Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 6 June 2011 - Strasbourg

1. Resumption of the session

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 17:00)

  President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 12 May 2011.

2. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

3. Welcome

  President. – I would like to welcome the President of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, who is on an official visit to the European Parliament. I met with the President a short time ago. We discussed our bilateral relations and the reforms that need to be carried out in Tajikistan.

4. Announcements by the President

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, on 4 June, we commemorated the 22nd anniversary of two important events. On this day in 1989, the authorities of the People’s Republic dealt with the protesters in Tiananmen Square in such a way that the protests ended in bloodshed. We all remember this.

Also on the same day, 22 years ago, the first partly-free parliamentary elections took place in Central and Eastern Europe, in Poland, where candidates of the democratic opposition won, taking almost all the seats which were open to a free vote. Of these seats open to a free vote, the representatives of the democratic opposition won every seat bar one in the Senate. They won all the remaining seats in the Sejm as well as the Senate.

These two anniversaries remind us how much has changed in Europe and how we Europeans were able to push through changes in Central and Eastern Europe with minimal losses, which culminated in the reunification of Eastern and Western Europe.

°
° ° °

Ladies and gentlemen, I will now give you some very important information. During the part-session which has just been opened, there will be a fire drill, with no prior warning. A similar drill will take place during the June mini-session in Brussels. You have been informed of the details via e-mail. You have all received an e-mail explaining what you should do when the alarm sounds. We do not know at what time the alarm will sound, but we should familiarise ourselves with the instructions and act on them when the alarm is sounded. In a few minutes, I will send you all another e-mail reminder and detailed instructions on what you should do when the alarm sounds and what it consists of. All this information will be found in the e-mail.

°
° ° °

I would also like to inform you that Mrs Koch-Mehrin has informed me of her resignation from the position of Vice-President of the European Parliament with effect from 11 May 2011. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of Procedure, I declare this position vacant.

5. Verification of credentials: see Minutes

6. Composition of political groups: see Minutes

7. Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure: see Minutes

8. Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

9. Documents received: see Minutes

10. Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

11. Action taken on Parliament’s positions and resolutions: see Minutes

12. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

13. Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

14. Order of business

  President. – The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 1 June 2011, pursuant to Rules 137 and 138 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:

[Monday]:

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has submitted a motion for a debate on the selection process of a new Managing Director for the IMF and external representation of the euro, directly after Jo Leinen’s report on European environmental economic accounts. The motion will be presented on behalf of the ALDE Group by Sylvie Goulard. You have the floor.

  Sylvie Goulard, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, as a matter of courtesy, I would ask that Commissioner Rehn be allowed to sit in on the debate on European environmental economic accounts and then on the debate on the IMF. They are not political debates. I therefore hope that all the other groups will agree to this as a favour to our Commissioner, who, I might add, is working very hard at the moment.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, I consider that the request can be granted because I do not see any reason to refuse it.

  President. – The debate on the selection process of a new Managing Director for the International Monetary Fund and external representation of the euro area will take place directly after Mr Leinen’s report on European environmental economic accounts. This is a slight change to the agenda.

(The order of business was adopted)

15. Commemoration of deportations in 1941 in the Baltic States

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, this month sees the 70th anniversary of mass deportations carried out by the Soviet authorities from the Baltic States, which they had occupied since 1940. These deportations were chiefly designed to deprive Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania of their social and political elite. Scientists and representatives of political circles were eliminated, and people who were famous for being free thinkers were eliminated too. Today, it is our common duty to cherish the memory of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Soviet terror in the Baltic States, and to condemn in the strongest terms the totalitarian system and the crimes against humanity committed by its leaders. The suffering of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian nations gave them the determination and strength to fight for independence and to return to a united Europe half a century later.

I also wanted to remind you that 22 June, in two weeks’ time, will be the 70th anniversary of the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitler’s Germany. This attack marked the severance of their previous alliance and the secret Hitler-Stalin pact of August 1939, which divided up Europe. We thus have a series of anniversaries which are important for us to remember, and for Europe to remember, but I believe that the presence of our fellow Members from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia proves that Europeans are able to conquer adversity and overcome huge tension, which is why we are very pleased to see our fellow Members here with us, particularly today.

  Tunne Kelam, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, thank you for your kind words of solidarity.

Seventy years ago, about 50 000 Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian nationals were brutally deported from their homes in the Soviet-occupied Baltic States. If we compare that figure of 50 000 out of the then 5.5 million population of the three Baltic States to that of the UK or France, the 50 000 Baltic deportees would have meant proportionately 432 000 citizens deported from the UK or 363 000 persons deported from France. Happily, this did not happen in these countries.

Already in May 1941, as the President has said, the Soviet leadership had decided to cleanse Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia of anti-Soviet elements in political and economic elites. The deportees were transported in cattle wagons to Soviet Siberia and the far north to face hunger, cold and forced labour. Men were separated from their families and brought to prison camps where many of them died or were executed. In many places, almost 50% of the deportees died.

The 1941 deportations delivered a devastating blow to democratic civil society. This indiscriminate violence caused deep psychological traumas for the victims, resulting in long-lasting fears, suppressed emotions, self-censorship and passiveness. This led to the feeling that justice could never prevail. To quote Sakharov Prize winner, Sergei Kovalev, there is no doubt that in modern terminology, these acts were crimes against humanity. Therefore, the remembrance, 70 years later, of the Baltic deportations is an opportunity for a deepened understanding that your past is our past and vice versa. The full knowledge of the 1941 crimes against humanity should become an integral part of our common European history.

Dear colleagues, I would like to thank you all for your attention and solidarity, which the nations of the Baltic countries have been looking forward to for so many years.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Kelam, Members from the Baltic States, ladies and gentlemen, today we are, in particular, commemorating the expulsions and mass deportations from the Baltic States. These expulsions are among the darkest events of European history. The last century has been described, not without justification, as the century of expulsions. We are showing respect today for all of the victims of these inhumane acts.

In this regard, we are demanding a full investigation of Soviet history and, in particular, the atrocities of Stalinism. The Russia of today should not see this as a political attack, but as an offer of support in engaging with its own history, which, just like the history of the other countries in Europe, is characterised by positive as well as negative times.

However, just as we remember the victims from the Baltic States, we also think of the Armenians, who were expelled from Turkey at the start of the last century. We remember the so-called population exchange between Turkey and Greece. Deportations in Europe reached a peak, in particular, in the middle of the century as a result of the Nazi regime and the Communist regime of the Soviet Union. The expulsions following the Second World War also left deep wounds, as did the expulsions during the war in the former Yugoslavia.

However, we must not forget that many cases of colonial rule were also characterised by expulsions. We must call for a serious debate on the various forms of expulsions and the supposed reasons for them. This should also include an investigation of guilt and punishment of the guilty, as far as this is still possible in any case, as is now happening in the case of Mladič, for example. The decisive answer to this, however, is European unification, particularly with the independent Baltic States, and a clear commitment to continuing the European unification process, which is not yet complete. This historic task is something that we owe not only to ourselves, but also, and in particular, to the victims of the many expulsions that have occurred in Europe. Many politicians from all of the countries of Europe, from East and West, have worked to bring this about. One example is the Gdańsk Declaration, signed by President Kwaśniewski of Poland and President Rau of Germany.

Since we want to learn from the past, we need to be vigilant and also watch out for the first signs of expulsions taking place, as in the case of the Roma, for example. We need to reject any statements like those that maintain that we must send Arab immigrants back across the Mediterranean in their boats, and we must defend ourselves against those who want to put an end to our achievement of a Europe without borders and return once again to narrow-minded nationalism.

Let us express our deepest respect for all of the victims of expulsions and deportations, but let us be united in committing ourselves to continuing European unification as the only real guarantee against a policy that brought so much misery to the people of Europe and beyond during the last century. We must never forget.

It must never happen again. These were calls that were made immediately after the Second World War. They are still just as valid today and the best response to them is a united Europe.

(Applause)

  Leonidas Donskis, on behalf on the ALDE Group. – (LT) Mr President, the deportations of residents of the Baltic countries in 1941 was one of the most dramatic and tragic events of the 20th century. This blow to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, their political communities, and civilised life in general, isolated these nations and countries for five decades. It was equally a major blow to European solidarity and European togetherness. This isolation only ended in 1991 when it finally became possible to talk about the watershed in the history of the Baltic nations. However, it was 2004 – the year of the Baltic countries’ accession to the European Union – that really marked the end of the division of Europe. The deliberate deportation of innocent civilians, usually the most educated and advanced, was an inseparable part of social engineering of the Stalin era and the struggle against individuals and nations, their memory and dignity. Despite this, we can end on an optimistic note. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that, today, we can mention the 70th anniversary of the deportation of innocent people in the Baltic countries, and that we recognise this, gives Europe back its dignity, solidarity and our collective political memory.

  Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (LV) Mr President, although the deportations in the Baltic states on 14 June 1941 and the second wave of deportations in March 1949 led to the subjugation of thousands of innocent people to many years of humiliation in Siberia and in death camps, Europe and world public opinion have not yet, to this day, recognised this fact. More than 65 years have passed since the Second World War. The evil crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by Hitler’s totalitarian regime were long ago identified and prosecuted. However, the Stalinist regime’s genocide in occupied Eastern European countries, as well as in Russia itself, are still, in some modern political circles, considered to be a theme best not discussed, and even the European Union has not completely evaluated this issue. The crimes of the Communist regime have left a lasting negative effect on the psychology of the people of the Baltic States. The Communist system, to borrow the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, was based on lies and terror, and was a crippled system that was unacceptable to human nature. It destroyed people’s moral values, traditions, solidarity, and self-confidence. Why do my compatriots still need to listen to Moscow’s story that there really was no occupation of the Baltic countries, that the Baltic countries were not occupied as a result of the Hitler (Molotov-Ribbentrop) pact, and that it was the socialist choice of the Baltic countries in the summer of 1940? Why do I, and why do my compatriots, still need to listen to the story of ‘liberation’ from these deportees, who were the most educated, and the best people in the Baltic States? Therefore, I call on the European Commission to provide all possible support to proper research into the Communist regime’s crimes, which has been called for by the Ministers of Justice of several Member States, including all the Baltic States, and finish this uncompleted task of evaluating the crimes of all totalitarian regimes. Thank you.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, Hitler and Stalin laid down their spheres of interest in Central Europe, and the consequences, for the Baltic States, in particular, were devastating. Just as they did in Belarus, the Soviets soon planned the deportation of the leading sections of society in the Baltic States, and the first mass deportations took place during the night of 13 to 14 June. Without prior warning and without charge, people were taken from their homes.

In 2002, the Estonian Parliament declared the deportations to be a crime against humanity. In Estonia, 14 June is a national day of commemoration. The day is one of remembrance and mourning, but it is also a sign of appreciation of the current democratic and independent Estonia. In Europe and around the world, 14 June draws attention to the often forgotten suffering of small states and peoples, particularly in the former Soviet Union.

  President. – The debate is closed.

16. European environmental economic accounts (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European environmental economic accounts [COM(2010)0132 – C7-0092/2010 – 2010/0073(COD)] (A7-0330/2010).

  Jo Leinen, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating, and tomorrow we will adopt, European legislation that, on first impression, seems rather unremarkable, but with this law on European environmental economic accounts, we are probably opening a new chapter in the measurement of progress and prosperity.

We have known for a long time that gross national product is inadequate. The purely quantitative view of economic activity says nothing about the environmental balance sheet, nor about the social balance sheet, and therefore it is high time that we measured whether, year on year, we are doing well or badly in terms of our measures and efforts.

We have monthly statistics relating to our labour market figures and we have annual statistics relating to our economic figures. We therefore know exactly what is happening in these areas. However, we have an incomplete patchwork of data on the environmental impact. This law on environmental economic accounts is intended to help us to draw up an accurate balance sheet in the 27 Member States and to establish whether we are making progress or, as is often the case, whether we are going backwards.

As long ago as 2002, Parliament called for reliable information to be collected on the state of the environment and the most important trends in, influences on, and causes of, environmental change, and for the public to be informed of these things. We want a scientifically sound concept for measuring the consumption of resources to enable appropriate political decisions to be taken.

We are pleased that the Commission took this legislative initiative in April 2010, but in our opinion, it was much too tentative in the way it went about it. We in Parliament and all of the groups have called for this to be done much more quickly, because the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations have already been discussing these matters for 15 years. This is taking far too long. We have therefore made considerable progress in the negotiations with the Council.

It was a very difficult situation in the Council, because some Member States do not produce an environmental balance sheet and we first need to create a foundation in all 27 Member States. The Commission proposed the inclusion of three modules. These modules are air emissions – in this regard, we are very well aware of which gases are emitted into the air. Then there is the financial expenditure arising from environmental taxes and environmental charges. Thirdly, there are the year-on-year national material flows, the input and output, measured in purely quantitative terms. This is a start, perhaps, but it is too simple a start, and Parliament has called for us also to produce water, energy and waste balance sheets and to find out about the status of our forests. These are the modules that we urgently want to see in the very near future.

There was disagreement about whether statistics can also be produced for the marine environment, in other words, statistics on the status of fish stocks. In this regard, our methodology is probably still in need of improvement. Thus, we have achieved improvements in this area. In two years’ time – by 2013 at the latest – the Commission is to present a report and, where possible, also propose a revision of this directive. I hope that, at the end of this decade, we will have a green national product in addition to the gross national product. That is our goal.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, said, the purpose of the Commission proposal is indeed to establish a common legal framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts in order to facilitate more balanced decision making with the goal of sustainable development.

With the presentation of this proposal, the Commission has delivered its first item on the ‘Beyond GDP’ road map. At a time when we are striving, in Europe, to achieve a resource-efficient and sustainable economy, this data will allow us to link environmental factors to economic ones and thus offers the possibility of more comprehensive and better-informed policy making.

Following very fruitful cooperation between the three institutions, I believe we have reached our common objective, namely, the establishment of this framework regulation on European environmental economic accounts with its first set of three modules, which cover air emissions accounts, environmentally-related taxes or levies and material flow accounts.

Currently, this data is collected on a voluntary basis by the majority of Member States. For the most part, therefore, the collection of the relevant data will not impose any additional burden on respondents, as the Member States concerned should be able to compile the data by using existing data sources. With this regulation, we have established an important basis for statistical information about the interplay between the economy and the environment, which we hope to expand with further modules in the future as included in the report and the draft resolution.

As the various other possible modules are at different stages of methodological maturity, including, for instance, timber and fish as well as unused extraction, a modular structure has been adopted for the regulation with a view to possibly introducing new modules as annexes to the core text in the future.

As agreed, the Commission will report to Parliament and the Council every three years on the development of new modules and, if appropriate, the Commission may also put forward new legislative proposals for the new modules.

Let me conclude by thanking the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, the shadow rapporteur, Mr Martin, and all the members of the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their constructive approach and their very valuable contributions.

  Hans-Peter Martin, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, when Mr Leinen and I come back to political positions of the last millennium, we are mostly in agreement, and that is also the case with this report. This is something good, sensible and important. After all, statistics can be sexy, particularly at a time when the European Union has a huge credibility problem where European citizens are concerned. I would say that that is largely unjustified if we look at the major issues and not at the other matters on which Mr Leinen and I are divided.

I think it is very good to be able to stand here, not only as a non-attached Member, but as someone who, with this opinion on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – it was not a shadow report, but a supplementary opinion that is even more comprehensive than that of the lead committee, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – is able to represent these positions that we have set out with a vote of 37 to 0. In specific terms, this means that we want – as I put it – to move towards a system of European sustainability statistics, nicely abbreviated to ESS. That would give us something to work with, particularly where young people are concerned and those who know that we will need new agreements on common goals in the future in order to be able to bring Europe out of the shadows and to the forefront in this brutal competition with the United States, China and many other powers.

This clearly also means – as Mr Leinen has already mentioned – that we urgently need more modules. In this regard, we can look back to the 1970s and 1980s, when all of this had already been worked out. It would be very nice if the Commission could make swifter progress in this regard. I think it is very good that there has been movement in Eurostat with regard to the collection of data, even if it is under difficult circumstances in relation to Greece. With a vote of 37 to 0 to 0, we are of the opinion that the Commission clearly needs more money in this area for an ESS, for this system of European sustainability statistics. However, we can achieve that by reallocating funds: use the enlargement dividends at last. Take the officials who were so busy with the enlargement phase for the large states and put them where we so urgently need them, where they can help with the functioning of a European project.

  Horst Schnellhardt, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when I read the first proposal from the Commission, I was very sceptical about the way it dealt with this matter. However, what the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and my predecessor, Mrs Joly, have now presented is something that we are able to accept and also support.

In most countries, environmental economic data – whether or not they relate to these three modules – are already collected on a voluntary basis. We need a clear overview of the results that are achieved in the individual Member States with regard to air emissions, environmental taxes and material flows. That is very important. It can give us a better understanding of the relationship between the environment and the economy. We can also examine how sustainable economic development in Europe is progressing and how we can refine our environmental policy. That is a very important point that we should include here.

I would like to issue a word of warning, however: in our soapbox speeches, we are always talking about reducing bureaucracy. I would like to appeal to the Commission not to create additional bureaucracy in this area. That would be the wrong approach. I would therefore like to ask the Commission whether it is planning to create new positions within the Commission for the collection of the data, or whether it will manage with its existing staff, because I think it is very important that the collection of this data does not result in new burdens. Only once we have the first implementation report in 2013 can and should we decide what other modules should be included, because we need to see how this new system develops and what impact it has on legislation.

I was very shocked when I discovered that this was not intended to be debated here in Parliament today. That would have been a big mistake, because, as the rapporteur said, this is the start of something completely new.

  Marita Ulvskog, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Mr President, I agree with the previous speakers. It is incredibly important that we have a climate and environment policy that is based on facts. We need access to clearer and more reliable indicators in this area. The same conditions apply to environmental policy as to economic, redistribution, development and industrial policy. We cannot take sensible decisions and bring about the necessary changes and adaptations in society if we do not have access to the facts.

We now have an opportunity to obtain these facts. This is extremely important. The GDP yardstick does not work as well in this particular area because it is too narrow. We now have an opportunity to work with a broader perspective. There is also considerable value in coordinating environmental statistics at European level. It would make it easier to compare the effects of environmental policy between the Member States and it will give us a better picture of which policy measures actually work and which do not, and which ones may even be counterproductive.

Once we have taken this decision during this sitting, I hope we will also be able to ensure that it becomes an important part of the basis for the decisions that Parliament and the Member States will take in the future. I hope that this method of determining the quality of a society is given high priority and that sufficient resources are earmarked to enable it to work properly and not to simply remain an unimplemented idea.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, for his report. After many years of pushing and cajoling, we finally seem to be taking this step towards sustainable national accounts and that is highly necessary as – let us be entirely honest – the economic system that we have at the moment is simply not working. At the moment, you can still damage nature and the environment practically free of charge. The current system therefore does not work. These costs that no one pays are diverted onto society instead. Why is sustainable energy more expensive than conventional energy? The answer is that nobody pays the social costs of burning coal, gas and oil.

This report gives the impression of being entirely technical, but ultimately it is about really important matters. You have to measure something to know, as we say in Dutch, and that is what we are talking about here. These European environmental economic accounts are necessary for the switchover to a truly sustainable economy. However, I call on both the Commission and the Member States to actually do something with the data that these accounts will provide. You have to measure something to know about it, that is very important, but using the knowledge that we gain from doing so is even more important and that, surely, is the essential next step. I sincerely hope that this, for example, will lead to the removal of the hundreds of billions in subsidies that have a deleterious effect on the environment and nature that we still have in this world.

Let me just offer my sincere thanks to the Commission and our rapporteur once again. This, however, is just the beginning. Let us also follow up on this by truly taking the steps that the knowledge provided by this measure makes possible.

  Michail Tremopoulos, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (EL) Mr President, it goes without saying, both from what we have heard today and from the report, that we need a substantiated evaluation of European environmental policy, based on reliable data. The collection of such data should therefore be compulsory and harmonised.

However, conventional national accounts focus mainly on market transactions and on indicators that reflect important factors in creating prosperity, but do not measure prosperity itself. However, there are new shortages of natural resources. We need other incentives to boost productivity and quality. There is a charge on the physical recipients. By failing to provide accounts on the private and social cost of the use of natural resources and on the damage to the environment, conventional accounts may send the wrong progress message to the decision makers and this may put society on the road to non-sustainable growth.

The introduction of environmental economic accounts is fundamentally important, but is no substitute for the creation of alternative indicators to GDP which cover the various environmental and social dimensions. The Commission should table proposals, before the start of the new Multiannual Financial Framework, so that a limited package of compound indicators can be adopted and used to supplement GDP in policy making. They should include a monetised indicator, such as adjusted net disbursements, and a physical indicator, such as an ecological or carbon footprint, for the environmental dimension, and social indicators which incorporate the social dimension, such as an inequality evaluation (for example, the Gini coefficient) and a social integration and human prosperity index, such as the Human Poverty Index.

The initial proposal for an EU regulation only makes provision for data to be collected and collated on atmospheric emissions, the environmental terms imposed on various economic activities and macroeconomic material flow accounting. A series of proposals and amendments has been tabled and I believe that these will allow us to adopt an integrated report and to achieve progress on the question of environmental policy.

  Paul Nuttall, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, a regulation on the European environmental economic accounts sounds very boring but, in my experience, that makes it the most dangerous kind of EU legislation, because you think that the taxpayer and the media will not bother to read it.

Let us be frank. This is about – and I quote – ‘air emissions and environmental taxes’, just as the last speaker said. So the Sovietisation of the EU continues. The men with clipboards and the statistical spies from Eurostat want more data and – let us be honest – you want this data to tax and control, which explains your thirst for ever more statistics.

The worst thing of all is that this is a regulation, not a directive. Regulations are far worse than directives because they pass into UK law and bypass the UK Parliament. This is very dangerous and, my friends, this is the way democracy dies.

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

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) We have been elected as Members of the European Parliament. If you only see yourself as a UK parliamentarian, you will perhaps only be able to answer my question from a UK perspective. With regard to statistics, you talked of Sovietisation. Is this really how you see it? Do statistics mean Sovietisation to you? Are you not in favour of specific figures on living standards and inflation – even if this relates to the control of the banks – being provided by means of statistics, and citizens and decision makers also having access to such information that will then enable appropriate decisions to be taken? Or, as far as you are concerned, does that also fall within the realm of Sovietisation in the United Kingdom?

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). – Mr President, let me make the first point. The fact of the matter is that this place likes to control things from the centre. Let us also make another point, that none of the Commissioners are actually elected by the people. Democracy matters for the whole of Europe so, yes, I do believe that we are seeing a Sovietisation of Europe. The fact of the matter is that these decisions should be taken at Member State level. The fact that regulations can bypass my own parliament, can bypass the people who were elected by the British people, is an absolute disgrace and, yes, it is the Sovietisation of Europe.

  Richard Seeber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Nuttall is complaining about something that the United Kingdom, like many other States, has been doing since 2006. This process that we will conclude tomorrow at parliamentary level – Mr Leinen has done an excellent job in this regard – will enshrine in law something that has already been practised for a long time. Why do we need these data? It has nothing to do with Sovietisation. Data are only as good as their comparability, and this comparability is the key element.

That is why we have this European economic accounting and why we have used this system globally since the 1930s – including in the United Kingdom. It is such a good system because it is based on uniform standards and therefore, we can compare the prosperity of individual states and their economic and social success. The US dollar is usually used as the currency for comparison. Here we have a major opportunity to elevate the euro to the status of a comparison currency. I believe that is the second element.

However, we also know that there are many gaps in these economic accounts. Consider Fukushima. Fukushima will now have a positive effect on the Japanese gross domestic product because a lot of investments are being made in this regard. They are flow accounts rather than stock accounts. We need to compensate for these things, and therefore the Commission subsequently put forward its ‘GDP and beyond’ proposal.

These sustainability accounts that we will be adopting today and tomorrow will be the first step. Why is that? It is because investing in energy efficiency and consuming less energy, for example, will have a negative effect on the gross domestic product. Even someone like Mr Nuttall cannot disagree with that.

This is not so much about big policies; it is simply about us wanting to make our policies testable: what taxes are levied in this area, how much material are we using. Thus, we want to improve the legislative process, and if you were not in the Union, you would have to use the same system, otherwise your data would be worthless. Therefore, I would say that this is a positive first step. I would like to thank the Commission and the rapporteur.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to congratulate Jo Leinen on his excellent report. We really do need to proceed with environmental economic accounts. We can no longer consider the economy and the environment separately. The dual crisis hitting us – both environmental and economic – leaves us no such margin. The paralogisms of the past must stop.

Mr Seeber quoted the example of Fukushima. Another, simpler, daily example is that of fires. A fire which destroys a forest and the biodiversity and eco-systemic services provided by the forest, by which I mean clean water, clear air and the framework for reproducing food, which destroys the cultural heritage of a place, which destroys agricultural production, is measured positively in terms of GDP, because investments are made to restore the damage, despite the fact that the country, the region, the area, will have sustained long-term damage. In the long term, it will be poorer than it was before.

The environmental economic accounts we are calling for today are not perfect. However, they are an important step in the right direction. They are a step towards better policies based on a more complete, more objective view of reality. They are a step that will allow us to ensure that our policies are consistent, that will allow us to achieve international commitments and the objective of a greener European economy.

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wish to congratulate Mr Leinen for the excellent and important work that he has done with respect to this report. This regulation on environmental economic accounts is very important, as has been said here more than once, because at last it establishes a statutory basis for a system of accounts integrating environmental and economic statistics that is crucial for environmental policy, and, in the broader context, social policy.

As for its scope, it is very important that, during the first phase, the focus should specifically be on air emissions, material flows and environmental taxes. There are good reasons for this. Furthermore, it is probably a very realistic approach, considering the capacity that the Member States have, to start a system of accounts in these areas. Of course we need to realise that, among our various countries, we are at different levels with respect to statistics systems, and it is important that this does not create any additional red tape, as the Commissioner said.

As far as new modules are concerned, it is important that they strongly emphasise themes that support the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, this regulation forms part of the framework of measures designed to establish more comprehensive indicators to supplement GDP. European environmental economic accounts should contribute to the evaluation of policies, providing data about the interaction between environmental and economic factors. The Commission’s proposal is commendable, although new and complex bureaucratic procedures are being created in order to be able to monitor the environmental policies that Member States actually develop. For this reason, we will abstain during the vote.

We are against the report, however, insofar as the rapporteur wishes to add further accounting modules. A first-reading agreement was reached with the Council on the basis that the introduction of the new modules proposed by the rapporteur would be subject to evaluation under the review clause so that, where appropriate, changes or improvements can be made to the quality of the data and the methods by which it is gathered.

In our view, all this represents a new and costly form of bureaucracy being imposed on Member States.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I see it, politics is about finding the best possible solutions to the problems that exist. How can this be achieved, however, if the problems and the potential solutions are not fully understood? This is a fundamental issue, and it does not only concern environmental policy.

Political decision makers must therefore have at their disposal data that is both reliable and as exhaustive as possible on the modern world and the environmental situation. That was the conclusion reached by the European Council in June 2006, when it called on the European Union and its Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development. I welcome this initiative and the European Commission’s proposal, as it will help improve our knowledge of air emissions, environmental taxes and material flows in the economy.

However, this proposal will have to be amended during tomorrow’s vote so as to ensure that the data collected are reliable and conducive to debate, and also, and above all, to ensure that all the Member States are involved in this approach. Indeed, how can we draft European policies if we do not have data on the situation in each Member State?

Lastly, I should like to voice my support for two powerful ideas upheld by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats): the power conferred on the European Commission to adopt delegated acts should be reviewed every five years, and a verification clause should be introduced – the verification clause being the second powerful idea in this regulation. We will need new data in a few years, but everything in its own time. This draft regulation is a real step forward: let us continue in this direction.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Leinen for a long overdue regulation. Before we were elected to the European Parliament, many of us simply assumed that the decisions this Parliament took, these decisions that determine the future, were, in fact, based on these data, and we have discovered with a certain amount of dismay that, although these statistics and data exist in most Member States, in reality, they have not yet been brought together into a common framework, and this has therefore given rise to a certain lack of credibility in the eyes of the general public.

From the media, we always get the impression that the economy and the environment are diametrically opposed. These data would help us to consider whether something benefits the environment, whether something benefits the environment and, at the same time, benefits the economy, or whether something benefits the economy and, at the same time, benefits the environment, and hence also our social environment. That is the main task that we as politicians should set ourselves. We want to establish and improve quality of life, not only in the workplace, but also in our environment.

I can only agree with the desire expressed by Mr Leinen today when he said that, by the end of this decade, we should have moved away from gross domestic product and towards a green domestic product. By doing so, we will have taken the first crucial decision. I am very confident that we will succeed in strengthening the credibility of Europe and of matters relating to the environment and to the economy as a result of these environmental economic accounts.

Thank you very much. Please continue with this good work.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Rehn, ladies and gentlemen, sound statistics, efficient data collection and evaluation – that is the basis on which to shape the future. It is obvious that we need to harmonise the Member States’ existing statistics in order to take the right decisions for the future for the whole of Europe on the basis of the same data. Equivalent, comparable data from all of the Member States is the goal.

The question arises as to what we can actually discover from this data. What additional conclusions can we draw in order for Europe to develop in a balanced way in terms of its social, economic and environment policy? The Commission wants to extend the economic accounts to key aspects of sustainable development. To this end, it proposes three modules in order to collect data on economic activities that result in air emissions, on environmental tax revenue and on material flows. Products of plant origin, for example, cereals, leguminous crops, vegetables, fruit and wood, are also included in this.

I wonder about the usefulness of such calculations – what will they actually tell us? I am not as optimistic as the rapporteur and my fellow Members. Wanting something is one thing; putting it into practice is quite another. I have doubts about the efficiency of the red tape and I question the objectivity of the intention to produce environmental economic accounts, to record material flows and to evaluate individual products, including plants, in terms of CO2 emissions. Both the production of oxygen as well as the emission of CO2 during production and transport must be included in such calculations with regard to plants, for example.

I welcome the fact that, in the compromise that has now been reached, it is clarified that additional data requirements may only be introduced following a flexibility assessment and that the competence of the Member States must not be encroached upon. Such programmes must also be developed without additional financial expenditure and bureaucracy.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, my colleague, Jo Leinen, has prepared an excellent report, which is important from the point of view of the national economy, environmental protection, society, agriculture and other aspects as well. As a member of the STOA panel, a project aimed at more efficient management of natural resources, I consider it very important to compile a reliable statistical database. How can we measure the use of water and energy efficiency in the Member States of the European Union if we do not have reliable statistical information? As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I consider it very important to have a clear picture, at last, of the real social benefits of the environmental public goods produced by farmers, in relation to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Without statistical data, we cannot determine how much farmers contribute with their agricultural activities to the protection of air, agricultural landscape, arable land and the environment, and how farmers produce environmental public goods that are not yet paid for by the market, nor by the CAP. Therefore, the current statistical report is very progressive and forward-looking from the point of view of environmental protection and agriculture.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, when it comes to statistics, there is always a lot of debate and disagreement. Above all, they must not be decoded, because data protection is also clearly justified. On the other hand, we need transparency and comparability. I think that is important. We therefore need to collect the data in a fully automated manner using random samples, so that they are then comparable. We are aware of imaging processes, for example, that will also play a major role in this regard in future. Accordingly, automation of the process will simplify our political decision making in future.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, European environmental economic accounts will provide us with important data to enable us to bring environmental aspects into all kinds of political decisions and, as a result, to have these aspects taken into consideration in a whole range of issues. The collected and analysed data will be crucial for providing effective countermeasures against the environmental effects of economic activities. The conscious need for sustainable policies in order to be able to deal with challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, increasing environmental pollution and the impending exhaustion of our natural resources is strongly supported today. Reliable data and the resulting predictions with regard to the use of natural resources will not only enable us to clearly measure the success of a sustainable economic policy, but will also provide very important added value for the Member States.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to take my turn in congratulating Mr Leinen on his exceptional report. I believe that Europe has now reached a point at which we rarely encounter clashes between development and environmental protection. On the contrary, we have entered an interactive phase. Europeans now have an environmental conscience.

This report will help even more in ensuring that we have a better picture of what is happening to the environment in Europe. I should like to emphasise three elements: firstly, we need precise information on the state of the environment in the Member States; secondly, we need a procedure for renewing that information every five years; and, thirdly, we need to carry out a joint progress evaluation of all environmental actions undertaken in the European Union.

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, if we want to preserve our environment for future generations, we must not consider economic and environmental aspects separately. It therefore makes sense to supplement economic accounts with environmental factors, and the basis of any sound balance sheet is adequate and reliable data.

However, when the EU calls for key data from the Member States, it should not baulk at sensitive issues. I am thinking here of nuclear policy, genetic engineering, adequate origin labelling of foodstuffs and, not least, an investigation with regard to the recent EHEC cucumber scandal.

Interactions between the economy and the environment are clearly evident here. Here, too, it is clear where – unfortunately – the weight lies in the EU, namely with big business and the lobbyists.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, many thanks for a very substantive and responsible debate. I think we all agree on the importance of this proposal and of environmental economic accounts. We also agree that we need to take the next steps to define policies using the data, to keep us on the path to a more sustainable economy.

Let me make a few points in response to a number of remarks. This is the first regulation, with three modules. It is the beginning in terms of legislation. The second batch of modules is now in preparation for a second, amending regulation towards the end of 2012. We are also already planning the third batch, so the work is ongoing and will be continued.

Concerning the issue of red tape, this will not create a new burden for enterprises because we are using existing administrative and statistical data. In fact, the United Kingdom is a leader in environmental accounting, which is also worth noting. Moreover, concerning the statistics, and referring to what was said by Mr Leinen, Mr Martin and many others, we have made significant progress in improving the European statistical system over the past year and a half.

For instance, the present Commission made the very first legislative proposal on 10 February 2010 – the day after you had voted in favour of setting up the present Commission – when we adopted a regulation on audit powers for Eurostat, which gives Eurostat the possibility of checking and verifying the quality of statistics at the source, which is very important. We have already started to use this, for instance, in the case of Greece.

Secondly, the action plan for Greece is being implemented and within a year, it has brought a very profound overhaul of the statistical system in Greece. As a result, the quality of the statistics on the excessive deficit procedure has greatly improved already, and in the latest round, Eurostat could validate the data for Greece.

Finally, on resources, although we do not need resources for this particular subject of environmental economic accounts, I agree with Mr Martin that we need sufficient resources. In fact, I took advantage of this part-session week to stop by in Luxembourg to meet Walter Radermacher, the Director General of Eurostat, to discuss resources just a few hours ago. We are on the way to redeploying and improving our resources in Eurostat in order to focus on our key priorities.

But I would not take resources from enlargement, as Mr Martin suggested, and especially not from the Western Balkans. Stability, democracy and peace in that region continue to be a key priority for the European Union, for the Commission and, I trust, for Parliament as well. Please remember that without our soft power, and without EU enlargement policy, Ratko Mladić would not be in The Hague now. Please remember that as well.

  Jo Leinen, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the debate. I see broad support for the creation of environmental balance sheets in the European Union. With a few exceptions, this has found favour here.

I also agree with Mrs Kadenbach’s statement. Many of us thought that this was already in place, and we were surprised to find that a lot of data does not exist at all, and that in the statements we make with regard to the state of the environment in the European Union, we are therefore actually completely blind.

One Member, Mr Gerbrandy, said that measurement brings knowledge. We then know something, and knowledge is the basis for taking measures and for all of our programmes. We quite simply need a better basis for the decisions that we take. These environmental accounts can help us in this regard. Of course, we have the EU 2020 strategy, in which sustainability is a planning goal. I hope that in the next few years, we will also have this basis so that in 2020, we will be able to see whether we were successful or not. We know that gross domestic product provides no information on the state of the natural world and the environment, on resources that we have used, or on the whole sustainability problem. That is why this is now necessary.

We are also tackling this in stages. Mrs Klaß, we are not making excessive demands; rather, the modules are to be expanded gradually. After all, as the Commissioner said, the individual pieces of legislation – the water legislation, waste legislation and clean air legislation – already contain the requirement to collect this data.

Europe is also under a global obligation, Mr Nuttall. If we sign the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change or any other convention, we must be able to tell the rest of the world whether we have done well or badly.

Thus, all in all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and also Eurostat, which will subsequently have to carry out the work. I hope that the necessary resources will be available in Luxembourg, because without funds, without resources, this balance sheet cannot, of course, be produced. Parliament should also help out in this regard. Thank you very much. This is an important political matter – as some people have rightly recognised – and it is a new chapter in the consideration of what we do in Europe year in year out.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, for the report he has submitted. I agree with its assessment of the Commission’s proposal, and I would like to make a few observations on the importance of such activities.

Measuring quality of life through indicators such as gross domestic product does not tell the whole story. Although experts have been in agreement on this for quite some time, the message has only recently got through to the political sphere, after considerable time and effort.

In this respect, I very much applaud the Commission’s proposal for European environmental economic accounts, because there is no need for the wholesale rejection of misleading indicators. Rather than assessing quality of life and the environment on the basis of impressions, we need to come up with better data and better methods of data collection and aggregation so that they deliver an improved service in gauging, for example, the environmental impact made by policies and economic activities.

I join the rapporteur in calling for a greater emphasis in the Commission’s proposal on monitoring and evaluation issues. Finally, I would like to note how very important it is for the Commission’s proposal to incorporate and rely even more fully on the strategy document ‘GDP and beyond: measuring progress in a changing world’. A consistent, systematic approach will perhaps be more crucial than anything else in efforts to improve the way quality of life is measured.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – Recycling and prevention of waste, air emissions and climatic change and sustainable consumption and production could be monitored much more effectively if high-quality data were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors. The relevant data collection, which has been made on a voluntary basis until today at EU level, should therefore become mandatory. Moreover, environmental data currently available should be expanded in the medium term to facilitate the necessary policy assessment of European environmental policy.

The proposed regulation establishes in this respect a common framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts by providing common European-wide methodology, common standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules for compiling these accounts. The regulation concerns the collection and compilation of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to various economic sectors and macroeconomic material flow accounting. Accurate and adequate statistical data on energy and resource consumption are fundamental if we want to get indicators for progress and well-being beyond the GDP. Moreover, a sound assessment of the European environmental policy is only possible if reliable data is available.

17. Selection process of a new Managing Director for the IMF and external representation of the euro (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on the selection process of a new Managing Director for the IMF and external representation of the euro.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, many thanks for your very pertinent questions. The Commission welcomes the decision of the Executive Board of the IMF on 20 May this year, which clarifies the selection process for the next Managing Director of the IMF.

The Commission agrees that the selection process has to be open, transparent and merit-based. This will enable candidates from all IMF member countries to compete on the basis of their merits, taking into account all relevant aspects.

The EU Member States have agreed that they will back the best qualified candidate who is able to meet the high standards required to fulfil the responsibilities attached to this very important position. Such a candidate will, in particular, need to have demonstrated strong capabilities, a commitment to multilateral coordination, and a great knowledge of international economic, financial and monetary affairs. The Commission supports this agreement.

The Commission fully supports the candidacy of Minister Christine Lagarde. She is a competent and experienced candidate, who has gained the respect of our partners in the international community. She not only has a very good knowledge of the European economy and EU decision making, which is a merit in these times, but also very strong experience in global economic governance – through her successful management of the G20 Presidency, for instance.

Let me also add that last year, an agreement was reached at the G20 summit in Seoul in Korea to reduce European representation in relative terms on the IMF Board by two seats, so as to increase the voice and representation of emerging market economies.

The issue of the external representation of the euro area, while related to the general reform of the International Monetary Fund, is not directly linked to the selection of the Managing Director of the IMF. The Commission is of the view that it is in the common interest of Europe, the Union and its Member States, to move progressively towards a single seat for the European Union, or at least the euro area, in the IMF. Gradually and progressively.

Mr President, honourable Members, as you know, I am fully committed to the reform and reinforcement of EU economic governance, both internally and externally. In achieving this, I prefer to apply the tested method of Jean Monnet: Europe is built through concrete progress in real life, one step at a time, taking larger and smaller steps.

Therefore, let us first conclude the reform of our internal governance, which is urgently needed and which will be a huge step forward once implemented. Then let us tackle the challenge of external representation which will be another major step forward once agreed and implemented. One big step at a time.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) Madam President, when the former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) came into office, there were major question marks against the relevance and effectiveness of the IMF. We now know better, after finding out the hard way during the crisis just how interlinked we are internationally. It is precisely in such times of crisis that you also learn to better seek each other out, and we experienced just how crucial the role and the expertise of the IMF are, even for us here in Europe. It is thus also important that, in the coming years, the IMF should play a key role in terms of global governance and better financial and monetary stability in the world.

Sadly, in this euro crisis, we have learned from experience in a very painful way. You can tell where I am going with this. Today, we are discussing the new candidate for the future position of Managing Director of the IMF. You quite rightly say that this must be an open process, but we do not need to hide under a bushel the fact that we, Europe, have an outstanding candidate. I am happy that we, in Parliament, are also able, through this debate, to give our express support to that candidate.

In a time of crisis, it is important to have an outstandingly qualified woman in this top role as, in a crisis, female qualities could provide real added value, topped off with quality. Mrs Lagarde also has experience on both sides of the Atlantic and in multilateral governance. Viewed from this angle, too, she is an outstanding candidate. I hope that, with this backing, we are able to give you a little extra push to put forward Mrs Lagarde’s case as the next occupant of the role of Managing Director of the IMF.

  Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, basically, I am wondering why you wanted to make that statement. Indeed, you ended your speech by saying: ‘All our time is essentially taken up today by the reform of economic governance; the issue of the external representation of the euro area will be discussed at a later date’.

Please forgive me if I disagree with your approach, because one of the main problems in the European Union today is the issue of the external representation of the euro area. It is clear today how the currency war could easily destroy all the efforts that citizens in the euro area are being asked to make in the name of austerity and of an improved sovereign debt situation. Therefore, Europeans cannot be completely demanding internally and, at the same time, fail to show any interest in how their currency, tossed about as it is by the markets on the international stage, is faring externally. There will be no internal protection without external protection.

Please forgive me, then, if I disagree with your approach on this point. I know that the task is a difficult one, but the European Parliament has, for several years now, supported the idea of moving towards an external representation of the euro area, especially within the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

We must admit that, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was appointed as the Managing Director of the IMF, the situation was very different: there was talk of people taking it in turns to manage the organisation. Mr Strauss-Kahn himself said that he may be the last European to head the IMF. Since then, however, the situation has changed considerably. The region in which IMF intervention is crucial today is Europe. We can see that, behind the IMF’s intervention, the intervention of the large US investment banks has a significant role to play. We can also see that, sooner or later, the issue of the US economic situation could be raised and could legitimately be debated within the IMF.

All that paints a much more complex picture than simply deciding whether this person or that person should preside over the future of the IMF. Of course Europeans should be represented – they should rightly play a part in what is one of the major institutions – but, more fundamentally, what I want to know from you is: what kind of policy do we want to conduct on the international stage? What kind of mandate should a European carry out on the international stage, given the efforts we are making internally, given the influence of the markets outside the European Union and the impact they have on investment, speculation and employment in Europe?

We also think that whoever manages the IMF in the future will face a huge task: he or she must not destroy the progress made by Dominique Strauss-Kahn when he shifted ever so slightly the boundaries of what was the Washington Consensus. We can already see a hardening of attitudes today within the institution; we think that this is the wrong approach.

Finally, the issue of the IMF’s place within the United Nations system will also have to be raised, and if the Europeans do put forward a candidate, they must ensure that the mandate that they give to that person is structured in such a way as to enable him or her to push for a form of global governance that rises to the post-crisis challenges that we face.

  Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Madam President, thank you for your response, Mr Rehn. By the end of June, we are expecting a new Managing Director to have been appointed for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who has, as we all know, been accused of a very serious crime that, unfortunately, has probably also damaged the reputation of the IMF. Now, in these turbulent times, a new competent Managing Director must therefore be appointed for an important global institution such as this and the process must be open.

Like my fellow Members, I welcome the candidacy of France’s finance minister, Christine Lagarde. I believe we have all found her to be a very competent person. She also has the support of several Member States and the European Commission. However, why have we not been able to agree on a common nomination procedure? It would have increased Europe’s influence. That is something that we lack. If we had had a common procedure and if the Commission had taken overall responsibility, it would also have strengthened the reputation of the EU, the euro and Europe.

Article 138 of the Treaty of Lisbon states that the euro’s place in the international monetary system must be strengthened. Why, therefore, has this opportunity not been taken? The Commissioner spoke of taking one step at a time, but sometimes we may have to make a little leap forward in order to strengthen our position, particularly in turbulent times. I also think it is important to point out that the IMF is in need of extensive reform, something that Mrs Berès also makes clear in her report. The work on this reform has begun. However, the EU’s representation in the IMF also needs to be discussed and strengthened.

We need a stronger IMF that operates as a global lender. To summarise: we need a stronger and more representative IMF in our new global world and we need a stronger EU with a clearer voice. Finally, Mr Rehn, sometimes we need to make a leap forward.

  Kay Swinburne, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, in today’s uncertain economic climate, it is more important than ever that the global institutions set up to ensure financial and economic stability, which many countries around the world are dependent upon, are not used to make symbolic political statements.

The IMF is not a symbol but a working institution that needs someone at the head of it who has a strong understanding of the financial markets, the necessary skills gained from managing a large economy and the ability to communicate tough decisions to the general public. The strength of Christine Lagarde’s candidacy is not that she is a European, but that she is a hugely competent individual who has shown remarkable leadership qualities throughout the financial crisis. As the primary role of the IMF is to work on conditional structural reform packages to accompany the distribution of funds to members when they are in dire straits, I believe that Ms Lagarde has shown that she is well able to broker complex agreements on controversial issues, successfully bringing together disparate parties to reach a beneficial solution.

We must not get caught up in the prism of today’s eurozone crisis but look to what problems the IMF may face in the future. I believe that Ms Lagarde has the necessary skills and track record to lead the IMF during this period of economic turbulence and to steer a path of reform at the IMF to ensure its continued relevance for generations to come.

Turning to the matter of eurozone representation on international bodies, as financial markets do not respect national boundaries, it is hugely important that global institutions work effectively to coordinate national policy. While I am in favour of more coordination, efficiency and the linking up of policies to avoid regulatory gaps, I believe that the EU must not lose its diverse set of voices in international institutions. The crisis has shown the huge differences between the economies of the EU even within the eurozone, let alone the differences between non-eurozone countries as well. All of our countries have been affected in different ways in the current crisis and we have different experiences. A single voice is not as strong as a multitude of voices singing in harmony.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have four comments that I should like to make. Firstly, I should like to come back to Mr Schmidt’s speech so as to discuss the process again. Given that a role as important as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund is at stake, I think that, compared to the energy that is at times put into recruiting third-level managers in companies, the way in which this process is being handled shows a lack of professionalism.

Instead of a relatively open, transparent and criteria-based process, what do we have? A series of caucuses bringing together Heads of State or Government who say to each other, ‘I would definitely put forward such and such a person’. That does nothing to enhance the European Union’s credibility. The fact is, after the Dominique Strauss-Kahn episode, Europe cannot afford to cut corners when deciding who its candidate is going to be.

This is a missed opportunity as far as I am concerned. I do not hold you responsible for this – you are not the one calling the shots on this issue – but we would most certainly benefit from taking a much more organised, concerted and professional approach.

Secondly, I should like to respond to Mrs Swinburne. It is time to respond frankly to those who, like you, Mrs Swinburne, and you, Mr Farage, continue to peddle the mistaken idea that we Europeans will be able to influence world affairs – which affect us too – by speaking with a multitude of voices.

Mrs Swinburne, it is all well and good talking about voices singing in harmony, but you know very well that it does not work like that. If, at some point, we have something other than a democratic federation, the voices will not sing in harmony, because everyone will look after the interests of his or her electorate. That is how it works.

Furthermore, if you think, Mr Farage and Mrs Swinburne, that you are going to defend the so-called sovereignty of the United Kingdom – and that applies to all the Member States, be they small States like my own, or large States such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom – if you think that, alone, you will still be able to exert some influence in the world, then I think you are sadly mistaken.

My third comment concerns the IMF’s attitude during the crisis, when compared to that of the European Union. On this issue, Commissioner, I do hold you responsible. After all, we recall that, in all the discussions held by the Troikas travelling to the various Member States that we are trying to help, ultimately, it is the IMF – and it almost pains me to say this after everything that we Greens said about the IMF in the 1980s and 1990s – that is the most reasonable today, while the Commission and the Central Bank are the ones setting the toughest conditions.

We cannot permit this state of affairs as Europeans. I cannot understand why you are trying to act like a bigger Catholic than the Pope – I am not sure whether I can say that to a Finn but, there, I have said it anyway!

  Jürgen Klute, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is not so much about individual people; it is, first and foremost, about a selection process. Surprisingly, anyone who searches for information on the selection process for the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the Internet will essentially only discover that the United States and Europe share the two leading positions. That means that the economically strongest nations, as a minority, share control of the global economy among themselves, so to speak.

That is feudalism and has nothing to do with democracy, and that is why we cannot accept this. In our view, Dominique Strauss-Kahn stepping down presents a major opportunity to make fundamental changes at this point to the nomination and selection process and to make it an open, transparent and, above all, merit- and qualification-based selection process, as some NGOs have been calling for recently.

This should also include a combination of majority votes from the members of the IMF and a majority of voting shares in the IMF. Up to now, only the voting shares in the IMF have been taken into account, which ensures a structural majority for the economically strong nations. This sort of reform and change to the selection process would correspond to the reform of the IMF, which would also correspond to the changes in global economic relations and would give the developing countries a chance to bring their experience with the IMF to bear in the further development of the IMF.

In closing, I would just like to say that the IMF must be placed under an obligation to work in the interests of reducing global imbalances and poverty.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, I would like to say to Commissioner Rehn that I have been looking at the IMF Charter. There is nothing here that will surprise you; it is there to promote balance, growth, exchange rate stability, to lessen disequilibrium and to help countries that are in trouble. The classic method uses is to shore up the finances and organise a competitive devaluation.

Nowhere in here does it say that the IMF is there to support political experiments and, in so many ways, that is what Dominique Strauss-Kahn did. He used the IMF to help bail out the failing euro project and, as such, he was a very poor choice of candidate. Now you want to compound that by approving Christine Lagarde – another member of the European political elite, another euro fanatic, somebody else who believes in propping up this euro project – and I would have thought that, as she has got a vested interest, she is, in fact, a highly unsuitable candidate.

It is as if the EU has hijacked the IMF, that it is now there as part of the support mechanism for the euro, so that it is not just the taxpayers of the eurozone and the non-eurozone EU members, but the whole world that now has to help prop up the euro as the Greek problem compounds by the day.

Well, I suppose in some ways, you may well need Mrs Lagarde because not only is Greece going bust, not only are we heading for the fourth bail-out, but as I have warned before in this Assembly, the validity of the European Central Bank itself will very shortly be called into question. I have warned that you cannot go on buying your own bad debt, but we have reached the point where, within weeks, we may well see that the ECB itself is not solvent, so perhaps your friend Mrs Lagarde can help bail that out as well.

I would have thought this is a very poor choice. The international community at some point will tell you where to get off – perhaps not just quite yet.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I rise on behalf of Mrs Lulling and Mr Langen, too; they had their own speaking time, but I assure you that I will not use it all up.

I would just like to point out, as every one of you has done here, that the process of selecting a new Managing Director of the IMF has begun.

It is important for the European Union to express a unanimous and strong position that is conveyed not only by the various Member States, but also by the Commission, and you have pledged to do that, Commissioner.

Many of us in this House, with the exception of Mr Farage, are very keen to see the balance – a popular one until now – between the United States and Europe maintained during the process of appointing the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank.

We fully understand that emerging countries – particularly the largest ones – would like more of a say in the IMF’s decision making. It is important, therefore, to continue the reforms under way regarding the governance of that international institution, and particularly the ones that you also mentioned, Commissioner. However, it is definitely too soon for any radical changes to the balance achieved as a result of the Member States’ respective financial contributions to the Fund.

Only one European candidate has launched a proper campaign by making contact with the various Member States. That candidate – who, by the way, is a woman – has the qualities required. Her skills, political experience, moral authority and perfect command of English, coupled with her experience of working across the globe, make her the ideal candidate for the post of Managing Director of the IMF.

As has been said, the Managing Director must be someone who seeks consensus and is effective at a time when the institution has a vital role to play in helping to redress the economic and financial balance with a great sense of purpose. Our Union must therefore do whatever it takes to secure Christine Lagarde’s appointment.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, I believe there is, nonetheless, a great paradox in this debate. Basically, it is vital that nothing changes between the World Bank and the IMF. We Europeans are the ones who stand to gain from multilateralism working, but multilateralism will not work if emerging countries are involved only to a limited extent, at the G20 or elsewhere. We really must approach this issue dynamically and with a sense of perspective. Furthermore, I find it rather paradoxical that, now that we are launching an urgent campaign to see a European appointed as the head of the IMF, we are not setting an example as Europeans by saying, Commissioner, that this is a step in the direction of the external representation of the euro area.

What explains your great impatience and determination to see a European appointed if not your desire to take this step, which you tell us is not urgent and can keep for another day? If we want to make a go of multilateralism, then we ourselves need to set an example, be consistent and show how well it can work in the future, because the IMF has an absolutely crucial role to play in the field of global governance, a role that transcends the issue of European debt and of the sovereign debt situations of the European countries that are struggling. This is a crucial task, but the IMF’s role, beyond stabilising the markets, is also to help correct the global imbalances that caused this crisis.

It is clear today that you are not taking this absolutely crucial governance issue into account in the way in which you promote, or otherwise, a given candidate. Yet this is what interests us socialists: seeing the IMF play a part in global governance so as to correct the imbalances that caused this crisis.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL) . – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, like everyone else in this House, I am not disregarding the method used to select the future Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, but what matters most to the people is knowing what new role that international institution plans to carry out in order to help end today’s serious economic, financial, budgetary and monetary crises.

The International Monetary Fund needs to become much more democratic and focused on human development, education and employment. The United States’ blocking minority should, in my view, be lifted. The voting rights of emerging countries should be significantly increased.

The IMF should be a tool against speculation, which is suffocating populations today, an effective tool for stabilising agricultural and commodities markets, in order to combat the tax havens that people often talk about. Instead of a currency war, the IMF should launch a major new project: that of a common world currency for cooperation instead of a war of economics and competition.

That is what we should be discussing as a matter of priority, so that people’s quality of life improves and bankers stop enriching themselves by plundering nations.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, it is unfortunate that the IMF has recently been discussed only in the context of the affair concerning its former head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. It is not only the prestige of this important position and the whole institution which has suffered, but also the prestige of a European politician occupying such an important position. I think that if, as a result of this, we finally stop tolerating behaviour which everyone knew about and which is far too widely accepted, this would be the one positive thing to come out of the whole terrible affair. However, now we have to fight to rebuild the reputation of this position and the institution of the IMF. For this to happen, we need to propose a competent person for this position who will be able to maintain calm on the markets, in the media and in general public opinion in what is, today, a very difficult situation. It is important that the candidate should be credible, and Christine Lagarde has been acknowledged by the Financial Times as being the best Minister for Finance in the euro area in 2009. The Commissioner has already mentioned how well she led the presidency at the G20. She is a person whose credibility cannot be called into question. We cannot underestimate the role of the IMF, particularly now when there is a financial and economic crisis which is affecting many countries in Europe. European thinking should therefore be present in this institution. We need someone in this position who understands the significance of the present crisis. While dealing with global finances at the IMF and using the skills and international experience she gained in the European Union, I know that Christine Lagarde will not lose sight of European interests. She said herself that if she were to be chosen for the post, she would bring all her experience as a lawyer, managing director, minister and woman to the Fund. Let us pay particular attention to the final element, which is very important in this situation.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, the process of replacing the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is inseparable from the difficulties and contradictions which the capitalist system is facing today in the light of its worsening crisis. The ongoing change to one of the institutions at the system’s apex is inextricably linked to the disputes between the various factions of big capital, where conflicts are emerging between the major powers. It is also inseparable from the unresolved issue of reforming the monetary system and, with it, the currency war over the dollar’s hegemony at global level. This is a war whose consequences are dumped onto the backs of the workers and peoples of the periphery, as we can see in the European Union.

Without hiding for one moment the enormous extent to which the centre left and its longstanding ties with neoliberalism are responsible for this process, it is also inseparable from the conflict between those who have been accepting the need to restructure debts within the euro area and those who are pushing to rush blindly on ahead towards new means of institutionalised and openly colonial intervention.

In any case, both seem committed to taking the exploitation and oppression of the workers and peoples to new levels.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, it would appear that the 21st century will be remembered for the war between political power and the power of the financial institutions. There are countries on the planet which are literally governed by anonymous financial institutions and the citizens of those countries are led hither and thither and their fate is determined by what the markets are doing.

I believe that Mrs Lagarde will be a worthy and able representative of the European Union; she is well qualified for the job thanks to the experience which she acquired during this stormy period of economic crisis and I believe that she will be a worthy representative of the European economy within the framework of global economic governance.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I think it is important that Mrs Lagarde is appointed to this leading role. In France, she has proven that she understands the economy, that she also promotes small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, and that she has regard for those who actually work and make a contribution. It is surely also a principle of the International Monetary Fund to work to improve people’s standard of living. Redistribution is only possible if there is actually something produced to be redistributed.

Therefore, the reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is an absolutely priority. We must ensure that those countries with financial problems receive the necessary instruction and that the appropriate knowledge is passed on with regard to the way that we are trying hard to solve these problems in the European Union.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, the debate we are having here is ducking the most important issues. In other words, it is not tackling the serious problem posed by international capitalism: the problem of the financial markets that are controlling our economies; that are trying to impose their rules on countries themselves; that are continuing to exacerbate inequality, discrimination, and attacks on workers’ rights and essential public services; and that are contributing to an increase in poverty and social exclusion, not only internationally, in less developed countries, but also here in the European Union and in many of our Member States.

Therefore, what was needed was for the Commission to adopt a strong position in order to change the situation; to bring an end to tax havens; to control the financial markets; and to prevent the exacerbation of inequality and exploitation.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, let me first thank you for a very substantive debate. I believe that there is a broad consensus in this House – not a full but a broad consensus – on the selection process of the next Managing Director of the IMF. It has to be open, transparent and merit-based.

I also sense that there is broad support – maybe not full but broad support – for Mrs Lagarde, who has already been endorsed by the EU Member States and by the Commission as their candidate for Managing Director of the IMF.

I want to make three points to respond to some of the views expressed in the course of the debate. First, the IMF has played a key role, in cooperation with the European Union, in overcoming the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, for which Dominique Strauss-Kahn made a major contribution as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.

While we still face considerable turbulence in some segments of the sovereign debt markets of certain countries, we have been able to contain the sovereign debt crisis and protect the ongoing economic recovery in Europe. Of course the work has to go on, and we still have difficult decisions ahead of us, not least in the coming weeks in June. But let us recall that there has been no Lehman Brothers catastrophe on European soil, and we have to make sure that there will not be. That would be detrimental to economic growth and improving employment in Europe.

Secondly, we have had very good cooperation between the Commission, the ECB and the IMF, which was not self-evident when we started about a year and a half ago in terms of fire-fighting the financial turmoil. Each of these three institutions has its own rules, its own philosophy and its own independence, and it was not self-evident that they could work together in order to overcome these challenges. However, I dare to say that a pragmatic sense of crisis-awareness has prevailed and helped us to cooperate in order to contain the sovereign debt crisis and protect economic recovery.

Thirdly, I do agree that we need to reform our external representation. As I said in my opening remarks, we now have a huge task, firstly to conclude the internal economic governance reform. We are just about to do this, and I count on you to enable us to do it in the course of June, before the summer break. This is extremely important for the credibility of the European Union in these times of crisis. So let us all do our best in order to ensure that we will complete this indispensable reform of EU economic governance.

In the long term, our goal is a single seat, at least for the euro area. In the short term, we need better practical and pragmatic policy coordination among the EU Member States that are represented in the G20 or G7 or in the IMF. I must say that I have seen plenty of concrete improvement in that regard, so that the EU Member States that are represented in the G20, or in the IMF or in the G7, mostly share common goals and are mostly working together as an orchestra and not with different voices.

Yes, we have plenty of room for improvement and we have to discuss this thoroughly. But, as I said, let us first conclude the internal governance reform and then we can come back to the issue of how to improve our external representation. The rights of the emerging economies mean that it is in the fundamental interest of the European Union, its citizens and its Member States for us to be more united and thus more effective in advancing our causes and our interests on the global scene.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Edward Scicluna (S&D) in writing. – Whoever the next Managing Director of the IMF is, he or she will have a huge task. The coming years are likely to be dominated by major international financial and economic governance reforms. There are many excellent candidates, and I hope the selection is based on merit, not politics. The reality is that the EU punches below its weight at global level, be it at the G20, IMF or WTO. It does not speak with one coherent voice, but with many voices. This is a serious shortcoming that particularly affects smaller Member States, who lack the diplomatic muscle of the larger nations. Provided policy positions were agreed transparently and democratically, we would benefit from the EU playing a more active role in reshaping the international monetary and financial system. The Committee on Economic Affairs is currently working on a report on global economic governance, which I hope will lead to Commission proposals on improvements to the EU’s external representation in this field. The EU is an economic bloc representing over 450 million people, with a currency that is the world’s second international reserve currency. But if we do not take it seriously, neither will the rest of the world.

18. Seventh EU programme for research, technological development and demonstration (debate)

  President. – Τhe next item is the report by Mr Audy, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and demonstration activities (Α7-0160/2011).

  Jean-Pierre Audy, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn, ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here to evaluate the Seventh Framework Programme for research (2007-2013), which has a budget of EUR 51 billion. It is the biggest programme in the world, and this amount should be compared to the EUR 17 billion for the 2000-2006 programme, which covered five years, whereas this one covers seven.

The negotiations on the Seventh Framework Programme took place in 2006 and cover – I repeat – the period 2007-2013. Following those negotiations, we now have three new elements, which require us to turn our attention to the evaluation of the programme.

Firstly, the European Union is getting over the failure of the Lisbon strategy, which was devised by the European Council in 2000 with a view to making the European Union the world’s knowledge-based economy by 2010. We now have the Europe 2020 strategy. The second new element: the failure of the constitutional treaty. Today, the Treaty of Lisbon is in force and brings with it new powers. The third new element: the financial crisis that reached us from the United States in 2008.

In view of those three new elements, we must give thought to the years 2011-2013. We are living in extremely fragile post-crisis years and, in these times of scarce public resources, the sums at stake are substantial. EUR 26 billion has been programmed for the first three years. We have EUR 28.5 billion left to programme in 2011, 2012 and 2013. We must therefore think carefully about the messages that we want to send to the European Commission so that it adapts its research policy to the major challenges of the day.

Other speakers will expand on what I have said, but I should like to emphasise two points: the first is simplification and the second is the response to the major challenges we face.

As regards simplification, my colleague, Mrs Carvalho, is going to discuss in detail her excellent report and, Commissioner, we welcome the Commission decision of 24 January 2011 on the creation of the Unique Registration Facility, but we must go further. We need to simplify the future and put the past behind us. You are well acquainted with all these issues as a former Member of the European Court of Auditors. The three-year reform of the Financial Regulation will enable us to establish the legal basis for this simplification, but I do not think that tinkering with the tolerable risk of error is the right way to go. We need to simplify our regulations, and it is through simplification that we will reduce the number of errors.

In the event of a disagreement between the Commission’s auditors and the bodies being audited, I propose that the option of conducting independent counter audits be permitted, and that a mediator be allowed to intervene so that we do not have to ask the Court of Justice to settle any disputes that may arise between the audited bodies and the Commission. We really must settle this issue, Commissioner.

Next, we have the major challenges. We must involve the industrial sector more in this Europe 2020 industrial policy, particularly with the European patent, and we must increase the participation of SMEs – small and medium-sized enterprises – and women. Infrastructure should be cofinanced by the framework programme, the European Investment Bank, the Structural Funds and national policies. We must encourage excellence as well as ensure a harmonious distribution of research infrastructure throughout the European Union. We do not know today which countries will be awarded the Nobel prizes in five years’ time. We must also honour our international commitments, such as ITER.

Lastly, for the future, we propose in this report to double the amount of research funding in order to create this European research area, with the help of the European Research Council. This is the key to the growth we need in order to fund our social ambitions and honour our environmental commitments.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address all of you before the final vote on the FP7 interim evaluation report in plenary tomorrow morning. The implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme and, in turn, the progression towards what is proposed as a common strategic framework for research and innovation, is marked by a long series of individual, but nonetheless significant, steps. I believe that this debate today marks one of those significant steps.

Leading up to the discussions today are the months of painstaking work by Mr Audy, the shadow rapporteurs, the other members of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as well as the members of the Committee on Budgets. Evaluation is nothing if the results are not presented, discussed, questioned, and indeed either accepted or sometimes rejected, by the very stakeholders that it aims to serve, and, of course, Parliament plays a vital role in this process, not only bringing to bear a broad cross-section of experience from political and public life but, just as importantly, from the many fields of deep knowledge held by Members.

Let me make a few brief introductory remarks on the report itself. First, this is a rich and comprehensive report that deals in a constructive way with the key issues raised in the FP7 interim evaluation. It is most encouraging to see that the interim evaluation report triggered very substantive responses from the institutions and that these responses, although putting the emphasis sometimes on different issues, basically agree with the main findings and recommendations made by the independent evaluation experts.

The Commission is pleased to see that the quality of this evaluation work is acknowledged by Parliament. The Commission notes that the main points raised in the present report coincide with the key issues addressed in the Commission’s response to the evaluation report. Even though there might not be full agreement on every detail, it is important to note that there exists a core common understanding on the big ticketed items, notably, the need for a comprehensive strategy to boost research and innovation in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, the need to make the programme more accessible to the wide range of possible contributors throughout Europe, and the need to further simplify procedures to allow all participants to focus on creativity rather than bureaucracy.

The Commission underlines its intention to take concrete measures in the remaining years of the FP7 to implement a maximum number of the concise suggestions made by the evaluators. As an example, as Mr Audy reminded us, we have already implemented three concrete simplification measures for FP7: more use of average personnel costs, easier procedures for owner-managers of SMEs, and a clearing committee to ensure a common interpretation of the rules.

At the same time, the recommendations and views expressed in this interim evaluation are, of course, of paramount importance for the preparation of future activities in the field of research and innovation. This will include the necessary quantum leap in simplification, which will be made possible by a common strategic framework, new rules for participation and – with your help – a revised user-friendly Financial Regulation.

The Commission looks forward to continuing this debate through the forthcoming discussions. Against this background, your comments today and the questions that you raise will help to sharpen our understanding still further.

  Carl Haglund, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (SV) Madam President, I would like to thank our wonderful Commissioner for her strong commitment to research, and I would also like to thank the rapporteur. I have the privilege of acting as rapporteur for the Committee on Budgets on matters relating to research and I have a few brief comments from our committee.

I would like to start with a point of criticism, and that is that it would be good if evaluations of this kind could arrive in good time. That would make our work easier, but in all other respects, the evaluation is a good one. The Committee on Budgets thinks it is important in future to strengthen the link between research and industry in a better way so as to actually utilise the potential of new innovations and ideas in practice.

We would also like to emphasise the fact that we need to have the courage to take risks. Without risks, we will not achieve the good results that we want. Something else that the Commissioner herself mentioned was the question of simplifying the processes and cutting back on existing bureaucracy. That is extremely important. Last but not least, I would like to remind you that we need to be able to implement the Europe 2020 strategy within the Seventh Framework Programme for research; we cannot wait until the next one.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PT) Madam President, let me begin by congratulating the rapporteur on an excellent report and also for the way in which he conducted the work. The current framework programme is strategically important for competitiveness and employability within Europe. Of its funding, 50% is yet to be spent. As such, the mid-term review of the current framework programme is crucial so that throughout the second half of its existence, it can contribute effectively to the European economy’s recovery.

In terms of the principal recommendations for the review, I would like to highlight the importance of simplifying access to funds, and adapting thematic priorities and the suitability of rules to new challenges. Simplifying access to research funds will allow the rules and processes to be made simpler, clearer and more transparent. As such, any recommendations in the report which concern simplification but do not require the financial regulations to be revised should still be included in the Seventh Framework Programme. I would like to congratulate the Commission on the measures which have already been implemented.

Secondly, I would like to highlight the need for greater emphasis to be placed on thematic areas crucial for the future of Europe, such as energy security, the environment and health care.

Thirdly, the adaptation of rules for participating in new challenges will enable, for instance, greater participation by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and by young researchers in research projects.

Finally, I welcome the guidelines for the next framework programme. I would particularly stress the recommendation to substantially increase the budget for science and innovation in the EU’s next financial framework. Only in this way will Europe become more competitive and prosperous.

  Britta Thomsen, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DA) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Audy for his excellent cooperation on the review of the framework programme for research. The EU is facing a huge challenge, which is coming from the likes of China, India and Brazil. These countries are experiencing massive economic development. We therefore need to be even better at creating growth and jobs through research and innovation – otherwise the EU will be left out of the knowledge race.

The Seventh Framework Programme has been successful, but there is room for improvement. I have three priorities when we negotiate the Eighth Framework Programme. We must simplify the application and reporting procedures. We simply have to deal with the bureaucracy. Secondly, we must have the courage to aim for freedom and flexibility. Researchers themselves must have the freedom to select the most important areas of research, and, in particular, the programme must be flexible enough to be able to deal with the challenges of tomorrow. That will create better results. We must also become better at being able to work and think in an interdisciplinary manner.

  Frédérique Ries, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, the Seventh Framework Programme for research is the largest research programme in the world: it has a budget of EUR 54.6 billion for the current period 2007-2013 and has funded over 9 000 projects to date. The question is whether its results are worthy of this major investment.

Judging from the previous speeches, I think that to ask the question is partly to answer it. Europe is struggling to do as well as it might, and we know the main reasons for this, as they have been pointed out: there is, broadly speaking, a North-South divide in Europe where research and development are concerned; Europe is also lagging behind in terms of research and development spending by businesses; and researchers and SMEs have difficulty in accessing the various programmes, as our rapporteur mentioned.

There is room for optimism, and fortunately so, because the Council, Parliament and the Commission are fully in agreement on this issue and are aware of this need to shift the focus of European research and innovation on to the major social and economic challenges that exist. I am, of course, thinking of climate change – an issue already discussed – but I am also thinking of energy security, the post-Fukushima period, which will have to be managed, and food safety, rocked by the E. Coli bacterium.

It is also vital to avoid doing too much at once – in this respect, I obviously share Mr Audy’s desire to set clearly defined priorities for the Europe of research. That is the idea expressed in paragraph 9 of the report. Europe must give itself the means to achieve specific major objectives. The rapporteur also mentioned the EUR 28 billion still to be spread over the remaining three years.

Since we are talking about specific priorities and areas, I shall conclude by specifically mentioning one such area – nanotechnologies – in which I believe more investment is needed, given the many sectors in which they can potentially be used: medicine, agri-food production, electronics, new materials and new energies. Yes, it is up to our experts to start this revolution, but the European Union – I am about to finish – must take the lead and conquer this territory of the infinitely small.

  Vicky Ford, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, research and innovation are key to delivering growth and to meeting our biggest challenges. I have seen much excellent research funded by European grants, both in collaborative projects with industry and across borders, and in individual grants to expert scientists.

However, Europe’s framework programme has a reputation for being the most bureaucratic in the world. Commissioner, I still think you can do more for simplification. Money is tight and funds must get rapidly to the scientists in the lab, and not just to those who fill in the forms and check the accounts.

Not every bid can be financed, and in the world of research, added value is, of course, difficult to measure, but I do not believe that a common European system for evaluating performance is the only way forward. We need scientists who compete with the best in the world and they should be evaluated on the world stage. We also must not compromise that principle of excellence. The European Research Council, for example, has done much to support individual scientists. If their mandate is changed to support team-based projects, this must not be to the detriment of supporting individuals of excellence.

I would like to see more money for research but there is no bottomless bank account. I, and my group, cannot support doubling the EU budget in one area without a commitment to showing where that money can come from elsewhere. We would instead like to see public money work more intelligently, both alongside private investment and through better public procurement.

  Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, first and foremost, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Audy for the work he has done and for the excellent way he has collaborated with all of us, in all the groups, and for the openness that he has shown throughout the process.

I think that the review of this Seventh Framework Programme is absolutely crucial. I cannot stress enough the importance of issues like transparency, simplification and redistribution, which are essential, and are clearly outlined in this report and in the positions Parliament has been adopting.

I think research and innovation are fundamental contributions to a fairer, more redistributive and more sustainable development model, so we cannot let some factors fall by the wayside. Since many have already been mentioned here, I will mention factors that are often forgotten.

Firstly, the review has made clear that the distribution of research funds continues to be too concentrated, and we cannot afford to lose sight of this. Some countries, research units and centres, and large industries are able to access research funds far more easily than others. We cannot agree with this model. We have to achieve an increase in participation by the new Member States and the countries of the south, which, incidentally, happen to have the greatest need for access to funding.

Secondly, I believe that the participation of actual participants and civil society organisations should also be increased. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) continue to present an important challenge.

Thirdly, a note on the precariousness of research work: research that is high quality or excellent will not be possible if we continue to allow researchers in certain parts of Europe to be subjected to working conditions which are not worthy of that name. That said, I would, above all, like to express my thanks for the work that has been done. I think this is an important step for Parliament.

  Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Audy for his excellent report. The FP7 is one of the largest research programmes in the world, and it is good for us to do the mid-term evaluation.

First of all, I am delighted to see that there is a unanimous call for simplification measures for our rules on financing methods. Secondly, it is important that we focus on the inadequate participation of SMEs in the programme and that we call for measures to improve this, especially since future growth and job creation in the EU depend on them. Thirdly, I strongly support the Marie Curie Actions. I would also like to add that it would be vital in the medium term to develop a mechanism to evaluate and assess the progress and the measurable impact of innovation policies and programmes in the EU.

To conclude, I must say that the level of financing of FP7 must be maintained, as we realise that investing in R&D is key to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to thank Mr Audy and all my fellow Members who have worked on this. A review of this kind is, of course, an important prerequisite for the conclusions that we then need to draw. We would surely all agree that the question of investment in research is central to the future of Europe. However, whether we then have the courage to draw the right conclusions from this remains to be seen when we go into the next round. Do we have the courage to ensure that we do, and will we manage to make adequate financial resources available? Everyone says that we will, but it will be difficult. How will we manage to use the existing resources more efficiently? I am very grateful for the fact that, in this debate, we have attached a great deal of importance to the question of simplification, including in connection with Mrs Carvalho’s report. How are we going to do things more simply, faster and more effectively, and how are we going to achieve better results with the existing resources? Alongside the question of adequate funding, that is another key issue.

Thirdly, we must ensure – and in this regard I would contradict some of my fellow Members – that we do not distribute the funds according to the principle that ‘everyone should get a bit’. That is not the principle we should use for research funds. Research funds can only be allocated according to the principle of excellence. The result – regrettably – is that the funds are not distributed equally to all Member States. That means that we face an enormous task, namely that of ensuring that improvements are made in precisely those Member States that do not yet meet the excellence criteria. For this, we clearly need other instruments, because this issue has not yet been resolved. In future, we will need an array of instruments, not to ensure that the funds are evenly distributed, but so that other funds with other instruments are used in order to place the emphasis on particular aspects.

Last but not least, we must fund fewer projects. We cannot avoid taking a decision as regards which elementary aspects we want to focus on. If everyone introduces a new subject, it will not benefit research funding in the long run. We need to have the courage to look and see what is particularly good and what, in particular, we want to continue to fund.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, to what extent have the weaknesses detected in our R&D system become strengths with the Seventh Framework Programme?

There was a need to stimulate basic research and the European Research Council was fittingly created, which will be required to perform better at combining excellence and cohesion in the future. There was a need for more researchers and the Marie Curie Actions were introduced, which still require an even greater effort. A greater degree of participation was sought by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and we have successfully attained a figure close to 15%, which could be further improved with increased simplification. There was also a need for more funding, particularly private funding, which still remains a weakness, not only due to the crisis, but because certain instruments such as Joint Technological Initiatives (JTIs) frankly leave room for improvement.

Nonetheless, Mr Audy, I have no doubt that, thanks to the lessons learnt in this mid-term review, the framework programme will reach an even greater degree of excellence. Congratulations on your report.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE). – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the experts from the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Audy, for their work.

This mid-term retrospection is crucial. The EU has a lack of reactivity, which has prevented it from achieving the Lisbon strategy targets. Nevertheless, in terms of research and innovation, there are a few points where the EU still has the leadership and can be proud.

The EU faces many challenges that are not necessarily faced by its competitors, yet it manages to stay in the competition. I am referring to the lack of natural presence of energy sources on European soil, which is definitely an obstacle to development and innovation. I am also referring to the ageing of the European population, which is another challenge which characterises the EU. But in spite of this, the EU has the most ambitious and the most binding regulations in terms of environmental protection. It also has the highest social standards and respects workers at work.

I think we can be proud of this fact. We live on a continent where certain values are still a core concern and are not too greatly affected by globalisation. In my opinion, you could not become the most sustainable knowledge-based economy in the world without having respect for the values which characterise European society. I believe this will pay dividends in the future.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, an increase in innovation in the European Union is one of the key elements of economic development, especially in times of crisis. The rapporteur correctly placed great emphasis on this aspect. Unfortunately, it seems to me that some key questions were presented in too general a manner. First of all, however, it is worth mentioning the relatively small amount of money earmarked for innovation in the new EU Member States. You could almost say that the huge difference and disproportion between the countries of the old Union and the new EU Member States are striking in this instance. This was mentioned in merely one sentence in the report. Their modest participation is negatively perceived, and has a negative impact on the sustainable development of the Union, as well as on its cohesion.

It is worth mentioning here that in spite of the EUR 86 billion earmarked for research during the funding period 2007-2013, there is no sign of any change in this state of affairs, so the funds awarded under the Cohesion Fund for innovation in the next financial perspective should take greater account of the factor of balanced management of funds for the old and the new EU Member States. After all, this innovation represents an opportunity for these new European countries, and their science and new technologies should also be developed for the general good of Europe, in a cohesive way.

It should also be stressed that research funding problems primarily affect small and medium-sized enterprises. In view of the tightening of monetary policy due to the financial and economic crisis, loans, which are essential for long-term investments linked to innovation, are being restricted. This state of affairs must be taken into account in order to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to be awarded loans for such purposes. It is also worth mentioning that administrative procedures in this regard need to be simplified.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I, too, should like to thank Mr Audy and the entire Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for the excellent work they have carried out and for the useful debate that has developed around this incredibly important topic.

I think that there is just one point that has not yet been made here today and that is the need to acknowledge that Europe is now some way behind in terms of research and innovation.

We are quick to boast of the results we have achieved but we would do equally well to recognise that, in some areas, we are lagging behind not only our traditional competitor, the United States, but also very strong competitors such as China and other countries.

I therefore think that if Europe does not want to fall in on itself and die, it must decide to invest more heavily in research and innovation. This is not, however, a decision that we need to make this evening during this debate but rather in the context of a broader debate that relates to the financial perspective and the whole question of how to use the resources that we have at our disposal. In short, this is definitely the number one issue!

That said, I believe that the issues addressed by Mr Audy and Mrs Carvalho – on which I will focus in other speeches – are all worthy of note. They cover simplification, the need to coordinate funding, the attempt to develop Europe 2020, excellence and innovation, while reflecting the fact that there are two main strands to all this: the first is small and medium-sized enterprises, the beating heart of Europe, where we must promote innovation and promote it through simplification; and the second is large research centres, which we really ought to have more of.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this very fine report by our fellow Member, Mr Audy, summarises all our discussions with the operators in the sector. I am not going to go over their assessment of our Seventh Framework Programme: that it is indispensable but too complicated and too bureaucratic.

I would just like to emphasise two points. Firstly, innovation. Parliament has pledged to promote it, but it must not do so at the expense of fundamental research. As we well know, the main result of research is knowledge, followed by the opportunity to enhance that result in the economic sector, or indeed the industrial sector. A clear distinction must be made, then, between the manipulation and the enhancement of fundamental research.

Secondly, financing. We all agree that the budget should match our ambitions. I would go so far as to say that, on this issue, we should be innovative by being consistent. It is pointless bringing in more instruments; let us make the existing ones more effective. In this respect, the risk-sharing finance facility is a real success, but it must take a more inclusive approach to SMEs and research infrastructure. I therefore call on the Commission to do everything in its power to solve the disputes as quickly as possible and to take into account the courses of action proposed in this report.

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE). – (SL) Madam President, the Seventh Framework Programme came into force in 2007 after enlargement of the EU by 12 new Member States. Obviously, these two major enlargements have increased diversity in the European Union.

This is where the question arises: does the Seventh Framework Programme adequately take into account that diversity, i.e. has it been designed so as to promote research excellence uniformly throughout the European Union. The review has identified certain patterns, of which I note two in particular.

Firstly, uneven geographical participation and poor participation in projects by researchers from certain parts of the Union, especially those from the less developed regions and from the countries which joined the EU in 2004 or later.

Secondly, researchers from the smaller Member States are very poorly represented as project coordinators. The explanation I have so far been given for this situation is that research excellence is the main criterion for selection to the Seventh Framework Programme. This leads to the conclusion that the quality of research in the regions which are very poorly represented in the projects is low.

You could wonder, though, if that actually is the real reason. Such pronouncements should not be made arbitrarily. I therefore call on the Commission to look into the causes of this rather uneven geographical distribution of projects and coordinators.

After all, it is in the interests of the Member States which are lagging behind EU research excellence to take advantage of resources from the European Structural Funds to strengthen their scientific and research sectors. This opportunity should also be available in the next financial perspective.

However, structural funds should be used only within the Member States to which they have been allocated. The idea that such funds should flow from the less developed countries to the more developed ones in order for the latter to build their research infrastructure, for example, is unacceptable, because the gap between regions would only increase. I hope that the Commission will be able to dispel doubts with regard to equal opportunities for researchers and coordinators from various regions and countries of the Union, provided, obviously, that they meet the scientific excellence requirement.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

  António Fernando Correia De Campos (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Audy on his excellent report. Although it was overdue, the mid-term review pointed out the most critical aspects of the Seventh Framework Programme: its excessive bureaucracy, industry’s lack of interest, the sheer number and complexity of its new instruments, and the slow pace of payments. There is also an increased risk of large transfers of funds from the current framework programme to large-scale programmes which offer questionable added value. However, the report was also able to point to positive elements, such as stronger international cooperation between scientific groups working on common projects, certain success stories, like the European Research Council, and a better gender balance.

There are certain elements that need to be prioritised: firstly, the simplification of the programme, and secondly, the promotion of scientific excellence, not only in some countries but throughout Europe, a stronger connection between the framework programme and innovation, and with instruments directed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurship. The Eurostar programme is the most successful example of this and should be developed further.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, what we need to do, quite simply, is to strengthen the research community and thus the economic power of Europe amidst international competition. We therefore need to examine what own resources could be available to us in the Eighth Framework Programme for research. I would like to call on the Commissioner to make use of the revenue generated through the emissions trading system in order to actually resolve the CO2 problem. That would be a significant starting point.

We would have tens of billions of euro available to us that we could use for the ‘intelligent energy’ programme, for our wide range of battery platforms, and for the many ways of providing ourselves with a sustainable environment. That could be discussed with Commissioner Lewandowski and, of course, with the finance ministers.

We also need to enhance the Competition and Innovation Programme (CIP). I believe that, in the CIP in particular, information and communications technology should be used to provide the necessary equipment and hardware to allow researchers to communicate faster, better and more efficiently using the latest technology. Integrating optical fibre connections in satellite equipment and forming corresponding clusters would be a sensational undertaking, as would the establishment of the European Institute for Technology.

In this regard, we simply need to introduce the content of the research carried out in the Seventh Framework Programme for research and the CIP and the various other programmes to our educational establishments, namely, to professors, teachers and nursery school teachers. We quite simply need pupils and students to have access to the most up-to-date knowledge of our time.

Last but not least, the European Research Council does an excellent job, and the work that it funds should be made widely available to the public as quickly as possible. I would like to expressly thank Mr Audy once again for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and as Mr Correia De Campos also said, the ‘Eurostars’ programme could become one of the major projects of the future.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, first of all, I, too, need to congratulate Mr Audy for all his efforts on this report. Our capacity to unite and coordinate our efforts on research determines our economic competitiveness. I support the idea that better coordination, coherence and synergy between the Seventh Framework Programme and the Structural and Cohesion Funds may also improve the participation of currently under-represented Member States. Collaborative transnational research must remain a priority. Member States must cooperate rather than compete with each other. The success rate, which has been modest so far, can be improved by simplifying administrative and financial regulations.

To conclude in English: earlier this year, Commissioner Quinn stated that ‘we need to send red tape to the shredder. We need simple and clear rules, consistently and rigorously applied’. Today I ask you, Commissioner, to help us to move from words to action. Thank you.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, sometimes it is good to take a look back, especially in the midst of a period like this one, and just before establishing the financial framework and the legislative programme of this House.

What becomes clear is that scientific research in Europe is top quality. The problem is how to turn that research into products and how to organise the whole chain. Clearly, there is not all that much sense in us generating very large numbers of patents that are sold all over the world if the resultant added value then ends up in other parts of the world. Thus, we need to capture the interest of our people and get them involved in such a way – we need to train them in such a way – that the whole process takes place here.

I have a second comment to make. This is all about excellence, but excellence must stand on its own two feet rather than simply being free floating intelligence. Excellence must take root in the regions and the cities. It must not be allowed to be the case that this high degree of added value is only found in the metropolitan regions. As Parliament, it is our job to bring about the combination of what the research produces and what can be done with that in terms of innovation. You have formulated your own Innovation Union, with very good initiatives, and then there are also the various other funds, such as the structural funds, for example, which we can use for this purpose. Over the coming years, we need to make use of the conditionality. In this sense, we need to also ensure that regions that are lagging a little behind invest in specialisation. This can also take place with the Member States’ own money, not just through European funding. In that way, you create a common agenda, and instruments such as joint programming are also of great importance in this regard.

I have two more brief points to make. First of all, we need to persist with facilities that bear risks. This initiative, the European Investment Bank’s risk-sharing finance facility, has worked exceedingly well. Secondly, Mrs Carvalho, of course, you have done very well. There is less red tape. Now let go of the reins on these joint technology initiatives (JTIs), where industry plays a 50% role, yet we carry on as if they were public sector organisations! That simply cannot work.

You have my thanks for this interim report. It is very important, and when the new regulations are laid down, we will translate it into new prospects.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work he has done. The most important issue which I would like to highlight is the simplification of current rules and procedures for programmes supporting research and innovation activities, and the need to identify the reasons for the under-representation of the new EU Member States. A future framework programme must meet current needs in such a way that each country is able to develop a research area, research activities and innovation with the help of common financial instruments, which, if they are well managed, would make it possible for measures to be focused on social and market needs.

Making it possible for associations, for enterprises, especially micro-enterprises in the form of clusters, and for national or regional networks of technological platforms to participate in a future framework programme is an essential task. At the same time, I would like to stress that maintaining the diversity of the European Union’s regions in the field of innovation requires particular attention to be paid to the formulation of a common strategic financial framework for scientific research and innovation.

It is also worth paying attention to the synergy of actions taken at European, national and regional level, with the additional introduction of common administrative and financial regulations, and a compulsory harmonisation of rules and conditions governing participation in various programmes, creating a common and transparent system. I hope that the conclusions drawn during the evaluation process for the Seventh Framework Programme will form the basis for further work on the next one, the Eighth.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his eminent report on this mid-term review. I think there are three things that should be underlined.

The first point is simplification – less bureaucracy – and we stated that when we started the Seventh Framework Programme. It did become less bureaucratic, and I think researchers and others dealing with these projects are aware of that, but there is much more to do. And I think that in some ways, we can put greater trust in the universities that have existed for centuries. They will not run away with the money.

The second point is excellence. The whole value of our joint and common effort is that we are trying to add a special European value, providing excellence. We have all the Member States financing their research and science and we also have, as has been mentioned, the Structural Funds. With regard to this framework programme, if we do not aim for excellence, we will lose the competitive edge that we need to have in the future.

The third point is mobility. I think one of the striking things we have experienced is that the mobility we can achieve via the framework programme is creating the special climate and the special preconditions for excellence. And I am happy that the rapporteur has made the proposal for a research voucher, trying to secure that we have a spontaneous process for excellence between researchers in Europe by creating and increasing their mobility.

So once again, my thanks to the rapporteur.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, we are not often unanimous on a subject in this Chamber and it was clear today that the Commission and the various Members of Parliament were unanimous on this subject and especially on how we should move forward. Great praise is due to the rapporteur, Mr Audy. As the Commissioner said, ‘He brought forward a rich and comprehensive report’.

He brought forward a rich and comprehensive report and I am delighted that the emphasis has been on a few simple things. The first one is simple itself: simplification. The need for simplification is absolutely vital. I was pleased to hear the Commissioner saying that we are moving to a user-friendly financial regulation. We have got to simplify, trust the researchers and ensure that we have the very best researchers. If we have that, then we will get results.

Finally, we have failed with the Lisbon strategy. This situation cannot be repeated. It is through research, demonstration and delivery that we can achieve the competitiveness that Europe so badly needs.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, in the current climate, and with a view to meeting the EU 2020 objectives, the Seventh Framework Programme needs to respond to the current challenges. Making it simpler for SMEs to access funding affords them an opportunity to develop new types of services and products. The level of financial contribution, the documentation which needs to be produced, the provision of access to information and specialist advice must be realistic because, otherwise, we will not be able to create the framework facilitating SMEs’ access to this programme, regardless of the objectives.

I also think it is vital that greater importance is attached to the development of research at regional level by encouraging multi-level partnerships and supporting the drafting of methodological guides or guidelines for this purpose. We cannot meet objectives without clearly establishing the procedures and encouraging or supporting the development of useful tools.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Madam President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur and the Commissioner. As they both said, research and innovation is important for the future of the European economy. I certainly know that there are many universities in Wales, for example, which will take advantage of European funding. Therefore, I think that it is important that we all support adequate funding for research and innovation in the EU budget; we should not say we support it in this meeting and vote against it in the budget meetings.

On the key issues raised this afternoon, of course we would all support simplification, such as a common set of rules. I am aware, however, of some concerns about always using flat rates and lump sums, so I believe we should be looking for some flexibility and discretion in those areas.

I would also argue that we should focus on performance. But while performance is important, research and innovation does mean we also have to accept some risk- taking as well, and we cannot rule that out. Finally, I would also support the proposal to create better links between universities and businesses so that we can take advantage of all the research and development undertaken.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, competitiveness is not an option for the European Union. The European Union must be globally competitive, which is why we need to invest in research and innovation.

Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of the research programmes use a number of national and EU sources of funding. However, all these sources of funding very often have different procedures and rules, which makes it difficult to access EU funds and complicates matters for the beneficiaries, given the different rules which need to be learnt. We also think that research and innovation in the European Union can only be developed by cutting red tape, simplifying and converging procedures, developing applied research and making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access funding. We deplore the fact that, due to the economic and financial crisis, Member States have reduced their education and research budgets and we call on them to invest in education as a priority during this crisis period, as the quality of research and innovation also depends on this.

I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Audy, for accepting the amendment I tabled asking the Commission to introduce more money in the Seventh Framework Programme for research into, and development of, GNSS applications and services.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – Madam President, I believe that this report will have broad agreement across all groups in Parliament. The key element of this report is that the Union must stay at the forefront in the area of research, innovation and science. This is important because without research, we cannot become the innovators of tomorrow. We need research if we are to create jobs, and we need research, of course, to maintain employment in the EU and to remain competitive against the emerging economies. We also need the public sector and, indeed, the private sector, which I believe is the engine of growth in the economy, to work together in a spirit of partnership.

Efforts to encourage greater participation by SMEs must also be encouraged at the highest level and we must ensure that bureaucracy is kept to the minimum. The EU Heads of State or Government endorsed the ‘Innovation Union’ flagship initiative when they met on 4 February, but endorsement is not sufficient. Now we need action, and I know full well that Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn is a Commissioner of action and will follow through. Research and innovation are the key tools. They are the tools at our disposal to help Europe through the economic crisis that we currently face.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the review of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7) should be based on the advantages and disadvantages that the projects bring for citizens. I am thinking, for example, of the INDECT project, which was funded by the FP7. The intended benefit of combating terrorism has to be weighed against citizens’ freedom and data protection.

With any project, we must therefore ask the question: who will profit from it and whose rights will be inadmissibly curtailed? That also applies to the funding of research in the field of genetic engineering. The ones who profit from this are the large food manufacturers, the lobbyists, but certainly not our citizens. Yes, we must invest to a greater extent in research and development, but we also need better evaluation of the projects, which, at the end of day, are funded by taxpayers.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, thank you to the rapporteur for this report and my thanks also to the Commissioner who recently paid a visit to my constituency of Northern Ireland, where I know she saw some excellent examples of research and innovation.

The Northern Ireland economy is a small and medium-sized enterprise economy – 97% of all businesses can be classified in this way – yet it is an economy that lags behind other regions of the United Kingdom and Europe in drawing down money from the framework programme. Bureaucracy is cited as the main difficulty and many small businesses are simply more concerned about keeping open the door than they are about the long-term benefits of the research and innovation programme.

I believe that the example shown by the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland is a significant one – larger companies mentoring and helping smaller companies to actually access the programme – and I would use this opportunity to call upon the Commissioner to provide us with radical and new ways for small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit from this very important programme.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the Seventh Framework Programme for research is not just about research in general; it is also about a specific field of research that ought to be of particular concern to all of us following the Fukushima disaster. It is also about funds from the Euratom programme.

As we all know, it is the nuclear lobby that has succeeded in recent years in promoting nuclear power as a climate-friendly alternative. It is particularly strong in some EU Member States. We are also well aware that some Member States have gone in for nuclear power in such a way that it would not be easy for them to switch to alternatives. What is the use of productive reactors if they buckle under water masses or in the event of earthquakes? What is the use of the most productive nuclear power station if a minor fault is enough to make not only the immediate surroundings, but the whole region uninhabitable for decades? It is therefore important for us to focus more strongly on nuclear safety and to push ahead with the development of alternatives.

Now that the Euratom research programme is shortly to be extended to 2012 and 2013, Fukushima ought to be taken as an opportunity for a rethink.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, listening to today’s debate on the Seventh Framework Programme, I would like to take the opportunity to draw your attention to the preparations for the following programme, the Eighth Framework Programme. We already have a Green Paper about it which barely mentions the need for research in other areas, such as fisheries. Unfortunately, direct funding of research in this sector is developing in a very worrying direction. We started off with resources which gradually decreased in subsequent programmes, and these radical cuts led to the Seventh FP totally excluding marine research as a specific funding target.

In the next framework programme, this situation must change so that we will be able to fulfil the aims of the reformed common fisheries policy. The fisheries sector is facing many problems, so research and scientific support work are powerful tools for the further sustainable development of this sector. This is why it is so important to allocate appropriate funding for this aim. Thank you.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – (GA) Madam President, I am very grateful for the valuable debate we have had here this evening and I would like to thank all the Members who participated in that valuable debate.

I will work closely with this House as we move forward and build a future programme for research and innovation with a genuine European added value.

By the end of the year – on 30 November in fact – we will put on the table our proposals for future funding programmes for research and innovation within the common strategic framework. We have already set out some ideas in our Green Paper about how to achieve this by bringing together the different instruments at EU level under a single umbrella. We can support the whole innovation chain, all the way from the basic research to market deployment. In this way, I believe, we will get the maximum impact from our investments.

I look forward very much to hearing the outcome of your debates on our Green Paper, which I understand will be adopted in late summer. I can assure you that the enriching inputs given by the Carvalho, Merkies, Audy and Matias reports will be duly taken into account when preparing the legislative proposals.

Finally, let me recall that on 10 June, we will organise the wrap-up event of the Green Paper consultation to which several Members of this Parliament have been invited, some of you as speakers. I would like to inform the Members of the House that more than 1 300 responses to the online questionnaire were received. There were also an unprecedented number of position papers. We received over 700 such papers from national governments, from European-level associations, from businesses, from universities, and from regional and local organisations. Replies came from all countries of the European Union and beyond. I believe that this has shown the great interest that Europe attaches to research and innovation as policies for our future growth.

So let me thank you once again for the insight and the impetus that this House has given to the FP7 interim evaluation.

  Jean-Pierre Audy, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I should like to thank the Presidency of Parliament for having allowed this debate to take place, as it was not on the agenda initially. It is very helpful for all the political groups to be able to debate this important issue.

I should also like to say how grateful we are to you, Commissioner. I speak on behalf of all those who hold you in high esteem. You even have the support of the Irish members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). As you can see, on these issues, anyway, anything can happen. Thank you for what you are doing. We are really counting on you when it comes to simplification and to the important messages we are sending you, Commissioner.

I should like to thank the rapporteurs from all the political groups, my fellow Members who tabled numerous amendments, and the contributors to this report – and may I say a special thank you to those from the PPE Group.

Thank you for discussing the issue of simplification; we have taken note of your comments. The words ‘industrial competitiveness’ raise expectations. We must make the link between research and trade – that is, between research and innovation – via the European patent. Research must be transformed into growth. As Mr Reul said, we must, of course, encourage excellence. We must become the best in the world, and it is excellence that will get us there. As I said before, however, we do not know who the Nobel prizewinners will be in five or ten years’ time. Therefore, we need to strike a balance between excellence and distribution across the EU. Just as in sport, where we win with the world’s best players, we need to have the world’s best researchers. Excellence is the key word.

Lastly, we have proposed to double the amount of funding, but not at the expense of agriculture or of the Structural Funds. The aim is better coordination with the Member States. The Heads of State or Government have told us that they will not be increasing the amount of public sector contributions. Instead, we must improve the coordination of European funds, national funds and regional funds – some of which, incidentally, come from European funds – for the sake of consistency and good policy making.

My final point, Madam President, is this: I had proposed – the proposal was not taken up, but this is a subject that we shall have to address on a political level – that we adopt a European research plan for the defence industry. The time has come for the European Union and the Member States, under Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union, to consider a major research programme in the field of defence equipment and, of course, dual use equipment.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7) is the world’s most significant research support programme, which plays a key role in maintaining the competitiveness of Europe and the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. FP7 demonstrates a significant added value in the field of European research and innovation. However, the mid-term review revealed several areas that need to be developed. In my opinion, two aspects are crucial for the future success of FP7. The first and most urgent task would be the simplification of bureaucratic burdens. The overly complex administration is costly and provides a disincentive for SMEs to participate in FP7. Elimination of parallel structures, quicker transfer of funds, and harmonisation of FP7 with national priorities can all contribute to making the largest possible number of actors interested in research and innovation activities. Secondly, I would like to emphasise the importance of an excellence-based approach, since the financial resources of FP7 can most effectively be used if the selection of research projects to be supported is based on excellence. However, the mid-term review revealed that certain countries are under-represented in respect of the transfer of funds. The main reason behind this is that these Member States do not have a research background infrastructure that would make it possible for them to meet the excellence-based criteria. Thus, the synergies between FP7 and the Structural and Cohesion Funds need to be revised, which, in turn, could promote the development of infrastructures which are lagging behind. In this way, we can provide a level playing field for all Member States where excellence-based assessment is concerned.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) The Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities is an important instrument for achieving the Europe 2020 strategy targets. Europe’s leading role in technological innovation and the Union’s future competitiveness are also very dependent on scientific research. In this regard, what is required is greater focus on support for the programme, a stronger connection with business requirements and better coordination with the EU’s other financial instruments and with the Structural Funds.

Important factors contributing to the programme’s success also include providing access to information about the potential opportunities it offers to the widest number of stakeholders possible and simplifying the application procedures, which are excessively complicated at the moment. I want to reiterate the need to promote widely the results of successfully completed projects so that more companies can access and, where possible, use them.

Science does not exist as an end in itself. It should provide benefits for the economy and society. Links between individual programmes need to be strengthened to ensure consistency when carrying out scientific and demonstration projects, as well as marketing testing and market replication projects. This will enable us to achieve greater efficiency and higher European added value from FP7 funding.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR), in writing. – (PL) An abiding problem in all reports on innovation is the lack of a clear and specific framework for R&D investment from EU funds. This problem is apparent yet again in the Audy report and, what is more, it involves yet another unresolved issue, namely, the imbalance in EU funding. The author barely mentions the lack of equality in absorption of funding between Western Europe and the new EU Member States. The poor state of funding can be seen, inter alia, in the take-up of the risk-sharing finance facility (RSFF). Projects cofinanced under the facility have been implemented in only 18 out of 27 Member States. Additionally, its greatest beneficiaries are applicants from the so-called old EU Member States: Germany (23.1% of all those awarded funding), Spain (19.1%), the United Kingdom (9.9%) and the Netherlands (8.3%). Today, around one third of research is funded under the facility. It seems to me that it should be proportionally increased so that the entrepreneur’s own contribution should not exceed 10 to 15% of the required amount (currently, the amount required is 15 to 25% of the amount allocated for research). We should remember that one of the EU’s main tasks is to eliminate social and geographical imbalances through the distribution of benefits deriving from innovation throughout the EU. We will not be able to achieve this goal if we neglect the new EU Member States in financial terms, thus supporting a further one-sided ‘brain drain’.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the emerging trend for increased funding for scientific research in the European Union. At the same time, I believe that it is essential to combine our forces and expenditure in this area. Reforms should be implemented at national level as soon as possible to enable the creation of centres that cooperate well and to avoid duplication of work on the same projects. This would also contribute to an improved use of funds. The European Union must remember the significance of research in terms of providing a competitive edge in today’s global world. In particular, Member States should reform the way they carry out research on security, one of the key areas mentioned in the report, to ensure that it is optimised during times of financial crisis.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The attractive nature of the Seventh Framework Programme for research has not been fully demonstrated in the industrial sector. In addition to the need for new funding, better coordination is also required between the European Union, Member States and regions on research, development and innovation (RDI).

Firstly, the link between the Cohesion Funds and the Framework Programme for research must be improved. I must stress the importance of the cohesion policy as it has become a major source of support in Europe for research and innovation.

Secondly, research and innovation policies must be tailored to the market’s specific needs. The demand for innovative technologies on the EU market must be identified in order to sell the results of innovation. I think that suitable financial instruments should be available to support the successful introduction of innovative technologies on the EU market.

Last but not least, I should mention that in the EU, there is an extreme imbalance in terms of financial allocation, with the results indicating that the old Member States absorb the majority of the financial resources. This situation runs counter to the territorial cohesion objective whereby Member States are developed in a balanced manner from a geographical perspective, which is an objective stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I welcome the proposal to ensure that research supported under the Seventh Framework Programme is aimed at finding solutions to the EU’s problems in the areas set out in the Cooperation chapter of the Seventh Framework Programme. This primarily involves health care, including clinical and preventive research and medical technologies. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in Europe, and due to the fact that the population is ageing, it is expected that one man in three and one woman in four will have direct experience of this disease by the age of 75. Cancer research is on the brink of a number of breakthroughs, especially with regard to more accurate and less expensive methods, and also methods that are less distressing for patients, in relation to both preventative check-ups and actual treatments. Funding cancer research can save people’s lives and cut treatment costs. I applaud the political will in support of funding that has already been earmarked for cancer research under the programme. This funding must not be reduced in the EU’s current economic situation; on the contrary, we must provide more. I would like to emphasise that if we can join forces to accomplish ambitious projects such as abolishing state borders or constructing space stations, we should be able to find a way to turn cancer into a disease that no one need fear. In order to do so, we need support for, and coordination of, research into treatment methods and prevention. The fight against cancer is a European issue which should be a priority for us, from the funding under the Seventh Framework Programme to the umbrella agency at European level.

19. EU-Canada trade relations (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the question to the Commission on EU-Canada trade relations, by Vital Moreira, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade (O-000053/2011 – B7-0213/2011).

  Vital Moreira, author. – (PT) Madam President, as Chair of Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, it falls to me to table an oral question to the Commission concerning the negotiation of an economic and trade agreement with Canada.

Two years after they started, in May 2009, there are indications that these negotiations may be concluded in the course of the current year. Given the progress of the negotiations, now is therefore an ideal moment to get information from the Commission concerning some of the most important points in these negotiations.

The text of the question adopted by my committee is well known and, to save me from reading it, Madam President, please allow me to assume there are copies.

As we know, since the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has had the right to be informed on all stages of negotiation for international agreements. This obviously includes international trade agreements, which constitute an exclusive competence of Parliament, and for which parliamentary scrutiny is more justified.

It is important to mention that the Commissioner for Trade, Mr de Gucht, and the Directorate-General for Trade have fulfilled this duty of providing information to the parliamentary committee which I chair, in this and other cases. It is nonetheless important to share information with Parliament and the public on the most important issues at stake, given the progress of the negotiations in this instance. This includes matters which are very sensitive for Parliament and the European public such as, for example, the issue of the famous tar sands and Canadian opposition in the World Trade Organisation to the European ban on products made from seals.

We therefore believe this oral question and the developments that it may entail to be of particular importance. It only remains to inform Parliament that this oral question is accompanied, as usual, by a resolution on the same issue which will be voted on this Wednesday. Both initiatives are testament to the great importance that the Committee on International Trade and, in our view, Parliament, should place on this matter.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – (GA) Madam President, Commissioner de Gucht is currently absent and has asked me to make the following statement in response to the parliamentary question from Vital Moreira.

Today’s plenary debate on the negotiations for a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada is very welcome. So far, these negotiations have run smoothly, and it should be possible to conclude the bulk of an agreement before the end of the year, with a formal conclusion early in 2012.

However, we are also entering a stage of the negotiations where things are getting more difficult: in particular, because some of the outstanding issues are related to inherent differences in our economic structure or regulatory systems.

This is a tremendously beneficial agreement for both parties, with positive impacts on business, investors and consumers alike, thanks to the very broad scope envisaged. In material terms, we calculate that this could bring an additional EUR 20 billion per year to both economies. Where EU offensive interests, such as provincial government procurement, lie in areas of provincial competence, we have been assured that the provinces and territories of Canada will be committed to the negotiations and to the implementation of the agreement.

In relation to your particular concerns, EU Member States have now reached an understanding on the usage of the so-called ‘negative list’ approach. A key reason why a trading partner like Canada prefers a negative list is that it provides much greater transparency and legal security, because it makes very clear which services are excluded from market opening, including also where monopolies and exclusive rights may exist in the public sector. Hence, the negative list approach in no way prejudices the ability of an EU Member State to continue to maintain the right to retain a monopoly in the future for a particular service.

It remains up to the EU and Canada to decide what commitments it is willing or not to undertake in each sector, including with regard to public services or other services where future policy flexibility is important.

EU governments will continue to have the option of imposing universal public service obligations on private operators and of subsidising public services as necessary. Trade agreements do not impose privatisation or deregulation obligations, and it will be no different for this CETA, which will include provisions on sustainable development covering economic, environmental and social aspects. Such provisions will be fully integrated within the trade agreement.

We note the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the WTO panel on the EU’s seals ban and on Canadian oil sands. While we understand these concerns, we believe that there are good reasons to keep these processes separated from the CETA negotiations. This being said, the negotiation – as in the case of any other trade negotiation – does not in any way impede the ability of the EU or its partner countries to draw up and implement environmental measures.

More specifically, as regards the Fuels Quality Directive, I want to make it absolutely clear that the negotiation and a future agreement does not and will not represent any negative interference with regard to the implementation of that directive.

Honourable Members, we are moving closer to an agreement which will help to provide a much-needed boost to the economies of the EU and Canada. We are looking forward to hearing Parliament’s views during the debate today and the resolution that you will subsequently adopt.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Madam President, the resumption of negotiations, at Canada’s initiative, to upgrade bilateral cooperation under a comprehensive economic and trade agreement is a positive move, as the committee chair, Mr Moreira, pointed out. However, there is one issue that concerns us, which has to do with the federal structure of Canada. I refer to the need for the unimpeded and uniform application of the agreement by the individual provinces.

Within the framework of trade relations between the two partners, important offensive and defensive agricultural interests, among other things, are at risk. On this point, I should like to voice the opinion of Mr Jeggle, who is absent today. Priority is being sought for full protection for geographical indications, given the increasing counterfeiting of quality EU agricultural products. Canada, like other states that protect geographical indications under trademarks, is, as we all know, opposed to the demands made by the EU on this point at the Doha Round negotiations. The different legislation of the individual provinces is an additional problematic aspect.

As for the question of genetically modified organisms, I would remind the House that the Union and Canada have signed a mutually acceptable solution to resolve this difference. Canada has agreed to resolve the difference in exchange for a bilateral regulatory dialogue on biotechnology issues. I call on the Commission to defend the high level of protection provided by the European regulatory framework during the course of the negotiations under way.

Finally, I would like to mention the Canadian state trading companies in the agricultural sector which, as we all know, have broad competences and can act as monopolies. Specific commitments need to be entered into on the Canadian side. This, too, is a demand which was highlighted by the Union during WTO negotiations.

  David Martin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, my group can see many benefits in an ambitious, comprehensive, economic trade agreement with Canada. However, we have four red lines.

Firstly, on the extraction of oil sands, which damages local diversity, we insist on the EU’s right to use the Fuel Quality Directive to inhibit their use. I was pleased to hear what the Commissioner had to say on that matter.

Secondly, we find it hard to imagine Parliament approving a trade deal with Canada while Canada pursues a challenge, through the WTO, on the EU’s trade ban. Here I cannot accept the Commissioner’s point of view that we should keep the two matters separate. I think they are linked in the eyes of the voters, and they are linked in my eyes. I would certainly not vote for an agreement unless this dispute is settled before we reach the final stages of this deal.

Thirdly, we would not be able to accept any limitation on Canada’s ability to use the TRIPS flexibilities to export cheap generic medicines to developing countries. This is an important source of generics for developing countries, and we should not bow to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry to make it more difficult for Canada to provide generic medicines.

Fourthly, we cannot accept a deal that does not address the different standards and preferences from local SMEs and state monopolies in Canada. This was a point that Mr Papastamkos was making about the difference between provincial and federal regulations. They must be dealt with before this agreement comes to conclusion.

That said, if we find that the final text deals with these issues and is ambitious in reducing tariffs on EU spirits, on EU machinery, on EU automobiles and other areas, we will be happy to back such a free trade agreement. But we do insist that the four items I have mentioned are red lines and have to be dealt with properly in these negotiations.

  Metin Kazak, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (BG) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution tabled by the Committee on International Trade clearly expresses support for the ongoing negotiations with Canada on concluding the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Canada is one of our oldest and closest trading partners, currently the 11th biggest, and the potential benefits from deregulating bilateral trade are obvious, including from the study carried out by the Commission and the Canadian Government in October 2008.

The private sector in the European Union and Canada has also expressed strong support for concluding such a comprehensive agreement, even though a number of challenges still remain, taking into account the lofty ambitions declared during the negotiations.

I believe that the first thing we need to do is to assess the impact, which will shed some light on the pros and cons of such an agreement. Secondly, how realistic are the Commission’s expectations that negotiations will be concluded by the end of 2011? Can the Commission also guarantee that the final agreement will include a chapter on sustainable development, in keeping with Parliament’s requirements? Will this chapter include labour standards, the obligations associated with multilateral environmental agreements, as well as an effective mechanism for enforcing them?

Has a plan already been outlined enabling the Commission to resolve the issues relating to market access? Can the existing differences in terms of economic structures and regulatory systems be overcome in the near future?

Does the Commission intend to accept the application of the principle of reciprocity as part of the existing legal protection methods when it comes to resolving trade disputes? Does the Commission think that, in the long run, the implementation of the ‘negative list’ approach to deregulating services can set a precedent for other, future negotiations too?

These are questions that naturally require answers, which I am counting on receiving.

  Keith Taylor, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, as others have mentioned, Canada is indeed a solid trading partner for the EU. The abolition of the tariffs now being negotiated in the CETA framework is, on the whole, acceptable to our group.

But sadly, CETA does come up with some other demands and political goals which we find deeply worrying. I will mention two of the most troublesome, the first being the negative list in the negotiations on trade liberalisation. Normally, in negotiating FTAs, you name the services that you are ready to liberalise. But under these proposals, all services are open, except those specifically excluded at the outset. As Greens, we think there are some services, particularly those dealing with the general public interest, which are too sensitive and too potentially vulnerable to be negotiated under this ‘negative list’ approach. We have lodged some amendments and we are looking forward to some support from fellow Members.

The other area of concern is around procurement. We are concerned about the impact that CETA will have on procurement. To give just one example, the Ontario Green Energy Act would be illegal under CETA. That Act promotes the production and feeding of renewable energies and directs investments into local economies. That is just one example of how CETA will interfere with domestic policy in Canada.

Although Canada is one of our oldest trading partners, we cannot deny that occasionally, we do have differences of opinion. Canada is, for instance, opposed to the EU’s GMO policies. It is starting WTO action against the EU import ban on seals, in addition to its barbaric annual seal cull, and do not forget that it is fighting the EU Fuel Quality Directive to protect its exports of tar sands to the EU.

I believe that it is important that we voice all these concerns and urge the Commission to remain firm in the principles and policies of this place.

  Paul Murphy, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, the negotiations for the EU-Canada trade agreement have been driven by major European and Canadian multinationals who want market access to vital public services so that they can profit at the expense of workers and consumers. This agreement would be a charter for privatisation, particularly in terms of water, telecommunications and electricity. The investment chapter would, outrageously, give corporations the right to sue governments when social or environmental policies cut across their profiteering.

Canada’s tar sands have become a playground for big oil companies like BP, Total and Shell. These oil deposits produce more than three times the carbon emissions of conventional oil and their exploitation is also extremely damaging to the local environment and a threat to the First Nations communities who live in the region.

This trade agreement, I understand, could potentially cut across moves to stop this oil being imported into Europe. There is an urgent need now for united action by the European and Canadian trade union movement, with environmental and indigenous activists, to fight together and resist this proposed agreement.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, for the Commission and Parliament here to seek to use a proposed trade agreement with Canada to influence that country’s internal affairs is simply wrong. If the Canadian Government considers that it is environmentally acceptable and economically advantageous to develop their tar sands, that is entirely a matter for them. Indeed, we should all welcome this enhancement and diversification of global energy.

As far as the British national interest is concerned, the coalition government consistently neglects trade relations with the Commonwealth, of which Canada is a founder member. To paraphrase the commentator, Ruth Lea: because the Trade Commissioner negotiates trade deals for the whole of the EU, the brutal truth is that EU membership constrains Britain’s economic prospects.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, we can be extremely pleased that our long-standing relations with Canada, one of our oldest and closest trading partners worldwide, have been defined by common roots and values.

As we know, in recent decades, a whole series of framework agreements for trade and economic relations have been concluded, from sectoral agreements right through to the most diverse trade initiatives. The EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA), with regard to which there are probably only the last few minor details that need to be worked out, will probably enter into force in the near future.

Although the predecessor to this agreement was never actually concluded, this time, everyone involved seems to be confident. The Canadian chief negotiator even admitted at the start of the year that this agreement was a top priority for Canada. As the second largest trading partner, the EU is clearly intended to be established as a counterbalance to the US market and, conversely, as far as Europe is concerned, Canada represents a gateway to the NAFTA economic area.

If the experts prove to be right, the conclusion of the CETA could increase bilateral trade between the European Union and Canada by 20% by 2014. Those are extremely appealing prospects, particularly in economically strained times. If we consider that, after Saudi Arabia, Canada has the largest oil reserves, this is probably also of strategic significance in the context of European efforts to achieve more energy security, and that is something that we should definitely bear in mind.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, Canada is one of our most important trading partners. Therefore, this is also one of the most important free trade agreements. It brings considerable advantages, and all studies show that it could increase trade significantly. Many fellow Members are choosing to focus on threats and risks and to make this into a problem, but I think it is important for us to take a step back and focus on why we want these negotiations.

The reason is that we can see the incredible potential that can be realised in growth, trade and development. That is something that we all welcome. I have very high hopes of this agreement, as it is so ambitious. We often say that all of our free trade agreements should be ambitious, but this one really is. This agreement has the potential to create more extensive free trade and more free borders between Europe and Canada than currently exist between Canada and the United States. That is worth emphasising. It would be an historic achievement if we succeeded in bridging the Atlantic with regard to free trade with Canada.

I would like to mention the trade in services in particular. It is precisely this trade in services that several people have made out to be problematic, but this is clearly one of the most important strategic areas we have, particularly when it comes to financial services. I would like to hear the Commission say something about how this part of the negotiations is going, as I know there has been a certain amount of resistance with regard to this area. As I said, it is an important strategic area of interest for Europe.

Finally, I would like to urge the Commission not to let this process drag on. We must ensure that we do not allow the negotiations to slow down. That is what I see as the biggest threat, in other words, that conflicts concerning various side issues take the focus away from the main issue. What is clearly important is to create more free trade. When we started these free trade negotiations, there was a very positive attitude from everyone involved. I therefore believe it is important for us to ensure that we finish in exactly the same spirit and that we do not allow the negotiations to drag on for far too long.

  Harlem Désir (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement negotiated with Canada will strengthen our links with a large and long-standing EU partner country. We welcome this, but we must keep track of all its consequences, not just the benefits it will bring for certain economic sectors or certain major international investors.

In particular, the agreement must respect the social and environmental models of both parties – of the EU Member States and of Canada – and their capacity to continue to legislate in what are sensitive areas for our societies. These are not mere details or points to be left for another day.

As regards public services, the Commission’s chosen ‘negative list’ approach is dangerous. It is far too broad and ill-defined, and we would not like to see it set a precedent. Also, from a general point of view, the chapter on investment must respect both parties’ right to legislate in areas such as the environment, public health, employee and consumer rights, industrial policy and cultural diversity, among others. We call on the Commission to exclude sectors such as culture, education and public health from the scope of the agreements. In this respect, and as other Members have said, the intellectual property part should not call into question issues relating to generic medicine production.

As for the environment, we are concerned and call for investment. As regards the impact of the agreement on oil sands drilling, the agreement must not have the effect of weakening European legislation on the application of the Fuel Quality Directive, nor must it limit the possibility for Canada to regulate drilling of its oil sands in the future under its environmental remit.

We also call on the Commission – we are asking the question, anyway – to monitor the impact on the fisheries sector in areas such as St Pierre and Miquelon. These are areas of Europe that could be severely affected by the complete liberalisation of that sector.

Lastly, I echo Mr Kazak in saying that the sustainable development chapter must include social and environmental commitments and, in particular, social and environmental responsibility on the part of large multinationals.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) (The speaker directs a blue-card question to Mr Fjellner under Rule 149(8))

Mr Fjellner has represented all this in a very positive light and he said that we should not allow this process to drag on. In this context, my question is this: How can he have a positive view of the fact that in Canada, an area one eighth of the size of Austria is destroyed each year in connection with the exploitation of these tar sands and the entire livelihoods of the First Nations communities are being taken away? Does he really view this in such an incredibly positive light and is it not also part of Europe’s responsibility to impose appropriate conditions in this regard?

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, I should like to respond to Mr Obermayr’s question. I do not believe that I made any reference to tar sands in my speech, but I think it would be naive to imagine that the entire free trade agreement with Canada should simply revolve around this issue. That would be to lose our sense of perspective. It goes without saying that we should lay down clear environmental requirements in these free trade agreements. That is something that we do in all of our free trade agreements, but we cannot allow the entire agreement with Canada to be reduced simply to negotiations on the issue of tar sands.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, it is the intention of the Commission to set default values for the use of tar sands – not just from Canada, but from any source, including Venezuela, for example – for the purpose of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels, as required by the Fuel Quality Directive.

There has been extensive lobbying by Canada to try to prevent us doing this. I have met the Alberta Energy Minister, who has been doing the rounds, as I am sure others have too. Canada has also been lobbying Member States, and there has been the threat that Canada will take us to the World Trade Organisation if such an arrangement is introduced.

We have to tell Canada to back off. Canada is making a great deal of money out of exploiting its tar sands but it also made commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its CO2 emissions, and it has reneged on those commitments because of the financial benefits it is getting from tar sands. We do not want a dispute with Canada but we have to insist that we will not shrink from facing inconvenient truths.

  Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, against the backdrop of the ongoing negotiations with Canada, the issue of seal hunting raises its head once again. You even made reference to it yourself. I was the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety a few years back, but I remain an advocate of the ban on trading seal products. I therefore emphatically call on my fellow Members and also the Commission to absolutely not take their eye off this issue.

Around two years ago, we, Parliament, approved a trading ban with an overwhelming majority, despite the immense pressure from Canada on Parliament and the other institutions to water down the legislation. For us, the crucial factor, above all, was the voice of millions of European citizens, who have made known their opposition to this inhumane slaughter.

The ban has not been ineffective. As a result of this piece of legislation, amongst other things, the market pretty much collapsed, as the number of animals killed fell from 217 000 in 2008 to 38 000 this year, while the price of fur also fell from USD 100 in 2006 to USD 15 in 2009. Canada is now trying to penetrate new markets, for example in China, but there, too, voices calling for a trading ban are to be heard. It is thus also regrettable that Canada is still trying to fight this European legislation through the WTO. That is why it is so important that Parliament should again send Canada a strong signal at this point. We will not give up on this piece of legislation, which we worked for for so long, both within and outside the Union. I hope that my fellow Members will tomorrow lend their support in large numbers to an amendment that I have tabled along with a number of other Members.

  Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the negotiations with Canada are being conducted with a country that has a strong economy and a highly developed legal system. It is therefore all the more incomprehensible that the Commission wants to integrate, if not conceal, an investment agreement in this agreement to give undertakings a direct right to take legal action before a special arbitration court. Why ever should an ordinary court not decide on compensation in cases of doubt?

Which courts do you, as the Commission, not have any trust in whatsoever? Is it the Canadian courts or those in the European Union? Do you not see that, with this part of the agreement, you would be discriminating against the local undertakings?

As has already been mentioned by a few Members, my group is also strongly opposed to the Commission’s approach of using the agreement to force the liberalisation of services by means of a ‘negative list’. This turns on its head the approach that has been taken up to now where the contracting partners define the areas that they actively want to open. We want to retain public services.

I would also ask the Commission to provide an explanation for its rejection of Canada’s social and employment policy proposals, which ought to be seen in a positive light for the sustainability chapter. The European Parliament is also calling for the protection of workers, payment of overtime, minimum wages and rejection of social dumping.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, potential benefits for Canada as well as the European Union are obvious and backed up by research, as well as encouraging support from the private sector. This should be commended and further cooperation should be encouraged. However, since we are very aware of environmental issues in Europe, we should be tough and demand, as a matter of principle, that Canada fulfils our rigorous standards. I am very pleased that the Commissioner mentioned this in her presentation.

However, we should not only focus on sustainable development but also consider the extraction of resources which pose a risk to life and health such as asbestos, the use and extraction of which is banned in Europe. In addition, we should note the difference in regulations on genetically modified organisms. This is a particularly sensitive topic in my country, but, of course, the whole chapter on agriculture is important for both sides. It should also be noted that we have an obligation to reduce CO2 emissions.

The final issue, which is no less important, is trade in articles made from seals. This is an area where we should be tough in demanding compliance with our bans. Taking all of these important matters into account, I believe that our economic relations will achieve their full potential because they are supported by both sides. Our Parliament should also encourage this.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I had actually intended to address several points in my speech. I am not going to do that now as I would like to say something else.

I simply do not understand the Commission. It is supposed to be the guardian of European law, including the legislation that we have adopted, but when it comes to the trade agreement with Canada, it says that it is important that some people make a lot of money, but it is not important for European law to remain law. I do not understand how the Commission can say that we do not need to discuss the import ban on seal products in connection with these matters. We are talking about partners here and partners have mutual respect for each other’s values, views and interests and do not haul the other partner before a WTO court on account of that partner’s values. As far as I am concerned, that is not what trading partners are about. It is evident that if there is no mutual respect and the parties do not share each other’s views, then these parties will not be able to work well together in the area of trade. If Canada does not stop its action against the import ban on seal products before the conclusion of this kind of agreement, then, in my opinion, we should not agree to this trade agreement. As I said, good partners do not haul each other before WTO courts on account of their convictions. Good partners work together.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, during the negotiations on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) agreements, in particular with Canada, the EU head of delegation promised to retrocede the French cod fishing quota to the fishermen of St Pierre and Miquelon. That promise was not kept, and the fishermen, like St Pierre and Miquelon’s economy, are today suffering the consequences.

The negotiations currently taking place on an EU-Canada economic and trade agreement must not sacrifice what remains of St Pierre and Miquelon’s economy – again. That is why I tabled an amendment on this subject.

I call on the Commission to ensure that the strategic commercial interests of St Pierre and Miquelon are protected at all times during the negotiations. Commissioner, can you assure us of this?

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, I feel bound to note that a sense of fear and a need to defend European interests still prevail among some Members in this Chamber: in other words, they are on the defensive.

As far as I am concerned, I believe that this agreement with a country with which we have a long-standing bond of friendship is important as long as it is entered into on the right basis, that of true reciprocity, and is a balanced and ambitious agreement. It should not be limited to the elimination of tariff or non-tariff barriers but should represent an opportunity to take a qualitative leap in the elimination of environmental and health policy differences, and I refer, in particular, to the farming sector, the protection of animal species at risk of extinction and particular economic extractive activities that have a significant environmental impact, such as asbestos mining and oil sands drilling, or that restrict access to medicines for the poorest countries.

However, we must be positive in our attitude, not defensive like we were with Japan.

I would therefore emphasise the need to improve reciprocity in terms of the protection of intellectual property, including trademarks, geographical indications and policies for the reciprocal promotion of bilateral investment, aimed principally at innovation and technology and inspired by the positions already taken in this field by the European Parliament.

Madam President, I believe that the numerous bilateral agreements between Canada and the Member States are the best foundation on which to build a robust free trade agreement in the commercial arena, thanks to a friendship that we have already experienced in the UN, the G8, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, a friendship based on the ideals of democracy and freedom that characterise Canada and the European Union.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, I, too, should like to raise the issue of tar sands; this is an important issue, because it is the reason why a similar agreement which we already have with Canada, an international agreement on commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, is not being respected. We trust that Canada will take a different stand in the agreement being debated today.

In any event, Canada is fighting to secure free trade and a liberalised system of investments under this agreement for oil mined from tar sands. The environmental impact study for this agreement, which we paid for, does not include an assessment of the impact that liberalisation will have on tar sands. In other words, we have a trade agreement which refers to specific measures for trading oil mined from tar sands and we have an impact study for this agreement which does not include an assessment of the impact of this specific activity.

This makes it very difficult for Parliament to approve any agreement that ultimately transpires. That is because we are talking about the Boreal forests, about a quarter of the world’s virgin forests, and this mining activity will put those forests and local biodiversity and first nations at risk.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I think that EU-Canada trade relations are at a crossroads at the moment. Signature of the economic agreement is still under negotiation and the priorities of both parties must be included in the final document.

In this regard, I must highlight the differences in sanitary standards. Achieving consensus would avoid an adverse impact on the European agricultural sector. In addition, the agreement must also take into account the outcome of common agricultural policy reform. Clarifications on the sustainable development chapter are important. The EU has established its environmental standards in accordance with Member States’ requirements. Verifying their compatibility with the standards proposed by Canada is vital to ensuring the effectiveness of the final agreement. I think that close attention must also be paid to the impact of the drilling issue and oil surveys on the negotiations. This is why the Commission needs to explain where the Fuel Quality Directive comes in this document.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, unlike the last discussion, which was virtually unanimous in its approach, this is the exact opposite. Many people are very concerned about this proposed free trade agreement. Now free trade agreements, bilateral agreements, are the norm at this point in time and I think we have much more in common with Canada than any differences. They are a democracy. They respect human rights. They speak mainly English and French, European languages, and they are open to take in many people, even from my own country, who cannot find jobs in Ireland.

There are issues, largely concerning seals and tar sands. Obviously, they are important but, at the end of the day, I think that some of the points made here would be refuted by the Canadians – because I am a member of the EU-Canadian delegation and these matters have been discussed and they would have a different perspective – and that is why it is important that we continue to negotiate with them on these issues. But the bottom line is – and nobody referred to it other than the Commissioner – that there is a EUR 20 billion benefit to both economies here if we can work out a free trade agreement. It is worth trying.

(GA) Thank you, Madam President.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to congratulate the Commission on conducting these negotiations so intensively. At the end of the day, this is about trade relations, and I believe that environmental and social issues clearly also need to be regulated in separate agreements. Kyoto is a good example of this, where the intention was to improve standards at an international level. Therefore, we should be specific in our negotiations here.

Just as energy policy and the generation of energy is a matter for the Member States in Europe, we must also concede that it should be the Canadians and Canadian democracy that decide how energy is produced there and what environmental impact is ultimately to be taken into account. We ought to strive to ensure that a research programme is set up in this regard to help to enable these resources to be used in a way that is as environmentally friendly and sustainable as possible. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn, perhaps you could provide some impetus here to get a tar sands research programme put in place alongside this trade agreement.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Madam President, Commissioner, I broadly support the reservations voiced by my colleagues from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. The question is whether they can be resolved in this agreement or, as Mr Rübig said, whether other agreements are necessary. At this point, however, I would like to draw attention to a major problem, which is the ratification of this agreement. For example, the Czech Parliament has already blocked the ratification of a transport agreement, due to the continuing dispute with Canada over the abolition of visa requirements for Czech citizens. This is an extremely serious issue, and there is a risk that ratification of the agreement will be blocked until the Commission is able to resolve the issue properly. I am asking you to take this issue seriously.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, Canada is currently the European Union’s 11th biggest trade partner, with trade relations between the European Union and Canada accounting for 1.6% of the EU’s total external trade in 2010.

In 2010, 26% of the European Union’s imports from Canada and 37% of the European Union’s exports to Canada related to trade in machinery and transport equipment. I would like to know what impact this agreement is having on the European Union’s industrial policy strategy and on its strategy on raw materials and rare earths. With regard to deregulating services, because it was mentioned here, I would like to ask you, Commissioner, what the link will be between this agreement and the agreement on civil aviation safety and the air transport agreement between the European Union and Canada. The aim of both agreements is to make the European and Canadian markets competitive in this area, as they are extremely important for the air transport sector. I would therefore like to ask what the trade agreement’s impact will be on other agreements already signed between the European Union and Canada.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, I, too, wish to emphasise how important it is to conclude the negotiation of the European Union-Canada economic and trade agreement, thereby strengthening trade and economic links, which are already considerable, and yielding beneficial effects. However, during the negotiations, the European executive must strive to encourage an ambitious trade agreement, which will support fair trade and contain legally binding social and environmental protection elements.

The agreement must not jeopardise the Union’s ability to review the Fuel Quality Directive and to refuse to import oil extracted from oil sands, the exploitation of which generates more carbon dioxide than the conventional oil extraction method, thereby entailing a major harmful environmental impact. By refusing this kind of oil, the European Union would retain its credibility in terms of its desire to protect the environment and comply with the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, the CETA agreement marks an extremely important step towards a fruitful future for both the European Union and Canada. I support this project and am very pleased with the progress made so far. I think that we are on the right path to concluding the negotiations this year. However, I should point out that there are two points among the several being debated which need to be resolved to avoid creating problems at the time of ratification by some Member States, if they remain unresolved. These are the oil extractions from bituminous shale, which may pose a hazard to the environment and the local communities in the area, as well as the lack of reciprocity in the case of compulsory visa requirements for Bulgarian, Romanian and Czech citizens.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, this is yet another piece of the edifice which is European Union trade policy, an edifice which is growing by the day, with consequences that affect the various Member States profoundly but differently. The agreements that give concrete expression to this policy are essentially based on free trade, whose goals and effects are clearly demonstrated by the associated rhetoric: that of ‘offensive interests’, as if we were talking about a war. They are agreements that lack democratic legitimacy, and increasingly so as they are almost always negotiated in the greatest secrecy, behind the public’s backs, seeking to cover up their economic, social and environmental impact, avoiding informed debate and clearing things up. This is the case once again.

With negotiations at a stage said to be fairly advanced and their conclusion envisaged for 2011, its impact on sectors and countries has yet to be fully debated. Its content is nothing new: the opening up of markets, and the liberalisation of services, including increasingly commercialised public services at the mercy of multinationals, making it harder for Member States to exercise their social function in these areas. The consequences are also well known: the domination of markets by a few, an impact on weaker production systems, and increasing pretexts for attacks on rights, and on working and living conditions.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD) – (SK) Madam President, the European Union engages in negotiations on trade and economic agreements with all influential countries, within the bounds of its competence.

Although Canada has a strong presence in international trade, and is one of the European Union’s oldest trading partners, we must proceed very sensitively and constructively as we finalise the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the European Union and Canada. Our divergent positions on areas such as drug policy, fisheries policy and the production of oil from tar sands need to be set out in the agreement in such a way as to represent European Union policy while respecting the views of our trading partner. Reciprocity stands at the core of balanced trade and economic relations. However, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement should by no means diminish Europe’s established and accepted certification parameters. I would like to believe that, as we approach the finish line, the European Commission will be up to the challenge of finding appropriate solutions to the remaining problems.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, Canada is – I would like to say this at the outset – a wonderful country. Wonderful people, wonderful achievements – an important partner for the EU. However, we must be able to ask questions of a good partner. Many fellow Members are wrong to simply reduce this matter to sand and seals today. The tar sands represent just one example of incredible environmental destruction. Anyone who has seen Canada knows that environmental destruction is taking place there on a scale to match Brazil.

This environmental destruction also has an impact on the indigenous people, the First Nations. Their environment is being destroyed. Anyone who knows a bit about Canada, has visited British Columbia and knows how international corporations have used their influence here to make the indigenous peoples give up their ancestral areas and allow these areas to be bought up, cannot simply ignore this.

We talk a great deal about clear language and about protection of minorities in countries adjacent to the EU. However, it is also important for us to speak out with regard to the protection of the minorities that are the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. – (GA) Madam President, honourable Members, I would firstly like to thank all the Members who participated in this debate and Vital Moreira for putting the question to Parliament.

The Commission has taken careful note of the substance of your questions and I do hope that the answers address your possible underlying concerns.

As you know, the negotiations are making good progress. The Commission wants to ensure a balanced, ambitious, high-quality agreement and it wants to be equally ambitious on sustainable development. Canada is a highly developed, like-minded partner with strategic links going far beyond trade and investment. The EU and Canada share the ambitious negotiation objectives that can be realised to our mutual benefit, creating the potential for new opportunities.

Let me emphasise two things in particular. As regards the oil sands issues and your concerns in relation to this negotiation, for the Fuels Quality Directive to fall within the scope of CETA’s regulatory cooperation provisions, both parties would need to agree. CETA’s regulatory cooperation provisions would not impose any obligation to hold such discussions. Furthermore, the Commission does not propose entering into any commitment that would restrict the regulatory freedom of the EU, be it on environmental issues such as fuel quality, or on any other essential policy objective.

As I mentioned in the introduction, this agreement is hugely beneficial to our two economies and not just in material terms. In both countries, opportunities will be created for business and the manufacturing sector, thanks to the elimination of substantially all imported tariffs and improved market access for services and investors. Consumers will gain through more affordable purchases and enhanced access to high-quality services. At the same time, increased flows of foreign direct investment would act as a catalyst to creating jobs and boosting wages.

The CETA will also cover regulatory barriers such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, customs procedures and competition rules. European intellectual property rights will gain increased protection. Reciprocal access to both sides’ procurement markets would not only mean savings for public budgets but also provide huge business opportunities.

This is why the Commission is convinced that this will be a good and balanced agreement. Our very debate tonight allows for important clarifications to be made. In this context, the Commission takes careful note, welcomes the resolution to be adopted by Parliament on EU-Canada trade relations and is grateful for its general support.

My colleague, Commissioner De Gucht, will, of course, continue to keep you informed of further developments in the CETA process.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The European Union and Canada have had good, solid trade relations for many years. Canada is even one of the EU’s oldest trading partners. In the mid-1970s, the EU signed the first economic and trade agreement with Canada. Further agreements followed in the livestock sector and with regard to wines and spirits. The EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA) could be very advantageous for both trading partners. However, there are still a few things that need to be taken into consideration and discussed. Clearly, the aim of the agreement must be fair competition. This can only be achieved if not only the tariff barriers but also the non-tariff and technical barriers to trade are removed. The principle of reciprocity must be respected, because that is the only way to achieve a balanced outcome of the negotiations. That also applies to elements that are specific to the country or culture of the individual partners. Discussions of tricky subjects like extraction from tar sands and the associated environmental impact, ILO standards, as well as the recognition of technical standards and the traceability of food products, must also continue on equal terms in order to reach a consensus. Of particular interest to me are the negotiations in the dairy sector and access to the Canadian market as well as origin labelling of Canadian slaughter cattle. Can the Commission provide more information in these areas? What outcome can we expect in this regard?

  Maurice Ponga (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am glad that Parliament is stating its views on the current EU-Canada trade negotiations and outlining its priorities in this regard. Canada is undoubtedly a trade partner of the EU, but it is imperative that we in Parliament relay the concerns of our fellow citizens located both on European territory and in regions forming part of the European family, namely, the protection and defence of their interests. By ‘European family’, I mean the overseas countries and territories (OCT), which, although not strictly European territories, maintain a special relationship with the European Union, and, in particular, with the Member States of which they are part. In the trade negotiations currently under way, it is the archipelago of St Pierre and Miquelon, next door to Canada, that is particularly affected. I therefore call on the Commission, during the negotiations, to defend and protect the interests of that overseas country and territory situated in the North Atlantic Ocean.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Canada is one of Europe’s oldest trade partners. It is only natural, therefore, that this relationship should be formalised via a comprehensive trade agreement. I do wonder, however, about the content of several negotiating chapters.

Firstly, the EU and Canada have different rules of origin systems. As Canada is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission must undertake to find a satisfactory solution regarding both industrial products and agricultural or fisheries products, so that Canada does not become a gateway through which goods from other NAFTA members enter Europe.

The Commission will also have to negotiate a solution that can be applied to two different geographical indication systems: in Canada, ‘geographical indication’ is a mere adjective; in Europe, it is a bona fide trademark. If European geographical indications are genuinely to be protected, the Canadian authorities will have to recognise the European concept.

Regarding the chapter on public works contracts, lastly, Canada must grant the EU the same access it granted the United States under their trade agreement; in other words, European businesses must be able to tender for contracts in the provinces, regions and certain municipalities.

(1) See Minutes

20. One-minute speeches (Rule 150)

  President. – The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, for the last fortnight, tens, if not thousands of citizens have spontaneously gathered in the streets and squares of Athens and other cities. The exasperated Greeks have taken the baton from the Spaniards. In the midst of deep crisis, recession and unemployment, they are asking, peacefully but forcefully, for some prospect of a decent life for themselves, their families and their children. The size of the crowd and its complaint are unprecedented, even for a country with Greece’s strong political way of life and tradition. This is a very serious political development with unforeseeable dimensions and implications.

At a time when there are no watertight compartments between countries, we need to listen very carefully to the uproar of events. We need to listen to Mr Reynders, the Belgian Minister for Finance, when he says that we should not go beyond the measures that society can bear in Greece, because that will destroy growth and the country will not recover. No policy is viable if it is not backed or, at the very least, tolerated by society, especially a policy which can basically be summarised as a dilemma between exhausting austerity or bankruptcy. This policy urgently needs serious change and correction, not only in order to make it fairer, but also if it is to be more effective, for the benefit of everyone.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the European Capital of Culture is one of the European Union’s most recognisable cultural initiatives. According to studies carried out by the Commission, it is a reason for national pride and shared responsibility among the inhabitants of the nominated cities. In 2016, the nations hosting the contest will be Poland and Spain. Two cities will be chosen from both of these countries to be the European Capital of Culture 2016.

My home city of Gdańsk is in a small group leading the Polish contest, which will be decided this month. I am a keen supporter of this candidacy whose motto is ‘Cultural freedom – culture of freedom’. Gdańsk is, historically, a Hanseatic port and the birthplace of the Solidarity movement, which is synonymous with freedom. Now we would like to create a modern programme based on these roots. We stand for freedom of access to our cultural heritage and daily intergenerational and neighbourly solidarity. I believe that my city has much to offer to European society, and victory in this prestigious contest would contribute to an even greater level of prosperity.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, the drought which we are currently facing throughout the whole of Europe, along with the forecast for the period ahead, is fuelling concerns not only about a new hike in food prices, but also about food safety. In these circumstances, I believe that the European Commission must pay EU subsidies in advance to support the farmers who need to use existing irrigation systems, thereby avoiding the total loss of this year’s harvests. Solutions must also be taken into account, along with this measure, for supporting the implementation of irrigation systems where their use is necessary. Thirty per cent of Romania’s area is irrigated land, while the lack of water and prevalence of drought are creating problems similar to those of the other Member States, but without being able to provide support to farmers with this life-saving measure, in the event of this situation.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Madam President, I wanted to speak about the role that sport can play in increasing economic prosperity in our regions. In Wales, I see rugby and other major sporting events boosting the economy of Cardiff. Another boost will come following the wonderful achievement of Swansea City Football Club – and I say this for the benefit of my colleague Richard Howitt – who have just deservedly reached the Premier Football League after a fantastic season. I pay tribute to the manager, players, directors, staff and fans who have made promotion possible. They will be a credit to the Premier League, to Wales, and will give a much needed boost to the local economy, as fans, tourists and, hopefully, businesses come to the region.

Finally, I hope the EU recognises the importance of sport, both economically and socially, and will provide funds to boost sport at all levels, particularly as, since the Lisbon Treaty, the EU now has competence in the field of sport for the first time.

  Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE). – (EL) Madam President, I have consistently supported the programme to restructure my country. I am therefore entitled to point out the weaknesses. Firstly, the programme relies too heavily on taxation, instead of public spending cuts. It is therefore throttling the Greek private sector, which is the only sector that can repay the massive debts. Secondly, there is no rational plan at present to make use of Greek government property. Thirdly, the programme is progressing very slowly and this, in conjunction with the specific messages to the Greek public coming out of Europe, is undermining political support for the reforms. This is happening every single day. We therefore need a bolder programme which calls for faster adjustment and which will provide serious development aid in the form of a European Marshall Plan. Such a programme would have a greater chance of success and we all need that success.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE) . – (RO) Madam President, I would like to raise for discussion the recent events in the world of football and, in particular, the election of Sepp Blatter as head of FIFA. I think that his re-election is deplorable at a time when serious corruption charges have been levelled at FIFA, especially concerning the holding of the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. I think that Member State governments should call for FIFA to be reformed and for its activities to be regulated. This might create greater transparency and help avoid such regrettable events, thereby restoring confidence in FIFA.

Football has become increasingly more like a business. Lack of transparency and accusations of corruption are also affecting Romanian football. Recently, Politehnica Timişoara, who finished runners-up in the Romanian league championship and were due to play in the Champions League, have been relegated to Romania’s third division based on a completely random decision. This unjust decision will affect hundreds of thousands of the Timişoara team’s fans.

I also appeal from this Chamber to the football authorities in Romania to reverse this decision and allow Politehnica Timişoara to remain in top-flight Romanian and European football.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). – Madam President, 2 June 2011 marked the start of the historic Tallinn-Monte Carlo Electric Car Marathon, and today the cars will be reaching Copenhagen.

Gesine Meissner and I, as Liberal Members of the European Parliament, are sponsoring an electric car in the race in order to promote sustainable transportation. With increasing consumption rates, the depletion of fossil fuels is becoming inevitable and we should therefore increase investment in further research and in the development of sustainable transportation. Furthermore, increasing mobility is taking its toll in terms of people’s carbon footprint, and that could accelerate global climate change.

The European Union and its Member States have the opportunity of becoming pioneers in green transportation by introducing incentives to the users of sustainable means of transport, and encouraging the transition to a carbon-free Union.

  Oriol Junqueras Vies (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, the origin of the infection that caused twenty-one deaths in Germany last week is still unknown. This further highlights the undue haste with which the German authorities acted.

The accusations are particularly serious, given that the German market is a key consumer of agricultural products, which is indeed the reason why it has received significant investments for the promotion of those products.

The European authorities therefore need to take action on two fronts. In the short term, implementation of a mechanism to compensate the European farmers most affected must be guaranteed, while in the medium term, it will be necessary to reform the early warning system for unsafe food to prevent any more unfounded alarms in the future. These measures will have to take into account the diversity of the European agricultural industry.

Hence, the Commission’s proposal to fund a recall mechanism using the vegetable producers organisations’ budget is unacceptable. In many regions in Europe, such as Catalonia for example, such organisations do not exist, and therefore the system cannot be used to compensate farmers.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, indifferent to the economic and social devastation caused by the structural changes approved by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in countries like Greece, the leaders of the European Union are now stepping up their offensive and launching themselves on Portugal with the same approach and unbridled colonial arrogance. In exchange for a EUR 78 billion loan, a country where the minimum wage is not even EUR 500 will face cuts in wages and pensions, and the closure of public services, as well as being forced to give up national companies and resources. It also faces an increase in the prices of essential goods and services, and EUR 30 billion in interest, which equates to around 40% of the total loan. More than two-thirds of this interest will go to the European Union itself. This is the meaning of the much-vaunted European solidarity.

Persisting in this course of action will inevitably lead to an intensification of the social struggle which has been raging throughout Europe, including Portugal. We are, and will continue to be, here to support and encourage it, certain that only through such struggle can change be instigated, and an alternative that is needed increasingly urgently put in place in Europe.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, after all the sound bites during the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, the European Commission continues to demonstrate complete indifference when faced with worsening poverty, particularly child poverty, unemployment and massive increases in the numbers of poor workers due to precarious and poorly paid work. However, this is now not only limited to neoliberal tendencies, but has dire consequences for countries with weak economies, where it is imperative to strengthen public policies to support public services, create employment with rights, and eradicate poverty.

Memoranda like the one the troika of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Commission drew up with Portuguese officials demanded anti-social policies, including amendments to redundancy and privatisation laws, and attacks on public and universal social security which can only lead to social regression, condemning workers and the public to unemployment, poverty, underdevelopment and extreme dependency. It will transform Portugal into a mere protectorate of the great powers of the EU. All of this in exchange for a loan that the Portuguese have to repay, at high interest rates, to increase the profits of international financial capitalism, even though we know full well that such measures resolve nothing, as the case of Greece clearly demonstrates.

That is why I am protesting against such measures here, and this protest will continue both in Portugal and in the EU.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Madam President, first of all, may I express my condolences for all the deaths caused by E. coli, but also my indignation at the extremely unfit way in which the German Administration has treated this issue, causing irreparable damage to all Spanish agricultural products.

I hope that, in tomorrow’s extraordinary meeting of European Union agriculture ministers, this damage caused to Spanish farmers will first of all be redressed with no exclusions, and secondly, that lessons will be learnt: namely, what should not be done in a situation that has indeed resulted in fatalities, but also concerning damage to the products of many countries including my own, Spain. Lessons have to be learnt from this crisis.

Obviously, I hope that the outcome of tomorrow’s extraordinary meeting will be redress with no exclusions and a return to normality, so that products that are in perfect condition can circulate throughout the European Union and the world at large.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD) – (SK) Madam President, Friday’s announcement by European Union representatives that the International Monetary Fund would release a further tranche of EUR 12 billion in credit to Greece was given an encouraging reception by the markets.

Today, however, the Spanish newspaper El País reports that the autonomous region of Castilla-La Mancha has run out of money. Not only does the regional government find itself unable to pay the wages of 76 000 employees, but it still owes roughly EUR 2 billion to its various suppliers. We are faced with more bad news, then, this time from Spain, a country that has long struggled to maintain investor confidence.

Yet the policy of assisting governments by having the European Central Bank buy up their debts cannot go on for much longer, as it is reaching its limits. The European Central Bank already has EUR 360 billion in financial instruments on its books that are not freely tradable and holds a further EUR 480 billion in poorly secured securities. It is the pacemaker, then, for holders of bad financial assets. If this continues, ladies and gentlemen, the euro area will soon have to rescue the European Central Bank, or simply fall apart.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to make a few comments with regard to the European integration of Serbia, if I may. For far too long, the former Yugoslavian states have, in my opinion, received unequal treatment. For example, Slovenia was able to join the EU without a problem in 2004, even though criticisms are still made regarding the residual Communist power structures in politics, the media and industry. Moreover, Bulgaria and Romania would not be in the Union if we had applied the same stringent criteria to them that we are now applying to Croatia.

Double standards are also applied with regard to war crimes and restitution. Brussels could not care less about Turkey’s Armenian genocide. In contrast, Croatia and Serbia must first haul their war criminals before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague before the Copenhagen criteria can even come into play. While the unlawful regulations of the Anti-Fascist Council of the People’s Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) and Beneš do not constitute grounds for blocking EU accession, the Serbian restitution policy certainly has to comply with EU stipulations.

Serbia, which is characterised by a Christian tradition, has proven its good intentions again and again. One barrier has been broken down with the extradition of Mladič, but Kosovo must not become the next one. As soon as the outstanding reforms are complete, there should, in my view, be nothing more to stand in the way of Serbia’s accession to the EU.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, I wish to join my fellow Members in expressing my condolences for the twenty-one victims of E. coli, but also my indignation beyond mere concern at the episodes of uncoordinated response that have caused significant financial damage to the producers and workers of sectors that are crucial to the agriculture of European Union Member States, particularly Spanish cucumber producers. These episodes have also damaged the very notion of Europe, cohesion within Europe and cohesion among Europeans, to the extent that, once again, prejudice or insufficiently verified rumours have seriously impaired the cohesion needed to decide on a satisfactory, timely and appropriate response.

I therefore hope that the lessons that inescapably emerge will, in fact, be learnt. I hope that the Council of Agriculture Ministers will be able not just to provide compensation for the injured parties, but also to establish a response protocol that takes on board the lessons extracted from this unfortunate experience.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, returning to sport, FIFA has been mentioned and I would like to mention it as well, in particular, the lack of proper governance and the lack of transparency at the higher levels of the organisation.

It is extraordinary that a 75-year-old man, Sepp Blatter, is going to be returned to power as President of one of the world’s leading sports organisations, having been in power now since 1998, especially when you consider that the vast majority of the players – probably 99% of them – are under 30 years of age. There must be not just one generation gap, but several generation gaps between him and the players.

Secondly, it was not surprising last year that England got so little support for the awarding of the World Cup venue, despite its great infrastructure. Qatar was awarded it and subsequently we saw people suspended for trying to sell their votes. I wonder whether this is the tip of the iceberg. There is also the matter of FIFA’s failure to introduce goal line technology when other sports have done so. It is quite clear that a real reform is needed in the interests of the sport itself and FIFA.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that drug taking is prohibited in sport. Drug taking is prohibited because it confers unfair advantages on some sportspeople over others. Nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, in the European Union, we have a certain type of drug that is not intended for sportspeople but for farmers – in the form of uneven levels of support for them. For example, Latvian farmers receive three times less support than German farmers, and as much as six times less than Greek farmers. This unfair support makes for unfair competition. Ladies and gentlemen, I call upon you, when you are considering and planning the next European financial perspective and period, that you eliminate these drugs, that you cut out this unfair support for farmers, so that all European farmers can become equally competitive. Thank you for your attention.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, hundreds of thousands of Greek citizens of all ages and from all classes have been protesting peacefully – I repeat peacefully – over the past two weeks in town squares throughout the country.

I would like to make two points: firstly, we need to listen to them and to heed their concerns. We need to do this not only at national level, but also at European level. Our fellow citizens in towns throughout Greece are shouting to be heard in Brussels, in Strasbourg, everywhere.

Secondly, over and above any debate about the mistakes and misguided action of the Greek Government, we need to bear this in mind: in their evaluation of the policies being proposed and applied by Europe to deal with the crisis, our fellow citizens are saying to us: ‘We have our limits. Do not push us beyond our limits’. Clear and specific answers need to be given to these messages. Only then will Europe’s help in dealing with the crisis create a vision and hope among our fellow citizens.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, multiculturalism assumes that nations living side by side mutually know each other’s past, culture, and sometimes language, as well. However, the fuss stirred up in Romania a few days ago can only be explained by the lack of this reciprocity. Two Romanian counties opened a representative office in Brussels, but according to a journalist working in the capital, the problem with this is that the majority of the population of the counties concerned does not belong to the same ethnic group as the majority of the Romanian population. Is this a problem in Europe today? The way of thinking that would forbid a neighbour to commemorate the day when he had lost his fortune, land, or perhaps even his relatives, is just as morbid. We had an example of that in the past days as well, when we commemorated the Trianon Peace Treaty ending World War I on 4 June. There is a remedy for the way of thinking that excludes and shuts up people, denies the past, and wants to impede the development and existence of a region: a strong Europe that is open and inclusive, that appreciates cultural values, and respects the rights of minorities.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – (BG) Madam President, the economic crisis and difficulties which all Member States are experiencing, although to varying degrees, has given impetus to nationalist and populist groups which are not only looking for greater public support, but are also constantly testing European citizens’ limits of tolerance by acting openly against the expansion of integration in Europe.

One recent example of this from Bulgaria are the events which took place on 20 May, when representatives of the nationalist party Attack became involved in clashes with Muslim worshippers outside the only mosque in Sofia. These clashes were accompanied by the use of force and arson, and ended up with several people sustaining injuries, including police officers. Since video recordings are available of the clashes, the test for the investigative agencies and justice system in Bulgaria will be to what extent the instigators and participants in this incident will be justly punished.

I would like to state very clearly in this Chamber that the dissemination of ethnic and religion intolerance is an action which blatantly contradicts European values and basic human rights, as well as the traditions of Bulgarian society.

We must all firmly oppose any attempt of this happening in Europe and clearly distance ourselves from the political forces in Europe which are behind such actions.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, as part of publishing the global Press Freedom Index for 2010, the organisation Reporters Without Borders drew attention to the decline in the freedom of expression in the European Union. Romania is in 52nd position in the index, marking a drop of 10 places compared with 2007. This is a worrying situation and it raises question marks concerning the actual respect for the right of expression and information guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.

In Romania, the press has been included by the country’s president among the threats to national security. In addition, policy makers are constantly making disparaging remarks about the media. Such moves away from democratic principles tarnish the European Union’s image as a whole. Due to internal shortcomings, we are at risk of losing our credibility as upholders of respect for human rights outside the EU. This is why I urge genuine protection at EU level for the freedom of expression and press pluralism.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, this is the second occasion that I am presenting before the European Parliament the disastrous situation in Romania’s health insurance system. Unfortunately, at the moment, the negotiations between the GPs’ professional associations, the Ministry of Health and the National Health Insurance Office have reached deadlock. As a result, the health system is being blocked and legal rights are being refused to patients who, although they are still paying their health insurance contributions, can no longer enjoy the relevant facilities. This situation has resulted from the persistent refusal on the part of the National Health Insurance Office to conduct realistic negotiations with GPs with the aim of drafting an operating framework contract, beneficial to all the stakeholders. If this situation carries on much longer, the health service in Romania, which has been weakened so much, is at risk of disintegrating.

I would like the relevant European bodies to take note of this situation, monitor it and take action to resolve it as soon as possible.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, we talk every day in the European Parliament, from morning till night, about European integration, solidarity, a common culture and about everything which unites us and should continue to motivate us to build a common future for all 27 European Union Member States.

While we are debating European projects, a vice-president of the same European Parliament similarly discusses matters every day, from morning till night. However, this is about segregation based on ethnic criteria, reducing the influence and undermining the authority of a state within its borders in favour of another neighbouring state, about breaking up territories belonging to one European Union Member State and annexing them to another Member State of the same European Union. Not only on a personal note, but also on behalf of the Romanian Social Democrat MEPs, I call for László Tőkés to be dismissed from his position as Vice-President.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, I wish to express my deep concern regarding the medics who have been arrested in Bahrain. Many of these medics have been accused of trying to overthrow the monarchy and face trial with military prosecutors and possible death sentences. Yet these doctors and nurses had simply treated injured protestors who were brought to their hospitals. Amnesty International and Médecins sans Frontières have also expressed extreme concern over the safety of those involved and indeed the motivation behind their arrests. I fully support the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation and the International Council of Nurses, and indeed a number of Irish doctors, who are adding their voices in condemnation of these awful events.

In the last few days, I have received information from a number of sources which points to torture and inhumane treatment: some medics have been severely beaten and have been denied access to their families and legal advisers. This kind of action is totally unacceptable.

I am calling publicly on our High Representative, Catherine Ashton. I have already written to her to ask her to make every effort to intervene on behalf of those medics who simply did what medical personnel do – try to save lives.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the new austerity package for Greece, which includes EUR 28 billion of cuts and taxes and the privatisation of an incredible EUR 50 billion worth of state assets, confirms again the role of the EU and the IMF as enforcers for anti-worker austerity policies.

Young people have been on the receiving end of their vicious attacks. They are now fighting back with hundreds of thousands occupying squares across Europe, bravely facing down brutal repression. They have correctly raised the call for true democracy. In my opinion, that can only be truly achieved by breaking the dictatorship of the markets and building a democratic socialist society where people’s needs come before profits.

15 June promises to be an important day of struggle across Europe. A general strike will take place in Greece and a major demonstration is planned in Barcelona. Big protests should be organised right across Europe against austerity on that day. To defeat the onslaught against workers and young people in Europe, the power of the organised working class must be mobilised. A one-day general strike across Europe would send a very powerful message of opposition to the European establishment.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, a week ago, Presidents Buzek, Barroso and Van Rompuy met religious representatives to discuss democratic rights and civil liberties. I wish to congratulate President Barroso on taking the initiative in 2005 to inaugurate this dialogue with religious leaders; I also wish to congratulate the Presidents of Parliament and of the Council for maintaining this dialogue on an annual basis.

At the same time, however, I wish to join forces with the religious representatives who called for the European Union to exert its influence in order to put a stop to the persecution of Christians in countries such as Egypt and Iraq and within Europe, in European Cyprus, where the occupying forces are denying Christians entry to their occupied churches and preventing priests and bishops from celebrating Holy Mass. Show them, Madam President, that Christian refugees in Cyprus are entitled to celebrate mass in their churches.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, immediately after the meeting in Luxembourg on 6 May, which was reported in an article in Der Spiegel, Greece was on the receiving end of a new wave of recommendations that it should leave the euro area and go back to the drachma. Of course, the official position of the European Union was expressed by Commissioner Olli Rehn, who denied the rumours and the recommendations.

Over and above the views of economists to the contrary and the numerous views of fellow Members in this Chamber, it must be made clear that Greece cannot leave the euro for legal reasons. Firstly, because the Treaties make no provision for voluntary or involuntary exit from the common currency. Secondly, if we returned to the drachma without abolishing the euro area and the euro, there would be no legal facility for automatically converting deposits in euros in Greek banks, both inside and outside Greece, to drachmas without the depositor’s consent. When Greece joined the euro area, it was possible to convert deposits in drachmas because the drachma was abolished as a currency and has not existed since. Now, however, the euro continues to exist and has not been abolished. Therefore, any rumours and any recommendations are legally incorrect.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). – (DE) Madam President, whistleblowers are people who no longer wish to keep quiet about illegal acts or deplorable states of affairs, but want to expose them, mostly in the public interest. Whistleblowers are also mostly providing added value. For example, in 2005, they returned a total of around USD 10 billion to the US Treasury through repayments.

Clear laws relating to the process of whistleblowing are essential in the fight against corruption. In the European Union, Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations form the legal basis for whistleblowing, but unfortunately in a very fragmented way, leaving many gaps. Fundamental elements are missing. For example, we need a clear definition of whistleblowing, we need whistleblowers to have a right to be heard, we need independent points of contact that can provide information on rights, obligations and options, and not least we also need precise handling deadlines for the competent EU institutions. The positive aspect here is that the EU Staff Regulations are about to be reformed. The Commission is to send Parliament a first draft of this in the autumn. I think this presents a unique opportunity to make improvements here. I would ask my fellow Members to support this and to work to bring about a reform.

  Corneliu Vadim Tudor (NI). – (RO) Madam President, football is truly a religion, but it is a religion in which the devil is more than involved. Why is this? This is because a great deal of money is at stake, which is a charge on boredom and loneliness for billions of the planet’s inhabitants. During the current summer days, Romania is being engulfed in the drama involving a very popular football team, Politehnica Timişoara. This team won the right, through its own, honest efforts, to take part in a European cup competition. However, now we see that its victory on the pitch has turned into a loss through a random decision. In specific terms, the mafia in charge of Romanian football has shaken hands with the mafia in charge of international football and decided to impose a drastic double penalty: to remove the team in question from the European cup competition and relegate it to a lower, amateur division. No matter what financial and legal excuses are being given, this is a draconian penalty and hits hard not only a fine team but also a beautiful city with more than 300 000 inhabitants who do not have too many other sources of joy.

As a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, I am sounding an alarm bell so as to put an end to this awful injustice which may have significant social consequences.

  President. – The debate is closed.

21. Credit rating agencies (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Klinz, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on credit rating agencies: future perspectives (2010/2302(INI) (A7-0081/2011).

  Wolf Klinz, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, credit rating agencies certainly did not cause the global financial crisis, but, in my opinion, they were responsible to a significant extent for its severity. When the so-called structured financial products were developed in America on the basis of the subprime mortgages, the credit rating agencies supported this process by rating dozens, if not hundreds, of products each day in an almost conveyor-belt fashion. In so doing, they also accepted conflicts of interests, in that they supported the issuers with advice and help in designing these products.

They continued to claim that they were only expressing an opinion, although they knew very well that their ratings were, in fact, being used as a seal of approval. My report deals with numerous deficiencies and puts forward proposals in the hope that the Commission will perhaps be able to include some of them in its legislative proposal that it will be tabling in the autumn.

I put forward five proposals. The first is that the reliance on ratings must be reduced. In practice, we have found that the regulatory environment has led to the use of ratings being absolutely essential, by banks, insurance companies, pension funds etc. which invest their money. Basel II made this very clear and, in fact, the credit rating agencies have become regulatory certification bodies.

We need to make it possible once again for market operators, particularly institutional investors, which possess their own expertise to actually take responsibility themselves and not outsource the responsibility for investment decisions. It needs to be made clear that investors should only invest if they actually understand the product and cannot use the excuse that they can, to a certain extent, automatically make a triple A product the goal of their investment strategy.

Secondly, we must ensure that the information on which credit rating agencies base their decisions is made publicly available, that it is understood, and that the models used are also known. That will lead to transparency and will also make it easier for institutional investors seeking to invest to make their own decisions. It will also help to enable unsolicited ratings to be given. In this connection, we should also consider whether the proposal that the United States is considering is a sensible one, namely, that where only one credit rating agency is chosen by issuers, a second, independent body could be encouraged to give a rating and this second body could be allowed to work on the basis of the information that is publicly available.

Thirdly, we need more competition. We have a de facto oligopoly. The three credit rating agencies that exist and operate worldwide control 95% of the global business. They have a so-called monopoly income of 40% return on turnover, and therefore I am proposing that we set up a European credit rating agency. It should be based on a foundation model and the start-up financing should be provided by the finance sector by means of interest-bearing loans. After five years, we will know whether it is working and then this credit rating foundation will also have to pay back the funds that it has received.

However, I am sure that there are also other options. It would also make sense to perhaps allow national and regional credit rating agencies to operate in the form of a European network.

Fourthly, we still have an outstanding matter with regard to the payment model. Currently, we have an issuer-pays model. That is the model that essentially works throughout the world. Thus, the issuer pays, but clearly there is a conflict of interests here that we could reduce if there was no more advising of issuers and if the staff of the supervisory bodies was genuinely independent. Other possible models include a subscriber-pays model. Here, there is obviously the risk of conflicts of interest as well as of this being an invitation to freeloaders. Therefore, this needs consideration. The third option would be a performance-based payment, in other words, an up-front payment and then the final payment only once it is clear how good the rating is.

The last, but important, point is that we must introduce liability. Credit rating agencies must accept responsibility for what they actually do, and therefore I believe that we should make them liable, obviously not for the rating as such, but for failures and negligence in their work.

IN THE CHAIR: RAINER WIELAND
Vice-President

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the credit rating industry has numerous shortcomings, the most important of which are the lack of competition and transparency, as well as the oligopolistic structures. Competition would be enhanced by creating a regulatory environment which will promote market entry. This would carry out an in-depth analysis of the current obstacles. I should emphasis how important it is to monitor the progress of the Basel III system and the process relating to Chapter 4 of the Capital Requirements Directive. There is a need to increase accountability and the powers for monitoring the internal models and imposing preventive measures. All rating agencies must abide by the highest standards relating to the publication of information, transparency and management of conflicts of interest.

At the moment, Romania’s rating has a stable outlook. This could improve if the pace of structural reforms and the stability of the financial sector are maintained.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the credit rating agencies lost their credibility a long time ago. Our rapporteur is absolutely right on that point. They upgrade and downgrade almost everything: countries, banks, municipalities, even public corporations, absolutely everything, but their ratings are based, for the most part, on undisclosed, unpublished and, hence, non-transparent information.

The issue of the lack of transparency and, hence, of the credibility of the data used by credit rating agencies raises an important question: is it fair, is it logical, is it morally correct for ratings that affect the economy and upset the lives of millions of our fellow citizens overnight to be non-transparent and possibly unreliable? Obviously it is not.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD) – (SK) Mr President, in the wake of the financial meltdown, the credit rating agencies, which assess financial product safety, were criticised for their unprofessional and self-serving ratings of financial products.

Doubts arose over the fairness and professionalism of their evaluations after the transparency of their operating mechanisms was found to be wanting, and it is therefore time we looked for ways to improve the system for the constant assessment and rating of financial products.

In this light, I consider the report submitted by the rapporteur to be very important, and I think that the processes he has outlined will enable us to modify the apparatus used to assess financial products so that the conclusions that are offered, either by rating agencies or by other mechanisms, will result in more objective ratings of financial products.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, experience has clearly shown that credit rating agencies are not credible and that their activities continue to be detrimental to certain countries, whether to their economies or to their sovereign debt. Today, this is particularly affecting countries that have relatively weak economies. That is why the intervention of credit rating agencies, which continue to be extremely harmful despite having lost all of their credibility, must be properly controlled. This control should not be limited to transparency rules, but should go further and exert complete control over the international financial system, while also putting an end to tax havens, properly regulating the financial sector with taxes on the movement of speculative capital, and preventing financial capital from continuing to ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, I absolutely agree with the rapporteur on all five points of his proposals on so-called rating agencies and the exaggerated impact which they have on the global economy and on the European economy. These firms cannot, at the same time, engage in commercial activities which are similar or relate to their supervisory or rating role.

We are calling for controls on reports by these agencies, for certain basic principles to be adopted, and for liability for compensation to be introduced for losses caused to states which were poorly evaluated or misleadingly evaluated. I also propose that basic accounting principles be introduced and applied in all the Member States of the European Union, so as to highlight the value, the official valuation of the property of these states, so that we have assets and liabilities and these states cannot be left prey to the whims of rating agencies and the parties they represent.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, Commissioner Barnier is currently in the United States meeting with his counterparts and he has asked me to convey to you the following statement in reply to Wolf Klinz’s own-initiative report on rating agencies, which was adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in March.

The Commissioner agrees that shortcomings in the working methods of credit rating agencies are widely recognised today as having contributed to the financial crisis. In order to address these concerns, and in accordance with G20 commitments, the EU reacted very quickly by adopting – already in 2009 – a regulation on credit rating agencies. This introduces strict requirements with which agencies must comply in order to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and to improve the quality of rating and methodologies as well as the transparency of the ratings.

As a second step, following the establishment of the three new European financial supervisory agencies, the regulation of credit rating agencies will be strengthened by the introduction of centralised supervision by the European Supervisory Markets Authority. The amending regulation became effective on 1 June 2011. We will pay very close attention to the correct application of this legislation.

Nowadays, the European regulatory framework is a model for other jurisdictions. However, the developments in the European markets following the sovereign debt crisis in spring 2010 make it clear that further review and strengthening is required. For this reason, the Commission undertook in June 2010 to analyse the topics in depth. A public consultation was carried out, the Commission services have evaluated the responses and are working on an impact assessment with a view to issuing legislative proposals in the course of this year. In this context, the Commission will examine measures to reduce excessive dependence on external ratings, improve transparency, promote competition, introduce the principle of liability and reduce the risk of potential conflicts of interest due to the issuer-pays payment model.

We know that these are very complex issues and we want to be sure that we address them correctly. In this context, we have looked with great interest at Mr Klinz’s own-initiative report which covers the topics we are currently reviewing and makes a very big contribution to our legislative initiative.

Last but not least, at a global level, in October 2010, the Financial Stability Board issued a number of principles aimed at reducing the dependency of financial institutions on credit ratings. In accordance with these principles we intend to introduce measures against excessive dependence on ratings in our forthcoming legislative proposal for the banking sector, the so-called CRD4.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Prior to the Lehman Brothers investment bank going bankrupt, it was given the highest rating by the main credit rating agencies. They also thought that Iceland’s three biggest commercial banks were sound a few days before they collapsed. In addition, the downgrading of Greece’s rating has not taken into account the launch of its economic recovery programme. The economic and financial crisis has highlighted credit rating agencies’ oligopolistic structure, as well as their lack of competition, transparency and accountability. In a world dominated by three such institutions, greater diversity is needed, along with a new way of working. I therefore support the notion of creating a public European credit rating agency as an alternative to the private institutions of this kind. It would become compulsory to obtain a rating from the European agency, which would supplement the ratings offered by the traditional agencies, thereby boosting competition for the fairest rating.

22. Guaranteeing independent impact assessments (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Niebler, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on guaranteeing independent impact assessments (2010/2016(INI)) (A7-0159/2011).

  Angelika Niebler, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Reding, ladies and gentlemen, let me perhaps introduce the topic with a few examples. Greece and other states are heavily in debt, although billions from the structural funds have been poured into these countries for many years. How can we improve the use of these resources and how can the utilisation of these resources be better controlled?

My second example relates to Eurobonds. What effect do they have on the European budget?

Thirdly, if we were to introduce a financial transaction tax in Europe, what would the consequences be? For all these questions, Parliament demands in its reports that a regulatory impact assessment be carried out. After all, we need facts in order to be able to take politically sound decisions. That is what my report on improving the guarantee of independent impact assessments is all about.

This is not a new issue. It has occupied us, together with other issues concerning the improvement of legislation, for over ten years. However, despite all the efforts of the Commission to improve its impact assessment as well as those that we have made in this regard in the European Parliament, the quality of the impact assessment is still in need of improvement. My report puts forward proposals for how, with regard to the European Commission and the impact assessments that it carries out, as well as with regard to Parliament’s impact assessment studies, we can succeed in bringing about this improvement.

In terms of its content, the report is divided into four sections. Firstly, there are general requirements for impact assessments at European level. The second section contains proposals directed at the European Commission and it lists potential areas where improvements can be made. In the third section, I discuss how we in the European Parliament can better optimise the regulatory impact assessment as an instrument. In the last section, I then propose that we in Parliament create an autonomous impact assessment structure.

With regard to the general requirements for impact assessments at European level, it is important to note that we need to move away from pure cost analysis towards an examination of the economic, social and health-related impact of legislation at European level. Secondly, I think it is important that we carry out an SME test in connection with all regulatory impact assessments and also examine the effect on industrial competitiveness in Europe. Thirdly, in this report, we propose the early publication by the Commission of road maps of proposed legislation in order to give Parliament and the stakeholders the opportunity to express their opinions during the consultation period.

With regard to the European Commission, we call, in particular, for the members of the Impact Assessment Board that was set up a while ago in the Commission to be independent and for the parliamentary committees to be involved in the work at an early stage. With regard to Parliament, we believe it is important for us actually to utilise the regulatory impact assessment as an instrument. Up to now, a few committees have been using it, but I think we need to make much more extensive use of this instrument in our discussions in Parliament. If we succeed in developing Parliament’s own resources and establishing an autonomous structure under the leadership of Members of this House in order to develop a method that allows us to carry out professional regulatory impact assessments within the European Parliament, then I believe we will have achieved a great deal with this report. I hope it will receive your support tomorrow in the vote.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, impact assessments enable us to perform our role as legislator. Their bad reputation is partly explained by the risk of manipulation. We may request them in the light of public opinion. They may be serious and scientifically correct. Take, for example, the impact assessment that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality commissioned for the purposes of the directive on maternity leave. It was so unusable that we regretted having spent taxpayers’ money.

Thank you, Mrs Niebler, for the work you have put into preparing the resolution. Your efforts help us to legislate better for the benefit of citizens in the Member States.

  Richard Falbr (S&D). – (CS) Mr President, I am tabling a report on the external dimension of the European Union and on corporate social responsibility. I took an extremely critical approach when drafting this report because it is very frequently the case that hypocritical positions are adopted during negotiations with countries which are not EU Member States. If we want to demand that they respect the same principles that we respect within the European Union, then it is imperative that we do the same. We cannot demand compliance with the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions and then allow these conventions to be violated by certain Member States. I also state in the report that ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I warmly thank our rapporteur, Mr Falbr, for his work, and despite his initial concerns, the report remains very strong. Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, I would emphasise once again that the International Labour Organisation’s role should be strengthened. Voluntary corporate social responsibility is a good thing but the primary role in promoting and protecting human rights belongs to states and international organisations.

We do not think that legally binding standards should be avoided in the field of corporate responsibility: in Europe, we should create additional standards for company reporting. On the other hand, the violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be used as a legitimate comparative advantage. Europe should promote its social model and improve, rather than reduce, social standards both internally and externally.

  Angelika Niebler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I apologise for taking the floor once again, but I believe that some confusion has arisen, because my fellow Members are not currently discussing my report, but the report on social responsibility, which will be debated later.

Perhaps we could first finish the debate on the subject of the impact assessment – I believe Mr Baldassarre had asked to speak on the subject of my report – and then we can move on to the next report.

  President. – Thank you, Mrs Niebler. The problem gradually became clear to me, too. We have a minor Internet problem. I do not have the correct list of speakers, either. The display board is also still showing the Klinz report. That is presumably why some Members were a little irritated. Thus, we are now debating the report by Mrs Niebler on guaranteeing independent impact assessments.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Mr President, yes I agree, it is very important that we have independent economic impact assessments of EU regulations. These place a very significant cost on business, on the economy and, of course, on the pockets of ordinary citizens.

Now I recently published the latest addition of my periodic study, ‘How Much Does the European Union Cost Britain?’, which is available on my website. Just one element of these costs is, of course, EU over-regulation. Now, using the government’s own figures – the UK Government’s own figures – the Open Europe think-tank calculates the cost of just the top 99 directives currently in force at over GBP 20 billion per annum.

In 2006, Commissioner Günter Verheugen put the cost of EU regulation at an average of 3.5% of GDP; 3.5% of the UK’s GDP is almost GBP 49 billion per annum. This is a staggering burden on business and on consumers. Independent impact assessment should, of course, be carried out at the national level but, outside of the European Union, Britain would be free to decide its own level of regulation and it would certainly not be GBP 49 billion per annum.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, I shall be very brief. First of all, I think that this is an important proposal. This impact assessment is important to us for two reasons. One is to ensure that we are passing regulation that is necessary and effective, but also to stop blaming something called Brussels for everything that goes wrong. National governments and parliaments take responsibility when everything goes right, but when it is wrong they blame Brussels. I think these impact assessments should show just who is responsible and where the blame lies, because it is far too convenient to do that. Furthermore, when you look back at what happened before we had the European Union, the cost of that was absolutely devastating.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission welcomes the report, as it supports our smart regulation agenda and aims to strengthen the shared responsibility of the EU institutions in this area.

The Commission also welcomes the fact that the report supports some of its suggestions addressed to the European Parliament through the Smart Regulation Communication, but we also know about the few highly problematic proposals. The Commission has already made clear in its Smart Regulation Communication that it cannot and will not accept requests that would affect its autonomy in carrying out impact assessments – for instance, the externalisation of the Impact Assessment Board – or that would otherwise affect its right of initiative.

Let me recall that the European Court of Auditors, in a recent special report on impact assessments in the EU institutions, has confirmed that the Commission’s impact assessment system ‘has been effective in supporting decision making within the EU institutions’ and in raising the quality of our proposals. The Court of Auditors also found that the Commission has in place the structures needed for smart regulation and that the Impact Assessment Board clearly helps to raise the quality of our impact assessments.

The Commission will take a position on the report after the adoption of the resolution.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.

I would ask all Members for their forbearance with regard to the current discrepancies, as the display is not working.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Impact assessments have a significant effect on legislative activities, which is why new developments are needed, with the establishment of a mechanism independent of those assessments. Therefore, they should not justify a legislative proposal, but rather allow for an objective examination of the facts. This also applies to the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the methodology of which has been called into question on several occasions, and to public consultations, where the wording of the questions may lead one to expect answers that the Commission’s services want to hear. In order to combat these abuses within the legislative process, we call for a clear methodology, an analysis of alternatives and the option not to take any action, as well as maximum transparency and the close involvement of Parliament.

23. External dimension of social policy (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Falbr, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the external dimension of social policy, promoting labour and social standards and European corporate social responsibility [2010/2205(INI)] (A7-0172/2011).

  Richard Falbr, rapporteur. – (CS) Mr President, as I said in my speech a short while ago, the external dimension of social policy covers EU measures and initiatives aimed at promoting employment standards and social standards in third countries. Although the Lisbon strategy and the Europe 2020 initiative place a far greater emphasis on social policy than was ever the case before, competitiveness and economic factors are still the centre of attention. I therefore took a very critical approach to the drafting of this report. If we want the third countries with whom we negotiate agreements to respect the principles and the very basis of the European social model, we must respect this model within the European Union. If we want the countries with which we negotiate international agreements to respect the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions, then we must respect them ourselves. It is plain to see, however, that ILO conventions are violated in some Member States.

As far as corporate social responsibility is concerned, it is undoubtedly a good idea, and has been under discussion since the early 1970s. The problem is, however, that it cannot be enforced. When we were debating the comments on this report and amendments to it, one of the views expressed was that a directive should be drafted, since some businesses simply do not behave in a socially responsible way. More than 150 amendments were tabled to the report, but I think that it nevertheless still takes a critical approach. The European Union needs to do more to support the International Labour Organisation, since it is absurd that, while we profess support, fewer and fewer countries are ratifying and respecting the conventions. During the last parliamentary term, the Commission even presented proposals, for example, in respect of the Working Time Directive, which ran completely counter to ILO Convention No 1 on Hours of Work, adopted in 1919, which laid down a working week of 48 hours. I am very glad that Parliament rejected this directive.

That brings my explanatory statement to an end. There is no need for me to say any more, since this is an issue which everyone understands. What I want, above all, is respect for social rights, and respect for something we proclaim as a major achievement of the European Union.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, according to European statistics, well over half of workers in the European Union, particularly immigrants, do not enjoy social protection. This is why I think that when it comes to social protection for workers in the European Union, basic common standards need to be promoted, along with imposing penalties if current legislation is breached. Ratification of the revised European Social Charter would encourage internal social reforms at EU Member State level, while also facilitating the process of harmonising national legislation with EU regulations. It is important as a political commitment to promoting and guaranteeing social standards and to adapting the legal and institutional mechanisms to the specific standards and values of European democracies. The social rights stipulated by this agreement comply with Community social law and the relevant standards in European Union Member States.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, as a shadow rapporteur on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, I would like our position on this report to be quite clear. First of all, while we appreciate that the final text may be improved by the votes tomorrow, it is strong enough, and we would simply underline that the role of the International Labour Organisation should be strengthened. On this we agree with the rapporteur.

Voluntary corporate social responsibility is a good thing but the primary role in promoting and protecting human rights belongs to states and international organisations. We do not think that legally binding standards should be avoided in the field of corporate responsibility.

Violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be used as a legitimate comparative advantage and we must insist, in bilateral and multilateral relations with our partners, that decent work standards are properly complied with.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, bearing in mind that the World Social Security Report 2010 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) states that over 50% of all workers have no social protection, it is easy to conclude that, in most cases, there is no corporate social responsibility.

Nonetheless, the Commission continues to negotiate free trade agreements that generally only serve the interests of big companies and financial institutions, do not give proper attention to labour rights, and fail to promote freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. They do not take the measures necessary for the effective elimination of discrimination in the workplace or profession, or for the elimination of forced labour or insecure or poorly paid work, including child labour.

This report should therefore denounce all of these issues, but it falls short of what is required, and we hope that the Commission will go further tomorrow in consolidating its approach to these issues …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD) – (SK) Mr President, it is true that social protection for workers is often a lot weaker than it should be, even within the European Union.

This is particularly true for migrant groups in the population, who travel abroad to work in places where they are often unfamiliar with the language and the local regulations, and are subsequently, of course, unable to keep up professionally with local workers.

Despite this, I do think it is important for the European Union to seek the application of the International Labour Organisation’s rules and agreements in international treaties with third countries, because it seems to me, as we learn more about the labour market and working conditions in Asia, Africa and other corners of the world, that we must strive to ensure that significant improvements are made in the status of workers in these regions and areas too.

Therefore, I personally support Mr Falbr and his report. I am certain that it will also lead to improvements in these rules in Europe as well.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I, too, want to congratulate the rapporteur, while also calling on the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures so that European companies adhere to European principles and values even when they are operating in other countries.

The European Union must promote the European social model. This is why it is of paramount importance to adhere to the European Union’s principles and values. We regret that the European Union does not have a homogenous formula for a social clause to be inserted in all bilateral trade agreements. I want to point out, Commissioner, that a horizontal civil aviation agreement between the European Union and Canada was voted on recently. It is the most ambitious agreement of its kind signed by the European Union, even though it does not provide any social clauses. Both sides have committed to work and develop things in this area. Unfortunately, however, I should emphasise that we regret that the European Union does not have a homogenous formula for a social clause to be inserted into international agreements.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, I congratulate Richard Falbr on the comprehensive approach to international labour standards in his report. I have been pleased to contribute to his work on the specific question of corporate social responsibility.

Tonight, this gives us a chance to influence the Commission in advance of its CSR communication by asking it firstly to maintain the open definition of CSR latterly adopted by it in the Multi-Stakeholder Forum; to return to the principle of convergence in private and voluntary CSR initiatives, which was its former policy; to make concrete proposals for implementing global CSR standards, specifically the updated OECD guidelines on Multinational Enterprises and the new Ruggie framework on business and human rights; to commit to the principle of integrated financial, environmental, social and human rights reporting by business – indeed paving the way towards the possibility of future legislation in this area; and to advance the responsibility of European businesses in their global supply chain, responding to the governance gaps identified in the Commission’s own recent Edinburgh study.

Parliament always likes to help the Commission, Ms Reding. I hope these suggestions help tonight.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, on behalf of my colleague, László Andor, I would like to welcome the fact that the motion for a resolution for discussion today addresses so many crucial aspects of social policy’s external dimension.

The Commission firmly supports closer cooperation at global level, with employment and social objectives going hand in hand with economic objectives. In particular, we support the continuation of discussion and the coordination of efforts within the G20. In this connection, the preparations for a G20 Labour and Employment Ministers meeting provide a good example of the increased cohesion emerging at world level.

The Commission also supports close cooperation with and among international organisations, which – and I am quoting the OECD and the International Labour Organisation – is vital for achieving a level playing field internationally and, in particular, for setting international labour standards.

The 100th session of the ILO began last week: it will focus on a new ILO convention on domestic workers, an issue which this House discussed recently. Social protection, including the development of the Social Protection Floor initiative, is another area of interest for this year’s ILO conference. We will closely follow the discussions on implementation of the labour standards enshrined in the ILO Convention, and I would point out that the Commission welcomes the emphasis in today’s motion for a resolution on the need for the EU to promote the ILO core labour standards and the decent work agenda worldwide, including gender equality and non-discrimination policy as a cross-cutting issue.

The Commission will also continue to promote sustainable development, decent work, labour standards and corporate social responsibility in other policy areas, such as trade and development policy. In 2011, the Commission intends to present a communication on corporate social responsibility outlining proposals for further action at international level, including promoting cooperate social responsibility in relations with partner countries.

In our view, the involvement of enterprises is also essential in order to address issues such as youth employment, training, workforce skills, health and diversity, responsible restructuring and local development, especially given the current economic and social difficulties facing Europe.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I attach a lot of importance to the activities and initiatives associated with the external dimension of the European Union’s social policy, the aim of which is to promote social standards in third countries in order to prevent, among other things, the present-day slavery in which people are treated purely as ‘production machines’, rather than valuable individuals.

As a result of the prevalent and increasing economic competition in the world, conditions for workers are deteriorating further, with workers’ pay being the main victim of cuts and the working age being extended, in an attempt to make profits. Therefore, in order to change the current trend, we must move from words to deeds and implement the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Decent Work Agenda and the relevant conventions. If necessary, we must also apply extreme measures – various economic sanctions and restrictions – against countries and companies which consistently ignore them. Of course, the relevant sanctions should not be implemented lightly or based on the desire to eliminate economic competition.

Violations of labour norms by third countries also contribute to excessively high duties in developed countries and in the European Union’s Single Market, so we must not fail to follow the ILO’s conditions if we want to be competitive. The European Union should not point the finger here; instead, it should put forward its own solutions and compromises in order to improve the situation.

I welcome the increase in companies’ social responsibility and respectful attitudes towards their own workers. Yet we cannot accept a situation where the obligations of countries and local governments are shifted onto companies. This is more the kind of policy associated with the former Soviet Union and present-day CIS countries, where the authorities essentially channel the money of the businesses.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – (FI) I would like to congratulate Mr Falbr for his excellent work on the report on the external dimension of social policy, promoting labour and social standards and European corporate social responsibility. A politically and economically integrated EU also needs a social dimension more urgently than ever. It is important to guarantee the existence of basic services, basic security and decent working conditions for all EU citizens, especially now during this economic crisis. As the rapporteur says, the approach to social policy that Europe chooses should also be adopted in our relations with third countries. The Union must insist more strongly that a condition of future trade and investment agreements should be that international agreements are ratified, implemented and monitored. Furthermore, European companies, too, should be required to be more open with respect to their accounts and subcontracting chains, so that the European Union’s strong socio-political values do not remain merely illusory.

24. Financing instrument for development cooperation (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Mitchell, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation: lessons learned and perspectives for the future (2009/2149(INI)) (A7-0187/2011).

  Gay Mitchell, rapporteur. – Mr President, the DCI, the European Union’s Development Cooperation Instrument, is a powerful tool. Covering the period between 2007 and 2013, the EU has at its disposal a budget of almost EUR 17 billion to combat poverty, to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to promote democratic governance in developing countries. Parliament has closely followed the functioning and impact of the instrument to ensure that the money is spent in accordance with these objectives.

At the end of this year, the Commission is going to present its proposals for the next generation of financing instruments for external action, to cover the post-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework. Therefore, the Committee on Development has taken the initiative to analyse the lessons learnt with the DCI and to define our expectations for the future instrument.

The Committee on Development was unanimous in supporting the following key principles.

We need a financing instrument which is exclusively targeted at the objectives of poverty eradication as defined in the Lisbon Treaty and which only covers developing countries. The new instrument must primarily fund measures which fulfil the criteria for ODA (Official Development Assistance) as defined by the OECD Development Assistance Committee.

The ODA quota must be even stricter than in the current DCI. Let me be clear that we do not question the importance of non-ODA cooperation with developing countries, in particular, the emerging markets and strategic middle-income countries, but this form of cooperation should be channelled through separate instruments to enhance transparency and protect the specific nature of development cooperation.

Funding to improve people’s access to basic health and education must be ring-fenced by including a clear benchmark. At least 20% of funding under the geographical programmes should go into these life-saving sectors of basic health and basic education.

The future instrument must ensure better integration of environmental and climate change issues in developing cooperation. Assisting developing countries in setting up fair and effective tax systems is another issue to be strengthened. In particular for the middle-income countries, the mobilisation of domestic revenue is crucial for reducing poverty and aid dependency.

The new instrument must be sufficiently funded. The EU development budget in the next financial framework should increase in real terms and thus contribute to reaching the collective target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA.

The scarce development resources must be used in the most effective and efficient manner. Closer coordination between the Commission and Member States is needed and Parliament therefore supports the development of joint strategy papers. The Commission itself has said that this could bring about savings of greater impact, of approximately EUR 6 billion per annum. Think of what that could do in the developing world.

Finally, a word on procedure. When the Commission adopts strategic programme decisions on the new instrument, Parliament must have a say on an equal footing with the Council. This is the requirement of Article 290 of the Lisbon Treaty, which must be fully respected.

The resolution we are going to vote on this week will provide the guiding line for upcoming negotiations on the next-generation development instrument. I hope that this House will give broad support to the proposals from the Committee on Development which have been carried out in quiet disquisition but based on our experience of the negotiations we went into – and I remind the House that we merged 14 regulations into one in the DCI. We want to make sure that the DCI works and that its successor will work in achieving these objectives.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the eradication of poverty is a key international objective of the EU. Implementation of this instrument helps define the European Union’s presence in the UN and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In addition, now that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force, the EU has the necessary external powers for meeting this target.

In future, the new fund’s geographic and thematic priorities will need to be clarified to make it operate more efficiently. This means that vulnerable social groups, developing and emerging countries have to be included on the list of financed development objectives. The strengthening of the SME sector and domestic private sector will be encouraged with the aim of raising the living standard in the countries included in this programme.

This will help reduce dependence on external aid and boost domestic economic growth.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the European Union can help developing countries in their efforts to tackle poverty. In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, I think that it is vitally important also to take actions which help developing countries combat climate change.

The European Union has taken actions in this respect, targeted at agriculture, adapting to climate change, forestation, the management of marine resources and coastal areas, as well as water management.

The Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund was set up in 2006 with the aim of mobilising private investment for projects supporting energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy sources in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition.

The ‘Energy and Climate Change’ package also envisages the introduction of the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows Member States to make energy-efficient investments and use the carbon credits in developing countries.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, our colleague, Mr Mitchell, is a recognised expert in the Committee on Development. That is why his report is so well drafted, and I thank him.

I would just like to emphasise one small point: respect for the principle of subsidiarity. The greatest gift that we can give is not money. It is widely known that the Union uses its budget to impose its Western values and standards on developing countries. We have a duty to demand respect for human rights, but the future depends on respect for the right of nations to self-determination. We in the West need to respect their values and cultures while providing financial assistance.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, just as the rapporteur has also emphasised, the eradication of poverty is one of the main objectives of the financing instrument for development cooperation, launched by the European Union to provide support to developing countries.

At the moment, another challenge needs to be included on the agenda for the debate on the Development Cooperation Instrument, namely, the food price crisis, triggered by the drought and speculation on the global food market. This requires the European Union to respond flexibly and quickly not only in order to address the sudden changes in terms of requirements and priorities, but also to ensure consistency with the new international objectives due to be defined. The European Parliament must continue, as part of this process, to support the Commission’s efforts in programming development cooperation policies and to enhance its role in the democratic and budgetary control procedure.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission welcomes Parliament’s remarks and suggestions. I am pleased to see that we agree on the majority of issues. Most of all, the Commission appreciates that the continuing dialogue in the context of democratic scrutiny has produced very good results. We only regret that Parliament does not feel that some of its resolutions on programming were respected in every detail, although the Commission has taken full account of Parliament’s view wherever possible.

Regarding cooperation on global public goods, the Commission would point out that, in general, this may meet the criteria of official development assistance (ODA) and the EU should therefore continue financing ODA-related cooperation on global public goods under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI). Nevertheless, a separate partnership instrument will concentrate on cooperation of EU interest and will be complemented by a thematic programme addressing civil society organisations and local authorities. Likewise, projects financed under the thematic programme for migration and asylum generally count as ODA. Thematic cooperation programmes such as ‘Investing in People’ will continue to address all the millennium development goals, as we must not neglect the interrelationship between them.

While budgetisation of the European Development Fund does not currently seem feasible, the Commission nevertheless intends to pursue the issue with Member States, taking into account, primarily, the objectives and principles of the Cotonou Agreement.

With regard to the use of delegated acts, the Commission refers to President Barroso’s letter of 7 March 2011, indicating that a new architecture will reflect the new institutional context. One important element will be flexibility in the programming process, so that funding and priorities can adapt to today’s rapidly changing world. This could be done by the introduction of significant elements of the delegated acts procedure, fully respecting the criteria established in Article 290.

In conclusion, the Commission welcomes Parliament’s report. It constitutes useful input in the preparation of the follow-up instrument to the DCI under the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June at 12:00.

25. Progress towards a European contract law for consumers and businesses (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Wallis, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on policy options for progress towards a European contract law for consumers and businesses (2011/2013(INI) (A7-0164/2011).

  Diana Wallis, rapporteur. – Mr President, we have been talking about European contract law for over a decade; now is the time for action, and if ever there was a time when the Internal Market needed a boost in terms of additional transactions, it is now.

The Committee on Legal Affairs favours an optional instrument, a second EU contract law for all citizens and enterprises. We believe it could help. But we have said that there will be tough criteria for the next step. There must be a high level of consumer protection, higher than in many of our Member States. It must be easy and user-friendly for SMEs; it must give them a badge of honour to conduct their business under this optional contract and there must be no detriment to national law.

The process must be evidence-based, impact-assessed and with full parliamentary involvement, and on that basis, as I have said, the time for talking is over and we need to move forward. There are those who are nervous and say, well, let us just use the idea of a toolbox. Can I say to those who have that idea, be very careful, because I have a suspicion that a toolbox without an optional instrument is potentially actually more invasive of national law than a toolbox with an optional instrument that is voluntary, that respects the autonomy of the parties and is not detrimental to national law.

Let us see something, as we move forward, that offers preventative justice for EU citizens and small businesses; that really gives us an instrument which means justice for growth. Enough talking, now let us move on.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, my congratulations to the rapporteur, Mrs Wallis, for her work and the contents of her report, with which I am in complete agreement.

I believe that only an optional instrument to be adopted by means of a regulation can adequately fulfil the objectives of the whole reform of European contract law. Moreover, an optional instrument should neither harmonise nor replace national contract laws but rather work alongside them as an alternative instrument that offers freedom of choice to contracting parties.

Therefore, I do not agree with the proposals put forward by those who would prefer to limit the scope of this instrument so that it applies only to e-commerce contracts, as this would create an artificial and, above all, unnecessary distinction between online and face to face transactions.

Our task as legislators is not to limit the legal nature of the regulation on the basis of speculation or market projections but rather to ensure legal certainty and to lay the foundations for a common legal language in the field of commerce.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Reding, the vision of European contract law is clearly a wonderful one. However, at the end of the day, it has to provide something positive for European citizens, otherwise the idea of European contract law is simply art for art’s sake. Why does the report start with the most vulnerable parties here, the consumers? The key element of Mrs Wallis’s report, the recommendation of the optional instrument, is an unreasonable demand for consumers, to put it mildly. It is confusing for them, and in practical terms, it will never be the consumers themselves that are able to decide which state’s contract law they ultimately utilise, but rather their counterparts in the matter, in particular, big businesses.

In any case, now is not the time to say that the optional instrument is the last word on the matter, but instead we should look more closely at the other options, too – the toolbox that was mentioned and the contract models.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD) – (SK) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Wallis for her bold move. While I have no idea how it will progress, we obviously need to try to ensure that European citizens, European retailers and European consumers benefit from what I would call equal rules, so that they can buy, sell and hence engage in business on the basis of these same rules.

In view of the complexity of the machinery of European law and national legislation, a single optional system that could be rolled out across the European Union is an appealing prospect, but is probably a Sisyphean task, as we will clearly be hampered by diverse legal systems, protests from the legal profession, and jurisdiction issues. I fear that it would be very difficult to establish, but let us give it a shot and see what happens.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, although voluntary contract legislation may give rise to legal problems regarding its implementation, it represents one way of getting rid of the different systems of contract law, which are one reason for the high failure rate of cross-border purchases by consumers, which is estimated at 60%. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs face a series of other pitfalls. It is not only contract law which is not fully harmonised, but also consumer law. There are significant differences in tax regimes and accounting standards. Payments often attract extra bank charges, and the cross-border use of digital content is frequently blocked for licensing reasons. Moreover, consumers in 10 Member States were unable to find domestic offers for at least half of 100 products tested, while consumers in 13 Member States found cross-border price offers that were at least 10% lower than in their own country. I therefore support the proposal to issue legally binding standardised voluntary contracts translated into all the languages. At the same time, I would like to call on the Commission to play a more active role in resolving the outstanding urgent issues, in order to put an end to the fragmentation of the Internal Market.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Diana Wallis, together with Hans-Peter Mayer and Sirpa Pietikäinen, for the excellent work on this dossier.

It is very clear that, in the wake of the global economic crisis, the Internal Market needs to be boosted. We need the Internal Market if we want to have growth, job creation and innovation. What is the current situation? Only one in four businesses trade across borders and those who trade limit their operations to only a few Member States. That means they miss out on the possibility of utilising the Internal Market.

What are the consequences for consumers? Well, they do not reap the benefits of the Internal Market either. Many cross-border orders – as many as 61% of the orders on the online market – fail to be completed for this reason. That means that we have here a non-functioning of the Internal Market both for businesses and for consumers. That is the reason why the Commission has launched a consultation on policy options in the field of contract law, in response to which Parliament is giving its opinion today.

We have seen that Internal Market failures are due, in part, to the differences in national contract law. We agree that there are other reasons for failure, but our recent Eurobarometer surveys show that contract-law related obstacles rank first out of eleven obstacles to business-to-consumer transactions. That is why we need to get rid of those obstacles, one by one, starting now with contract law.

By the way, this Parliament has been discussing this for ten years, but the experts outside have been discussing it for 30 years. So all the work done to analyse and make proposals is there on the table. We have never taken advantage of this. That is why I agree with the rapporteur that it is time to act now and to see what positive action we can take.

I have taken note of the assessment of the report on the policy options presented in the Green Paper and the support for the innovative solution of an optional instrument, which means no harmonisation but giving consumers and businesses a choice of having a Europe-wide system. I have also seen the support for an instrument applicable in both B2C and B2B transactions, which favours a material scope covering sales contracts, contracts for the supply of digital content and some service contracts. I have taken very good note of what has been said by Parliament, namely, that any future instrument, whatever it looks like, should give consumers a high level of protection in order not to deprive them of the protection they would otherwise enjoy under national law. That is a conditio sine qua non. If we do not have that, we will fail in all of our activities.

Where do we stand at the moment? On 3 May 2011, the Commission published the results of a feasibility study by the Expert Group on European contract law and we invited all stakeholders to comment. The Commission is analysing the results of the public consultation and then it will prepare a detailed impact assessment to see what should be the next step that, in times of crisis, will be good for giving a boost to the Internal Market and creating growth and jobs in the Internal Market by expanding the markets, mostly for SMEs, and giving consumers the possibility of better choice and better deals.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 8 June at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Even though we have an Internal Market, businesses and consumers do not take sufficient advantage of the opportunities it offers, as the proportion of cross-border transactions remains fairly low. The Internal Market can be revitalised by encouraging cross-border transactions and I believe that this report will help achieve this objective.

We must obviously respect differences between Member States’ legal systems and the principle of subsidiarity, which is why I do not regard total harmonisation as the most suitable option. On the other hand, I feel that the optional application of common rules for cross-border contracts is a viable alternative. In addition, I believe that if a Member State would like to extend the scope of application of European law to domestic transactions as well, it should be free to do so. It is very true to say that this is not the solution to every problem. There are also other obstacles preventing cross-border transactions, in addition to these contract law differences, relating to areas such as tax matters, intellectual property or the availability of electronic payment methods. However, I think that this optional instrument deserves a try as it may get rid of some of the administrative burden which is currently preventing SMEs from expanding their businesses in Member States other than their own.

26. Cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy (short presentation)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Hirsch, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on European cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy [2010/2234(INI)] (A7-0082/2011).

  Nadja Hirsch, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow, we will vote on the role of vocational education and training in the Europe 2020 strategy. In this connection, it is worth taking a brief look at the position we are starting from. We currently have a level of youth unemployment of 21%, in other words, almost double the normal average. We have an EU-wide school drop-out rate of over 14%. The participation of women in gainful employment is still very low. Many people with disabilities, as well as migrants, are without jobs.

The goal of the Europe 2020 strategy is precisely to tap this potential in terms of workers and to bring them into the workplace so that the EU, too, can deal with globalisation. Thus, it is also our job to ensure that initial vocational education in particular is of high quality. The discussion began in connection with the Copenhagen process, followed by the Bruges Communiqué, and now it is up to us to see to what extent this area can also be incorporated into the Europe 2020 strategy.

An absolutely key element is the fact that young people must have the opportunity, not only in their studies, but also in their vocational training, to undertake part of their training in another EU Member State. It is a key element because someone who has already worked in another Member State will also take the opportunity later on to regard the European labour market as his or her labour market, with all the opportunities that that offers. It is therefore an absolutely key aspect that we must pursue.

The second major area is, of course, that of further training. On account of demographic change, people are having to work for longer and longer – or they can work for longer, but everyone has to take that decision for themselves. People are living until they are much older and will continue with their careers for much longer, and in order to be able to carry on in skilled work until they are older, they will also need to undertake further training.

There is currently a very low level of participation in further training initiatives. Here, too, it must be ensured that the willingness of both employers and workers exists and increases when it comes to taking advantage of further training and continuing to gain education by means of lifelong learning. For this, of course, the options on offer also need to be flexible. We must take everyone into consideration. Further training must fit in with other elements of people’s lives and it must be possible to do it alongside work and family life. For that reason, we clearly need to create flexible opportunities in future.

The area of universities has received a great deal of attention – in connection with the Bologna Process, for example – and a similar situation faces us in the area of vocational training, including with regard to mobility. We could almost say that no one has noticed this. Nevertheless, alongside the universities, the area of vocational education and training is particularly important and we therefore must not ignore it. For that reason, I would like at this point to thank my fellow Members from the other groups once again for their very committed cooperation.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, as shadow rapporteur, I welcome the Hirsch report, because it highlights how important it is to always have the capacity to learn and work, alongside mobility and flexibility, in the modern and demanding international labour environment. It is true that the economic crisis has brought unemployment and insecurity to everyone, especially young people, women and the disabled.

In order to achieve the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, we need constant and proper vocational education and training both in the European Union and in the Member States. We need targeted policies and strategies to reduce the percentage of early school leavers, proper programming of people’s needs for training, and closer ties between the education provided and the needs of the labour market.

I am certain that the European Qualifications Framework, the European system of academic units for vocational education and training, transparency and cooperation and comparability of the various education systems will support the needs …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, investment in education is vital to ensure a better future for Europeans. At the moment, the EU youth unemployment rate has reached 20%, while the average EU school dropout rate is 16%, and in some countries, like Portugal, it has reached 40%.

Lifelong learning is vital if unemployment is to be prevented. We must give due consideration to the different career paths. Workers must be made more greatly aware of the need for ongoing further training.

We feel that vocational education and training should be accessible, available and affordable at every stage of life, regardless of people’s status on the labour market and their income. Vocational education and training should create the conditions conducive to labour mobility, both during initial studies and as part of the lifelong learning process.

We call on Member States to simplify the procedures for recognising qualifications.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, one of the biggest challenges Europe is faced with is the youth unemployment rate. At European level, the focus is placed on reducing the school dropout rate below 10% and on actions such as ‘New skills for new jobs’, whose aim is to bring the world of education and training closer to the labour market. The distinction between education and training, apart from their context in the workplace, will become even less clear in the future. In order to achieve a greater level of integration, a vital change will need to be made in the way education and training provision is conceived, not only from an individual perspective, but also at institutional level and every level of administration.

Therefore, I think that system-related obstacles and those in terms of attitude preventing integration need to be removed if Europeans are to learn to make progress in the areas of their skills and values and make an effective contribution to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives.

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, who has tabled an extremely good report. Like everyone else, I believe that we should remember the context in which this report is set, and that, of course, is the youth crisis that we are experiencing in Europe. We are agreed about the general crisis – soaring youth unemployment and young people who are, in fact, moving out of Europe to find work, and this, in my opinion, will be a very serious threat to our economy and our cohesion in Europe in the coming years.

The second context for this report is the common 2020 objectives that we have set for training, employment and the reduction of the drop-out rate. This is about Europe’s competitiveness. It is about having a trained workforce, which is something that we know we need. It is also important to ensure that the new generation has the opportunity for jobs and training. This is absolutely crucial. It may be the case that the EU does not have a great deal of competence in this area, but something can be done nevertheless. In any case, it is a shared concern, and therefore we must ensure that we provide high-quality training and that there is guidance available. We must reduce the drop-out rate and ensure that there is a strong link between training and work, for example, by means of exchange systems like we have in Germany and Denmark. We must also ensure that all young people have the right to undergo training.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Hirsch, for her very constructive approach. I have listened to her with great interest because that was actually my dossier 12 years ago. I started to bring about the mobility in training which was not on the agenda at that moment, and I am very glad to hear how strongly Parliament is in favour of developing this essential element in the Europe 2020 strategy. I would also like to say how much we welcome the report, which reinforces and complements the Commission’s communication of June 2010.

This communication was an input to the latest review of the Copenhagen Process, and the Bruges Communiqué has now, of course, become the European agenda par excellence for vocational training for the years 2011-2020. Many of Parliament’s suggestions correspond with the actions proposed in the Bruges Communiqué. The Commission shares Parliament’s view because we need to modernise vocational education and training in Europe to make it attractive, to have qualified teachers and trainers, innovative learning methods and high-quality infrastructure and facilities, and, of course, we have to have the mobility. We have to give the will to young people – and to less young people – to go outside their Member State in order to get the experience which is important if we want to have a real European education and training area.

The Commission also aims to attain gender balance and to help disadvantaged groups through the lifelong learning programme, notably through the Leonardo da Vinci programme, which is included. So all the help which the Commission can get from Parliament is most welcome.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 7 June 2011, at 12:00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) During the current economic and financial crisis where the unemployment rate, especially among young people, has exceeded the 20% mark at EU level and even 30% in some Member States, improving vocational education and training must become a priority for the European Union. In this context, youth mobility within the EU, combined with greater flexibility in terms of the labour market and the education and training on offer, are essential elements which ought to be developed at EU and national level.

Ongoing, well-structured dialogue between universities, research centres and businesses can enable a real link to be established between employers’ requirements and the skills acquired during education and training cycles. Furthermore, increasing mobility at European Union level through expanding programmes such as Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci or Youth on the Move can also help improve the EU’s ability to respond better to the demand of the European labour market and to have greater potential for development in this area. Particular attention must also be focused on socially disadvantaged groups, who need to have fair access to vocational education and training.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The transition from education to work is a structural challenge for employees all over the European Union. Unfortunately, early unemployment has lasting negative effects. For this reason, Member States should ensure that vocational education and training is better adjusted to the needs of the labour market, and that vocational education provides employees with the skills needed to take up new, sustainable jobs that will be created in the future sustainable economy. I consider the role of local governments, entrepreneurial partnerships and educational institutions important in the development of the labour market demands of vocational education and training. The opportunity for mobility is an important part of vocational education and training, but more emphasis should be placed on a better harmonisation of Member States’ different education systems – including mutual recognition of certificates and diplomas – in order to enhance collaboration and support mobility. High-quality vocational education and training fundamentally contribute to sustainable development. Better training opportunities must be created for trainers, particularly at regional and local level, with a view to securing the effectiveness of vocational education and training systems, as well as efficient and successful transfer of knowledge. The possibility to learn in an international context is a prerequisite for a successful working life that will promote the acquisition of foreign-language skills and increased competitiveness.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Cooperation at European level in the field of vocational education is also absolutely crucial for the functioning of the single European Internal Market. High-quality vocational education and training must both respond to the demands of the labour market and create the conditions for workforce mobility. Highly qualified and well-educated people represent a competitive advantage for the EU, and support for vocational education should take this into account. We need to focus on establishing close links with the world of work, and also on facilitating high-quality work experience as part of vocational training, both at home and abroad, within the framework of European mobility programmes. We need greater coordination at European level between the education systems in the individual Member States, and, following on from this, cooperation on the mutual recognition of vocational qualifications. The report covers these issues, and, as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am happy with its final form.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training. It points to an incredibly important issue which has not often been discussed to date, namely, the need for national authorities to take action, in cooperation with the European Commission, to prevent unemployment by tailoring vocational training to the needs of the job market. Unfortunately, vocational education has been neglected in recent years and has reduced in significance. This is why it is so important to promote it as an effective tool in the fight against unemployment, and particularly against unemployment among the young inhabitants of the European Union, which has reached 21%. Apprenticeships, the establishment of advisory services making it easier for workers to plan their training according to the needs of the jobs market and the promotion of lifelong vocational education should be priorities. That is why I call on the Commission to carry out constant monitoring of the outlook for possible changes in the EU jobs market, so that Member States can continuously adapt their vocational training programmes to the needs of the market.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the report on European cooperation in vocational education and training and would like to emphasise how important it is to promote lifelong learning through initiatives and Europe-wide programmes in order to make it possible for workers to have a better future. These days, workers are at the mercy of frequent and risky employment transitions. There are many types of transition: from training, redundancy, internships or precarious employment into full-time employment. The report contains some important points, including increasing the quota of women in work, recognition of informal learning and promotion of languages with the goal of providing mobility programmes. I am particularly pleased that the focus has been placed on education and training for young people, which is something that I will actively support in the flagship initiatives that follow.

The transition from educational institution to working life must be as smooth as possible and, in particular, tailored to individual needs, because it must also be possible for young people with inadequate training to gain the skills necessary to be able to work in skilled jobs and to earn a good living. Social background must not determine a person’s educational opportunities. Young people must be given help and support in securing entry to the world of work. However, the cost of a modern labour market policy must not be borne by our workers.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) New skills and competences acquired by graduates of various types of educational institutions have strategic significance for economic growth and open up new possibilities for people, creating a basis for sustainable development. That is why we cannot underestimate the problem of unemployment, especially among young people. They are the ones who most often do not obtain permanent work and are forced to accept temporary work which has an inferior level of social insurance and lacks prospects for development. One of the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy is to reduce the rate of early school leavers to a maximum of 10%, and to enable 40% of young Europeans to complete tertiary education. The legislative process should focus on facilitating the implementation of vocational traineeships and work experience for young workers, especially in micro-enterprises and small enterprises which find it difficult to fund this type of initiative. Strong emphasis should also be placed on eliminating differences in men and women’s pay by 2020, since this currently stands at about 18%. I believe that the two most important initiatives in the supranational jobs market are the qualifications framework drawn up within the context of the Copenhagen process and the unified European credit transfer system for vocational education and training. It is also worth mentioning informal training, which represents an underestimated additional source of skills, and which shapes the character and sense of responsibility of the individual, which is why it should be funded by the EU. In order to accomplish these many important goals, cooperation between Member States is vital, as is the involvement of all entities, including those at local and regional level.

27. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

28. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 23:10)