Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 25 October 2012 - Strasbourg

18. European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2012 priorities (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Jean-Paul Gauzès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2012 priorities [2012/2150(INI)].

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, rapporteur. − Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report today is an assessment of what is now a significant part of European economic governance.

I would like to thank the group rapporteurs, with whom I was able − and this is not just words − to undertake genuine constructive work. I believe that this report, taken overall, reflects the concerns of everyone, even if not all have been taken up in a strict sense.

This report was also undertaken in close cooperation with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, in accordance with Rule 50, which explains why the report takes up a number of provisions in their entirety, without a vote, so as to properly respect those rules and the ideas of that committee; the rules prevailed.

I am not going to list the various points we are emphasising in terms of the Semester content; I would rather talk about what concerned us the most, namely the method. The Semester is, as I was saying, a very important element in establishing coordination of States’ economic and financial policies and involves both European and national levels. That is already something new.

In fact, while the Commission’s proposals must next be validated by the Council before being reflected, as far as possible, in national budgets, there is a need, in terms of democratic control, for sound understanding and proper coordination with national parliaments. In this regard, we know − and I do not think anyone will mind me saying − that some of our national parliaments do not fully understand Community Mechanisms and there is a certain apprehension when they see the European level take precedence over national level. That is why some, quite legitimately, assert that national sovereignty entitles them to adopt the budget they want and that they do not have to obey instructions or orders from elsewhere.

There is, therefore, undoubtedly work to be done to educate and explain. Indeed, a meeting was recently held in Brussels with the representatives of the financial or economic committees of the national parliaments to explain this European Semester. I had the opportunity, as rapporteur, to say that MEPs have no intention whatsoever of interfering in national relations or the working of national parliaments and that, in reality, the European Parliament and national parliaments have a specific task, that of providing democratic control at their level.

I think that in future such meetings will have to be repeated to encourage understanding of the system and its proper application. In this regard, it would certainly be a good thing for these meetings, currently organised in a fairly ad hoc way, to be more formal and, in particular, for those attending the meetings to be able to do so regularly, so that genuine dialogue may be established between national parliaments and the European Parliament.

On issues of method, we also stress the need, for instance, for recommendations to be more explicit so that outcomes may be evaluated and, if necessary, corrected.

Lastly, I will add that it is also important for States to meet the commitments they have themselves made. It seems an obvious thing to say but, unfortunately, the opposite is often seen.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Jean-Paul Gauzès, and the other Members involved, including those from the associated committees, for their work on this report and the result that came out of that work.

The Commission is pleased by Parliament’s endorsement of the 2012 European Semester and the support for its growth-enhancing policies and its policies aimed at correcting macroeconomic imbalances. The Commission equally welcomes the call for Member States to strictly follow the rules set by the Stability and Growth Pact and for all parties involved to speedily agree on the Two-Pack.

At the same time, the Commission has taken careful note of the suggestions made in the report for improving the European Semester process, for example regarding the content and focus of the Annual Growth Survey priorities, including the role of the EU budget and the single market. The Commission will issue the new Annual Growth Survey at the end of November 2012, together with the alert mechanism report and Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011. Allow me to go into some more detail with regard to the positions expressed in the report in three areas.

Firstly, the report calls on the Commission to review its current approach and to issue only one recommendation to Member States in the financial assistance programme in order to bring it more into line with the Europe 2020 objectives. I would like to recall that the adjustment programmes already touch on areas covered by Europe 2020. The economic adjustment programmes include important growth-enhancing structural reforms covering the most urgent issues in the respective Member States’ economies. The Commission has deliberately decided to issue one single, country-specific recommendation for programme countries, asking them to implement the measures as laid down in the respective programmes. Therefore all efforts should concentrate on programme implementation, which covers the most urgent priorities for the countries concerned.

Secondly, the report calls on the Commission to present a framework regulation specifying the role – including timelines – of the Member States and the EU institutions at the various stages of the semester cycle. However, whether a new legislative proposal in this area is opportune can only be assessed once the results of the currently ongoing negotiations on the Two-Pack are completed and the debate on the future of EMU has sufficiently advanced.

Thirdly, the report calls for strengthening the democratic legitimacy of EU economic governance. The Commission supports the strong involvement of the European Parliament in the reinforced European Semester and the active role of the European Parliament in the new economic dialogue. The possibility for Parliament, introduced by the Six-Pack, to conduct economic dialogues with individual Member States provides an important element for a transparent process of democratic accountability in European economic governance. The Commission encourages the European Parliament to continue taking the economic dialogue forward with the other institutions and with individual Member States, as foreseen in the Six-Pack.

  Catherine Trautmann, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. − Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, among the numerous challenges that the introduction of the European Semester presents, I would like to mention two key aspects.

First of all, this mechanism must not simply be an instrument for formal surveillance of budgetary policies between Member States and by the Commission. On the contrary, the European Semester must allow sincere and in-depth collaboration between the European Parliament and national parliaments, in keeping with our respective competences and the democratic principle. It is the only valid way forward with a view to complementarity of national budgetary policies.

Secondly, with regard to the European budget: our Parliament, by a massive vote in favour of the Kalfin and Böge report, pointed out that 94 % of this budget was an investment budget. On that basis, I proposed, in my opinion included in the report, exploring the possibility of excluding Member States’ contributions to the EU budget from the calculation of the structural deficit, as defined in the two-pack, the six-pack and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG).

Our Parliament is conducting the mother of all battles, for a European budget that meets the overall interests of the EU and its citizens. That is the direction of this proposal, addressed both to net contributory and beneficiary States. It would free up budget negotiation. In fact, it would make it possible to leave behind the damaging logic of fair return and the search for rebates and move to an approach based on contribution in the noblest sense of the term. In addition, such a calculation method would make the most of all payments to our common budget, including those made by beneficiaries.

Consequently, I ask Mr Gauzès, our rapporteur, to look again at his request, on behalf of the PPE, to remove this proposal.

  Marije Cornelissen, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. − Mr President, I think the second Semester was an improvement on the first. When I started working as a rapporteur on the Semester, around this time last year, there was hardly any debate at all about job creation or recovery. It was all financial figures and economic variables then. This has changed for the better, but although the debate seems to have shifted in the right direction, the actions have not yet shifted.

While the leaders of the Member States cheerfully announced in January that they would all come up with job plans, none of them did. While lip service is paid to alleviating poverty, the number of poor in Europe has risen sharply. And while everybody expresses their grave and graver concern over rising youth unemployment, they stop short of a binding Youth Guarantee.

For the next Semester, in 2013, I want to see the Commission and the Council address rising unemployment and rising poverty much more seriously: for instance, through that binding Youth Guarantee; through the assessment of economic measures for their effect on the poorest and most vulnerable people; through an approach to wages that addresses them not merely as an economic variable, but as the money out of which people pay for their food and the roof over their heads.

I deplore the fact that, although the Semester is becoming more and more important, it is not becoming more democratic. At the moment, we as a parliament can do no more than give friendly advice. This makes it particularly vital that there should be a strong majority for this report tomorrow if we want our advice to be heard, because only with a strong majority will there be a moral incentive for the Commission and the Council to take the recommendations on board.

One sentence threatens that majority. It is in paragraph 23 on the Fiscal Compact. I would appeal strongly to colleagues on the left and the right in this Parliament to vote in favour of the identical amendments 1 and 14 to change this sentence, regardless of your opinion on the Fiscal Compact, because this report is not about that. This report is not the place to settle our differences on the Fiscal Compact, it is about the European Semester. The text of the amendments neither applauds nor criticises the Compact and it should be capable of uniting us as a parliament.

I especially appeal to my fellow rapporteur, Mr Gauzès to please not allow this sentence, which is unnecessary for his report, and not to poison the otherwise strong and good message we are sending out.

  Malcolm Harbour, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. − Mr President, this is my first opportunity, as chair of the committee, to contribute to the debate on the European Semester.

I want to thank Jean-Paul Gauzès very much for accepting quite a number of the points my committee made. I was also pleased that Commissioner De Gucht mentioned the issues around the importance of the single market in underpinning future growth and dynamism in European economies in the context of the broader consideration of policies within the European Semester.

Clearly the single market is somewhat different from the coordination of individual Member States’ budgetary policy, because it is a combined policy framework for the Commission and Member States, within which the Commission clearly has important responsibilities. It is important that the Commission and the Member States be called to account jointly in that process. However, as a committee, we feel from our experience since 1999 that now we have a Single Market Act in place – which has set down very clear, specific commitments about action not just to introduce or reform legislation at European level but also to enforce and implement the policies at Member State level – there is time to consider how to incorporate this more formally into the Semester process.

We also have our own governance processes, such as internal market scoreboards, which clearly ought not to operate in isolation. We have some new ideas here which I am pleased that the rapporteur has picked up. We are doing our own report on single market governance, which will link into this, but I hope that over the next 12 months we may make some serious progress on integrating our thoughts about the single market into the broader strategy for growth and dynamism in the European economy.

  Rafał Trzaskowski, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. − Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, so these points are also included in the report.

If we want to strengthen the European Semester we have to endow it with more democratic legitimacy. We need to clear up the remaining legal ambiguities which may give rise to institutional conflicts, increased complexity of the system, or duplication of competences.

The European Parliament, which is the only supranational institution with electoral legitimacy, should be involved in economic policy coordination. We should be able to evaluate the whole process, be involved in the follow-up to the annual growth survey and the country-specific recommendations. But we should not do it alone. We must involve the national parliaments and cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments must be strengthened. However, we do not need to reinvent the wheel and can do this on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty and Protocol No 1 on the role of national parliaments.

Incidentally, the proposal from the Polish Government that addresses the question goes in the right direction. If we are to succeed, we have to involve directly-elected institutions in the whole process.

  Barbara Matera, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted first and foremost to thank the rapporteur for having taken on board all – or most – of the points in the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, of which I am Vice-Chair.

Economic crises compromise efforts made towards gender equality: the employment rate among women falls ever lower and the gender pay gap grows ever wider. The contractual safeguards for many women and mothers are still precarious and the number of women in leadership positions and in the political, science and technology sectors is low. Adequate funding for EU programmes is necessary to reduce the gender pay gap and encourage access for women to highly skilled jobs.

An increase in the labour market participation of women would free an important amount of talent that has remained untapped for many years. In the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, we proposed uniform formats for women’s integration, and above all specific measures targeting vulnerable groups of women.

  Markus Ferber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is important that we as the European Parliament grapple very hard with the European Semester – after all, we introduced it when we negotiated the ‘six-pack’. Why? I believe that we in Europe have not been suffering from formulating the rules of the game together but rather we are suffering from the fact that, in the end, the rules are not being applied as they were formulated at the European level. Parliament ought to lead this process very strongly and also to continue to touch on the sore points where things are not working as agreed.

I think that the report before us – for which I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gauzès, in particular – provides an important indicator of what can be improved in the interaction between Member States, national parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission, which must oversee the whole procedure, and the processes that then take place in the Member States. We must now cooperate to use all the euphoria, the spirit of optimism – that is right, we want to make things better for the future – and this momentum, if we want Europe to learn lasting lessons from the financial, economic and national debt crisis. There are many, many important contributions here, both in the individual reports from the Commission to the Member States and in the work we at Parliament have produced.

Many thanks to the rapporteur for this. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) emphatically supports this report. However, over the coming weeks, months and years we will ensure not only that many documents are written but that policy is implemented in the interests of European citizens and taxpayers.

  Elisa Ferreira, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Gauzès report, together with the report we will be drafting at the end of the year on the Union’s annual growth prospects, which will arrive before the Spring Council, are two key parts of the ‘European Semester’. This report examines the recommendations made to each of the Member States by the Council on a proposal by the Commission, and these recommendations fit in, as has just been said, with the Six-Pack and the future Two-Pack, an extraordinarily robust corpus, which bolsters European control of Member States’ economic and budgetary policy.

It is not easy to strike a balance between this control and autonomy and legitimacy at national level and the bar has slipped to a level of imposition, of discipline especially and, ultimately, can even lead to a serious package of sanctions. As regards the Two-Pack, I would like to say briefly that it is important that the Council, which is not represented here today, give a negotiating mandate to its negotiators that reflects the ambition to wrap up this package, the Two-Pack, speedily. However, getting back to the subject, more European coordination means countries have less control of their own fate, which means there has to be a subtle balancing act yet also an increased demand for quality in the recommendations made to countries in at least three or four areas.

Firstly, it is important to ensure consistency between medium and long-term objectives that include growth, employment and real convergence and short-term recommendations focusing above all on discipline and nominal convergence; secondly, there needs to be coherence with the conclusions that need to be drawn from the analysis of macroeconomic imbalances, in particular the asymmetrical impact of common policies and negative externalities, the indirect effects of certain national policies on other countries; thirdly, we need to agree that there is a minimum threshold for social, economic and working rights that these recommendations must not cross and, lastly, it is imperative that the quality of the recommendations be measured by the results obtained, which is far from being the case up to now.

I will finish now, Mr President, but I would just like to thank Mr Gauzès for his spirit of cooperation and I hope he is able to take another step further in this spirit so that the consensus around his report can be extended and that this spirit also stretches to the next report we are going to discuss.

  Sylvie Goulard, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, first of all my thanks to the rapporteur and to colleagues who worked on this topic, since it is very simple and very complicated at the same time.

Thinking about it, it is very simple; that is to say, it has taken 20 years, since signature of the Treaty of Maastricht, to realise that there might be a need to engage in some discussion with national parliaments. In principle, it is not such an extraordinary idea that, having a common currency, it would perhaps be better, when we are producing the budgets, to try to talk a little, have an exchange and ensure that the European level and the national level cooperate.

From another angle, it is very complicated, since there is a lot of sensitivity around a certain idea of sovereignty, which, although it is already shared, some consider a pure and perfect form. I find, therefore, that Mr Gauzès has done a very good job.

What concerns me – as has just been said – is how, when it comes down to it, what is written on paper will be translated into reality. How, over the years, are we going to manage to introduce real content, so that cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament is not discussion, which is useful, but genuine control by national parliaments of what is theirs to control at their level, and control at European level of what we must control and, ultimately, a policy which is better for ordinary people and for currency stability.

This report is a milestone on a journey on which, in my opinion, there is still a long way to go.

  Emilie Turunen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to speak. And thank you to the rapporteur for a superb report. I think that this has been an excellent result, particularly when considered as a whole, with input from all of the various political groups too. In the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance we feel that the Semester is a significant opportunity for Europe to create genuine coordination of our financial policies. We may perhaps also have to admit that we have not yet achieved genuine coordination. We have perhaps instead a number of somewhat random recommendations, which may to a large extent be based on what the Member States were already doing beforehand. I believe we will get to the stage where we are using this as an appropriate tool to also compensate for some of the imbalances that are making the crisis even deeper than it is already.

The other thing we are very concerned about is that EU2020 is taken as seriously as our goal in respect of budget discipline. It must be taken as seriously as getting people into work, tackling poverty and safeguarding the environment. If we do not take it seriously, we will lose the stepping stones to our own future; we will lose our stepping stones to tomorrow, which is something that we cannot afford in Europe. I believe we must live by the principle of having the best-educated citizens, most people in work and the strongest environment. I believe this is the key to competitiveness. I do not believe we can achieve healthy public finances unless we govern ourselves in accordance with the EU2020 goals. I believe these are important goals; they point towards a good future for Europe, and we have no choice but to admit that the crisis is now so deep that it is threatening the very existence of our 2020 plan. Things are actually heading in the wrong direction for many of the goals, and I believe it is important that we take up these recommendations.

That said, I would like to point out that there are many good points in this report. Thank you to the rapporteur for including them. We have placed particular emphasis on the 2020 references specifically, on strengthening the European Parliament’s role and on the inclusion of the social partners and civil society. It is important that we also consider tax evasion, and that we consider not only the deficit countries but also the surplus countries. These are a few of the crucial points that have been raised – thanks again to the rapporteur. It appears we have found the necessary flexibility to also achieve a joint vote tomorrow. And I would like to acknowledge this. Thank you!

  Derk Jan Eppink, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, in principle I support the European Semester, to keep national budgets in control and prevent budget derailing as we have seen over the past years. A monetary union without fiscal discipline will explode. Country-specific recommendations make sense but add little new. The IMF and the OECD have been making the same recommendations for years. It is like a severely overweight person visiting the doctor. His doctor will tell him ‘you have to lose weight’, but obviously the patient knows this already. The remedy looks very simple – exercise up, calories down, but you have to do it.

Member States are also recommended to do things they already know and when this is not the case they simply ignore it and live in denial. The number one recommendation for France is that people should work longer, but the first thing Mr Hollande did was to cut the retirement age. Likewise, it remains to be seen if France will take orders from Brussels on budgetary policy. French public opinion is mainly in denial about the oversized welfare state. When public sector unions are confronted with facts they start striking and the political leadership of France does little to raise the much-needed awareness.

With regard to the economic dialogue, I would like to remind Parliament of the exchange of views we had in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) with the Finance Minister of Belgium, Mr Vanackere. He painted a very rosy picture of the Belgian economy. He depicted the Belgian economy as a rose garden. A few weeks later it turned out that he had used overly optimistic figures in his presentation. Instead of being a top performer, Belgium is heading towards recession. Its economy is shrinking at a much higher pace than the eurozone average. Serious budget cuts are needed.

The economic dialogue with Belgium was no more than a good news show intended for domestic consumption. The value of such exchange is rather limited. Those who live in denial are punished by the facts later on, as was the case with Mr Vanackere, so the proposed form of the European Semester is an exercise in irrelevance. Forecasts are far too rosy year after year. The Commission wants to spread optimism but predicted growth is often followed by even more contraction. A European semester only works when we stop fooling ourselves, face reality as it is, and act accordingly.

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

  Pervenche Berès (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FR) Mr President, I hesitate somewhat in giving Mr Eppink the opportunity to speak even more. All the same, I would like to give him the chance to correct what he said with regard to the latest International Monetary Fund observations, because, on reading carefully – as you clearly have not – what the IMF says about the European situation it is exactly the opposite of what you said. In fact, the IMF tells us that the policies currently being followed will lead to more austerity, something which, moreover, can be seen by any person who is intellectually honest – clearly, still not the case with you – in certain countries where extremely harsh prescriptions have been applied under the authority of the Commission.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I will be very brief. I was referring to the report by the Commission. The IMF is much more realistic about what is going on, but the Commission wants to spread optimism, hoping that all the troubles will go away by themselves. As Members know, that is not the case. The Commission is doing this because it is afraid that public opinion will get demoralised, and so the process becomes increasingly messy. That is the wrong basis for doing things. It is better to stick to the facts.

  Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a great deal has already been said about the European Semester but I should like to ask you some very upfront questions. We all know that the Treaties set limits on trade surpluses, we are also all aware that Germany does not stick to them. That is a fact. There is no shortage of recommendations from the European Commission in this regard and Germany does not respect the recommendations. To be honest, I cannot hear anyone here saying a word about this. What I am wondering is: where are the sanctions? On the other hand, it is being suggested that it is perfectly natural to apply sanctions to countries that do not meet the targets laid down in the Treaties for deficits and debt. Seemingly everyone agrees on this. The thing is, everyone is really tough on the weak but very weak on the strong ones. While no sanctions are applied to countries that have trade surpluses for violating the Treaties, and I think we agree that these countries are in a better condition to pay them because the violation is for accumulating surpluses, I think it is immoral that it is taken for granted that countries in violation because they have accumulated deficits should automatically be made to pay, especially when they have difficulties paying for this very reason. This is not democratic.

Even as regards keeping to the deficit and debt targets, the same rule does not apply to everyone, as we well know that it kicks in immediately for countries under Troika intervention, but the same does not hold true for countries in the centre or north of Europe that do not meet the same criteria. This is not democratic! Lastly, it will only be when we manage to incorporate some justice in all of this that we will achieve the true economic coordination that we so need. Until then, we will continue to focus more on applying measures that are based exclusively on budget cuts, the privatisation of public services and brazen tax hikes, this is the recipe, in a nutshell, and I am finishing now Mr President, this is the recipe in a nutshell that is being applied to the budgets of the countries under intervention. The European Semester is, for these citizens, synonymous with injustice and poverty. In Portugal, just in one European Semester, we have managed to slip decades in terms of rights.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, whether it agrees or not, the European Commission has contributed to the crisis by distributing the European budget without exercising proper controls. Also, through multiple directives, it has imposed a huge burden of regulation on Member States, forcing prohibitive costs on private entrepreneurship.

How can the same institution which has failed so gravely make judgments on where and how Member States need to put their taxpayers’ money? SMEs are the backbone of economic expansion and recovery. But by urging the Member States to create access to finance for SMEs, we will achieve nothing, as their coffers are now empty. Why not use the bank bailout money to help SMEs instead of helping failed banks? Why not look for more flexible measures instead of calling for the inclusion of a core set of rights in workers’ contracts? The Commission has not learnt any lessons from the past.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Semester is only the first stage of national budget oversight, since it is not the only procedure. There are also the Treaties, the Protocol on Excessive Deficits, the Euro Plus Pact and, in your inimitable jargon, the six-pack and the two-pack. There is the Budgetary Treaty, a classic international agreement, which even this Parliament, not so long ago, considered useless and redundant. Different, even contradictory, target figures, different areas of application and texts of different legal natures, in which one part contradicts the provisions of the Treaty itself. In such circumstances, it is euphemistic to talk about legal ambiguity.

The ultimate aim of this labyrinthine effort is, itself, genuinely unique. Using the crisis as a pretext, it is to strengthen the powers of the European superstate by giving the Commission the right to monitor and dictate not just the level of public deficits but also the level of budgets and the detail of policies. The country-specific recommendations which you wish to beef up, the commitments in the context of Euro Plus, are all steps in the same direction: frozen or reduced wages, easier dismissals, deregulation of protected professions, increased competition in all sectors, dismantling of social protection systems; the room for manoeuvre which States have is derisory, as demonstrated by the pitiful pseudo-transfer of political power that has just taken place in France.

Do you want democracy in this process? Well, since your project is so amazing, at least have the courage to ask people their opinion outright instead of going through your political and parliamentary friends!

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am addressing the House with the simple aim of highlighting the importance of the European Semester as a tool for detecting the weaknesses in our system and for exercising the democratic legitimacy that Parliament represents.

Following the beginning of the crisis, and thanks to the implementation of these mechanisms, we are succeeding in analysing its causes in order to lay the foundations for greater EU integration, which is the only response and the only option for bringing an end to the crisis and ensuring that this type of crisis cannot happen again.

The semester represents the desire for coordination that we have been so much lacking so far in order to jointly manage our needs as Europeans. The tools related to the European Semester, the Annual Growth Survey and the Country-Specific Recommendations create greater stability for all Member States and deepen their knowledge. The report, presented by Mr Gauzès, which is the result of very hard work, reflects their value.

Nevertheless, we must continue to promote greater coordination between our policies until we create not only true economic union, but true political union. This does not mean that agreements do not have to be fulfilled, but must be a further incentive for the EU to speak with once voice.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner De Gucht, could you tell Commissioners Rehn and Andor that this Parliament takes the European Semester procedure seriously?

To that end, when, on 28 November, the Commission puts on the table the annual growth review, which will serve as our underlying thread for 2013, we would like them to have several messages in mind. Firstly, to take account of the Growth Pact called for by the Heads of State or Government, on 28 and 29 June; next, the lessons from what the International Monetary Fund tells us, namely that a roadmap based only on austerity clearly has no chance of getting the European Union moving again.

Lastly, we think that the purpose of having an annual growth review and a definition of a European vision worked out before the European Council is to gain the means not simply to condemn each Member State in relation to its budgetary policy but also to draw up a common roadmap, enabling us, for instance, to correct macroeconomic imbalances.

Please tell your colleagues that we would like two important things. The first is the possibility for Parliament to be involved in defining this European roadmap. For that we need a document we are able to amend, even though, formally, we do not currently have powers of codecision. Then, if the Member States are required, alongside national reform programmes and stability and convergence programmes, to submit national programmes for jobs, these documents must then be taken seriously. Member States that do not take them seriously must be penalised or, at least, called on to do so with a vigilance not shown by Mr Rehn this year.

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

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I have just one question. The IMF, like the Commission, is recommending to France that French people should work longer. However, I see that the French President has reduced the retirement age from 62 to 60, whereas most of the countries in the EU have to increase it from 65 to 67. So how does the speaker reconcile that with social policy and solidarity – if the French work less and the rest of the EU has to work more?

  Pervenche Berès (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr President, clearly, Mr Eppink thinks it necessary to play tit for tat and I would willingly tell him that he should know the French situation better and that, clearly, the rules that apply here do not necessarily do so elsewhere. In particular, the country from which I come and which you undoubtedly do not know as well as I do, is one where the demographic situation is nothing like that seen in other European countries, which makes it possible, in a difficult climate in which the President of the French Republic is seeking to re-establish conditions for a fruitful social dialogue to conduct reform, to have a mandate based on a decision imposed in relation to the record of his predecessor.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, last July the Member States received a package of recommendations to put and keep their national finances in order. It is to be hoped that these recommendations will persuade European governments to implement the necessary reforms. The financial and economic situation in Europe is indeed very serious. The figures on the increasing debt burden and the lack of competitiveness in large parts of Europe speak for themselves.

It is important to emphasise that we are dealing here with a package of recommendations and not with obligations. After all, in Europe we have always made agreements in the Stability and Growth Pact about debt reduction and medium-term objectives. How these objectives are achieved will be determined by the Member States themselves. And the national parliaments will carry out the democratic control on specific measures.

Although some people here would also willingly take on this role of the national parliaments, the European Parliament cannot fulfil this role. It does not have the legal capacity or competence. As far as my country, the Netherlands, is concerned, the negotiators for the new cabinet would do well to follow the recommendations of the Council issued in July. The accelerated increase in pensionable age to 67 and the limitation of mortgage interest relief are greatly needed to ensure that public finances are also bearable in the long term. I really hope that Mr Rutte and Mr Samson will be able to make these choices.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the kernel of this issue lies in the title of this report, in the word ‘coordination’. In theory I would not be against measures aimed at maintaining equilibrium between the Member States’ economic policies since, in our hastily and poorly-constructed Europe, a deficit in one country has direct spill-over effects on the others. However, I cannot see how this type of coordination can develop. I am afraid that this amounts to the imposition of a common policy decided by Brussels.

There are too many signs that this is the case, and I do not believe that the way out of the crisis is to give up control of fiscal policy too. The countries that were unlucky enough to join the euro have already lost all their monetary independence and I do not believe it is right to take this last shred of sovereignty away from them too. As far back as 1998, Umberto Bossi, the founder of my party, said that we would reach the point of having financial legislation faxed directly from Brussels. Events are unfortunately proving him right. We cannot and certainly do not want to continue being complicit in all this.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the Commission has sent the Member States a mandatory list of socio-economic measures. In the Commission’s view they have priority. In the Member States the Commission is at present the boss, thanks also to the European Parliament. But we can all see in our own countries that unemployment is too high or the government deficit is too great or the legislation too strict. We do not need the Commission for that.

Mr President, it does not seem possible to have a monetary union for economies that operate at different speeds. The euro zone is persistently unstable. But the North does not wish to continue to pay for the South and the South does not wish to be ordered around by the Commission. What the Commission should propose is that the euro zone be dissolved, because the South must urgently be released from the straitjacket of the euro. Mr President, when will we receive from the Commission the plan that abolishes the euro zone in its current form? That really should be made top priority.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I congratulate Mr Gauzès for his excellent work on the report on the European Semester. I know much of Parliament agrees with me. There are, of course, criticisms but criticism is part of debate, democracy and argument. I think this is the moment in the debate where we should look at whether we can put some of these criticisms to bed.

So far we have talked about the ‘six-pack’ and the ‘two-pack’, and about the European Semester, which is part of this type of system. I firmly believe, however, that Mr Gauzès has picked up on some of the grey areas of the European Semester. We need to look more closely at these grey areas with the Commission, but we must approach this without any preconceived ideas.

The main thing, I think, is that the Commission should make recommendations that take account of the specific characteristics of each Member State and the different points they are starting from. I strongly support what the report says about the content of recommendations. It is very often the case – and there is nothing wrong with saying this – that these focus on a small number of areas that need to be improved. Then there is the issue of greater compliance with recommendations, which should also be dealt with by the Commission, and the problem of Europe 2020 and the problem of growth. Better and more obvious backing should be given to European businesses, which are the backbone of our economy.

In conclusion, there is still a great deal of scope for improving coordination and making it more effective, leaving aside any ideological issues and political stances. I do agree that the Council, the Commission, and the Member States should make a serious effort to improve the Semester, because this is the real issue that comes out of both the debate and the report. This is the only way we will come anywhere near achieving true economic union in Europe. This is one school of thought, but I will not be surprised in the least if there are people who think otherwise.

  Mojca Kleva (S&D). – (SL) Mr President, at this point when the whole process of the European Semester is already taking place, we must be capable of sufficiently in-depth reflection to transfer experiences into good practice and also to discontinue bad practices. Some things are still missing in this process and I would like to set out three items that seem really important to me and which will need to be worked on a little more and have a little more time spent on them.

Firstly, I think that an in-depth approach is missing. We cannot allow the same Council recommendations to be transferred literally to individual Member States, as we found out a long time ago that ‘one size fits all’ does not work in European policy. Recommendations should be more detailed and present a true assessment of conditions in the relevant Member State.

We also need a commitment from Member States that within the European Semester they will put forward national plans for jobs, above all jobs for young people. The European Youth Guarantee scheme is an excellent example and a binding mechanism to improve the position of young people in the labour market.

Secondly, I think that a greater presence of the Europe 2020 strategy is missing. This has already been noted several times today, so I shall repeat it too. The inclusion of the Europe 2020 should mean that both the problem of youth unemployment and the significant problem of poverty are included in the recommendations for individual countries.

Thirdly, greater adaptability is missing. It is extremely important that during the Semester the Commission allows the possibility of adapting individual recommendations when they prove unsuitable for meeting amended targets.

Last but not least, the Semester is still lacking in democratic legitimacy. The voice of the European Parliament, the only elected supranational institution, must at least come closer to that of the Commission and the Council.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Gauzès for his work on this important report. Good use of the European Semester could be a valuable aid to budgetary surveillance. The Semester is very useful for Member States that want to strengthen fiscal and monetary union. The country-specific recommendations for the United Kingdom highlight the difficult but necessary measures taken by the British Government. These measures have corrected 10 years of waste by the previous Labour Government.

The Commission fully supports the budgetary consolidation implemented by the United Kingdom. It recognises the importance of the apprenticeship programmes put in place to combat youth unemployment. Lastly, it approves of the reforms we are making in the banking sector.

Unfortunately, the first draft report by Mr Gauzès was undone by political amendments within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Those amendments transformed this balanced report into a political manifesto for a federal Europe. Those changes are unacceptable and my Group cannot vote for this report.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Fox. As Vice-President responsible for multilingualism, I congratulate a British speaker on using French.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the Regulation of November 2011 gave the European Commission new powers to coordinate budgets and reform programmes of the Member States of the Union. At the same time, this Regulation imposed the obligation on Member States to send, in addition to the draft national budget, a number of other documents related to the implementation of economic reforms in their countries to Brussels for review and approval.

I believe that as this new instrument for coordinating Member States’ economic policies has been in place for one year, the Commission should review the scope and structure and nature of the data forwarded to Brussels by the Member States for review and approval so that the essence of the required information is not lost as a result of the large number of diverse and non-transparent data. If, however, the Commission wishes to develop a truly high-quality European macroeconomic plan as the basis for the substantive coordination of budgetary policies, it should have correctly selected information available to it from all 27 EU Member States using a clear and meaningful structure. I therefore firmly believe that the simplification and clarification of the information base of this instrument would only increase its effectiveness.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Mr President, it is important to recognise that there are no stronger arguments for reform than in those Member States that have lost competitiveness and in those economic sectors that lack competitiveness. That reform can never be forced upon Member States, but there must be an understanding that reform is needed.

Increased deficits or increased spending or – referring to the debate we have had – a lower pension age do not solve any problems. We have seen, on the other hand, that the deficits and debt burdens are undermining not only public finances but also the competitiveness of EU Member States. It is important to state that we do have a common commitment to making the reforms which are needed, but these must be based on political will and democratic support in each Member State.

I do not think we, from the European Union, should regulate labour markets, because that must be left up to the different Member States. However, I do think we need to ensure, and place emphasis on, a commitment to reforms which can guarantee that we have a functioning and dynamic single market that turns the world’s biggest economy into the world’s biggest and most dynamic market. This underscores the need for reforms to the single market to be accompanied by market reforms in the Member States.

I would like us to have a horizontal approach regarding the single market and market reforms, but also a vertical one, in each Member State. This will facilitate, and ensure there is an opening-up to more competition, more plurality and more competitiveness. That should be the next step forward in the European Semester – or whatever it is to be called – in the future. In order to do this we will need a commitment to making our European economies more competitive, and that is the task for us.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Gauzès: thank you for your report. We are debating it in the fifth year of an economic crisis that has resulted in 25 million unemployed and 115 million people at risk of social exclusion: the responsibility and efficiency of the European Union are in question.

The European Semester is a key tool for strengthening European economic governance and ensuring that economic policies within the EU are drawn up as a matter of common interest. Its full implementation confirms that it is a positive process, but it is still far from achieving its full potential. In order for it to progress further, we need a genuine framework for European economic policy.

The Annual Growth Survey must establish a macroeconomic scenario with quantifiable targets in terms of growth, job creation and investment that contribute to competitiveness, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy targets. Multilateral surveillance must become genuine economic coordination; there must be an EU approach to establishing recommendations – which must be more explicit and detailed – that take into account the diversity of situations, the interactions and spill-over effects between Member States, and the added value that joint measures can bring. It is only with a joint perspective that we will be able to mobilise all our resources.

The semester cannot be a bureaucratic procedure, but instead must be a democratic process. Economic, budgetary and social policies require transparency, participation from civil society and consensus. We need to ensure full democratic control in real time by the European Parliament and the national parliaments. In addition, we need to make further institutional changes.

In order to move from muses to the theatre, from literature to budgets, programmes and reality, we are going to need to optimise our fiscal resources and have a multi-level framework for budgetary action in all aspects of the European Union.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague Mr Gauzès on his report and his commitment to the issue of economic governance in the European Union.

The report we are discussing today is the first complete survey of the European Semester, and the conclusions we are gathering are therefore very important for its future implementation. The European Semester is now proving to be an excellent tool for coordinating our policy objectives and responsibilities at European and national level. The crisis has shown up the significant differences between the regions of the Union, the macroeconomic imbalances between national economies, and the extent to which these imbalances have increased in recent years. In view of the difficulties in addressing these weaknesses, and the distinctive approaches of the Member States in their efforts to achieve fiscal adjustment and growth, we need to exploit every option, in terms of policy and resources, in order to achieve the common aim of stability and growth. The European Semester is, then, a pre-eminent tool for achieving this purpose.

At the same time, there is another aspect to it: it can contribute to the democratic legitimation of our decisions and policies. The possibility of participation by national parliaments is very important for the effectiveness of our policies, because the national parliaments can now participate with greater responsibility in the design of reform programmes and the budgets submitted, and also in the assessment of budgetary implementation and the effectiveness of the programmes; and, of course, they can contribute towards better governance and help to familiarise local players and the peoples of Europe with European objectives and European obligations.

In addition, the possibility of an ‘educational role’ is opened up, as the rapporteur, Mr Gauzès, has said. There is a need for this educational role, and the national parliaments, which can play a part alongside the social partners, may contribute towards this.

I therefore think the European Commission should be clear and specific in its recommendations, to show the true meaning of the potential offered by the European Semester, so that it can contribute to better governance and a more stable European Union.

  Olle Ludvigsson (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, my view is that the European Semester continues to improve in its functioning. At the same time, there are problems that must be addressed. A crucial problem is the Commission’s tendency to encroach on the autonomy of social partners in its country-specific recommendations. In this year’s recommendations, the Commission is recommending that the majority of countries reconstruct their national system for wage determination and the lowering of national wage levels.

The Commission’s actions are unacceptable. Complete respect for the autonomy of the partners is vital for a well-functioning labour market. In addition, each attack on autonomy is a violation of fundamental professional freedoms and rights. This autonomy is determined in the ILO Convention, the Treaty on the functioning of the EU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Here in Parliament, we have recently clearly defended this autonomy in the positions adopted in connection with the six-pack and the two-pack. Therefore, it is obvious that the Commission must change tack in connection with this matter.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Gauzès for a high-quality report on the issue of the European Semester. I have attended many meetings on this issue with representatives of national parliaments and wish to present to you two conclusions which arose from these meetings.

The first conclusion is that the European Semester is, in essence, a political process through which important options with regard to citizens’ lives are defined, and the report addresses these requirements with regard to the role of the European Parliament and the role of national parliaments. The second conclusion relates to the fact that in many Member States, the national parliaments are not consulted precisely at the stage at which governments draw up draft stability or convergence programmes, draft national reform programmes or draft programmes on the creation of new jobs.

This requirement must be addressed by the Member States first and foremost, and I think we have a duty here – both ourselves, the European Parliament, and the European Commission – to emphasise this aspect because normally the national parliaments get involved in this process when draft budgets for the following year are presented to them.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me to be extremely clear to all of us that no individual, family or country can spend more money than it has over the long term. At the same time, however, we must understand that balance, at the level of the governmental budget, between expenditure and income is not incompatible with economic growth. I say again, the so-called austerity policy is not opposed to economic growth.

Let us take my country, Latvia, as an example. During the time that our economy was shrinking rapidly, the government had no choice but to reduce its expenditure too; since the government’s income was also falling, it simply had no other option. However, what our government did at the same time (and this is often forgotten) was, while reducing total expenditure, to in fact increase long-term investment in the economy. The government increased cofinancing of the European Structural Funds, thus providing for economic growth in the future.

What is happening in our country today? Although we are unfortunately still a comparatively poor European state, nonetheless, in contrast to many other states, our economy is once again on the path of growth. The fact that we can observe this growth, and that this growth is possible, is only because at that time, when we had to save money, we carried on investing in long-term development. Ladies and gentlemen, the coordination of Europe’s economic policy is a very important issue, and we must continue this coordination in the future too. Thank you for your attention.

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

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE), Blue-card question. – Very often one ends up in a discussion caught between austerity and overspending, but that is not worthwhile. What you were saying about the need to balance budgets is true, but at the same time you also need to ask yourself whether you can make quite severe cuts simultaneously in all 27 Member States without having a damaging effect on growth in Europe overall.

That is the question we need to put. That is not coordination. What we have been doing in recent years is not clever. I understand that you could perhaps do it successfully in one country, but to invite a whole zone to do that all at once is dangerous, and it is damaging the 2020 targets. So we need a bit of balance. We need to consolidate and we need to look at the income side. I would just like to ask you if you agree that we need this more balanced approach.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (LV) Mr President, if we in Europe had been able to solve our problems by borrowing money, then we would not have a crisis: that is abundantly clear. Undeniably, we all have to understand that in all Member States throughout the European Union as a whole we must balance governmental income and expenditure. What worked in my country will also work in all the other states, because driving our citizens deeper into debt is a policy that leads nowhere.

  Thomas Mann (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the European Semester for economic policy coordination is a successful model. It provides us with an early warning system to identify imbalances in the EU Member States as soon as possible. The European Semester works effectively in tandem with the Stability and Growth Pact. At national level, settled policy measures must actually be implemented.

The demands from the left to soften the rules again have no foundation. These demands would scupper any efforts to strengthen competitiveness and fiscal discipline in the Member States. Mr Kariņš has given a good example from his home town. Mr Gauzès makes it clear in his report that the approach of making consistent structural reforms while also consolidating the budget is fully justified. In this way the debt crisis can be better overcome, at last.

After tough negotiations within the groups, we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs agreed upon a well-balanced report advocating a careful strategy as part of economic and budgetary coordination. In future, however, I hope that, alongside the economic components, social concerns will be placed in the foreground once more. An intensification of social dialogue is just as important as progress in improving job quality, mobility within labour markets and training. Well done, Mr Gauzès.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, structural reforms and fiscal consolidation must be continued in order to overcome the current sovereign debt crisis, but they can only yield results over the medium and long term. To create a more integrated economic union, there needs to be better coordination between the macroeconomic and budgetary policies of the Member States.

The European Semester is the appropriate framework through which to ensure effective economic governance. It was initially created to help identify cases where the budgets of Member States are not sustainable and possible negative collateral effects. Since then, however, it has been transformed into a powerful system for economic and fiscal coordination. I believe that the proposed measures should be improved to increase competitiveness and minimise imbalances. In addition, we should take a consistent and sustainable approach so that progress will be tangible.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you have heard how much support there is for the procedures of the Semester that we are discussing. However, there has also been a realisation of how much confusion there is over the way the relationship between the European Parliament and national parliaments works.

I think we should pay some attention to this matter and I also think it is important that we decide on a system of obligations and some sanctions for when someone tries to wriggle out of the debate on identifying common aims. I think the areas in which the autonomy of social partners should be respected need to be defined, as has been said, for the issues within their competence. However, I also think that in addition to discussing the architecture of the system of reports, it is also very important to identify priorities.

In the midst of this period of deep crisis in Europe, of which you are well aware, with the fight against poverty on the one hand and growth policies aimed at mitigating the effects of austerity measures on the other, I think these priorities should be at the centre of relations with the Member States, which should be defined by means of the Semester.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, the priorities of the European Semester for 2012 include differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation to reduce the national debts, combating unemployment and modernising public management to ease the strain on public budgets. Given the raging structural crisis, it is more than ever of the greatest importance that everything possible should be done to put individual budgets in order, create sustainable jobs and invest accordingly in education and training.

I should also mention that we are running the risk of not achieving the 2020 objectives, simply because Member States’ targets are too low and the measures put in place have created almost no progress in the areas of energy efficiency and employment. Therefore, my appeal to the Member States is: the European Semester was established, among other things, to put budgets in order – stick to it and please focus on your citizens.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). - (PT) Mr President, the joy with which the majority of this Parliament speak of the European Semester can only stem from their denial of the reality out there.

Mind you, we could talk about the fact that elected sovereign national bodies have been prevented from taking sovereign decisions about their country’s fate, a decision that no one ever asked the people about, yet let us instead talk about the content of these recommendations. However much the rhetoric about the need for growth and jobs is trotted out, the one thing that is sure is that it is the very recommendations under the European Semester which impose cuts in public investment, privatisation and, in several countries such as in Portugal, cuts in salaries, when a third of Portuguese earn salaries of less than EUR 600. In other words, what the Commission and the Council have recommended is more recession, more unemployment and more poverty.

The reality is out there and you can see it for yourselves. The only people that cannot see it are those who do not want to see it.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, the report is not so much a piece of economic reasoning as a tautology. More integration is seen as necessary to achieve more integration. Coordination is not an answer to unemployment but is seen as an end in itself; it is not so much a cure for unemployment as displacement activity for those without a cure. The answer to the problems of the South is not austerity, which produces only more unemployment. It does not even do what is written on the tin, which is reducing debt. Most of the countries of Europe need reflation without inflation. We must remember that what is physically possible must be financially possible, or there is something wrong with the financial system.

We need to see an abandonment of the euro experiment and southern countries released to enjoy export-led booms. We must reject globalism, protect and recreate our industries and reject the coded references in this report to wage cuts and worsened economic conditions. We must not drive down our wages and conditions...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(End of the catch the eye procedure)

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank everyone for the very constructive debate, and am especially grateful to Mr Gauzès for the excellent report which, as has become clear based on this debate, is gathering a lot of support in this Parliament.

I will make a number of remarks with regard to interventions made by several Members regarding, for example, the structural deficit and whether or not the contribution to the EU budget should be excluded from the calculation. I would say that the definition of the structural deficit does not relate to expenditure categories per se, but is a definition of the deficit where cyclical effects and one-off measures are not taken into account.

Several Members also emphasised the need to strengthen the social dimension of the European Semester. The social dimension of the 2012 European Semester has already been strengthened in the 2012 annual growth survey, which included as a priority the need to address unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis. Equally, tackling youth unemployment has been a key priority for the Commission throughout 2012. A large number of Member States received a country-specific recommendation on this subject, including the eight Member States where youth unemployment is the highest. The Commission has also worked closely with those Member States in the first half of the year to refocus the use of EU funds on creating employment opportunities for young people and increasing their employability.

Concerning the involvement of national parliaments – a topic that has been touched upon by several Members – let me firstly say that the Conference of the representatives of the relevant committees of the European Parliament and the representatives of the relevant committees of national parliaments is already taking place every year in the spring. This is an important practice which could be built upon further. Secondly, the Commission agrees that it is desirable to intensify the dialogue that is already taking place with the national parliaments, and we have formally committed to doing this in our reply to the contribution adopted by the last COSAC. We find it particularly relevant to give new impetus to such a dialogue in the context of the European Semester and could foresee an intensified dialogue at two separate moments during the Semester following the annual growth survey and the adoption of the country-specific recommendations.

Regarding the role of programme countries in the European Semester, the economic adjustment programmes for those Member States are aimed at ensuring a return to macroeconomic and financial stability and fiscal sustainability. These are the preconditions for sustainable growth and job creation, which are the ultimate objectives of the programmes and of Europe 2020. The objectives of the adjustment programmes are therefore aligned with those of Europe 2020. This is also reflected in the fact that the programmes are not all about public finances. These programmes also include important growth-enhancing structural reforms covering the most urgent issues in the respective Member States’ economies. The reforms pursued under the programmes thus span a wide range of areas to ensure that the countries concerned can realise soon smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and employment creation.

Mrs Berès – who is no longer with us – mentioned the problem of the forecasts and the IMF report on fiscal multipliers. Indeed, in its latest World Economic Outlook, the IMF argues that the negative short-term effects of fiscal consolidation have been larger than expected because fiscal multipliers were underestimated. It is agreed that fiscal multipliers are larger in the current crisis than they would be in normal times. This is in line with the analysis we published in our autumn 2010 forecast.

Concerning the autonomy of the social partners, the social partners can in fact carry a very important responsibility and the Commission naturally fully respects their role as important stakeholders. But it is important that this responsibility is also exercised in the light of the European dimension. The Commission considers it not only its right, but indeed its legally mandated responsibility, to point out policy inconsistencies and potential sources of negative spillovers, including in areas where such autonomy of the social partners exists.

I have a number of additional remarks to make. Mr Harbour emphasised the importance of the internal market. He is completely right in doing so because we can see, especially for example in banking and financial services, a fracturing of the internal market. That is a very alarming side effect of the enduring financial and economic crisis. We should certainly pay a lot of attention to that.

Mr Eppink asked about sanctions in connection with the country-specific recommendations. Without going into details, there can be sanctions within the macroeconomic imbalances procedure, especially for Member States that are part of the eurozone.

I would like to add that we will transmit all the remarks made by Members to Commissioner Rehn, who unfortunately could not be present today. Members can be assured that he will get a full report on everything that has been said here today.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, rapporteur. − Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for passing on our observations to Mr Rehn, but he had taken the trouble of telephoning me yesterday to explain that he would be detained elsewhere today and I was grateful to him for doing so.

Sometimes our debates are accused of being simply a string of words with no discernible direct impact on the work presented by the rapporteur. I would like, today, to try to prove the opposite and to respond to those Members − I thank all those who have spoken − who made a request.

As regards Ms Trautmann’s request, I will give very serious consideration to withdrawing Amendments 4 and 5. Of course, I have to talk to my Group, since I am a loyal ordinary foot soldier; but I will do all I can to please you and to follow the recommendation made to me, by telephone, by my friend Mr Lamassoure.

As regards the reference to the Fiscal Stability Treaty, there is a paragraph where we had fun but, strictly speaking, this reference is not of any consequence. In addition, we could be accused of talking about intergovernmentalism in a Union text; I will therefore also ask the Group for authority to remove paragraph 23 entirely.

I hope that, in this way, the excellent cooperative work undertaken during preparation of this report may continue until the vote and thus show Parliament’s determination to make the European Semester a highly effective exercise.

In this regard, I would like to say to Ms Zuber – I am a little sorry, Commissioner Barnier also just answered her – but it seems to me that we are not living in a time bubble and, without European solidarity, I dare not think what would be happening in some countries today. I think that has to be taken into account. Europe is not in the process of oppressing countries in difficulty. I think, on the contrary, that it is endeavouring to help them.

  President. – Mr Gauzès, you may be a foot soldier but not an ordinary one. The proof lies in the parliamentary effort you have just made in an extremely interesting debate where, truly, you showed yourself capable of changing things that had been said after listening to your colleagues. I congratulate you, since it is not every day that one sees such conduct and such flexibility. Thank you, Mr Gauzès.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Semester, whose praises the right and social democrats sing, has been brought in ‘to coordinate economic policies’. Something that is ‘fundamental’ at this time of crisis in the EU, or so they say. Virtually everyone speaks of ‘coordination’ as an end in itself. They are concealing the nub of the matter: coordination around what and through what means? The Commission needs to provide an answer. As regards the ends, the recommendations for Portugal are crystal-clear: decrease salaries (in the country that has the lowest salaries in the EU); reduce the length of time unemployment benefit can be claimed (when unemployment is reaching historic levels and when long-term unemployment is on the up); more measures aimed at making labour relations ‘more flexible’ (read: raising the levels of exploitation to where they stood in the 19th Century). As for the means, we already know what they are: shrink national parliaments – the power structures closest to citizens and the ones they can best keep tabs on – to merely making up the numbers, puppets of the European institutions, having to submit their budget choices to the latter for scrutiny and subject to their prior censorship. The objectives of this ‘European Semester’, which represents a dangerous attack on democracy (even just understood at the merely formal level alone) are clear: ‘to coordinate’ a violent step backwards for civilisation in Europe, bringing down living and working conditions on the continent.