining the EU Presidency. Today, I feel that we have also undermined our own institution. That cannot be right.

I sincerely appeal to all groups to withdraw the resolutions that are up for vote tomorrow – not suspend them, not postpone them, but withdraw them – because there is no longer any basis for proceeding with this vote.

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D). - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, Council representatives, please allow me to begin by stating the obvious. Sometimes it is necessary to repeat the obvious: the free circulation of news and independent opinion is the most important safeguard of any democratic society.

This is the reason that brings us here today. The insistence with which the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe, several Member States and an ample majority of the Members of this Parliament have voiced their concerns is justified by the fact that the most basic principles of our European project are at stake.

When this law was hastily passed by Mr Orbán’s Government in Hungary, we considered that there had not been sufficient reflection during its preparation and that the law should be amended to ensure its consistency with European regulations and with the essential spirit embodied in the treaties.

We are pleased and grateful to the Commissioner, who has stood here today and told us that the Hungarian Government is prepared to amend the law. However, the creation of an information monitoring authority, whose council would be politically controlled exclusively by members of the ruling party, runs the risk of exercising a biased, centralised political control that would inevitably lead to censorship and, even worse, self-censorship. So the question is, will this authority be reviewed?

We have shared with the Commission and with you, Commissioner, our concerns on the issue of information pluralism, the principle of proportionality and the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and information, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Hungarian Government’s answers accepting the amendment of this law must be supervised to ensure that the changes implemented are sufficiently far-reaching to hold back the threat posed by these laws to our fundamental rights and values. For instance, by reviewing the monitoring authority, as I said before.

We urge the Commission to continue with its investigations, particularly into matters affecting fundamental rights. May I also stress, Commissioner and Council representatives, that this is not a political issue, as some people would have us believe. What is at issue here is the defence of the values of our European Union and respect for its laws.

Have no doubt about it: this is our sole objective and our task here today.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, well, it is a little strange to stand here as a Conservative-Liberal through and through and be accused of being left-leaning. However, that is something that remains to be seen. This is not, in fact, about being left- or right-leaning; it is about freedom of the press. I cannot understand why my fellow Member from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is choosing to pursue the debate in this way. That is, I think, a touch pathetic. This is not about Hungary, either; it is about freedom of the press. I am pleased – and I will gladly acknowledge – that the Hungarian Government has answered the questions that have been put to it extremely well.

Having said that, problems still exist, and we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have also pointed that out all along. We still have the problem of a government-appointed Media Council that is to assess whether the coverage is balanced. We still have problems with regard to the fact that we have a Commission that is supposed to be the guardian of the Treaty and take a stand with regard to the problems with Hungary’s media law. Of course, I hope that the Commissioner will indeed do that. I will focus on what we are to do now and on the fact that the Commissioner has raised the question of an independent council. That is something I would like to welcome on our behalf, and I wonder if the Commissioner would perhaps give us a little more detail about what this council is to concern itself with.

  President. − Colleagues, for those of you who do not know the procedure, a blue card is at the discretion of the President. If I feel we do not have enough time for the debate then I do not give the floor. If I see later that we have cut down on speaking time then I may give the floor again. So, when you raise a blue card, unfortunately I cannot always give the floor to you. It will have to be at the discretion of myself and of the secretariat.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are absolutely no grounds for self-righteousness on the part of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). The fact that changes have now been made to the Hungarian media law is primarily down to those who took action in this regard. Mr Orbán was not involved in this at the beginning.

I would like to make this very clear: the changes that have now been made are not enough. We still have a supervisory authority that for nine years has only been composed of members of Fidesz. That is not compatible with the legislation at EU level. There is still no source protection. Therefore, this really is not a democratic media law.

Mrs Kroes, you did not go far enough in my view. You were clearly more interested in a quiet life and in not disturbing the Hungarian Presidency than in a truly democratic media law. May I remind you that anti-communist liberal democratic intellectuals like György Konrad, Agnes Heller and Michael Woida called on the European institutions for support. We have not yet managed to provide this. I really do believe that this law really needs to be revised to make it democratic.

  Carlo Casini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Hungarian Government has shown great sensitivity towards Europe and towards the principles upon which it is based in this affair. In fact, immediately after the approval of the Hungarian media law, a campaign was waged by the left, which used the phrase ‘gagging law’.

In reality, only those who have experienced communism, fascism and Nazism know what a gagging law is, while democratic states know that freedom and pluralism of information are part and parcel of democracy. However, they should be harmonised with all other powers of the rule of law and must not harm, in particular, the foundation of democracy, which is human dignity.

For example, Article 21 of the Italian Constitution does in fact guarantee freedom of information, but it also directly prohibits publications that are contrary to public morality. The 1948 law on the freedom of the press in Italy, which no one has ever challenged, lays down an obligation not for authorisation but for registration of any publication, as does the Hungarian law.

The reservations that the European Commission itself has rightly expressed do not devalue the stated aim of the Hungarian law, and that aim of ensuring respect for human dignity is demonstrated precisely by the attitude that the Hungarian Government has taken by opening itself up immediately to the acceptance of criticism and taking responsibility for changing the law according to the guidelines provided to it. The statement that the fundamental rights of the European Union will be written into the Hungarian Constitution is also proof of Hungary’s fundamental desire to be part of European culture.

In conclusion, I no longer understand the point of this discussion, except to ‘blame’ Hungary for having supported its government and parliament democratically by a two-thirds majority. Yet this gives Europe reason for hope, not reason for criticism. I am therefore grateful to the Commission and to the Hungarian Government.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, efforts to reduce the freedom of the media are a general European phenomenon. As a patriot, I am particularly saddened by the fact that it was the Hungarian media law that sparked heated debates in the European Parliament and other European institutions. It is not a pleasant feeling. The strong criticism voiced by the European Commission forced the Orbán government – which had, back in December, still adamantly refused to amend the law in any way – to give way. Now the Commission is forcing the Orbán government to amend the scandalous laws.

The main point is that, according to the Commission’s evaluation, Hungarian media legislation is in conflict with EU law. It is not only in violation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, but also the EU Treaties and the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU’s criticism marks a political defeat for the Hungarian right wing. However, the majority of the objections made by four groups within the European Parliament continue to apply unchanged. Both the Commission and the European Parliament must intently monitor the effects the amended Hungarian laws will have on freedom of speech and the freedom of the press in Hungary.

A question to Mr Martonyi: what was the Orbán government’s justification for abolishing the parity-based composition of the media board, as stipulated by the previous media law, which consisted of a 50-50% ratio of members delegated by the government party and the opposition? What does Commissioner Neelie Kroes think about this? I firmly request the Hungarian Government to not create the nationalist impression that the criticism is directed against Hungary. I ask the Orbán government now, after the strong criticism received from the European Commission, to exercise introspection and cease the antidemocratic government practices it has been following up to now. ‘He who conceals trouble only makes it worse,’ warned the illustrious Hungarian poet Gyula Illyés.

  President. − Dear colleagues, what I said before may have caused some confusion. There will be no more blue card questions in this debate. We do not have the time.

(Interjection from Mrs Morvai: ‘Shame on you!’)

What a life!

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, as you announced at the beginning of today’s debate, an agreement has been reached between the Hungarian Government and the European Commission concerning the amendment of several points of the Hungarian media law. I agree with my colleagues, in that the debate we are witnessing here now, one motivated by political impulses, bias and, listening to the socialist and liberal Members, occasionally hatred, has become meaningless.

One European socialist speaker referred to the protection of common European values, and elaborated on his position to that end. To quote a Hungarian socialist classic: ‘fiddlesticks!’ This is not at all the case here, my fellow Members. The case here is simply that the European socialists, liberals, communists and greens are once again using double standards. Mr Martin Schulz did not say a word when a minister of the socialist government in Hungary gave the order, through his direct political associates, to defame a journalist who had become a nuisance to him by having drugs placed in his car. Mr Martin Schulz did not say a word when one of the secretaries of state of the Hungarian Government filed a criminal report against a Hungarian journalist for writing an article exposing legislative fraud, which resulted in the imprisonment of that Hungarian journalist. Liberal Chair Guy Verhofstadt did not say a word when Hungarian journalists exposed electoral fraud at the leadership election congress of the Hungarian liberal party, which was followed by the party boycotting the TV station of those journalists for a long time. Since you did not mention or raise your voices for the protection of common European values at that time, there is no credibility to your statements today.

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). - (SL) Mr President, I welcome the Hungarian Government’s intention to amend controversial sections of the media law, as well as the fact that you, Commissioner Kroes, are pleased with the announced amendments.

However, I am greatly concerned that, one day before the resolution on the Hungarian media law is due to be adopted, we in this House have only very vague messages to rely upon and that we have not received any detailed assurances from the Hungarian authorities as to the actual amendments to be made. Therefore, I would like to know how it is that you were able to come up with those findings within a few hours and whether or not any external experts were involved in the process.

In addition, the speed with which the amendments were announced seems to suggest that these will not be substantive revisions, but only cosmetic changes, and that is not acceptable by any standard. Why is it that we have been informed as late as today, on the day the debate is actually taking place, that the Hungarian Government will amend the law within a fortnight and that the Commission is happy with that. It appears that somebody is seriously bent on silencing the concerns of the European Parliament that the technical work announced by Hungary will not lead to democratic amendments of the law in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, we too have serious concerns about the composition and powers of the Media Council, as this is obviously a case of a major extension of state control over journalists. While I welcome the readiness for dialogue, I must reiterate that this is not an attack on Hungary. I used to be a journalist myself – and this is about protecting journalists throughout Europe. Moreover, I am disappointed that Commissioner Reding, who is responsible for fundamental rights, has not been involved in the issue of this controversial law.

Finally, Commissioner, I would like to know one more thing: what is the European Commission’s vision for the future of journalism in Europe? We need in the Union some minimum criteria which guarantee the freedom and independence of the media and media pluralism. I call on you to get to work on this as soon as possible because media freedom, and consequently the quality of media reporting, is already under serious threat in other parts of Europe, too.

  Ivo Belet (PPE). - (NL) Mr President, it seems to me that we are all agreed that the Hungarian Government has done the right thing in removing all doubts today and made it clear that there is a free press in Budapest and no lack of media pluralism.

Fortunately, with Hungary’s formal pledge to the European Commission that the new media law will be adjusted and explicitly brought in line with European fundamental rights, that ambiguity has been removed.

However, ladies and gentlemen, my only regret is that every debate on media pluralism always seems to get bogged down in national party political games. In my opinion, we definitely need to put a stop to that. Having said that, Commissioner, I think that your new initiative to start a working group on media pluralism is an excellent one and we, in Parliament, will obviously be extremely happy to discuss that initiative and work with you on it.

This is an excellent opportunity to finally look into this in depth, to go to the heart of the matter, media pluralism, without the discussion being coloured by emotions generated at a national level. It is the perfect initiative for exploring the media landscape in the European Union in an objective way.

Finally, allow me to make one more thing clear: in my opinion, a European legislative initiative to regulate the media, which is what some of you in this House will be demanding tomorrow, is totally the wrong approach and I believe, Commissioner, that you agree with us on that point.

  Milan Zver (PPE). - (SL) Mr President, I, too, welcome the decision of the Hungarian Government to improve the media law, but I think that this multiple attack on the Government concerning the media law is unfair and unfounded.

This law is a product of specific circumstances, which are not always well understood in Western Europe. In all transition countries, the media environment has been rather asymmetrical or unbalanced in terms of ownership and political affiliation. It was dominated by the left, which is why the call for greater balance in media reporting in transitional societies is perfectly normal.

The concept of balanced reporting has long been used in scientific and political discourse, and initially it was associated specifically with the media. In addition, the objection about the political bias of the composition of the Media Council under this law is totally unfair. Under this law, members are elected to the Council with a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament, while such a democratic mechanism is unknown to the vast majority of European countries.

I will be brief, Commissioner. We will take you at your word that you will ensure the media landscape in the European Union is even more regulated. However, you will not be able to achieve that just by reviewing the laws of Member States. You need a more thorough analysis of the real situation, particularly in the new Member States, including Slovenia.

  József Szájer (PPE). - Mr President, on a point of order, I want to put a question to you.

Regardless of what you say, I am fighting for Members to be able to say what they want. However, in this House so far, only the extreme right and the left have had the right to blue card interventions.

I think this is a one-sided way to conduct the sitting and would like to ask that the centre and the centre-right should also have the right to put questions to the other speakers, because otherwise Members are not being treated equally.

  President. − Mr Szájer, I do not give a blue-card question to people according to which political group they belong. I give them on the basis of who raised their blue card first.

As it turns out, in this debate, the first blue cards were raised by certain people, but then the time ran out, so I said that for no-one – be they from the centre, right or left – would there be time for more blue-card questions.

There are the one-minute interventions, for which we probably will not be able to take everyone either.

I wish there was the time. I wish there was the time for me to give everyone the floor, but I cannot. I apologise to you and the others, but I assure you that this was not a political choice.

  Sabine Verheyen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Kroes, President-in-Office of the Council, I would first like to thank you, Mrs Kroes, for having taken up this debate so promptly and for entering into negotiations with the Hungarian Government. However, above all I would like to thank the Hungarian Government for keeping the promise it made in all of the hearings and prior discussions and at the start of the debate, namely that if there was a need for amendments to be made, it would also adequately implement these amendments.

Freedom of the press and media pluralism are important fundamental values in the European Union. The media also have a very special responsibility in our society. They are to respect personal rights, they must not practice discrimination and, above all, they are obliged to report the truth. They do not operate in a legal vacuum. That, too, is major progress in the new media law in Hungary.

The media enjoy very special protection, particularly through the current legal framework of the European Union. The Commission, as guardian of this legislation, has done its job very well in the past. The debate that we are having today would not have been necessary if there had been more trust in the work of the Commission as guardian of the legislation, because the fact that the system works can be seen by the results that we have been informed of today, namely that adjustments have been made in the areas in which the law was not completely in line with EU legislation. That is a major success.

Ideological debates that arise time and again, especially in this context, are in my view completely out of place. On the contrary, it is clear that the factual and cooperative debating of the contentious issues on the basis of current law in the context of the talks and negotiations that were held has helped to provide clarification and has led to positive results. I hope that the various political groups will also stop their political games and withdraw the resolutions in question.

  Kinga Gál (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, as has been said, the Hungarian Government and the Commission have, contrary to what some are implying, agreed today on the amendment of the Hungarian media law; on the specific text. However, still you insist on continuing this now meaningless debate. To me, this indicates that the media law was only an excuse, a political attack against the two-thirds majority government of Hungary. While the draft decision submitted by you calls our law to account for the right to information, your text is based on misrepresentation and factual errors, just like all that has been said here this afternoon.

It is misleading. To me, ladies and gentlemen, the right to information means the right to unadulterated, real information, and this afternoon, too, you have been violating this. Interestingly, you only stand up for liberties when in doing so you can attack right-wing governments. However, the regrettable fact remains that no one from the ranks of the socialist and liberal groups was concerned about the protection of human rights when in October 2006, under the socialist government in Hungary, liberties were literally trampled to the ground in the streets of Budapest, or when the Slovak socialist government penalised minorities for the use of their mother tongue.

At that time you did everything to prevent these proven, serious infringements from even being debated in the European Parliament. To me, ladies and gentlemen, this represents an outrageous double standard. In the context of the law you are referring to dictatorship and the tyranny of the majority. To me, as someone who lived through Ceaușescu’s dictatorship as a child, this proves that you have a curious, one-sided idea of democracy and the rule of law.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I would like to express my deep regret that this debate took place today, because we all know that the objective clarification of all misunderstandings and questions pertaining to the Hungarian media law is the task of the European Commission, and this is currently in progress. I believe that it is meaningless for Parliament to take a position on an issue which could come to a positive conclusion in a matter of days.

I am aware, however, that we are players in a hysteria-mongering left-liberal political campaign, and what form the law itself will eventually take is perhaps no longer of any significance. What is important is that our political opponents are attacking, with the disgraceful methods we are used to seeing from them, a country where last year centre-right political forces achieved a landslide victory after the eight-year depredations of the socialist government, and can finally complete the clear-out of the remaining ruins of the deplorable communist regime.

This includes a rearrangement of the framework of journalist ethics and media culture. I must ask; where were these critics, who fancy themselves progressive democrats, when the left-wing nationalist government of Robert Fico in Slovakia adopted a controversial media law, replete with sanctions, in 2008? Yes, they were here at that time, too, and ferociously protected the aforementioned law, which, thanks to them, is still in effect to this day. I deeply condemn and reject this double standard and call upon my colleagues not to let themselves be influenced by political instigation, and to entrust those in charge, the Commission and the Hungarian Government, with the professional evaluation and conclusion of the problem.

Let us please finally be aware that repeated attacks against the government of the country holding the presidency in an already crisis-laden period could represent a serious risk to the evaluation of the unity and international prestige of the EU.

  Jean Marie Cavada (PPE) . – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, this is such a serious matter that one must rise above the dreadful arguments that I have just heard in this House, because when we talk about the media we are talking about the health of a democracy.

President-in-Office of the Council, I am one of those people who admire and feel affection for your country and for the Hungarian people. I fully understand that your government and some members of the public wanted information to be handled in a more balance way, and, objectively speaking, they were right. However, replacing one kind of propaganda with another kind of propaganda does not make it right. Consequently I am pleased this evening, but I am vigilant. I am pleased to see that your government has decided to return to several fundamental points and to change the December 2001 law on the media. This needed to be done and you did well to address this matter. I am also pleased that you are once more showing greater respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, rights which your people have always craved in the course of recent history.

I would like to pay tribute to the work of Commissioner Kroes, and I support the composition of her group of monitoring experts. However, we will be vigilant, because we also feel that a number of points have not been dealt with, and we shall also pay attention to the details of the legislative amendments.

In conclusion, I should like to tell you, President-in-Office of the Council, that you are the heirs to the fatherland of Liszt, of Kossuth, of the 1940 hero, Joël Brand, of Sándor Kopácsi and Colonel Maléter of 1956. You are the heirs of Sándor Márai. You are the heirs of Imre Kertész. So do not let us down! It was a Hungarian who invented the magical game that is Rubik’s cube. Do not teach us, in Europe, to play with the media in the style of a ‘Jobbik’s Cube’ because that is a dreadful game.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, today the specific text of the agreement between the Hungarian Government and the European Commission has been formulated. The Hungarian Government has read – which is a big thing these days, my fellow Members – and understood the comments of the Commission and, true to its word, will amend the media law. This means that the Hungarian Government and the Commission acted lawfully and in a democratic manner, whereas you have been putting on a political flea circus here today. Unfortunately this is not the first time you have done so, even though the cause of the problem has clearly been eliminated. The Hungarian socialist Members here are making baseless accusations, and are even inciting others. At home, on the other hand, their billion-forint scandals are coming to light one after another.

Dear furious fellow Members, you have been deliberately misled. There is democracy in Hungary, and the media law is in compliance with all EU directives and requirements. Lastly, ladies and gentlemen, we should be addressing issues the resolution of which is far more urgent than the current political flea circus.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while I accept that those who so strongly criticised the Hungarian law want only freedom for the media and nothing else, I think we also need to show respect for the work of the Commission and the content of the debate in Parliament. In other words, I believe that, in order to avoid an unpleasant chapter in our Parliament’s history, we must take responsibility for not voting tomorrow and simply scrap a resolution of which the contents have no foundation in reality, as the Commissioner’s speech showed.

I therefore call on both the Council and the Commission to make informal contact with the Conference of Presidents, so as to allow for the necessary and essential exchange of information that will enable Parliament to vote tomorrow, even before the resolutions, on a decision not to proceed with a vote, thus putting an end to ideological debates.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the assertions that you have made, Commissioner, confirm that the European Parliament was right when it levelled harsh criticism against Hungary’s press law. Indeed, the Hungarian Government acknowledges by its willingness to amend the law, albeit in only four chapters, the failure of an anti-democratic measure. In your letter you finally acknowledge that you will examine this law and its compatibility, including with EU law in general. I wanted to hear you say that you would refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I have two questions for you, Commissioner, which I would ask you to answer. How can you think that the standards of the OSCE and Council of Europe are too high for the European Union? Secondly, if an accession candidate country had an identical law to the unmodified version of the Hungarian law, could it conclude the relevant negotiation chapter?

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, we have a saying in Slovakia that the road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. I do not wish to doubt the good intentions of our Hungarian friends to make up-to-date modifications to media laws, but the current discussion confirms that some of the provisions of the new law might perhaps be formulated in a more sensitive way.

The fact that the Hungarian Government decided to implement such a large number of changes and reforms in such a short space of time probably meant that insufficient attention was paid to the possible consequences of some of the provisions of the law.

The same clearly applies to the Hungarian national law on dual citizenship, which will clearly create many unnecessary problems not only for us Europeans, but also for our foreign partners. How will our American or Canadian friends feel about it when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians or Serbs turn up with European passports issued in Hungary to distant relatives, the descendants of inhabitants of the former Hungary?

I do not know whether this law was passed with good intentions.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, one of the accounts of the Hungarian press law, says that it prescribes ‘balanced coverage’, which sounds all right on the face of it. Another account says that it fines publications for violating ‘public interest, public morals or order’. Now these concepts do sound very vague, meaningless and therefore dangerous; almost as dangerous as concepts like xenophobia and racism, and whoever would think of legislating against them?

However, before we cast stones at Hungary, let us look at the standards and broadcasting media in our own countries. The BBC, also known as the British Brainwashing Corporation, acts in contempt of its charter’s obligations of impartiality, and it excludes representatives of our own party, whilst giving gratuitously excessive publicity to the Establishment Safety Valve Party. Our party is significant enough to be attacked routinely, but not significant enough to be invited on the programmes. In 2006 it colluded with the government to trap our chairman into a jail.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, a couple of the honourable Members asked an intriguing question: is it a coincidence that today’s debate should coincide with the Hungarian Government’s decision? Well, sometimes, Mr President, you need a small angel at your shoulder.

For my own part, I prefer, when you invite me to come, to make clear what is at stake, to be able to come armed with facts and figures. Is what has happened today a coincidence? The answer I will give to that comes, in a way, straight from my heart.

We are talking about an entire procedure: it started at the end of December and we are now half way through February – so it has taken a bit more than seven weeks. Well, in the light of the six years I have been in office in the European institutions, that is quite speedy. My experience so far has been that things are rarely so speedy that I feel we can solve a problem within seven weeks.

Having said that, the background to today’s outcome is fascinating. We have a combination of factors. Firstly, we are not talking about this issue for the first time. You have invited me to discuss it before. You have been quite clear, so there has been no doubt about what is at stake – no doubt about what every party in this House thinks on this question.

Secondly, we are talking about a very important issue. I do not need to explain to you that the issue of freedom of expression and freedom of the press is what is at stake for the Commission; and that it would be ridiculous if we did not make that a top priority with regard to defending democracy. Was it a coincidence that the previous item on the agenda this afternoon was the situation in Egypt? You have been talking about creating democracy, so there is a clear thread here, and you can be absolutely certain that the Commission is aware of that and is, indeed, doing its utmost to defend democracy and to repair it where it may have been attacked.

The third issue is, of course, the Hungarian Presidency. Let us not be naive. Of course our friends in this Member State within the family of Europe are aware that, for those in the chair, noblesse oblige. So from their side too there has been an approach of doing their utmost to solve the problem. The final point I would make in this explanation, in so far as I can offer one, is that the European Parliament has been crystal clear: you have been fighting and you have been keeping the outside world informed via the press – via a free press, I would add. So do not underestimate your own role.

Having said that, for me the whole combination of factors is, at the end of the day, the explanation of why we have this result at this point of time. Fundamental rights are the issue that has been at stake: there is no doubt about that. Anyone who thinks that I am interested only in peace and quiet does not know me in the least, because I am fighting for democracy. I do have a fair bit of experience and I have had a longer life in politics than most of you.

Let me touch, also, on a couple of the specific issues about which I was asked. What about the independence of the media regulator? Our preliminary analysis of the Hungarian law concludes that the procedures for nominating and electing the president and members of the media council are no different from those that are commonly accepted in Europe. We have to acknowledge – whether it furthers our case or not – that the governing party holds a two-thirds majority, and that, in a democracy, is a simple fact.

(Applause)

On the question of the application of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are applying the directive – the AVMS Directive – and the Treaty, and that implies of course applying Article 11 of the Charter. So there is no doubt about that.

Mr Moraes said there was no judicial review of decisions by the media authority. A decision by the Media Council, passed in its capacity as an authority of the first instance, cannot be appealed via an administrative procedure. However, as provided for in Article 163, an official decision of the Media Council may be challenged in court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lodging of the appeal does not have suspensory effect but the code may be invoked to suspend the execution of the decision.

Ms Weber said that the protection of sources under the Hungarian media law is insufficient. If we take press freedom as a basic European principle, that should be the starting point and the ultimate end in all our thinking on this subject. I have always defended press freedom at European level and I will continue – and I promise you the Commission will continue – to promote it untiringly. The right of journalists to protect their sources is one of the main principles guaranteeing the effective exercise of press freedom. Journalists should never be required to reveal their sources unless it is necessary for them to do so for the purposes of a criminal investigation, and that principle is valid whatever the political climate. In fact, it needs to be defended with more passion whenever the press and the media generally are in a weaker position, as is the case nowadays.

The Directive on privacy and electronic communications currently in force requires the Member States to ensure the confidentiality of communications. However, the directive does not apply to activities which fall outside the scope of the EU treaties. That is to say that EU law does not apply to matters relating to public security, defence, state security or the enforcement of criminal law and, moreover, under the principle of subsidiarity, Member States have the possibility of taking measures that could restrict an individual’s right to privacy, in accordance with their own rules and with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Any such restriction must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society, and a Commissioner is not in a position to judge or condemn such national doings, nor do I wish to do so.

On the matter of the absence of reference to Article 30 – and a number of Members have asked about that – I know that many of you have complained that the Commission has not taken Article 30 fully into account when assessing the media law. I should like to say loudly and clearly: that is simply not true. Although in its original proposal for the AVMS Directive the Commission had included an obligation on the Member States to guarantee the independence of the national regulatory authorities – and I know full well that your memory on such matters is excellent – that provision was not supported by the Council and, despite strong support from the European Parliament, it was changed into the current Article 30 of the AVMS Directive. The final wording of the AVMS Directive does not directly establish an obligation to create independent bodies. It is not what we would have wished but it is what was written down in the text and we have to accept it, albeit with regret.

The Hungarian authorities have agreed to delete the provision in question and add the following declaratory text to Article 10 of the Media Constitution, and I quote: ‘It is the task for the entirety of the media system to provide authentic, rapid and accurate information on such affairs and events’. So that will be the text after the changes.

I have to apologise that you did not receive the text, but I myself did not receive it or, at least, I had only the text that we were negotiating and I could not distribute that to you. However, as soon as it is possible, I will supply you with the text. Of course – while I hope you believe what I am saying and I would appreciate that – I imagine that, at the end of the day, you want to see it in writing and have the opportunity to read it.

One of the issues that will make sense for you when you are making up your minds is that of the balanced reporting requirements: as I said in my opening remarks, these will no longer apply to the written press or to on-demand audiovisual media services.

On the question, which Mr Løkkegaard asked, of whether I am ready to propose legislation on media pluralism, I said in my opening remarks that I am ready to take action in the matter of media pluralism within the existing EU competences. There is no one-size-fits-all approach: that is clear to me, and the Hungarian case has made it even clearer. I will set up the working group to which I referred, and I thank you for your willingness to join it, in order to discuss the challenges we are facing, to make sure we have a comprehensive overview of the situation in Europe and, of course, to act accordingly – including on the question of media independence. That should be one of the main priorities.

With regard to the position of the OSCE on the Hungarian media legislation, in relation to our own analysis, there is a difference of legal bases, but the OSCE was quite clear and quite right in its conclusions. The main issues raised by the OSCE concern the new Media Authority, in particular the long duration of the term of office of its members and the regulation of the public service broadcaster. I have explained the Commission’s point of view here, and I think that the terms of office of members of other broadcasting councils, for example in other Member States, range in some cases from five to nine years. One example but it is not the only one, is the Rundfunkräte (public broadcasting boards).

The crucial thing – and this is my final remark – is the message from the Deputy Prime Minister that I received this morning when I touched down, and I am certain that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will repeat the message that the Hungarian Government wrote down for me, and for the Commission, stating what the position is.

During the seven weeks in which we closely cooperated, I had already been impressed by the input of my own staff who had been working like hell. But I can assure you that both sides worked like hell and that they did their jobs not just in the proper way but in a constructive way, in order to find a solution, because this is a very important matter, and we have to find a solution.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I urge the Commissioner, as a procedural matter, to have the texts she referred to sent out tonight, at least to the group chairs, so that tomorrow we can be as confident as possible before expressing our vote.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, as far as I am concerned the answer is a clear yes. The Hungarian minister’s body language is also saying yes. That will be done as soon as possible.

  János Martonyi, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, please appreciate that I do not have to use my body when I express myself.

A couple of brief points on behalf of Hungary: given the fact that Commissioner Kroes’ answer was extensive and exhaustive, and also concerned the composition of the media council, this was a specific question addressed to me which I think has been answered correctly, so I can limit myself to a couple of points.

First and foremost, I would like to underline that Hungary is fully committed to the values, principles and the rules enshrined in the Treaty, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in all other instruments of international law, be they European or universal, on human rights.

The first harsh criticism of the media law was made prior to the adoption of the law. I make particular reference to the comments made by the OSCE media representative. My simple wish was for the text to be read, studied and analysed, and then for us to be told what could be wrong, what kind of doubts or concerns might arise with respect to the text, or indeed with respect to the interpretation of the implementation of the law.

This was the reason why we immediately welcomed and supported the Commission, being the Guardian of the Treaty, in its analysis of the text, and invited it to express its doubts or concerns. Now that is exactly what happened. The Commission scrutinised carefully the law, made some proposals and all these proposals were adopted. I can only confirm that the day after tomorrow there will be a cabinet meeting. We will adopt the text and we will submit it immediately to the Hungarian Parliament and the amendments will be adopted as soon as is procedurally possible and will immediately enter into force.

I would like to thank the Commission for its hard work, help and assistance, but I would also like to thank all of you who made fair and reasonable comments and assisted us in this exercise, which I am convinced has been extremely important, not only for ourselves, but also for the European Union as a whole.

I would just like to offer our help and full support to the working group the Commission is about to establish. This is in the interests of Europe as a whole and we all want to participate in it and to help it as much as we can.

The only thing I regret is the excessive language which appeared in some of the political statements. As I said already before, the law would have been adopted. Sometimes we had the feeling that we were being subjected to what the French call ‘un procès d'intention’, a kind of ‘Schuldvermutung.’ I had the feeling that it was the presumption of guilt which was being applied instead of the presumption of innocence which is, of course, a basic rule of any fair trial.

So sometimes these statements went beyond the limits of reasonable and fair political debate – a political debate which we otherwise fully support, both domestically and at a European or universal level.

In fact, it was harmful to the interests of Europe as a whole – it was harmful to European integration. Now I believe that we are hopefully over that. I just would like to confirm again our full respect and to testify to this I would just like to let you know that it is our firm intention to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the new Hungarian Constitution.

Hungary will thus be the first country where the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be an integral part of the Hungarian legal system. It will be applicable not only in the areas covered by Union law, but it will be at the top of the hierarchy of the overall legal system and it will prevail over any other legislation or regulation, be it criminal law, be it about the media or be it about any other subject.

That should give an assurance to all of you that the basic rules, the basic values and the basic principles which we all share are, and will be, fully respected by my country.

  President. − The debate is closed.

I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

– The vote will take place at 12:00 tomorrow.

Written Statements (Rule 149)

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In their motion for a resolution, my fellow Members request that the European Commission also take into account the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights when scrutinising the Hungarian media law, and if the government fails to amend the law as desired within a fixed deadline, launch an infringement procedure against Hungary. Similarly, my fellow Members also request that the Commission initiate, still in this year, a European regulatory framework to ensure the assertion of the freedom of the media in the Member States. I am very pleased to note that increasing attention is being accorded to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and I therefore propose that the Commission also examine the application of the Charter, and in particular Articles 21 and 22 thereof, in the case of the Slovak language law. Furthermore, I welcome the fact that there is a demand for initiating a draft European directive to ensure the inviolability of the freedom of the media. I believe that the creation of a similar regulatory framework would definitely be justified with regard to the problems of indigenous national minorities. This is because there are countries within the European Union where it is not the requirement of balanced reporting that results in infringements of the rights of European citizens who have been living in the same areas for centuries, but penalties that are imposed on them for the use of their mother tongue.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Freedom and pluralism of the media is one of the fundamental freedoms which underpins the European Union. This is why I am overjoyed that the European Commission has reacted emphatically to information concerning the Hungarian media law and has taken real action. As someone who has worked in the media for many years, I will be watching with interest the work of the expert group announced by Commissioner Kroes which is to advise the Commission on further action. At the same time, I would like to point out that the legal analysis of the compliance of the Hungarian media law with European law carried out by the Commission has, unfortunately, illustrated the weakness of European law, specifically the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Paradoxically, the Directive does not give the Commission much room for manoeuvre. So when the Hungarian law was being analysed, the Commission had to ‘stretch’ certain arguments and base them on the actual Treaty (freedom of enterprise) rather than the Directive. I realise that the European Union has limited jurisdiction in the field of audiovisual policy, but on the other hand I believe that the media, which is one of the fundamentals of democracy, must have certain minimum rights and must be subject to common standards. This is why I share the view of my political group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the need for a review of the EU legal framework in order to introduce minimum requirements for the freedom and pluralism of the media, and I trust we shall soon begin a substantive discussion on the subject.

(1) See minutes

14. Free trade agreement between the EU and the Republic of Korea (debate)

  President. – The next item is the recommendation (A7-0034/2011) by Robert Sturdy, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea [08505/2010 - C7-0320/2010 - 2010/0075(NLE)].

  Robert Sturdy, rapporteur. − Mr President, this FTA is the first of a new generation of trade agreements launched in 2007 as part of the global Europe initiative. Global economy, instability and a stagnated mutlilateral system have strengthened the need and pursuit for increased bilateral relations. It is the first FTA in which Parliament will exercise its new enhanced powers given to it by the Treaty of Lisbon.

The FTA is designed to provide EU businesses, in a wide variety of economic sectors, with extensive and comprehensive access to the South Korean market through a series of unprecedented tariff liberalisations. It guarantees WTO-plus disciplines in the case of, for example, geographical indicators, government procurement, greater transparency of state aid and strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, and contains an all-important chapter on sustainable development.

However, while the many advantages are both immediate and conspicuous, I welcome more than anything else the fact that the FTA has an effective bilateral safeguard mechanism – a safeguard that allows the EU to restore MFN duty rates, should it be that this particular FTA has led to or threatens to cause serious injury to EU domestic industry. It is a safeguard that specifically addresses the concerns of Europe’s sensitive sectors, including the auto industry, consumer electronics and textiles, and guarantees the protection they deserve. On this note I would like to thank Pablo Zalba Bidegain for the work that he did on this specific part of the agreement.

The South Korea market offers significant new opportunities for EU goods and services. It is a market that until now has remained relatively closed off, due to high tariff levies and costly non-tariff barriers. The FTA will quickly remove EUR 1.6 billion worth of EU export duties levied annually. There will be benefits for EU exporters of industrial and agricultural products, immediate savings on chemicals – approximately EUR 175 million –pharmaceuticals, auto parts, industrial machinery, and the list goes on. It is also worth noting that these figures quoted will probably be even higher, because of the increased trade. Korea is currently among those more globally valuable export markets for EU farmers, with annual sales of over EUR 1 billion to Korea. The FTA fully liberalises nearly all the EU’s agricultural exports.

Exports are thus an important source of growth for the EU. They contribute to wealth and employment for European businesses and their employees and will act as one of the most important factors in stimulating the EU economic recovery. The Commission and the European Car Association have worked closely together to get this agreement.

The world is watching as Europe leads the way in improving trade and economic relations, with partners in every corner of the world looking at it. I have always said that trade is the real means of development. By removing barriers to trade and building new bridges we create new opportunities. This particular FTA offers a new approach. Complementary, of course, to Doha, it will drive Europe’s recovery and growth and the European Parliament will be instrumental in determining the future of global trade policy.

At this stage I would like to thank Ignacio from the Commission. One of the economists said, Ignacio, that this is probably the best trade agreement that both parties could ever have agreed. I urge all groups to put aside protectionism and support this agreement.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members for all the efforts which Parliament in general, and the Committee on International Trade (INTA) in particular, has put into securing prompt assessment – and, I hope, ratification – of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). This will permit its entry into force.

This complex task comprised two major processes: finalisation of negotiations on the Korea Safeguard Regulation, implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Korea FTA, and the preparation of consent to this treaty.

I welcome the first-reading agreement between the Council and Parliament on the Safeguard Regulation. The work that was done has not only secured legislation which will provide necessary protection for EU industry, but it has also confirmed the joint commitment of Parliament, the Council and the Commission to efficient law making. This was also the first trade dossier on which Parliament acted as co-legislator under the Treaty of Lisbon. The outcome of its involvement is indeed impressive.

I will not repeat the list of benefits which the EU-Korea FTA is expected to bring to the EU economy: we have thoroughly debated them here in the past, and Mr Sturdy has just summed them up. Let me instead open a brief parenthesis to place the agreement with Korea in the wider perspective of the future of EU trade policy, as sketched out by the Commission in its communication of 9 November 2010, and to recap the basic tenets of our policy line.

First of all, we continue to favour the multilateral channel of the WTO as the first-best way to liberalise trade and lay down the rules to govern global commerce. Despite the setbacks and the deadlock since mid-2008, we continue to push actively for the conclusion of the Doha development round, 10 years now after its inception. It is still well worth clinching a deal, both for the economic gains and in the interests of furthering the WTO. That is why I took the initiative of bringing together in Davos the trade ministers of the world’s seven most important trading countries to discuss, in concrete terms, how we can now proceed and enter the end-game, following the impetus given by the G20 in Seoul. I believe our meeting was a success, and senior officials are now working intensively in an attempt to stage a political breakthrough in the summer.

However, as we said back in November, the bilateral and the multilateral are not enemies. Indeed, it may well be the case that liberalisation fuels liberalisation. We have pursued bilateral trade deals that generate genuine value added compared with what can be achieved through the WTO, and we will keep on doing so because the pace of multilateral progress is unavoidably slow. This has been, and is, our fundamental motivation for pursuing the FTA with Korea.

I will reiterate today the Commission’s commitments to the European Parliament, which it made in relation to the implementation of the Korea Safeguard Regulation and the EU-Korea FTA.

As provided for in the Safeguard Regulation, ‘the Commission will present a yearly report to the European Parliament and Council on the implementation of the EU-Korea FTA and will be ready to discuss with the INTA Committee any issues arising from the implementation of the Agreement.

‘The Commission will closely monitor the implementation by Korea of its commitments on regulatory issues, including in particular the commitments relating to technical regulations in the car sector. The monitoring shall include all aspects of non-tariff barriers and its results shall be documented and reported to the European Parliament and the Council.

‘Particular importance will be attached to the effective implementation of commitments on labour and environment of Chapter 13: Trade and Sustainable Development of the FTA. In this connection, the Commission will seek the advice of the Domestic Advisory Group, which will include representatives of business organisations, trade unions and non-governmental organisations. The implementation of Chapter 13 of the FTA shall be duly documented and reported to the European Parliament and the Council.

‘The Commission also agrees on the importance of providing effective protection in the case of sudden surges of imports in sensitive sectors, including small cars. Monitoring of sensitive sectors shall include cars, textiles and consumer electronics. In this connection, the Commission notes that the small-car sector can be considered a relevant market for the purpose of a safeguard investigation.

‘The Commission notes that the designation of outward processing zones in the Korean Peninsula, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Protocol on Rules of Origin, would require an international agreement between the parties to which the European Parliament would have to give its consent. The Commission will keep Parliament fully informed of the deliberations by the Committee on Outward Processing Zones in the Korean Peninsula.

‘The Commission also notes that if, due to exceptional circumstances, it decides to extend the duration of an investigation pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Korea Safeguard Regulation, it will ensure that such an extended timing does not go beyond the expiry date of any provisional measures introduced pursuant to Article 5.

‘Moreover, the Commission and the European Parliament agree on the importance of close cooperation in monitoring the implementation of the EU-Korea FTA and the Safeguard Regulation.

‘To this end, in case the EP adopts a recommendation to initiate a safeguard investigation, the Commission will carefully examine whether the conditions under the regulation for ex-officio initiation are fulfilled. In case the Commission considers that the conditions are not fulfilled, it will present a report to the INTA Committee including an explanation of all factors relevant to the initiation of such an investigation.

‘Upon request by the INTA Committee, the Commission shall report to the committee on any specific concerns relating to the implementation by Korea of its commitments on non-tariff measures or on Chapter 13 of the FTA.’ That is the end of the quotation.

Finally, let me elaborate on two issues which are of interest to you: the Korean CO2 legislation on car emissions, and the supplementary agreement on the draft Korea-US FTA (KORUS), which was finalised in December 2010.

On 24 January 2011, Korea confirmed that certain changes will be introduced to its previous draft CO2 legislation, which satisfactorily address a number of concerns expressed by European car makers, while retaining Korea’s ambitious emission reduction objectives. The changes, which the Commission welcomes, will not alter overall emissions, but will provide for fairer burden sharing between Korean and EU car makers.

Rest assured that the EU position on the Korea CO2 legislation was closely coordinated at all stages within the Commission and, in particular, with my colleague Connie Hedegaard and DG CLIMA, to avoid undermining Korea’s environmental protection efforts.

As for the supplementary agreement to the draft Korea-US FTA reached in December 2010, the Commission has not identified elements therein that could have a negative impact on the EU. I will, however, contact my Korean counterpart to ensure that no competitive disadvantage arises in future for the EU automotive sector insofar as non-harmonised automotive safety standards will not be applied in a more restrictive manner than was the case at the time of the negotiations.

The Commission will be closely monitoring the implementation of this provision. In particular, the Working Group on Motor Vehicles and Parts established by the FTA will examine practical aspects of implementation to ensure that market access problems are addressed in an effective and speedy manner.

To conclude, I wish to emphasise that the EU-Korea FTA will not only provide important benefits for European exporters to the Korean market, but will also be a clear signal of our determination to pursue new opportunities in key Asian economies.

We are also addressing the concerns of some stakeholders by means of an efficient and effective safeguard regulation. As this is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, both the Council and this House have been able to introduce mechanisms for responding to perceived risks should they materialise.

With this FTA and the Safeguard Regulation we have an excellent package that I hope you will support tomorrow.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Daniel Caspary, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, international trade and exports are an important source of growth and employment in Europe. The Free Trade Agreement that we are debating today will strengthen the competitiveness of the European Union and will provide our enterprises with significantly better access to a highly dynamic region of growth. Both the European and the Korean economy will benefit considerably. Our gross domestic product will increase. That could lead to the creation of new jobs. Our exports to Korea will double in the next few years according to all the forecasts because duties and non-tariff barriers to trade will be abolished; the relief in terms of duties alone will amount to EUR 1.6 billion per year. For the European Union there will be a substantial new trade in goods and services with a value of up to EUR 19 billion.

I am particularly pleased that, in the negotiations, the Commission took full account of the negotiation recommendations expressed by the European Parliament in the Martin Report from 2008. I am also pleased that the European Commission took account both of the concerns expressed by Parliament and also of those coming from industry and it was also able to dispel some concerns just in the last few weeks. Something that I have never experienced before in the area of foreign trade is positive feedback even coming from the agricultural sector, which is usually more likely to be a problem for us in the area of trade negotiations.

In the area of agriculture, the agreement will facilitate access to South Korea for European agricultural products from 1 July 2011. Up to now, only 2% of our agricultural products reach the South Korean market duty free. For pork, annual duties amounting to EUR 240 million are paid, and for milk and milk products the figure is around EUR 100 million. All of these barriers to market access for our domestic agriculture will now be removed. I would be pleased if, for this area in particular, the European Commission would consider how we could set up some kind of market access programme, not only for small and medium-sized enterprises, but also for agriculture in the countries that will profit from the Free Trade Agreement.

Above all, I would be pleased if we were also to ensure that our partners in South Korea now actually implement the trade facilitation measures promised in the agreement. I call for it to be clearly monitored whether new barriers to trade are introduced, and I would, in particular, like to congratulate the Commission.

What the Commission has achieved and what Parliament’s rapporteurs have achieved, particularly in the trialogue negotiations, is an example to us all. I hope that we will have a broad majority in favour of this agreement in this House tomorrow.

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner De Gucht, early in this parliamentary term, which is my first, one of the matters I first heard discussed was precisely the Free Trade Agreement with Korea. Certain sectors of European industry, especially the automotive industry, were unanimous in opposing this agreement. As a citizen of Navarre and Spain, where the automotive industry represents a substantial part of our economy, I felt the duty to become involved in order to improve, if not the agreement as this was no longer possible, the safeguard clause, which was where Parliament could introduce improvements.

Thus, we set out to achieve two objectives. Firstly, to protect the industry and its jobs, and secondly, to make the agreement more attractive for the industries concerned, particularly the automotive industry. Our aim was not just to avoid outright rejection, but to gain their support for the agreement. I believe that here today, we can say ‘mission accomplished’. This is all thanks to Parliament’s hard work and expertise.

I should like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteurs of both reports for their outstanding work. Thank you Robert. And thank you also for your words.

Recognition is also due to the members of the Committee on International Trade, led by its Chair, Mr Moreira. ¡Muito obrigado!, Vital.

I would also like to thank the Belgian Presidency of the European Union for their excellent work. Their effort has had its reward in the form of the agreement we finally reached in December.

Lastly, I would like to highlight the work of the European Commission, and particularly Ignacio Bercero’s contribution, for which I am most grateful. Tomorrow we will vote in favour of a clause which will be more effective, easier to apply and will genuinely protect European industry. Today, concerns on the Free Trade Agreement with Korea have hugely diminished. Indeed, we might say that they have all but vanished. Today, the opportunities this agreement brings clearly outweigh the uncertainties. The European Parliament should be proud of a job well done.

  Bernd Lange, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon has in fact put trade policy on a new footing. The EU is solely responsible for trade policy and Parliament gives or withholds its consent. In that respect, we have gained a new responsibility. We can only enable this new responsibility to take shape if we act together. We have proven that very clearly in this matter. In this regard, I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs.

Trade policy is not an end in itself. Its purpose is, firstly, to strengthen jobs and industrial development in the European Union and, secondly, to improve conditions for people in other countries of the world. The aim of trade policy must be to achieve both of these goals. We therefore need to assess this agreement from this viewpoint. Overall, this is a step in the right direction towards fulfilling these two requirements. However, we certainly do have a few points of criticism, for example the question of duty drawback in South Korea, which will bring one-sided competitive advantages for certain sectors of industry in South Korea, particularly in sensitive areas such as the automotive industry. It was therefore right for us to have very intensive talks about a safeguard clause and also to have jointly implemented such a clause, which provides for the close monitoring of precisely these points, so that we can be certain that the possibilities provided by duty drawback in South Korea do not lead to a distortion of competition in Europe. Parliament has rightly established safeguards here.

Secondly, this agreement also has the purpose of improving the situation in South Korea for our colleagues there. South Korea still has improvements to make with regard to Chapter 13, in particular the question of the core labour standards laid down by the ILO. Two absolutely crucial core labour standards – No 87 and No 98, relating to collective bargaining – have not be implemented or ratified. Section 314 of the penal code relates to the obstruction of business. Neither of these things is in line with the nature and the provisions of this agreement. Thus, Commissioner, I am relying on you, and on the statement that you have given in support of the safeguard clause, to change this situation in South Korea so that this agreement will represent a blueprint for the future to enable globalisation to proceed in a fair manner.

  Michael Theurer, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are currently witnessing a historic situation, because the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea that we are debating and that we intend to adopt is the first Free Trade Agreement that has been debated under the new Lisbon system, which grants Parliament full power of codecision.

This makes an important area of policy – trade policy – more democratic. We, as Parliament, consider this to be important. The debate here in Parliament has also shown that, as regards safeguard clauses, we were able to include important concerns expressed to us by workers, companies and associations in an improved safeguard clause that is intended to protect the interests of industry and, above all, jobs in the future by creating a level playing field and fair conditions for competition and avoiding asymmetries. That is what we as the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have concentrated on.

As shadow rapporteur for our group, I am pleased that we were able to be successful in this regard. The duty drawback mechanism, which caused us concern to start with, has now been explicitly included in the safeguard clause and there is the option for industry, and also for Parliament, to call on the Commission to carry out an investigation. A monitoring process is planned, which is intended to be established in a transparent way via an online platform, and there is greater scope for the investigation of the factors that will decide whether significant damage has been done to European industry. Mechanisms for monitoring to be carried out by the Commission, particularly for sensitive sectors in the event of increased imports, are also provided for. We can start with this and focus on the advantages associated with the South Korea agreement, such as the considerable reduction in duties – the Commission expects enterprises in Europe to be able to save EUR 1.6 billion.

I would therefore like to thank Commissioner De Gucht, who has personally worked hard to enable us to reach a compromise, including with the Council. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, especially Mr Sturdy and Mr Zalba Bidegain, for their excellent work. We have achieved something really good here.

  Yannick Jadot, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, this is in fact the first major Free Trade Agreement that Europe has passed for some years, and when it comes to free trade agreements, it must be said that you do not lack ambition – South Korea, Canada, India, Mercosur. There is not a single country or area that escapes the European Commission’s ambitions where free trade agreements are concerned.

In the case of this agreement, we have seen that there will only be winners, but I still wonder who the winners will be when I am told that they will be in the agricultural sector. As the elected representative of Brittany, I can tell you that in in that region which produces more than 60% of French pigmeat, the few benefits to be had by the agri-food product firms do not compensate for reductions in tourism, degradation of the environment and the health of workers, and farmers’ losses.

There are, indeed, also a great number of losers, and do we, here, have a vision of what economic and social Europe will be like after all these free trade agreements have been signed? No we do not, and nor do we know, at the end of the day, whether there will be any industrial or economic sector left to benefit from these free trade agreements.

Moreover, and most importantly, Commissioner, try as you might to tell us that we are not questioning South Korea’s environmental and climate policy, that is not true. We are going to be able to export enormous saloon cars, those cars of which the manufacturers who make the least amount of effort to combat climate change are rewarded by this agreement.

For the first time, the European Union is questioning the climate policy of one of its trading partners. Has the European Commission started to change, under pressure from Canada, its directive on fuel quality?

We believe that we are putting Europe’s ambitions in the wrong order: the environment and the climate must come before trade. That is why our group will vote against this agreement.

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, with the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement signed in October 2010, which has been assigned the attribute by the Commission and the Council of being the most ambitious agreement of its kind ever to be negotiated between the EU and a highly industrialised state, the bilateral protection duties are to fall by around 98% in the next five years. The trade exchange between the EU and Korea is supposed to double in the medium term and that – so it is said – will speed up economic growth and the creation of jobs and prosperity. My group and I have justified doubts about this prediction.

Quite apart from the mantra of the role of free trade as a kind of saviour of the global economy that is currently in a precarious state, which is also reflected in the Free Trade Agreement itself, it is not clear from this agreement whether it will, or will able to, help us deal with the global challenges arising as a result of climate change and the necessary fundamental economic restructuring. What are the efficiency criteria and what are the free trade criteria? At the same time, Commissioner, the Free Trade Agreement that has been concluded hardly contains any references to sustainability for the future, oriented change or international economic cooperation. An agreement is being concluded in which the fundamental standards of the International Labour Organisation are still being contravened.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  Anna Rosbach, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (DA) Mr President, tomorrow we will vote on the Free Trade Agreement with Korea, and this has been a long time coming. Most of us will agree that this is a win-win situation. It will be particularly beneficial for Europe’s farmers and economic operators. However, we must not ignore the fact that the agreement does not only bring advantages for European companies and Korean farmers. Some sectors will benefit from the agreement, whereas others will inevitably lose out. Thus, in future, EU citizens will be able to buy cheaper technology products and cars from Korea. In return, Korea will get badly needed food from Europe as well as medicines and luxury goods. The agreement may also lead to better environmental and working conditions in Korea – that is something worth mentioning and to be pleased about. I hope that the agreement can enter into force quickly, especially as the EU wants a first-mover advantage over the United States, which is also in negotiations with Korea in respect of a similar agreement. Finally, I would like to thank all of the rapporteurs involved for their untiring and highly competent work.

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI) . – (NL) Mr President, tomorrow we will be voting on the free-trade agreement with South Korea. I must say that it looks good at first glance. The delegation of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is a strong supporter of free trade. Unfortunately, the European Union could not resist adding a safeguard clause to the trade agreement. This means that non-competitive companies will be protected when unable to hold their own when faced with competition from Korean products.

In other words, should the European consumer choose to buy Korean products, rather than European ones, for the simple reason that the former may be better quality or cheaper, then trade barriers will once again be erected. Look how the vicious European reflex towards protectionism and market intervention is rearing its head again.

Mr President, free trade that does not entail any disadvantage for European industry is, of course, an illusion. Therefore, trying to overcome this by including a safeguard clause and offering compensation to disadvantaged industries is a totally misguided solution.

This will allow industries that are competing poorly to carry on doing what they have always done, instead of adapting to the competition. Worse still, who will ultimately be footing this bill? Exactly: our citizens, unfortunately. As consumers, they will be forced to pay over the odds for their purchases and, on top of that, as taxpayers, they will even have to cough up the required compensation.

How am I supposed to explain to my constituents that they will soon have to foot the bill if, for example, Fiat loses some of its market share to Kia? These rules have no place in a free trade agreement. In practice, this is nothing other than subsidising inefficient companies on the backs of European citizens. Free trade? What a great idea, but please let us drop this safeguard clause.

  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, South Korea is indeed a very important market for products from European industry – that has been emphasised and cars have been highlighted – but also for farmers. I would emphasise that we need it to be a win-win situation. There is a new generation coming up, which is a good thing. The agreement with South Korea contains a chapter on sustainable development, which covers labour standards, environmental policy and a monitoring mechanism that is to involve civil society. That is also good.

The Free Trade Agreement is a step in the right direction, and I would like to thank everyone involved and emphasise that some excellent work has been done. Nevertheless, I would also call for clear rules for the production chain as a whole, particularly with regard to food. We should not only consider the end product, and it should not only be the agricultural industry that benefits; farmers should benefit, too.

In the interests of European consumers and our farmers, when trade flows are liberalised it absolutely must be ensured that agricultural products that are imported into the European Union meet our high standards in respect of environmental, animal and consumer protection, including at their point of origin and throughout the production chain.

I will support the position of the Committee on International Trade tomorrow, but where further liberalisation efforts are concerned I would call strongly for the food sector and farmers also to be taken into account.

  Vital Moreira, (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, in my capacity as Chair of the Committee on International Trade, I should like, first and foremost, to express my satisfaction that we are about to successfully conclude our first major test in exercising the codecision powers that the Treaty of Lisbon has granted us in the area of trade agreements. I feel that we exercised our powers with a great sense of responsibility, and I believe that it is only right that I should thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, and also express my gratitude for the spirit of cooperation on the part of the Commission and the Council, under the Belgian Presidency, during the negotiations on the safeguard regulation.

It should be noted that in the vote that took place in the Committee on International Trade, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of recommending approval of the trade agreement and adopting the regulation on the safeguard mechanism. This demonstrates that Parliament is capable of forming a broad-based political coalition for more openness in international trade, in line with one of the principles laid down in the trade agreement itself, in fact.

The trade agreement is, to my mind, mutually beneficial. With the mutual opening of both markets, each economy can profit from their competitive advantages. The trade agreement will not only remove tariff and non-tariff barriers, but will also encompass the opening up of the public procurement market, safeguard intellectual property rights, and protect employment rights and environmental standards.

Once the agreement has been ratified, which will be tomorrow, I hope, we must move resolutely to the next stage, which is its implementation.

  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, this agreement contains a clause that does not convince us and has never convinced us. I am talking about the refund of customs duties that Korea will receive for imports of products from China or other countries. We have already discussed this, but as a liberal democrat I consider this measure to be deeply flawed. It is a kind of export subsidy, and I would like it if, when voting on this agreement, we had an assurance that this clause will not set a precedent and will not be included in any other future agreements.

Tomorrow’s vote will conclude one leg of the journey we have undertaken together, but only one leg, because the relationship between Parliament and the Commission must continue, not least with regard to the actual implementation of the safeguard clause. For the sake of European industry and European workers, we cannot make any mistakes when implementing it, or else we will face great problems in future agreements.

This is the Year of the Rabbit in the Far East, so I hope European industry will run like a rabbit, taking advantage of what this agreement can offer it.

  Gerald Häfner (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I still remember very well how – as is happening now in Egypt and Tunisia – the people in Korea, particularly the young people, took to the streets and, in the face of police truncheons and weapon, fought for freedom, democracy and self-determination. What has happened since then is unbelievable. It is unbelievable how much has been achieved in Korea in respect of democracy, self-determination and freedom, but also with regard to the economy and now increasingly also the environment. This makes Korea a good example for many other Asian countries, and it is also a country our ever closer cooperation with which I very much welcome, along with our work to break down customs barriers and to establish fairer trade.

Nevertheless, we are rejecting this agreement today and there are a number of specific reasons for this, some of which have been mentioned by my colleague Mr Jadot. In addition to what has been said, I would also like to mention the regulation in the area of the financial sector, which we consider to be a step in the wrong direction. However, there are also fundamental reasons for this. We are concluding more and more free trade agreements, each one giving rise to another one. What we need is not a patchwork of more new individual agreements, but just and fair rules for world trade as a whole.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, a free trade agreement cannot only be about tariffs. It also has to be about intellectual property rights.

A business in my constituency, Avon Protection, is a world leader in the manufacture of gas masks. Avon believes that its patents have been infringed by a South Korean firm making what are quite simply copies. There is meant to be patent protection in South Korea, but will a Korean court really find in favour of a British company against a Korean business?

For free trade to work, there has to be a level playing field and, yes, a safeguard clause such as Pablo Zalba Bidegain’s is useful, but the other signatory must also ensure that the agreement is indeed a two-way street, otherwise the Free Trade Agreement which should benefit both parties simply becomes completely one-sided.

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is wrong to have turned the debate on the Free Trade Agreement with Korea into a stand-off between supposed neo-protectionists and die-hard free-traders. I also think it is wrong for the Commission to have acted more like a service economy development agency than the political government of 500 million Europeans, which should strike a balance between considerations relating to growth on the one hand, and to employment and distribution of wealth on the other.

What differentiates us from the United States, which has not yet ratified this agreement – and we know why – and this also applies to relations with Korea, is the very fact that no world economic power exposes its quality – and I stress the word ‘quality’ – manufacturing industry to inevitable dismantling processes, sacrificing it on the altar of financial interests, setting white-collar workers from the City of London against the white-coated workers of modern European factories, which is exactly what Europe does not need in the wake of the crisis.

All this, Mr Sturdy, Commissioner, has nothing whatsoever to do with neo-protectionism. Otherwise we would have to include in this category the Spanish, German, Polish, Portuguese, French and Italian Industry Ministers who, in the 10 February edition of Le Monde, reiterated the need to make Community interest central to the work of the European institutions, stating that in this case it definitely could not be protected by the safeguard clause, however worthy it may be.

An excellent academic exercise in the field of international trade relations has taken place, but we have failed to act in Europe’s interests. For that reason ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, this Free Trade Agreement is the first to have been examined since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force and that is why we MEPs believe that it really cannot come into force until we have obtained robust guarantees, guarantees that must, furthermore, act as a model for future trade agreements. It will therefore be up to us – to you and to us – to ensure the proper implementation of these mechanisms in order to protect the European economy in the event of distortions of competition.

However, that should not in any case exonerate us from strategic thinking in two areas. Firstly, in order to guarantee that competition is genuinely fair, it is essential for social, health and environmental standards to be taken into account in trade agreements. That is an essential requirement.

My second point is that Europe must finally provide itself with the instruments necessary to retain or recover production capacity, for example industrial or agricultural production capacity, and to retain – and this is absolutely vital for its future – its technological progress.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I only hope that what we are discussing right now does not end up being an additional and perhaps final death blow to our economies. We are already flooded with goods produced at low or very low cost, arriving mainly from east and south-east Asia. Many Italian companies, especially SMEs, have been brought to their knees due to unfair competition. This means that they cannot compete on the market, with tragic consequences as far as the economy and especially employment is concerned.

This agreement provides for various safeguard and protection clauses, but who can assure us that these rules will really be applied later on? There are still too many unknowns, and the possible benefit to be had by a few large producers cannot always rebound on the smallest producers alone. In my region, Tuscany, our textile industry – historically a driving force – is already in a serious condition due to Asian competition: I only hope that Europe itself does not deal the death blow to this sector, and probably many others besides, with this agreement.

We will not vote for this agreement.

  Peter Šťastný (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, since the start of negotiations in May 2007, the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea has had a long and difficult journey. Despite the clear benefits to both sides, some key sectors of European industry were exposed to serious risks. I also expressed my reservations on the floor of this Parliament, and I called for fair and balanced rules of the game.

The solution was the bilateral safeguard clause. I would like to thank Robert Sturdy and Pablo Zalba Bidegain for their leadership as rapporteurs, as well as everyone else involved. Thanks to their combined efforts, the economies of the EU and South Korea will be billions of euros better off. From July 2011, the real victors in this agreement will be the consumers and citizens of both sides.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everybody has said that the free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea is an institutional and strategic innovation on the part of the Union. On the contrary, it is an unbalanced agreement that will have a negative impact on the European manufacturing industry.

The elimination of duties on Korean products in return for a rise in environmental and social standards in Korea cannot be considered fair. The Korean shipbuilding industry benefits from substantial state aid, which has enabled it to attain a 30% share of the world market. This means that European industry, be it automotive, textile, chemical or any other, must defend itself against competition that if not unfair in form, is unfair in fact.

The introduction of the safeguard clause is an appropriate measure, but it is not sufficient to patch up the many weaknesses in the agreement. I therefore call on the European Commission to be more prudent if it really wishes to defend European economic interests.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, this is the pinnacle of a vision of trade that is geared solely towards competition instead of towards harmonisation and reciprocity; that is to say competition between countries, producers and workers.

Large economic groups and transnational companies are, as always, expected to see a profit worth millions of euros with this Free Trade Agreement. However, as always, the other side of the coin is missing: the sacrifice of millions of small producers and small and medium-sized enterprises, environmental sacrifices, the destruction of production capacity and jobs, and the onslaught on wages and workers’ rights.

This agreement will primarily affect countries like Portugal and the regions that are most dependent on the sectors concerned: textiles, automobiles related components, and electronics. It is significant that the rapporteur himself has already predicted the inevitable redundancies throughout Europe, but we also know that trade unions and rural organisations in the Republic of Korea are against this agreement.

It is therefore clear who the winners and who the losers will be when it is eventually concluded.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). - (NL) Mr President, this trade agreement with South Korea is ambitious and comprehensive. It will help remove major trade barriers and European companies will be able to benefit from that. Increased access to the South Korean market will improve European companies’ market position.

Given the fact that other major players, such as the United States, Chile and the EFTA countries, aspire to or have already entered into trade agreements with South Korea, this is a very important step. With this agreement, the European Union has shown that it is not cutting itself off from open and sustainable trade, at a time when some other nations are showing protectionist tendencies. Trade offers a way out of the economic crisis. However, free trade must not be allowed to lead to freebooting.

The steel and car industries are worried about this, and not entirely without reason. Therefore, when implementing the agreement, we must closely monitor whether all the conditions are being met and we must ensure that we are able to deploy bilateral safeguard clauses, quickly and effectively, if necessary.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I will try to be extremely brief.

First, regarding the question asked by the Earl of Dartmouth, in a case involving the infringement of intellectual property rights, including patents in third countries, it is appropriate that the operators concerned have recourse to the available enforcement means, including legal proceedings if necessary, as this is a case between two private firms.

In the specific case of Avon Protection, it would be appropriate for your constituent first to seek redress for the alleged infringement of the patent via the existing legal framework in Korea. Should the available enforcement in Korea not be fair or expeditious enough, then the Commission could look into the matter.

Regarding the remarks made by Mr Jadot, the initial draft of the Korean legislation would have forced EU car makers to reduce the CO2 emissions of their cars twice as much as Korean car makers. This was mainly because the proposed emission cuts were not proportional, but highly progressive, depending on the level of emissions of the respective cars. Consequently, despite being responsible for only a small share of car sales in Korea – 3% in 2009 – and therefore of total CO2 car emissions in Korea, EU car makers would have been asked to contribute disproportionately. Their average emissions reduction between 2009 and 2015 would have been 23%, compared with just 10% for their Korean counterparts, which account for 95% of total car sales in Korea. Such burden sharing would not have been fair, and that is why we discussed it with the Korean counterpart.

Finally, I would like to thank everybody involved in this legislative process – the Committee on International Trade (INTA), the Commission rapporteurs, the Chair of the INTA Committee, the Council and my own staff at the Commission – for what, I would say, is a very good example of what the ratification procedure should be under the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Robert Sturdy, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner also. The whole process has been excellent. Over the years I have worked on a number of codecision procedures and I have to say this has been one of the best. The debate among my shadow rapporteurs has been phenomenal. We have had extremely good input from virtually everybody.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Moreira, the Chair. Without his expertise, I do not think we would have got a satisfactory conclusion on the comitology issue – a particularly difficult sticking point towards the end of the negotiations. There have been a number of issues raised today. I would just like to say to Mr Jadot: I think your pig producers in Brittany may well benefit significantly hopefully, Yannick, because pig producers across Europe are having a bad time. I only pick on that because I am involved in agriculture.

As I said, the quality of the debate has been excellent. There always will be two views and Mr Susta is absolutely right: there is always a split between the protectionist and the free marketeer.

I would just say that we cannot stick our head in the sand and close the door and expect the world not to move on without us, because it will move on without us. We live in a global market, whether we like it or not. There are problems with that but it is a fact. I believe quite strongly that this offers huge opportunities for the European Union to move out of its problems with the financial crisis. We have set a standard for future agreements. However, they will not be as easy as this one. I am sure that we will move onto other far more difficult ones and we look forward to working with the Commission on that.

I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate tonight. It has been excellent and it shows how comprehensive this House can be.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at midday tomorrow (Thursday, 17 February 2011).

Written Statements (Rule 149)

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that the entry into force of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement would have a positive impact on the European Union’s economy. Firstly, it would help achieve customs duty savings estimated at EUR 1.6 billion a year. We would also see an increase in trade, especially in the services sector where the future growth in trade is estimated at 70%, and in the agricultural sector where, just at the moment, European Union exports to Korea have an annual value of EUR 1 billion.

At the same time, this is an ambitious and innovative agreement. It is the first in a new generation of free trade agreements which contain both a chapter on sustainable development and compliance with labour standards and a monitoring mechanism in which civil society will be involved. The fears about the difficulties which Korean competition could cause the Union’s more sensitive industries, such as the car industry, are dispelled by the inclusion of the Safeguard Clause in the agreement. This will be used to impose measures for monitoring imports and exports and evaluating the impact of the agreement on the various sectors.

15. Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

16. Question Time (Council)

  President. − The next item is Question Time (B7-0009/2011).

The following questions are addressed to the Council.

Question no 1 by Bernd Posselt (H-000010/11)

Subject: Rule of law in Serbia

How does the Council view the development of the rule of law in Serbia, particularly in the light of the questionable court case against alleged guerrillas belonging to the Albanian minority in the Preševo valley in southern Serbia?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) The opinion of the Council on the development of the rule of law in Serbia is presented in the Council conclusions of 14 December 2010. In these conclusions, the Council welcomes the fact that Serbia is continuing the implementation of its reform schedule and has shown further progress in implementing the provisions set out in the interim agreement signed with the European Union. In its conclusions, the Council also established that Serbia continues to achieve good results in the performance of its obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. However, the country needs to make further efforts, particularly in the following areas: the reform of public administration, the rule of law, including the reform of the justice system, the fight against corruption and organised crime, and the improvement of its business environment. The Council did not discuss the development of the rule of law in Serbia with regard to the specific procedure referred to by Mr Posselt.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Since I submitted the question, a group of Serbian citizens of Albanian nationality have been given the maximum sentences in a show trial by a special court where they stood accused of crimes in Kosovo. Should this not have been dealt with by the European Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) instead of Serbia? Could you please look into this and find out about the specific case that I have asked about?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) Thank you very much, Mr Posselt. Please note that the so-called accession criteria laid down in 1993 by the European Council in Copenhagen are decisive considerations with regard to the position of the Council on any enlargements and stabilisation and association agreements. These criteria also include respect for human and minority rights, and nothing can be more important to the Council during the negotiations than this principle. What I can tell you is that the Hungarian Presidency, representing the Council, will naturally acknowledge your request and the issue, is aware of the gravity of these events, and, as in all accession and association agreement procedures, is paying special attention to these matters in this case as well.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have another supplementary question for the Council with regard to the Mr Posselt’s question. My colleague has already asked whether the Council can envisage, in this specific case in particular, contacting the government and those responsible on the ground once again. Therefore, I would again like to ask the Presidency of the Council: Can the Presidency envisage, in this specific case, entering into contact with the people responsible on the ground?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) Mr President, of course, as you have mentioned the broader context and the spirit in which the Council approaches similar issues, what I can tell you is that Serbia’s accession is in progress, since it has submitted its accession application, and I believe that we have now entered into a new phase, as Serbia has replied to the questionnaire presented by the European Commission. These replies were submitted on 31 January. As in the case of all important matters pertaining to the accession procedure, both the European Commission and the Council will, of course, pay particular attention to such issues.

Question no 2 by Jim Higgins (H-000012/11)

Subject: SMEs and the Hungarian Presidency

One of the stated aims of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council is to improve the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Could the Council elaborate a little on this point and give practical details as to how it will improve things for SMEs which are struggling to survive?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital actors in the European economy. The improvement of the framework conditions for their operation represents one of the special priorities of the Hungarian Presidency. Over the next months the focus of the Presidency will be on the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the flagship initiatives for innovation and industrial policy laid down therein, as well as the full establishment of the internal market, since at present only 8% of European SMEs are engaged in cross-border activities.

Based on the report by former Commissioner Mario Monti, this accomplishment must include the elimination of all barriers that still impede the operation of the internal market. We can achieve this by implementing and enforcing all directives, especially the Services Directive – this matter has also been addressed by Parliament in this part-session – precisely and in due time by providing consumer-friendly solutions within the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), by facilitating compliance with taxation rules for enterprises conducting cross-border business activities, and by promoting the adoption of an SME-friendly EU patent – and Parliament took a very important decision on this subject on Tuesday, after the Monday debate. The prerequisite for all this is what I have been talking about so far, that we must inspire SMEs to undertake as many innovative investments as possible.

Additionally, the Hungarian Presidency will undertake the mid-term review of the European Small Business Act. This Act should be a veritable Magna Carta for SMEs. Furthermore, the Presidency intends to promote a comprehensive approach with regard to the new, integrated industrial policy, in the framework of which we endeavour to eliminate all informational, financial and technical support barriers that prevent SMEs from becoming the true backbone of the green economy.

In addition, we intend to reduce administrative burdens and the risk of state operation through a better and more intelligent regulatory framework, as well as institutional changes. We are convinced that it is vital to strengthen the innovative capacity of SMEs, and this requires a new approach to innovation, one that does not focus on the promotion of technological innovation. I would like to remind you that the European Council also took very important decisions with regard to innovation on 4 February.

Concerning the key issue of how SMEs can obtain financing, it can be said that we are committed to supporting healthy SMEs in obtaining credits and loans through guarantees, innovative financial instruments and banks offering favourable terms.

Lastly, I would like to add that the Hungarian Presidency will submit proposals to the Council with regard to the mid-term evaluation of high-budget, multi-year EU expenditure programmes in the field of research and development, which will also include important aid instruments targeted at SMEs, such as the Risk Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF).

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I want to congratulate the Presidency for being where it is tonight, and I welcome what the Minister has said.

One of the biggest problems of small industry is too much bureaucracy – or red tape as we say in English. President Barroso promised in 2004 that he would do something significant to deal with this difficulty, but it has not happened yet. Having heard what has been said by the President-in-Office from Hungary, may I say that I am extremely optimistic.

It is extremely important that we do everything to deal with this problem, because it causes great difficulty for people who are going into this kind of industry.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). - (LT) Mr President, back in 2008, the Council approved the allocation of a EUR 15 billion package from the European Investment Bank, which was supposed to be the main instrument for saving small and medium-sized enterprises during the crisis. The report published shows that there was a low uptake of funds and these were allotted mainly to big business, while small business did not receive the required funding. How does the Hungarian Presidency plan to ensure that instruments already adopted to support small and medium-sized enterprises are used and implemented fairly?

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - I just wonder whether my colleagues would agree with me how disappointing it is that there has not been much support for a written declaration which is being sponsored by my colleague from the West Midlands, Malcolm Harbour, who is the Chairman of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

Today he sent out an email saying that only 184 of the 736 colleagues have signed this. Does this show that, when it comes to small businesses throughout the European Union, cooperation is not possible and in effect it is up to the Member States to take care of their own small businesses?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − First let me answer Mr Higgins’ question concerning the regulatory environment. This is really very important for the existence and working conditions of SMEs.

Applying the ‘Think Small First’ principle when preparing laws and policies is a cornerstone of the new framework we are trying to establish. This is important at all levels, not only at EU level, but − and I think you share my view − also at national, regional and municipality level.

The Commission has revised its state aid rules to encourage Member States to direct more support for SMEs to key areas such as training, R&D and environmental protection and to overcome the current focus on large businesses.

The agreement by Member States to allow for the application of reduced VAT rates for locally supplied services, including labour-intensive services such as hairdressing, catering and repair services, will further stimulate economic activity and create jobs, and the Commission warmly welcomes this decision.

In the area of better regulation, the Commission has tabled important legislative initiatives already. It has adopted a proposal for revisiting the VAT directive to remove barriers to electronic invoicing, with cost-saving potential amounting to billions of euros in the medium term.

The Commission also came forward in February with a proposal to allow Member States to adopt less burdensome accounting requirements for micro-businesses, thus fulfilling its commitment in the action plan for small businesses. It has the capacity to reduce the burden by up to EUR 6 billion. The Commission encourages Member States to reach an agreement as soon as possible to allow Member States who wish to take advantage of this opportunity to do so, so we in the Council definitely have to move along those lines.

The Commission will also carefully assess the likely burden of any new legislative proposals, not only for SMEs. We have quite a number of good proposals on the table, and in the Competitiveness Council we are following this item and trying to address as many of these issues as quickly as possible.

Turning to the second question, on improving access to finance, even in my introductory remark I tried to make a reference to that. To loosen the supply of much-needed credit, the EIB lent EUR 1 billion to SMEs in 2008, an increase of 60% compared to 2007.

The aim is to lend more money on these issues later on. I remember very well that, when I was still an MEP, I was responsible for an opinion on the EIB. In my opinion for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I made an evaluation. I have to tell you that the EIB reacted very quickly to the changed circumstances and reorganised its priorities. So we welcomed those moves by the EIB.

I agree with you that sometimes money does not get to the intended recipients, and there should be better organisation. My view on that is that we really have to pay attention to the counterparts of the EIB in the Member States, because in most cases they are the partners. We should not always blame the EIB for the implementation, which is not directly done by the EIB.

So I agree, on the second question, that it is extremely important that Community money and EIB loans get to the intended recipients, that is, the small and medium-sized enterprises.

I believe the Council cannot give opinions on written declarations, so if you do not mind, Mr President, I will not comment.

Question no 3 by Georgios Papanikolaou (H-000014/11)

Subject: Initiatives on the management of water and drinking water

In its publicity material setting out its priorities, the Hungarian Presidency has expressed the desire to give special attention to issues of water and drinking water management, as well as extreme events related to water resources.

Since the programme does not specify which policies it will follow in this connection, would the Presidency inform the EP precisely which steps it intends to take in this area? Does it consider that over the next few years a specific problem will arise as regards the management and security of supply of water resources and drinking water in European Member States?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) I would like to answer the question of Mr Georgios Papanikolaou concerning water resources. This subject is of special significance to the presidency trio, of Spain, Belgium and Hungary. It was an important aspect of the common programme we developed more than two years ago, and each country added to it during its six-month presidency in order to contribute to the common programme being realised with regard to an integrated approach to water policy. We are therefore continuing the work started by Spain and Belgium, and would like to add our own contribution by submitting conclusions concerning water policy at the Council meeting in June 2011.

These conclusions will cover three main topics. The first is the integrated management of extreme water events, such as floods, water shortage, excess surface water and irregular distribution of rainfall. The second topic is the role of ecological services provided by water. This is a very exciting subject which I believe we do not talk about enough these days. We take it for granted that we have water and we are using the so-called ecological services provided to us by wetlands habitats, yet we should show much appreciation for these. The third topic will be the intensification of cooperation in the field of water management, both at international level and among EU Member States.

The Council conclusions intend to contribute to the European Commission’s communication on the concept of European waters, which is foreseen to be adopted in 2012, and which will highlight the importance of the sustainable management of the water resources of EU Member States and of maintaining the security of water resources and water supply.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, there will also be conferences and events on the subject of water during the term of the Hungarian Presidency, such as the conference on the future of European freshwater resources, which will be held between 23 and 25 March in Budapest, in conjunction with the informal meeting of ministers for the environment. Please allow me one final comment. It is a priority objective for the Hungarian Presidency to ensure the creation of a Danube strategy for the EU and, in this context as well, water, the protection of our drinking water base and an integrated water policy will naturally have special significance.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, Minister, thank you very much for your reply. I would add that, in 2007, the Commission noted in its communication entitled ‘Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union’ that it considered that the European Union could provide funds to help create additional water supply infrastructures.

I also recall that numerous remote areas of Europe, especially small archipelagos in the South such as the Aegean Islands, face serious water supply and drinking water problems and that methods such as desalination are extremely costly.

The question is therefore clear: do you intend and are you favourably disposed towards the idea of promoting a debate on direct Community support for water supply schemes in remote areas?

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Given that on 3 February Hungary and Romania were appointed Priority Area Coordinators for environmental protection in the Danube region, specifically for restoring and maintaining water quality, I would like to ask you when these coordinators are going to implement this priority action, because this will enable us to guarantee the quality of drinking water. Thanks to the projects given as examples, we have investments not only for building wastewater treatment plants but also for developing methods and tools for protecting drinking water sources. It is therefore important for us to discuss the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) My question also relates to the Strategy for the Danube Region. We, of course, want to dramatically improve the quality of the water in the Danube. Do all Member States plan to draw up an action plan in this regard that will gradually also take into account the sewerage works coming from the tributaries, so that we will also have cleaner tributaries and there will be an improvement in water quality in the Danube right down to the estuary? Do all the Member States concerned intend to draw up action plans?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) Thank you very much for the questions, and the questions, too, indicate that this is a very important subject for the European Union, and I believe that we do not spend anywhere near as much time discussing these issues as they deserve. By the very act of submitting conclusions and directing attention to, for example, the water problems caused by extreme weather conditions, the Hungarian Presidency intends to pave the way for the European Commission to be able to submit the best possible proposals in this 2012 ‘water blueprint’ to the then presidency and to the Council.

Mr Papanikolaou mentioned the problems of the islands in the Aegean Sea. I believe that this is very important to the people living there, and it is just as important in Southern Italy or Barcelona – we may all remember that there was such a shortage of drinking water in Barcelona that fresh water needed to be transported there by tankers –, and therefore, these all demonstrate that it is vital for us to address these issues.

By formulating Council conclusions we provide inspiration to the Commission, and I trust that when, for example, the debate about the multiannual financial framework begins, we will need to formulate them in such a way as to enable us to direct funds in the best way possible to the common problems of the European Union.

Mrs Ticau and Mr Rubiks both asked their questions about the Danube strategy. If you will allow me, I would like to answer them together. It was to our great satisfaction that Commissioner Hahn presented the action plans in early February in Hungary. There are 13 action plans, and as regards the questions you raised here concerning both the drinking water base and sewage treatment, there are so-called action plans for the issues of all kinds of floods and droughts, and each of these is led by two countries. I believe that this is a very good way to also strengthen regional cooperation along the Danube strategy. What is more, the participants include eight EU Member States and six third countries, and it is very inspiring that we have such a comprehensive strategy that allows us to take concrete steps in all these matters. True, there are no new funds allocated to this purpose, but I am convinced that, within this framework, existing projects can be reorganised, and through the reinforcement of cross-border cooperation we will be able to achieve a far more effective outcome than if all countries were making attempts on their own. It is impossible to engage in individual measures over a river that connects us all.

We may, of course, still have excellent plans, if we do not implement these, and I therefore very much hope that we can discuss these in Council configurations now, while still in the term of the Hungarian Presidency. We did give the process the initial push at the General Affairs Council on 31 June and are intently monitoring how the work is coming along. The work is progressing quite well, also at working group level, and towards the end of the Hungarian Presidency we will be able to adopt the strategy at the General Affairs Council; the European Council will be able to assure us of its support in this regard, and then it will be up to us to implement it as fully as possible, from sewage treatment to the preservation of our drinking water base.

Question no 4 by Vilija Blinkeviciute (H-000016/11)

Subject: Participation by disabled persons and their representative organisations in decision-making affecting disabled persons

The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, published by the Commission, will affect the lives of 80 million disabled people in the EU. The Commission has identified eight key areas: accessibility, participation, equality, work and training, social protection, health and external action. The EU institutions and Member States are to implement this strategy together. In accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Member States which adopt decisions affecting disabled persons are required to closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, through their representative organisations. Unfortunately, there is no provision for such consultation in the new disability strategy.

Has the Council taken any specific measures to ensure that the principle of 'no action on disability without the disabled' enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is observed? Furthermore, how does the Council view the proposal to establish a disability committee, answerable to the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) and chaired by the country holding the Presidency of the European Union? Does the Council agree that this would make for closer involvement by the Commission and Member States in the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) Mr President, I too am very happy that we could still find time for this question. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an appropriate and effective means of promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities in the European Union, and is accorded great significance by both the Community and its Member States. The Council would like to remind the honourable Member that it has already affirmed on multiple occasions that, if we intend to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and wish to ensure their equal participation in society, it is important for us to involve them in forming the decisions and policies that apply to them.

In its resolutions adopted in 2008 and 2010, the Council consistently urged that persons with disabilities and their organisations be involved in policy-making. We recall that the Council also adopted a directive which stipulates the prohibition of discrimination based on disability in employment and at work. The aforementioned directive also provides for membership and participation in employees’ and employers’ organisations, meaning that it is a specific measure adopted by the Council with a view to ensuring that persons with disabilities are actually able to participate in decision making.

The Commission also has a new disability strategy. To our great satisfaction, it was published in the autumn, and focuses primarily on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Hungarian Presidency intends to submit draft conclusions to the Council in connection with this strategy, with a view to adopting it in the final stage of the Hungarian Presidency in June. As regards the creation of a separate disability committee, to this date the Council has not received any proposals to be examined in this respect. In this context we recall that the Council can only act in its legislative capacity upon proposals submitted by the Commission, however, we of course always keep an eye on Parliament, but this is how legislation works in the EU.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - (LT) Mr President, in January of this year at a meeting in the European Parliament initiated by the European Disability Forum, the Vice-President of the European Commission Viviane Reding stated that some European Union Member States do not support the Council Directive on equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Therefore the anti-discrimination Directive is one of the most important issues in the field of human rights, especially in terms of guaranteeing the rights of the disabled. Does Hungary, the country currently holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, plan to take any specific actions as regards adopting and reviewing this directive, and what specific measures will you take to clear the way for this directive?

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – (HU) Minister, thank you very much for your answer. I would like to encourage the Council to pay attention to the importance of the involvement of people with disabilities. This issue also has a bearing on the work of Parliament, as regards the ability of the Members to become involved in this process, since it is we who represent the people, so to speak. I would like to congratulate the Presidency on addressing the issue of disabilities at a high level until the end of the trio. My question is whether subsequent presidencies also intend to address this, the matter of disabilities, at the same level.

  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − (HU) Thank you very much for the supplementary questions. As regards the first question by Mrs Blinkevičiūtė, which concerns the developments related to the anti-discrimination directive, well, I could tell you things like ‘now we will solve it,’ because, for what it is worth, I could say that, but I will not say such things. We all know how painfully slow the progress of this draft legislation has been over the past three years. We, too, are planning to make progress, of course. In order to be able to do so and retain our credibility, we are trying to focus on the very part of this directive that concerns disabilities. We are therefore planning to discuss the disability aspects in two rounds and hope that we can convince the Member States to make progress at least in this respect. As such, we are not aiming in every direction, but instead wish to focus our attention on this issue.

I have to say that this is very difficult. Member States often refer to financial issues and financial difficulties. The former government of my home country was also forced to request an extension in order to be able to implement EU and domestic policies, for example in the field of removing barriers, and in times of crisis and austerity all this is difficult for the Member States. However, I believe, especially considering that we committed ourselves to making this a human-centred presidency, that we indeed have to make progress in this very important issue – because as Mr Kósa is always saying, this does not only concern persons with disabilities, but many others, from young mothers to the elderly, many more than those we call people with disabilities – that is to say, it is very much the responsibility of the Council to achieve progress in this matter.

Mr Kósa asked how we can better involve Parliament, or how can we work together. I believe that Mr Kósa, as the President of the Disability Intergroup, is doing an excellent job and maintains very good relations, not only with the Council and the Presidency-in-Office, but also with the Commission. As we can see in several issues, if Parliament is playing a guiding role – and I am convinced that Parliament is playing a guiding role in disability matters – then the Commission and the Council can do nothing but follow its guidance. These can therefore indeed be incorporated into Commission proposals, which are then submitted to the Council. Thinking of the Roma strategy, the report by Mrs Lívia Járóka, which was adopted this Monday in the LIBE committee, has a good chance of being incorporated into the Commission’s proposal, and be then submitted to the Council. I would therefore recommend this route, and I would welcome it if this excellent cooperation could continue.

We will send answers in written form to the questions we had no time to answer.

  President. − That is right, but I am going to allow Mr Chountis a supplementary on this question.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, I do not want the question I tabled to be debated. I appreciate the effort you are making and I do not want to upset the order.

I just have one comment, which does not concern or affect the President specifically and I shall be brief. I just want to say that, because we have a problem with the question of parliamentary control, as you know full well, there have been three occasions in plenary when we did not have questions to the Council and the procedures ultimately reduce the time available. Please could you therefore discuss with the Bureau how this time can be ring fenced.

Thank you very much for the effort you have made. I do not wish to run over time, nor do I wish my question to be debated and I thank the Minister who was ready and waiting.

  President. − Mr Chountis, I am aware of your complaint, which I completely support.

However, it is not the Bureau that makes the decisions about the timing of debates, the content of debates or speaking time – it is the Conference of Presidents, bizarrely, which always tries to put too much on the agenda. It is the Bureau Members, including myself, who have to deal with the problems this creates and clean up the mess.

I apologise to everyone who was not called. As Mrs Győri quite rightly says, any questions she has not had time to answer tonight – and those which she has answered she has answered very ably – will be answered in writing.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

17. Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes

18. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 20.55)